1967-10-27

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1967-68

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency, the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1968, was presented by Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-174, to amend the Interest Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to limit the rate of interest that may be charged on mortgages of real estate in Canada. At the present time the great mass of the population are finding it increasingly difficult to acquire homes of their own, to a large extent because of the very high rates of interest that prevail across the country on mortgages of real estate, something that should not be necessary so far as secured creditors are concerned.
This bill is merely an attempt by a member of this house to amend the Interest Act to deal with the situation. Mortgages of real estate in which the principal moneys are made payable to the government of Canada or any crown corporation have had to be exempted from the provisions of the bill in order that a private member of parliament may not be barred by law from introducing the legislation.
I am sure the house will welcome an opportunity, brief though it may be, to have a discussion on the bill as a whole. This is an attempt to discipline a wayward economy-


Mr. Siarr:: Have the Minister of Labour speak up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Elisha Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-175, to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights with respect to official languages.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bill of Rights is silent on the right of Canadian citizens to use both official languages. It appears highly desirable that Canadian citizens feel at home from coast to coast, and the purpose of this bill is to ensure that they be in a position to use either the English or the French language throughout the land. It is not the purpose of this bill to compel anyone to speak two languages, but to declare the practical equality of both languages. It is but one step in the direction of Canadian unity.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, I object to first reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I object to this first reading, I will object to second reading, and I will object to third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ricard:: If I understand well, you will object all the way around.
Oclober 27, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I am glad my hon. friend, who is generally so helpful, has asked this question. Relations between Canada and the United States are as friendly as they have ever been. I wish to pay this tribute to the United States; that notwithstanding differences that develop with regard to various aspects of the foreign policy pursued in particular instances by both countries, the United States continues to show, as one would expect, appreciation of the value of the friendship it has had with this country for such a long time. I hope no question put by my hon. friend would be directed for the purpose of trying to create a different impression.']
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the inspired leaks apparently coming from cabinet sources dealing with vast sums of money respecting both the 1968-69 and 1967-68 estimates, would the minister not reveal to the house, either on motions or in some other manner, the details of these alleged cuts and where they have taken place, department by department, as we are now dealing with the estimates?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there were any leaks, but in any case they were certainly not inspired by government members. In due course I intend to state the position before the House of Commons.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. This is a serious situation and may well constitute a point of privilege, although at the moment I am putting it as a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please state his question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: My question is, will the minister tell us where these supposed cuts are to take place? We are dealing with the 1967-68 estimates today.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Let the minister answer the question. He seems ready to do so.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know the stories that have appeared in the press are pure speculation. I expect to put the situation before the house in a factual manner when the question can be discussed. I will have no hesitation in doing so, but I can only say that these stories which have appeared are pure speculation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that no cuts are being made in the 1967-68 estimates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[Mr. Ricard.l


Stanley Howard Knowles: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, relates to the announcement by the minister that he would place this matter before the House of Commons. Can he tell us whether he will do so by way of a statement on motions or by the introduction of legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not in a position to answer that question today.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, was the supplementary question asked by the hon. member for Perth not in order?


Mr. Speaker:: It was out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then may I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he or any of his colleagues intend to make reductions in the 1967-68 estimates which are presently before the house or will be coming before the house within the next two or three days?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government's intentions with respect to this matter will be made known in due course. I can see nothing to be gained by adding to the speculation.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the Minister of Finance. We only have four days left in which to consider the estimates of the fiscal year 1967-68, and surely the Minister of Finance cannot put us off by saying "in due course". We have to know now, while we are considering these estimates in the next three or four days what he intends to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's point is a point of argument and debate; obviously it is not a question of privilege. The hon. member knows that according to the rules of the house an hon. member has the right to ask a question, but he cannot insist on an answer or insist on receiving the answer which he would like to hear from the minister.


Michael Starr: May I put a supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there are only four days left for the consideration of the 1967-68 estimates, will the Minister of Finance make a statement on Monday and tell us where the cuts have been made in the present estimates and expenditures?
October 27, 1967


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; that is not my intention.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin {Peace River): I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether any of the items in the supplementary estimates for 1967-68 tabled today amounting to some $80 million are items which were considered proper to be placed in the 1968-69 estimates.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch the exact significance of the question.


Mr. Baldwin:: Are any of the items which appear in the supplementary estimates of some $80 million just tabled by the minister items which normally would have been placed in the 1968-69 estimates?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nowlan:: I have a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There have been six, seven or eight supplementary questions asked on this matter. I would now like to recognize the hon. member for York South.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and is related to questions which were asked earlier. In view of an earlier answer by the minister, and in view of the house leader's announcement last night that the estimates of three departments would be considered today, those being the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Industry and Public Works, involving the expenditure of over $630 million, will the Minister of Finance tell the house whether the spending estimates of those departments are to be reduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: There will be ample opportunity to discuss that question when those estimates are before the house.


Michael Starr: Will the minister be in the house?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and
Inquiries of the Ministry ask him the following. In view of the continuing escalation of the bombing of North Viet Nam despite the appeal made at the UN general assembly by him and by representatives of other governments, is the government of Canada taking steps to follow up these appeals by some appropriate approach to the United States administration in Washington?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister inform the house whether these approaches that he says are being made are being made jointly with other interested governments and, in general, what is the nature of these approaches?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In this matter, as in other matters, we have consultations with friendly countries and these consultations extend to this situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the great differences of opinion between Canada and the United States, what steps is the minister taking to re-establish friendly relations with that country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad my hon. friend, who is generally so helpful, has asked this question. Relations between Canada and the United States are as friendly as they have ever been. I wish to pay this tribute to the United States; that notwithstanding differences that develop with regard to various aspects of the foreign policy pursued in particular instances by both countries, the United States continues to show, as one would expect, appreciation of the value of the friendship it has had with this country for such a long time. I hope no question put by my hon. friend would be directed for the purpose of trying to create a different impression.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Patierson@Fraser Valley: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has receive any formal protest from United States authorities over the government's announced intention to proclaim new territorial and fishing limits.
October 27, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to this question I would remind my hon. friend that in 1964 parliament enacted the 12 mile fishing zone limit with the provision that a straight base line system should be adopted by Canada. This is now the law of the land. This system is being implemented by Canada in a way which takes into account the treaty and traditional fishing rights of other countries, including the United States.
The action taken by Canada follows precedents set by many countries including Norway, Iceland, Britain, Denmark, Ireland and many others. The United States has had consultations with Canada. They knew of the steps we were proposing to take. I understand fully the nature of the statement made by the United States yesterday, but this is a matter in which I am afraid friendly countries may have to disagree.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask a
supplementary question. I think the appropriate word to apply to the minister's statement is "sinuosity", because it leaves us in confusion. Can the minister say whether consideration has been given to a statement by Mr. Robert McCloskey of the state department that the United States has no intention of recognizing the straight base lines which Canada proposes to introduce?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What an individual may say about the law of another country is for that individual, but the clear fact is that parliament, in the exercise of its sovereign authority, has taken a decision. The law of the land will be observed by Canadians pursuant to an enactment of this parliament.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: In
view of the United States refusal to recognize Canada's position, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider withdrawing Canada's recognition of United States historic treaty rights to fish within our waters?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Do the United States objections not stem, at least in part, from the doubt of the United States regarding Canada's ability to maintain its sovereignty over some of these bodies of water which would become national waters, and also the precedent from the defence point of view which would be created in some other sensitive parts of the world?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that in 1963 the Prime Minister of Canada advised the then president of the United States of Canada's intention to establish a 12 mile fishing zone limit. The government of the United States would have preferred Canada not to take this course, but we have taken this course and parliament has enacted such a measure.
Since then the United States itself has enacted a measure providing for a 12 mile fishing zone limit. We long ago advised the United States of our intention to establish the straight base line system, and this we have done in a particular area that should be non-controversial. We see no reason to apologize in any way for the action we have taken. Our policy is in accord with our view of international law, and is based on precedents taken by other countries in the exercise of what they believe to be international law.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister taken any action to resolve this very difficult problem by some form of international agreement, or by sponsoring the calling of another international conference on this question so there will be common ground? It is easy to say that we believe we are within the law, but is it not true-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask a question.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion Soulh):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister referred to the law passed in 1964, and he said it would be observed by Canadians. Does the minister not realize that the law enacted by parliament in 1964 was meant to be observed not by Canadians but by foreign countries; and in what way is this government going to enforce that law?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the way that all laws of Canada are enforced.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to report to the house on any results obtained this morning at the meeting in Ottawa of the federal government, the government of the province of Nova Scotia and the officials of Dosco?
October 27, 1967


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. The meeting this morning was chaired by the Prime Minister, and it will continue for part of the rest of the day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the rising and serious tension in the Middle East and the grave situation created thereby, if he can tell the house whether the government of Canada is making any representations against the revived sale of arms by both the United States and the U.S.S.R. to countries in that area. If so, what has been the effect of those representations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that it was our practice not to sell arms to sensitive areas. I stated that we have strongly supported the lead given by President Johnson that there should be a limitation by the great powers in particular on the export of arms to the Middle East. The fact that one large power has been supplying arms to one side undoubtedly has caused a reconsideration of the position of the government of the United States in this matter. I can say no more at the present time than that some discussions are taking place about this matter.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now in a position to state what consideration has been given to the Vancouver city council resolution of October 3, conveyed to him on October 6 and on which I asked a question of the Prime Minister on October 10, requesting that the principle of the winter works policy be applied to meet Vancouver housing requirements? Has any decision been reached in this matter?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, no action has been taken and

Inquiries of the Ministry no decision has been reached on the suggestion put forward. Yesterday I was in touch with the chairman of the housing committee of the city of Vancouver, and on the previous day with the provincial minister responsible. These discussions are to be followed by others in Vancouver not next week but early in the following week.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister, in view of what he has said, whether the proposal of Vancouver is on the agenda of the federal-provincial housing conference which is to be held in December.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The agenda has not yet
been settled, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Labour, in his capacity as reporting to the house with respect to housing matters, now prepared to answer the related question which the acting house leader took as notice the other day? The question is, since the government of British Columbia has now approved the 12 long delayed public housing projects for the city of Vancouver, could the minister say when they will be approved by the federal government?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Answering the hon. member's question, may I say that I understand that the provincial government's approval of the program to erect approximately 1,000 houses in Vancouver and elsewhere in the lower mainland area of Vancouver has been approved in principle by an overwhelming vote of the Vancouver city council. Some details need to be worked out, however, since the significance or meaning of the suggested ceiling of $12,000 per unit has not been settled. In my recent conversations with the chairman of the housing committee of the Vancouver city council-conversations to which I have already referred-I was told they were pursuing this question actively with the provincial government. No formal proposal has been made to the federal government because the matter has not been cleared by the two lower levels of government concerned, but I am encouraged by recent developments.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister has announced that a housing conference is to be held, and since there is widespread interest in that conference, is consideration being given to allowing members of the
Oclober 27, 1967

Inquiries oj the Ministry house to be spectators, at least, at this conference? If that is not proper, will consideration be given to releasing to members of the house the various submissions from the provinces dealing with the housing problem?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Perhaps it is a little early to answer that question. I feel that if we are to really come to grips with this serious and difficult problem then the discussions between provincial and federal governments must be frank, and should be kept out of the political arena. As to what reports ought to be distributed, that is a matter to which further consideration will need to be given.


Reid Scott: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the widespread feeling that the parliament of Canada has been superseded by federal-provincial conferences in this area, would the minister at least undertake to consider the suggestion that has just been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: My
question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the Canadian National has currently announced that it will lay off 450 men in the Atlantic region, or 3 per cent of the C.N.R. work force of that region, will the minister look into the matter with his officials and investigate it with a view to providing employment for these men?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Immediately, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration confer with the Minister of Transport and make certain that these men are not being laid off because of recent rate increases and the disastrous falling off of traffic in the area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is related to the one posed a few

moments ago by the hon. member for Pictou and to the minister's reply regarding the layoffs of employees in the C.N.R. Atlantic region. What other measures will be taken to provide employment for these men who are laid off or who will be laid off, apart from providing grants and one way tickets out of the Atlantic region?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question which can only be answered by way of a general statement, something which should be made on motions rather than by way of an answer to an oral question.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE SALE TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Waison (Assiniboia):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and has to do with the Canadian wheat situation. Has the government any immediate plan to expand our declining wheat sales and negotiate a contract with China? This has not been done up to the present time, as disclosed by Mr. J. B. Lawrie, assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board in a speech to the Manitoba wheat pool.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this cannot be asked as an oral question at this time.


Lawrence E. Watson: May I rephrase my question. Has the government plans to negotiate a new wheat deal with China, to help our declining wheat sales?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, we have plans to endeavour to negotiate a contract with China, to that end.


Michael Starr: In what year?


Robert Henry Winters: Recently when I was in Japan with the wheat board the assistant chief commissioner stopped off in Hong Kong. Contact was made with the wheat negotiators from China, and arrangements have been made for a further meeting in Peking.
October 27, 19G7



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question will undoubtedly make the Conservative Orangeman and hon. member for York-Humber happy.
The Estates General of French Canada will meet soon in Montreal and that will be one of the most important nationalist demonstrations ever held. Here is my question and I direct it to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to recommend to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission to delay its report until the results of that meeting are known?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, every other question on this subject has been a request to expedite the report. I think we should get that report as quickly as possible.



HIGHWAY SAFETY

[Stage Direction]
RECALL OF DEFECTIVE VEHICLES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: In the absence of the Minister of Transport may I direct my question to the acting minister. Has there been any communication between the government and the motor vehicle industry of Canada relating to the massive recall of defective vehicles from our roads this week?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: shall discuss that with the Minister of Transport. This entire subject is very high on his priority list.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Registrar General. It is supplementary to the question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. I wonder if the Registrar General, in drawing the attention of the Minister of Transport to this massive call back of G.M. cars, would ask the minister to make an early statement regarding implementation of the vehicle safety program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



WINNIPEG-OPERATION OF OVERHAUL BASE TO BE CONTINUED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to confirm as government policy the statement made in Winnipeg last night by the Minister of Transport that the government's commitment to keep the Air Canada base in Winnipeg in operation until 1973 will be honoured?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister made a statement to that effect, and I am glad to confirm it.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Transport will meet with officials of Air Canada to make clear to them this government policy, so we shall have no further misunderstanding.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday just before the end of the question period the hon. member for Nickel Belt asked me whether I had received a letter from the maintenance of way brotherhood with regard to lay-offs in the Calgary area. A similar question was asked a day or two ago by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I intimated that such a representation had been received. It has been replied to by my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I found it difficult yesterday to understand the reason for a second question, because the answer given by my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration seemed to me to have dealt with the matter. As recorded at page 3500 of yesterday's Hansard the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I promised the hon. member for Bow River to give him a report on the employment situation at the C.P.R. terminal shops in Calgary, where 400 men were laid off. Most of them have been called back; they know their return date. If a few of them are not rehired it will be quite easy to find jobs for them, because they are highly skilled labour.
3564	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
That answer by my colleague accounts for my difficulty in failing to understand the significance of and the reason for the question yesterday.


Thomas Miller Bell: Ten o'clock. [Later:]


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question I asked the Minister of Labour had no connection with the Calgary lay-offs. My question was in connection with a letter which I understood was sent to the Minister of Labour regarding the imminent lay-off of a great number of maintenance of way employees, employed from Port Arthur east, in the eastern regions of the C.P.R. and C.N.R. systems.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I might say I did receive an inquiry some days ago from a local of the maintenance of way brotherhood, I think it was local 414, in which they raised some questions arising from a collective agreement. As the hon. member knows and as I am sure all hon. members know, where you have clauses setting rights out in collective agreements, usually there is provision in the agreement for arbitration of those clauses. In the reply which went out from my office to the local, attention was drawn to the arbitration procedures, with the suggestion that they follow through themselves on the provisions contained in the agreement.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before asking a supplementary question may 1 say that possibly the arbitration provisions of the collective agreement do not apply to the matter. I want to ask the minister whether he or his department has given consideration to holding discussions with the management of both the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. concerning their lay-offs of section gangs.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My reaction to this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that I think I should first have a reply from the local concerned to the letter we sent them some days ago before we decide what should be done.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to address to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I am sorry for not having been able to give him notice of it. Last evening
IMr. Nicholson.]
DEBATES	Ociober 27, 1967
when the worthy Marquis of Montcalm was opening the Pageant of Canada he held up Canada as an example of unity to all the world. Was he referring to the reception given yesterday to the Minister without Portfolio at the University of Montreal?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, due to rumours that are current around the house at this time, and in order to reassure those persons who believe in the practice of democratic principles, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Because the hon. member on many occasions has objected to Liberal policy and to the actions of certain Liberal cabinet ministers, is there any truth in the rumour that the hon. member for York-Humber is likely to be expelled from the Liberal party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Registrar General. In view of the report in today's press of the great success of the government of Nova Scotia in introducing legislation to give protection to the consumers of that province, is the minister familiar with that legislation and will he give consideration to using it as a model in preparing federal legislation so there may be some teeth in the federal legislation and not just gums?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest it is not in order for the hon. member to ask if the minister is familiar with legislation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew Norih):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister discuss with the chief electoral officer of Ontario the antiquated and vague sections of the Ontario elections act dealing with the voting regulations of military personnel, with a view to trying to arrive at some constructive conclusions-
October 27, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question cannot be asked at this time. I suggest to the hon. member that if it is at all receivable it should be placed on the order paper.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Ten o'clock.



CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE COMMITTEE OF UNIFICATION ORDERS IN COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. A considerable time having passed since the minister agreed to consider calling a meeting of the defence committee to review changes in armed forces policies, can the minister now state whether a reference will be speedily introduced so as to enable the committee to meet and discuss changes in defence policies?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, when I first read this question in Hansard I was a little confused. The hon. member referred to changing defence policy. Actually he was quoting administrative decisions; therefore I cannot yet take a decision on the question itself.


