1973-03-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a particular source of gratification to the government that the attitude Canada has adopted toward participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision in Viet Nam has consistently enjoyed such a wide measure of public support. Our attitude toward a long term commitment and the conditions that we have attached to our service appear to be understood and accepted within this country and indeed to some extent outside it. This has been especially encouraging since the problem of our original participation and now the decision on whether or not to continue has within it the elements of a dilemma. The government was and still is highly conscious of the fact that there is no course of action it can choose which will meet all the demands being made upon us or command universal approval outside of this country. I venture to hope that the government's decision will, however, receive wide approval of this House and of the country and will not be considered unreasonable abroad.
Stated at its starkest, the dilemma lies in the desire of all Canadians to serve the cause of peace in Indo-China as long as, in the words of one hon. member, there is the slightest hope of a peaceful solution to the Viet Nam problem. On the other hand, the government is equally resolved that Canadians should not take part in a charade in which they will be required to supervise not a cease-fire but continuing and possibly escalating hostilities. From the purely Canadian point of view it is important that both aspects of the problem be squarely faced. Canada's reputation is closely associated with our contribution to international efforts to make peacekeeping a reality. Confidence in the feasibility of "peacekeeping" anywhere can only be maintained if activities bearing that description are not only effective but are seen to be effective by world opinion.
During the latter stages of the negotiation of the Paris agreements on Viet Nam, the government therefore informed the negotiating parties that it reserved its position on whether or not Canada would participate as a member in the ICCS until it had seen and studied the agreed arrangements to see if, in the light of our experience, the arrangements were workable. At the same time we presented to the negotiators a set of conditions which, if met, would have in our view made the peacekeeping arrangements for Viet Nam practical and credible. Also at the same time, we offered through the United States government some detailed proposals regarding the organization and practical arrangements of truce supervising in Viet Nam, based on the conclusions drawn from 19 years, experience in Indo-China.
I will not stretch the patience of the House by repeating our conditions which were given in full detail in my speech of January 5. I think it is fair to say that some of our points were accepted and incorporated in the documents that emerged. Nevertheless, when we saw the results of the negotiations as they were signed in Paris it also became clear that, in spite of the best efforts of the negotiators, the truce supervising arrangements left much to be desired. Moreover, one of our most important considerations, the establishment of a continuing political authority to which the ICCS and its members could report, was left for further consideration by an international conference to be held in Paris 30 days after the signature. As the House is already aware, I led the Canadian delegation to Paris at the end of February with proposals that would have given the ICCS the reporting authority which we considered necessary to its success.
In the meantime we had concluded that the other truce supervisory arrangements as laid down in the agreement left some doubt as to whether the Canadian criteria could be met. As I have said before on all possible occasions, this is no criticism of the agreements or of those who negotiated them. It is undoubtedly the best agreement that could have been negotiated in the circumstances and the results have, in spite of all, turned the course of world events in a new and more hopeful direction. Our reservations, therefore, are based simply on a Canadian appreciation that the task as outlined was not one well suited to Canadian methods and the Canadian temperament. In the final analysis we recognized, however, that what mattered most was the element of good faith on the part of all concerned and this could only be judged by trying to make the machinery work. It was for this purpose that we agreed to serve for an initial period of 60 days, to which an additional 30-day grace period was added to enable the parties to find a substitute in the event that we decided not to continue. That 60-day period ends on Thursday.
After returning from Paris I concluded that it would not be possible to reach a well-founded decision without having seen for myself the conditions in which the ICCS, and particularly our delegation, was operating, or having spoken directly with the leaders of the governments most directly concerned. I have had, as the House knows, sever-

March 27, 1973
Viet Nam
al contacts with the U.S. Secretary of State on this subject and I was well aware of the views of his government. I wanted to have the views of others as well.
Accordingly, on March 13 a group of representative Canadians, although not unfortunately entirely representative of this House, left for a trip that was to put me in touch with both Vietnamese governments, the government of Laos, as well as some leading personalities in the so-called provisional revolutionary government of South Viet Nam and of the Pathet Lao movement. It was a very intense indoctrination into the facts of life in the ICCS and the attitudes and policies of the governments most directly concerned. I think all those who went came back with at least one impression in common: that is, that the ICCS was not performing the tasks assigned to it under the cease-fire agreement. I am also quite confident that most of my travelling companions would agree that this was in spite of the best efforts of the Canadian delegation to make it work. We have heard it from a sufficiently wide variety of sources to accept it as a matter of fact that had it not been for the energy and ingenuity of the Canadian delegation, even the setting up of the various bodies required by the agreement would not have taken place as soon as it did.
Although our visit left most of us with misgivings on the operation and success of the ICCS in carrying out its assigned tasks, we also had brought home to us that in some quarters this was seen as of very little consequence. We have been well aware for some time that not everybody shares Canada's concept of truce observation and supervision. There are other points of view with which we do not quarrel. We were also well aware that some of the interested parties at least, and many other countries such e; Britain and Japan, were of the view that Canada hould continue to serve on the ICCS regardless of wheth-r it measured up to our standards. In all honesty, Mr. speaker, I must say frankly that very few countries believed, in spite of our efforts to make our position known, that there was a real possibility that Canada would opt out of the ICCS.
My trip to Viet Nam has, I am sure, convinced some that we were indeed prepared to take this step if in our judgment the whole arrangement was unworkable and was not serving the cause of peace in Viet Nam. This had at least one salutary result in that we began to hear less about everything being lovely in Viet Nam and that the ICCS had the potential of becoming a really vital force in keeping the peace in Indo-China. Instead, we began to hear somewhat more convincing arguments that there was a totally different but equally vital role that bore no relation to our previous experience and is nowhere hinted at in the text of the agreement and protocols. Roughly stated, this is to provide an international presence as an indication of the continued involvement of the world community in the Viet Nam situation. Although the ICCS may not be necessary for the purposes of carrying out the agreement, its absence would be taken as an indication that the agreement lacked world support and consequently our withdrawal could become a further destabilizing psychological factor in a situation already very unstable.
There are two things I should like to say about this so-called psychological role. The first is that I am not

convinced that the ICCS does play such a part in the thinking of the Vietnamese. The second is that I do not believe that Canada and Canadians can be expected over any protracted period to play this part. So far as the North Vietnamese are concerned, I formed a clear impression that they regard the texts of the agreement and protocols as untouchable. They undoubtedly have their own interpretation of precisely what each article means and this interpretation adds up to either a peacefully reunified Viet Nam or one whose reunification by force would be justified on the grounds that the other parties had not "scrupulously adhered to the agreement". Needless to say, some of the other parties do not share this point of view.
To the government of the Republic of Viet Nam the agreements are seen as an opportunity to remove the North Vietnamese, if not from their territory, at least from the negotiating tables, and to give to them an opportunity to deal with their fellow South Vietnamese of the PRG direct and across the table without intervention from the north. The government in South Viet Nam believes that in a relatively short period of time it will know whether this possibility holds any prospect of leading to a negotiated settlement in South Viet Nam. It remains to be seen if this is a realistic aspiration.
It is no part of the responsibility of Canada as a member of the ICCS to judge the relative merits of these two positions. But it is now clear as it was not two months ago that all the Vietnamese parties will need a little time to demonstrate the feasibility of their solutions; not to bring them about, just to demonstrate feasibility. Once confidence has been established and if there has been some movement toward a political solution on either side's terms, the peace will no longer be as fragile as it is and the mere presence of an international commission will no longer be regarded as a vital part of the picture or as necessary to contribute to a solution. On the other hand, if neither side's view of a political solution is making any headway, we can look forward to a resumption of full scale hostilities regardless of the presence of any observer or supervisory body.
It is out of consideration for this new element and for the possibly far-reaching consequences of opting out now for which we would have to accept some responsibility that the government has decided not to exercise its option to withdraw after 60 days, even though it could justify doing so on the basis of the reasonable application of its announced criteria. On the other hand, our experience, both past and present, does not justify moving into acceptance of open-ended or unconditional participation. Consequently, the government proposes to inform the parties to the agreement that Canada would be prepared to continue to serve on the same basis as it does now for a further period of about 60 days, that is, until May 31-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: -after which, unless there has been some substantial improvement or distinct progress has been made toward a political settlement, it will withdraw, giving a further 30-day grace period for the parties to find a successor. This means that Canada, unless there is a substantial improvement in the situation or some signs of
March 27, 1973

Viet Nam
an imminent political agreement, will cease to participate in the ICCS by June 30, 1973. All the parties will by then have had adequate time to carry out those provisions which the ICCS was created to supervise, perhaps even the holding of elections on which I will have something to say later. If the South Vietnamese parties now meeting in Paris are able to reach an early accord on internal matters as envisaged and encouraged in the Paris agreement of January 27 our decision will present no obstacle.
One important aspect of the agreement assigns a task to the ICCS, not in the field of truce observing but in contributing to the political settlement which alone can bring about the end of the war. The agreement calls for an election to form a new national government. The ICCS protocol assigns an undefined observer role to the ICCS. The meetings now going on between the two South Vietnamese parties are intended to produce the conditions under which the election should be held. This electoral function is distinct and separate from the other functions assigned to the ICCS and the rules have yet to be elaborated. It could therefore be dealt with separately. So far as Canada is concerned, regardless of our status in respect of other aspects of the agreement, we would remain ready and available to serve, as the parties may wish, in helping to supervise an election provided it was called under the provisions of the agreement. It would not apply to an election called in other circumstances.
Canada will also inform the four parties to the Paris agreement that as Canada neither negotiated nor signed the Paris agreement we do not regard ourselves as bound by its provisions beyond the extent to which those who did sign it consider themselves bound. This was in fact one of our earliest conditions of service. Consequently, we will leave or otherwise regulate our deployment at any time if the parties who signed the agreement show, by their actions, that they no longer regard themselves bound by it. The resumption of large scale hostilities or any action tantamount to a direct denial by the parties of their obligations under the agreement would, in the government's view, relieve Canada of further responsibility to the ICCS. Should this decision be forced upon us, the government will state its reasons for withdrawal publicly.
I am not predicting that the arduous and skilful work involved in reaching this agreement will be nullified by an early escalation of hostilities. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of evidence that the means to resume the war are readily available and there is, unfortunately, also reason to think that this possibility is not excluded from the calculations of some at least of the parties concerned. We shall reassess the situation again before the end of May and give our definitive view at that time.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should state that in the time remaining to us in the commission we will continue to maintain the objective and open approach we have taken until now and endeavour to see that the ICCS fulfils not only the psychological part that has been superimposed on it but also the duties as laid down in the agreements. We will not take part in a charade nor will we tacitly condone inaction when we believe action is required.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, we understand and share the qualms with which the government must have made this decision. This problem is tormenting the hearts of all Canadians, I say this quite objectively; I am aware of the difficulties that the cabinet members have had to consider.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) returned home, it was clear to us that what he had seen of the situation over there had him bewildered and perhaps-if it is not too strong a word-pessimistic. We could see immediately that Canada was on the horns of a rather cruel dilemma. On the one hand, the effectiveness of the ICCS and the safety of our observers were at stake. On the other hand, various countries were pressing for us to accept a role that we had, in fact, already agreed to play. So the Secretary of State for External Affairs had the choice of leaving our force over there and working towards peace in that way, or else leaving Viet Nam and refusing to be associated with what seemed to be the illusion of keeping the peace. The hon. minister has chosen to set back the time limit by 60 days. In doing so, he has conceded priority to the higher interests of peace, and is thus displaying his hope that time will heal all. [English]
Quite apart from the merits of the decision just announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs there remains the issue of why the minister and the government would not and could not consult parliament on this matter. The minister may have assumed that parliament would not have extended the force's mandate at all. It is that type of assumption that continues the tradition of this government in the area of underestimating the compassion and understanding that other parties in this chamber have for Canada's international role.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: For the record, Mr. Speaker, my party continues to protest the way in which this decision was made. Moreover, we pledge to continue to raise those questions both here and in committee to which Canadians who have concerns about this decision have the right to answers. That is our responsibility to the people of Canada. That is our responsibility to those who are serving Canada in Viet Nam.
It is no doubt probable that our options as a nation became more and more limited as every day of our stay in Viet Nam passed. In the debate on the original motion presented by the minister, we raised the futility of considering a withdrawal after 60 days in terms of the effect that withdrawal would have on the over-all arrangement in Viet Nam. Nevertheless, the fact that the final decision has been put off for another 60 days in no way limits the gravity of that decision.
The minister assured us on his return, and he repeated the statement this afternoon, of the degree to which other nations in the world wanted us to remain. I say to him now that this recommitment for 60 days must be accompanied by fresh diplomatic initiatives to gain acceptance of our conditions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 27, 1973
Viet Nam


Claude Wagner: The cautious view of success advanced by the minister indicates the degree to which these initiatives are important. If hostilities increase, there is the issue of the safety of our troops. My party expects the minister to be in daily contact with the field and to have proper contingency plans ready for evacuation, if necessary. We will press for daily assurances, if necessary. These are assurances that all Canadians have a right to receive.
We in this party share the minister's commitment to Canada's role in aiding the achievement of peace in IndoChina. We would have been stricter in the championing of our conditions and less eager to ignore their being watered down. Nevertheless, the goal in Indo-China is something about which the minister and myself have little quarrel.
There are those in this chamber who would call for immediate notification of "a pull-out" now and thereby leave nothing but despair as our legacy in Indo-China. I am proud that my colleagues and I do not share that view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to devote my time to the last few sentences of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) but my purpose is to reply to the minister's statement.
The minister's final sentence is one which I think everyone in the House can endorse. I think it is worth restating. The minister said: "We will not take part in a charade nor will we passively condone inaction when we believe action is required." That is a position this party can endorse. But I want to express my doubt that the decision made by the government with respect to what Canada should now do is the best possible means of ensuring that this admirable goal is met.
The New Democratic Party endorsed Canada's decision to become a part of the International Commission of Control and Supervision. We did so because all four parties had asked us to participate in that commission and because we thought it important not to do anything at that time which could cause further delays in bringing about a prospective peace in Viet Nam, nothing which could introduce further delays in permitting the Americans to withdraw from a war in which they should never have been involved in the first place.
We also endorsed at that time the government's decision to participate provisionally on a 60-day basis, because we had some severe reservations about the conditions under which the commission would have to operate, reservations about the efficacy of the commission under those conditions, and we agreed that a review should take place at the end of 60 days and then a decision made. What worries me at the moment is that we have had that review and we still in some sense have not made a decision.
It rapidly became apparent to those of us who went to Viet Nam with the minister that, beyond the fact that the initial conditions which he set out, the two key ones, had not been met, that of an international authority to which the commission could report and that the commission should have freedom of access to all parts of South Viet Nam for the purpose of carrying out its investigations, the

prospects for the ICCS effectively carrying out its duties remain minimal for some additional reasons, one of which is the make-up of that commission. Canada on one side and Poland and Hungary on the other have very different conceptions of what the commission should be doing and the very difference in those conceptions makes it difficult for the commission to work. Beyond that, none of us who were in Viet Nam, I think it is fair to say, saw any great inclination on the part of any of the former belligerents, and I put the word "former" in quotation marks, to adhere to either the letter or the spirit of the Paris agreement. It was reported to us that since the so-called peace there had been some 14,000 violations of that peace, 7,000 of which had been reported and only 35 of which had been officially presented to the ICCS for investigation. At the time we were there it was only 26, now it is 35.
It became apparent to us during our visit to Viet Nam that the only reason the ICCS was effective even to that minimal extent was the vigorous action taken by the Canadian contingent there, action of the sort which had been referred to by the Department of External Affairs in a wry sort of way as their open-mouth policy, but action of a sort which the minister and other expert witnesses before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence have indicated can only be effective for a very, very brief period of time. On top of this evidence we have heard recently very pessimistic statements from our ambassador in Viet Nam, Mr. Gauvin. In addition, we have seen fresh reports of continued fighting and evidence that the situation may further degenerate and that fighting may accelerate.
Given all these facts, my party decided, and I think it is worth while to state it for the record, that on March 28 Canada should give the 90 days notice provided for in the agreement and make it clear that we are leaving at the end of that 90 days whether or not a replacement is found, whether or not the ICCS is functioning as designed and whether or not there is peace. There should always be the reservation that if the situation dissolves into chaos we shall have the right to remove our people from danger. In so doing we should indicate that we intend to continue, even intensify, for the entire remaining period of our stay our current techniques of operation which the Department of External Affairs refers to as the open-mouth policy. Much greater attention should be devoted to the fate of political prisoners in the remaining period. This solution has the advantage of ensuring that we have done everything possible tactically, technically, administratively and logistically to ensure that the ICCS is capable of operating as designed if by some chance it should be permitted to do so. Moreover, we will have removed ourselves before our abrasive tactics have become ineffective, thus permitting another nation to take up the cudgels. And by making our commitment to withdraw definite we will ensure that the four parties to the Paris agreement will look for someone to take our place, and find someone. In addition, if by some miracle peace is attained, the ICCS will in 90 days have carried out its major and most urgent functions under the terms of the agreement and it would then be a fairly simple matter for another country to move in and carry out the relatively routine duties remaining. Further, that timespan would permit the possibility of finding a replacement, allowing it to brief itself
March 27, 1973

on the situation and to establish the support functions necessary for it to participate effectively.
If, on the other hand, as is more likely, peace is not established, we will be able to leave having made an all-out effort to continue to contribute to peace. We will have done everything possible, everything reasonable in an untenable situation to ensure that it was not our action which contributed to a lack of peace through the collapse of the ICCS. If at that point the ICCS should cease to be able to operate it would not make a lot of difference because at that point there would be no peace to supervise.
Mr. Speaker, I am highly conscious of the difficulties that confronted the government in making its decision and I am highly conscious of the pressures and the multitude of factors it had to take into consideration in making it. The government's position is to stay for a further 60 days, then to review the situation again, and if there is no improvement they will be out in another 30 days. That will bring them to the end of June, which is substantially the same position as our party has taken in terms of time span except that we say we should be out at that point without reservation and let another country take up the task.
The first point I want to make with respect to the minister's final position, that of 60 more days and then a review and then out in 30 if there is no improvement, is this: the minister said that unless there has been some substantial improvement or unless distinct progress has been made toward a political settlement we will withdraw. I want to know what the minister considers substantial improvement to be. What constitutes a substantial improvement and what, in the minister's opinion, constitutes definite progress toward a political settlement? We have twice set conditions in making our commitment to participate in the commission, in making our commitment to stay for 60 days, and now we are making a third set of conditions. At what point do we cease to be believable? What makes the minister think that the four former belligerents will take any more notice of our conditions this time than they did on the last two occasions? What makes the minister believe that those former belligerents, seeing his statement today, will not say, well, perhaps at the end of 60 days a little further arm twisting might persuade Canada to stay on again? These are very relevant considerations.
There is one final point to make. The minister said the resumption of large-scale hostilities or any action tantamount to a direct denial by the parties of their obligations under the agreement would, in the government's view, release Canada from further responsibility to the ICCS. That is a proper position to take, but I want to know whether in the minister's opinion a resumption of bombing by the United States would constitute such a denial by one of the parties of their obligation under the agreement. I believe it should be considered to be such denial by the government in its further actions.
I have one final point. Whatever we decide to do- whether the government successfully persuades the House that this is the position that Canada should take or
Viet Nam
we ultimately come to the conclusion that we should make a definite commitment to get out of Viet Nam in 90 days- the remaining time in Viet Nam should see Canada devoting much greater attention to, and involving ourselves much more directly in, the problem of political prisoners in that country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Rowland: There is no possibility of peace in Viet Nam so long as many of the people who wish to be peacemakers are in prison. That should be a consideration that the government cannot put aside.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks about the statement made to day by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), I would like to say that the text reached us only in English.
I want to remind the minister, as well as all his colleagues, that these statements must be published in both official languages so that all members can become acquainted with the message delivered by the minister.
If the government intends to continue distributing the text of ministers' statements only in English, it should at least see to it that the message of apology attached to it be in French. We could then find a little good will in the attitude of ministers who too often distribute the text of their statements in only one language.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, despite the lack of a French text, I was able to become acquainted with the minister's statement.
Mr. Speaker, we have already stated the position of our party as regards the maintenance of the Canadian delegation within the ICCS in Viet Nam. We believe that as long as all Vietnamese wish that we remain, we are duty bound to remain as long as there is the slightest hope of an improvement of the situation in Viet Nam.
As a matter of fact, for the past 60 days, the Canadian delegation did not feel it was playing a worthwhile role.
Is is also true that thousands of cease-fire violations have occurred.
Mr. Speaker, people would have to be very naive to believe that a conflict which has been lasting for over 30 years is going to end overnight. Despite the good will of those involved, a spirit of vengence and rivalry remain. Therefore, we have to be patient.
We agree with the government's intentions. We would have preferred a 90-day instead of a 60-day period because we know it is a matter of time and patience before this war is ended. However, if in addition to the 60 days suggested by the government we include the 30 days of grace to allow the ICCS to find a new member, the extension announced by the government corresponds to the one we have proposed.
The Canadian presence in Viet Nam, despite the difficulties and frustrations which result from such a situation, shows the whole world that Canada is not a Pontius Pilate and does not wash its hands of the hardships and conflicts of this world.

March 27, 1973
Telecommunication Rate Increases Canada shows all the Vietnamese people that it does not hesitate to spend its time and energy to promote world peace.
The Canadian delegation in Viet Nam contributes to the hopes for peace which persist in this region despite a long and cruel war and that is why our delegation must remain there.
However, we believe that if the life of our delegates is threatened by a sudden increase in the cease-fire violations, the government should take the necessary steps to ensure the security of our delegation in Viet Nam.
Such is the position of our party, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to approve massive increases in rates for private wire, telex and broadband exchange services. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas):
That in the opinion of this House the Canadian Transport Commission be instructed to withdraw its decision today approving increased telecommunications rates and that the government outline specific price guidelines for those areas under direct federal authority.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
As a result of the sustained criticism against the CBC and the fact that this body no longer seems to meet the needs of Canadians generally, and that the members of Parliament exercise no control over its administration, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this Parliament order the closing down of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its replacement by a body respon-
sible to Parliament whose interests will be suitable to the rights, privileges and wishes of the Canadian people as a whole.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of this House to move an urgent motion.
In view of the exclusive privileges granted to the chartered banks which, for all practical purposes, control our economy, and their recently expressed intention to raise their interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That this House freeze the present rates of interest of the chartered banks for a minimum period of two years with a possibility of decreasing them and that it demand the gradual increase in the reserve rate of these banks up to 100 per cent and that the privilege of creating our national credit be from now on exclusively reserved to the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of this House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion cannot therefore be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would clarify a matter for me. Am I correct in understanding that the decision to stay on in Viet Nam for a further period of time is not based on any belief that the original purpose of supervising the truce
March 27, 1973

can be carried out but is rather due to the importance of providing an international presence as an indication of the continued involvement of the world community in Viet Nam, the lack of which would hinder the achievement of a political settlement? Further, will the test concerning whether consideration will be given to our staying on beyond the original 60-day period be answered entirely in terms of the progress toward a political settlement rather than any judgment in terms of supervising the truce?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I think that would be a one-sided interpretation of the situation. We are there in order to help in supervising the truce. That is why we were asked to take part. It has been urged upon us, however, that there are other values to be taken into account. That is the reason we have given only a 60-day extension and not an indefinite extension.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the opinion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the ICCS has a reasonable potential of becoming a really vital force in keeping the peace in Indo-China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, the only parties that can keep the peace are the parties to the peace agreement. What the ICCS can do may be to help, if asked to do so, by observing and reporting. However, we have not been given very much freedom of action to perform that function.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hoped I had understood the statement upon reading it but I must say I do not understand it now. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can reconcile for me what appears to be a contradiction. On one page he says that Canada will continue to serve on the same basis as it does now but not beyond May 31 unless there has been some substantial improvement or distinct progress has been made toward a political settlement. On the previous page the minister said that once confidence has been established and if there has been some movement toward a political solution on either side's terms, the mere presence of an international commission will no longer be regarded as a vital part of the picture. As I understand the minister, on the first page he is saying-


An hon. Member:: Will you repeat that?


An hon. Member:: You are reading too fast.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sorry if I read it too fast. I understand the minister is saying in one place that an international presence will no longer be necessary if there is some movement toward a political solution on either side's terms, while later he seems to be saying that we will stay on if there is some substantial improvement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the statement is drawn in very careful terms as I think such a statement should be because it will be read in all parts of the world as an indication of Canada's attitude on this question. We have said, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would
Oral Questions
agree, that if there is some evidence of movement toward a political settlement we should stay but if it gets to the point where a political settlement is achieved obviously there is no need for the ICCS.


VIET NAM-DECISION TO CONTINUE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN SUPERVISORY COMMISSION- REQUEST THAT RESOLUTION BE PLACED BEFORE HOUSE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is his intention to place a motion before the House of Commons regarding the decisions made by the government for participation in Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the House leader and he would be quite willing to discuss with the other leaders in the House the idea, for example, of having an adjournment motion on which our decision could be debated.


