1969-06-20

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bills without any amendment: Bill C-183, an act to establish the Export Development Corporation and to facilitate and develop export trade by the provision of insurance, guarantees, loans and other financial facilities, and Bill C-195, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon)
presented the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that this is a report of the Liberal members of the committee only. It does not have the support of any members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: For reports of committees above referred to, see today's Votes and Proceedings.']


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and in French of the report of the Tariff Board respecting binder twine and twine for baling farm produce, reference No. 142, together with a transcript of the proceedings at the public hearings held by the board. 29180-661
This report contains the results of a study of the economics of the binder and baler twine industry in Canada, both from the production and consumption points of view. I assure hon. members that the report will be carefully and urgently considered by the government. In this connection I trust that any interested parties who wish to comment on this report will let me have their views promptly.



REVISED MAIN ESTIMATES 1969-70

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting revised estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1970, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.

Hon. C. M. Drury (Presideni of ihe Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the estimates for 1969-70 include a loan to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited of $10 million under Vote L20 for the financing of the purchase of Canadian-produced heavy water. Following the tabling of these estimates, it became evident that there would be no heavy water produced in Canada this year. It was therefore necessary for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to make commitments in the United States for the purchase of the heavy water it required.
In order that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited may use for the purpose contemplated the funds requested in Vote L20, it is necessary to revise the wording of the vote by removing from it the limitation contained in the words "Canadian-produced". This course, it should be noted, was recommended by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works in their report tabled on May 30, 1969.
Under these circumstances, I have assumed that the house would not wish this revised estimate to be referred to the standing committee. The revised estimates as tabled today make this revision to the wording of Vote L20.
10454	COMMONS
Cash Advances to Western Farmers [DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY OF FARMERS FOR FULL INTEREST FREE CASH ADVANCES

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In view of questions which have been asked, particularly yesterday, I wish to inform the house that under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, farmers will be eligible for full interest free cash advances in the new crop year, even though outstanding advances may not have been fully repaid.
It is estimated that $65 million will still be outstanding on July 31 and as deliveries will not be sufficient to enable many grain farmers to retire these advances, the government has decided they will be eligible for the full advance when the new crop year opens August 1.
Mr. Speaker, this decision means that producers will be entitled to advances of approximately $65 million more than would have been the case if advances in the 1969-70 crop year were reduced by the amount outstanding from the current crop year.
This will have the effect of providing western grain producers with advance payments in respect of both their 1968 and 1969 crops based on a six bushel quota. Thus, those farmers whose delivery opportunities have been limited this year will be able to obtain an interest free advance which will provide them with operating funds, and their entitlement in the new crop year will not be impaired.
As hon. members will recall, last November parliament doubled the maximum advance available under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act from $3,000 to $6,000.
During the current crop year some 92,000 producers have received advances totalling approximately $153 million. Advances are repaid as producers deliver grain to country elevators, and at present outstanding advances amount to about $90 million. Under the old legislation the previous highest amount advanced was in the 1960-61 crop year when some 76,000 producers obtained advances totalling $64 million.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: In commenting on the minister's statement and in particular on the decision to allow additional interest free cash advances to prairie grain farmers, I think it is only fair to say that this

DEBATES	June 20, 1969
represents merely an advance on payments which would be forthcoming to farmers had they sold their crop. In taking the action now contemplated, the government is admitting that it has failed to sell the farmers' crop.
There is something else I should point out. This cash advance arrangement applies only to wheat, oats and barley. We are trying to encourage farmers to diversify their production. These interest free cash advances will be of benefit to farmers on a short term basis only, and only to farmers with a large acreage. It will not help the specialized farmers, particularly in the irrigation areas, because of the limited acreage farmed. They will not help those farmers who are trying to help themselves by diversifying production. At best they amount only to short term assistance, since, as I say, they represent advances on grain which will have to be sold to the Wheat Board, and when it is sold the cheques paid to farmers will be docked by the amount of the advance.
So this does not really help; it will not bring about any relief of the desperate position in which farmers find themselves; it will not encourage farmers to diversify, and it will not help farmers who are using their knowledge and the technological advances available to them to make better use of fertilizers and irrigation.
At best this is a short range policy that is really not much help at all. If this is the final and only help that the farmers can expect from the government this year, then I am certain they will be discouraged. But I should like to think that it is not. I should like to think that the government has more than this in its barrel of tricks to bail the farmers out of the desperate situation in which they find themselves.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister for sending us in advance copies of the proposals that he has put before the house. I note he mentioned that they were, in part, answers to questions that have been posed, among which was the question whether we were or were not going to achieve a five bushel quota at all points. 1 sincerely hope that the statement of the minister does not indicate that he and the government have been forced to recognize that it is possible that this objective will not be reached. I hope that is not the situation; but if it is, then we are in desperate straits indeed.
In addition we are awaiting an announcement of government policy. These proposals
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
are, at best, a stop gap, and not a very good stop at that. Some questions are left unanswered. For example, when may the farmers expect to be paid the remainder of the advances for this year? How long are they going to wait? Also lacking is an indication of a real, forward looking policy for our grain farmers which will let the farmers know what they may expect in the future.
We have already been waiting for one year for this kind of statement. The farming organizations, the federation and the unions, have given the government some possible approaches. I hope the government will consider them soon, because the farmers of western Canada are waiting to know what lies ahead for a reasonable assessment of what might be expected. They cannot live in limbo forever, borrowing money that will eventually have to be repaid.
These are the sort of questions which must be answered, but no answer is yet forthcoming from the government. The farmers are heading into more debt and uncertainty. The worst feature of all is that there does not yet appear to be a recognition by this government that the grain farms of western Canada just cannot operate with a five bushel quota, or even a six bushel quota. The government must recognize this, and work out and develop alternative courses of action, as well as devise a sales program to meet the problem.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to congratulate the western farmers. With regard to wheat, it seems that it is always the same thing. I welcome the statement, even if I heard the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) say that it was not enough and that more should be done.
If the hon. member were in Quebec, he would see that there is nothing at all there. In my opinion, it is better to have a little than nothing at all-I speak of these interest free loans-because I can see that western farmers will benefit again this year from interest free loans, up to $65 million. I think-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I believe it is necessary to correct this statement immediately. They are not interest free loans but loans on which the 29130-661i
Cash Advances to Western Farmers government is paying the interest. There is a difference.