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary question, in view of the minister's reply referring to administrative decisions and there now being only one minister with no associate minister, I presume this minister has control over both matters. Therefore I would like to ask if he is going to bring in terms of reference so that defence policies can be considered by the defence committee of the House of Commons.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this particular question, but the original reference was to a change of policy. There is no change of policy.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he in a position today to answer the question I put to his parliamentary secretary yesterday?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the hon. member's question was the importation of turkeys. This matter is receiving the attention of the department and a meeting has been arranged for November 1 between the 27053-2261
Inquiries of the Ministry agricultural stabilization board and officers of the Canadian Turkey Federation to review the situation.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question with regard to the importation of turkeys from the United States, is the minister considering going back to the quota system which was in effect a few years ago?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, any conclusions that result from the meeting I have mentioned will be announced in the proper fashion.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he been made aware that the department of manpower has discontinued level 4 of its training program, with the result that residents of Indian reserves are now effectively blocked from entering the higher levels of skilled manpower training; and can the minister say whether his department has any plans to offset this development?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that the department has decided to discontinue level 4 of its training program, namely the basic literacy course, what plans has the department to offset the effect of this discontinuation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously this question is of a general nature and not of the type which should be asked at this time. Certainly it is not a question which requires a verbal answer during the question period.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Perhaps I could rephrase my question and ask the minister whether he has received any significant number of complaints from residents of Indian reserves or councillors regarding this policy decision taken by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would place this question on the order paper.
3566	COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF BILL RESPECTING INTEREST RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to either the government house leader or the Prime Minister, and ask if either of the hon. gentlemen would provide the sanctity of government approval to the bill introduced earlier today by the hon. member for Brantford regarding interest rates and have it transferred to government orders so it can be dealt with more expeditiously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration relating to the occupational training for adults program. Before an adult student begins the upgrading course he or she must indicate a goal for which-


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


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am coming to the question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider amending the legislation to give the adult student more flexibility in his choice of occupation at the grade ten level, in order to remove this strait-jacket which now exists?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question seems to be very general in nature and of the type which should be answered by a statement on motions or on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister expect in the near future to answer the charge made against the government by Mr. Neil McKinnon, president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, to the effect that inflation is the result of the policies of this government which amount to a swindle of the Canadian people?

DEBATES	October 27, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question has been asked and considered on a number of occasions, and I do not think it should be asked again at this time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Northumberland was probably not in the house at ten o'clock Monday evening when I did answer this question.



AMENDMENT OF TRADE MARK AND PATENT LAWS TO REDUCE CONSUMER COSTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Registrar General. Does the minister plan to introduce amendments during this session to the trade mark and patent laws to grant manufacturing rights to nonpatent holders as a means of lowering drug costs to the public?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this item is on the list of essential legislation and I hope it will be dealt with this session.



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The house again in committee of supply, estimates of Veterans Affairs for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1 will be found on page 572 of the blue book and the details of services on page 574.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $5,702,200.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall this item carry?


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Chairman, I thought at the outset we would have a statement of some kind from the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Perhaps he has decided to wait until he has heard the remarks of hon. members before making such a statement, but a statement of this kind would be of benefit to hon. members during the consideration of his estimates, and if he should like the opportunity to make one now I will be glad to take my seat.
October 27, 1967

Apparently the minister does not wish to make a statement now. Members on this side are somewhat disappointed at the lack of factual information emanating from the minister's department. Several days ago I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be possible to have the Wood commission report made available before discussing these estimates. Evidently that was not possible, but the tabling of even an interim report would make the discussion of these estimates easier. We have been waiting for more than a year and a half for the results of this inquiry.
It is my opinion that a general overhaul should be made of pension legislation. This legislation has not been amended for quite a few years. It was originally brought forward in a hurry to expedite assistance to veterans who had completed their wartime service. In light of what has transpired in the last few years a general review of veterans pension legislation should be made.
Hon. members who were members of the veterans affairs committee made suggestions as to how the act should be amended. I am sure the minister has taken those suggestions into consideration, but as of this date nothing constructive has been done in this regard. There has been difficulty in respect of liaison between the minister and his staff, but I understand this situation has been remedied. Perhaps some action will be taken soon.
It was also my thought that following the analytical study of pension legislation in other countries, specifically France and Britain, a new assessment could be made of the available information on our own legislation.
I understand there was anticipation that a review of United States studies on veterans legislation would be made, but so far as I am aware this has not been done yet. Perhaps this information could be used in conjunction with the Wood commission report. Certainly some effort should be made to correlate the information which is available at the present time in respect of this important information.
I presume the representations and appeals made from time to time to the minister and the department by various organizations have been considered. We would like to hear what is in store for our veterans in the next year. The cost of living has made it imperative that increases in pensions be considered and now would be a good time to let our veterans know what they can expect in the future.

Supply-Veterans Affairs [DOT] (12 noon)
I do not intend to cover the whole spectrum of veterans affairs because my colleagues will wish to make contributions. However, when the minister makes a statement I believe he should be somewhat explicit in so far as the control of veterans hospitals is concerned. There has been considerable controversy about the situation at Sunnybrook hospital. I should like to put on record parts of an article written for the Toronto Telegram of September 23 last by Peter Ward, who evidently studied the situation at that hospital. If the situation that has developed there is going to be prevalent at other hospitals, something should be done to prevent this happening. In his article Mr. Ward said:
You can list grievances by the hundred, many of them chronic complaints from chronic complainers, but an alarming number that are real, legitimate beefs.
Under D.V.A. administration veterans were issued prescribed drugs at the hospital dispensary and if treatment was lengthy for outpatients, drugs would be mailed as needed to the patient.
Now the veteran must either convince his local pharmacy to hand over prescribed drugs and bill D.V.A., or pay for them himself and collect later.
Usually it's much later. Due to staff shortages, it's sometimes more than three months before a druggist, or a veteran who has paid, gets his money.
Under D.V.A., hospital patients had the option of eating meals either in their rooms or in the dining room, if they were able, with buddies.
Now they eat in their rooms. They can eat in the dining room only if they pay for their meals.
This writer goes on to list other complaints, and the article continues:
The daily Sunnybrook patient rate when U. of T. took over was $23.25. It went to $36 daily immediately and is now $40. Treatment of pensionable veterans, or those earning less than $1,296 annually, was free then, and still is.
Any veteran is guaranteed a bed at Sunnybrook, pensionable or not. If he isn't pensionable, a patient must pay his bill either personally or through insurance. That's still the same, only the rate has changed.


Mr. Teillel:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit me to interrupt him for a moment at this time?


James Norris Ormiston: Certainly.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: With reference to this story, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it should be allowed to go on the record without some comment. All the complaints received, and there have not been that many, have been investigated and most of this story has been
Oclober 27, 1967

Supply-Veterans Affairs found to be quite unfounded. Nothing occurring at Sunnybrook hospital now did not occur before the changeover. I want that fact to be underlined. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that the story to which he has referred does need correction.


James Norris Ormiston: This article was written just about a month ago. If the Department of Veterans Affairs had been as speedy in investigating other matters as it was in this case there would have been no complaints at all, but obviously there was some ground for complaint. If the situation has been remedied, we appreciate the action that has been taken. There have been rumours that the other hospitals now operated by D.V.A. will fall into the hands of provincial or municipal bodies, and I think this committee is entitled to know whether any plans of that nature are in prospect.
Over the last year and a half many representations have been made to the minister and his department to give us some outline of what can be expected in the nature of veterans legislation. I hope that today the minister will afford himself of the opportunity to deal with this question and will give us some idea of what we may expect in the future.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who has done so much to help the veterans and their families, tell us when the legislation mentioned in vote 17a will become effective, or on what date will the benefits be available to the people themselves?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: As I understand the question, Mr. Chairman, it refers to vote 17a, the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit. This is an estimates supplement.


Mr. Lambert:: Which supplement?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: "A". The effective date, as noted in the text, is July 1, but of course the provision cannot be implemented until parliament has passed the item and accepted the estimate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I have brief remarks to make on a number of subjects connected with these estimates. First of all I should like to extend to the minister publicly my personal appreciation for his invitation to have me participate in the commemorative exercises this summer on the twenty fifth anniversary of the Dieppe raid. I should also like to commend the officers of his department for


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt him at this moment? The point I would like to make clear is that the ceremonies were organized primarily by the municipal authorities at Dieppe and we were only participants. The Canadian government as such did not interfere in one way or another with the participation of German forces at the ceremony, nor do I believe that the French or the British governments interfered. This was left entirely to the local people, who undoubtedly were influenced by the public comments made in Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to tell the house why
October 27, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	3569
the government did not even acknowledge the letter requesting German participation. I know there were letters asking for this. I can tell the minister privately about some conversations I had in this respect which are of a more confidential nature. We in Canada missed a great opportunity, and that is all I will say about it.
There is another matter about which I would like to say a few words. It also concerns prisoners of war. Some time ago I placed a question on the order paper asking whether the treatment section of the Department of Veterans Affairs intended to call in prisoners of war through the various treatment centres in the country to give them a check-over either there or through the facilities of the Canadian pension commission. I consider this to be treatment of a preventive nature. There is no use waiting for a veteran to come in and say: I am ill and this is attributable to a disability incurred during the war. The minister is in the same position as I am. We are both former prisoners of war. He will recall the agitation on both sides of the house with regard to the Hong Kong prisoners of war. I think that finally the right steps were taken on their behalf and none too soon. However, I suggest to him that the same applies to other prisoners of war whose medical histories after incarceration have followed the same pattern.
Relatively speaking the minister and I did not suffer too much, but I know of many men who had to subsist for long periods of time on raw sugar beets which they pulled out of frozen fields. How has this affected them? We are not able to say whether any of these men who have died may have done so five or ten years earlier than they should have. And yet what do we know about those who are still suffering from the effects of the war? I think that here again we are missing an opportunity. I am sure that the treatment services have learned a great deal from the examinations of the Hong Kong prisoners of war conducted in the past few years. The same could be done with all the other prisoners of war. This is what I would call a form of preventive medicine. Their experiences cannot be duplicated. After all, there are not that many of these men who may serve as guinea-pigs, and experiments cannot be conducted easily with regard to this type of condition. I strongly urge the minister to reconsider the position taken by his department in the reply to my question. I really feel that we are passing up a truly worthwhile opportunity.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
The next point I want to make is that I also had the opportunity to visit Vimy this year and, having acquainted myself with some of the problems which exist with regard to the maintenance of the memorial and the park there, I strongly urge the minister, even though he may run into some difficulties with the Minister of Finance, to consider the building of a diversionary road around the park. At present the road going through the park makes the maintenance of the memorial and the surrounding grounds very difficult for the limited staff that we have there on holidays and week ends. Since in France the week end is from Saturday noon to Tuesday morning on long week ends the Vimy park is much like Coney Island. People come from the surrounding villages and towns and gather on the lawns for picnics. They lay out the laundry on the grass and do all sorts of things. If we relocated the road and made an arrangement with the French government so that route nationale No. 37 going through the park could be moved, I think it would make it much simpler for everyone concerned. I think it would also make for less strained relations between the Canadian authorities at Vimy and the mayors and councillors of the neighboring towns.
The next point on which I would like to say a few words is in connection with the War Veterans Allowance Act and the inability of the government at the present time to consider the payment of war veterans allowances to many Canadian veterans living in the United Kingdom who are in great need of assistance and cannot afford to come back to put in the required one year of residence in Canada. There has been an extensive exchange of correspondence between Lieutenant Colonel Jones, the president of the Canadian Army Veterans in the United Kingdom Association, and officials of the minister's department. Frankly, all they are doing is setting up administrative obstacles. I have spoken to some of the officials who were in the department at the time when I headed it and they say this is not so. I admit that there is a division of opinion. It is said that there may be possibilities of overpayments which would create grave difficulties in trying to collect such overpayments. However, surely it is unreasonable to say that the department should not institute such a program because of possible difficulties in having to recover overpayments. I do not think the minister could or would seriously
3570	COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs justify such an argument. The basis of that argument is wrong.
Canadian veterans who either served in world war I or world war II and who have in some cases come on more difficult times are not being paid war veterans allowances because they married in the United Kingdom and have not returned to Canada or have remained there for reasons of health. Yet allied veterans who come to Canada and live here for ten years qualify for the war veterans allowance and receive it. They may live here for another year and then decide to take off for Florida, the United Kingdom or France. If they do we in Canada continue to pay them. I do not think there is true justice in such a situation. It is the requirement of one year's residence that is the bogey. I would ask the minister to eliminate this continuing farce because it is truly a farcical situation but in so many instances it has tragic consequences.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
This summer when I went to London I took a number of files in connection with widows or veterans who are experiencing difficult times as I wanted to have them examined to see what could be done. The stumbling block was the statutory year's residence in Canada for the men involved. If there is one acceptable principle for the payment of the war veterans allowance it is war service. Evidently we are prepared to pay this allowance to servicemen of our allies who reside in Canada for ten years and then go back to the United Kingdom or elsewhere. We pay it to them there because they served and then came to Canada and spent ten years here. However, if a Canadian veteran stayed in the United Kingdom, married and worked there, he receives nothing. His entitlement to war veterans allowance should not arise from his residence in Canada but as a result of his war service. I believe that should be the principle.
With these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I draw to a close my intervention in this debate. There are some other points I should like to raise on another occasion, but I know that a number of my colleagues want to say a few words. I hope these few points I have mentioned will merit favourable consideration by the minister and his officials.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before proceeding with my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Edmonton West in his plea for veterans residing in Great Britain or other allied countries. They should not be

DEBATES	October 27, 1967
required to return to Canada to live for a year in order to qualify for war veterans allowance. As the minister knows we heard representations from organizations in Great Britain as well as in France, Belgium and Holland. They all had the same attitude toward this question. Like the hon. member, I cannot see any reason for asking them to return to Canada when the allowance is awarded on the basis of war service. I do hope the government will give consideration to the representations in this respect.
At the present time the major concern of veterans in Canada is an increase in the disability pension and the war veterans allowance. It is obvious that this does concern veterans and their dependants and veterans organizations. In order to indicate the extent of their concern I show the minister the over 100 letters I have received to date on this issue. There is a regular campaign going on in Kootenay West. We have ten branches of the Royal Canadian Legion. I will give the minister the letters later, but they show the interest in this question and the need for increases.
Our whole system of judging the rate of pension is wrong. In the first instance it was based on the wage of a casual labourer. The increases in pensions have not been equal to the increases received by casual labourers thus far. This is the first reason for discontent. The second reason is the rapid increase in the cost of living during the last two or three years. I believe these arguments are soundly based.
Canada has a generally good record with regard to veterans legislation. However, we are reaching a stage now where we have to approach our problems in this field on an international basis rather than on a strictly national basis. Before I sit down I want to bring to the attention of the members of the committee what has been done in this respect. I happen to be a member of the World Veterans Federation which has done a lot of constructive work in respect of improving veterans legislation generally in all countries of the world. I know that members of the Legion and veterans who will receive a copy of Hansard containing this day's proceedings will want to know something about what has been done. I should like, therefore, to place a few facts on the record.
This organization, one might say, is the counterpart of the International Labour Organization, The World Federation of Farm Women, the World Health Organization and
October 27, 19S7

organizations of that type which have resulted from the realization that if we are going to solve our problems satisfactorily we have to solve them almost on the basis of an international set of rules. This is what has been done to date. The organization has held its third conference on legislation with regard to veterans affairs. Under the heading "International Documentation on Benefits for War Victims", the conference recommended the assembling by all means at its disposal, with the assistance of governments and member associations, of the fullest possible data bearing on the establishment of valid comparisons of the purchasing power of national currencies, gross national revenues, national budgets, average wages and the number of war victims in receipt of benefits in relation both to the amount of benefits granted and to modifications of legislation in this field. I believe that suggestion was made as a result of considerable thought.
The second heading was "Co-operation in Promoting Veterans Protection". The conference called upon veterans organizations and competent governmental institutions pursuing humanitarian aims for the protection of veterans and their dependants to develop comprehensive mutual co-operation for the purpose of completing and improving systems of protection of veterans, resistants and war victims.
The next subject was "Indemnification for Damages and Illnesses Resulting Indirectly from Disabilities Already Giving Entitlement to Indemnification". The conference recommended that governments ensure the indemnification of any aggravation occuring in the somatic state of a person disabled in war or while performing military service, not only when it is established medically that his recognized lesions or sicknesses were caused exclusively by a disability previously recognized as being war or service connected but also where a consensus of medical opinion makes it possible to consider that the predominant cause of the new disability is the accepted war disablement. They recommended also the introduction into the legislation of countries concerned of provisions which make possible a benevolent, clear and uniform application of the relevant regulations.
The conference also discussed the discrimination existing against the less severely disabled in the matter of pensions and advocated scales of pensions proportional to disability ratings. There was a recommendation that the governments concerned resist any such tendency, accord to the less severely disabled