David Lewis: I do not quite understand. May I ask the minister whether what he is suggesting to the House is that there would be some general adjournment motion but that he is not prepared to place before the House a resolution containing the precise decision the government has made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had been talking to the House leader and he thought that perhaps the best way to have a debate, which is what I had promised, would be to have a motion to adjourn the House to discuss this decision. I think this would be suitable, but if the opposition has some other way by which we could bring the matter to debate we would be glad to consider it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, whether or not there should be another method depends on whether or not the minister is prepared to place the decision before this House of Commons for a vote, or is it his suggestion that we would merely have a debate of some hours and that is all?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty, as has been said by the spokesman for the official opposition and to some extent by the spokesman for the NDP, is that this is just a tentative decision and not a final decision. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to discuss the present situation on an adjournment motion and when we come to making a final decision to present the kind of resolution the leader of the NDP has suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Portneuf wish to ask a supplementary?


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: No, Mr. Speaker.


VIET NAM-ARRANGEMENTS TO ASSURE SAFETY OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL ON SUPERVISORY COMMISSION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question I should like to ask in

March 27, 1973
Oral Questions
order to allay the fears of Canadians concerning the safety of the members of the Canadian contingent. In the event of a widespread outbreak of hostilities and even open war, what arrangements are being made concerning the Canadians who are there? Will our contingent then be withdrawn immediately irrespective of whether this is before the 31st of May or the end of June?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that question is yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my statement, if there were large-scale hostilities the Canadian delegation would be withdrawn immediately. My hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence, can deal with the question of the arrangements that have been made for that contingency.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he let the Canadian people know whether the Canadian forces will be withdrawn immediately for they certainly stand in dreadful peril having regard to the number of incidents that have already taken place and which are apparently expanding in intensity, and to the number of tanks that North Viet Nam has run into South Viet Nam as well as large contingents of men?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. member and the House that the safety of our personnel has been of the greatest concern to us from the beginning of this operation. Through headquarters we are in daily contact with our commander in South Viet Nam. We have very clearly defined plans for evacuation either by air or, if necessary, by sea. I can assure the House that the safety of our personnel is uppermost in our minds.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a further question, Mr. Speaker. When such a serious incident takes place and Canadians find themselves under attack, will that end the operation of the ICCS? Will it end right there rather than continue until May 31 or the end of June?


James Armstrong Richardson: I think I would have to say that that is in some degree hypothetical, because it would depend on the degree of hostilities. If there is open warfare, we have all made it very clear and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made it very clear that we would withdraw our personnel. But if there is an isolated incident of some kind or other, we would have to make a judgment.


John George Diefenbaker: In which Canadians are wounded?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf and then return for supplementary questions to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and other hon. members who have supple-mentaries on this subject.

Right now the hon. member for Portneuf is invited to ask his question.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he say if he contemplates suppressing the CBC eventually?


David Lewis: I hope not.


Mr. Speaker:: We will now return for a moment to supplementary questions. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask him whether authority has been given to our commander in South Viet Nam to launch any withdrawal movement in the event of hostilities?


James Armstrong Richardson: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are in daily contact. I think our commander would report to the chief of staff and to me before taking that action.


Donald MacInnis: I should like clarification of the minister's answer. In the event of an emergency, does the commander in South Viet Nam have the authority to launch the contingency plan for withdrawal?


James Armstrong Richardson: In the event that he could not make contact with the chief of staff he would have that authority.


VIET NAM-REQUEST THAT HOUSE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE ON CONTINUATION OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL ON SUPERVISORY COMMISSION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that members in all parts of the House have not asked merely for a debate but that parliament should have the power to make the decision about Canadian forces being sent to Viet Nam and the length of time they will remain there, may I ask him if he is prepared now to give the House the opportunity to make that decision in the form of a definitive motion so that the House will have the right, which I think it ought to have, to decide how long Canadian forces will be kept in Viet Nam?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 27, 1973


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply to the question from the hon. member for York South, this is just a tentative decision. We have not really made a final decision on this question, and it seemed to me that at the time a final decision is made the House should then be faced with a resolution requiring the approval of the House. But this is a tentative decision, and I am quite prepared to say I will introduce a resolution before May 31 for the purpose of getting the approval of the House for the government's action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Besides the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, there are three other hon. members seeking supplementary questions. We will have to try to go to other subjects and return to these supplementary questions in due course. I do not think hon. members would want to spend the full question period on the one subject, which would make it more a debate than a series of questions and answers. For the moment, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands will be recognized for one supplementary question, and in due course we will return to the hon. member for Egmont and others who have supplementary questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Despite the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs says that this is a tentative decision, the fact is that this is a decision to commit Canadian forces for 90 more days in Viet Nam. Surely, parliament ought to have the right to make that decision, and I am asking the minister-


John George Diefenbaker: The government does not trust
parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question. He is now making an argument, and I suggest that if we get involved in this there will be debate rather than questions and answers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am therefore asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is telling the House that he does not think the parliament of Canada has any right to make the final decision on whether or not the government has the confidence of the House to make a decision committing Canadian forces, Canadian lives and the Canadian treasury in an area that could be potentially dangerous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, the government can only act with the confidence of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course, this is the position in which we all stand on this side of the House. The House can at any time defeat the government. But I am very anxious that there should be ample opportunity to debate the decisions that have been made by the government. I have provided a number of occasions for these debates. On the other side of the House I have yet to hear what the views are. I have
Oral Questions
been asking the Official Opposition to express its views and I have yet to hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


COMMUNICATIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the approval by the Canadian Transport Commission of increased rates for telecommunication services. In light of the commitment of the Minister of Finance in his budget address to try to achieve reasonable price increases this year, I should like to ask the minister if the government is asking the Canadian Transport Commission to review immediately its decision to allow CN and CP Telecommunications to increase rates for private wire, telex and broadband exchange services, since the increases vary from more than 6 per cent to 50 per cent on various charges and services?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, even if the Canadian Transport Commission comes under my portfolio, telecommunication services are under the Department of Communications.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask him if he considers a 12.5 per cent increase in charges for private wire equipment and a 50 per cent increase in charges for relocation of equipment as falling within the government's concept of reasonable price increases and, if not, could he advise the House what the government intends to do about it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have not considered the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has defined any guidelines on reasonable price increases, at least in those areas that are under the direct authority of the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the Minister of Transport just indicated, there is a public board to look into and decide on these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: The cabinet also has responsibility.
2638
Oral Questions WELFARE

March 27, 1973


LIVING CONDITIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS AT MAISON DE REPOS-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC MINISTER AS TO POSSIBLE ACTION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports on television and in the press of the intolerable conditions under which a number of incapacitated older people are living at the Maison de Repos in Laval, and in view of the minister's concern over the welfare of these people since they are old age pension recipients, may I ask the minister if he is discussing this matter with his counterpart in the province of Quebec in the hope that this and other such situations might be cleared up?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will meet my colleagues from Quebec next weekend and I shall take that opportunity to let him know about the view expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


DAMAGE ON GREAT LAKES-ALLEGED DELAY IN PROVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON REGULATIONS
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Would he indicate what new proposals he has initiated with his counterparts in the provincial governments to cut through what appears to be departmental and jurisdictional red tape that has prevented allocated funds from reaching the local reconstruction level almost four months and two additional disasters since the first chaotic storm and high water damage on the Great Lakes?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries. I am not quite sure what program the hon. member has in mind.


Mr, Danforth:: When the minister is making his inquiries, will he also initiate with his provincial counterparts a review of the present regulations to seek a means of providing financial aid, at least to some degree, to home owners along the shores and dikes who apparently do not qualify under the present provisions?


John (Jack) Davis: The provisions are laid down by the province. The province deals directly with the property owners and the federal government backs up the province in this respect.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will the minister attempt to ensure that whatever joint funds are agreed upon will be evenly distributed so that all residents of areas adjacent to Lakes St. Clair, Erie and Ontario who have suffered damage, and 
will continue to suffer damage, are compensated adequately and on an equal basis, rather than compensation being offered only to those residents at the western end of Lake Erie as is presently the situation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the understanding we have with the provincial authorities is that the compensation will apply to property owners, and in all areas, throughout the calendar year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope hon. members would make an effort to limit the number of supplemen-taries. The hon. member for Oxford has another supplementary. He will be recognized, and then I will have to go to another subject. If there are too many supplementaries, this makes the question period impossible to manage.


DAMAGE ON GREAT LAKES-PROVISION OF SANDBAGS
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the minster, as chairman of the cabinet committee dealing with the present emergency on the Great Lakes, make sure that at least sandbags are available should a second emergency situation occur, as is very likely? Apparently in the' situation the weekend before last no sandbags were available for emergency diking purposes.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, measures of this kind have been discussed with the province and with the Department of National Defence.


DAMAGE ON GREAT LAKES-SUGGESTED APPEARANCE OF INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION BEFORE COMMITTEE TO INDICATE ACTION TO LOWER LAKE LEVELS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of the Environment. Because of the seriousness of the situation, would the minister see if it is possible to have some members or officials of the IJC appear before a committee of the House so that concerned members can find out what action is being taken or what action it might be possible to take to lower the lake levels?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, estimates of my department relating to protective works and to Great Lakes levels will be before the appropriate committee of the House in a few weeks time.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether the Liberal caucus or the cabinet have decided to withdraw or reduce the estimates of the CBC?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is obviously out of order.
March 27, 1973


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
STE-THfiRfiSE-MEASURES TO AVOID LAY-OFFS AT GENERAL MOTORS
Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell the House whether he is aware of reports that General Motors has definitely dismissed a great number of workers at the Sainte-Therese plant while increasing the production of Vega at its Lordstown plant in Ohio?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking that question.
General Motors has told the department that there has been no transfer of its production from Sainte-Therese to Lordstown, Ohio.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Would the minister consider the possibility of communicating with the company in that connection, so as to endeavour to improve the employment situation at the Sainte-Therese plant?


Herb Breau: I shall bring that matter to the minister's attention, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the very clear undertaking given by the Minister of Finance to the House that a monitoring system would be set up by the government to make sure that the tax cuts contained in his budget would be passed along to the consumer, and in view of the publication today in Ontario of a directive by a major chain of convenience stores ordering its management not to pass along those cuts to consumers, at least in respect of chocolate Easter eggs, could the minister tell the House what his department or what the government is doing about this revelation today in the Toronto Star?


An hon. Member:: He is going to lay another egg.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to help the hon. member lay another egg, as one of his colleagues suggests, but in any event I shall try to get further information about this and report to the hon. member.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder if the minister could tell us what monitoring machinery or apparatus actually exists in his department to monitor these tax cuts?
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are putting a mechanism in place to gather further information about the results of the budget tax cuts, and I would be happy to give the hon. member further information about this in due course.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In relation to his statement today I would like to ask him whether one of the conditions for Canada's immediate withdrawal from Viet Nam would be a resumption of bombing by the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, probably I would have to add a word of caution in advance that we would want to look at the circumstances, but I could not imagine any circumstances under which there would be a resumption of bombing by the United States that would not result in the immediate withdrawal of our force.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I wish to attempt to elicit a more complete definition of what the minister would consider a substantial improvement in the situation, or a substantial improvement in the prospects for peace. Perhaps I could just put the question to him in those general terms. What specific conditions would he consider to constitute a substantial improvement in the prospects for peace?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend can probably answer the first part of the question himself. These would be better prospects for the operation of the International Control Commission itself, a more co-operative attitude on the part of members of the commission, and more access to the various parts of South Viet Nam than it is now enjoying. These would represent a substantial improvement in the situation. As to the prospects for peace, they would be signs that the discussions that have now opened in Paris seem to be resulting in a greater spirit of reconciliation and concord than now exists.



VIET NAM-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON RESOLUTION ON ORDER PAPER CONCERNING PEACE AGREEMENT AND SUPERVISORY COMMISSION

Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.

In view of the open invitation the Secretary of State for External Affairs issued to the House a few moments ago, and in view of his wish to seek the advice and confidence of parliament, will he tell the House if he wishes to bring to a vote his own resolution of February 1, 1973, which
2640

March 27, 1973
Oral Questions
appears on the order paper as item No. 18 and which seems to haunt the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that I brought before the House welcomed the peace agreement, and I am sure that would have commanded the full support of the House. I am equally sure that anybody who has read and examined the amendments that were proposed would agree that they are unworkable and most dangerous. Therefore, I would hope that the House would not proceed, in the interests of the hon. member's own party, to approve them because they are quite unworkable and might result in great harm to Canadians in Viet Nam.



VIET NAM-POSSIBLE RELEASE OF LLOYD OPPEL

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I see that we have returned to this round of questions and I, too, would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he make any comment now on the news reports that are circulating to the effect that the Canadian, Lloyd Oppel, is likely to be released before the end of this week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to report that Mr. Lloyd Oppel is likely to be released today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may ask a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Egmont. After that I will again try to move to another subject.



VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF CRITERIA FOR CANADA'S CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN SUPERVISORY COMMISSION

Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a second question of a more general nature to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the multiplicity of the problems revealed in the minister's various statements to the House and in committee, will the minister give an undertaking that during the next 60 days the government will be developing and making public its criteria for Canada's participation as a truce observer, such as greater collaboration with the commission, as well as clear evidence in detail that the parties are really serious in their intent to live up to the commitments that they made to one another in Paris, so that toward the end of May a critical and objective measurement and assessment of the situation can be made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to take exception on a procedural basis to this kind of question. This is really not a question but a statement submitted to the House in the form of a question, and is not in order. The minister may comment on the member's statement if he can do so briefly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, since he is a member of the committee, I have appeared twice before it. I have laid down these conditions very clearly. I have tried to keep the House, and members of the commit-

tee at least, very well informed. My hon. friend from the NDP who was with me added to the information. I regret that my hon. friend was not with me, or some member of his party, so that they might have added to the information, too, but I do not think we can be faulted for having withheld information.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Egmont wishes to ask a supplementary on this subject, after which we will move on the next subject.



SOUTH VIET NAM-ROLE OF SUPERVISORY COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO POLITICAL PRISONERS AND POSSIBLE ELECTIONS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the particular emphasis the minister placed this afternoon on the importance of achieving some kind of political solution in South Viet Nam and the present difficulties that exist with regard to the very large number of political prisoners in that area, could the minister outline briefly whether our representatives on the ICCS will take any special initiative to see that many of these political prisoners are able to participate freely in such an election process? In view of the frustration and failure of the Red Cross to be effective in this area, will the minister be encouraging the return of the Canadian Red Cross to take a hand in that important function?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far there has not been notable co-operation between the Provisional Revolutionary Government and the Republic of Viet Nam Government which would be necessary to the conduct of the work of the ICCS with respect to civilian prisoners. It is laid down in the agreement that there must be some co-operation between them. So far this is one of the main things that is lacking and will become even more important in the next few weeks when the United States and the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam leave the joint military commission. We shall be doing everything we can within the limited powers of the ICCS. As I said in my statement, we will be prepared to return, if necessary, to supervise elections under the agreement which would involve some of the questions raised by my hon. friend.



ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF RADIOTHERAPISTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of the acute shortage of physicians in some of the specialties, particularly radiotherapists whose specialty is treating cancer, which shortage may cause serious delays in treatment, and can the minister assure the House that this grave shortage will be corrected?
March 27, 1973


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is, first of all, obviously a matter of provincial responsibility. There are shortages in various specialities. My provincial colleagues have discussed this matter already with several of my colleagues, but a solution to the problem will take time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. He may not yet be aware of the situation and may wish to take the question as notice. In view of the fact the railways offered a 5 per cent and 5 per cent increase during their negotiations with the non-operating railway unions, then broke off discussions and are now in the process of going to conciliation while in the last few days the railways have authorized an increase of 7 per cent to management personnel, would the minister inquire if this is correct? If so, what is the dollar and percentage amount that the railways have given to management personnel in view of the fact that this action would constitute bad faith in bargaining?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I do not like to take questions as notice so I shall answer right away. I am aware of this of course. I have followed the negotiations between the railways and the railway unions. They are now before a conciliation board, or eventually will be before a conciliation board. You know that with management it goes fast, that the board of directors decides what level of salaries management personnel are going to get, but in the field of labour they have to follow the law and under the law they have to go to the board of conciliation.



COMMUNICATIONS


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
As Bell Canada produces dividends and its branches make profits, and the company is requesting an increase in rates, does the minister intend to make a statement in the House concerning the planned increase in the rates of Bell Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, first I thought it was Air Canada the hon. member was referring to, but if Bell Canada is the subject, I believe I shall make the same reply as I did to the hon. member for Vegreville. As far as rates are concerned, Bell Canada must abide by decisions of the Canadian Transport Corn-
Oral Questions
mission, which reports to the Minister of Communications and not to the Minister of Transport.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. As the purpose of Information Canada is to provide information for the public speedily, could the Minister inform the House why that agency's annual report to parliament is one year late?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.


An hon. Member:: This year or next?


Duncan M. Beattie: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Now that the House has shown its displeasure with Information Canada and in view of the determination of the Minister of Finance to reduce government expenditures on redundant services, will the government now listen to parliament and make preparations to disband the agency?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Davenport.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. Prime Minister rising on a point of order or question of privilege? I did not think that the question asked in those terms was in order and that is why I went immediately to the hon. member for Davenport. The hon. member for Davenport.


Mr. Nielsen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon is rising on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, surely members are entitled to know what the government's intentions are with respect to policy. The hon. member simply asked whether it is government policy to disband Information Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member argues that the question is asked correctly from a procedural standpoint. The Chair thinks it is not. Hon. members can ask any questions they want, provided they do so within the well accepted practice. A question asked in those terms, according to my understanding of the rules-and I say this very humbly-is clearly out of order. The hon. member for Davenport.

March 27, 1973
Oral Questions



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question on a more mundane subject directed to the Secretary of State. In recognition of the keen interest in soccer by people throughout Canada will the minister urge the CBC to make a serious bid to acquire the broadcasting rights for the world soccer games scheduled for next year?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on that very important subject I can assure the hon. member that the CBC intends to do just that.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the Committee on Trends in Food Prices has today started drafting its report to parliament, which has to be presented before the end of the month, and in view of the fact that the Packaging and Labelling Act was passed by the House some two years ago, would the minister now tell the House when the regulations with regard to the Packaging and Labelling Act will be proclaimed? More particularly, will the minister make these regulations or draft regulations available to the Committee on Trends in Food Prices in order to assist it in preparing its first report?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the second part of the hon. member's question, I would be happy to discuss the matter of the feasibility of this with members of the committee. With respect to the first part of the question, I expect that the draft regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette within the next few months.


An hon. Member:: Good grief!



LAKES ERIE AND ONTARIO-POSSIBLE USE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL TO PROTECT PROPERTY

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister prepared to send members of the armed forces to constituencies and municipalities along Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and use the department's equipment and men to protect public and private property in the flooding conditions that are presently taking place?


Mr. Bell:: Yes, if they are Liberal.


James Armstrong Richardson: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, but I have also said to the House on previous occasions that this is under the co-ordination of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and also that we act at the request of the provinces. We are in very close communication with the Emergency Measures Organization of the province of Ontario and are ready to be of any assistance that they request.



POSSIBLE PRESSURE ON UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES IN CANADA TO INHIBIT EXPORTS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister. With the export of Canadian end products declining on a constant dollar basis to countries of the world other than the United States, and in view of the claim by a representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that many Canadian exporters that are United States subsidiaries have been constrained by their parents to sell only through an American export concern, would the minister conduct an inquiry into such falling exports and find out if, in fact, branch plants in Canada are being inhibited from pursuing export opportunities?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is away on government business I will be glad to take notice of the question and bring the hon. member's representation to his attention.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is his position that the ICCS has a reasonable chance of being able to discharge its original responsibility, that of effectively supervising the ceasefire?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to add anything to what I said in my statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You do. That point was not clear.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been pessimistic about the ICCS for quite some time and have expressed serious misgivings, as would anyone who had gone there to see for himself.
March 27, 1973



ABORTIONS-INQUIRY AS TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION OF FACILITIES AVAILABLE

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (Now Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Some time ago it was reported in the Ottawa newspapers that officials in his department had been concerned about the number of abortions that were taking place in this country and that was to be looked into. I want to ask the minister whether he is also having his officials investigate the number of hospitals in this country which have refused to set up abortion committees and the number of areas in which there are no abortion facilities available for Canadian women?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker. That would not come within the responsibilities of the Minister of Justice.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Due to the urgent need for crop insurance agents in the various provinces to write up crop insurance for this present season, when does the minister propose to introduce for second reading the crop insurance amendment bill providing for the payment of 50 per cent of the farmer's premium by the federal government?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is true. Quite a few of the provincial ministers have made representations. I have had some consultations with the government House leader and he may be able to throw a little more light on when the bill may be brought before the House than I can, Mr. Speaker.



CHURCHILL RIVER DIVERSION-REQUEST FOR STOPPAGE OF WORK UNTIL LICENCE ISSUED UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As promised by the hon. gentleman on March 8, is he now in a position to report on the status of the licence application by the province of Manitoba for regulating South Indian Lake and the similar application for regulating Lake Winnipeg?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not received the report. I will check my desk and perhaps find it there. The hon. member must excuse me, but I will give the answer tomorrow.
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. gentleman assure the House that he will take the necessary steps to prevent further action on these projects before a licence is issued?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I will answer that question at the same time as I answer the first question.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carle ton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the difficulties and importance attached by public servants to the introduction of amendments to various statutes, as promised in the Speech from the Throne, has the minister, in view of this interest, had an opportunity to consult with the House leader and can he tell the House when these amendments might be brought forward to be considered by this House?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the House leader and the response I have is, soon.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, as a week has passed since the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told me he would answer my question the next day, could I ask him today, once again, if he has asked the officers of his department to ascertain the situation of the Eskimos at the Preville Hospital in Brossard?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions last week I tried to rise and answer the question, but unfortunately I could not get the floor.
I am happy to answer today. A nurse went with an interpreter to the Preville Hospital. The two Eskimo patients who are there are well treated and the report is that the situation should not be changed. However, we will follow all possible developments and if the patients are not comfortable there, they will be moved to another hospital.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will call on the hon. member for Mackenzie, and then call Orders of the Day.
2644____________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________March 27, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act MULTICULTURALISM



POSSIBILITY OF RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS IN THE ESKIMO AND CREE LANGUAGES

Mr. S. I. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question involves three departments, that of the Minister of Communications, of the minister responsible for multicul-turalism and of the minister who answers for the CBC. Out of that troika, I will direct my question to the minister who answers for the CBC. Since Anik I now makes it possible to broadcast to outlying areas of Canada, will telecasting and broadcasting be carried out in the Eskimo and Cree languages in order that the greatest number of Canadians may benefit from this service?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, that is not possible at this point, but I think the hon. member will share the view that this is a desirable goal. When, exactly, it will be achieved I am not in a position to answer.



POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE PILOT


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the minister who answers for multiculturalism. In line with the suggestion made by the Ukranian Canadian committee, which restated the B & B Commission suggestion that pilot projects be undertaken to determine the need for broadcasting in other languages in certain regions, will the minister take the initiative and introduce legislation, in co-operation with the two other ministers, in order to bring this about and in order to implement some of the proposals set out in the green paper on communications?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to discuss this with the ministers responsible for the CBC and CRTC.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-148, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a mixture of gratitude and pride that I rise to speak at this time. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to play a part in improving the lot of over 250,000 Canadian men, women and children who are our special responsibility. I am grateful for the co-operation and sincere desire to expedite the passage of this bill which has been demonstrated by all parties in this House. I am grateful to the men and women who served Canada in time of war in order that our democratic institutions could continue.
I am proud of our system of government and the way in which hon. members have acted, both in the House and in Committee, to ensure that no time is lost in bringing about the improvement provided for in Bill C-148. It is apparent from the actions of members of all parties that there is agreement that this is a good bill.
The remarks made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) were especially appreciated, as were those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). They indicated very clearly that members of all parties are agreed that we should move quickly to pass this amending legislation.
This bill is unique in that, in addition to proposing increases in rates and ceilings, it provides for the removal of the personal property limitations which at present stand at $1,250 single and $2,500 married. This measure will not only qualify some who are now ineligible, but it will also give present recipients of War Veterans Allowance or Civilian War Allowances a greater sense of freedom and dignity.
The proposed rates are $151.14 single and $257.21 married. The new monthly income ceilings will be $191.14 single and $327.21 married, which provide annual income ceilings of $2,293.68 single and $3,926.52 married. The rates for orphans will also be increased proportionately. In addition the OAS/GIS exemptions of $15 single and $30 married will be continued so that those recipients 65 and over will have an annual income from OAS/GIS and War Veterans Allowance or Civilian War Allowances of $2,473.68 single and $4,286.52 married.
These new rates and ceilings will result in a financial improvement since December 31, 1971 of 24.8 per cent single, 27.8 per cent married, and over 24 per cent for orphans. When we consider the exemptions for both husband and wife who are over 65, the increase since December 31, 1971 is 32 per cent.
These increases, together with the amendments to the regulations concerning casual earnings, which are now $1,000 single and $1,500 married, the removal of the penalty for having a home valued at over $10,000 and the provision for the automatic escalation of the rates and ceilings on the first of January of each year in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index, represent in all a genuine effort to improve the standard of living of this very worthy group of Canadians.
I would like to make it clear that the remarks and suggestions make by some hon. members in the House
March 27, 1973

and in the Veterans Affairs committee concerning other improvements which might be made in the War Veterans Allowance Act have not fallen on deaf ears. These and other matters are receiving our careful study and attention.
There have been many statements made in recent days in this House concerning the men and women who served Canada in her time of need. I do not think I can add anything to that which has already been said, except that I believe this bill is another step forward in honouring the pledge made by the then Prime Minister of Canada when he spoke to the Canadian troops on the eve of their historic attack on Vimy Ridge in April 1917. The then Prime Minister said:
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned men its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.
Actions speak louder than words. Bill C-148 is indicative of this government's intention to live up to that promise made over 50 years ago on behalf of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the type of comment being bandied back and forth in this House, I hope hon. members will not become too suspicious of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and me. However, it is the result of co-operation and the realization of the job for which we are responsible. I hope hOn. members appreciate the fact that one part of our umbrella of legislation is dealt with in a co-operative and statesman-like manner. I think that most comments were made on Bill C-148, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, during the second reading. We want to get this bill through all stages. There is agreement among all parties that we will get it through with the least possible delay.
The minister indicated that the representations we have made will not fall on deaf ears. Therefore, I want to repeat that there are three amendments I would have liked to see. I believe they are necessary to finally resolve the fate of our veterans who qualify for the benefits under this section of the Pension act. Although the amendments under Bill C-148 are most acceptable to my party, as well as to all veterans organizations across this country, the government could very easily have included these other amendments. The three issues of concern to veterans and to which no reference is made in the bill are as follows.
The first would be the removal of the Canadian residence requirement for applicants abroad. This would involve amending Section 3(1) of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Under this section, it is possible for a veteran to qualify for an allowance by returning to Canada and remaining for one year. The benefit is subsequently continued, even though the recipient may take up permanent residence outside the country. This 365 day residence
War Veterans Allowance Act
requirement may not cause undue difficulty to veterans residing in the border areas of the United States, but such a procedure is more difficult for veterans residing in far off countries such as the United Kingdom or in Europe.
The benefits became payable out of Canada through an amendment to the act in 1960. This permits continuing payment of the allowance outside Canada, primarily for the benefit of the recipient desirous of leaving Canada for reasons of health or family ties. As of January 31, 1973, there were only 709 persons outside of Canada who were receiving allowances. An amendment to the legislation removing the 12 month residence qualifications would extend the benefit of the allowance to Canadian veterans who are unable to return here in order to qualify. The Department of Veterans Affairs has adequate facilities to administer payments to veterans in the United Kingdom and in western Europe. The removal of the personal and property ceilings under the amendments before us today will further ease these administrative burdens. I again ask the minister, and I know he agrees because he expressed this view at the committee stage of the bill, that every effort be extended to further amend the act to satisfy these veterans.
The second would be an addition to provide for the recognition of a child over 21 years under Section 12(2). This would enable a surviving spouse to receive an allowance for the dependent child attending a recognized educational institution, even though that child may have reached his or her 21st birthday. As I stated on second reading, this allowance should be payable to age 25 or until the child ceases to attend an institute. The Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act provides, through recent amendments, for benefits to continue beyond a child's 21st birthday. The number in this instance would be small. I know the minister feels as I do, that this amendment would provide a good amount of relief to the surviving spouse, in view of the continuing high costs, and to the child to maintain his education, particularly with the high unemployment rate in this age category in the country today.
The third amendment which should be treated with the highest priority is that having to do with service in the United Kingdom in World War I. In spite of efforts by veterans organizations over the years to have the 365 day requirement eliminated and to have the service in the United Kingdom before November 12, 1918 accepted as a qualifying service, for some reason or other no consideration has been given to this suggestion. I note that some years ago the former member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, I think it was, introduced a private member's bill proposing this amendment, but as a result of the passive attention paid to private member's bills in this House, his efforts did not get far. I can only repeat that such a change would not affect many of our veterans, since so many of them are in their late seventies and in receipt of old age security benefits. So, the cost would be small. It would, however, bring them a degree of additional comfort by providing drugs and medical appliances not presently available to them.
Action along these lines would also show recognition for veterans who offered to serve anywhere for their country
2646

March 27, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act but who, through no fault of their own, did not do so. The veterans organizations appealed to our committee to consider these amendments. Probably, as I said earlier, I am remiss in not introducing them here today as a means of overcoming inequities in the present bill. However, bearing in mind the interest shown by all parties in speeding the progress of this bill to grant increases in war veterans allowances and in particular to clear up the property clause which has created hardships for so many veterans and their dependants, I shall not do so. It is possible I am a little nai've, but I feel the minister is sincere in his statement that the matter is being studied with a view to implementing these amendments at a later date.
The government House leader has indicated in the past two weeks that he would bring on third reading if agreement could be reached, in co-operation with all parties, to pass the measure quickly. On behalf of my party, Mr. Speaker, and with the agreement of the two other opposition parties, may I say we are prepared to put up only one speaker each. As an indication of the co-operation already shown between all parties, may I remind hon. members that the committee stage of the bill took less than one hour. This probably constitutes something of a record-I think this was confirmed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), whose word must be accepted in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, if we are truly to fulfil our responsibility to the disadvantaged of our country, this is the time to show some human consideration to these citizens, our war veterans. Fifty years ago the government of the day told the veterans that the country owed them "a debt by right" to look after them in return for answering the call to defend Canada. This pledge was reaffirmed after World War II and again after Korea. Today, some fifty years later, we have yet to fulfil all our obligations and nobody on either side of this chamber can be proud that in the year 1973 we have yet to repay this debt completely. Unless we clean up the war Veterans Allowances Act, not only by passing the bill before us today but by implementing these changes I have proposed, the matter should ever rest on our conscience.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are other items in the overall Pension Act which hold as high a priority as the War Veterans Allowance Act. I refer to the recommendations in the Woods Committee report and, specifically, to the basic rate of pension. In 1968, the Woods Committee spoke of the need to establish a realistic basic rate of pension. Yet here we are, five years later, still waiting for the necessary legislation. I am aware of possible arguments that progress has been made during the years. Indeed, on behalf of my party, I complimented the government as well as the committee which studied the basic rates and produced most excellent recommendations. I can certainly say that since I came to Ottawa in 1968 excellent progress has been made. I say this from my experience as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
All this makes me wonder about what has gone on since 1918. The minister himself has just arrived in Ottawa and I am sure he, too, must be wondering what has gone on in the last 50 years or so. I ask him to ensure that every effort is directed to producing legislation to implement the recommendations of the joint study report on the

basic rate of pensions, increasing that rate to $4,529 a year for the single 100 per cent pensioner, with further increments for married pensioners and their dependants. I trust, too, the legislation will approve a formula for annual increases based on the increases in the average wage received by the five lower public service categories. Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of my party that we support Bill C-148 wholeheartedly. Let us continue to show that we who sit in the House of Commons can be human in our consideration for a most important part of our society, the deserving war veterans of Canada who are losing their faith in us because we have neglected them for too long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I once again draw attention to the spirit of co-operation and goodwill which exists among all members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and our desire as members of that committee that this legislation receive its final endorsation in the House this afternoon? As a measure of the spirit of co-operation which obtains among us I can say on behalf of my good friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that he and I are glad the House is in session today so that we can proceed with this bill and get its benefits established as quickly as possible.
As we have made clear at earlier stages, any criticism that we have of this bill does not relate to the things it contains but, rather, to the fact that some most useful measures have been omitted. The bill before us provides for an increase in the amount of the allowance payable under the War Veterans Allowance Act. The precise details have, of course, been put on the record. The increase is good. It is also good that the ceilings on permissible incomes have been raised, and raised to levels which spare us the experience of former years when we saw veterans being given an increase on the one hand only to have it taken away with the other. In this case, veterans, both single and married, will receive at the end of April a larger net increase than civilians in receipt of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement will receive. We welcome this. We are also pleased with the removal of the property qualifications which have been in the War Veterans Allowance Act since it began. As I said on another occasion, one thinks of the many veterans, and of the many veterans' widows, who have suffered over the decades because ' of the existence of those property qualifications. We are delighted that they are being removed.
As the previous speaker indicated, there are a few things we would still like to see corrected in the War Veterans Allowance Act. The words of the minister today that I liked most were his words when he said he would like to make it clear that suggestions concerning other improvements to the Act had not fallen on deaf ears. Our experience of the new minister, even in these few months, has proven to us that he does not have deaf ears. I hope he realizes he has strong support in any negotiations he may undertake with others in the cabinet, with the officials in his department or, particularly, with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). We hope there will be further improvements in the act this session. I should like to make this point very strongly.
March 27, 1973

There is a tendency in normal parliaments to take it for granted that if a piece of legislation is improved in a session, that is all that can be expected for the session. Usually the most one can hope for is a further improvement in the next session or the next parliament. But this is not an ordinary parliament. There may be some of us around who will be saying: What have you done for us lately? Frankly, I hope that before this session ends the minister's commitment that there will be further study of the War Veterans Allowance Act will be carried out. I believe it can be said that our general plan in the committee is to keep the first item of the estimates open for a while so that we can discuss this matter again. Thus I hope that after the minister and his officials have studied possible changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act, the minister will come again before the committee to discuss those changes and see whether during the session he can bring in another bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe spelt out three areas that certainly require amendment. The first was the residence requirement, which in the main affects a number of Canadian veterans living in the United Kingdom as well as other countries; the second was the change with respect to the age to which children of veterans can be covered, and then there was the change respecting the requirement of 12 months' service in world war I, namely that service in the United Kingdom should count and that the 12 month period be relaxed.
In addition to those changes which should be made, I would press very strongly the point I made on second reading and also in the standing committee, namely that the anomalies with respect to the ceilings on permissible income be straightened out. The minister gave us the figures today, which of course are quite accurate. They show that the new ceiling on the permissible income of a single veteran is $191.14 a month and for a married veteran the new ceiling is $327.21 a month.
The minister also drew attention today to the fact that the extra $15 for a single veteran and $30 for a married veteran which old age and guaranteed income supplement recipients got in 1972 is still to be allowed outside of the permissible income, rather than raising the level. We now have the anomaly that for a single veteran under 65 the ceiling on his permissible income is $191.14, whereas for a single veteran over 65 it is $206.14. There is also an anomaly in the case of a married veteran. If both the veteran and his wife are under 65, the ceiling is $327.21. If one is over 65 the ceiling is $342.21, and if both are over 65 the ceiling is $357.21. It seems to me that this is an unsatisfactory situation and one that certainly ought to be cleared up. Frankly, I do not see why we should be asked to wait until next session or until there is another election. The minister has done a pretty good job of getting things moving, and I hope that we can move on this question during the course of this session.
As a matter of fact, I hope that another look at the means test under the War Veterans Allowance Act will be taken. Although I think we have come a long way in our concepts of pensions, allowances and benefits since the War Veterans Allowance Act was first established in 1930,
War Veterans Allowance Act
I should still like to see us begin with the veterans when we explore the idea of a guaranteed annual income. The War Veterans Allowance Act might well be turned into such a piece of legislation for our veterans.
Since we are all anxious to get this legislation through as quickly as we can, the only other comment I want to make is that I hope we will soon see the bill to amend the Pension Act with regard to the basic rate of disability pension. As the minister knows, and as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe indicated a moment ago, there is in the works that very interesting and useful report of the joint study group that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs endorsed unanimously and quickly, calling for a substantial increase in the basic rate of the disability pension. The report also calls for it to be escalated annually, in accordance not just with the cost of living increase but in accordance with the rise in the wage levels of the five selected categories in the federal public service.
I regard this report as monumental, not only with respect to the formula for arriving at what the basic rate should be, but particularly with respect to the formula for escalating pensions year by year. The Minister of Veterans Affairs will be establishing a first in social legislation in this parliament if he brings in a bill that has in it an escalation formula based on that principle of providing increases related to the rising standard of living. I invite him to aim at that goal of being the first minister to bring in this kind of escalation formula, and I know of no group that deserves better such a progressive approach to this problem than the veterans of this country.
We welcome this bill; we approve of everything that is in it. But that does not mean we are satisfied. By no means do we say that the job is done. There are the further improvements we have pointed out. They really must be made, and we should like to see them made at this session. We also want to see very soon the other bill which will provide for an increase in the basic rate under the Pension Act, and also the very progressive escalation formula which the standing committee has unanimously recommended.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speakers, I should like to speed up the passing of this bill as much as possible. But since there are many veterans in my constituency, and since I myself have an elder brother who is a veteran, I consider it my duty to take part in the debate on this bill, for it concerns a class of people of whom our country is justly proud.
I congratulate the new minister on such a senior appointment; the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could not have made a better choice. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is a very likeable, a most trustworthy man. He has the ability needed to take charge of this department and put through the amendments that veterans have been demanding. There can be no doubt that Bill C-148 was largely inspired by him.
This bill proposes important amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am glad to see that more recognition is to be given to the right of veterans and their families to enjoy a standard of living that reflects, as far as possible, the material wealth of our country. But for
26087-22%

March 27, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act the restraints in an outdated and inhuman financial system, it would certainly be possible to do more for them without anyone having to suffer for it.
We of the Social Credit Party uphold a principle that we believe must be the cornerstone of any society that is founded on a logical economic basis.
It is the principle of making financially possible all that is physically realizable.
People expect credit like children awaiting Santa Claus. We have the required people, machines and wealth to get our economy moving. Yet, because of the government's belief that credit is the basis of economic activities rather than man, machines and wealth, there is more than half a million unemployed in the country.
The unemployed are aware of the immense wealth of the country and they only want them to be available to everybody. They are justified in asking what the government is waiting for to utilize this wealth.
Mr. Speaker, this is what the Creditistes mean when they ask to make financially possible all that is physically realizable. We have the manpower, the tools and machines which are the basis of our economy. Credit now calls for the achievement of all physically feasible developments.
Let us get off the beaten path. Let us leave the rough and bumpy road of the present financial system which leads us from one economic crisis to another and prevents us from reaching a just society.
As far as veterans are concerned the social and economic security program of the Social Credit party is the ideal long-term solution. Of cousre, in the present circumstances and the present system we approve of the government granting increases to those who have suffered and fought for their country and that is why we support this bill.
However, I wish to remind hon. members of this House that the social and economic security program of the Social Credit party offers and interesting alternative to the numerous weaknesses of all existing social aid systems administered by the government.
We are proposing a guaranteed annual income to be paid to all Canadians-including veterans-of 18 and over, and without exception. Not 18 year old veterans because we know they are older than that.
First of all, any single man would receive $1,200 a year; if he is married, in addition to receiving benefits for both himself and his wife he would receive $250 a year for each child.
Tax exemptions would be set at $2,500 a year for a single man and $5,000 for a married couple, with an additional exemption of $500 for each child.
If a soldier who fought for his country returns disabled, he will receive an additional disability benefit of $200 a month if he is single and $350 if he is married.
It is evident that this system would do away with all the troubles and detours which are found in the present system. Everybody is entitled to social security benefits; it is a right of all individuals. Benefits would be distributed

without any inquiry or intrusion into the personal lives of people.
This is what we advocate for the future as a great improvement on the bill now before us.
If the government is not ready to offer anything better to those who fought for their country, we will feel compelled to support this legislation because we want our veterans to get as much as possible in return for the sacrifices they willingly made with great self-denial.
However, we want to remind the government that Bill C-148 is already obsolete and that the social and economic security program of the Social Credit Party is the solution that all Canadians have been anxiously expecting.
Our veterans are certainly still entitled to more gratitude from the whole population. Most of them gave the best years of their lives and sacrificed the benefits of family life. Others gave up their studies or a trade or profession that would have allowed them to earn a better living while remaining in their environment.
I for one, have always entertained a great deal of respect for those brave men who never feared to risk their lives for the defence of our liberties. We owe them a great deal of gratitude, and merely praying them by service is not enough, we must do something. And how could we better bear testimony to it than by improving the legislation of concern to them, allowing them to enjoy the security and the freedom for which they fought?
Last summer, accompanied by other hon. members, I had the pleasure of visiting the Normandy beaches where thousands of Canadian soldiers landed to liberate old France for the second time in half of century.
One has to visit the cemeteries where thousands of our Canadian brothers were laid to rest, having died on the field of honour, to understand the atrocities of war and the courage the Canadian soldiers have shown.
Going through those cemeteries and looking at the markings on the tombstones, it is with great emotion that we read the names of young Canadians whose ages vary from 19 to 25 years, who, nonetheless, also had the right to live.
Each year, the Remembrance Day ceremonies remind us that our generation has been through two world wars whose victims were many and whose consequences many families are still bearing.
Last fall, I attended the Remembrance Day ceremonies in Montmagny. They started with a religious service at which were present a great number of the Quebec area war veterans, some cadets of the Canadian army, as well as the Royal 22nd Regiment magnificent band, which had been authorized by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) to come to Montmagny for the occasion. And I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of National Defence for that commendable gesture with which all the people were very much pleased.
Also in attendance at the ceremony were the wives, the widows and the children of war veterans as well as members of families of former soldiers killed in the war.
When wreaths were laid in memory of missing soldiers, the assistance saw with great emotion a soldier's sister
March 27, 1973

faint; this proves that the memory of these galant soldiers is still with us even after all those years.
This is why we should do more for stricken families. Canada can do more and I heartily support the suggestions just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (M. Knowles) that nothing prevents the government from introducing, during this session, a new bill to raise the veterans' pensions or to amend the legislation so that our veterans and their families may live in increased security.
I think it is the duty of all hon. members to take into consideration more than once a year such questions which involve a great many people so that, progressively and as fast as possible, these pieces of legislation may be amended to the benefit of the veterans.
This is why I wanted to co-operate with the government and other hon. members participating in this debate. I will now conclude my remarks so that this law may be passed and that increased pensions be granted as fast as possible to our veterans.


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I will only make a few comments about this legislation which is certainly a very important one. Like all hon. members, I am sure that no one will hesitate to support this bill designed to provide an increase in war veterans allowances.
Now do I have to add that we will never pay too much attention to this matter and that these increases are certainly not excessive when one considers the responsibilities faced by these veterans, the widows of those who died on the battlefield and their children who are suffering today some hardships because of the death of those soldiers.
I have heard some very interesting comments, made by several hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), which I suggest, deserve the attention of the minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). These comments could certainly help the minister to have a better view of the situation and to bring about some improvements which are necessary at present.
I would like to deal with a specific point, that is the Canadian Legion. In my riding as everywhere else, some groups of war veterans still like to meet regularly. However, these veterans need the necessary quarters and certain amounts of money so that they might enjoy the facilities which they need in order to meet together and be motivated. In view of their past and of their responsibilities, I suggest that it is the responsibility of the government, of the minister in charge in particular to see to it that these groups of Legion members enjoy the facilities which will enable their to meet and arrange for some entertainment, and perhaps also to enjoy better days.
I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to consider the possibility of granting aid to legion members. There are a number of them in my constituency, and, as the hon. member for Bellechasse was saying, I always have the privilege and the pleasure to be invited to meet them and take part in Remembrance Day reunions. It was in this way that I became aware of the importance of demanding certain advantages that are not available to
Old Age Security Act
them today, so that they can afford to find places in which to meet.
These war veterans, with donations received from the outside and their own contributions make considerable efforts to provide for the upkeep of premises used for their meetings. I may add that those people have often told me about their difficulties, their intentions, their objectives, which are altogether justified.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the Minister concerned to seriously consider the possibility of assisting veterans organizations in each and every Canadian riding. I make these very special representations on behalf of the legionnaires in my riding, since I know them well; I am also aware that they have long expected me to make such representations. Besides, they expect the Minister to say yes to the request I am making on their behalf. Considering all the comments which were made in connection with the bill now before us, which is very good, it does not mean that the government will be expected to sit back and do nothing for a certain number of years. On the contrary, I think that the changes taking place year after year require that the act be amended for the benefit of these people and I think that the government will be absolutely justified-and I think all the members do agree-in reconsidering this matter and in announcing in the near future the granting of special financial assistance to provide for the services which are required and for other benefits which are well deserved, since our veterans have fought to preserve our liberties.
I hope the minister will consider those few remarks which I make at the last minute, before the passing of the bill. And once again, I entirely approve this bill and hope that the recommendation I make concerning the benefits which could profit veterans will be greatly appreciated considering the extent to which they have deserved it well of our country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Report stage of Bill C-147, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In looking at the notices of motions pursuant to Standing Order 75(5), report stage of government bills, I would like to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that the five motions which have been put down appear to be out of order. The argument that I would make, and I will not

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
take too much time, is based on a study of Standing Order 62(1) and citation 244 (3) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
Amendments proposing, in a Money Resolution, to substitute a loan for a subsidy; to change the destination, purpose and conditions of a subsidy; attaching a condition to a subsidy; affecting the ends and provisions of a subsidy, must be moved by a Minister with the recommendation of the Crown.
Again, in citation 246(3) of Beauchesne the same point is made. While I can certainly understand the purposes for which the hon. members have put down these motions, I do believe that they go far beyond the royal recommendation and therefore cannot be received by the House at this time.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to ask whether the parliamentary secretary is referring to motion No. 1, or is he considering all five amendments? In looking over the amendments, I find that they do not all fit into the same category and therefore, his argument probably applies only to the first one. Is he prepared to extend the same argument to the other amendments? Perhaps he could clarify his position.


John Mercer Reid: I will be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. I think a careful reading of each of the five notices of motion would indicate that their effect would be to increase the amount of money which the Crown would have to expend on these particular programs. On that basis, an increase in the amount of money to be expended would violate the terms of the royal recommendation and, therefore, would not be receivable by the House. I am prepared to argue each one separately, if you wish, but it does seem to me that the same argument is applicable to all five of the notices of motions.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to discuss the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. (Mr. Reid)?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss notice of motion No. 1 under the name of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) and which reads as follows:
That Bill C-147, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act be amended by deleting the words "one hundred dollars" from Clause 1 at line 9 and substituting therefor the words "two hundred dollars".
Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons governing us and that we wish to follow as closely as possible, although it may sometimes hinder us in our work as members of the House when we want to be effective and consistent with the desires of the people we represent, Standing Order 75 (5) reads as follows:
(5) If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
Consequently, notice of motion No. 1 complies with the practice provided for Standing Order 75 (5) as it was given
[Mr. Reid.)
as required by the standing order. Therefore, the amendment can be declared receivable.
I will now refer to Standing Order 75(8) which is extremely important and which states the following:
When the Order of the Day for the consideration of a report stage is called,
-exactly as in the present situation-
-any amendment
-not only a few-
-of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
Standing Order 75(8) is extremely important because it does not establish a category, as the hon. parliamentary secretary seemed to say, concerning money or other motions. It reads and I quote:
-any amendment-
-to a bill, at the report stage-
-of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
Finally I shall quote section (10) of the -same order concerning the power of the Speaker as regards amendments at the report stage. We shall see that under section (10) the Speaker has some latitude when ruling on the admissibility of amendments, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he thinks fit, call upon any member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable Mr. Speaker to form a judgment upon it.
It is exactly what the Chair, allows us to do now that is to plead in favour of this motion which aims at increasing the basic amount of the old age pension from $100 to $200 and, Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for it.
On the other hand, I remind the Chair of its power to select or combine the proposed amendments so as to enable the House to examine these proposals in order that the debate can be more profound, serious and in accordance with the wishes of people. So I think that these references, and particularly section (8), according to which any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment, establish that the notice of motion of the hon. member for Abitibi is in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I thank hon. members for the comments they have so willingly- [English]


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to make a ruling on these separately, and not in bulk.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. To pursue what I was saying, hon. members may comment, but it is up to the Chair to make a decision. I do not think that one can ask the Chair to make the same decision on every motion. We have to follow the rule of relevancy in this House and at the same time we invite members not to be repetitive. In this case, it may be that the Chair would not have to repeat itself. I have had the opportunity over the past two days to look at the motions that have been
March 27, 1973

presented, and to examine the different Standing Orders and the citations from Beauchesne, and I think I am in a position to render a decision at this time on all of the motions. I will not accept the suggestion of the hon. member to limit my decision to one of these motions.


William Arnold Peters: I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you can only call one of these motions at a time. I have asked that they be called one at a time. You would need unanimous consent to call all five of them en bloc, and I suggest that you do not have that unanimous consent.


André-Gilles Fortin: Concerning the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I made some comments and quotations just now about notice of motion No. 1, but if I had known that you were intending to consider a ruling on all five of our party's amendments, I would have brought forward arguments on the other resolutions, since some of them had a bearing on the eligibility age of 60, some are financial motions and others again are strictly administrative ones.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member naturally has a right to comment on each of these motions. The Chair considers that the notices of motions are definitely interrelated, and I think therefore that I can say straight away, on my own initiative, that the reasons behind the ruling that I propose to make concerning the five motions are based on Standing orders, and have precedents in previous rulings and opinions, or in interpretations of Standing orders in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I do not see why the Chair should have to make a ruling on any one motion in isolation.