Mr. Gauthier:: I am most happy, Mr. Speaker, about the minister's remarks, for I was just going to say that it was without interest to the farmers or to the consumers and that the government, in order to protect financiers, was going to pay them interest, because it does not dare face them.
Mr. Speaker, I say that the farmers welcome those interest free loans.
The government is making itself the financiers' servant, and, therefore, must protect them; but I say that it must continue to grant interest free loans and apply this policy to every province, not only to the Prairie provinces, because Quebec farmers also need interest free loans for their main product which is milk.
We sincerely approve the government for applying some Social Credit principles which allow for interest free loans. We would like it to abandon its devious ways and go directly to the Bank of Canada to make interest free loans, as it has done for other countries.
I congratulate the minister on his statement with regard to western farmers and I am anxious for the day when similar assistance will be granted to Quebec as this would be of great help in promoting unity in Canada and doing away with discontent in Quebec.
Some assistance was granted the other day to the Maritime provinces. The government is becoming aware of the need to solve some problems on the regional level rather than on the national one.
When they want to help Quebec, they pass legislation for the whole of Canada. It is said that regional legislation is necessary, as the one that applies to the Prairie provinces, and we heartily wish, for the sake of Canada, that the interest free loans policy will also apply to Quebec.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-to whichever minister
10456	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry it is appropriate to address my question. Does the proposal announced a few minutes ago by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce constitute the carrying out of the program announced by the Minister of Agriculture in the Financial Post or has the government any other measures in mind which it will announce shortly?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture did not make any announcement in the Financial Post.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I had discussed in this house everything contained in that article before it was printed. The announcement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not claim to be a complete solution to the problem but is, nevertheless, another and additional measure which this government has introduced in order to be helpful in the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister were to answer our questions directly he could save a good deal of the time of the house. Does the minister or the government propose in the near future to announce additional measures along the lines of the announcement or, as a result of the minister's Financial Post interview, is this the extent of the program the government is to introduce?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the house two or three days ago I outlined 12 measures, not all of which had been introduced during the present session, that the government has brought in to be helpful in this situation. The announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce today perhaps constitutes the thirteenth measure that we have introduced to be helpful. It would not be wise to announce now what additional measures will be taken because we have to watch the situation to see what is appropriate, depending on the conditions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I assume from that long answer that this is always in mind, at least at the present time. Can the minister who made the announcement in connection with the repayment of cash advances made in the current year, that is to say, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, tell the house when these will be repaid? The minister has announced that any plans will not restrict

DEBATES	June 20, 1969
cash advances in the ensuing year; can he tell the house when the cash advances made with respect to the current grain year will be repaid?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, they are being repaid now. I said that $90 million is still due at this time. The amount left at the end of the year will be $65 million. The new cash advance payment will simply add to what will still be owned by farmers who are not in default at that time. It is a question of adding new loans on top of those which will still be owed at the end of the year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would it be correct to assume that any cash advances made this year, but not repaid at the end of the crop year, will have to be repaid over the quota next year in addition to the repayment of any cash advances made next year with regard to the quota?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenlre):: In
view of the fact the legislation specifies that anyone who has not repaid his cash advance by December 31 will be considered to be in default, can the minister advise this house if this provision will be overlooked at the end of December this year, in the event of any number of farmers not having repaid the cash advance obtained in the previous crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between being in default and not having been able to discharge one's obligations to deliver the grain when called to do so.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The regulations now state that on delivery 50 per cent of the cash advance will be returned to the government. What suggestion has the minister got in this regard, for the repayment? Would it be over the 50 per cent? The minister stated that the cash advances carried over from this year and added on to next year will have to be repaid in the next crop year. Is that correct? How is the minister going to get that repayment if he still takes only 50 per cent of the amount delivered?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is no change from the way their payments are being made at the present time. The same situation exists under the present system.
June 20, 1969

Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain the differentiation between being in default and actually owing part of the advance. If a farmer, because the government has not been able to secure markets for wheat, is unable to sell his wheat by December 31 of this year, will he not then be in default and be denied any advance such as was outlined here today? I wish the minister would go into detail because the difference between owing and being in default is difficult to understand.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, all the experts here understood what I meant. I presumed the right hon. gentleman was a wheat expert. I am surprised he does not know the difference between a farmer being in default and a farmer not being asked to deliver his grain.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Any time the minister can teach anyone in this house about wheat, it will be a new day, because he does not know anything about it himself.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: He just did.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Canadian Investment Dealers Association and the Toronto Stock Exchange have initiated a study into the effects of the foreign takeover of Canadian financial institutions, may I ask the minister how soon he will be able to make his promised statement as to the action the government contemplates with regard to this matter, and will he be making that statement prior to the house adjournment next week?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the steps taken by the stock exchanges and the Investment Dealers Association, after consultation with my officials. With respect to my statement, I will be making it next week before the house rises. I am prepared to make it now but the Governor of the Bank of Canada is out of the country and I want to consult with him before I deliver the statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister if he has any indication that there are further takeovers of Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry financial institutions in prospect, and does he intend to take legislative action, if necessary, to prevent such takeovers?


Edgar John Benson: I have no personal knowledge of any such prospective takeover.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Broadview has a supplementary question.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Laura Secord has regained her Canadian citizenship, would the minister protect other Canadian corporate citizens from losing their citizenship by imposing a 30 per cent takeover tax as proposed by Mr. Gordon?