Supply-Veterans Affairs their true worth and respect their rights and, with this end in view, ensure that scales of pensions are directly proportional to the basic pension related to the medical assessment of the disablement.
The conference then dealt with the influence of age on war pension rates. They called upon governments to introduce, where necessary, legislation whereby the disabled are entitled to the undiminished rate of their disability pension as from the age of 60, or earlier in cases where they have been in receipt of such pensions for a period of ten years.
The next subject dealt with was the adjustment of war victims pensions. The conference went on to recommend that governments establish pensions and other benefits in line with rising national standards.
The next heading is "The Exemption of War Pensions from Tax". The conference recommended that the governments concerned should decide that the compensation provided war victims by legislation should be exempted from tax. Our legislation has always done this so we are ahead of others in that respect.
Then there was a recommendation in connection with cars driven by the disabled. In fact, there is quite a lengthy list of recommendations in this connection, all of which should be given consideration by governments.
The conference then dealt with measures on behalf of the disabled regarding pension revision procedures. The recommendation was that governments go into all aspects of pension revision procedures. I understand that is exactly what the government is supposed to be doing at the present time, devising a formula for the rates of pension to be paid.
The next heading is "Benefits for Dependants of the Severely War Disabled Irrespective of the Cause of Death". The conference called upon governments to guarantee benefits for the dependants of the severely war disabled, irrespective of the cause of the latter's death.
The conference also dealt with benefits for the parents of war victims and recommended that governments compensate them adequately for their loss.
* (12:30 p.m.)
With regard to early retirement for the war disabled, it was recommended that the governments concerned introduce legislation providing for the possibility of applications
3572	COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs for premature retirement on pension at the basic retirement age rate.
In the matter of compensation for exclusion from social security benefits it was recommended that governments concerned introduce legislation to this end.
The conference discussed concurrent payment of social security benefits and compensation for war victims and recommended that benefits under the social security system should be paid concurrently with those provided for under war victims legislation in cases where that legislation does not provide for the contingency in question.
They then discussed the reckoning of periods of wartime service for social insurance purposes and made a recommendation in that regard. They dealt with war disabled victims of work accidents and made a recommendation that this matter be given consideration by all governments concerned. The next matter dealt with was social insurance benefits for the severely disabled and dependants and a recommendation was made.
With regard to war-connected death and its effect on social security benefits, they proposed that this should be the subject of study by the World Veterans Federation international legislation information service. In the matter of free medical and pharmaceutical treatment the conference recommended that this treatment be given to all veterans and their dependants. With regard to medical treatment of war victims and disabled abroad, a lengthy resolution was passed.
The conference then discussed the protection of disabled workers and recommended that governments take measures where such cases occur to protect disabled workers and ensure that they are given employment compatible with their disability.
They discussed vocational training for widows and orphans and recommended that governments take appropriate measures where necessary to facilitate employment and vocational training for the dependants of deceased veterans.
They then recommended that the international legislation information service should be given a budget for the purpose of continuing in operation.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, they asked for an international charter on veterans basic rights and made a lengthy recommendation which, in view of the fact that our legislation is

DEBATES	October 27, 1967
known as the veterans charter, I should like to put on the record:
Recommends that the draft charter of veterans basic rights be referred back to the executive board of the W.V.F. for consideration by an expert committee who, taking into full consideration the draft memoranda already agreed by the members of the charter subcommittee should also take account of the recommendations and conclusions of the third international legislation conference in the preparation of the ultimate draft, and that in its preamble the final draft should specifically define those groups of persons for whom the special rights and privileges are required, noting that the rights of war veterans proclaimed by the charter be equally applied to the members of the resistance as to the category of war veterans.
I have made reference to these recommendations, Mr. Chairman, because this conference was a very interesting one. Assembled there were members of veterans organizations from practically every country in the world and they were meeting together to discuss common problems affecting veterans legislation in their own countries. As I said before, I think that if we are to get some sort of world rule of law in this respect and to do justice to all persons affected by war-veterans, their dependants, victims of war and so on-more and more we must approach the subject from, shall I say, an international point of view.
When the members of the standing committee on veterans affairs were overseas they met with representatives of various veterans groups in France, Belgium, Holland and Great Britain. We also had the opportunity of discussing veterans legislation and its relationship to social legislation with some representatives of the ministry of pensions in Great Britain, and we had a very informative session. I mention this because I am quite sure there are many people in Canada who are unaware of the constructive and co-operative work being done in this regard in order to direct attention to the problems of veterans, their dependants, victims of aggression and so on throughout the world so that they receive justice on a wider and wider scale as the years go by.
I have had considerable difficulty in getting through these few remarks because I am bothered by a bit of a cold. However, I was determined to have my say as best I could. I should like to support what previous speakers have said and I am sure I will be able to support the representations that will be made by others who wish to speak on veterans legislation. Before the estimates are passed I shall be looking forward to a very definitive statement from the minister which will cheer the hearts of all Canadian veterans and their
October 27, 1967	COMMONS
dependants, as well as all veterans organizations, prior to our recognition of Remembrance day.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to a number of the speeches made in the house this morning and I think they reflect the virtual unanimity that prevails within the veterans affairs committee. I regret that I am no longer a member of that committee, but I am entitled by the rules of the house to be present and to participate when the committee is sitting and I fully intend to do so.
I think we all agree with the necessity for increasing veterans pensions. There is no doubt that they have not kept up with the increase in the cost of living. Something must be done and we all hope it will be done quickly.
I also think that when the pension was instituted it was based on a poor standard to begin with, namely, the standard of about the lowest paid government employee. Increases in veterans pensions have not kept pace with increases in pay of even that grade of government employee. This is therefore a matter of considerable anxiety to those of us who are concerned about the veterans and their families.
I am going to be quite brief in my remarks. I want to bring up a point which seems to me to require more attention than is perhaps being given at this time by the department. This is something for which I am going to fight and fight very hard if we do not see greater signs of forward planning than are apparent, to me at least, at the moment. I am referring to the matter of domiciliary care for older veterans.
In my riding of Victoria there is a veterans hospital, and for that reason alone I am very much aware of the needs of the soldiers who require not hospitalization but domiciliary care. They need a place to go to and someone to look after them. Regardless of whether this is a federal or a provincial responsibility,
I	think we should admit that the responsibility is indeed a national one and that we must do something to take care of these people.
I warn the government that a new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen is entering this category. The veterans of world war
II	are beginning to need such care in increasing numbers, but I see no special signs that the federal government is prepared to step in on its own or in conjunction with the provincial governments to take care of this need.
DEBATES	3573
Supply-Veterans Affairs 9 (12.40 p.m.)
I need not tell the minister what is involved here, but I might remind some of his staff who assist him in his planning that the cost of a domiciliary bed or unit is in the neighbourhood of $3,000 or $4,000 as opposed to the cost of a hospital bed which is three or four times that amount. I say to the minister that he and his officials should devote considerable attention to planning ahead for the provision of such care by one means or another-I do not care how he does it-so that soldiers, sailors and airmen who require domiciliary care will have somewhere to go, some place to stay and some one to look after them. I do not say this is exclusively a federal responsibility but to my mind it is the responsibility of members of the House of Commons to make sure that care is provided.
Becoming parochial for a moment, I wish to raise a matter which I have previously brought to the minister's attention, and I should like him to look into it. In Esquimau, which after redistribution will no longer be in Victoria riding, there is a beautiful old veterans cemetery which was turned over to his department about 15 years ago. It used to be the old naval cemetery and it needs some attention. The road to it runs through a golf course as well as through Department of National Defence property. Since the road runs through three different domains, so to speak, there seems to be difficulty in deciding who is to look after it. I do not care who looks after it but somebody should get on with the job of seeing that the road is put into proper shape. The cemetery is still used by veterans and nothing upsets the dignity of a ceremonial occasion so much as for the ceremonial party to have to wade through potholes and mud on the way to the ceremony.
I have recently been informed that the Hong Kong Veterans Association of Canada is to hold its annual meeting during August next year, in Victoria, British Columbia. I do not have the exact date at my fingertips. I am sure the minister will be welcome there. I retain my interest in this unique group and I appreciate the steps that he and his department have taken to look into the special circumstances of this group and to be helpful to them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, during the last several years I have, for several reasons, restrained myself with difficulty from participating at length in any discussion when the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs have been before the house. I wanted
3574	COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs to give the minister an opportunity during the initial period after he assumed his portfolio to show what he could do. I have also encouraged many able representatives of the veterans on this side of the house to participate in debates and have attempted to keep silent myself, something I find difficult to do in the House of Commons. On this occasion I thought I would say something on behalf of the veterans, something about the Department of Veterans Affairs and something about the interest that Canada as a whole ought to show in her military history.
I am not to be led astray because I received an invitation from the ministerial office to attend the fiftieth anniversary ceremony of the battle of Passchendaele. Naturally I was grateful for the invitation and I attended. This will not deter me from offering criticism of the minister in his capacity of being in charge of the department. I think only two or three members of the House of Commons were present at the battle of Passchendaele 50 years ago, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands being one of them. I am not sure that I like attending fiftieth anniversaries. They bring home to one clearly that time has marched on and that one belongs to an entirely different generation. I was pleased to be there, nevertheless, and I expressed my thanks to the minister. I shall return to the subject of the Passchendaele ceremony in a moment.
The most important topic before us is the care of our pensioners of the first world war, second world war and the Korea war. We do not pay enough attention to our pensioners. Quite properly, we have a standing committee on veterans affairs and that committee works effectively. The minister who heads the department must give leadership in these matters and my criticism of the minister is that in the last three years when he has presented his estimates to the House of Commons he has spoken for about two or three minutes simply to say that as his estimates had been before a committee there was no need to discuss them extensively in the house. It is incumbent on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make a moderately long statement to show what his department is doing and to indicate to the public generally his interest and the interest of the government in the veterans of this country and in the pensioners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Unless a minister says something publicly about his department the

DEBATES	October 27, 1967
tendency is to consider it unimportant. Some may think that his department is not receiving the attention it should receive and that the minister of the department is not being influential with his cabinet colleagues. The present minister, whom I have refrained from criticizing all these years, has been singled out for constructive attention.
I hope the minister will rise to the occasion and declare publicly in the House of Commons and elsewhere the vital importance of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the veterans of this country, the importance of that department to the people of Canada and his desires and activities with regard to the fulfilment of his responsibilities. This will be quite a task for the minister because I am not the least bit sure that during the course of the almost four years he has had responsibility for this department he has maintained it as it should have been maintained. If he is not careful the department will fade out and be absorbed by the Department of National Health and Welfare or some other department of that nature. Hon. members do not want that to happen, but it is up to the minister to give leadership and indicate that the Department of Veterans Affairs is an essential factor in the administration of this country. The minister has to do that by more than just a casual, haphazard, careless statement on the introduction of his estimates.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Why does the minister not say to the people of this country: you have a continuing responsibility for the disabled veterans who fought in the wars for freedom for Canada? Let him stress this point. He is the only member of the cabinet who is charged with this responsibility, although I would hope other members of the cabinet share it, but someone has to do this and keep on doing it because human nature is such that we tend to forget when things are not drawn to our attention.
The grave danger which faces the veterans of Canada is that with the passage of time people generally will tend to forget them. There is a new generation coming up. Fortunately it has been free from having to make sacrifices in warfare, but that new generation should be interested in the history of our country, should know something of the fight for freedom that was carried on by its predecessors and should be steeled in its own will to face similar hazards if called upon to do so.
October 27, 1967

Let us not carelessly brush aside or treat as something insignificant the care of our disabled veterans. The minister should have put the figures on the record to show the number of people still suffering. Why did he not say that of the approximately 33,000 disabled pensioners of the first world war almost 6,000 are men who are in the category of 75 per cent to 100 per cent disability? They have carried that burden for 50 years. Fancy being a 100 per cent disabled pensioner for 50 years. No greater sacrifice has been made by any citizen of this country than that made by the men who have carried that burden. The minister should draw this to our attention.
The minister should also indicate the figures for the second world war and Korea to show that the problem exists, that it cannot be brushed aside, and that it will remain with us for a great many years. First world war veterans, of course, are on the downward slope. There are very few of them under 70 years of age. In another 15 years they will have gone over the precipice. But second world war veterans are going to be around for a long time and the citizens of this country must gratefully bear the burden of sustaining these men who risked their lives in order that Canada would be free. The Minister of Veterans Affairs carries the responsibility of repeating that message time and time again.
I pay my tribute to the officials of the department who have carried on with great dedication over the years and are still doing so, but I look to the minister and to the deputy minister to give leadership, to sustain the department and to retain the confidence of veterans organizations all across the country. I am not sure they have retained that confidence at the present time because of the inexcusable delay in raising disability pensions to the level at which they should be.
The minister is now in the terribly awkward position of facing a minister of finance and cabinet who are greatly disturbed over the financial disaster that is just around the corner for this country. It will be an almost insuperable task for him to get increases for disability pensioners because the Minister of Finance is so clearly in grave difficulty. I hope that the large and increasing deficit of the magnificent world fair which was held in Montreal will not be used as an argument to prevent giving justice with regard to the pensions of our disability pensioners. I read in the papers that there is a deficit of $250 million in respect of Expo and that there

Supply-Veterans Affairs may be other deficits in other enterprises, but I hope this will not restrict the activities of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Veterans Affairs when dealing with these pensions. With the country now reaching the point of financial difficulties, the minister's delay over the last two years may have disastrous effects for our disability pensioners. I give that warning at this time.
I see it is just about one o'clock and I presume we are going to live like normal people and have a luncheon break. I would like to say something about the fiftieth anniversary ceremony at Passchendaele and about other ceremonies of that nature which may be coming up in the near future. If it is agreeable to you, sir, I would like to do that after lunch. I now call it one o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, just before the luncheon adjournment I was dealing with some of the problems that affect the veterans of this country and attempting to place some emphasis on the responsibilities which should weigh on the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government generally. In the few minutes I have left at my disposal this afternoon I should like to stress the importance of the history of this country and this history of the world in which our countrymen have been involved.
We deplore war in any form, but the history of the world is largely a history of warfare and our country has been most active in this history. Whether we like it or not, the type of world in which we have lived during the twentieth century has subjected Canadians to the pressures of international affairs. Canadians have responded in time of danger and trouble and have stood shoulder to shoulder with freedom-loving men from every country.
During this our centennial year nothing has been more appropriate to my mind than the writing and publishing of a book by Hon. Leslie Frost. He is a very distinguished Canadian, a former premier of the province of Ontario and a serving soldier during the first world war. He has accomplished something unique in military history as a result of
October 27, 1967

Supply-Veterans Affairs telling about the part in that war played by men from Orillia. The story of the men from this community can be duplicated in respect of small hamlets, villages, towns, communities and cities from coast to coast in Canada. Men from these areas played a similar part during that war. I commend this book to everyone in Canada. Anyone who reads it will understand what took place in communities across this country like Orillia at the time of that confrontation. The foreword to this book was written by the president of Trent University, Thomas H. B. Symons. I should like to read the second paragraph:
The book tells the story of a group of men-the 393 members of the 35th Regiment of Simcoe Foresters who came forward for military service from the Orillia community half a century ago-and of the impact of the first world war upon them and their families and their community, and it does so with great perception and understanding. But it is more than a narrative of events. It is a statement of the author's faith in his country and some of his deeply felt convictions about this country.
At page 139 Mr. Frost has written the following:
One of the great tragedies of Canadian history has been our failure to translate into Canadian pride and loyalty the accomplishments of her men in the tragic period of the war. The achievements of the Canadian Corps from the day of the first landing in France in 1915 until the day of victory, should be a reason for pride on the part of all Canadians. It is a fantastic story. The Canadian Army Corps commenced with the enlistment in August, 1914 of men garbed in red coats and blue trousers. On the 14th of that month Orillia's contribution to the new Canadian expeditionary force marched down Mississaga street. This story was repeated in communities all across Canada. It was the beginning of the organization of an army corps which was second to none on the western front, or any other front. It became an unsurpassed fighting machine. Its accomplishments were outstanding. The bravery, the brain, the brawn and the ability to adapt to unforeseen conditions, should be an inspiration to all Canadians. Unfortunately, in the twenties and thirties, when democracy seemed to lose its purpose and direction, the Canadian people and their governments seemed to play down these monumental achievements of their countrymen. Perhaps, 50 years later in 1967 at the time of the one hundredth birthday of our country, some of the robust sentiments of the past can be regained.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Children of other days sang with pride and enthusiasm about Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane, and about their forebears who "firmly stood and nobly died," in defence of their country. There is virtue in these days in remembering the men of Canada who firmly stood and nobly died in an even greater cause, the laying of the foundations of world government, which must exist if mankind is to survive.
Throughout the book one finds the story of these 393 men, their sacrifice, their devotion to duty, the honours they gained, the death