The hon. member for Timiskaming seems to be asking the Chair to render a decision on all of these motions one at a time, because only one motion can be put at a time. The Chair hesitates to accept the suggestion of the hon. member because if these motions are out of order they cannot be put. I do not think the Chair is automatically forced to put a motion and then to make a decision on its acceptability. The Chair has had enough time to make up its mind as to the acceptability of these motions. [Translation]
-the same applies. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) as well as all other hon. members who wish to comment on the relevancy or irrelevancy of the amendments now before the House to do so immediately.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I remember that, in the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, with the co-operation of the members of that committee and its chairman, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), each one of these motions was discussed separately. This is why I find it is more or less fair for the Chair to state emphatically that the five motions are out of order, since they were considered in committee.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I am going to abide by your ruling and I shall regretfully argue about these five notices of motions.
Old Age Security Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a suggestion. I appreciate the problem that faces Your Honour, but I think I can also see the point of view of the hon. members who proposed these motions. It does seem to me it would be quite in order for Your Honour to wait until there has been discussion on the procedural acceptability of all five motions and then make one ruling, or of course you could rule on the first one, and indicate that you are likely to rule the same way on the others. But it does seem to me that the members who put down these motions have the right to express their views on the procedural acceptability of them in the way that they choose, whether on all at once, or on each one at a time. I suggest that you hear argument on each of them seriatim and then Your Honour could make a ruling at the end of that, with possibly one ruling on all five.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair will try to be as fair as it can. For the purpose of facilitating the discussion, perhaps at this time I could put forward some points. The problem is whether the Standing Order or the citation on which I am ready to base my decision will supply enough ground to make my decision on all of these motions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has referred to Standing Order 62 and he also referred to citation 246 of Beauchesne. I think we have in these two points the crux of the problem with which we are faced as to the acceptability of these motions that are presently suggested to the House. [Translation]
I should like to point out to hon. members that the five motions now before the House reveal the implicit and obvious intention to increase public expenses beyond the limits set by the the recommendation accompanying the bill, which reads as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Old Age Security Act; to increase the basic amount of the monthly old age pension to one hundred dollars effective April 1, 1973 with future escalation to commence April 1, 1974; and under Part II of the Act to clarify which year is the base year in the escalation formula and to simplify the calculation of income.
That obviously concerns especially the first motion now before the House. Nevertheless, the other motions are also contrary to His Excellency's recommendation, as they tend to increase the expense of public funds in addition to going beyond the scope of the bill, but I will get back to that.
Earlier, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) referred to Standing Order 75 and quoted paragraphs (5) and (8) of the Standing Orders of the House and even paragraph (10). In other words, he referred to a Standing Order outlining the procedure for introducing a motion similar to the one he himself introduced, motion No. 1, and the others as to the time allowed. Then he says that in Standing Order 75 (8), it is clearly stated that whenever a motion is introduced under Standing Order 75, it shall be open to debate and amendments.
Finally, referring to Standing Order 75(10), he bases his theory on the Chair's authority to select, combine or

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
amend certain motions presented to the House, but he forgot that Standing Order 75(6) states the following:
(6) When a recommendation of the Governor General is required in relation to any amendment to be proposed at the report stage of a bill, at least twenty-four hours written notice shall be given-
I do not suggest that Standing Order 75(6) provides a full answer to the hon. member's question, but as this provision contained in the Standing Order refers to the requirement, in some cases, of obtaining a recommendation of the Governor General, this means automatically, at least in my opinion, that the above-mentioned Standing Order does not prevail over Standing Order 62 which deals precisely with financial provisions and which reads as follows:
62. (1) This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
(2)	The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
Now let me refer to Citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th Edition, page 207, which reads as follows:
(3)	The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
Hon. members will therefore be able to see that Standing Order 62 and the Citation of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms provide the Chair with enough arguments to enable the Chair to consider at least the 5 motions now before us, and with enough precedents to support a negative decision with regard to the proposals before us.
Of course, if hon. members wish to further enlighten the Chair, I am willing to listen to all arguments but I hope that the points they will make will relate to those matters I have raised.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, might I simply say that we are not taking any part in this debate. After many years of the practice of law I have learned the sound and salutary rule, never get into family fights between husband and wife.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to ask you to refer to May, 18th Edition of 1971, page 507, which states, and I quote:

Amendments may be made in every part of the bill whether in clauses or the schedules. Clauses may be left out and new clauses and schedules added. Amendments to the preamble and title also admissible where amendments have been made to the bill which render them necessary.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we are referred to page 509 and I shall spare the House my English. It is a citation from Parliamentary Practice of Sir T. Erskine May explaining
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
the procedure regarding inadmissible amendments at the report stage.
I would also refer you to the chapter dealing with inadmissible amendments on page 508 of the same edition, namely to chapter 21 where 11 cases of inadmissible amendments are listed.
It goes without saying that amendments which do not pertain to the bill are out of order. I would point out that this does not apply to the five amendments we are bringing forward. Ours deal directly with Bill C-147 and are not intended to prevent its passage but to improve it and ensure that it meets the needs of our fellow citizens more adequately.
Paragraph (2) on page 508 which deals with inadmissible amendments reads as follows:
An amendment cannot be admitted, if it is governed by or dependent upon amendments which have already been negatived .. .

That does not apply to our five amendments, Mr. Speaker.
In paragraph (3), it is said that amendment inconsistent with or opposed to the bill or to the committee is decision, are out of order. That does not apply either because, through the contributions of the hon. members for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), Champlain (Mr. Matte) and Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), I succeeded in convincing the committee to pass a resolution to study the possibility of increasing the pension's basic amount, lowering the age of eligibility and paying the pension to the spouse of a pensioner regardless of age.
Mr. Speaker, under the rules, the terms of reference of the committee were to study Bill C-147, that is all. The Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs agreed, thanks to the arguments of my colleagues, to adopt unanimously a resolution to study the matter and to allow the committee to expand his terms of reference on his own account.
Mr. Speaker, that indicates that we would like the House of Commons to take the same position so that we could go further than what is provided in the bill and that the House be authorized to study the substance of those amendments. Notice of motion No 1 moved by the hon. member for Abitibi tends to increase the basic amount; motion No 2, moved by this member tends to lower to 60 the age of eligibility; motion No 3 of the hon. member for Bellechasse tends to give the old age pension to the spouse when one of the two has received it; motion No 4 of the hon. member for Champlain provides an alternative while respecting individual freedom, namely that between 60 and 65, anyone who applies will be eligible to that pension; and motion No 5 moved by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) provides for the payment of the old age security pension to every handicapped person who is 50 years of age.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, all this corresponds to what I have said until now. If one refers to paragraph (4) of
March 27, 1973

chapter XXI of May's 18th edition, one can read, and I quote:

Amendments are inadmissible if they refer to, or are not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, of which notice has not been given . ..

I gloss over the remainder, Mr. Speaker, and one will note that again the Standing Orders are respected. According to subsection (5), this would mean the negation of the bill. Far from rejecting the bill, from opposing it, from submitting amendments which would reject it, we want to complete the bill. We want to improve it and that is in conformity with the citations I quoted earlier.
Mr. Speaker, subsection (5) gives two extremely interesting examples which prove the admissibility of our amendments and I will refer you to subsection (6) that I will abstain from reading to save time because we do not want to kill the bill; indeed we want that bill to pass as fast as possible and to really meet the needs of our fellow Canadians. Consequently, I only refer the Chair to subsections 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Subsection 9 provides as follows:

An amendment is out of order if it is offered at a wrong place in the bill...

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is the proper clause, that the right clause is being amended and it goes on up to subsection 12.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up any further time of the House. I still have many other quotations to make, namely the record of the House of Commons proceedings for December 11, 1969 when a debate on procedure has held. Reference is made-the Chair has also spoken about it-to citation 263(2) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition of Parliamentary Rules and Procedures which is found on page 220.1 will quote it.
Mr. Speaker, while I do so, I would respectfully ask you to try and see the relation between the citation and the notices of motions which we are introducing. The citation reads as follows:
(2) The principle that the sanction of the Crown must be given to every grant of money drawn from the public revenue, applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue. No motion can therefore be made to impose a tax, save by a Minister of the Crown, unless such tax be in substitution, by way of equivalent, for taxation at that moment submitted to the consideration of Parliament; nor can the amount of a tax proposed on behalf of the Crown be augmented, nor any alteration made in the area of imposition.
Mr. Speaker, I will refer you to the five notices of motions since they have to be dealt with together and I point out that none of those provides for a tax increase or a change in the group of people which would be taxed. Those notices of motions have absolutely nothing to do with taxation. They have to do with the terms of eligibility for old age security pensions. This is something entirely different, Mr. Speaker.
We are not asking the government to vote credits or Parliament to pass an act imposing a tax to finance old
Old Age Security Act
age security pensions. We know that this government has no other solution in its crazy system to finance old age pensions than to impose further taxes.
The amendments moved by the hon. member for Abitibi as well as myself and the hon. members for Bellechasse and Champlain and Portneuf deal only with the terms of eligibility for the old age pension.
This is why Citation 263(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, do not apply. Citation 276(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, do not apply and neither do Citations 268(2) and 276(8).
Citation 276(1) reads as follows:
-the royal initiation in taxation implies the exclusive right to define the incidence as well as the amount of burdens to be placed upon the people, and that an amendment which transfers a burden to taxpayers nor previously liable is an infringement on this initiative.
Mr. Speaker, we do not advocate heavier taxes for the people. We are fighting for fewer taxes. We do not urge either that one class, one category of citizens be taxed to pay for old age security pensions. We simply request that the House of Commons revise its position, revise the conditions of eligibility provided for in Bill C-147, which is before us, in order that these conditions of eligibility be broader and tailored to the needs of our fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, this is our mandate and I figure that it is of outmost importance for each member of this House, whatever parts he belongs to, to be able to present measures for the improvement of bills, if not, we are wasting our time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being five o'clock, we have to suspend the debate on this point of procedure, and even adjourn the decision until the House resumes at 8 p.m. and at this moment-

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed- [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the attendance of the four House leaders to ask, in view of the great significance of this legislation, whether we ought not to proceed from five to six o'clock with consideration of Bill C-147, since we definitely want this bill to pass but with the amendments which we have introduced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.

Is there consent to suspend private members' hour?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Speaker. There is an important bill which has to be discussed at five o'clock. It may be that after a short speech the government may see fit to give its approval to the principle of the bill. We would be glad at that time to resume the matter we are now discussing.

March 27, 1973
Broadcasting Act


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: I am amazed at the view expressed by my hon. colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), because the other day he "killed" the private members' hour trying to bring about a surprise vote on a Friday, and today he opposes any further consideration of the question of old age security. Now I understand why, yesterday, he moved this stupid motion of his on Polymer-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian National Railways-Discussions on amendment of pension plan to provide payments on basis of 2 per cent per year of service; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-External Affairs- Representations to United States against proposed flooding of Skagit River Valley in Canada for power project; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)- Government Administration-Increase in departments and buildings in Ottawa-Future policy.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions through the usual channels. I think Your Honour might find there will be agreement to take No. 7 on the Order Paper, a bill standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there unanimous consent to the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


James Aloysius McGrath: that Bill C-22, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest by hon. members in this bill, perhaps hon. members might be prepared to give consideration to placing a 10 minute time limit on speeches in order to permit maximum participation. I hope this will permit the bill to be sufficiently dealt with that it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to agree to a 10 minute time limit during this hour.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It might be advisable to agree on five minutes each in order to return immediately to Bill C-147, in view of its importance.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Mr. Basiord:: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that there have been any discussions on this point through the usual channels. I hope that the hon. member will defer his suggestion until that can occur and the member on our side who is responsible for our contribution to this private members' hour can confer with his members to ensure they are agreeable. Perhaps the hon. member could proceed with his speech and there could be some agreement.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations, although not with all parties in the House. However, if there would be agreement, we certainly would agree to that proposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agree to what?


John Mercer Reid: Ten minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the Chair to understand that it is 10 minutes for the whole debate or 10 minutes per speech?


Mr. Lefebvre:: Per speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that a limit of 10 minutes be imposed on hon. members' contributions to the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that agreement effectively cuts out half my speech. I am pleased there is consent because I know there is a great deal of interest in this bill and for very good reasons. I am sure these reasons will manifest themselves as the debate proceeds in the very limited time at our disposal.
This bill which I have the privilege to move, seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) and supported by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), was first introduced in the House on April 7, 1971. Hon. members who are interested may want to refer to Hansard for that date. Unfortunately, at that time the bill did not receive sufficient support to be

March 27, 1973

referred to committee or, shall I say, perhaps it was supported to death.
I am hoping for the reasons I will set out in the very brief moments at my disposal that there will be a disposition on the part of the House at this time to allow the bill to go before the committee, not because of any desire on my part to pre-empt the government's responsibility here because I recognize this is an area which is within the government's responsibility. As a matter of fact, I know that the government is interested in this bill.
Since the bill was first introduced, there has been considerable interest all across the country. As a result of the debate in this House and the debate that was generated across the country, a number of groups have become very active in support of the principle of the bill. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that as a result of the bill, which has served as a catalyst for this problem of growing concern, the Canadian Association of Advertisers and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in the fall of 1971 introduced their code of conduct governing advertising directed at children.
This code became effective January 1, 1972.1 am hoping the code will be one area that can be discussed at greater length and in greater depth if the bill is permitted to go before the committee. Indeed, the people responsible for the code can be called upon to give evidence. I think it is fair to say that the code has not proven to be successful. In the first instance, it is a voluntary code. This means the organization sponsoring that code has to depend upon the goodwill of the participating stations to see that the regulations are enforced. The monitoring that has gone on from time to time indicates that the code has not been observed, generally speaking, right across the country. Of course, the principal breaches of the code take place around Christmas time.
Following the introduction of the code, the Quebec government introduced regulations under their consumer protection act. The regulations were designed to protect, within the limited jurisdiction of the province of Quebec, children in that province from advertising emanating within that province. The regulation forbids advertising which incites children to buy or incites them to incite others to buy the product. That is the essential regulation. There are others which also govern the kind of advertising that can be directed toward children. I know there is great interest on the part of the Quebec government to have national legislation in this area because of their limited jurisdiction.
I am also aware that the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. Juneau, has been conducting studies into this and has been monitoring radio and television stations across the country from time to time. If the bill is permitted to go to the committee, I would expect that the chairman of the CRTC and some of his officials would be called as witnesses. They would be able to tell us exactly what they have found as a result of their studies.
In addition, there are studies underway at the present time at several Canadian universities, including the University of Montreal, McGill University and the University of Toronto. I also understand there are studies underway at Trent University. The United States has been ahead of
Broadcasting Act
us in this area, not in the issuing of regulations, but in the emergence of concerned groups reacting to the situation. There is an organization in Boston called Action for Children's Television which was successful in obtaining hearings before the Federal Communications Commission. These hearings are now a matter of public record and could be useful material for the committee to study if this bill is referred to the committee. Then, there are the concerned parents' groups which have been started in a number of cities across Canada, here in Ottawa, in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and others.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take the time of the House for much longer because I should like to hear from other hon. members. I have already made my views known. I spoke in the debate which took place when the bill was first introduced in April of 1971. Perhaps I could close my brief remarks by saying that historically we protect children. Under the law they receive special protection. Child labour laws recognize the vulnerability of children. There are laws which prohibit children entering into contracts. But the law does not afford protection to children who are the targets of high pressure, subtle television techniques. Statistics Canada made a survey last year which indicated that Canadian children are exposed to more than 20 hours of television every week. These programs contain many high-pressure commercial messages which in many instances distort the child's view of the real world, make the child cynical about what is going on around him and which build up expectations which, very often because of financial circumstances, cannot possibly be fulfilled. Consequently, serious damage is done to the child-parent relationship. I say this with some feeling because I am the father of six children ranging in age from six to 12.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Even the advertizing industry itself is concerned. I will conclude my remarks by quoting from the Vice-Chairman of one of the largest advertizing agencies in the world-John Burghardt of Young and Rubican:
We advertizers speak to 3, 7 and 12-year olds with the same subtle seductive techniques used in selling to adults. We use warmth and emotion, surprise and excitement, humor and suspense, to create images and auras which have little or nothing to do with the products concerned.
I can put it in no better way than the advertizing people have put it themselves in this quotation. I do hope the House will be disposed to allow this bill to go to committee because there is a large body of evidence to support my contention that children are not a proper target for commercial advertizing. Certainly, there is a case for much stronger regulation to be made to protect our children from these subtle advertising techniques.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity we have to be so brief in speaking to this important bill, but if the House will permit the bill, or even the subject matter of the bill, to go before a committee there will be much more opportunity for a good deal to be said, as well as much to be heard with regard to a matter which

March 27, 1973
Broadcasting Act
is of great concern, I believe, to many people of this country, and particularly to parents.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has brought before us a very urgent matter, and although there is at present no extensive body of knowledge on the subject of child-directed advertising, this has not prevented the development of some very definite views ranging from severe criticism to proposals for complete abolition. And that is what we find in Bill C-22. The hon. member for St. John's East has presented the House with a bill which is straightforward, unambiguous, even blunt. He is not endeavouring to regulate, reform or even control advertising directed at children, but to eliminate it. The bill is very clear. It states that no advertisements shall be permitted during the broadcast of a program devoted to children.
How important, really, is a question such as advertising directed at children? How much urgency should be attached to it compared with other national needs? Should this parliament, with so many other pressing concerns before it, spend time worrying about commercials aimed at children?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


B. Keith Penner: I hear a chorus of members saying, yes. Allow me to join that chorus. A report recently prepared for the Canadian Advertising Board and entitled "The Child's World and Television Advertising" states clearly that a sizeable minority of people in Canada are in favour of stringent controls on advertising directed at children, or the abolition of such advertising. While current concern in Canada has not so far resulted in a public hearing, I think that such a public hearing is long overdue. Hearings of this kind have taken place in the United States and it is about time this parliament took a look at all or some of the possible adverse effects of advertising directed at children. There is a need, in my view, for more study and further investigation. It is largely on this basis that I willingly lend my support to Bill C-22, and was pleased to second it in the hope that it will be sent to a committee for closer scrutiny.
The whole question of what to do about child-directed advertising is too extensive a topic to be decided during a brief debate. At the same time, the problem is too crucial to allow us to have this bill talked out and tumbled to the bottom of the order paper. I, therefore, urge all hon. members to allow the measure before us to proceed to a committee where the many aspects of the subject can be duly considered in depth through the hearing of witnesses and through the examination of briefs which will undoubtedly be presented.
The hon. member for St. John's East mentioned that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has adopted a broadcasting code to govern advertising directed at children. I am sure all hon. members welcome this action toward self-regulation which has been taken by the broadcasting industry. We should not feel, however, that simply because such a code is in existence the problems which may exist as a result of advertising directed at children have been solved or that legislation is not necessary. There is, I believe, a need either to eliminate such advertising or, at least, to mitigate possible adverse effects

caused by television advertising directed at children. The broadcast code governing advertising for children presents an interesting example of potential self-regulation by an industry, but has the code been strictly enforced? Is it perhaps necessary to go much further by amending the Broadcasting Act and introducing regulations which would be much more effective in controlling whatever adverse effects may be produced by this kind of advertising? The hon. member for St. John's East has given us the opportunity to make these inquiries and I hope we shall find some answers when this bill goes to the committee.
In the brief time still left to me, I should like to say a little more about my personal concern in relation to advertising directed at children. The hon. member for St. John's East mentioned the amount of time children spend watching television programs. Many of these programs contain commercials which are directed specifically to the younger age groups. What does this do? Certainly, all advertising has the effect of stimulating expectations. I sometimes wonder how many children have been disappointed or disillusioned when what they were led to expect was not fulfilled in reality. We all know that children have little or no purchasing power and so are dependent on their parents to fulfil their desire for advertised products. What happens, particularly in low income families, when their demands cannot be met? Is advertising directed at children responsible for causing frustration and conflict in many Canadian homes? I suspect it is. The code for advertising for children, which has been referred to earlier, does say, of course, that advertising must not urge children to ask their parents to purchase products. That is what it says, but can we seriously believe that such a restriction will effectively eliminate undue pressure on parents? Not likely!
The two products that are chiefly involved in children's television advertising are toys and breakfast cereals. Exposure to these advertisements will almost certainly lead children to influence their parents to make purchases. What do these particular products represent? Recreation and nutrition. These surely are matters of some considerable importance to most parents. We wonder whether children's advertising may seriously undermine the parents' own choice of values for their children, so that instead of deciding what they should do for recreation and what they should eat that is nutritionally valuable, it is decided for them through the television media.
Some people, of course, believe that if you have codes or guidelines you may lessen the evil. But others feel very strongly that what is needed is not a lessening of the evil but that the evil disappear completely. So perhaps nothing short of abolition of advertising aimed at children can be regarded as reasonable. Such is the proposal contained in Bill C-22, and in my view it ought to be carefully examined by a committee. All of the aspects of the problem must be carefully looked at by the members of such a committee. I, therefore, urge once more that members allow this bill to proceed for further examination.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by commending the hon. member for St. John's East for bringing forward this bill which I am pleased to support. I also ask other hon.
March 27, 1973

members of this House to register their concern for our country's children by allowing this bill to go on further to another stage of consideration, where it can be more carefully scrutinized and examined.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, once again it gives me a great deal of satisfaction to be able to support this bill introduced by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I think he has waged a long fight on this matter and has been doing a very great public service in bringing it increasingly to the attention of people from coast to coast. I am glad to see that there is every prospect this afternoon of moving it one stage further to committee, which represents a definite advance toward the bill becoming legislation.
We are here considering the effect of advertising on children. Last January I was very much interested to read an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen written by Charles King. In this article he referred to some United States figures, which I do not think are too much out of line since the United States is Canada writ large. We very often find that we are just a little behind certain trends that have gone a long way in the United States. I sometimes wish we could reverse that situation.
This article reads as follows:
According to Dr. Gerald Looney, a pediatrics professor at the University of Arizona, American children spend more time watching television than doing anything else but sleep.
That gives some idea of the magnitude of the problem.
If this news weren't depressing enough, he went on to estimate that by the age of 14, each American child has watched on his tiny screen the violent assault or destruction of nearly 18,000 human beings.
To me this is a very important reason this bill should be passed and we get rid of advertising, at least on children's programs. These programs continually bring up the subject of violence as though this were something unreal, a fantasy. I think one of these days we will discover that a great deal of violence, which is showing a marked increase on our continent, is due to the fact that from their very early stages little tots became accustomed to seeing people blown up, mutilated and in many other ways destroyed. They think of this merely as a picture rather than transferring it into real life. They see pictures of things happening in Viet Nam and in other parts of the world, and to them it is still only a picture. Finally, those people who are at all abnormal or deranged commit acts of violence in our midst which to them are still unreal and fantasy.
This is one reason that I believe we should eliminate advertising on children's programs. The line between fantasy and reality as far as children are concerned is nonexistent because they have become brainwashed. They see violence in all its forms when they are young and they carry this with them into adult life. It is deeply ingrained in them in their early years. I think earlier speakers have touched on this point.
The Ottawa Citizen article continues:
And to relieve the monotony of mayhem, he's been treated to 5,000 solid hours of commercial messages coaxing him (or her) to put the arm on Mom or Dad to buy 350,000 individual items at the neighbourhood supermarket.
Broadcasting Act
That is another evil of commercial advertising as far as children are concerned. I do not care what the advertising code says about their being opposed to undue pressure being exerted on parents by children. This sort of thing goes on daily. I am sure the hon. member for St. John's East remembers very well, as I do, that during the days of the earlier food prices committee the representatives of the cornflakes and other breakfast food people appeared, and reference was made at that time to commercials that urge children to put pressure on Mom and Dad, because Yogi Bear would get them if they did not buy the particular cereal that was being advertised.
This kind of pressure on parents in wrong, and wrong from every angle. It is wrong that parents in low income families are pressured by their children to buy things that they neither want nor can afford, thus throwing their whole family budget out of alignment. It is wrong that parents are pressured by their children to accumulate a lot of things. Always there is this ethic that we must have more and more, instead of the much better ethic of getting out and doing things and developing ourselves.
If we are to pay any attention to what the Club of Rome and other people tell us about developing a different kind of ethic, instead of always asking for more and more, then we must start with the tiny children of today. We must make them selective and more careful in outlook. We must get them to do things in a practical way instead of letting them sit in front of the idiot box, everlastingly having displayed before their eyes things for which they pressure their parents. This is wrong, and the sooner this bill is passed and we put a stop to it, the better.
In his explanatory note to the bill, the hon. member for St. John's East refers to children's programs having a captive audience. While many of these programs are excellent, he says, they usually contain commercial messages that are directed at a highly impressionable and very susceptible audience. And, I may add, a completely defenceless one. I was interested to read the other day that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) had sent out a letter supporting the annual Child Safety week. He said in this letter:
Children are trusting little souls. From the day they are born they are protected and guided by adults.
Adults, too often, neglect this responsibility. As the tiny ones become more independent, their seniors too frequently relax the protection they have trained the child to expect.
This is true. In our way of living, with fathers and mothers being more and more away from home for a good part of their children's day, the children are defenceless. When the children are alone, what is more natural for them than to sit and watch endless hours of television programs during which they are subjected to endless hours of pressure through advertising. I do not think we should permit our children to be bombarded in this way. We are taking defenceless children who have not yet built up any resources of judgment or discrimination and allowing them to be bombarded with this kind of advertising so that they, in turn, can bombard their parents to buy things which in many cases are quite undesirable, have poor nutritional value or have an exceedingly bad effect on the family purse.