Edgar John Benson: All I can say is, good for Laura, and I have no intention of imposing such a tax.



INDICATION OF INTENTION TO REFER STUDY OF INTEREST RATES TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I think it was last Friday I asked him if he would consider referring to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the question of constantly rising interest rates, despite immense profits being made by the financial institutions in Canada, and he said he would give this serious consideration. In view of the fact that the Banking Committee of the House of Representatives in Washington has already begun investigating this question, and since interest rates in the two countries are closely tied may I ask the minister if he is in a position now to tell the house whether he has reached a decision on the question of referring this matter to the standing committee?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to do it.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he can possibly do it before the house rises for the summer recess, and will he also provide that this committee may meet during the summer, in view of the fact that a delayed investigation would not be very helpful?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would intend to make the reference before the house rises. As to when the committee meets-that of course is not up to me: It is up to the committee.
10458	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As the minister stated yesterday that the federal government could do absolutely nothing to prevent Canadian Vickers from closing down, and as 40 per cent of the nation's unemployed are to be found in Quebec whose economy is seriously affected by the lack of specialized industries, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be willing to co-operate with that company so as to put its production on a competitive basis?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we have already done so. We have helped Canadian Vickers to rationalize its operations. We have, if I remember well, given a little over $1 million to Canadian Vickers to develop the industrial sector of its operations so as to transfer some workers in shipbuilding to another type of activity and, in fact, quite a number of them have been transferred.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another supplementary question to the minister.
Since the measure he has just mentioned is proving ineffective because the threatened closing of Canadian Vickers still hangs over us, can the minister tell the house whether he intends to request the government to nationalize the company?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to point out that there are 1,000 workers in industrial production at Canadian Vickers and that this sector which offers new opportunities did not exist a few years ago.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) who answers in this house on water resources. In view of the fact that an official of the Department of Mines, Energy and Resources is accompanying the group who are presently touring Canada inspecting potential sources of fresh water which could be tapped to supplement inadequate sources of fresh water in the

DEBATES	June 20, 1969
United States, is it the intention of the government, by giving official recognition and aid to this mission, to help the United States to achieve its objective of tapping Canadian fresh water sources?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case with the hon. member I think I have to say again that I do not accept the bulk of the statement he has made in asking his question, but I would like to assure him that in any look at Canadian water resources Canadian interests in that water will be completely safeguarded by this government.


George Harris Hees: Then, as a supplementary question, what is the purpose of giving encouragement to this group, who are looking over potential sources of fresh water, by sending an official of the government with them on their trip?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Have you ever heard of hospitality, George?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I don't put that interpretation on any such travels.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Are officials of the Department of Transport still giving permission to air line pilots to fly passenger aircraft up to as much as 150 hours a month?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice. I do not know the particular circumstances to which the hon. member is referring. So far as I am aware the circumstances are as I outlined them to him previously, and I would doubt very much if any such permission is being given. However, if he would give me the details I will be glad to look into the matter.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he regard as significant the apparent result of recent collective bargaining in Toronto whereby plumbers, working a 37\ hour week, will evidently be paid some $136.62 more per month than members of parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 20, 1969	COMMONS



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Ambrose Huberl Peddle (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of his comprehensive statement a few days ago on automobile safety. In light of the fact that his department is paying great attention to safety tests being made on tires in the United States, can he assure the house that Canadian programs will be undertaken as well, due to the very different tire needs here in Canada, especially for wintertime conditions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments have finally been clarified can the minister assure the house that the long needed legislation regarding auto safety will be introduced in parliament this fall?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I cannot give that specific undertaking. However, it will be done as quickly as possible.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further supplementary to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister guarantee to the house that the safety devices used on Canadian cars will be co-ordinated with those used in the United States, so that cars manufactured on either side of the border will have the same safety regulations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a necessity in such a program.



FORESTRY


Mr. T. S. Barnelt (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Have the regulations regarding importation of aircraft into Canada been amended or relaxed in such a way as to enable the forest fire fighting authorities of British Columbia to bring in all the water bombing planes they require or can procure from the United States to meet an emergency situation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not sure whether any such request has come to us, but if it does I can assure my hon. friend we will expedite as fast as we can any needed amendments so that the planes can be obtained.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
During the stay of the committee on agriculture in Quebec City a meeting was held at the Chateau Frontenac during which no Molotov cocktail exploded, but where the provincial Minister of Agriculture advised us about the possibility of a federal-provincial agreement on farm loans under which important changes would be made.
Could the minister tell us whether negotiations are under way and if so on what?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the government of the province of Quebec, as well as others, have made representation to the federal government to amalgamate, if that is the right word, the operations of the farm credit agency in the province with the federal government. We take the position that the F.C.C. has been a very useful organization for the farmers and should be uniformly applied across the country.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of his statement that representations, as well as some studies are being made, could he tell the house whether or not a report dealing with the findings of those studies will be tabled in the house for the information of hon. members?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want the hon. member to have a misunderstanding of what I said. I said we had received representations. I did not wish to imply that studies were under way.
June 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



TESTING OF PESTICIDES IN SUBSTITUTION FOR D.D.T.

Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like if I may to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of the fact that he indicated the matter was under active consideration. In order that agriculture will not be deprived of very necessary pesticide controls, can the minister state whether alternative chemicals are on test which might replace d.d.t., should this chemical of necessity be withdrawn from legal application?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the specifics or indicate the chemicals concerned, but if the hon. gentleman would like to send me the specific names of them I would be willing to make a check to find out what the department is doing and what conclusions they have reached to date. Certainly I think the hon. member can take it for granted our department does in fact test both in so far as the health hazard is concerned and, in so far as is possible, the efficacy of these chemicals.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the minister acting for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement Thursday, June 19 emanating from the planning branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will the minister take the house into his confidence and tell us the nature of the study of the water resources which his department is either undertaking or has commissioned.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I know the specific statement that is being referred to but I will look into the matter.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the so-called thirsty American states want our water only because they have so badly polluted their own plentiful supplies, will the minister assure us categorically that his department is not making studies and plans for the diversion of Canadian water supplies to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question in its present form is not acceptable.
[Mr. Olson.)