and the wounding of many of them, and their return to the homeland. That story of sacrifice and devotion to duty had to be repeated by their sons in the second great world war. This is now part and parcel of Canada's history and we should do honour to these men who made our country.
I grow weary of those people who are now searching for a Canadian identity. As I have said before in this house, Canada's identity as a nation was discovered and proved on the battlefields of Europe from 1914 to 1918. It was then that we emerged as a nation in the eyes of the world. Our representatives sat in at the peace keeping activities leading to the treaty of Versailles and in the formulation of the plans for the League of Nations. So when some people are searching now, 50 years later, for a Canadian identity I wonder at the lack of knowledge of Canadian history among those who write in that vein.
Part of our recognition of Canada's identity is to be found on those occasions when we pay tribute to those who lost their lives in the various wars. We have been doing this now for 50 years in Canada on various occasions. During the last several years we have been participating in commemorative memorial services in Europe, and I think these should be continued. It was only proper that we should recognize, as we did, the twenty fifth anniversary of the battle of Dieppe. I think it is only proper that we should recognize other episodes in the course of the second world war and similarly we should recognize episodes in the first world war.
Of course it will soon be time for a stand-down with regard to the first world war. After all, when the fiftieth anniversary is involved there are not many left who can participate in such a ceremony. I recall that a few years ago we held a ceremony here in Ottawa to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the conclusion of the South African war. Some very distinguished veterans of that war paraded here and participated under government auspices in a ceremony to pay honour to their contribution in that strife. They were then all in the eighties.
So by the time you hit the fiftieth anniversary you are coming pretty well to the end of the road. But it is only right that we should participate in ceremonies of that nature in order to recognize the sacrifices of the first world war and in order to recognize the history of our country. Therefore it was with great pleasure that I heard of the plans for
October 27, 1967	COMMONS
the ceremony at Vimy Ridge in the spring of this year. I was glad that Canada participated in the recognition of the fiftieth anniversary of that battle. I was pleased to be able to attend the ceremony at Passchendaele just a few weeks ago when once again Canada recognized one of the important battles of the first world war. Sixteen thousand young Canadian men either lost their lives or were wounded in that conflict, but they achieved their objective.
From 50 years ago yesterday up to November 10 represents the period when the Canadian Corps was engaged in the third battle of Ypres which culminated in the battle of Passchendaele. We were engaged in that battle 50 years ago, and 50 years ago today a former distinguished member of this house, now the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, Hon. George Pearkes, was awarded the Victoria Cross for his valour in that conflict.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was only fitting that we should be there to pay our tribute, together with other members of the commonwealth, to those who fought in that struggle. The British, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, representatives from India and other portions of what was then known as the British Empire and Commonwealth, took part in the third battle of Ypres at the excessive cost of 150,000 casualties over a period of about three and a half months.
Just a few days ago there was at Tynecot cemetery in Belgium a ceremony at which we were present. Lord Alexander, former Governor General of Canada, was in charge of the ceremony and gave the address. My only complaint is that although there was a guard of honour provided by the United Kingdom, Belgium and France and a small guard of honour provided by Australia, there was no Canadian guard of honour. My complaint, which I hesitate to raise but I think I must do so, is that if we are to participate in ceremonies of this nature we should do it in the proper fashion.
Canada on that occasion should have had an appropriate guard of honour along with those countries which were our comrades in arms in the first great world war. The flimsy excuse that because the Canadian Brigade in Germany was engaged in NATO exercises and men could not be spared does not make much sense to those of us who have been in the services. It would be very unusual not to be able to spare one officer and 25 men for a
DEBATES	3577
Supply-Veterans Affairs guard of honour even if we could not have a guard of honour of 200. But the fact that Canada was not represented there is not, I think, good for Canada's prestige in international affairs.
If we participate in other functions of this nature, let us be very careful to see that we are properly represented, because when Canada is abroad other countries watch and see what we do. At the commemoration of the battle of Passchendaele, which was the Canadian portion of the third battle of Ypres, we did not have the appropriate public recognition by having a guard of honour there. I hope that next year, 1968-this might be the final ceremony for the first world war representing the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of that contest-we will be properly represented at some ceremony in Europe.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I hope there will be a Canadian organized ceremony at the city of Mons which the Canadians entered and seized on November 11, 1918. Others may have other ideas but I throw this out as one which occurs to me as being appropriate. To my mind Mons is the place where we should have the ceremony representing the fiftieth anniversary of the conclusion of the first world war. I hope that in 1969 we will appropriately join our comrades from Great Britain, the United States, France and all other countries that were involved in commemorating the beginning of the end of the second world war when the landings took place in Normandy in 1944. At the same time I hope the activities of Canadians in Sicily and Italy and in other parts of the world will not be overlooked.
These ceremonies are not numerous but they are very important. They tend to focus attention upon the history of our country. They acquaint the younger generation with the sacrifices that have been made in order to maintain freedom, and therefore we should not dismiss ceremonies of this nature just because we are all anxious for peace. No one is more anxious for peace in this world than men who have served in wartime, but at the same time we should recognize the sacrifices which a country makes in times of war.
This is all part of our history. This is how we have become a nation, and every child, every young man and young woman across this country should know the history of Canada. The two world wars and the war in Korea are part of it. There is a psychological effect involved. I hope the young people of
3578	COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs today will not have to go through the experiences of the young people of 25 or 50 years ago but perhaps the reminder of these events will instil in them the right spirit if danger threatens so that they will respond in the same way as did their fathers, their grandfathers and their relatives. Thus the strength of the country will be maintained and not dissipated by all the emphasis which is put these days on the dangers of war and the fearful catastrophe which war can bring. We know all that, it is in our history, but at the same time we know that if freedom is to be maintained we have to be strong in spirit and determined to put forth the necessary effort no matter what the sacrifices may be.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman,
there are a couple of brief matters which I would like to raise today in discussing the minister's estimates. Neither of them is new. We have raised them before but apparently we will have to keep raising them until something is done about them. The first one has to do with the long awaited Woods report.
I should like to read two paragraphs from a letter I received today on this very matter:
Apparently the "two language bit" is still their excuse for delay of this report; but that was their excuse, as you told me, over a year ago.
If the bureaucracies can use this as a further lot of red tape to delay action on justice, we would be better off without the two languages. I feel quite sure that any veterans in Quebec or elsewhere, who speak French, would gladly accept this report in English-just so its recommendations could be implemented.
The most significant thing about this letter is that it is signed by a Madame Boisvert. Ce n'est pas un nom anglais ga; c'est un nom canadien frangais. The latest word we have is that we have to wait only another month, but I would like to point out that on March 7 of last year the minister told the house that he hoped the report would be ready before the end of the month. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait before having this report and before some action is taken on its recommendations.
The other point I would like to raise has to do with the treatment of our war veterans allowance recipients who also happen to be old age pensioners. I have raised this matter before; in fact I raised it last spring during the committee hearings, as the minister may recall. I have since heard of a number of cases of veterans of the first world war who were recipients of old age security and also of a partial war veterans allowance pension who have found that the money which the Minister of National Health and Welfare put

DEBATES	October 27, 1967
into one pocket for old age pensions was promptly taken out of the other pocket for war veterans allowances. I think we should remember that the reason the $30 supplement was given to old age pensioners was that this government finally got it through their heads that the old age pensioners were in need and that they were not receiving a sufficient pension to meet their basic needs in view of the cost of living today. Having recognized this, the department proceeded to give them a small increase.
The funny part of the whole thing is that the different sets of rules in the games that the government plays with old people have meant that under the rules of the old age security game they could qualify even though they were in receipt of the war veterans allowance but under the rules of the war veterans allowance game the recipients fell afoul of the law if they received extra money on their old age pension. The most vicious feature of all in many of these cases was that when the department finally got through the red tape in giving the extra $30 a month it was late in the year, July, August or September, and since the increase was retroactive to the first of this year it constituted an overpayment. We found that not only were the war veterans allowances cut by the $30 which they received in addition to the old age security pension but they were cut even more to recoup the so-called overpayments. I cannot think of anything more vicious in the treatment of our veterans.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman, I am sure that in the cause of truth he will allow me to state the case. I am sure he did not intend to say what he did. He knows that each one of those war veterans' allowance recipients was advised not to do anything until he had checked with his welfare officer. For the sake of truthfulness I hope the hon. gentleman will make that clear.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, they were advised in fine print. I also know for a fact from personal contact with these veterans that they were also advised by their local pension representatives, not their war veterans' allowance representative but the local old age security representative, to apply for the extra $30. I have here a letter which was sent to one of the veterans in question. It reads as follows:
This is to inform you that, as you have been awarded the guaranteed income supplement of $30
October 27, 1967	COMMONS
a month, the commission has reviewed your case under a section of the Pension Act which provides that awards to parents are subject to review from time to time and may be continued, increased, decreased, or discontinued in accordance with the circumstances of the pensioner found on review and all income must be taken into consideration.
In view of your present circumstances, the commission has found it necesary to reduce the pension awarded you and your wife-
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Of course the only change in the man's circumstances was that he had received a slight increase in his old age security pension. The only comment I can add is that it appears to these harried pensioners as though the government is only interested in setting up different sorts of games to each of which is assigned a snooper who pokes his nose into the business of old age pensioners in receipt of war veterans allowance. These people are trying to keep up with the cost of living today. The government seems to have no interest in the pensioners at all except to provide some people with jobs shoving their noses into their business. This is the picture the pensioner is getting. I do not know why this is so unless the government feels that the war pensioners are a waning force and will have no political influence. This seems to be the only thing this government understands. They seem to be of the opinion that the war pensioners are a waning force and in a few years they will not have to worry about them.


Mr. Chaiwood:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs I should like to confine my remarks to one or two points. I do not intend to make a lengthy speech covering all the aspects of this department which plays such a vital role in recognizing the efforts of the men and women who were a part of our armed forces during the various wars in which this country has taken part. All of us recognize the efforts the department makes to meet the needs of these people. It would be difficult, I believe, to speak about veterans affairs without affording recognition to the other organizations and groups that also take a deep interest in the affairs of veterans, particularly the Canadian Legion and such organizations. These organizations, in addition to looking after veterans, take an active part in the community.
I should like to speak briefly about a particular group, the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit which is not recognized as a veterans group or as part of the military forces. During the first world war forestry
DEBATES	3579
Supply-Veterans Affairs units were in effect recognized as part of the military organization but not during the second world war. In 1939 there was a serious shortage of pit props in Great Britain which caused a weakness in the war effort of the industries of that country. In order to meet this need and to further the war effort a request was sent to the then governor of Newfoundland, which at that time was not part of Canada, by the secretary of state for dominion affairs. At that time Newfoundland was asked to raise a force of up to 2,000 men to support the war effort in Great Britain by taking part in the forest industry.
Early in 1940 the request was met and a force of 2,000 was moved out as a civilian unit in order to save time and obviate the necessity of supplying military accountre-ments which were in short supply. The members of this unit stayed overseas during the war years, some remaining there after the cessation of hostilities in 1945. Those who returned found that their rights as people who took part in the war effort were very small. They would like to receive the rights to which they feel they are entitled, rights similar to those accorded veterans of the military forces.
As I mentioned, this unit was raised at the request of the British secretary of state for dominion affairs. Upon the outbreak of war the governor of Newfoundland had indicated that Newfoundland was prepared to raise a combatant force. In reply the secretary of state for dominion affairs wrote:
-position has so developed that coal production here, which is vital to war economy will be jeopardized unless production of home-grown pit props can be rapidly accelerated and any assistance which Newfoundland can offer in this matter would be very valuable.
Therefore a civilian force instead of a military force was raised and sent overseas. Early in 1940 the secretary of state for dominion affairs again raised the matter and indicated there was a problem with the foresters in Great Britain who wished to join the military forces. He asked the governor of Newfoundland to send 1,000 additional men and to take special steps to persuade as many loggers as possible to re-engage with the Newfoundland forestry unit for a further term. Various members of the British government as well as the deputy prime minister visited the camps of these foresters to indicate to them the desirability of remaining as foresters rather than joining the military
October 27, 1987

Supply-Veterans Affairs forces. A message was posted by the secretary of state for dominion affairs which read in part:
At this time of national emergency, the government is setting every man in the country to do the work for which he is best fitted. The fighting forces are playing their part magnificently, but it is essential that they should be equipped with the guns, ammunition, ships, planes and material of every sort that they need. Without coal this great effort of equipment cannot go on. Our coal mines are producing more than they ever did before. They can only keep this up if the supply of timber is maintained.
I will not read all of it but farther on there were these words:
I know very well that I am asking many of you to make a great sacrifice but the empire is in peril. At such a time, speaking to you as a member of His Majesty's government, I tell you that you cannot serve the crown and your country better than by remaining at your present work. I know that you will not fail us.
This message was signed by the secretary of state for dominion affairs. These people were volunteers who in time of war wanted to do their part to defend the freedom of their country. They offered to join the military forces or to take part in any way in which they could best help the war effort. They were directed into the Newfoundland forestry unit and while not compelled to stay there they were at least under heavy pressure to do so. The difference between this civilian unit and a military unit was not great. The men had to live in barracks and no regard was given to family commitments. They served overseas in a theatre of war, had to sign a contract and could not transfer from one job to another. They had to work any day at any time, which they gladly did to assist in the fight for freedom. In 1942 the recruiting officers in Britain were advised not to accept foresters in the service.
The foresters who returned home and are now living in Canada are seeking the same recognition as has been accorded to those who were at that time Canadian foresters from Canada. As I have indicated, they feel entitled to these rights owing to the fact that they were not allowed to join the military.
e (3:10 p.m.)
I am pleased to see that the minister has taken action to assist one group of foresters in one respect. The foresters who joined up in 1939 and 1940 signed on for a six month period. This period was renewable and many of them served through the whole conflict until the end of the war in 1945, signing up for successive six month terms. Many of them felt that perhaps the situation would

change and that they might be admitted into that branch of military service of their first choice. However, because the shortage of supplies to support the industrial war effort did not ease they were kept in the forestry division.
I am pleased to see that those men who served a term of more than six months and those whose terms were terminated on medical grounds now have the same rights as other foresters, even though these rights are not quite as broad as the men would like. I therefore urge the minister to ask his department to consider further the efforts of these men who gave all their skill and time in service overseas away from their families during the war years so as to see whether or not they can be given the other privileges and rights of those who served in the war effort. I know this would be appreciated by these people and would be more in keeping with the desire of the government to recognize the efforts of many of the people who served during the war years.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I am in a fortunate position inasmuch as nearly everything that I had intended to say has already been said either by a member on this side of the house or by members on the other side. However, I should like to make one or two points in connection with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
First of all, I should like to repeat what my colleague from Melville and others said, namely, that we are deeply disappointed that we do not have before us at the present time the Wood report so that we can discuss it on the minister's estimates, as well as the departmental study presently being conducted. I have no doubt that when the Wood report is presented it will be most thorough and comprehensive and I expect it will be of great value to the minister to us in parliament and to the veterans of this nation.
The second point I want to make, which I do so with all the eloquence at my command, is that the veterans of this nation and their dependants are deeply concerned about the present level of veterans pensions. All hon. members are receiving a great deal of correspondence in this connection. I have before me a letter addressed to my colleague the hon. member for Royal, signed by a gentleman with whom I served for many years in New Brunswick in the Royal Canadian Legion, Mr. Howard Kierstead. He is a zone commander of the Canadian Legion, Royal
October 27. 1967	COMMONS
district, southern New Brunswick, and he says in part:
One predominant point that was discussed here-
He is referring to the district rally.
-was the lack of action on the matter of increasing veterans disability pensions ...
Our Dominion president and his staff have presented a most comprehensive brief to the authorities. When may we expect some action?
We as a group feel that the time has now arrived for a hard approach to the situation and evasive answers should not be accepted.
I think that is the feeling among hundreds of thousands of veterans and their dependants as well as among the citizens of this nation. The time has now come when veterans pensions must be increased. We know the unpleasant economic facts of life in this nation and that inflation is one of the great problems. The cost of living falls most heavily on those men and women on fixed incomes, such people as war pensioners, the dependants of veterans and federal civil service superannuates.
Those who belong to the powerful labour unions can strike, and they do with regularity. In this way they are able to force up their remuneration. But the veterans of this country and their dependants have no one other than the members of this house to speak for them. This is why I make no excuse for pressing this matter in the house upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The time has now come when there should be a substantial increase in disability pensions, in war veterans allowances, in pensions to disabled veterans, indeed in the payments to all those who are receiving assistance of this sort.
I notice that the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, the chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board and a number of officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs are in the gallery today. These gentlemen are second to none in this nation in their dedication to their jobs and my relationship with them has been a most happy one over the years. I have not always achieved a successful conclusion, if I may call it that, to the cases I have taken to the pension commission or to its very able chairman, to the war veterans allowance board or its very able chairman, or to the department; but I do know that my representations have always been thoroughly considered and sympathetically received and I am deeply grateful for that. I think we are fortunate in the calibre of the people who are doing this work for us.
DEBATES	3581
Supply-Veterans Affairs
I hope it is the intention of the minister when he makes a statement later to discuss how the transfer of hospitals to civilian authorities has worked out. As I understand it, many of our veterans hospitals have been taken over by civilian authorities and we have now reached the point where we can assess whether or not this change has been to the benefit of our veterans. I hope it is and that the minister will take the opportunity to discuss the matter for a few minutes because it is of much concern to our veterans.
A year or so ago, following the study made by Dr. Richardson, the Hong Kong veterans received some favourable consideration. I realize that the minister, the hon. member for Edmonton West and others went through the trial during the last war of serving in a prisoner of war camp. However, I would suggest to the minister and to others that the men who were prisoners of war in Hong Kong suffered as none of the rest of us did. I have always felt that I could not have survived as a prisoner of war of the Japanese and I am deeply grateful, as I am sure are these veterans, for what has been done for them in this field. They were certainly completely deserving of it.
The very fine address made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was an inspiration to all of us. This hon. gentleman has a war record second to none in this country and he made an exceptional address, one that should be necessary reading for everyone in the nation. Just a few nights ago I attended a function at the Canadian Legion headquarters in Ottawa at which I saw the film "That Other April" taken at the Vimy memorial this year. I am sure there were tears in the eyes of many that night as they watched that ceremony. The veterans of both world wars were present. Heads are more bowed now than they were 50 years ago, but the veterans themselves are as stouthearted as ever.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned the battle of Passchendaele. That battle is interesting historically because there Canadians suffered more than anywhere else perhaps in world war I. Few men who survived the mud and filth and despair of Passchendaele are not bitter. For months they held to their positions in the filth and slime of Belgium, and their sacrifices brought little result. What they did is especially worthy of note at this time.
3582	COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Another group of veterans that it is difficult to do much for are those who became psychiatric cases because of war service. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether a man is swinging the lead. Sometimes a man approaches the pension commission, claiming he is a psychiatric disability case, and it is difficult to tell if that is so. In all sincerity I hope that the minister's department will examine more closely this area of war disability.
I have in mind a young boy who was only 15 when he enlisted in a northern New Brunswick regiment. He came from a broken home. He served four years in the army and landed in France on D day, 1944, was awarded the military medal-as a matter of fact I personally recommended him-and was wounded. He refused to leave the front line. Finally, after several months of fighting, he was withdrawn and put into a mental hospital, where he has been ever since. He will remain there for the rest of his life as he is an incurable case. This is an extreme example. As I said, the danger is that a leadswing-er would approach the department and say that he cannot work because of his disability. We must guard against that. At the same time I hope that in the not too distant future a comprehensive program in the field of veterans disability will be undertaken.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador spoke about the Newfoundland foresters. His predecessor in the house referred to that body many times on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, nothing has been done about this group. I only wish to make one point, not to criticize but to correct something for the record. The hon. member is never on sound ground when he compares the Newfoundland foresty unit with the forestry corps of the Canadian army. The forestry corps was a unit of the Canadian army and its men were all attested. They were all soldiers, subject to all the transfers within the army and were in the same position as the men of the corps of Royal Canadian Engineers or the service corps. I commend the hon. member for the battle he is putting up for those people, and I wish him well.
I have said about all I wish to say except that I hope that very soon the Wood report will be made available for study. I am sure that many of its points will be implemented for the benefit of the veterans and their dependants. I hope and pray that very soon the war veterans of this country will hear the good news that war veterans pensions
[Mr. MacRae.l
DEBATES	October 27. 1967
and war veterans allowances are to be substantially raised.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he explain the difference between the Canadian forestry corps and the Newfoundland foresters, especially when the Newfoundland foresters who made an effort to join the services were told that they were more importantly employed as Newfoundland foresters?