March 27, 1973
Broadcasting Act
Material explaining the National Code of Advertising speaks of the danger of measures which will take too much out of the public purse. I think there is a need for measures which would prevent too much being taken out of the private purse in the form of training children to bombard their parents to buy things which are not needed.
I have one final note. In the committee on food prices we are beginning to have a great deal of concern about consumer buying habits. There are people who buy things on impulse and there are people who are pressured into buying things through advertising, through promotions, and so on. It seems to me that if we are ever to inculcate good buying habits in consumers, the place to begin is with children of early age. That is why I believe this is an especially valuable bill. So, in turn, I conclude by commending the hon. member for St. John's East for bringing forth this bill. I wish the bill speedy passage through the committee.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, as enthusiastically as I can, I wish to support the introduction of this bill and its speedy treatment by the committee. As the father of five children, I and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who introduced this bill, who is the father of six children, perhaps have a little bit of experience with regard to the effect of television advertising in the family living room.
Sometimes my children ask me what a Member of Parliament can accomplish in Ottawa, or what a Member of Parliament does. To tell the truth, sometimes it is a little difficult to answer the question. Today, however, the children of the hon. member for St. John's East have seen with their own eyes what a Member of Parliament can accomplish, indeed directly on their behalf because this bill has been presented before, has been talked about a great deal-one might even say it has been talked out- and now it appears it will be successful in at least being transmitted to a committee with, I may say, the endorsement of three very fine speeches which have preceded my very brief speech in support.
The hon. member for St. John's East has given a lesson today, not only to his children but to new Members of Parliament, in that he did not quit when he first brought in this bill, but reintroduced it and kept at it, until he has now a good deal of public support which I predict will be shown to be increasing as the public begins to examine the implications of the measure the hon. member has introduced. I shall quote a very brief passage to show the importance which so many people attach to the subject of children's advertising on television. This is a quotation from the February issue of Saturday Night. It appears in a column written by Robert Fulford, who puts the case very succinctly:
Children's advertising is one of the truly grotesque scabs on North American capitalism. Advertisers use it to con children into getting their parents to pay more than they can afford for toys that are almost always close to useless. The toys seldom perform as well as the TV ads say they will, and when they do they tend to last only a few days or at most a few weeks. In the toy business everybody knows it's an axiom that if a thing is advertised on TV it's probably lousy.
As a father who has bought more than his share of toys advertised on television, I say "Amen" to that. The hon.
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings way).!
member for St. John's East referred to the idea that society needs measures of protection for children. Indeed, in many areas of life we do have measures specifically for the purpose of protecting children. He says that here is one area where the rights of children and those who protect them are being violated. That leads me to two brief comments on the bill. The hon. member asks, in talking about programs devoted to children, what is a program devoted to children? He answers that question by saying a program devoted to children means programs such as those defined by the commission by regulation.
I think this will open up a whole area of programs which are shown during the time children are customarily expected to be awake. This, of course, takes us right into mid-evening. I suggest there should be an examination of the type of programming available during that time because, as was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who spoke so eloquently a few moments ago, the whole question of violence is involved.
When we examine the question of advertising and programs, this leads to a discussion of programs shown during the time which might be said to be children's time, or the time when the family has access to television. When we examine the programs and advertisements which are shown at the time known in family circles as children's time, I suggest the producers of television programs in this country and in the United States, since we import a great deal of programming from there, have a good deal to answer for, because I am appalled by the amount of violence depicted on television.
As a father-and I am proud to speak as a layman and a father on this subject-I think of the effect this type of television viewing has, in my judgment, on the minds of children, rendering them less compassionate toward society. If children grow up exposed day after day to nothing but torn and twisted bodies and various kinds of social abuses, I think this has a tendency to diminish the human qualities in our society. As parents, it is ridiculous that we should sit quietly in our living rooms and watch this. I hope no one will say, why not turn off the set? That is not the proper answer. It is much easier said than done, and it is a cop-out. I think that is the first point that will have to be examined as soon as the committee starts its examination.
The second point concerns advertisements that are shown during what I called a few moments ago children's time. I do not mean only advertisements that are directed at children, such as those telling them to buy this toy or to eat that cereal. Those are advertisements for what might be called adult products which are shown on programs that are accessible to children. I submit that the crassness of much of the advertising to which the whole family is subjected needs to be examined, as well as the advertisements to which children are subjected.
I support entirely the principle, the keystone of this bill, namely, that all advertising in programs defined as children's programs be banned. I suggest that the committee look at the quality of programs available in children's time and at the advertisements to which children are subjected. I have before me-I will not take the time of the
March 27, 1973

House to go through it all-a good deal of material from experts which suggests that family relationships are indeed hurt in many ways by children putting pressure on parents to buy products that they have seen advertised.
When he spoke on a previous occasion, the hon. member for St. John's East concluded his remarks by saying that the committee should have an opportunity to hear witnesses from consumer groups, from the industry, advertising agencies, government and the broadcasting networks. He said:
It would be able to evaluate the evidence and propose to the government a specific set of regulations to be included in the Broadcasting Act.
It is time that we acted on the whole question of protecting our children from television. The hon. member for St. John's East has made a commendable start and the faster we act, the better off we will be.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, looking at Bill C-22, we cannot but congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for his commendable effort in bringing forward such a useful bill, particularly in 1973. We hope it will be studied and also amended by the committee because I feel it should not only prohibit advertising directed to children but also indicate a social policy to be followed by broadcasters in dealing with children.
Previous speakers have deplored, as I myself do the nefarious effects on young Canadians of the broadcasting of commercials directed to children. These are the reasons why purpose of the bill is to amend Section 28 of the Broadcasting Act. The purpose is to prohibit all advertisement during the broadcast of a program devoted to children. That is a good thing, but it is quite insufficient.
The committee should also take good note that, not only should commercial advertising be banned from children's programs, but it should also not be allowed to come before or after such programs.
The government ought to make up its mind, once and for all, to use the CBC and the other media to show only the very best material, where children are concerned.
Everything we see for children on television is negative. We ought, on the contrary, to be using this modern means of education to promote the healthy development of children not yet of school age who might profit from television's audio-visual possibilities, which are also capable of developing adults' educational sense, especially in the fields of sports and food. Television should not be exclusively an advertising medium for companies that want to sell our children their products and then include their advertising costs in the price of their products.
Television could also be used to give young people instruction in citizenship, good manners, patriotism, and even geography, to make them appreciate the natural beauty of Canada.
We could also use television for teaching languages to two-, three- or five-year-olds.
In a word, Mr. Speaker, television, which has so far been a very bad influence on young people, could be a very useful contribution to preparing them for the future.
Broadcasting Act
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am 100 per cent for Bill C-22 and I hope that the committee will do all it can to ban advertising on television programs and allow broadcasters to make recommendations so that they can go on the air not with a negative approach toward young people or to use their facilities only as medium for sales and advertising, but to make young people benefit from educational programming in all disciplines.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to kill this bill because I am 100 per cent for it. I am making recommendations and suggestions which I think could be used by the committee which will study the bill to indicate to the broadcasters that broadcasting could be used for something other than advertising, particularly when it is beamed at youngsters who are not intellectually ready to tell the difference between what is wrong and what is good in advertising.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on Bill C-22 which is designed to prevent advertising on children's programs. I congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for again bringing this bill forward. I recall that it was debated about a year and a half ago and I congratulate the hon. member for being persistent and bringing it before the House again this afternoon.
It seems to me that there is increasing concern in the country about consumer protection, and surely those of us who have young families are concerned about the kind of advertising to which our children are exposed. I recall that when the bill was debated previously it was at a time when a code of ethics had just been adopted by the Canadian Association of Advertisers and Broadcasters and it was to be implemented within the following several months. It is my understanding that this code of ethics has been in effect for a little over a year and a half, and I think now would be a very appropriate time for this bill to be sent to committee for study. It would be a very appropriate time to call the advertisers and broadcasters as witnesses before the committee, to see how this voluntary code of ethics has worked out.
It seems to me that while a corporation such as the CBC, where the profit motive is not quite as strong as it is in private broadcasting, may be able to adhere to a voluntary code, the private broadcaster who is trying to make ends meet financially may be under more pressure and may not be able to adhere to that code quite so easily. So, Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate time for the bill to go to a committee.
It may be argued that a voluntary code is better, from the point of view that we are not imposing something, but many of us are really concerned about the impact of advertising on children. I have received three or four letters concerning this bill, which is more than I would normally receive with respect to a private member's bill. It shows that there is in my constituency definite interest in this measure and, I am sure, in many other constituencies throughout the country.
It seems to me that our young people may watch too much television. Perhaps many of us who are busy in

March 27, 1973
Broadcasting Act
professional life or in business do not watch enough, do not have as much interest in television programs. But to learn that the average child watches some 20 hours a week of television is a startling revelation. That means the child is spending almost as much time watching television as he spends at school, and the learning impact may be as great as at school because the child is in comfortable surroundings when watching television.
Many of us find the idea especially replusive that advertisers beam their messages at the child and the child in turn puts pressure on the parents. Many adults develop a certain sales resistance; we automatically turn off a sales pitch if we are conscious of what is happening. But the mother who is raising three or four children may not be conscious that pressure is being put on her, sort of underhandedly, by her children as a result of television advertising. She may be buying goods in a local supermarket and the children will suggest that she buy certain items which they have seen advertised. As I say, she is not conscious of the sales pitch and may be pressured into buying things that are not necessary for the family. Perhaps they may even be beyond the family budget. They may be food items that are not particularly nutritious. In this connection I would like to read one paragraph from "One Child, One Chance," a report on nutrition published by the National Council of Welfare. At page 5 it reads:
With the pervasiveness of television and other forms of advertising, the question of nutrition has taken on a new wrinkle. Today everyone, rich and poor, is getting food and nutrition information almost exclusively from high powered mass media advertising- television in particular. And much of that information is misleading. Snack foods and soda pops, sugar-coated cereals and processed foods do not add up to optimal nutrition. For the housewife, wanting to get greater food value for her food dollars, and particularly for the poor who need to get the greatest possible food value for the fewest food dollars, the lack of readily accessible, easily, understood nutrition information represents a serious public disservice.
Children are being pressured to buy food which is not necessarily nutritious, and this pressure is being transferred to the parents. Another matter which is of concern is that parents are being pressured to buy food, toys and other products which are beyond the financial resources of the family.
The hon. member's bill puts forward a solution to this problem. I would like a parliamentary committee to go into greater detail on the exact implementation of such measures, whether through this bill or by some other means, to control television advertising to children. So, Mr. Speaker, I support the proposal that the subject matter of the bill be sent to committee for study, because I believe it has great merit.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the government would have no objection to the subject matter of this bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts at the conclusion of this private members' hour. If there were agreement among hon. members to discharge the bill and to send the subject matter to that committee, we would certainly be prepared to go along with it.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary, although the bill is so simple and straightfor-

ward that I fail to understand why it itself cannot be referred to committee. But under the circumstances, if there is a disposition to send the subject matter to committee, half a loaf is better than none and I thank the parliamentary secretary for his suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), moves that this bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be sent to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the following order:
Report stage of Bill C-147, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. When the House went into private members' hour at five o'clock, a point of order had been raised and the Chair was considering a decision on the motions of hon. members. [Translation]
I would like to know whether hon. members have completed their arguments on this point of order and on the ruling the Chair should render in connection with the five notices of motion now before us.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon before five o'clock, I presented some arguments which I hope underlay the admissibility of the five notices of motion submitted by my colleagues and myself to amend Bill C-147, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
March 27, 1973

I was quoting a citation from chapter 21 of the 18th edition of May, pages 508, 509 and 510.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to discuss subsection (12) which is most important. With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I expect that this is the argument you will certainly use to rule all those amendments out of order. However, I think we have valid arguments to present. I am quoting from subsection (12), page 510:
[English!
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution. This rule, which is of fundamental importance, is fully explained in chapter XXVII and on page 754.
[Translation)
Mr. Speaker, one need only consult page 754 in Chapter 29 on amendments dealing with expenditures of public funds to realize that our five notices of motion do not fall within that category. Some may object that this is negative reasoning. Still, I feel that you cannot judge wholesale the five notices of motion since the first, as moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) reads as follows:
That Bill C-147, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act be amended by deleting the words "one hundred dollars" from Clause 1 at line 9 and substituting therefor the words "two hundred dollars".
We may be told, Mr. Speaker, that this involves the spending of public funds. This may be so, but the same does not hold true in the case of the second one which I moved, since it deals with the age of eligibility, that is 60.
Here is the notice of motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
"(2) Under the provisions of the present Act and regulations, a monthly pension may be paid to every person, even though the age is lower than that provided for in the present Act if the spouse receives a monthly pension on attaining the age provided for in the present Act."
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse makes no mention of outlays of public moneys; the principle of his resolution bears on the age of eligibility.
The same is true of notice of motion No. 4, introduced by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), which reads as follows:
(2) Under the provisions of the present Act and regulations, a monthly pension may be paid to every person between ages 60 and 65 and who applies for such pension on retirement.
This is another important aspect of the old age security program, and the hon. member for Champlain deals with eligibility criteria rather than expense of public funds.
The same remark applies to the notice of motion of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), covering handicapped people having reached age 50.
Mr. Speaker, I am familiar enough with the Standing Orders to know that the ordinary member cannot propose measures involving expense of public funds, and this is a matter of course. I do agree with that principle, though with some regret, but I cannot alter in one night what has been established and preserved for 100 years.
However, I consider that basically one should make a distinction between its financial results and the acknowledged intent of a proposed amendment. It being so, Mr. Old Age Security Act
Speaker, one cannot-and this I suggest quite respectfully-presume that some expense is involved when a motion is aimed at lowering the eligibility age to 60. Possibly you can tell me that this will involve some expense, but I would respectfully suggest that establishing what expense is involved is not your duty or your function, nor mine either. I consider that each and every member in the House is entitled to positive participation in the debate, in drafting legislation and in their improvement. While keeping this in mind, we consider that Bill C-147, as proposed, constitutes a short step towards improvement of old age security, but this is not good enough and it is incumbent on each and every member to try and have the eligibility age lowered to 60.
Mr. Speaker, this is the end of the brief comments I had to make. I understand that they do not always agree with the Standing Orders, but I believe that it is our duty as members of the House to say it and claim it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether you decided, as of course it is your right to do, to group these amendments together and, under Standing Order 75(10), make one decision. May I suggest that the kind of parliament in which we now operate is totally different from previous parliaments. We are operating under rules which did not apply in previous parliaments. We are operating on a different basis with respect to finances. The way we handle resolutions and amendments is different now.
It is true that the Governor General's recommendation was necessary before we could introduce ways and means resolutions with respect to certain financial matters. But we changed the rules. Of course, our present rules are not reflected in Beauchesne's, May's or any other authority to which members have referred. Our present rules are totally different from those we had previously.
I suggest that the Governor General's recommendation which is necessary if a financial measure is to be enacted represents only one portion of a government bill. It is clear, according to the authorities, that moneys cannot be advanced or spent save by the authority of this House. The House of Commons and the members thereof are supreme. The other place cannot make decisions affecting financial matters. Such decisions must be made by members of this House. Their decision as to how money will be raised and spent is the deciding factor. Therefore, I suggest that the recommendation is merely a tool for governments to use in limited circumstances. They have used it in connection with bills such as Bill C-147.1 suggest that if minority governments such as the present one base their position on the recommendation of the Governor General, they will find themselves in all kinds of difficulty.
I do not think these amendments are all in the same category. I think it would be easy to argue that motion No. 1, the first amendment, is contrary to the recommendation. If a ways and means resolution had been moved, probably that also would have been in conflict with the proposed amendment. However, I fail to follow the same kind of argument with respect to the second motion, which says that when a person reaches the age of 60 he "may be paid". Whether he will be paid or not is hypo-

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
thetical. In this House we use the word "shall" if the entitlement is definite.
Obviously, the word "may" carries a different connotation. A man may do something depending on a number of things. Often the word "may" reflects the intent of regulations much more than of legislation. If this amendment were passed, we would provide that under certain circumstances a person who reaches the age of 60 may be paid a certain pension. I suggest that it need not necessarily be paid. Therefore, it is difficult to say if the recommendation would apply to this amendment. After all, we are to establish that an old age pension of $100 a month shall be payable as of right to every Canadian who reaches the age of 65. That is definite. When you reach that age you will, on application, receive that amount of money. However, motion No. 2 does not make the payment mandatory.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is not possible for the Governor General's recommendation to say how much money is to be involved, because some people may apply and some may not. In any event, I think such procedure is totally archaic, and if minority governments of the present type are to continue for some time-as I suggest they may-we need to change our present procedures. If we follow present procedures, subsequent parliaments may find themselves in difficulty.
Why must we rely on Standing Order 62 which has to do with financial provisions? Why must there be the Governor General's recommendation, which in any event is a lot of malarkey. The Governor General does not know anything about the money we want. The government decides what money it wants and it puts the Governor General's recommendation on the order paper. He does not even present it with his own hand, whatever that may mean. Is is just a stage of a bill. The recommendation is not a ways and means provision. Really, the recommendation merely covers government expenditures. In some ways this is a totally new device. The government discontinued the old ways but has not adopted the new ways. If we as a minority parliament think that in certain circumstances people 60 years of age should be retired, we should say so and not bother about the gobbledygook involving the Governor General.
These remarks also apply to the third motion which suggests that "a monthly pension may be paid to every person, even though the age is lower than that provided for in the present act if the spouse receives a monthly pension on attaining the age provided for in the present act." The Governor General has nothing to do with that. How can one include a recommendation with respect to this provision unless it is an open-ended recommendation-because I do not think even Statistics Canada can tell the government how many spouses are in receipt of the old age pension. A spouse may be male or female. {Therefore, this matter is even more "may-ish" and "if-ish" than the previous matter of which I spoke, because we are not sure how many people are involved. We do not know if the man is older than the woman or if the woman is older than the man. I suggest that all these arguments presented on the basis of what is contained in Beauchesne's and the other authorities referred to are hypocritical. No, that is not the right word.


An hon. Member:: "Hypothetical."


William Arnold Peters: Well, they are a farce and do not mean anything. They do not apply to the circumstances because such arguments do not take into consideration the changes made to our Standing Orders. I hope, Mr. Speaker-I throw in this thought-that the Clerk and the Clerk Assistant will be given sabbatical leave so they can rewrite the rules in order that we can apply our present Standing Orders.
I do not believe that the arguments being made apply to the circumstances. If we accept the argument by the government or other members against allowing the introduction of "if", "may" or permissive clauses that are operative only after the regulations making them operative are passed, we are not doing justice to the changes that were made to the Standing Orders. I am sure many members would be pleased to see these amendments accepted, to vote on them, and if the amendments are passed, the government-which obviously would like to stay in office-would be quite happy to find the money and might even go to the Governor General to ask him to change the recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: This is a minority parliament, and to stand on an archaic rule backed by archaic precedents is not in keeping with the intention of most members of this House. I hope Your Honour will take this into consideration and that you will be lenient and make operative the decision that I am sure most Members of Parliament wish to be implemented. This involves a reduction in the age limit, not necessarily as a right but as a "may". I hope Your Honour will give consideration to this aspect of the matter.
There is no precedent Your Honour can quote that can satisfy me. The precedent is really based on the change in the Standing Orders. When we got rid of ways and means resolutions and the recommendations attached thereto, we substituted the song and dance but retained something that really does not mean anything. I suggest that under the new Standing Orders the Governor General's recommendation has no purpose in this or any other bill. I hope Your Honour will consider the changes that have been made and will assist the members of this House in implementing them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I should like to add a few points to show that if we abide by the letter of the interpretation given in Beauchesne, the House would constantly be paralyzed.
Let us consider for instance the case where the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) proposed a motion to display the national flag in the House. The cost of the flag alone entailed an expenditure which should have been refused. There is obviously no motion or legislation that can be passed in this House and entail no expenditure. This
March 27, 1973

means that every one of us is utterly paralyzed and that only the hon. members of the Cabinet would have a right to do something in Parliament.
My second argument, Mr. Speaker, is that it is perfectly possible for us to approve our amendments and lower the eligibility age for the old age security pension to 60, or grant it automatically to the spouse, without necessarily upsetting the budget. One would merely have to find a way of saving somewhere and balancing it. It is not certain that this would mean a raise; my amendment specifies that an elderly person would get a pension if he applied for it. It might well happen that nobody would ask for it, in which case there would be no supplementary expenditure.
And so, in order for all members to have a chance to express their opinions, I wonder if it would not be better if the Chair would declare these amendments in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I thank those hon. members who have sought by all available means to enlighten the Chair as to the decision it must make. With hon. members' permission, I think I will start by dealing with some points that were brought up by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).

In his concluding remarks, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said that the Chair could quote no precedent that would satisfy him. I trust the hon. member will accept the fact that the Speaker is not here to satisfy hon. members, but to apply the rules to the best of his ability. The hon. member also spoke of archaic rules, interpretation of the rules and changes in them. He must realize that as long as we proceed under this kind of parliamentary system where precedents and practices are the basis of the system, the Chair cannot accept his argument.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Timiskaming includes Standing Order 62 in the rules which he says are archaic. At the time of the changes to the Standing Orders, Standing Order 62 was not changed. Also, the hon. member suggested that the Chair apply Standing Order 62 for the first motion before us, but with regard to the other motions he suggested that Standing Order 62 is archaic and does not apply. Therefore, the argument he put forward to change this basic opinion cannot be accepted.

Now, to revert to a point I made in my comments this afternoon, I wish to remind hon. members, as I have just done in English, that the Chair is not supposed to give some leeway or be good-natured, but must apply the Standing Orders and see that the practices and customs are upheld.
I agree with hon. members that it would perhaps be advisable to review the Standing Orders, but this is a matter left at the discretion of hon. members who all know that the Committee on Procedure and Organization is already considering the last changes made in 1968.
In my remarks of a while ago, I referred hon. members to Standing Order 62(1) which states and I quote:
Old Age Security Act
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost,-
And subsection (2) states that the message of His Excellency shall be printed on the Notice Paper and presented to Mr. Speaker. I do not have such a recommendation at hand for the time being and even if hon. members wish to claim that the reference to the expense of public funds is perhaps not as clear as some people or as the Chair may claim. Even if the Chair is asked to exercise discretion and not to solve financial questions, I completely disagree with the hon. member for Lotbiniere because that is precisely one of the main duties of the Chair, namely to consider the measures presented to this House to know whether they comply with our Standing Orders, practices and precedents.
I also referred hon. members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Citation 246 is quite clear. It reads as follows:
-the royal demand of recommendation ... must... once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced ...)
-and I do not believe that the recommendation was withdrawn and replaced.
I keep on quoting:
-not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I fail to see how the Chair can admit that the amendments now before the House are not contrary to citation 246. The hon. member said that that citation was written by the author in the light of past Standing Orders, but I think that Beauchesne's is so much quoted in this House that no decision taken in this House has resulted in shelving this interesting and useful book. The Chair can easily use it. I suggest that no hon. member has yet been able to find fault with these two points.
Let me also strengthen my point by referring hon. members to the debate on procedure which took place on May 16, 1972 when the Speaker had to rule on similar amendments concerning a bill on old age security pensions. One can read on page 2326 of Hansard for May 16, 1972, and I quote:
This type of motion requires the recommendation of His Excellency.
And at the bottom of the same page, on the right hand side, one can read:
I suggest that it clearly is not possible for an hon. member to present a bill or an amendment involving disbursements, unless such bill or amendment be accompanied by a recommendation of the Crown.
And on page 2327, on the right hand side, one can read:
I would remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere that even if the minister should sponsor the motion before us, it would not be sufficient since it would require the approval of the Crown.
I refer to these statements in an attempt to explain to hon. members that the Chair is not here to change the Standing Orders but to apply them. The hon. member for Lotbiniere, in his comments, said that the Chair should go beyond its prerogatives. As stated earlier, he said that it was not the responsibility of the Chair to determine whether a bill or amendment involves public spending and I repeat that on the contrary, it is its duty to do so.