EXTERNAL AID


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that Biafra has accepted the Prime Minister's suggestion and has agreed to permit daylight relief flights, will the government consider offering assistance to both Churchaid and Canairelief?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the fact of prospective daylight flights alters the situation under which we prefer to channel our aid through one agency. I think this probably makes it more effective.


Mr. Fairweather:: In view of the fact that the agency through which the government channels our aid is no longer carrying out this function, does this not place a responsibility on the government to look for an alternative source?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is argumentative.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am aware of the reason for his absence today, but I believe an acting minister is present. In view of the urgent appeal that has been received by the minister from the President of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood urging that the department decentralize its economic development programs, may I ask whether the minister will take this appeal into consideration when he makes his statement of policy next week.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has this matter very much in mind and I will bring the submission to his attention, so that he can make the statement next week.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the able and articulate Minister of Transport.
June 20, 1969	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: He wants a new ferry
service.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the minister whether he has received a request from the government of Prince Edward Island for assistance in providing for a gracious and useful retirement for the dowager queen of all Canadian rail and car ferries, the S.S. Prince Edward Island, and if so has he found a way to give tangible evidence of appreciation of this fine ship's half century of service?
Kon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport): Yes, Mr. Speaker; I have had some submissions. We are now studying ways to assure that the dowager's bottom is kept completely in order.



WHEAT-ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT PROBLEMS

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relative to his statement earlier this day with regard to proposals to alleviate the short cash supply of western farmers. My question evolves from the answers he gave the hon. member for Crowfoot and myself several weeks ago, before the Standing Committee on its tour across Canada, with regard to the international world wheat agreement. At that time he stated that some of his officials were working with their counterparts in the United States in an effort to try to iron out some of the difficulties. Can the minister indicate whether there has been any success along these lines?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. There is to be a meeting of the wheat council next week in London. The prices review committee is to meet too, but I cannot give any assurance with regard to the difficulties to which reference has been made; they are still continuing.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to consider the invitation I extended to him and the Minister of Agriculture to attend the meeting of farmers of the Peace River country? I assure him I will be there for their assistance.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would like to know the answer of the Minister of Agriculture first.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-LAY-OFFS AT DOCKYARD

['Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in the house on Monday and expects to make a statement about any relevant aspects of his travel to the Scandinavian countries.']
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister say whether he has taken any action regarding the serious lay-offs at the Canadian National dockyard at St. John's?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have brought this to the attention of the C.N.R. and I am seeking leave to put further ships in there. I have nothing further to report.


Walter C. Carter: Would the minister consider diverting some of the bottoms from his department to the dockyard at St. John's, to keep it busy during the summer?



Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can we anticipate the presence in the house on Monday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and can we expect to hear from him a statement concerning the purpose of his recent visit abroad, and what was accomplished by that visit.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in the house on Monday and expects to make a statement about any relevant aspects of his travel to the Scandinavian countries.



THE LATE EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Malpeque concerning arrangements for the funeral of Lord Alexander. It appears that the funeral will be held on Tuesday, June 24, St. Jean Baptiste day, at St. George's Chapel in Windsor. The Canadian government will be represented by our High Commissioner and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Allard. I have also asked Mr. Lester Pearson if it is possible for him to act as my personal representative at the funeral.
10462	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



EXTENSION OF ZONES TO CONTINENTAL SHELF-STOCKHOLM DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the desirability of convening another United Nations law of the sea conference to win international approval for the extension of exclusive fishing zones to the edge of the continental shelf, is this one of the matters under discussion with other countries by our roving Secretary of State for External Affairs?



LOGS-MAINTENANCE OF BAN ON EXPORTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry? Since some of the large lumber companies in British Columbia are alleging that the curtailment of production is due to a shortage of logs, can the minister assure the house that the ban on the export of logs from British Columbia is being maintained and will continue to be maintained, according to the minister's earlier statement, until September 1, when it will be reviewed?


John (Jack) Davis: I can give the hon. member that assurance, Mr. Speaker. This ban, which is in the nature of a voluntary ban, has been effective to the point that there are now no requests outstanding from the companies for logs to be exported.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inquire and ascertain whether the ban is being fully complied with? If not, I ask whether the government is prepared to exercise the authority it has to refuse export permits for logs until such time as domestic requirements are fully met.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the export of logs has dropped sharply. It was 29 million board feet in March, 5 million board feet in April, and my information is that it was negligible in May.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF GREATER SALES AND INCREASED QUOTA

George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In answering a question I asked him a few minutes ago with regard to the repayment of cash advances,

DEBATES	June 20, 1969
the minister indicated that these advances would be repaid in the next crop year. Since this suggests we will need a seven or eight bushel quota at least in the next crop year, was the minister's statement based on the possibility of the government's selling more grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we will cross our years one by one.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Has the Quebec government requested the assistance of the R.C.M.P. in order to control the disturbances now taking place in Quebec City?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Solicitor General that he has no definite information in this regard. However, if the hon. member so wishes, inquiries can be made.



AIRPORTS


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious concern and financial difficulties being experienced by taxi owners, other than those associated with Murray Hill, in that they have to return empty after delivering passengers to Montreal and some other international airports, would the minister say whether he is taking action, or has done so, to alter this policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this is a matter that might be considered at the time of adjournment.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GATT

Jean-Luc Pepin: May I call your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Long, Director general of GATT, accompanied by two of his top officials, Mr. Lewis and
June 20, 1969

Mr. Lucq. I am sure the house will appreciate their visit to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western
Nova): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Did the minister meet yesterday with the Minister of Trade and Industry of Nova Scotia, and can he assure the house that the docking facilities at Yarmouth will be ready for the proposed new ferry?
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the gentleman in question, not yesterday but the day before. The discussions were fruitful, but we have not reached the point where I can say specifically that the requirement the hon. member has mentioned can be met.