John Chester MacRae: I shall be glad to answer that question, if my hon. friend will bear with me for a moment. I had experience with forestry troops in Scotland in world war II, and a fine group of men they were. I can only repeat that the Newfoundland forestry unit was composed of civilians. Several groups of civilians served in a similar capacity. They served with great distinction and were of great value, of course.
I am saying that the Newfoundland forestry unit was a civilian unit in this area of service. In some ways it was similar to the corps of Canadian firefighters, many of whom served during the blitz. Several of them were killed in the course of their service. But one has to start from some basic position and one has to look at whether men have been attested. One must have some way of saying; These men are members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Unfortunately those in the group the hon. member spoke about were not members of the armed forces.
I think a mistake was made right at the very beginning. But it was made 27 years ago and no government has corrected it. Mind you, if the Newfoundland foresters were given the benefits of the veterans charter, other worthy oragnizations should also be given those benefits. I am sure the hon. member would feel as strongly about that as I do. The group that immediately comes to mind is the Canadian firefighters corps. There were 400 of them and when the rest of us went to shelters or underground stations in the blitz they stayed above ground fighting fires. I hope I have answered the hon. member's question.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, any participant in the debate at this stage is almost certain to repeat arguments which previous speakers have advanced. I wish to make several comments, at the risk of being repetitious, in the hope that a repetition of some of the arguments on behalf of veterans may encourage the minister to expedite the
October 27, 1967

fulfilment of some promises which he has made during the past several months.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Of overriding importance to most veterans and those interested in veterans affairs are increases in the various pensions which are paid to our veterans. Perhaps this can best be highlighted by reference to The Legionary for October of this year. On page 9 of that issue the president of the Canadian Legion had this to say in reply to a letter from the Prime Minister:
Although I am disappointed by the lengthy delays that have occurred, I nevertheless appreciate your statement that, while the Woods committee report has not yet been received and the intradepartmental study on actual pension rates will not be completed for another two months, the matter of pension increases is currently being given active consideration. I take it that your reference, in this context, to Mr. Teillet's remarks in the house on March 13, means that the government is considering an interim increase this fall-in line with the minister's assurance six months ago that such a measure would be taken if the Woods and departmental committee's recommendations did not come to hand in "the fairly near future."
Further on in his letter he wrote:
An adequate interim increase during the fall session-but for wives and children as well as the disability pensioners themselves-is necessary to help alleviate the immediate need.
I think this clearly sets out the attitude of the Canadian Legion and, as I have pointed out, of all those who are interested in veterans affairs. Real disappointment was expressed following the last increase, which I believe was 15 per cent, when it was discovered that it did not apply to dependants. We are all aware of the protests made at that time and of the request that the minister reconsider the matter in the light of the constantly increasing cost of living and the fact that veterans and their families were placed in such a difficult economic position.
Subsequent attempts to obtain redress have not been successful. However, attempts to gain further increases in the basic pension continue. Time and again we have been told that the government is awaiting the tabling of the report of the Woods commission and the report of a departmental committee which was set up to try to work out a formula for pension rates. We also remember the minister's promise, to which the president of the Legion referred in his letter, that if there was any undue delay in the tabling of these reports he would give consideration to further interim increases. We have heard this so many times, and apparently it formed part of the reply by the Prime Minister to the first

Supply-Veterans Affairs letter written by the president of the Canadian Legion.
We can understand the minister's desire to have ample time to study all the relevant factors and to draft a sound formula for the establishment of rates but we in this chamber, as well as the veterans, find it impossible to understand his failure to carry out his promise of further interim increases. It may be that his failure is tied up with the position of the government with respect to the curtailing and cutting back of expenditures. It may be that economies have to be made but they should not be made at the expense of those who did not count the cost which service to their country might entail. Therefore I join with others who have spoken in this debate in appealing to the minister, in view of the long delay in the tabling of the reports, to bring his consideration to a satisfactory conclusion and announce that the government is prepared to recognize its responsibility to those who have served in the nation's forces and is prepared now to make further interim increases in the various pensions payable.
I would also like to support the representations made by the hon. member for Timmins who referred to the fact that there are veterans who find their pensions have been reduced because they are now in receipt of the old age pension income supplement. It seems very strange that although veterans pensions are not taken into consideration in the establishment of people's right to the income supplement, the income supplement itself affects veterans pensions.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman for a moment. Again for the sake of the accuracy of the record, the veterans' disability pension is not affected by any welfare supplement and with the exception of W.V.A. at no time is a veteran's pension considered as income in relation to welfare benefits. Those moneys paid to a veteran as welfare, the war veterans allowance and some allowances and payments made to dependants are affected by other welfare payments, but the veteran's disability pension is never affected by payments of that kind. I think this should be made clear for the record. I do not think my hon. friend intended to cloud the matter and I think he will welcome this clarification.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I understand that these other payments are made to veterans because their pensions are not adequate.
October 27, 1967

Supply-Veterans Affairs Therefore I think the same argument pertains in this situation. The amount which veterans receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs, from whatever fund it comes, should not be reduced because veterans are receiving a little from the income supplement fund. The arguments which have been advanced have made that abundantly clear. I think the minister should take these arguments under consideration and make the necessary changes in the legislation so that payments to veterans from his department will not be affected by the income supplement.
These are the only two matters I wish to raise today Mr. Chairman. As I stated at the beginning, I realize that representations about them have already been made. I only hope repetition of these arguments will convince the minister that some changes ought to be made for the benefit of the veterans.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention in any way to express criticism of the pension commission or the war veterans allowance board because I recognize they have to operate within the terms of legislation and the regulations made under it. I have always received courtesy and co-operation from these commissions and I should like to express my appreciation. Any criticism I make is directed toward the government and the minister who alone have the responsibility for legislation, orders in council and regulations. I make no apologies in respect of some things I intend to say, even though they may be harsh.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In the constituency of Vancouver East live a great many veterans of the first and second world wars and a great many veterans of the Korean war, the firefighting corps and members of the merchant marine. Without fear of contradiction I suggest that the veterans and their organizations in Vancouver, and in the constituency of Vancouver East particularly, consider the present Minister of Veterans Affairs to be the most useless person who has ever held this position. This opinion is based on knowledge of the lack of action on the part of the minister and the knowledge of his procrastination for month after month and year after year. One can use only certain terminology in this house, so I will only suggest that the minister has been guilty on more than one occasion of terminological inexactitude.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


Harold Edward Winch: Apparently my hon. friend does not understand that expression. Any dictionary will give the exact meaning of that phrase in parliamentary terminology.
It has been some time since the Woods commission was appointed to study veterans problems, legislation, administration and regulations. A committee was also set up to deal with the financial aspects of veterans pensions. It is not necessary to remind the house that a period of over a year has passed since the minister indicated that the report of the Woods commission would be forthcoming. Because the report had not been received the government, through the minister, introduced an interim increase of 15 per cent in veterans pensions. He pointed out that this was only an interim increase and that the situation would be remedied as soon as the Woods report was received and the committee's fiscal recommendations had been considered. Almost another year has elapsed and we are still awaiting the Woods commission report and the committee's fiscal recommendations.
The priority list of legislative items outlined by the Prime Minister for this year did not contain any mention of veterans pensions and contained not one word in respect of any change or increase on an interim basis between now and the receipt of the Woods report. It is obvious that as far as this government and the minister are concerned the veterans of this country have been forgotten. We all pay tribute to the senior citizens and pioneers of Canada but the government has apparently forgotten those who volunteered and risked their lives for this country. During this centennial year we should remember the hundreds of thousands who offered their time and their lives during wartime not only for this country but to protect the concept of democracy in the free world. These people have now been forgotten.
When criticizing the minister I have used the word "procrastination". I did not accuse him of prevaricating but presumably that means the same thing as terminological inexactitude. Even though the minister may not know what is going on he has misinformed the house and has been buffaloed by his colleagues. For this reason he is responsible for what has taken place. Time after time he has told the house that the Woods report would be received within a short period of time. He began telling us this over a year ago. Some 45 days ago the minister replied to
October 27, 1967

one of my questions regarding this report. In his letter he said:
Dear Mr. Winch,
In reply to your question regarding the Wood committee report, I am pleased to say that the chairman of the committee has informed me that the report is now complete, and the English copy should be available to me within the next few days. The French translation will not be available for some time.
That letter was dated September 12, 45 days ago. At that time the minister told me that the report was completed and would be in his hands within a few days. It is my understanding that the report is not available at this time, at least so far as members of parliament are concerned.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Perhaps I could interrupt the hon. member at this point, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend to take exception to all the inexactitudes the member has accused me of, but in respect of this subject I should like to state that the chairman of the committee informed me a few days ago that the report has been ready for some time and is now being translated. If the hon. member does not believe me I should like him to speak to the chairman to ascertain exactly what is the situation. Perhaps I should hasten to say that I do not place any blame on the chairman for the fact that the report has not yet been translated. Let me make that clear.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps for the benefit of the minister I should read this letter again. It states:
In reply to your question regarding the Woods commission report, I am pleased to say that the chairman of the committee has informed me that the report is now complete, and the English copy should be available to me within the next few days. The French translation will not be available for some time.
That letter was dated September 12, 45 days ago. The chairman of this committee informed the minister that the report was completed and would be made available to the minister soon after September 12. Apparently the translation would take some time to complete but in any event, according to the minister's own letter, the English copy was available at that time. We understand now it will be some time before the minister receives the French translation of the report. This letter was in the minister's own wording and cannot be misundertood. We are now in the position when there is still no report, and therefore still no action.

Supply-Veterans Affairs [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Miss LaMarsh:: Do you want it without a translation?


Harold Edward Winch: This lackadaisical approach, this procrastination by the minister is a betrayal of the veterans of this country. I think the members of this house are within their rights not only to ask but to demand that the minister make clear to his cabinet colleagues and those responsible in the department that if there is not going to be any change in the regulations or policy because they still have not received the report, we should be told at once. The veterans of this country and the dependants of those who were killed have the right to expect top priority to be given to the introduction of a bill to provide a further interim increase to our veterans. I refer not only to those on veterans pension but those on veterans allowance.
Action should be taken at once to correct this situation, and those on veterans allowance should not be discriminated against as they were last year, when in effect they received no increase whatsoever because of the means test, or to use the polite language of the government, the needs test. More than that, what has happened in this respect from the first world war through to the second world war is now almost a matter of history. There has been a denial of fair treatment by governments of this country to forces which have already been mentioned, namely those who served in the Korean war, the firefighting corps and the merchant marine service, which in many respects was just as much in a firing line as those on active service.
I have personal knowledge of the representations made on behalf of these people over the years. I know in particular of representations made to the Woods commission. I am grateful that I had the privilege of appearing before that commission. But I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much longer will action be delayed? The fact is that there was no mention, in the list of priorities announced by the Prime Minister, of legislation to improve the lot of our veterans. As far as I and the veterans of my riding of Vancouver East are concerned, this minister is just sitting and not acting. I think all of us have the right to tell the minister: Get off your inactive seat. Produce something, or admit that you are not capable of doing the job, that you are not interested in our veterans, and go back to the back benches where the veterans think you belong.
October 27, 1987

Supply-Veterans Affairs


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, in entering this debate on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs may I say first of all that the personnel who serve in that department now and those who have served through the years since its inception have been more than cheerfully helpful in dealing with all the requests made by veterans and others concerned with veterans affairs. I know from my own experience that when I have had problems in this area I have taken them to the department and the personnel have been very helpful. If I have not had the full facts of a case, they have been able to acquaint me of the facts right away. When I have raised a marginal problem I have received helpful suggestions from the department. I know that what I am now saying has been said many times, but I think it bears repeating.
I think the department and the veterans affairs committee have been strictly non-partisan, but I noted today what I thought was a tenseness in the requests put before the minister. We have certainly not been partisan in the house today. Every party has called for action to improve the situation of our veterans. I have listened to every word that has been said in this chamber since the beginning of the debate, and every hon. member who has spoken has asked the minister to do something now. The last speaker put it very strongly. I am wondering whether it could be put more strongly. However, Mr. Chairman, I want to add my views to what has been said and say to the minister that he must use his power and energy to convince his cabinet colleagues that action must be taken, and quickly, in respect of the two matters that have been stressed, namely, the Woods commission report and the study of pension rates.
No one will do anything, let alone translate the report from English to French, if requests made by the minister are not backed up with punch and drive. The minister is in the happy position of being Minister of Veterans Affairs, but he is in the unhappy position of not providing the necessary punch and drive to produce the translation of the report and have completed the necessary research into the situation with regard to pension rates.
I rise in the debate to stress this one point, Mr. Chairman, because I have heard it said that the minister is just sitting, hoping he will not have to give answers to these questions because he will be moved to the Senate. Perhaps this is the reason why action has not been taken. But these important questions


should have been answered and the minister should not stall from day to day.
One can go back over Hansard of the last three years to find evidence of stalling by the minister, but I will give a recent example. On September 25 last the minister said, as reported at page 2463 of Hansard:
The Woods committee report will apparently be in my hands within a day or two, although not translated.
I emphasize the word "apparently." Why in the world does the minister not say: I want that report on my desk, and I am going to get it? I know that a commissioner cannot be ordered about, but the letter sent to the speaker who preceded me said that the minister had the report in his hands. On a subject so important as this why cannot the minister use that energy and drive that we all hope he will use some day to have the report produced? Why cannot he tell his cabinet colleagues that he is in a rough spot in this regard, has been stalling the veterans since 1963 when he was appointed Minister of Veterans Affairs, and something must be done to correct this situation?
I have drawn attention to that one passage in Hansard but I am quite sure that if the minister's secretary, his parliamentary secretary or anybody in his office cares to look back into the record they will find a great many answers which might give the minister the right to the title "the manana minister". It has always been tomorrow; and if not tomorrow, in just a few days.
I said that we have a non-partisan committee. The only reason I use strong language like that is that I believe the minister has it within his power to act on these matters for the benefit of our veterans. I believe he has to get cracking and do something. All the speeches made today have stressed the fact that action has been requested not only by members of parliament but by those who appeared before the committee in the last three of four years, and from veterans organizations from all over the country. They are demanding that action be taken.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The veterans themselves are writing letters, but the government is stalling and stalling. It says to the veterans complacently, "Tomorrow is the day quite possibly, and if we can, we will try to get down to it and give you an answer". The minister must do better than that.
October 27. 1967	COMMONS
There are a number of other matters that I had hoped to touch upon today but this committee has been sitting long enough, so I will conclude by making one more request of the minister, namely that he please do something about the matter I raised.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. First I must say that much has been said on all sides of the house on behalf of the veterans. I am sure the minister and his officials will appreciate many of the remarks, as they always have in the past. There is little more that can be said on this subject but there are two points I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. The first one is to ask him whether any action has been taken on behalf of the handful of veterans who did not have the 365 day qualification. There are very few of these chaps left and many of them are in dire circumstances. I know personally of one case, a chum of mine who was with me all through training. He actually broke down and cried, and appealed to the C.O. to be sent overseas; but he was not sent over. It was certainly not his fault that he did not go overseas. I hope the minister and the department will give some consideration to these cases.
The other matter is one in which I am sure the officials are very interested. Apparently it does not happen in all provinces and in all sections of the country. Under the present regulations a veteran is discouraged from showing initiative and endeavouring to keep himself busy, thereby earning a few extra dollars. In some cases veterans have a few chickens or a cow to supply eggs or milk for their families. Yet when the D.V.A. representative has called on them this has been calculated as income. Also the fact that a veteran owned a decent car to transport his family here and there was deplored by the representatives of the department. Surely this is not the wish of the Canadian people. In my opinion they want their veterans to be treated as well as veterans are treated in any other country. I hope the minister will consider these matters.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I should like to ask the hon. member to supply me with specific information on these cases and I will look into them.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Germa:: Mr. Chairman, at this late stage in the debate it is difficult to find something new to say on this subject, as almost everything has been said. Let me just say to 27053-227
DEBATES	3587
Supply-Veterans Affairs the minister that I hope he has benefited from the suggestions made on this side of the house. I also wish to assure him that the entire opposition will support him in resisting any attempt by the finance minister to slash, cut or delay the budget with respect to veterans. There has been some evidence of procrastination and delay in increasing pensions.
One matter which I should like to raise this afternoon is in connection with the possible reduction in the pensions which have already been granted. I think it is possible that this tendency will increase if such is the attitude of the minister. As our stock of public housing units increases, this situation is likely to occur more often. A case was brought to my attention of a person who was in receipt of a pension of $245 a month. This is what a family consisting of a man, a wife and his three children had to live on. I do not know what was the breakdown of this $245 but let it be said that the income of this family consisted only of that amount. This family applied to the Ontario Housing Corporation for low rental housing. Under the National Housing Act the C.M.H.C. provides the money for the construction of these houses, so this is done by another department of the government. This veteran was in fact granted by the Ontario Housing Corporation a rent-geared-to-income home, his rent being based on his pension of $245. Apparently when the department found out that this man had been granted a low rental house-in fact his rent was subsidized to some degree by the government-it saw fit to reduce to $226 his former pension of $245. So in fact one department of the government granted this person a benefit while the other department took it away.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Would the hon. gentleman mind if I interrupt him for the sake of clarity? I think he must be speaking of war veterans allowance and not of a disability pension. I think that a distinction should be made between the two.