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
The hon. member for Lotbiniere has surely raised during the procedural debate some arguments which offhand seemed quite valid. In the first place, he quoted Standing Order 75 the application of which I tried to refute this afternoon, but I think that it deals rather with the procedure than with acceptability.
I have already discussed the matter this afternoon. Afterwards, he referred us to the 18th edition of May, pages 507 and 508 where we read that it is possible for hon. members to amend every part of a bill. It is said:
Amendments may be made in every part of the bill, whether in the clauses or the schedules.

Then he referred us to pages 508, 509 and 512. Tonight I was happy to see he went a little further than this afternoon and had taken the trouble of going to subsection 12, page 510, where we can read-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Speaker.
With all due respect, I would have reached subsection (12) had someone not called it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Agreed. I recognize that the question of privilege is well taken but anyway the Chair has noticed that subsection (12) also applies. The hon. member wants to quote subsections from pages 505, 508, 509 and 510 and, as it happens, subsection (12) states: [English]
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution. This rule, which is of fundamental importance, is fully explained in chapter XVII and on page 754.

In his remarks this evening, the hon. member for Lotbiniere referred us to page 754 but he went quickly to chapter 29. I would suggest that he look up page 692 of May's 18th edition where there is a paragraph which deals with this royal recommendation and says word for word what can be found in Beauchesne's citation 246. It reads:

-an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended the charge.

In another argument, he claimed that the procedure during consideration of the bill by the committee had been restrictive and he would like this House, through the Chair, to be less strict in applying the rule and to allow the members to go even further than the bill, that is discuss
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
the legislation itself and accept all kinds of amendments. I find it very hard to agree with his argument.
Coming back to the notices of motion now before us, the first one proposes to raise to $200 the basic amount of the pension. According to all the sources that can be referred to, it is obvious that this notice of motion is out of order because it imposes a burden on the government and there is no recommendation from His Excellency.
His notices of motion Nos. 2 to 5 which tend to reduce to various levels the pensionable age for certain pensioners constitute an expenditure of public monies and go beyond the object of the bill.
Hon. members have only to consider the recommendation now before us and the bill to see that the proposal under study is a measure aiming at raising the basic old age pension to $100 a month.
The hon. members in submitting their various notices of motions are proposing amendments relating to the eligibility age; surely this question is not relevant and is not currently before the House.
For all these reasons, it is quite impossible for the Chair to accept the five motions in question.


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-147, to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would not like at this stage to delay unduly the proceedings or to repeat what I already said at the second reading stage or even on other occasions.
We are now debating a bill which affects an important sector of our population that is faced with a particular problem which is that of not being in a position to live decently for lack of income and this is why we have tried, in moving amendments at the report stage, to eliminate this shortcoming in the law.
In fact, we can see glaring injustices such as two people aged 65 receiving full pensions and the guaranteed income supplement if they have no income whereas a married couple, where one spouse is aged 63 or 64, will only receive half this amount. This amounts to accepting the principle that the necessary products vary in value according to the age of the people concerned. This is obviously a glaring injustice for all those people and particularly when one knows that at 60 it is absolutely impossible for anyone without an income to expect earning one. So this would have been an excellent opportunity for correcting this situation.
And, Mr. Speaker, we remember particularly a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) after the results of the election were known and in which he stated that in order to remain in power, he was ready to hear suggestions from the various opposition parties.
March 27, 1973

Now, for this session, this is our suggestion. We are dead set on it, and this is why I am coming back with an amendment.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette):
That Bill C-147, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to consider the lowering of the age for the Old Age Pension from 65 to 60 and the automatic acceptance of the spouse for a pension as soon as one of the couple reaches age 60.
Mr. Speaker, through this amendment, I want everybody to know that we are here to represent the wishes and interests of the people. This is the only reason why we are members of this House and we do not have to muddle up with archaic regulations. If it is not possible to move amendments directly before the House, we would like that this bill be again referred to the committee so that our proposals can be examined once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, other members must realize as well as we do that all Canadians want this done. For example, in the course of the election campaign, we heard the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) tell everybody in Quebec that he was in favour of granting old age pensions to those aged 60 and we wonder why the Progressive Conservative Party does not side with us now. We had followers on this point at the time of the election campaign, but it seems we are now left alone.
We know quite well that the New Democratic Party had this item on its electoral plank. At least they have always shown that they would not be opposed to this. We even heard ministers discuss this matter during the election campaign. Why? In the end, every one was talking about the possibility of granting old age pension at age 60. It is merely because everybody wants it that way. Therefore, if everybody is in favour of it for very exact and serious motives, why is it that we are not fulfilling this desire expressed by all Canadians?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I have examined the amendment proposed by the hon. member. I can hardly accept it in its present form, but in order to allow hon. members who would want to make comments to enlighten the Chair, I will read the amendment:
That Bill C-147 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to consider the lowering of the age for the Old Age Pension from 65 to 60 and the automatic acceptance of the spouse for a pension as soon as one of the couple reaches age 60.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for too long, because of the importance of this bill and of this amendment, in order that the House may discuss them.
I should like to summarize my argument concerning the admissibility of the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Champlain.
Mr. Speaker, may I remind the House that in the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) and myself have keenly fought in order to rouse the members of the committee to the neces-
Old Age Security Act
sity of giving their agreement to the extension of the committee's terms of reference, and of studying the possibility of lowering the eligibility age to the old age security pension. And the committee has unanimously adopted a resolution-if I am not mistaken-for a more thorough study of the question, and this not merely on consideration of the votes, but also at any time.
Consequently, I consider that if we do consider the amendment word by word, we might be told that it is not receivable, because the terms of reference it assigns to the committee are too specific, and because in the debate on third reading what the committee has to do cannot be specified.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully point out to you that this Standing Order is absolutely ridiculous, because this would mean that in the debate on third reading, the House could refer legislation to the committee and assign to it very specific terms of reference.
For the amendment to be receivable, if the letter of the rules is to be adhered to, the bill had, for instance, to be referred to the committee for subsequent debate period. Then, possibly, the amendment could be receivable. But, under these circumstances, what would be the terms of reference of the committee? That is the important thing to know: the committee is prepared, is anxious to study the possibility of lowering to 60 the age of eligibility for the old age security pension thanks to the alertness of Credi-tistes and we are anxious that the House study this same point. This is why I maintain that, as we are studying Bill C-147, which mentions a basic amount, it would be only normal that this amendment be studied by the House.
Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments we presented read in part as follows:
. . . the lowering of the age for the Old Age Pension from 65 to 60 and the automatic acceptance of the spouse for pension as soon as one of the couple reaches age 60.
This is exactly what the House wants the committee to adopt. This is what the House would like to have recommended by the committee, as it is only studying Bill C-147, which, in reality, only means crumbs for the elderly.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I maintain, with all due respect, that this amendment is receivable.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief comment on the admissibility of this amendment. There are two arguments against it. First, I think it seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act and tries to do something that is not in the bill before us. Therefore it must fail on that ground. The second ground, specifically, is that this amendment is essentially the same as the notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 75(5) in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), that is, it seeks to go beyond the royal recommendation. Therefore it must fail on that ground as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. friends of the Social Credit party for the vigour with which they are pressing two or three points about which I feel very strongly and concerning which I think this House should take action, namely,

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
the raising of the amount of the old age security pension and the lowering of the eligible age. I confess, however, I would find it very difficult to argue for the procedural admissibility of the motion they have now made. But the reason I rise to say anything at all is the reference my friend, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), made to what has gone on in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in respect of this matter.
There is something more which I think he should have said when he was referring to the activities of this committee. For example, he should have pointed out that this same amendment was moved in the standing committee. The chairman of the committee ruled it was out of order because it sought to amend the act rather than the bill. However, the upshot of that ruling and of that discussion was an agreement which I think was unanimous. Certainly the chairman accepted it and members of all parties agreed to it.
The agreement was that when we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare we will have a full discussion on the question of lowering the eligible age. The chairman agreed that at that point we would find a way to make a report to the House recommending such a change, if that should be the wish of the whole committee. It seems to me there is procedural questionability about the amendment that the hon. member has put forward. However, I do not think the discussion should end without it being known by the House that in the committee there are plans afoot to make a recommendation to the House in respect of this very question of lowering the eligible age which has the support, in terms of substance, I hope, of the majority of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contributions to this very interesting debate.

Again, I must point out to the hon. member that if at first glance I was reluctant to accept the proposed amendment, it is precisely because that amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill now before the House. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) complains that during the committee's proceedings, it was not possible, under our Standing Orders, to amend the bill as certain hon. members would have wanted to amend it. I believe the hon. member wants to refer to Standing Order 75 and if I remember correctly, the procedure that applies to committees is the same that is applied in this House, but less rigidly. Therefore I cannot see, when we must base ourselves on the same Standing Orders, how such an amendment can be allowed in this House, where the Standing Orders are applied a little more strictly.
I would respectfully ask the hon. member to read attentively citation 418 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms where it is clearly stated and I quote:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
I believe that if the hon. member takes the trouble to look into Bill C-147, it will be difficult for him to find a provision dealing precisely with the amendment now

before us. I also refer the hon. member to citation 415(1) of Beauchesne which reads as follows:
When a bill comes for third reading a member may move that it be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
And subsection (2) adds the following:
In the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case, the committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them.
In the amendment now before us, the hon. member moves that the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee. It seems that the hon. member wants to give instructions to the committee for amending the bill according to the motion, and I really cannot see which provision of the bill he wants to amend.
Finally, I must refer to Citation 246(3) of Beauchesne from which I quoted generously in a previous ruling and where, in short, it is stated quite clearly that it is absolutely necessary to obtain a recommendation from His Excellency to introduce a measure that entails the spending public funds.
For all those considerations, I cannot accept the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Champlain.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, our party wants to see Bill C-147 passed through the House as quickly as possible and I urge upon all members to try to expedite its passage. While several hon. members were apparently rising to participate in the debate, I thought we might be remiss if one or two of us did not become involved in the debate at this time. I must say also at the outset that I and members of my party support the desires and the wishes of the Social Credit party expressed in the amendment that they are trying to move to this bill, and, as one member, I wish there were some way that we could have an amendment of this sort accepted. I believe it reflects the desire of most members of the House to raise the basic pension to $150 a month and to lower the age of eligibility to 60. I think that was obviously the opinion of members when the committee was studying the bill about two weeks ago. Indeed, even the minister said he wished the age were lowered to 43, if I recollect correctly.
So I do believe that all of us could somehow get together and do some of these things which I am sure the people of this country really want. I think I would be fairly objective if I were to say that in the last few years perhaps the greatest defender of the older people of this country has been the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has spoken many times on behalf of the senior citizens of this country. I remember very clearly that on March 1 he spoke in the debate and recalled the time when he was first elected to the House in 1942. At that time old age pensions were $20 a month and he was fighting for an increase to $30 a month. The government at that time, being a typical Liberal government, compromised and raised the pension by $5 a month. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that he rose to his feet and told the House, in essence, that the pension
March 27, 1973

was too little too late. I suppose we can say the same thing about this bill which is before us today.
Our party is saying that the increase to $100 a month basic pension is too little. Our party policy is to increase the pension to $150 a month, and that indeed is the policy of most senior citizen organizations in this country. Indeed, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation at a recent convention in Prince Edward Island put forward the following resolution:
Be it resolved, that the federal government be requested to increase the basic old age security pension to $150 per month retroactive to April, 1972. Be it further resolved, that the annual increase in said pension be in line immediately with the increase in the cost of living index.
When we talk about increasing the pension to $150 a month we have the support of the Canadian people. Our party also, as I have already said, would like to see a reduction in the age of eligibility to 60. I think we could reach a consensus on that pretty quickly in the House if the minister desired to move in that direction. I know that he commented before the committee that the government was reassessing its social policy and that we may expect a statement some time in April. Indeed, I hope we do have one then and that we do have further legislation to lower the age of eligibility to 60 before this year is out.
I think that our party deserves a great deal of credit for the fact that there is a pension increase, even if it is only to $100 a month. At present the old age pension is $82.88. The automatic increase brought it up to $86.61, and I suggest that if this government had come back after the election as a majority government, the pension would have stayed at that amount. I do not think it had any intention of raising the pension beyond the automatic increase of $86.61, but I believe also that the situation would have been the same if the Conservative party had been in power following the election of October 30. As a matter of fact, during the election campaign I can recall very vividly a Conservative candidate saying that he favoured a pension of $90 a month, while another one said he favoured $95 a month. They could not make up their minds what it should be.
I wonder, if the Conservative party were to come to power in the future, whether they might not go back to the basic pension as it is now because in this area, as in most other areas, the Conservative party is, to say the least, very ambiguous. The Conservative party policies are different depending on which member is making the speech. The Conservatives cannot make up their minds as to what the pension should be. I recall also that, before the last election, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was speaking in the province of British Columbia to a group of older people. When they asked him whether or not the Conservative party would support an increase in the pension to $150 a month he said: "Oh, no, that is too expensive, the country cannot afford a pension of $150 a month". That, I maintain, is the policy of the Conservative party. If they were in power they would do nothing more than the Liberal party is doing at this time to raise pensions for older people in this country.
I believe that we could increase the old age pension and I believe that the country can afford it. One way in which the government can raise pensions immediately to $150 a month would be by withdrawing the bill which they plan
Old Age Security Act
to present to provide the corporations of this country with a rip-off or hand-out. If they did that they could provide half a billion dollars a year which could be used to raise old age pensions in this country. The corporations of this country do not need fast writes-offs and a reduction of the corporate income tax from 49 per cent to 40 per cent. If we were to defeat the bill or have it withdrawn, then the old people of this country could indeed have a pension increase of a kind that would provide them with money to buy the proper kinds of food, clothing and the type of housing that they need.
From the statistics I have available here, it appears that if we were to increase pensions immediately to $150 a month, we would need about $1 billion a year more over what is now being spent on old age pensions, half of that could be made up if we were not to pass the corporate tax bill and the other half could easily be obtained from the treasury of this country. If we were to raise pensions to only $120 a month, we would only need $432 million, and more than that would be available if the government decided not to proceed with the handout to the corporate welfare bums, their friends in the Canadian Manufacturers Association and their other corporate friends across this country. I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that he present this argument to the government and that he bring back another bill which would increase the pension to $150 a month, despite what the Conservative party may think and despite the crocodile tears they might shed over a few losses to their corporate friends in this country.
I also suggest that the pensionable age be reduced to 60. I believe that this country can afford quite easily to reduce the pensionable age. I believe that this is one of the social gaps in our country at this time. I know all of us have received many letters from people between the ages of 60 and 65 who need some assistance and who do not qualify because of the gaps we have in the existing social legislation in this country. This country could well afford to reduce the age of eligibility for old age pensions.
Another thing that could be done immediately, if we do not want to go all the way at one time, would be to reduce the pensionable age for the spouse of someone who has already qualified for the old age pension. This is another gap in our social policy that should not be there, and I believe we could act to correct that immediately.
There are a number of other things that could be said regarding our senior citizens and other benefits that could be provided for them in terms of medical aid and assistance in purchasing prescription drugs. Many of our senior citizens live in poverty, in inadequate housing. These are the people who, after all, laid the foundations of our country. Many of them were pioneers in the western part of our country and deserve a better break than they are receiving today. This is a brief summary of some of the things that our party would like to see done for our senior citizens. We would like to see the basic old age pensions go up to $150 a month, and the age of eligibility reduced to 60 years.
There is one other thing I would like to say in a philosophical vein before I sit down, and that is that we should

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
start treating the older people of this country with a bit more dignity. All too often we tend to be very patronizing towards older people, and to treat them as children. We have a youth cult in this country that we worship. Much advertising is directed towards young people. We say that there is beauty in youth, and all kinds of vigour and goodness. The time has come when we should cut out some of these ideas that have been so ill-conceived, and we should start treating our older people as first class citizens. We can go part way in accomplishing that by accepting some of the recommendations made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) regarding increased old age pensions and lowering the age of eligibility to 60 years.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat pained that so much of the time on this very important piece of legislation has been spent on procedu-ralism and partisanship. From the very first introduction of this measure I indicated to the House and to the minister that, while I was well aware, as were my colleagues, of the inadequacy of the measure, and while I demonstrated and documented that had the actual cost of living been added since 1963 when the government took office the pension would be $106.94, I nevertheless believed that this was the best we were going to get, and that because I wanted the senior citizens to get it as quickly as possible, it was our parliamentary duty to do everything we could to expedite the passage of the bill.
This was my stance in the committee, and my colleagues and I, who take second place to none in this chamber for our interest in the senior citizens, adopted a self-denying ordinance and stayed out of the debate. And I would have done so tonight if we did not have the injections of partisanship that we heard from the spokesman for the NDP.
I believe that the senior citizens have had enough of trafficking in political auctions, in bidding for them and their support as to who will promise more. It is very easy for a party that has no chance of taking office to promise $200, $300, $500 or $600. It is a little more difficult for the NDP wing of the NDP-Liberal coalition, which danced with joy over the $100, to say subsequently that they want $150. They have done everything possible to perpetuate in office the party which will give nothing more than $100. Let them live with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Neither my leader, myself, nor my colleagues, all of my colleagues-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere rising on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) accuses our party of playing politics, but I will say to him that from the start of his speech he has spoken of nothing but the so-called coalition between the NDP and the Liberals, which may be true anyway. He should ask his colleague from Saint-Hyacin-the (Mr. Wagner) what he said during the electoral campaign about the old age security pension being granted to people 60 years of age, and what he is doing tonight by refusing to support our motions to that end.
Those who play politics are the other side, Mr. Speaker. When we need their support on behalf of the old people, not only do they not support us but they in turn play politics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is not a legitimate question of privilege; it is a question of debate. Members have a right to participate in a debate and give their own points of view, but they should not use a question of privilege as a means of intervening in another member's speech. The hon. member for Hillsborough.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) does not need a defender like myself, in view of his eloquence and capacity. I was not thinking of the Social Credit when I was talking about partisanship, as a matter of fact. I think the hon. member was a bit overly sensitive. What I might accuse them of is not partisanship. I wanted to say, before I was interrupted by this important question of privilege, that the party which I have the honour to support, and for which I have stood in this House for 16 years as a champion of a better deal for the senior citizens of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -is not going to enter into the auction room of political shenanigans, trying to bamboozle the older people to support us when we quote figures. I will say this-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What would you give them?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -and I will stick by it, that when the times comes-who knows whether it be weeks or months away-


Mr. Bechard:: Years?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) becomes the Prime Minister of Canada, the senior citizens of this country will have a better deal than they ever had before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: How much?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This is a solemn commitment, solemnly stated, and I have no intention of spending hours in arguing with-
[Mr. Nystrom.J
March 27, 1973


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York-ton-Melville on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I wonder whether or not the hon. member for Hillsborough would permit a question at this time, which I think is quite important.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As a former and still sometimes pedagogue I should be glad to do my best to enlighten the man. I had planned to speak for five minutes, and if I had not been interrupted I would have been through by now. But I would be glad to assist the understanding of any hon. member on these questions. I repeat, Sir, that we regard this measure as inadequate to the needs, but it is the best we have before us. We want the senior citizens of this country to get the cheques in their hands, and we think the thing to do now is to expedite this measure. As Shakespeare might have said, and I am plagarizing him, "Tis a poor thing but their own." So far as this party is concerned we have no desire to field further speakers, except the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe whose name was brought into the debate, unless we are tempted to do so by certain indiscretions, oratorical or otherwise. I would say let us move on with this measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville with a question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the hon. member for Hillsborough give the House the answer to a question that I posed to him in my speech, and that he completely missed. May I ask the hon. member whether or not he can tell us exactly what is the Conservative party policy? What is the basic pension that the Conservative party believes the senior citizens should get? Can we have a definite and numerically precise answer to that question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, when preparing that question the hon. member may have missed my peroration. I said we were not entering the auction room and bidding for the senior citizens. We are not going to proclaim a figure and then dance with joy when someone else puts in a figure $50 less.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the floor, after waiting an hour and a half. I did not want this reputedly important Bill C-147 to go through without my having expressed my own comments.
Mr. Speaker, the benefits and merits of Bill C-147 have been generally praised whereas the bill, in my opinion, does not seem to deserve such praise since in fact it will increase only by $13 the amount of old age security pensions, with no consideration-and that, Mr. Speaker, is one of the main points I want to make-in regard to the cost of living index.
Actually, compared to the 1949 dollar, the 1972 dollar was worth only 56.2 cents, and as a result of the increase in the cost of living within the past few months the dollar, compared to the 1949 dollar, is now worth 50 cents. To speak of a $13 increase seems just an absurd mini-reform 26087-23
Old Age Security Act
conceived to dazzle Canadians and particularly senior citizens.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, has to do with persons 60 years old or of the third age. I have consulted several books recently to find out when old age begins, because we are at present considering a bill in connection with the old age pension, and all the books I have consulted, and I have a few here from the Parliamentary Library, establish that old age does not begin at 65, but at 60.
When the liberals and the progressive conservatives claim to offer to the population an adequate old age pension, true to realities, they are completely unscientific and behind the times because they are five years behind all the scientists who prove, from a medical point of view, that the third age or old age begins at 60.
I have here a book written by Mr. Henri Bour and Mrs. Michele Aumont entitled "Le troisieme age-Prospective de la vie", which belongs to the Parliamentary Library. To establish, from a scientific standpoint, that old age does not begin at 65, but obviously, on the average, at age 60, we can read on page 15:
Finally the evolution of certain endocrine functions: of hypophysis, such as the growth hormone, of the cortico-surrenals, extends over three stages with a plateau from age 20 to age 60.
And, the authors prove without the shadow of a doubt that, as a general rule, human beings can between ages 20 and 60, display biological characteristics which indicate that they cannot begin to maybe grow old before age 60. But, as a general rule, in Canada, old age does not begin at age 65, but at age 60. I also have here another book entitled "La vie commence a 60 ans". This book on senior citizens has three subtitles: "La securite dans la retraite", "L'amour au troisieme age"-a question we shall not deal with tonight-and "Vos avantages sociaux". In connection with social benefits, it is always the question of retirement that comes up and it is said that life begins at 60. And this book is not necessarily aimed at the poor, the unfortunate aged people who have to survive on the daily $8 or $10 paid by the government through an overworked social security plan which is always trying to give less and less. This book is mainly intended for the well-to-do who enjoy a monthly or quarterly pension which is reasonable if not comfortable.
The Creditiste party wants the old age security pension to be paid when old age begins. We do not want old age pension when old age is almost over and saying that old age begins at 65 is tantamount to misleading the population, being regressive or unaware of science and lying to the Canadian people.
This is why this bill will not solve the problems of the 65 year old people with this monthly increase of $13 and even less those of 60 particularly when one considers the working conditions of elderly Canadians, not only of those aged 60 or less but even of those entering the labour market by the thousands every year and of those who just completed their studies.
I have with me a circular which was sent to certain ridings with a view to better inform the Liberals about the needs of Canadians. This circular was sent by a Liberal member seeking information on the advisability of setting the old age security pension at 60.