POLLUTION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. A few weeks ago I asked whether he would consider following the practice that is going to be carried on by the President of the United States in personally heading the environmental quality council aimed at eliminating pollution in the United States. The Prime Minister was kind enough to say he thought it was a good suggestion and would give it consideration. I wonder whether as a result of that consideration he has decided to head such an anti-pollution council in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our cabinet system is a bit different from that of the United States. We have cabinet committees looking into this matter, and they report to cabinet. At this stage I feel this kind of co-operation between departments is sufficient. If at a later stage we find we should have a wider council, perhaps involving the public, this of course will have to be done in consultation with the provinces. We will consider that if it becomes necessary.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister not noticed 29180-662J
Inquiries of the Ministry that in addition to the President heading this council, the Vice-President and all the senior members of his administration are to sit on the council? Does the government not think that pollution is sufficiently important to warrant its being tackled in this way?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question appears to be argumentative.


George Harris Hees: I think the Prime Minister would like to answer, Mr. Speaker. Will he have a go at it and see what he can do?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer may also be argumentative.



POSSIBLE BAN ON USE OF NON-RETURNABLE BOTTLES

John George Diefenbaker: Mention has been made of the problem of pollution. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether representations have been made to him by the Federation of Mayors to ban the pestilence of non-returnable bottles, which number over a million per day and cost the Canadian people a great deal of money for disposal thereof. Is consideration being given to the banning of this type of bottle and will such consideration require cooperation on the part of the provinces, or can it be done directly by the federal authority, as the Association of Mayors indicates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may say in answer to the first part of the question that I have no knowledge of such representations having been made to me or to my office, but I can inquire about it.
My reply to the second part of the question is that I suppose the hon. gentleman knows the answer as well as I do. It is possible that the federal government, through resorting to the Criminal Code, could ban the bottles, but it is not very likely that it would resort to the use of this power.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether a study is being made of the alternatives to placing a ban under the provisions of the criminal law, because the disposal of these bottles constitutes a serious menace and costs this country a great deal of money?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me that pollution, in this instance land pollution, would come
10464	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. The federal government, except through recourse to the Criminal Code, cannot act on its own, and I do not suggest that any consideration is being given to finding ways in which we could act. However, when we come to discuss the water act the opposition will realize that there will be indications that in some instances we plan to resort to the provisions of the Criminal Code. We hope however that, in the initial stages at least, we will always act in consultation with the provinces. If this system works, we might extend our regulations from water pollution to land pollution, as has been suggested.



AIRPORTS


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In reply to a question asked on June 18 concerning the spending of $500 million on an airport to service aircraft which may not even go into service the Minister of Finance said:
If we do not have jumbo jets we will have supersonic jets.
In view of the fact that neither the Department of Transport nor the C.T.C. have approved of supersonic planes flying over Canada and landing here, would the Minister of Transport say why Air Canada has placed an order for supersonic planes at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The question should be placed on the order paper.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I placed this question on the order paper and received an answer, but I would like the situation clarified. How can Air Canada place an order for these planes if permission has not been given to their operating in Canada?



TORONTO-LOCATION OF INTERCITY JET FACILITY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport whether he has had an opportunity to consider my request that he make a statement to the house with regard to his position on the proposed intercity airport in Toronto. Has he had an opportunity to 
DEBATES	June 20, 1969
consider the matter, and will he make a statement in the next few days?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have considered this question, Mr. Speaker, and am pleased to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I will be very happy to make a statement in the house if time permits, or to arrange a briefing for anybody who wishes to know the full story behind our whole rationalization plan for southern Ontario in this regard.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the house is sitting overtime in an effort to clear up government business prior to the proposed recess, would the Prime Minister consider having it sit next Tuesday? I ask this question because apparently the Prime Minister is not going anywhere and we will be stuck with him here.



PENITENTIARIES


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the genial and gracious Solicitor General. Is he concerned about the constructive criticism that has been made concerning the new penitentiary at Millhaven, which will replace Kingston penitentiary? If so, what does he intend to do about it?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is concerned about all criticism of new institutions being built for the penitentiary service. He studies all such criticism and takes the appropriate action indicated by each piece of criticism and his evaluation of it.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Just what action does the minister intend taking with regard to Millhaven?


George James McIlraith: Just which criticism is the hon. member referring to, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Gilbert: There have been so many criticisms that probably the minister has difficulty in differentiating among them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 20, 1969	COMMONS



PRIVILEGE-MR. NESBITT-OMISSION OF NAME FROM DIVISION LIST

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to refer to an apparent omission in Hansard of June 5 last, and I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this was drawn to my attention for the first time only this morning, and that so far I was unaware of it. I refer Your Honour to page 9764 of Hansard of June 5 last to point out to Your Honour that on that day a question was asked by myself of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Shortly after orders of the day a vote was taken on the Income Tax Act, and at page 9779 of Hansard of that day there was a record of those who were present in the house, and how they voted. My name is omitted from that list, but I assure Your Honour that I was present in the house when the vote was taken and I voted against the government's proposal for the 2 per cent surtax.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question of privilege, according to the rules. I assure him that the matter will be looked into and the necessary correction made in the official records of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the day's business I wonder if, on a point of order, I could draw Your Honour's attention to the special order which specified that proceedings today should not continue beyond 6 p.m. There may be some doubt about the interpretation of the order passed a week ago today, but I believe I express the general consent of the representatives of the parties that it is understood that at 4 p.m. today the allotted day would be terminated and we would then return to government orders, for the remaining two hours today. Perhaps, if there is any doubt in that regard, an order could be made to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Is there agreement to it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should just like to assure the house that the subject matter to be debated from 4 p.m. onwards will be the official languages bill.
Veterans Affairs Committee Report