Melville Carlyle Germa: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but I consider this to be splitting hairs. This is the man's only source of income and regardless of whether we call it a disability pension or a war veterans allowance it is hardly proper for one department to be trying to help this man and for another department to be taking it away.
Let us suppose that this man was working in industry and was making $245 a month. He would apply to the Ontario Housing Corporation and would receive the same treatment, namely his rent would be geared to his
October 27, 1967

Supply-Veterans Affairs $245 income. The industrialist who employed him would certainly not reduce his wage for the simple reason that he had received low rental housing. I think these veterans should not be treated worse than the treatment accorded an ordinary worker in society. I think the object of rent-geared-to-income housing is to raise the standard of living of these people who are on low incomes. In this case the veteran was not treated in the same way as would anyone else in our society. If this condition persists, and as our stock of government housing grows we will hear more and more complaints about this. I hope the minister will give the matter his consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I also should like to say a few words about the treatment of war veterans allowance recipients. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that have been advanced with respect to the guaranteed income supplement because they have been well put by a number of speakers today. I would remind the minister, however, that when we were debating the legislation respecting the guaranteed income supplement some of us pointed out the unfairness that has now developed. What is most annoying about this is not merely that it happens but the way in which it happens. The war veterans allowance recipient who is an old age pensioner received two documents earlier this year, one of which was an application form for the guaranteed income supplement. It came to him from a department of the government of Canada and it had on it in large red print the information that war pensions or war veterans allowances did not preclude him from receiving the guaranteed income supplement. He was encouraged by the wording of that form, he was encouraged by the wording in the booklet that came with it, to apply for the guaranteed income supplement. The minister has pointed out, quite rightly, that his department advised the same war veterans allowance recipient that he should check with his local war veterans allowance officer. However, that advice was in a much less attractive document. It was typewritten, mimeographed or something like that and it was in fine print. Many veterans did not see that, and I am sure they saw just the red type invitation to apply for the guaranteed income supplement.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The result is that what was given with one hand was taken away with the other. Since this case has been made so often, I need not take time to repeat it. It has been stated
[Mr. Germa.l

extremely well by two or three of my colleagues and I will let it rest at that for the moment. However, I should like to point out to the minister that unless he takes some kind of action the same thing is going to happen in connection with this big increase which is going to take place in the old age security pension in January. I am referring to the increase of $1.50. Perhaps I should have asked that quotation marks be put around the word "big". The people who are writing to me about it are using some pretty strong language about it.
As the War Veterans Allowance Act stands, a war veterans allowance recipient who is receiving the old age pension and who gets the extra $1.50 old age security increase will have $1.50 cut off his war veterans allowance. If he is one of those who has already applied for the guaranteed income supplement and is getting the pension and the supplement to the full amount of $105 per month, and if he has already gone through the indignity of suffering the loss of some of his war veterans allowance, he will get an increase of $2.10 in his old age pension; but $2.10 will come off his war veterans allowance unless the minister does something about it. We are talking about very small amounts, I know-of $1.50 or $2.10. The minister might well say to me, why take the time of the committee to talk about it. However, the fact is that another instance of this kind is going to be a bitter pill for many of these veterans to swallow.
I point out this difference between what will happen with respect to the $1.50 or the $2.10 in respect of the guaranteed income supplement. In the case of the guaranteed income supplement, the veteran who was receiving the old age pension had to apply for the supplement. He could be told, "You did not read all the words, you did not discover in advance what would happen". But he had to apply for it. In the case of the $1.50 or the $2.10, there is no application to be made; it is automatic. It will be there in his January cheque, and as I say, unless the minister does something about it, it will come off his allowance. I am sure, from the way in which the minister has been answering me with friendly facial expressions while I have been talking, that he is aware of how difficult this will be and how unfair it will be. I hope this means he is going to do something about it. If $1.50 is worth giving, and many people are questioning that, it seems to me it is worth giving without taking it away, especially from our war veterans allowance recipients.
October 27, 1967	COMMONS


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
vote 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not going to reply?


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, a great many questions have been put to the minister. I think he could answer some of them very easily. It seems to me that at this stage the first item should not carry until we have received some answers to the questions which have been asked.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: It had not been my intention, Mr. Chairman, to make any lengthy statement. There are a number of things I could say. For instance I could certainly refer to the latter part of the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he dealt with the commemoration of events. This is something I think is well worth covering, but it would take considerable time. I believe the hon. member made the point quite well and I find nothing to disagree with in what he said. Initial conversations have been held to deal with the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the armistice in November next year. Within a few weeks we will be in a position to begin serious talks with the veterans of Canada as to how we will proceed with this event. It is something the department is actively considering now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question? Will he consult immediately with the Minister of National Defence to make certain that there is proper representation by the Canadian defence forces at any such ceremony?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: On that particular question, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that we have had excellent co-operation from the Department of National Defence. I believe he knows these matters are discussed between the Department of National Defence, our department and the Royal Canadian Legion. There was some disappointment about the military representation at Passchendaele. All of us shared that disappointment, but it was one of those things that had to occur. I can assure him that there will be adequate representation, just as there was at Vimy. I say this without consulting my colleague because I know in advance that co-operation will be forthcoming.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us hear from the Minister of National Defence right now.
DEBATES	3589
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am sorry, but I did not hear the whole of the question. Apparently there was a complaint that there was not adequate representation at Passchendaele, is that it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was an R.C.A.F. airplane which dropped poppies, but that was not adequate. There was no guard of honour.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am sure the hon. member will agree with me when I say that at many of the events this year the armed forces overseas did have proper representation. In the case of Passchendaele, however, it happened htat the date was right in the middle of the time when manoeuvres were held in Germany. It was possible to supply only one airplane to transport the veterans and one airplane to drop the poppies. This was unfortunate, but the manoeuvres were taking place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the minister recognize the fact that Canada's prestige abroad is vitally important in these international or commonwealth events, and we should be properly represented? The battle of Passchendaele was really a Canadian battle and culminated in the third battle of Ypres. There were a few people from Canada at the commemoration of Passchendaele, but no guard of honour. With a brigade over in Europe, sufficient men could have been seconded for that duty. I hope the minister will make sure that in future there are no excuses offered. Even if exercises are going on, there are always spare men for these duties.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Let me make two things clear. First, one of the reasons I had not intended to make a statement at the moment is the fact that pension rates are under consideration. I should like to remind hon. members of the statement by the Minister of Finance the other day. He carefully mentioned the fact that in considering the economies required by the government of Canada, the need to adjust veterans benefits from time to time would be excluded from those considerations. I am not in a position today to say anything more definite than that I can assure the committee this matter is under consideration.
One other question I should like to comment upon is hospitals. I believe the hon. member for York-Sunbury mentioned the fact that a number of hospitals had been transferred to other jurisdictions. The facts of the case are that the only two where a
October 27, 1967


Harold Edward Winch: May I just ask the minister a question, in view of what he has just said. In the letter the minister sent me 45 days ago he stated that the chairman had told him the report was completed. The minister told me he would be receiving the report in English in a few days but that the French version would be delayed. Was there a change in mind, and why could the minister not receive it in English, as he told me he would in his letter of 45 days ago? Why does the minister still have to wait for the French version


when he could have had it in English 45 days ago?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: For the sake of fairness to all concerned, I am sure that if I were to communicate with the chairman tomorrow and ask him to deliver the report to me in English only, he would do so. But then he would hardly be in a position to take any responsibility for delivering the report to me in both languages. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, in view of the circumstances existing in this country as well as in this house, I have taken the view that I must accept the report in both languages. That is the position in which I find myself. I regret if I misled the hon. member. Perhaps I did use the wrong words when I referred to the report, but in truth the chairman could have delivered the report to me. He could do so today if I requested it from him. I underline this because I do not want to hold him responsible for the delay. The delay is in the translation, over which he has no control.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister understands the position in connection with the filing of a report in two languages. But this means there has been a delay of 45 days in the minister giving consideration to the recommendations, and this to the detriment of the veterans of this country.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I admit that it has caused delay, Mr. Chairman, and unfortunately there will be more delay. The translation is still some weeks away from being completed. I am appreciative of the expressions of confidence of hon. gentlemen in the officials of my department and of their remarks about the co-operation they have received, and I want to assure the committee that in so far as they can be of help in speeding this translation, they will do so. However, it is not easy to hurry the translation of a report of this magnitude. All hon. members have knowledge of the size of the report; it is a very considerable document and requires great care in translation.
I do not want to labour the point but there have been examples, not only in this house but across the country, of people saying one thing in one language and their remarks being misinterpreted when reproduced in another language. We must allow the necessary time to ensure that a proper job is done in translating this report.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that there is anything more I should specifically take up
October 27. 1967	COMMONS
at this time. I hope we will have an opportunity before too long to meet in the standing committee, which would supply an opportunity to take up these questions again. I want to express my gratitude to the members of the house who took time this summer to assist the department and the country in the commemoration of those events of long ago in Europe. The impression left there was, I think, one well worth while for Canada, and it was one we should continue to leave.
Unless there are any further questions, Mr. Chairman, I think we should-


Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to ask the minister whether he does not think that the veterans are justified in taking the position that the point of undue delay has been passed long ago; that the department and the minister should take action to implement a promise that was made with regard to these increases? How long is "undue delay"?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated a moment ago, I am not in a position to answer that question at this particular moment. I am trying to be as frank as I can with the house. I am not indicating that there has been any change in the undertaking that was given. I did say that if the report were unduly delayed

and here I am dealing specifically with the study made of pension rates-a pension adjustment would be considered. This is now being considered, and that is as much as I can say at the moment.


David Vaughan Pugh: In view of what the minister has just said about the consideration of this report, Mr. Chairman, may I draw to his attention his remarks which are reported in Hansard for September 25 at page 2463, where he says:
The Woods committee report will apparently be in my hands within a day or two, although not translated. It will be some weeks before the translation is completed.
Then I draw attention to these important words:
However, I hope to make arrangements with the chairman of the committee to enable the department and the Canadian Pension Commission to begin considering the report without waiting for its translation.
The only point I make to the minister now is this: Obviously the report has not been given the Canadian Pension Commission or to the department for perusal. Would it not be reasonable to start things rolling and to hand over the report in English? Most of us are bilingual and understand English. Would it not be a good idea to bring forward the
DEBATES	3591
Supply-Veterans Affairs English report while it is being translated into French? I understand why the minister would want for many reasons, political and otherwise, to have the French translation available to table at the same time and to supply the pension commission with both versions at the same time, e (4:30 p.m.)
Surely this is not good enough. Is the minister to read the report in English and then in French, and say, "This meaning is not quite correct" or "That nuance has not been translated correctly"? Surely to goodness the report could be made to the minister in English and at his discretion the matter could be given further consideration, or sent to the Canadian Pension Commission. The government ought to start formulating policy and say that it will do this or that. At the present rate the matter will take months.
The minister is quite conversant in English and if he received the report in English he could understand it. Why could he not therefore start on the matter at the present time? That is my question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the minister replies I wish to say a word or two. The tabling of reports in the house in both languages is accepted practice and custom, and should continue. I agree with that. Something though should be done to speed up translations. I am informed by my colleague that the report of the committee on the Canada Pension Plan was expected to take six weeks in translation. The government undertook to put a task force on the matter, as it were, and the report was translated into French in less than a week. Could something like that not be done in this instance, so that the report can be laid before the house in English and in French as soon as possible?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not agree with all that my
seatmate has to say. May I ask a question also? Where possible, I think that reports should be filed in the house in both languages. But my point is this: When the report has been ready for 45 days, as the minister says, why in the name of heaven, on an important issue like this, must we wait for a period of weeks before the translation is made available? Cannot the minister study a copy of the report, or say that he is working on it, and then, when the translation becomes available, table it? Why must there be delays when the report is ready?
Oclober 27, 1967

Supply-Veterans Affairs
May I ask another question? The minister mentioned the report of the Wood commission. Would he kindly advise the committee what has happened to the report of the other committee that has been looking into pension rates? When does he expect to receive that report?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I thought I had made it reasonably clear a moment ago that a decision has been taken and that I would not accept the report until it was completed in both languages. As I say, that decision was taken.


Harold Edward Winch: Why?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I do not want to make a long speech to explain that. We went into the matter seriously and that was the conclusion, and I must stand or fall on that decision.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the best argument I know against bilingualism: holding up the people's business.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: As to the hon. member's other question with respect to the other report, I am not in a position to answer that. I hope it will not be too long before we have that report, but I cannot say when it will be ready.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the question of the hon. member for Kootenay West. Could we not have a crash force to work on the translation?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Though I am satisfied that the officials of the department are doing everything possible, I shall make a personal effort and ask them to hurry up the work of the translation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister might translate it, himself.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That would take a long time.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister mentioned the various meetings that he has had with hospital personnel in different areas regarding the takeover of the D.V.A. hospitals. In particular I am thinking of the hospital in Lancaster, New Brunswick. Will the minister assure the committee that the government will stand behind his guarantees to veterans, so that those who are in military hospitals that become general hospitals will receive the same standard of care they previously enjoyed. Unless we can have that assurance, veterans will be placed in an inferior position with respect to hospital treatment, where such takeovers occur.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Answering that question, I have repeatedly given assurances that the

principles declared two or three years ago would be upheld. That is, the conditions under which we would transfer veterans from hospitals have not changed. When I have met with veterans organizations I have underlined these conditions. I can assure the hon. member that the principles laid down three years ago have not changed. The steps that have been taken are to improve the treatment of veterans. We do not wish to sacrifice any of the quality of that treatment. What we are doing is in an effort to improve matters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare services, allowances and other benefits-
5. Administration, including the expenses of the War Veterans Allowance Board, $6,452,400.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before vote 5 carries would the minister comment on the remarks I made about the $1.50 increase in the old age security pension. As the minister may recall, I asked him a question about this on orders of the day on October 18. On that occasion the minister said that an announcement would be made at the appropriate time. Perchance, is today the appropriate time?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I regret to say that it is not. I assure the hon. member that the question is much in my mind and is being considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister try to find some way so that those receiving war veterans allowances will not lose the $1.50 that they will get as an increase in their old age pension?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
10. War veterans allowances, civilian war allowances and assistance in accordance with the provisions of the assistance fund regulations, $115,721,000.
15. Other benefits, including education assistance, hospital insurance premiums or payments in lieu thereof re recipients of war veterans allowance and civilian war allowance, and repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans' Rehabilitation Act in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of amounts equivalent to the compensating adjustments or payments made under that act, where the persons who made the compensating adjustments or payments received no benefits under the Veterans' Land Act, or where, having had financial assistance under the Veterans' Land Act, are deemed by the minister on termination of their Veterans' Land Act contracts or agreements to have derived thereunder either no benefits or benefits that are less than the amounts of the compensating adjustments or payments, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $2,710,200.
Welfare services, allowances and other benefits
[Stage Direction]
17a. To provide that, effective the 1st day of July, 1967, the definition of "civilian'' for the purposes of part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act be read and construed as
October 27, 1967
[Stage Direction]
though for paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section 75 of the said act there were substituted the following:
(g) a person who served in the United Kingdom with the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit during World War II
(i)	for a period of more than six months, or
(ii)	for any period, if the service was terminated on medical grounds, $1.
Pensions-
20. Administration, $3,212,000.
25. Pensions for disability and death, Including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; Newfoundland special awards; burial grants; and gallantry awards (world war II and special force), $198,979,000.
The Chairman:: Shall item 30 carry? Treatment services-
30. Operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for hospital and related services, $55,703,900.


Mr, Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, members of parliament, no doubt including the minister, recently got a letter from a certain group. They are the corps of commissionaires of Victoria, British Columbia. These men are dissatisfied with the circumstances under which they operate.
It has been suggested that a board should be appointed to inquire into their grievances. I ask the minister, will he consider an investigation into their grievances, or does he suggest that these men make representations before the standing committee on veterans affairs, when it meets next.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This matter came up some little while ago. At the time I believe that information and requests were forwarded to the national president of the Canadian corps of commissionaires. I hope that the hon. member understands that I have absolutely no authority in this matter and that the department has no jurisdiction. This is an entirely private group. We ought to consider whether we have authority, which I doubt very much, before any action can be taken. Another question to be considered is what manner of representation one might make to the corps of commissionaires in order to bring this matter to a conclusion. I am afraid I cannot answer these questions; the entire matter is delicate. I cannot intrude where I have no business-except, of course, that as veterans these men are of interest to me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wanted to ask the minister what he is trying to do. I realize that the situation here is delicate and that is why I wondered if the standing committee on veter-
Supply-Veterans Affairs ans affairs could invite this group to present its grievances, as the committee is directly concerned with the welfare of all veterans.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I think this would be a matter for the committee itself to consider.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
item 30 carry?


Harold Edward Winch: There is one question I wanted to ask and I am sorry if I did not raise it at the proper point. Am I correct that the minister has administrative control of veterans hospitals?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1 am not sure of the import of the question.