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Speaker, I had circulars returned to my office by mistake and those circulars suggest even in Liberal circles that the friends of the Liberals want the old age pension at 60, that is at the age when old age begins and not at the age when old age is over by three quarters.
Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why we find this bill to be more or less important. Some seem to want to use blackmail by saying that the Social Credit wants to delay the passage of the bill. It is clear that we are in favour of this bill to increase pensions by $13 a month, which is not even half the increase in the cost of living in the last ten years.
I have here an editorial of the Quebec Action of December 22, 1964 which looks at the security of nations. One can read that Western countries waste or spend-it is all the same to me-$140 billion on weapons and $4 billion on the hungry.
It is also mentioned in that editorial that old people are neglected because of the considerable amounts of money spent on military expenditures in all countries.
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, it would be preferable to consider human needs rather than the needs of our Canadian Forces. An amount of $2,134 million was spent in 1964-65 on national defence; we could have used only a few millions on national defence to ensure better security for our older people in Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope the problem of old age pensions can be brought back before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs because I think that no scientific book was consulted to define when old age starts and it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be proposing a motion in a few moments.
There should be an emergency meeting of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs with an order to report to the House within 48 hours and recommending that there be included in Bill C-147 a clause concerning the granting of old age pensions to those aged 60, effective April 1, 1973. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That Bill C-147, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act be not now read a third time but that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for further study of the eligibility requirements under the said Act.
I apologize for not having an English version of my motion, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we are not provided the same services as the hon. ministers to have our amendments translated on time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been provided with a copy of the motion.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might tell the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) that my first suspicion is that the amendment he has presented is out of order for several

reasons. Of course, I shall hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)1 on his point of order. The proposed amendment seems to offend the principle of the bill which has been adopted on second reading. It also seems to go beyond the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General. The argument I should like to hear is whether those two objections can be overcome.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, you have just read the motion of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) in French, and I must congratulate you most sincerely on the impeccable way in which you express yourself in French.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind that amendment is extremely serious for, after having done considerable research in Sir Erskine May's 18th edition of his Parliamentary Practice as well as in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, I feel that this amendment is in order for several reasons.
You maintained a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment did not comply with the provisions regarding second reading or the mandate allowed at second reading stage, and you tied in the amendment with the royal recommendation. That famous royal recommendation having been dinned into our ears, we will read it at least once to see what it is all about:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Old Age Security Act; to increase the basic amount of the monthly old age pension to one hundred dollars effective April 1, 1973 with future escalation to commence April 1,1974;
and under Part II of the Act to clarify which year is the base year in the escalation formula and to simplify the calculation of income.
If it is at all possible to dissect the Governor General's recommendation, one will first of all find out that Part II deals with the escalation formula for the calculation of income. This means that for older citizens, for retired people, in some cases, the amount will be "X", and in others, "Y". For what reason? Because the escalation formula referred to in the Governor General's recommendation is such that the pensioners are not all placed on an equal footing, and this is contained in the recommendation. Therefore, the terms of eligibility to an identical pension are not the same for all pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, you stated that the amendment in order to be acceptable should not exceed the formal limits of the bill. Now, what does the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) say? It says, and I quote:
That Bill C-147, and Act to amend the Old Age Security Act be not now read a third time but be referred again to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-
Mr. Speaker, so far you will agree with me that the practice, the Standing Orders of the House, May's Parliamentary Practice and Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms provided that any time in debate on third reading any member can rise from his seat and introduce a motion "that the bill be not now read a third time, but referred to the Standing Committee for further study.
That is the kind of amendment that is always in order, because as your colleague said a moment ago, when he ruled out of order the motion of the hon. member for
March 27, 1973

Champlain (Mr. Matte), the reason given by the Speaker was that the motion gave specific terms of reference to the committee. I think that this procedure is ridiculous, but I must respectfully abide by the decision of the Chair.
Therefore, if the Chair argues that the House cannot give specific terms of reference to a committee at the third reading stage for a particular bill, I feel that Your Honour could use the same argument to rule that this amendment is in order. What are the terms of reference that we ask for if we are to get any in this amendment? And I quote:
... for further study
That means a more thorough study.
... of the eligibility requirements under the said act.
We are not talking about eligibility at 60 or 65, even if we hope that the committee will do that as it undertook to do, but that is not stipulated in the amendment. We are asking for a further study of the eligibility requirements under the act. This does by no means involve expenditures or increased taxes, but only a study by the committee of the recommendation of the governor in council with regard to the requirements for eligibility. What was the recommendation of the governor in council? It might be interesting to read again part of it. The Governor in Council specifies in his recommendation first, that the basic amount be raised to such and such an amount and that this provision come into effect on April 1, 1973, with which we entirely agree. Second, a future escalation will commence on April 1, 1974. Third, under Part II of the Act, the base year of the escalation formula will be specified. This is still part of the recommendation to simplify the calculation of income.
When the Governor in Council suggests in his recommendation that the calculation of income be simplified, he agrees that the House of Commons should thoroughly study the conditions of eligibility for the pension under Bill C-147.
Mr. Speaker, this is not legislation "Y", but we want, through the amendment of the hon. member for Shefford, the Committee Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to consider the eligible age concerning Bill C-147.
There, Mr. Speaker, is what we want. This is why we say that this bill must be referred to the committee and that, within 48 hours, it be sent back to us so that pensions may be paid, as the government suggests, effective April 1, 1973. We do not oppose the recommendation of the Governor General to pass the bill; we only request that the committee make a more thorough study of it.
Mr. Speaker, I can only refer you to chapter 21 intitled "Third Reading in Commons", on page 531 of May's Parliamentary Practice, 18th edition.
Mr. Speaker, I wish my English were as good as your French, so that I could quote. I would read out the whole book if necessary readily and convincingly to prove that according to precedents, as indicated on page 531 and those that follow, an amendment at the third reading stage is procedurally in order, provided it does not negate the principle of the bill, which the hon. member for Shef-ford's motion does not do.
26087-23}
Old Age Security Act
Another condition stipulated on page 531 and those that follow is that no financial obligation be involved, and I shall humbly point out, Mr. Speaker, that no such obligation is involved in the motion. And finally it is stipulated that at the third reading stage immediate reading of a bill can be opposed and the bill can be referred to a committee, provided no very specific terms of reference be given the committee. This is exactly what we are doing when we suggest a further study.
Mr. Speaker, I would have so many arguments to put forward. I know your ability, your respect for private members' initiatives, and I dare hope most sincerely for my colleagues and for myself that in the light of existing precedents which govern the House, this amendment, which complies with those precedents, will be accepted so that the committee may study this bill more thoroughly.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, for your information, this amendment is actually a request of the House to refer the bill back for further study of the conditions of eligibility which were and are, as I said, stipulated in the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if we read bill C-147 and if I listen to the directives and advice that you gave at the beginning before allowing me to speak, I notice that you claimed we were changing the work at the second reading stage. This is absolutely not true.
At the second reading stage, it is the privilege of this House to refer the bill to the committee. What are the stages of a bill? First reading is a formality. During the second reading stage, Mr. Speaker, we freely and rapidly express ourselves and there comes the privilege of the House to refer the bill to the committee. Then the committee brings back its report. This is what we call the report stage. Once the report stage is done with, the bill is before the House for third reading, the present stage. When the House honestly and competently is of the opinion that the bill is more or less acceptable or that the committee report is satisfactory, it is its strict privilege to call for a vote, with a motion such as that brought forward by the hon. member for Shefford, to the effect that the bill be referred back to the committee for further study.
Mr. Speaker, I could give many examples to convince you that it is important to refer the bill back to the committee to enable hon. members further to study the recommendation of the governor in council concerning the eligibility requirements. We want a report, in 48 hours, to the effect that the pension will be paid as of April 1, 1973 and this time, Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill will be acceptable.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. There are basically two grounds on which this amendment fails. First, it seeks to amend, not the bill before us but the act that the bill before us seeks to amend. Therefore, it must fail on that ground. Second, if the amendment were carried it would in effect go beyond the royal recommendation; therefore it would increase the expenditure which the Crown would have to make for this particular program. On these two fundamental points, Mr. Speaker, the amendment must fail.

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to refute the two arguments that the hon. parliamentary secretary has just raised since at no time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We have tried to establish the practice that members do not speak more than once on a point of order. However, I must say that some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Lotbiniere have given the Chair some concern. If no other hon. member wishes to speak on the point of order, I will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and at the start of tomorrow's proceedings deal with the question of the admissibility of the proposed amendment. If this is agreeable, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I had some hesitation in taking part in this debate for the same reasons that have been expressed with eloquence and competence by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), because it was not my intention to follow the example set by the members of the Social Credit Party and unduly postpone the payment of pensions which must be granted to older citizens.
But I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that when I heard the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) talk about the development of the endocrine functions, I thought the time had come to say that in parliament all Quebecers do not sing the same tune.
When I heard the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) express concern about what the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was doing, seek his assistance and his support, I must admit that I was flattered. I was flattered by this remark which was expressed many times by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) as well as by some other hon. members.
I thank them for their solicitude. As for their concern, I would say to them that this is only the beginning, and that, as the weeks go by, as the next election campaign gets nearer, my Social Credit friends will have excellent reasons for being more and more concerned; concerned about what will happen in the province of Quebec when the provincial government decides to go to the people.


An hon. Member:: It will be of great concern to Saint-Hyacinthe.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why that should concern my friends opposite, since I have not yet spoken about the present government. I have been speaking only of those who once claimed to hold the balance of power and who realized after the election that they held neither balance nor power.
Mr. Speaker, I can but smile at what I see here this evening, because we still have ringing in our ears the speeches that Social Credit members delivered to- us yes-

terday, the day before and during the last few weeks, while the official opposition was expressive what Canadians are thinking, in the form of non-confidence motions, while we were letting all members know that we had had enough of an impotent government that deserves to be thrown out.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, we listened to what the hon. member for Lotbiniere was saying about the Polymer Corporation, and to his frequent jibes at the official opposition; the member for Lotbiniere, Mr. Speaker, called us-


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as a member I think I have a question of privilege since I have been given, like my colleagues, a nonequivocal mandate to represent my fellow citizens in the House of Commons, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere. The Social Credit Party of Canada is not bound to defeat the government but to get further benefits for senior citizens.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to offend the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I would not like to hurt his feelings if I remind him that, for several hours and several days, through a useless exercise in "proceduritis", the Social Credit Party of Canada is delaying the payment of money due to senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, tonight we are snowed under a series of motions, amendments and procedural arguments of all kinds-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege on an extremely serious matter.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has just charged the Social Credit party of Canada of "petty proceduritis", but at least we do rise and make proposals in the House. At any rate, I suggest that according to our rules, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has no right to comment on rulings made by the Speaker, nor on the quality or the introduction of motions. The standing rule also provides that we do not have the right to determine or reflect on a member's behaviour with respect to a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, instead of wasting the time of the House as he is doing now, instead of accusing others of doing nothing, should rise in his place and say courageously, on behalf of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe, that he is in favour of old age security pension at age 60 and then, he will be doing the same as we are, that is he will have made a positive contribution toward improving the conditions of older people.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my privileges and the privileges of my colleagues, not only on this side of the House but on the other side also, have been infringed upon because we had to put up Monday with a ridiculous motion concerning a past sale, a motion introduced by the Progressive Conservative party to delay the business of
March 27, 1973

the House. Not a single word was uttered this afternoon and tonight we are being accused because five members have introduced motions on old age security pensions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member goes beyond the question of privilege originally raised. He is referring to a matter which was dealt with yesterday. I must say that the Chair has been preoccupied with the motion presented by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). I have not heard all that has been said, but I gather from what I have heard that the blows are about equal.
I hope hon. members will not consistently rise on questions of privilege which are really matters of debate. I will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Claude Wagner: Though I want to respect the privileges of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I would like to go on and say, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Claude Wagner: -I would like to go on and say, Mr. Speaker, that our friends of the Social Credit party have certainly not been guilty of benign "proceduritis" but I would say malignant "proceduritis" because when they were putting forward this shower of motions and amendments, and rising on points of order of all kinds, I wondered whether they were being ingenuous, unaware of the standing Orders or knowingly delaying the passage of this legislation.
And wnen 1 read through similar amendments, practically word for word, which were moved in this House on December 17, 1970 and which one can read on page 2162 of Hansard, when I find that the decisions of the Speaker were known by our colleagues of the Social Credit party, I wonder-though the Standing Orders prevent me from questioning faith-to what extent one may consider that they were earnest in the way they acted here. I will tell them of course that we have been ashamed by the way they have acted, but we are used to it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere was asking us a moment ago what is our position as regards the elderly. I will send him the text of the statement I made in this House on March 2, a copy of which has been distributed to all my constituents in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe. I will send a copy to the hon. member for Lotbiniere so that he be well aware of the fact that we, on this side of the House, are concerned about the welfare of elder people; we want the government to treat them with utmost justice; we want the government-


Marc Lalonde: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that all those who have spoken tonight have expressed concern for the aged and a desire to see this bill pass as soon as possible, I wonder, since everyone has had a good opportunity to express their views on the subject, whether we might not agree to put the question now.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Old Age Security Act


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like, with the support of my colleagues, to propose that the House continue to sit until the passage of this bill which is extremely important. We are willing to co-operate.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I for one would like to suggest, on behalf of my colleagues, that the question be put if need be, at ten o'clock, for in two minutes I will be through with my remarks.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would-
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would follow the debate, he would know that the House has not before it the motion of the hon. member for Shefford, concerning which the Chair has held up its decision and that consequently he cannot propose that the question be put at ten o'clock.
We agree unanimously to continue the proceedings to allow Mr. Speaker to rule whether our motion is in order; we agree that the vote be taken tonight in order to ensure that all parties in the House do like the Social Credit and work in favour of old people so that this problem may be settled once and for all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If it will help hon. members to feel better, I can advise the House that I shall be ready to render my decision in another five or ten minutes. I have the names of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) as wishing to take part in the debate. I see more hands raised. I am not obliged to see the clock until somebody tells me what time it is. Did an hon. member say it was ten o'clock?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere for this lesson in procedure and moreover I recognize that I am not as good as him in "proced urology."
Mr. Speaker, I was saying a few moments ago that although my colleagues and myself find that the increases proposed by the government are quite inadequate, we recognize that they constitute nevertheless a progress by which senior citizens will be able to profit as soon as possible. Along with all the other members, I think that it is desirable that one day we will be able to lower the age of eligibility to the old age security pension to 60. This is the direction in which we want to work and we will support the bill which is now before us.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, procedural subtleties should not be an obstacle to legitimate rights. Unfortunalely-I said it at the beginning and I shall conclude my remarks by repeating it, the show which our colleagues of the Social Credit

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
gave us is one that older persons did not deserve. I agree with my friends of the Social Credit on the increase in pensions. I agree that the age of eligibility should be lowered, but I cannot agree with their tactics which only too often use human hardship to promote their own interests.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the last person in the Conservative party caucus from whom I would have expected to hear such remarks, I think I should reply.
If the hon. member for Hillsborough and his colleagues consider the amount of money that the senior citizens of Canada are entitled to, and should be receiving, a political option, then we now know for certain where the Conservative party stands on this issue. Had the Conservative party made some definitive statement in terms of dollars and cents per month since the first of September last and the end of December, it probably would not have been a political option; indeed, they could now be occupying the treasury benches. Refusal to specify the exact sum, except in vague terms of cost of living index which would have brought the old age pension to something around $95 a month, meant that they lost what the hon. member for Hillsborough called the political option.
At least the Liberal party did not say anything during the election campaign about how much the pension should be raised. Then they came forward with something definite, the $100 figure. The hon. member for Hillsborough is now curling behind the glass. They can do better, he says, and he mumbles vaguely about a figure of $106.1 remember in 1956 the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was wagging his finger at the Liberal benches and talking about the "six bucks boys". Who are the "six bucks boys" now? Those who are going up from $100 to $106.
In addition to that, they have the gall to accuse the members of the Creditiste Party of delaying the passage of this bill when had their efforts succeeded on three or four previous occasions since January 4 this parliament would not have been sitting and there would not have beer; any increase in old age pensions. They have the gall to continue this kind of hypocrisy in respect of a debate on old age pensions. This shows them up, Mr. Speaker. Normally, I am very kind, quiet and benign in respect of my good friends in the Conservative Party, but tonight they have reached a low or a high, whichever way one looks at it. Certainly, we have some concrete evidence that the official opposition, the Conservative Party, has no policy and refuses to recognize the legitimate needs of the senior citizens of Canada in terms of the amount of dollars they should receive per month.
Where were they last October and last November? Had they responded in some positive manner to the proposals made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) on November 15, they could have been sitting on that side of the House by January 15. They sat and would not speak up. Now, the curling game is over. The hon. member for

Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is out behind the curtain. He never misses a shot. He regards us as being inadequate. What about last night? We do not consider this to be trafficking in political options. We consider this a golden opportunity. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), even at this eleventh hour, would propose that this bill be sent back to the committee for one day or if it is not in order for him to do so I would hope that right now he would make a significant gesture to the senior citizens by stating that this increase will be retroactive to the first of January so that they will receive some modest recognition.
He could also call upon his colleagues in the cabinet to implement a rent freeze to prevent the erosion of this increase in the old age pension. In some housing projects in some cities, already the entire increase has been eaten up through rent increases. The least the Minister of National Health and Welfare could do now at this eleventh hour would be to introduce a three-months retroactivity in respect of the pension increase to enable the old age pensioners to pay the unconscionable rent increases.
The hon. member for Hillsborough calls this a political auction. Who does he think he is kidding? In my opinion that is an unconscionable thing for him to say. He is the last member from whom I would expect to hear this. He has colleagues who are political dinosaurs from whom I would expect such things, but I would not expect them from him. If he, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) had any compassion back in November, December or January they would have said that a Conservative government would implement an old age pension increase to not less than $110 or $120 a month. They cannot have it both ways. Yet now they say they would do better.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would allow a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Heavens no, Mr. Speaker. I just want to ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder whether I have agreement to ask the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a heavenly point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I thought that when you rose you were going to recognize me inasmuch as I indicated during his speech that I wanted to ask the hon. member a question. I thought at that time you were going to allow me to ask the question. I then saw that I would not be recognized, and now I hope Your Honour will have
March 27, 1973

some consideration in this respect and will allow me to ask the hon. member one simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is extremely well taken, and I recognize from the smile on the face of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) that he would welcome the question of the hon. member.

I apologize to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who will have to be patient a little longer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This will not take very long, Mr. Speaker. I was very impressed with the hon. member's speech. I think we are all concerned about the plight of our senior citizens who, as I have often said, are the forgotten people of this country. But when we speak of principle, if I recall correctly the hon. member's party had submitted, without any hesitation or reservation, their recommendation for a pension of $150 a month and had said they would press for it and there would be no withdrawing. I would ask the hon. member how, in heaven's name, anyone can expect credibility after having sold out for a pension of $100 a month.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It gives me an opportunity to take a couple of minutes more to refresh the hon. member's memory on the policy of the NDP, which is that an NDP government would immediately implement an old age pension of $150 a month. In the course of the minority parliament the NDP took the position that we were going to get the most we could possibly get out of whoever was governing. It so happens, unfortunately for the senior citizens, that the most we could get out of anybody in this parliament was $100 a month from the Liberals. Had the hon. member's party been prepared to go to $106 a month back in October, by the middle of January they could well have been where the government is.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All I can say is, shame.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the time has come to hear the words of wisdom from the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind words regarding myself and if wisdom has not touched a person at my age, it never will.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to all the comments made in this House tonight. This does not mean that I accept all the arguments brought forward but, at any rate, I listened to them. I hope that, in turn, my colleagues will listen with patience to the few comments I wish to make on third reading of the bill.
What amazes me is that nearly all members in this House seem to agree that persons aged 60 have rights to increased pensions in order to allow them to live decently and in full security as they so richly deserve. However, we are presently prevented by the Standing Orders from implementing our good ideas.
Old Age Security Act
So I am rather astounded that the Standing Orders should prevent us from reaching the objective we all want to reach. Since our rules in fact prevent us from increasing the credits to meet our senior citizens' needs, I think that this House should at least be left with one role, namely that of drawing the people's needs to the attention of the government, of the Governor General so that the rights of the aged be recognized as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a simple remark to my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who earlier-injust I think-stated that the Creditiste members wanted to exploit human misery for petty political gains.
I think he did not mean what he said because I have here a report of the recommendations of a senate committee which conducted an investigation throughout the country to see whether there was poverty in Canada and what should be done to alleviate this poverty and establish a better degree of distribution of our wealth to meet the needs of the whole population and not only of two-fifths of it. I think that the senators were not being demagogic; they have found a fact and made recommendations.
I have also here a report published in a newspaper when the Liberal Party said that if they were elected they would establish a just society in Canada. If he wanted to establish a just society, it is because he was aware of some injustice in Canada.
It is precisely to perpetuate injustice when many individuals are left to live in inhuman economic conditions, while Canada can do better. I have also in hand a statement-and not the least-of Mr. Alfred Rouleau of the Desjardins credit unions to the effect that the eradication of poverty is a collective responsibility.
We are here to work together at finding a way to improve those conditions and in order to comply with the standing orders and procedure, we must restrict ourselves to make known, as I said a moment ago, the needs of the people.
If I take part in the debate on the bill concerning old age security, it is to convey the message of the senior citizens who do not have the means to lead a decent life. I suggest that it is inconceivable that in 1973, when the gross national production beats all records, in spite of thousands of unemployed, our country tolerates so much poverty. I am not ashamed of saying it because those are the facts.
Someone said one day that he who robs a man of his clothes shall be called a thief. He who does not cover a man who is naked when he can do so, does he deserve another name? It is not I who said that, but somebody else and I think that he was right.
Thousands of older people really suffer from this inhuman life, put up with a hard life and there is no law to guarantee them a fair and truly social minimum income.
Everybody wants it, we want it, but the procedure is stopping us, and I am anxious to see this elephantine procedure dealt with.
It so happens that there are thousands of couples who have to live on the pension of one spouse. How can one imagine that it is possible for two people to feed them-

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
selves, clothe themselves, get the required drugs, maintain a house, pay their fuel, taxes, electricity, telephone and sometimes a little trip to go and visit the children, which is quite normal and human, on such a small pension?
I know provincial governments have passed welfare legislation to help people in need and the government of Canada pays 50 per cent of those expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan.
In Quebec, since the revision of welfare legislation the rules are too stringent. When a person or a couple ask for help because they cannot support themselves, if they own a house, in most cases they have to part with it as a prerequisite for eligibility for assistance, which I consider inhuman.
I cannot bring myself to accept that after 40 or 45 years of hard work and often under difficult conditions to participate in the development of this country our people over 60 cannot be provided with better living conditions. The scandal of poverty and insufficient income of people 60 and over is obvious. Canada despite its immense resources is far from showing a comforting image to those who are hungry for human justice and dignity.
One Canadian out of three lives socially, economically, politically and culturally on the fringe of society. The living conditions imposed upon a great number of people over 60 are an insult to justice and an evil in one of the richest countries in the world.
We all bear collectively the responsibility for that situation. I accept readily that in the field of social security this country is one of the more advanced in the world but we can do even better and it is for that reason that I say we should take immediate action.
However fascinating because of horizons opened to us, the times which we are living are nevertheless often, alas, the source of many disappointments, particularly for those who are no longer admitted on the labour market and cannot receive a guaranteed income while awaiting the old age security pension.
The Christian message is clear: God is calling upon us by the signs of the time, by daily events. "Feed your starving brothren, clothe those who are cold, give a roof to the homeless." In concrete terms, Mr. Speaker, today that means there should be a minimum guaranteed annual income for each and everyone, and more specifically for people of 60 and over.
In a message released on the occasion of 1972 Labour Day, Canadian bishops expressed serious concern about the problem of distribution. It was called the "sharing message". And the problem of inadequate sharing is a real challenge for the bishops.
The message read as follows, and I quote:
PROSPERITY, FOR WHOM?
-FOR THE "SYSTEM"?
-FOR MAN?
Let us not be deluded by the theory that says that general economic prosperity ends up by being of benefit to all. Despite the increase in the GNP, unemployment remains a real plague just about everywhere throughout the world: the rich grow richer, the poor, poorer.
That is why we must talk about it and without delay.