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe) moved:: That consideration be given to the third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs relating to the consideration of estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs which was presented to the house on Tuesday, April 29, 1969.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since the opportunity has never been afforded to me before, I feel it appropriate that, first, I should take the time of the house to mention the Canadian participation in the 25th anniversary of D Day in Normandy, France, earlier this month. To those of us who returned to the beaches of Normandy after 25 years it was an experience that I wish we could have shared with all those veterans who were not afforded the opportunity.
Certainly-and I am sure I am speaking for my colleague on the trip, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Smith) and the other members of the delegation-the experience was one we will never forget and one which filled us with pride. I feel very sincerely that we learned a valuable lesson in our association with the citizens of Normandy when renewing memories. That lesson is that the path to a strong international relationship and peace is to be found in the relationship with people, the ordinary citizens who suffered through wars and saw death and destruction for the cause of peace.
Those of you who were not with us will not be moved by our experiences when, for a few hours, we were infused with an emotional camaraderie which became so real again, even after 25 years. But it was real and our visit with the citizens of France, along with hundreds of veterans from across the length and breadth of Canada, recreated the feeling of sorrow at war and death, and the joy and laughter of reunion. For a few days in France, Canadians, whether veterans approaching the twilight of their careers or the youngest member of our Canadian forces who participated in the guard of honour to pay our respects to those who remain in the Canadian cemeteries, were welcomed with open arms as relatives who had returned to participate with citizens of France in the celebration of this occasion.
10466	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report The lesson I learned is that international relations do not come about from talks around a conference table among members of governments. They happen and are created in the hearts and minds of people, people who know what suffering is and elect us to office to preserve peace. They do not happen by the threat of the pressing of a nuclear button by powerful presidents or prime ministers.
I should like to express my opinion of what I thought was a serious error in the planning of the trip. I refer to the failure to communicate the "tongue" of all Canada to those of all origins who participated in the many ceremonies to dedicate memorials and in the laying of wreaths to those who fell on D Day. Those responsible for delivering our message failed to deliver the message of a really full Canadian participation. This might be only my opinion but I wanted the young 18 year old soldier who took part to understand from his ambassador why his Canadian comrades of the same age died and lay in the cemetery instead of having been able to take part in the free Canada in which we are now living. I say this not to criticize but only because I know that those of French origin with whom I fought side by side 25 years ago and with whom I renewed valued friendships would want me to do so.
I therefore express the appreciation of all who participated in the Canadian delegation to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) and his staff and our thanks for giving us the opportunity to take part in an exercise which, outside the realm of politics, brought together in a sense of international participation a spirit of loyalty, patriotism and good will. Even though it came about because of war, I hope it will strengthen our will for and devotion to peace in the world.
In participating in today's debate I am fully cognizant of my responsibility as a member of this house to the most important segment of our population, the war veterans of Canada. In speaking on behalf of my party it is my duty to try to impress on the government of Canada their responsibility to our veterans in their consideration of the priorities with regard to the needs of this country, and to try to find the reasons why the needs of war veterans, especially those who are disabled or incapacitated, seem to hold a bottom spot on the list.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
For the past four years, and especially in the last 12 months, this party has shared the concern felt by many thousands of veterans IMr. Marshall.]
DEBATES	June 20. 1969
and their dependants throughout the land over the creeping paralysis of indifference which has been and is becoming more prevalent as to concern for those people of whom the late Sir Winston Churchill spoke in the early 1940's when he said, "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." It is easy to forget just what those words mean and to whom they referred, and to become involved instead in superficial issues which only cause controversy and discontent.
It is obvious where the fault lies, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it lies with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Nor can I conceive that it lies with the hon. members opposite who sit with us as members of the Veterans Affairs Committee, especially those who are veterans themselves. Even if they wanted to do something about the problems I have in mind, their efforts would be stultified by the dictatorial attitude of the cabinet, an attitude which becomes more evident every day. The fault lies with the inner circle of this government, that group of a few toy soldiers who seem determined to destroy the stability of this country while in their dreams of grandeur they think they are improving conditions and bettering our relationships with other countries of the world. A good example of the position taken by the government is its attitude in ignoring the continuous pleas of both opposition members and their own members for consideration to be given to increasing veterans allowances and pensions in line with the increasing cost of living.
What do we get as an answer, Mr. Speaker? We get a shrug of the shoulders and the response that we cannot afford it, or an implication of that kind. We are told that if we increase pensions we shall have to increase taxes. We are supposed to believe this tale of woe by the leader of this country-the lame-brained excuse that in order to raise pensions for war veterans it is necessary to raise taxes. We do not have to raise taxes in order to increase the salaries of the Prime Minister's staff. Pretty soon there will not be enough room in the galleries for them, there will be so many.
We do not have to raise taxes to write off $125 million on the Expo debt with a shrug. We do not have to raise taxes to find millions of dollars for foreign aid. We can squander millions of dollars through lack of control in spending on the Bonaventure. We can ease tariffs to the extent of $80 million for the big motor giants without raising taxes. But when it comes to increasing modest benefits to the very people who are responsible for our being
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
able to sit in this house and govern, who are responsible for the fact that 20 million Canadians are able to live in peace and comparative prosperity, the government has the unadulterated gall to tell the opposition and the nation that we cannot afford it.
I do not know what the 20 million people of this country believe, Mr. Speaker, but I do know there are 961,000 veterans who do not believe it. I know that the Royal Canadian Legion does not believe it, and I know that the war pensioners of Canada do not believe it. Neither do the Hong Kong veterans, the Army, Navy and Air Force veterans, the War Amputees of Canada, or the many other organizations which have submitted briefs to all Members of Parliament as well as to the Minister of Veterans Affairs pleading that the Woods committee report be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and wondering what happened to the white paper which was to have been produced.