Harold Edward Winch: They come under your
administration?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: One of the finest hospitals that we have for veterans, the Shaughnessy hospital, is in Vancouver. I have received many letters concerning the orderlies there. They are highly trained and if they leave and go to private or general hospitals they are accepted with open arms. Could the minister use his influence to try to bring the wage standards for orderlies in veterans hospitals up to the level in general and private hospitals? These orderlies in Shaughnessy do far more work than orderlies in general hospitals and their experience is greater, yet they receive much less in monetary return.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I agree with the hon. member about the effectiveness of the work of the orderlies in Shaughnessy hospital, but here we are dealing with a local situation. It is again the old question of regional adjustments, regional rates of pay. Until now I have found no answer, and of course it is the Civil Service Commission which must solve that problem.


Harold Edward Winch: That is why you are losing the orderlies.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
35. Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition ol land, $5,947,000.
38. Treatment and related allowances, $2,610,000.
The Assistant Depuly Chairman: Item 40 is next.
Soldier settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
40. Administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement; upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses
October 27, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Veterans Affairs that do not add tangible value to real property, taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities; and to authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act and to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible, and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $5,338,600.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would just like to point out that there are still a few veterans around the Arrow lakes who have not settled with the B. C. Hydro and Power Authority, some of them coming under the Veterans Land Act administration. I suggest that the director of the Veterans Land Act and his officials do all they can to make certain that these people receive justice in their dealings with the B. C. Hydro and Power Authority. In one case they actually had their land valued by a former employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, whose job was assessing land values, and there was quite a discrepancy between what he considered they should receive and what the authority thought it should pay for their land. I urge that a final effort be made in this respect. Some quite reasonable settlements have been made as a result of the efforts of the department, and I ask the minister to do all he can for these people.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one problem to which I require an answer. If a veteran of the second world war has never taken advantage of the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans Land Act is he still eligible to make application and receive the benefits?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I would like to take notice of this question so that when I communicate with the hon. member I can be sure that he will receive a correct answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
45. Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, grants to veterans settled on dominion lands in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $130,000.
Loans, investments and advances

Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
L115. To increase to $530,000,000 the amount that may be charged at any one time to the Veterans' Land Act fund established by section 5A of the
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
Veterans' Land Act, for the purposes of parts I, H and III of that Act except sections 38, 39 and 56 thereof-additional amount required, $150,000,000.
Maurice Rinfret: This completes the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, it only remains for me to express my gratitude to hon. members for their co-operation and to say I know that whatever is said by them is said with a feeling of interest, and it is accepted in that spirit.


Maurice Rinfret: The committee of supply will now consider the estimates of the Department of Industry for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 238 of the blue book, and the details thereof are listed at page 239. Shall vote No. 1 carry?



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,568,300.
Harold Edward Winch: In view of the importance of this department is the minister going to make any additional statement on the estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let him explain the
increase of $95 million.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, these estimates were considered at considerable length by the standing committee at various periods earlier in the year. If it is the wish of the committee I would be prepared to make a further statement, a summary statement, rather than answer questions. It would be my hope that we might conclude these estimates today as part of the program for dealing with estimates adopted by the house. I am in the hands of hon. members as to whether they wish a statement from me or whether they would prefer to ask questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How long is your
statement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The statement will take six minutes, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then let us have it.


Harold Edward Winch: I think the department is worth six minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Explain the $95 million
increase.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: During the committee meetings to which I referred a moment ago, Mr. October 27, 1967

Chairman, a number of departmental programs were discussed. Since it seems to be the wish of hon. members I might mention certain of those activities in order to give the committee an indication of the broad spectrum of programs in which the department is engaged.
In the research and development field my department has a number of programs, including the program for the advancement of industrial technology under which the development of commercial products is assisted, the defence export development program for the development of products of a military nature, the new Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, and the industrial research institute program which has been established to foster greater cooperation between the business community and the universities in carrying out research and development.
Hon. members, I am sure, are most familiar with the automative program, the adjustment assistance program, the area development program, the industry modernization for defence exports program, the shipbuilding program, the design program and our program to improve the productivity of the building equipment, accessories and materials manufacturing industry.
I do not propose at this time to make a lengthy statement on these programs, except to say that the results to date are most gratifying. If hon. members wish to have a copy of the statement I made last June in committee, in which each of these activities is dealt with at some length, I would be most happy to provide it to them. However, I thought it might be more useful if I made a brief statement on the over-all operations of the department in order to provide as much time as possible for any questions hon. members may have.
As an economic department of government with particular responsibility for promoting the establishment and growth of manufacturing and processing industries in Canada on an efficient and competitive basis, the Department of Industry has as its principal mission the enhancement of the productivity performance of Canada's industrial economy.
In our form of economic system the role of government in the industrial development field has traditionally been limited to the application of broad economic policies of a commercial, fiscal or monetary nature. More recently Canada has recognized the need for industry and government to work more 27053-228
Supply-Industry
closely together in focussing on specific economic and technological problems, and in formulating mutually acceptable solutions which are beneficial to the economy as a whole.
With the establishment of the Department of Industry the government has created an instrument which can contribute directly to the attainment of this objective. With its mandate from parliament to acquire a detailed knowledge of manufacturing industries in Canada, and to develop and carry out programs to promote the establishment, growth, efficiency and improvement of these industries, my department has recruited and developed a group of professionals to formulate and implement imaginative programs to bring about constructive changes in Canadian industrial thinking and practice.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Our initial years of operation were characterized by recruitment of staff, policy and program formulation and the implementation and initial operation of a few important programs. The estimates for the fiscal year 196768 reflect the maturing of several programs and their growing utilization by the Canadian industrial community. In addition, the estimates reflect the consolidation within the Department of Industry of existing government industrial development programs. Of the total increase in our estimates for the fiscal year 1967-68 over fiscal year 1966-67 amounting to $95.8 million, almost $70 million is accounted for by transferred programs, while $27 million covers the requirement for increases in existing programs.
These amounts of money, while large, should not be regarded merely as expenditures. Rather, they should be looked upon as investments, of both time and money, in upgrading the productivity and competitive position of our industries. It is from this source, it should be remembered, that will come the improvements in wages and salaries, profits and tax revenues for all levels of government required to pay for all those things in the private and public sectors which Canadians have come to expect from our society.
In examining the estimates of the Department of Industry, it may be helpful for this committee to see them in the context of the department's mission and the basic approach it has developed for carrying it out. My approach and the approach of my departmental managers is to test each and every proposal which comes before us from outside

October 27, 1967
Supply-Industry
or from within the department with one fundamental question: Is it likely to contribute to improved performance for Canadian industry with a high benefit cost yield?
When it comes to specific actions, of course there is no magic formula, no royal road to improved industrial performance. We must work on many fronts-some modest and others rather ambitious. Some will be quick to take effect-others will be much more gradual in their impact. Our work embraces such diverse measures as working with industry in the rationalization and restructuring of an entire industry, the gathering and dissemination of valuable industrial information, the stimulation of research and development, the improvement of industrial design, the fuller utilization of human and natural resources in underemployed regions, the provision of adjustment assistance of both a financial and technical nature, missions abroad to learn from others, the formulation of more and better industrial standards, informed inputs in the formulation of economic policies generally to ensure that the effects on our industrial performance is fully recognized-and in many other areas.
The estimates before you are intended to finance activities in each of these varied fields. These represent only the beginning of the department's work. I intend that each year we will come forward with new programs-some at least of which will be of major significance. The test that I will apply-and I hope that you will accept it as the right test-is the degree to which they contribute to the expansion of efficient production and the improved productivity performance of the Canadian economy.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the minister took some gratification from the success of his department. At the beginning he even said he was gratified, but I should like to take this opportunity to point out that in one area of this responsibility there is nothing he should be happy about. I refer to the non-designation of Saint John under the industrial incentives program. I might also mention that, in addition to Saint John, Fredericton, Dartmouth and Halifax have not been designated. These are the major cities in the maritimes and they have been denied the benefits of this program since 1963.
The non-designation of the city of Saint John has had a drastic effect on the industrial aspects of that community. I could list, and am prepared to do so, eight industries

which have left that area as a result of non-designation and the unsatisfactory conditions there. I will not take the time this afternoon to outline the history of this situation, but I should like to point out that various delegations have come to Ottawa from those cities and made representations in an appropriate manner, but to no avail. Let me hasten to add that the minister has been straightforward and co-operative, but he does not seem to appreciate this problem.
Some encouragement was given in respect of alternative assistance under the Atlantic Development Board, but nothing has been forthcoming except in respect of one or two industrial parks. In nearly every industrial park development the provinces have experienced a failure. I am prepared to ask the minister certain questions, and in this way conform with his request. I hope he will be in a position to answer them because the people in these four cities I have mentioned must have answers very soon.
Will the minister indicate whether federal assistance has been a deciding factor in the location of new industries in the Atlantic provinces, or of assistance in the relocation of industries there? I should like to know whether federal assistance has had any effect in the relocation of an industry in the maritimes. I should also like to know how many industrial applications for assistance have been rejected because of the inability to locate in growth centres. Will the minister also indicate his stand or position in respect of these growth centres? Does the minister believe it is desirable to locate these growth centres in the Saint John and Halifax area of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? Will the minister indicate why Saint John has not been designated and whether there is any hope in this regard? Can this area be brought under the provisions of section 9 (e) of the regulations, and is there any hope for a change in this legislation to alleviate the disastrous effects of this situation in the communities I have mentioned?


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
October 27, 1967



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this time we could have the government's forecast of the business to be considered next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we hope to continue with the estimates of the Department of Industry on Monday for at least a couple of hours. We then intend to move to a consideration of the estimates of the Department of Public Works. As we indicated last night, we will consider the estimates of the Treasury Board on Tuesday. There is some doubt as to whether we will consider estimates on Wednesday because of the desirability of considering the estimates during the longer days. At any rate, the program will be the following: completion of the estimates, the Broadcasting Act and, hopefully, capital punishment.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Has it not been agreed that estimates will be taken on Thursday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has not been agreed, but that is likely what will take place. In the meantime I am working out a program for Wednesday, which will likely be legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


Barry Mather: the second reading of Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Criminal Code (fine print clauses).
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in rising to
introduce Bill No. C-ll, which is intended to be an act to amend the Criminal Code (fine print clauses), I want to say that, at least in my opinion, what it proposes is comparable to other consumer type legislation which we have had before us recently, or has come into being in Canada in recent months. I refer to the fact that we have seen the banks of Canada instructed to print in a very plain and clear fashion the interest rate on documents connected with borrowings. Second, we have seen fit to encourage the setting up of a new department of government to be called the department of corporate and consumer affairs. However weak it may seem to 27053-2281

Amendment to Criminal Code some of us, at least the aim of that department is to protect the buyer from the tricks of the marketplace. Third, I think we might also claim as consumer type legislation that dealt with in the announcement made recently respecting a code of motor vehicle safety standards, which will certainly add to the protection of the consumer in that field.
The bill that I put forward this evening is similar in its intent and could be considered auxiliary to the measures I have mentioned. The explanatory notes of the bill say:
The object of this bill is to eliminate the practice whereby insurance companies, commercial corporations and individuals embody in insurance policies, contracts or deeds, fine print clauses excluding their liability under certain circumstances.
It is desirable that payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility be listed plain and clear in the body of insurance policies, contracts and deeds.
In line with that general proposition, the bill-which is a very brief one-sets out that if it were adopted the Criminal Code would be amended by inserting immediately after section 328 the following section:
(1)	Everyone who, with intent to mislead, prints or causes to print in small typographical character in the body of an insurance policy, contract, deed or other document issued by him or under his authority, clauses concerning payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2)	In this section, the expression "small typographical character" means a typographical character that is substantially smaller than the one used in the body of the printed matter of the document.
I believe that if legislation of this type were adopted-not necessarily this particular bill-it would ease the troubles and exasperations of a great many Canadian consumers, people who should read but perhaps find difficulty in reading the fine print which has been plaguing so many ordinary buyers of goods and services. There has been so much difficulty in this respect that the term "fine print" has become a byword used in summing up the difficulties under which the consumer labours.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I have it on the word of a lawyer who is experienced in agreements connected with fire insurance policies that the fine print of these policies is very carefully read word by word in the offices concerned. This is done to make sure that any changes, which he says appear in the policy fine print without, necessarily, the insured being told about them, are all noted.
October 27, 1967


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat I wonder whether he would allow a question.


Barry Mather: Yes, sir.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am in sympathy with the spirit of the bill which, as the hon. member explained, is in line with the various pieces of consumer legislation and the "truth in lending" type of legislation which we are considering. I am wondering what would be the effect of this bill if a contract, deed or insurance policy was all written in the same size of type. Would not that be an easy way around this provision? Those wanting to mislead people could easily avoid the penalties contemplated in this measure by simply printing the whole contract in one size of type.


Barry Mather: I think not. I think that if the type were large enough it would ease the situation. However, if there would be any difficulty of the type envisaged by the hon. member, perhaps the bill could be considered by the appropriate committee or department, when it could be dealt with in detail together with similar proposals. After a consideration in committee we could perhaps find the answer to this difficulty.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit another question?


Barry Mather: Yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I have said, I agree with the spirit of the bill but I want to get the hon. member's views on this. Would he not think that a better approach would be that adopted by the Liberal party in British Columbia and put into the form of legislation many years ago, namely that exclusion clauses be printed in large, red type as opposed to black type, thereby making them stand out? By law, exclusion clauses must be in red type in that province. This measure was passed by the Liberal government of British Columbia many years ago.


Barry Mather: I know that the provinces already have some legislation in this regard. It may be that the hon. member's suggestion with regard to the sort of type used is a good one. Again I say that I do not think my bill is the be-all and end-all on the subject. I would be very happy to have all these questions referred to the appropriate committee or the department, e (5:10 p.m.)


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Criminal Code (fine print clauses), as proposed and expounded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather).
I believe at first I should compliment the hon. member on the objectives he proposes to attain in his bill. The purpose of the hon. member in proposing his bill is to eliminate the practice under which insurance companies use fine print clauses to exclude their own liability. I cannot but agree with the explanatory notes, that it is desirable that payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility be listed plainly and clearly in the body of insurance policies. However, Mr. Speaker, even if I do agree with the object of the bill and the good intentions of the hon. member, I doubt very much whether the results he seeks would be achieved by his bill.
It should be noted that the amendment proposed rests on the intent to mislead. As a matter of fact the first part of the amendment reads as follows: "Everyone who, with intent to mislead, prints...". There are already provisions in the Criminal Code relating to fraud, and these provisions can be used to cover the circumstances contemplated by this amendment, since the intention to
October 27, 1967	COMMONS
mislead is an essential element of both offences.
It should also be pointed out that some of the provincial statutes already cover the area covered by the proposed amendment. For example, section 134, paragraph 2, of the insurance act 1964, revised statutes of Manitoba, chapter 126, provides that when there are exclusion clauses like the one referred to in the proposed amendment, there must be stamped in red ink upon the policy the following words? "This policy contains a limitation of liability clause or clauses".
The second point I wish to raise at this time with regard to the proposed amendment is the reference to printing as being an essential element of the offence. The first portion of the proposed amendment reads as follows: "Everyone who, with intent to mislead, prints or causes to print". In my opinion in order to cover the evil and protect the public it should not be necessary that the offender print or cause to print the document in question; it should be sufficient if he simply issues the document. It would appear to be easier to prove that an insurance company has issued a document than to show that it has printed it.
The third point which would be underlined is that the proposed offence is stated to be an indictable offence. However, the punishment suggested is less than in the case of summary conviction offences as found in section 694 of the Criminal Code of Canada. If it is to fall under the Criminal Code of Canada, I submit it should be a case of summary conviction and not an indictable offence.
However, I personally feel this matter should not be dealt with under the Criminal Code, because there is already a proper and adequate civil remedy. Any person who is misled by fine print in an insurance policy or a contract has a cause for civil action and can receive compensation by way of damages. If a person is not misled by fine print, there would appear to be little point in endeavouring to create a criminal offence.
In any event, it is the provincial legislatures that have jurisdiction over such matters as insurance policies, contracts, deeds, and the like. It is therefore the provincial legislatures that should provide appropriate civil remedies where any person is misled as a result of fine print in a contract. Indeed, it might well be said that legislation of the kind contained in the proposed amendment in Bill Cl-11 will be simply an attempt to control through the Criminal Code a subject which normally falls under provincial jurisdiction.
DEBATES	3599
Amendment to Criminal Code
Perhaps it is not a good policy to attempt to do indirectly what should not be done directly. However, I sympathize with my hon. friend and I agree with him that efforts should be made to curb any attempt to trick the public into buying insurance policies which otherwise they would not buy. The problem was much more acute some 20 years ago. May I refer to an item which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 17, 1945, as quoted in a book entitled "Life Insurance Without Exploitation", written by Edwin C. Guillet. I quote from page 69:
"People," says the eminent columnist J. V. McAree, "have to be ordered and frightened at great cost into buying life insurance and saving their money and avoiding body odour and bad breath ... This is something new in history ... an advertising blitz the like of which no other generation has seen:... mass appeals,.. .campaigns and drives and massed propaganda ...
But we think that the total amount of propaganda information tends to debase those who are subjected to this never-ending bombardment... No doubt we shall outlive it and survive, but the process will be painful and perhaps fraught with danger."
We did survive the insurance propaganda bombardment through better information to an enlightened public and also through efforts of the insurance companies to police themselves. For many years now the Canadian Federation of Insurance Agents and Brokers Association has been pressing hard for stricter controls. May I quote a few paragraphs from an article which appeared in the Financial Post on September 17, 1966, carrying the heading "No More Fine Print, Maybe No Policies".
Insurance buyers soon may not have to complain about all that fine print in their car insurance policies. Reason: They may not have policies.
Massive revisions in the uniform insurance act (applying in all provinces except Quebec) make it necessary to redraft the auto insurance policy. Insurance men will be thrashing over a new policy wording at next week's meeting of the superintendents of insurance in Victoria.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Some experts say the revisions in the act will make the new policy so long and complex (even longer and more complex than it is now) that it would only confuse and irritate insurance buyers.
Most people look at the front of the policy to see that the amounts of insurance are correct and then put it away in a drawer. They never actually read the terms and conditions, an insurance man says.
Instead of giving the insurance buyer a complex legal contract that he never reads and would find hard to understand if he did, some insurance people advocate a simple certificate showing the amounts of insurance in force, and a brochure explaining the coverage in simple terms.
3600	COMMONS DEBATES	October 27, 1967
Amendment to Criminal Code
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this would be a solution worthy of consideration. In any event, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) should be commended for bringing the problem to the attention of the house and of the country.