Finally, I should like to quote you a last paragraph of that message on which we should meditate as legislators:
Over forty years go, Pope Pius XI reminded us that, on then-own, profit and economic growth ill-serve the people. "In the final analysis, any program intended to increase production has no object unless it serves man. Its purpose is to reduce disparities, fight against discrimination, free man of his bonds, enable him to be the master of his own material well-being, his moral progress and his spiritual fulfilment."
Like the so-called underdeveloped countries Canada needs new criteria of prosperity which will give priority to human fulfilment, co-operation and a sense of community. In the search for a new social approach, Christians must not stand on the sidelines. The values we live by dictate that we do. By withdrawing, we sin grievously against our social duty.
That is why we worked so hard, to try and help the government to get Parliament to pass legislation that corresponds to the ideas and principles that I have just mentioned. I quote again:
If Christians in Canada wish to contribute to building our society, they cannot fail to take note of new policies that aim at subordinating economic growth to a fairer distribution of the national income. And this objective can be achieved by applying a modern policy that established a guaranteed minimum yearly income based on the material potential of our country, and sufficient to enable people in these categories to lead a well-deserved normal life during their final years.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with that message and this is why I consider that the spouse should be eligible for the old age security pension, whatever his or her age, provided the other is eligible under the act.
I know in advance that I will be told that the most generous party in legislation concerning older citizens was the Liberal party. I do not question it, but I should like to add that this has been materially possible through the labour of the generations that preceded us and of the people now aged 50 or over.
The government only legislated in order that the benefits of a life within society be truly available to its members. I sometimes wonder about those people who, in their early life and even in the best year of their lives, have toiled for very long hours each day in return for very low salaries, and also about those who were in business, as merchants or farmers, who earned net incomes that were sometimes ridiculous and had to assume the whole cost of their children's education, and I compare to theirs the easy life of our young people today who reap the result of the endeavours of those who have today reached the sixties, and I submit that the legislators' duty is to adopt legislation guaranteeing those persons at least an honest subsistence, without their being compelled to crawl on their knees to beg their daily bread.
Many of those aged people who have weathered extremely difficult years have not made the count of their hours of labour, and it is thanks to their industriousness which spurred them that today's young people can benefit from numerous advantages in all respects, which the people aged 60 or over could never enjoy.
Is there a more noble deed for a couple, besides contributing to the development of their country, than having also provided it generously with the most lavish gift, that is human capital, making it the richer for the many children they bore and which are today its glory.
March 27, 1973

Who, Mr. Speaker, built these towns and villages that are the pride of our land? Who built our beautiful country parishes, not with the modern tools we have now, but, on the contrary, with makeshift means, by dint of ingenuity which I would call heroic? It is to elderly people, 60 years old or over, that we are indebted and should pay our debt with love and pride for the development of Canada an unprecedented record in the GNP, which enable us to increase substantially the old age security pension.
I received, not so long ago, a letter which read as follows:
Due to the precarious position of the federal government, the latter seems more willing to finally increase the old age pension. Mr. Lalonde talks about substantial increases, and we elderly people wonder if at last the old people will be able to receive at least the minimum recommended by the Royal Inquiry Commission on Poverty.
It is not possible, you will understand, for three persons, namely the father and the mother and a 17-year old student to get along with $170 per month. Besides this amount, there is a monthly allowance of $26 which is being paid by the Social Welfare which is far from being assured and which may be withdrawn at any time.
Mr. Lambert, you are aware that human beings need to have their needs satisfied adequately before wondering whether the money controllers will agree. If money is scarce, bread should be provided first and then games which have no priority. We, the aged citizens with family obligations, are asking why we are rationed because, indeed, getting these meagre pensions is actually like being rationed and if there is to be rationing, then everybody should be and not only the elderly persons. If you could, Mr. Lambert, you should require that the bill on old age pensions be introduced in priority and if Mr. Barrett, Premier of British Columbia is in a position to give $200 per month to his older citizens, why could we not do the same in Ottawa?
And it is signed: A lady from Sainte-Justine, Mrs. Antoine Blanchette.
Mr. Speaker, I could quote scores of other letters which are saying the same things, requesting their representatives to pass their message on to Parliament. If we receive such letters, discard them and fail to draw the attention of the government on them, people will come to detest their politicians even more and will say: We pay them for nothing; they cannot render justice where it is due.
That is the reason why I kept those letters and I used my privileges today, those that I still have, to give those examples and to ask once again the government to take action before it is too late.
So, Mr. Speaker, I shall not bother the house with all these letters, but at all events I wanted to show and prove that people aged 60 and more need the old age security pension, and this is not a whim, it is an acquired right. I know however that young couples with children tell us: You only talk about old age pension. There are young people who study. There are young people in the province, there are young people in our constituencies. What about family allowances? Of course, everything will be looked after in due course. They speak this way, however. They are the couples with children or couples who would like to have some. They tell us rightfully that family allowances should be increased substantially.
I am keeping in mind the statement made by the minister before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social
Old Age Security Act
Affairs that he will in the near future, after consultations with the provinces, bring in legislation to this effect.
I very much hope that at that time the government will bring in legislation that will be generous enough to spare us the need to propose amendments to try and have the rights of these Canadian families better recognized.
It is disturbing, Mr. Speaker, to note that in our country and more particularly in the province of Quebec, which has always had the highest birth rate, the province has had the lowest rate for the past two years.
And when the family allowance plan was established under legislation in 1945, there were people from the English provinces who said that this legislation would be profitable to the province of Quebec. Now, according to the budget tabled in the House a few days ago, it is seen that the largest estimates for family allowances will go to the province of Ontario during the next fiscal year. That goes to show the importance of adjusting our social measures to current needs and actual requirements, so as to further encourage our young people to fulfill their mission, as the people of 60 years old and over have done in the past. Therefore I wish that this legislation will soon be presented to the House.
In concluding my remarks, I say that I am already convinced that certain government members will say that the proposal I just made would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal Treasury. We know that, we are not stupid; we know that it is going to cost a lot. The important thing is to know that with that money, older people and young couples will be able to get the things they need.
But the problem does not lie there. If old age security pensions and family allowances were to be increased as I just proposed, will older people and young couples with children have enough money to buy whatever is required, to satisfy the needs of their family?
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks, I should like to invite the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde)-even if our standing orders do not allow it, he can take the liberty to do so since he is a minister of the Crown-to give his opinion on that question. A few minutes ago, I heard the words "Crown" and "Governor General". At least, I know the hon. minister of National Health and Welfare very well. I trust him and I hope that, during this session, he will be able to introduce a new bill to improve the lot of senior citizens, so that in 1973 the fact may be recognized that our old age security pensioners will become eligible at age 60 as well as their spouses even if they have not yet reached that age. This would still be more beneficial.
Therefore, I thank the House for listening to my comments. I have tried in a very objective way to thouroughly examine the problem and I have tried to avoid political partisanship, even though I wanted to make a few points at the beginning of my remarks. Therefore, I am convinced that, in the future, whenever somebody speaks about human misery and poverty in this House nobody will be accused of harboring any wrong intention and that we will all work together in order to find a solution to this problem and establish a just society in Canada.
2678

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, we have all been sitting here tonight in the hope that this piece of legislation will pass. I think there are thousands of Canadians who are as interested in the passage of this legislation as in anything else we might do. The fact is, we propose to give to each of the elderly persons in this country an extra $13.39 every month. Our great interest in this sum of money, and the necessity for this increase, is an indication of the plight in which the aged find themselves.
Our rules do not allow us to do some quite ordinary things. It would seem to me there are a number of things we should collectively be able to do but which we have not been able to do tonight because of the rules governing this House. Every member who has been here for any length of time is aware that if we increase the old age pension by $13.39 we are really providing very little of substance on which a family may live. Everyone is aware of the difficulty which arises when a husband is two or three years older than his wife, and dependent entirely upon the old age pension plus the guaranteed income supplement for sustenance. That means we will now give them a total sum of $170.14.
The Creditistes have at least tried their best but have been ruled out of order, and I have no complaint about that. But in this House tonight is the minister responsible for this department. He could easily get into his car and go through the archaic procedure of making a journey to the Governor General and getting the recommendation changed so as to add one or two simple provisions to the bill, provisions that would be of immense benefit to the senior citizens of this country. But he sits there asking that the bill be passed.
Are not the elderly people of this country in a pitiful state when whether they get along or do not get along depends upon keeping this government in power in order to provide them with a measly $13.39, be they single or married? It seems to me that one of the things we could have done was to make an allowance for women who are 61, 62 or 63 and obviously are not capable of earning additional income. We have already established that they would be unable to earn very much anyway because of the ceiling. They have to get along on $170.14, and we call ourselves civilized. We hide behind the Governor General's recommendation. I think this is a disgrace and the government should not be the least bit proud.
Some hon. member asked what we would do. I am not very good at arithmetic, but we said that we would give $150 to the senior citizens of this country. If you add to that the guaranteed income supplement, this will bring them up to about $240. Multiplied by 12 this produces a yearly income of $2,880. Many of our senior citizens are now trying to get by on that income. The government has not suggested that it will place a freeze on the rents and shelter costs of these elderly people; nothing of that sort has been done, though it is within our power to do it.
We have agreed to sit extra hours tonight since no one knows whether this parliament will exist two or three days from now. We are making an extreme effort, and for

what? For $13.39, an amount which quite often is divided between two people. Already the minister, who has some potential, is playing the game of "How cheaply can we get votes? How much do we have to spend? Let us divide this $13.39 between two people, and perhaps we will get both their votes".
I agree with another of the amendments which was proposed but ruled out of order because it did not meet the recommendation of the Governor General. Let us not kid ourselves about this; the Governor General has given no particular input to this resolution. This is a cabinet decision made out in the open, and it is strictly a question of: "How much can we get away with? What is the least that we can provide?" I say we should reduce the pensionable age to 60, and I suggest that this be done one year at a time, as we did in reducing the eligible age from 70 to 65.1 also suggest 55 as the age of voluntary retirement.
I am also aware that the minister must give consideration to another matter. Although the proposal will cost the Canadian people money, it will be of considerable benefit to every citizen. The minister will either have to pay some attention to it, or he will find that the elderly people of this country, who now receive a small pittance through the Horizons for the Aged program, will have to investigate this problem of retirement. It seems to me that if we do not retire people at a younger age, that is, if we do not move the age down to 60 and then down to 55, we will not be able to provide jobs for people in the 25 to 30 age bracket. If we do this, we will pretty soon have to commence an educational program for retired people that will encourage them by the knowledge that when they retire they will not be placed on the shelf waiting to die. They will know there are things they can do in retirement, for themselves and for the country, which will not interfere with the economic structure of our nation.
We must be in very bad shape in this country; frankly, I believe we must be in very bad shape in this parliament if we cannot implement the ideas of, I am sure, all members of this House in respect of reducing the age at which people may retire. We must be in pretty bad shape if we cannot provide for the person who quite often is forced to depend upon the breadwinner who merely has a pension on which to live. We have not been able to come up with a solution to that problem.
The minister can sit there and talk to his colleagues or do whatever he likes, but it seems to me that we should be able to do something about some of these questions which have been ruled out of order tonight. If we do not do something about these matters pretty soon, we will not be fulfilling our duty. I do not intend to make a long speech. We seem to have been playing politics year after year in respect of the treatment of old age pensioners. This year they are to receive an increase of $13.39 a month. I have seen the figure at $6. I saw it at $10 in another election. At one period I saw it at $2 odd. I believe at another time they received $15 in a roundabout way. I do not think we should use the old age pensioners as an election tool. We should consciously face up to these problems which all members recognize.
I have a problem. I would like to know what other members tell a man who says he will have to leave his wife because they cannot get along on his old age pension. I am speaking of a man who says that he must leave his
March 27, 1973

wife so that she can apply for assistance from either the municipality or the provincial government. This reminds me of a story about a gentleman whose wife was terminally ill. He did not have enough money to pay the hospital bill or to buy drugs. But if she were living on welfare the drugs and hospital bills would be looked after. While she is dying of a terminal disease, he has to go to court to obtain special permission to divorce her so that she can be looked after in hospital. I do not know whether this happened in Canada, but the situation here is almost that bad.
I suggest that all hon. members know this problem. It is a problem which affects all of us. We receive letters from people saying they are trying to get along on one old age pension and one guaranteed income supplement. These people have no other income. Something should be done about this problem. We in this House should be ashamed of ourselves when we become involved in passing a bill to provide an old age pensioner with an additional $13.39 without considering some of the other problems which are immediate and affect a large number of our senior citizens.
We have not given any consideration to the question of rent control or shelter control for the elderly people. Many of them will find that the $13.39 will never accrue to them but will in fact go to the landlords who are collecting the rent. We have not given consideration to rent control or shelter control for the elderly people and many of them will find that the $13.39 will never accrue to them but will, in fact, go to the landlords who collect the rent.
Finally, I presume you, Mr. Speaker, will have to rule the amendment that is now before us out of order because of our rules. I do not intend to delay this bill, Mr. Speaker, because I am aware that the needs of our senior citizens are great and that this House must give consideration to the problem that is now developing. We are finding that more and more people working in our factories are living in a world of fantasy. They work every day thinking of the tourist camp they are going to buy or of the boat they are going to build in order to travel around the world. Their fantasy about retirement, however, never materializes. I think it is our responsibility to assist those who are about to retire and we should start fairly early, prior to their retirement. We should build for them an educational system which will enable them to cope with unemployment rather than to live in the fantasy which will obviously never materialize. The fact that so many of the people who retire live only a short period of time thereafter indicates their great need.
I hope that this House does continue sitting for some time, especially if I were sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would give some consideration to these serious problems that have been raised tonight and that have met with obstacles from our rules. There are immediate problems that are known to each member here and I doubt if any of us, in all conscience, can accept the pittance that is being offered without giving some consideration in the near future to the other problems that are just as immediate and just as important for a large segment of our senior citizen population in this nation.
Old Age Security Act


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, apparently there is disposition to finish this important item, and I am wondering if we could make a deal with those who feel they have to make a contribution at this late hour to cut their speeches to a bare minimum. We are worrying about the old people, but we should show some concern for our staff also.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should have allowed the hon. member to make his point of order after I had read my decision on the point raised earlier this evening, otherwise I might fall into the category which draws his concern.
Earlier this evening the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) presented an amendment, and I will now make my ruling upon it. I wish to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) for their assistance to the Chair on the question that has given me considerable difficulty.
The bill before us contains a simple provision. It deals with the basic amount of pension under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act. It does seem to me that little in the bill goes beyond that point. I ask myself: what would the amendment do? I suggest that it proposes that a committee of the House consider the qualifications for a pension payable under the Old Age Security Act. The motion does not say that the amount of the pension should be altered. But the hon. member for Shefford in his amendment does propose the study of the conditions by which a person becomes eligible for the pension. It does seem to me that he is endeavouring to reach in behind the bill now before us for the purpose of amending the enabling legislation. Otherwise, for what purpose would the committee consider the formula? In doing so, his proposal is not really relevant to the provision in the bill before us, and it is a fundamental rule that the amendment must be relevant to the question.
I can understand his zeal in endeavouring to make a change in an important measure. However, as a servant of the House I can only deal with any question in accordance with what I believe to be the strictures laid down for the guidance of the Chair.
May I draw the attention of hon. members to part of citation 418 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I read the second sentence which is as follows:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
I re-emphasize that in my opinion the amendment is not relevant, but it is close to the line, and that has given me difficulty in deciding. With regret, I cannot put the amendment to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wish to express my opinion which is shared by almost all Canadians as regards the bill before us, Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is mainly designed to increase the basic old age security pension to a maximum of $100 a month.
26087-24J

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
We, in the Social Credit Party of Canada, have asked the government on several occasions to take steps in this direction. The answer that has been given to us for many years was that this measure might ruin Canada, bring about inflation, and so on.
It is strange to see that a minority government is less afraid of inflation and all this nonsense than a majority government, even if it is run by almost the same people.
On May 4, 1970, the majority Liberal government voted against an increase in old age security pensions. On October 21, 1971, we, in the Social Credit Party, introduced a motion with a view to lowering the eligibility age to 60 and increasing pensions. The Liberals recognized at that time that this motion was justified, but they did not do anything. They were a majority government and I believe that this was the main reason.
It is obvious that all members will vote for this bill. But I regret deeply that the government has not deemed advisable to include in this bill an overall reform of the present system in this area, a reform which was, in a way, underlined in today's order paper under notices of motions, pursuant to Standing Order 75(5).
Mr. Speaker, three members of the Social Credit Party have asked the government to consider today increasing the pension from $100 to $200, allowing every person of 60 or over to become eligible for the old age pension if desired, and every person whose spouse has reached 60 to get automatically a monthly $200 pension.
I am convinced that within a few years or within some time, if we of the Social Credit Party continue to apply pressure on the government on the matter, and if the population is aware of what is going on here, we will obtain the increase in the old age security pensions and the lowering of the eligibility age to 60. I greatly regret that the government goes for small doses, quietly, while trying to create for itself a small political capital each time it takes a turtle's step forward in this field.
Why wait, Mr. Speaker? Canadians at age 60 have paid enough taxes and have worked hard enough to get this inalienable right.
Many people aged 60 must now seek their living from provincial social welfare offices. It is a shame in a country as rich as ours.
Why increase old age pensions to only $100? Is Canada so poor? Are we short of wheat in Canada? No, Mr. Speaker, because western farmers are paid not to produce. Are we short of milk in Canada? No, Mr. Speaker, the farmers who exceed their milk quota are penalized. Are we short of manpower? No, Mr. Speaker, our unemployed have become legions. Are we short of natural resources? There are so many that the government thinks it should subsidize these resources, especially the companies exploiting them, to maintain prices.
For many years, at all levels of government, remedies to unemployment have been sought as well as solutions to reach a certain justice in distribution. At this stage of my speech, I would like to quote an extract from an editorial dealing with the subject as follows:
For the last five years, all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal have done their utmost to find remedies to two evils which seem to be here to stay: inflation and unemployment.

In spite of the efforts of the authorities, the results are quite relative, particularly as far as unemployment is concerned: it is not unreasonable to think that the situation is not getting better because the means used are for the most part very short term ones.
However there is a suggestion that governments might do well to examine to alleviate unemployment, and it is to set the retirement age at 60 and to grant at that time all the social benefits presently linked to the pension at 65, that is to say, the full old age pension, the complete payment of the pension fund benefits and the pension the retired person contributed to when he was at an employer's service.
I guess some people will object that not all workers would accept with pleasure to retire at 60 because they are still able to work and the situation does not enable them to envisage a reduction of income.
To this serious objection, it must be answered that possible legislation in this direction could provide that retirement at 60 would be optional and not compulsory.
It is of course impossible to go into the particulars that such legislation could include, but it is certain that several jobs could be held by young workers who are only waiting for an opening to enter the labour market and on the other hand, those who would voluntarily retire at 60 could enjoy a much longer period of rest and leisure-
Mr. Speaker, like the editorial writer, I agree that a peson of 60, who has worked hard all his life and who wants to retire, should have the choice to get his old age security pension in order to leave his job and to rest while travelling or doing odd jobs in order to enjoy the last years of his life.
Mr. Speaker, I think we lack nothing in Canada or, rather, we lack a government which will one day succeed in establishing greater distributive justice. I think it's the only thing lacking, and I hope that the people will soon have had enough of those governments with temporary and inefficient solutions, of those governments that give sparingly to the little men, and that give generously to the big men, of those governments that force the older citizens to beg at the provincial welfare offices, and to beg day after day for a small allowance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was an understanding, not the kind that is signed, sealed and delivered, but a kind of understanding that this debate would not go beyond eleven o'clock. I wonder whether there could not now be a formal understanding that the question be put at 11.15. I am prepared to sit all night to get this bill through, but-


An hon. Member:: We should vote before twelve. [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are still keeping to the agreement reached by the representatives of the four parties. As to us, we would like one of our colleagues to have the floor for five minutes. I know that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has expressed his desire to speak; consequently, I suggest that around 11.15 or 11.20 the question could be put.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is to the effect that the House agree to a definite time.
March 27, 1973



The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised a very valid point, that there was an apparent understanding that the House would extend its sitting from ten o'clock until eleven o'clock. We have now gone beyond that time.

In other words, the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to the effect that the House agree on the exact time at which the question will be put.
Does the House agree to proceed until 11.20?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement. But I would attach to that agreement, and I hope this does not confuse Your Honour, the condition that if there is a vote by any strange circumstance, it be deferred until tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John Lancaster (Mr. Bell) suggests that, if there is to be a vote, it be held tomorrow, or at some other time than tonight.

Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere and all other hon. members agree that at 11:20 the debate be interrupted by the Chair to put the question and if, by any chance, there should be a vote, that this vote be deferred.
For the time being, we shall have the pleasure of hearing the hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I should like to remind the house leaders of each party that when there is a proposed agreement between the parties on a time limit, the independent members should be called and advised accordingly.
The hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin), I think, reminds me that a party is useful, but people forget that I nevertheless have been sent here by the electors of a riding, and this in a very definite and clear way. In view of this mandate, I fully intend to take advantage of my privileges to state that agreements are always reached among parties without my being advised.
I should like to remark, Mr. Speaker, that I for one cannot accept that business be adjourned at 11:20 or 11:21. Any way, I have a few words to say and so perhaps have other hon. members, but I remind those responsible in the various parties that when there is a discussion about agreeing on a time limit, they must not forget to contact the present speaker, because there are 18,000 voters who have asked him to come here and express their feelings.
Mr. Speaker-
Old Age Security Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member should be reminded that there are two independent members in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: It was assumed that the hon. member was speaking on behalf of both independent members.


Roch La Salle: In my turn, I would say to the hon. member that I did say: the independents.
I want to make it clear that I have no trouble getting information from my colleague.
I would like to take advantage of this debate which, according to certain people, is going too far but which, to me, is a most serious and important debate. Contrary to those who blamed the Creditiste members for wasting the House's time, I commend them for fighting this battle today in the House and for emphasizing more than ever the importance of retirement at 60.
Even though it might be thought that there are few advantages outside a party, I have the advantage of being able to speak objectively and tonight I can congratulate my friends to my right, while others will only criticize them, because tonight they deserve it. They are raising an important question. They have decided to make the minister and this government aware of the importance of old age security at 60.
Besides, we all know that a great majority of hon. members would be in favour of old age security at 60 were it not for party lines. We should not go beyond that even though the principle is quite valid and justified.
Therefore, I would like also to commend the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who admitted-
Mr. ]acques Olivier (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Joliette but the hon. member for Longueuil is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, the member for Joliette suggests that members who belong to a party have their arms twisted so that they will remain silent or represent their constituents unsatisfactorily. I wish to point out to the hon. member for Joliette that even those who belong to a party can speak and do so without creating a commotion.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I heard the remark of the hon. member for Longueuil and when he says that he can express his views as member of a party, I hope that he will do it on the very important bill now under consideration.
I would like to congratulate the member for Timiskaming who readily acknowledged the validity of the proposals made by the Social Credit Party of Canada today but which were rejected. I was pleased just the same to note that those suggestions were discussed as they contain some opinions which I have personally upheld in this

March 27, 1973
Old Age Security Act
house for two or three years. Those are proposals which truly affect the day-to-day reality.
However, I should like to urge the hon. member for Timiskaming-I do not know if he can succeed-to convince his colleagues to act in the same direction. We did not get the same version from all the members of the New Democrat party and I must say that during the debate on the budget, I was very disappointed to see that the New Democratic party did not see fit to move an amendment that would have taken into account the feelings shown earlier by the member for Timiskaming. We must ask ourselves several questions. I think that all those who are in this House now know the answer.
Mr. Speaker, let us think a little about the 60-year-old people who, of course, are certainly interested to know the results of today's debate and want the bill to be passed. We know perfectly well that thousands of individuals in Canada look forward to old age security at 60. In my riding, on 12,000 letters which were sent out, I received about 6,000 answers 98 per cent of which were in favour of the implementation of old age security at 60.
Finally, a resolution of the central council of the Confederation of National Trade Unions also recommended to give the necessary support to the implementation of old age security at 60. However, I know that the minister recently announced that the operation of the policy on old age security at 60 could cost Canadians $1 billion.
It is easy to say what such a proposal can cost. It would perhaps be interesting, for example, to ask the minister how much the 550,000 unemployed are costing the country.
In view of the total cost of unemployment it is reasonable to hope that greater access to old age security pensions would create jobs for younger people who would occupy the positions left vacant by pensioners, and consequently the new measure would not cost Canadians $1 billion.
We recognize readily that a government has the responsibility to restore or create a suitable social climate. So the amendments which were moved and the discussions which took place in this House today call for old age pensions at 60. We have also discussed the possibility for someone who is not yet 60 to qualify for old age security if his spouse is eligible.
Finally, I think that those measures are pressing at this time. We know that such a policy would result in a decrease in unemployment because granting old age security pensions at the age of 64 would affect some
140,000	people.
It is reasonable to assume that the in the neighbourhood of 100,000 new jobs would be created if those people retired, and they could do it with a suitable pension. That would be a good solution in view of the failures we witnessed in the last five years in trying to curb unemployment. In fact, in spite of all the efforts that were made, including the capital injected in the economy, the rate of unemployment has tripled. I do not say that the government has done nothing. On the contrary, it has spent a lot of money and has tried to think up all kinds of ways of reducing the unemployment rate, but with totally unsatisfactory results.

I therefore think that a great many Canadians are demanding legislation aimed at giving the old age security pension at 60. Before proceeding to third reading of the bill before us, we should make a thorough study of this.
The effect of such a policy would be to restore the social climate, and I do not think I am exaggerating. Those pensioned at 60 would without a doubt be much happier people. That would be preferable by far to paying welfare allowances to young people, which is to give one's blessing to the decadence of a whole generation. I also believe workers would willingly contribute a part of their taxes to obtain old age security at 60. The security this would mean for the individual when he reaches the age 60 is, in my opinion, something which must definitely be taken into consideration.
This would also do away with the necessity for the worker's contribution to a pension fund because of the present lack of security. The 60-year old worker, because of technological changes, of modern machines, would welcome being given security at 60. We are quite aware of the fact that from 60 to 65 that individual works himself to death and often is incapacitated when he ceases to work. Therefore, I believe we have much to gain by supporting this policy and I am grateful to all those who were kind enough to encourage it and who brought up arguments to convince the minister that granting the old age security pension at 60 is a pressing matter.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is therefore decidedly inadequate. Of course, there is an increase for those who are 65, but the Speech from the Throne had led us to believe, unless I am mistaken, that many more Canadians would get the old age security pension in view of the amendments that would be introduced in the House. There will be more pensioners, naturally, because more Canadians will be 65 this year, but that is the only change. The Speech from the Throne had stirred hope amongst poeple of 60 and more. How many of them, in my riding and elsewhere, I am sure, fret and worry, asking: Is it possible, is it true that we will at long last get the old age security pension at 60?
So I take the liberty of asking again the minister to consider seriously providing old age security at 60 and also of blaming the opposition parties, because they could have forced the government to take action in that connection. I remember that the hon. member for Saint-Hyaein-the (Mr. Wagner) had made much of old age security at 60 during the last election campaign and I said that I would be very pleased to support him to the extent-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member. I was under the impression that there was an agreement to put the question at 11.20. If there is no such agreement, we should adjourn the debate until tomorrow, and this is what I suggest to the hon. members. First, we agreed to proceed until 11 o'clock, and then until 11.20. If there is no agreement to that effect, the hon. member for Joliette having indicated earlier that he does not feel bound by the commitment made by the spokesmen for the various parties, I suggest that it would be suitable at this time to adjourn our proceedings.
March 27, 197,3


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to hon. members that if the hon. member for Joliette wants to move an amendment, the debate of course will continue and it would be appropriate therefore that we adjourn proceedings.
Old Age Security Act

Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 11.22 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Wednesday, March 28, 1973