The Woods committee report has been completed since March of 1968, well over a year ago, in both official languages; yet we continue to receive evasive answers to our questions about it and to experience procrastination covered by the excuse that it is being studied with care so that excellent results may be achieved. What kind of camouflage is this, Mr. Speaker? What is the government trying to hide behind? It is hiding behind priorities, its own narrow version of priorities.
The veterans of this nation do not want any handouts. They had the guts to fight and they have the guts to play their part in providing for themselves after years of sacrifice. They do not want to depend on anyone for a living, least of all upon the government. But there are many thousands of veterans who must look to us for help, even though they do not want to, because they had the misfortune to be disabled or incapacitated and cannot provide for themselves through no fault of their own. There are many thousands of veterans who have returned from wars, re-entered our society with a determination to catch up, and have become successful and prosperous. There are also many thousands of war veterans who, in addition to making their way in our society, have taken time to care for those who need support and guidance, realizing that they themselves might have been disabled. There are even veterans who, having taken their place in our society, have become Members of Parliament and sit on both sides of this house charged with the responsibility
Veterans Affairs Committee Report of governing for the betterment of all Canadians. Some of these good Canadians sit opposite, and I can understand their dismay and disillusionment at the attitude of the establishment in dealing with the needs of veterans.
The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is one of the many committees that perform their duties without publicity and in an absence of controversy. It carries out its duties without fanfare because regardless of partisan politics its members are veterans in the main and have one purpose or objective in mind-to help their comrades who need help. They are willing to forgo attention because whether they are Liberal, Conservative, N.D.P. or Creditiste they have one thing in mind, the welfare of their comrades who defended this country of ours.
I feel it is appropriate at this time, when I am speaking about the contribution made by the veterans of Canada, to say something on the subject of national unity, because it is obvious that we in Canada tend to forget just what a solid base we have built in the word "Canadian". Here we are, with almost a year completed in the present session of parliament, and it is important that we look back to see what has been accomplished by the government in this area.
First of all, some of the inner circle went junketing to Latin America on a mission to improve trade and create good international relations. And after spending hundreds of millions of dollars, where do we stand? Why don't we ask the United States where they stand in Latin America after spending vast sums there? They cannot even send Governor Rockefeller there on a good will tour without fear for his life. I notice there are not too many members present on the benches opposite during our discussion of this important question of veterans affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jack Marshall: We have lots of money for foreign aid, but we have no money for war veterans. They are laughing at us in foreign countries for our determination to help while five million of our own poverty-stricken citizens go without. I am reminded of the story told by a comedian on the Ed Sullivan show who said that the best business in the world today is the foreign aid business. "Just find an island", he said, "give it a name and then go to the United States or Canada and ask for foreign aid and you will get millions without any question whatsoever."
10468	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report At this very moment we have Colonel Blimp away on a mission playing hide and seek with the communists in an attempt to enter into diplomatic relations with communist China, a country whose leaders continue to blaspheme the closest ally we have-I hope-the United States of America. This government of ours wants to extend diplomatic relations to a gang of warmongers who gave military aid to North Korea in a war in which thousands of Canadian soldiers lost their lives. Before the government becomes pals with Mao Tse-tung and his pirates I suggest that it consider the friendship of war veterans of this country who through their patriotism in the three wars of this century assured the peace which allows them to sit in glory and arrogance determining the fate of our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Marshall: What did we accomplish for national unity with all the millions spent on centennial year, that year of celebration during a period when we find ourselves, owing to the actions of this government, faced by a split in dominion-provincial relations which threatens our future? Would it not have been better to celebrate our 100th year of confederation by providing centennial housing for veterans and centennial pensions for those who made it possible for this country to mark 100 years of national life? This would have been something we could always remember, something with a mark of everlasting remembrance.
I repeat that national unity does not come from secret meetings with premiers. It does not come from prodding and teasing through the press or by antagonizing and giving false promises. National unity is created by people, the citizens of this country. It does not come out of the throat; it comes from within the body. It lies in the hearts of every human being who wants to live at peace with his neighbours regardless of race, creed or colour. And it has developed through the loyalty and patriotism of all Canadians whether English, French or of any other national origin. It comes from the sacrifice of the war veterans who offered their lives to make it possible for us to make the mistakes we are making today in repayment of that sacrifice.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
How do we make this inner circle realize the needs of this country? How do we make 
DEBATES	June 20, 1969
this group of conscientious objectors realize their duty to society? Certainly not by common sense or human reasoning. We must try to impress on them that they are availed of the opportunity to govern this country because of the sacrifice of those of our citizens who fought with distinction during times when the peace of our nation was threatened by Naziism and Communism. Yet we are flirting with exchanging ambassadors with this type of country.
There is not much to be gained by reviewing the specific issues at stake with regard to veterans problems. The minister is well aware of the excellent presentations forwarded by the various veterans organizations outlining in complete detail their observations on the burning issue of the moment-the 147 recommendations in the Woods report. For heaven's sake let us do something about the report so that we can increase the paltry pensions, as is recommended.
The cost of living is increasing, a fact recognized by everyone. Wages are being increased proportionately. I am sure not one member of this house can say, however, that a realistic appraisal has been made of the plight of the veteran and his dependants with a view to paying him a remuneration sufficient for him to live on. This, in effect, is the main basis of the veterans complaints.
I respectfully request the minister to try to impress upon the inner circle the real standard of priority that the Woods report should be given in the interests of hundreds of thousands of veterans. If the government is having trouble, then the standing committee members are there to help it. This is why they are on that committee. The heads of the veterans organizations are also begging to help. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) keeps preaching involvement, participation and dialogue. These groups want to dialogue, they want to participate and they want to become involved. So why the hell does the Prime Minister not practise what he preaches?
The veterans of this country do not want anything that is beyond reason. However, as a group they represent a good portion of those citizens of this country who gave this government a clear mandate. They also gave this government their confidence. It is the duty and responsibility of the government- indeed, it should be their privilege-to live up to their promises of equality for all Canadians.