Mr.   J.-P. Racine@Beauce: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to congratulate the member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) for introducing Bill No. C-ll. He referred, I think, to a point which is most important, in my opinion. More and more, certain companies-I do not want to accuse them of fraud-insert in some contracts clauses written in what is called fine print and which often are important parts of the contracts. I think that the examples given by the member for New Westminster are true and that, in most cases, the contracting parties may not have the legal knowledge necessary to judge the contents of the documents they sign.
I was happy to hear also, and I was not told personally but people in general know, that the department of consumer affairs will look after the protection of the Canadian taxpayer doing business with companies whose amount of business and legal knowledge is much higher than that of the contracting parties.
However, when reading the explanatory notes, one cannot but agree with the hon. member who introduced that bill. In fact, he states that the object of the bill is to eliminate the practice whereby insurance companies, commercial corporations and individuals embody in insurance policies, contracts or deeds, fine print clauses excluding their liability under certain circumstances.
And again in the explanatory notes, our hon. colleague adds that:
It is desirable that payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility be listed plain and clear in the body of insurance policies, contracts and deeds.
Once again I fully agree with him. Are the amendments proposed by him stringent enough and do they come under the jurisdiction of the federal government?
The bill mentions among others things:
-is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars-
Five hundred dollars-I suppose that amount could be found in the till of a large insurance company...
-or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or to both fine and imprisonment everyone who with intent to mislead-

-and still there must be some evidence. In the case of large insurance company, I wonder who would be imprisoned as I said earlier. And the bill states:
*-prints or causes to print in small typographical character in the body of an insurance policy, contract, deed or other document issued by him or under his authority, clauses concerning payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility-
I am quite willing to believe that the mover of Bill No. C-ll is sincere. But I wonder how, in its application, we can ever evoke the penalties he himself advocates in the bill.
When we speak of fine print, more than insurance companies are involved. We could go so far as to say that the same problem exists where finance companies are concerned. And the same goes for almost all contracts the consumer must sign, either when he needs protection or when he needs a loan.
Once again, I agree fully with the mover of the bill. I trust the new department established to protect the consumer will pay very special attention to this matter, which is of the greatest importance. Even though this bill is brought in on a Friday night, before the week-end, and most of the members are on their way to their riding, that does not lessen in any way the importance of the matter brought up by the hon. member.
I am sure that not only the members of this house but all the Canadian people agree with him.
Now, does the federal government have jurisdiction in the above matter? My colleague from Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube), who is a lawyer-I will not say that I do not have that honour, but rather that I am not in that condition-mentioned that this matter could be within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
For my part, since I come from the province which my hon. colleague from New Westminster knows, I think that if the provinces have jurisdiction over this matter, we would perhaps be wrong in trying to pass legislation before the provinces have had a chance to give their opinion concerning this case.
I think my colleague for Restigouche-Madawaska said that all questions concerning insurance policies, contracts and so on are within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
I think that he has also mentioned that the provincial legislatures had the civil power to
October 27, 1967	COMMONS
remedy the problem brought up by the hon. member.
I am not a lawyer, but if this question comes under provincial jurisdiction, the mover of the bill will, at least, have had the merit of having brought up in the federal parliament a most important matter.
And if I say this question is important, it is not simply to flatter the hon. member, it is because I, and probably every member of the house, have had complaints from their electors on this question.
It is true-and I wonder how it happens and it is probably the case of the hon. member-that we are often called upon to sign contracts comprising many pages several of which are illegible, and these pages would be more numerous if the writing was legible and if, let us admit it, the terms were more understandable.
I know, as I said at the start, that the examples given by the hon. members even if they are illustrative may, in certain cases, be real. If a fire starts in a house, for instance, as the hon. member said, the company may disclaim any responsibility if a mouse, unfortunately for the owner, were to chew the electric cable. Or if a condition or a clause of the contract does not provide for the mouse to cut the cable, the owner finds himself simply without a claim with the company even though he has paid his yearly premiums and has complied with the conditions he thought required to have the insurance in force.
I believe that in those cases of insurance, since the bill deals only with insurance, I may be able to give some advice to the hon. member. He could even go further by introducing in other circumstances a similar bill designed to cover finance companies, as I said earlier.
Let us hope, once again, at least I hope so like the hon. member, that the department of consumer affairs will make a point of inquiring carefully in all such situations in order to protect all citizens. It is quite irregular that some companies, more powerful no doubt than the sponsor of the bill and myself, can submit to Canadian taxpayers some contracts that are often misunderstood, but which actually can cause grave prejudice to the contracting party who is acting in good faith.
I should not like what I just said to be construed as an accusation against insurance companies, or against finance companies.
DEBATES	3601
Amendment to Criminal Code
I would not say here that such companies are dishonest, far from it, I just say that the authorities involved, in this case provincial authorities, should see to it that these companies operate in such a way that contracts might be understood by those to whom they sell insurance or finance.
And, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to congratulate again the hon. member and I repeat my wish that the new department for consumer protection shall not only be instituted but also become operative as soon as possible.
If I may somewhat digress at this point, though this may not be quite in order, because we are considering a specific bill, I would say that the Canadian people feel, I am sure, that the setting up of such a department is long overdue.
Insurance companies were mentioned this afternoon, and I referred as well to finance companies, but many more areas could be involved. At that time, the head of the department and his senior officials will have the responsibility to protect the people. We are here precisely to protect those who delegated their authority to us, while giving us at the same time the power to amend our laws so that they are better protected.
Again, if we were thereby trespassing on the authority of the provinces and infringing upon their autonomy, as my colleague from Restigouche-Madawaska said, I think it would be not only unfair, but wrong on our part to try to deal with a problem which is not within our jurisdiction.
Therefore, I do not blame the hon. member who introduced the bill, but congratulate him for having drawn the attention of parliament to a case which should interest everyone-for even though the federal parliament is involved here, we are Canadian citizens. The very fact that our attention has been drawn to the problems presented by insurance contracts is already something, and I think it may be a warning of sorts directed to the provincial authorities through their representative in the house.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the principle enshrined in Bill No. C-ll. I am and always have been a strong believer in insurance. As a matter of fact, in view of conditions today in this modern world and some of the judgments which have been handed down when matters go to
October 27. 1967

Amendment to Criminal Code court, I believe everybody must have insurance.
I think it is sale to say that the majority of the people who believe in the principle of insurance and who take out insurance policies do so in the belief that they have a certain coverage which is provided by the clauses in large type that are common to all insurance policy forms. But too many people do not read the very fine print. Even if they do, the print is so fine and the wording so complicated that, if they are like me, they do not understand it.
Some 32 years ago I reached the position where I was able to move from a rented home to a home of my own, with a mortgage. I believed in insurance and I got what I thought was complete coverage of my home. However, a few years ago there was a fire at my home, and when it came to settlement I received about one third of what I anticipated receiving, simply because I had not read or had not been able to understand the fine print on my fire insurance policy.
I also have a relative who believes in insurance coverage, and similarly she thought she was completely covered by her insurance. The diamond in one of her rings dropped out and when the claim was considered the fine print revealed that no insurance was payable, and she still has the ring without the diamond.
I give those two personal experiences of people who believe in insurance. In addition, I believe that people should not only know the extend of their coverage but should also know what the insurance company claims are exclusions. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that many people would have a greater understanding of their policies or agreements if the exclusion clauses appeared in large type or, as recommended by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), type of a different colour, so that these clauses would stand out.
I support the principle of the bill now before us and I hope that the recommendation of the hon. member who introduced it will be accepted, namely that instead of the bill being talked out it be referred for study and possible action either to a committee of the house or to the new department.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I think that on the principle of the bill, we are faced to some extent with a sort of painless operation, since all the hon. members who contributed to the debate so far, have indicated that they supported the bill 
and they have showered the sponsor with congratulations while raising some objections.
I too believe that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), is looking for perfection and would want, of course, to see it prevail everywhere in the world. Obviously, his intentions are good, but in spite of all the legislation we could pass here, a great many people will still remain extremely gullible.
I should like now to give a few examples just to show the extent of the general public's gullibility with regard to printed matters sent to their homes, whether it be small print or coloured print, or underlined sentences or words in italics and so forth.
It is understandable of course, because everyone is not an intellectual. Those people who have to take insurance policies, for instance, are workers who are not accustomed to reading and most of the time they get confused when they have to follow a text, a little long and a little condensed.
I remember a rather recent case where, for instance, I sent a questionnaire to my constituents. In a rather large committee, we had studied a most simple questionnaire hoping that everyone would understand it quite well. You would be surprised to see how many people-and my electors are not any dumber than those in other ridings in the country-did not understand it. For instance, there were two cards, one had to be detached and the other on which appeared the questions was to be returned to me. There was nothing complicated about it; all they had to do was to detach the card and mail it. However, I would dare say that 40 per cent of those who answered sent both cards back.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
No need for me to labour the point, but it shows that even if we were to pass the bill of the hon. member for New Westminster, requiring that the fine print clauses on insurance policies be printed in larger print, in colour or in italics, some people still would not understand.
You know, it is a law of nature. However hard you try, you will never reach perfection. Somebody, who died a long time ago, used to express this truth in terms that might appear to some as rather crude. He used to say: "There's a sucker born every minute."
Jocular as it may be, it is nevertheless true. There will always be people whose gullibility will get them into trouble. Passing all the laws under heaven will never help in this respect.
October 27, 1967

Besides, practically speaking, can you imagine how you would apply this suggestion to the hon. member for New Westminster?
There will always be all sorts of objections and there will always remain people who are clever enough to find means of cheating others. There are experts in that field. However, I do not think that we should carry our legislation too far; we should rather try to make it easier to obtain relief through existing legislation. A moment ago, the member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube) said that this is a provincial matter and that people who are wronged should resort to existing legislation.
I would suggest instead that appeal to existing legislation be facilitated to the common people, those I call gullible souls who are liable to be cheated. I speak of gullible souls, but the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who seconded the motion, said himself that he had been cheated, and yet he is one of the most intelligent members of this house. Therefore, imagine what it must be like for those I call gullible souls. It would be advisable to make it easier for them to start court proceedings, to make it so that they will not have to spend too much money in order to retain a lawyer to plead their case; otherwise in most cases they would not see a lawyer and would incur a loss because they failed to read the small print in the insurance policies they signed.
It has been said that this is a provincial matter. It might be. I am not a lawyer. But if there was only that argument to prevent its passing, I would be in favour of the bill which is good in theory, but I just want to say that respect for what is called provincial antonomy must be kept within bounds, although some must be shown. There are some cases where the provinces are unable to exercise their prerogative, then, the federal government would be justified in stepping in, but the people who feel aggrieved may already obtain relief through existing provincial legislation.
Then, I say this, Mr. Chairman, while I associate with the others to congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster for his excellent intentions, we ought to take steps that will make the existing conditions as perfect as possible in order that the ordinary people may not be aggrieved in the process. If we pass this bill, we will have to pass a hundred more to cope with those who specialize in the art of misleading people, and there would never be an end to it all. Therefore, I say, in spite of its fine objective this
Amendment to Criminal Code bill would be extremely difficult to enforce and even if it were possible to enforce it, it would complicate the situation rather than simplify it. As the saying goes, leave well enough alone, which is obvious. I wonder is this is not a case where this really applies.
I noticed that the member said he was only interested in the principle; that if it was passed, we would discuss its application and then endeavour to have it applied in a practical way. Now, I must admit that I would be at a loss to do so; yet, I have a certain experience of those matters, because I have dealt in insurance and even in the printing business for a while. I fail to see how a recommendation like this one could be applied in a practical way, and especially how the companies could be bound by law to comply therewith.
In conclusion, I feel the sponsor of the bill should be commended for having called the attention of the house to a real problem, but which could be solved otherwise, by making it easier to resort to existing statutes, for instance, and, as suggested earlier by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine), by drawing the attention of the new minister of corporations and consumer affairs to any possible abuse. He may succeed, through methods he will have to devise in the coming months, in preventing excessive abuses, even though everything should not be forbidden in the field of publicity which mislead simple people by all kinds of tricks. Even if it were printed in type as large as this, there are still people to write a formula in such a subtle way that most people would not understand it and in this I am supported by the statement of my hon. colleague who, I repeat, is one of the most intelligent members in the house and who admitted that he had himself been misled. Imagine how much influence can be exerted on people with much less experience and education. Even if the type is enlarged they can still mislead them by changing the wording. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I join with the others to congratulate the mover by saying that his intention was excellent and will have a future, because having brought this to our attention, the new minister will surely be able to intervene and possibly the members may bring to the attention of their voters the fact that there is provincial legislation permitting action.
As a practical conclusion, I suggest that we should strive to make such action before the courts easier for those who are cheated and lack the means to retain the services of lawyers or to make the required deposits to
October 27, 1967

Amendment to Criminal Code obtain justice in their claims against insurance companies which might directly or indirectly have misled them.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question. Considering what he said, what does he think of the recommendation of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who suggested that exclusion clauses ought to be printed in ink that is of a different colour from the ink used to print the main part of the document?


Mr. Mongrain:: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good suggestion. But it still does not nullify the other objection I mentioned when I said that there will always be people in this world of ours who specialize in fooling other people. For instance, suppose you print it in red, and suppose I am the president of a big company and I am somewhat of a crook and-I hope this will not be taken for granted-I will hire some learned people who are able to construct a sentence in which the average citizen will see nothing wrong. That is a specialty of people in public relations-and I know something about it, because I am in public relations.
I am trying to do things the right way, the honest way, because I work for small fry, and not for big companies which might believe they could pay me enough to convince me that I should act against my conscience and demonstrate what Barnum once said, that there is a "fish" born every minute. Even if you pass laws to prevent trickery there will always be somebody smart enough to find another trick that will fool the public. I suggest that we should tackle the problem in another way.
We have provincial laws. Let us make it easier for people to have recourse to those laws. Let us advise the minister to devise special measures to educate the public so that they will take advantage of the laws already existing.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of what the hon. member has just said about public relations men and the heads of big corporations drafting things to fool the public, does he not agree that so far as legislation can go we should have legislation in order to protect as far as possible people whom public relations men and corporations are trying to fool?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I think it is your duty to try to do it, but there is no use doing some-


thing with no result. The suggestion is made that the fine print be made bigger or that it be printed in red. But I can give examples, possibly a hundred cases, where instructions were written in big characters, in big print or in colour, and people did not even notice those instructions. I gave one example while I was speaking, but maybe the hon. member did not hear it. I said in French that I had that experience myself a few months ago.
I had a card printed, a double card, which I sent to the people in my riding, some 23,000 of them. They were supposed to tear the card in half and send one piece back. We studied the way that the card should be printed and how it should be presented. We studied this with a committee that specializes in such things connected with printing, and the instructions were in big print. Although I was very sure that everybody would understand-and mind you, I do not think my electors are less intelligent than the average electors throughout this country of ours-of those 23,000 cards that I sent, 40 per cent were returned as the double card, unseparated and untorn. This was done, even though the instructions were given in the largest print that we could put on the card.
Therefore I say there is no use passing dozens or hundreds of laws. The more you pass the more you complicate the problem. Try to solve it with the laws you have now, that is my contention.


Mr. Ian Waison (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) for the effort he is making in this bill. In private life we have all seen innumerable contracts, for example those used by door to door salesmen selling household appliances, those used by various household furnishing companies, which contain small print and that are completely misleading so far as the purchaser is concerned, and which usually result in the purchaser acquiring something he never expected.
With respect to insurance contracts, I think that most insurance company representatives have now reached the conclusion that it is poor business to have the public signing contracts that contain clauses which are misleading. However, there are still a number of companies which do not follow this rule, and which without any question of doubt issue policies that are misleading. I tend to agree with the hon. member for New Westminster
October 27, 1967	COMMONS
that possibly the only way one can adequately prevent this happening is to frighten companies by bringing them under the provisions of the criminal law.
The amendment which the hon. member proposes would create an indictable offence where any person, with the intention to mislead, places in the body of an insurance policy, contract, and so on, issued by him exclusionary clauses in smaller typographical character than that used in other portions of the document. Whether this would bring forth the results that he hopes is another matter. I think the new department of consumer affairs, through its consumer protection publicity, should be able to warn the public about the dangers of such contracts.
When the Registrar General (Mr. Turner) the other day gave the house an indication of the wide variety of topics that his department would be interested in, he mentioned the facilities that would be at his department's disposal to publicize various consumer gimmicks by which the public are taken advantage of at the present time. It seems to
DEBATES	3605
Amendment to Criminal Code me it would be a more effective way to deal with this problem if the new ministry of consumer affairs were to launch an immediate study of insurance contracts in general. If the committee, or the person making this study of insurance contracts, were to come up with a number of policies which appear to be unduly misleading, then I would consider it the duty of the new ministry of consumer affairs to publicize this throughout the various consumer organizations in the country. I realize-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the hour for the consideration of private members business has expired. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock on the afternoon of Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
1,	5, 10, 15, 17a, 20, 25, 30, 35, 38, 40, 45, L115.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 30, 1967