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
To give the house an example of what I mean, one member of the inner circle, the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), stood in this place and told me a couple of weeks ago that an additional 27 cents a year charged to each subscriber would recover all of the increased postal charges on the Legionary. I am told by the Legion that the mailing bill for this publication, one which is so important to all veterans, will cost in 1970 $228,000 compared with $18,000 for 1968, and this because the Legion has been refused reclassification. The result of this will be that those same veterans who need help will be charged this increased cost. This is the sort of answer we used to expect from another minister during the war, the minister of propaganda in another country.
There are many recommendations in the Woods committee report which require immediate implementation. I refer in particular to those directed toward the incapacitated and those veterans whose life span has been restricted as a result of serious injury. These recommendations are sincere and comprehensive and have been assessed with careful scrutiny by experts in various veterans organizations across the country. These experts have already pointed out in their comments weaknesses in some 22 recommendations that have already been implemented by the Canadian Pension Commission or are in. the process of being implemented. Other weaknesses exist in several other areas. These weaknesses could be resolved by allowing veterans groups to appear before the committee to give evidence and advice.
There is a special section of the report that deals with Newfoundland, whose veterans are of special concern to me. There are many weaknesses in the test of eligibility for pension of Newfoundland war veterans who served in the United Kingdom in world wars I and II. Under the terms of union it is incumbent upon the government to clarify these ambiguities to avoid administrative delays. This must be done soon because time is of the essence.
Steps must also be taken to deal with the weaknesses in legislation relating to our merchant seamen. The War Veterans Allowance Board has been doing a tremendous job in trying to meet the needs of these servicemen. However, there is a serious need to look at the time limit for applying for pensions. These important citizens have no right to a pension unless their disabilities resulted from enemy action. Consideration should be given
Veterans Affairs Committee Report to giving our merchant seamen an opportunity to receive a pension in cases where they have suffered indirectly from enemy action. Consideration must also be given to strengthening benefits for those who served with the Newfoundland forestry units. In this regard it is time we started to take action instead of procrastinating.
The need for action is Canada-wide. The staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs is a very devoted group of experts who continue to dedicate themselves to the support of the war veteran. They are most anxious to carry out the directions of the government through the Minister of Veterans Affairs so as to upgrade those benefits that are so deserved by veterans in need of assistance.
I hope I have made some slight impression on the minds of those responsible for giving direction and for decision-making. I ask them to do the honourable thing in regard to our veterans. Perhaps the government realize their mistake and are a little ashamed to come forward. In this regard may I remind them that we veterans are a forgiving group of people and will accept their apologies with grace and understanding.
Therefore I ask the government to institute the necessary action to implement the principle outlined in legislation that pensions, let us not forget, are paid to our veterans to provide them with subsistence. They are in payment of a debt and, indeed, are a mark of gratitude that we truly owe the veterans of Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very worth-while motion that is before the house today, particularly in view of the fact that over the last three or four years the veterans of Canada have been awaiting with expectation the changes that the government has consistently indicated will be brought forward. We have eagerly been awaiting some decision in regard to the Woods report. I believe this report was just a stalling device on the part of the government; otherwise something would have been done about it.
When the Woods committee was appointed it was given a very short period in which to review the terms of our veterans legislation, and the committee is to be congratulated on the thorough job its members did during the limited time available. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) has since had considerable time to decide whether to implement the recommendations of the Woods report. I am sure the minister will agree that some of
Veterans Affairs Committee Report the mistakes made by a previous Minister of Veterans Affairs should be corrected tout de suite, and I understand this is his intention. I refer to the fact that Canadian veterans who are receiving the veterans allowance are being penalized in regard to other legislation. They find themselves in no better position than other people who receive supplementary benefits under the Old Age Security Act. I do not think this was the intention of our veterans legislation.
The number of veterans diminishes each year. This is inevitable as we move farther and farther away from the period of active warfare. Eventually we hope the need for veterans legislation will cease. However, the younger members of the house and those who did not participate in either of the two world wars should be made aware of one very simple fact, that veterans legislation should not be considered in the same light as other social legislation.
For example, some of my colleagues have asked how we can justify giving the veterans special preferance in terms of providing money to build houses, or in terms of medical treatment and the financing of their medical care. They forget that our veterans sacrificed their health, happiness, home life, education and the chance to be with their families when their families most needed them. They did this not for their own sake but for the sake of the people of Canada and the debt we owe them cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It is an obligation that each and every one of us must accept. It is a moral, spiritual and financial obligation, and we have fallen down in the last five or ten years in the way we have discharged our obligation.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Do hon. members realize that when supplementary benefits under the old age security program are paid to veterans who have passed a needs test, the amount of veterans allowance those veterans receive is reduced by the amount of the supplementary benefit? That is a disgrace. The extra $30 a month the veteran receives in supplementary benefits is taken off his veterans allowance. The veteran is no better off under these circumstances. It was wrong to lump veterans allowances with other payments made under our social benefit programs. There ought to be no direct relationship between the amount a veteran receives in veterans allowances and any amount he receives under the old age security program. It is wrong of us to subject to a 
June 20, 1969
needs test a man who was willing to serve Canada in her hour of need.
I now wish to deal with a number of other matters to which the speaker preceding me alluded. The way we treat our Hong Kong veterans is a disgrace to this country and to any minister prepared to go along with such treatment. Sections 92 and 93 of the Woods report indicate that as of September 1, 1968, 395 Hong Kong veterans were receiving disability pensions of 48 per cent or less. The members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for as long as I have been on it have been recommending that, considering the privation these men underwent, considering the inhuman way they were treated while prisoners of war and the diseases they suffered from as a result of that treatment, diseases like	beriberi,
malaria, typhoid, as well as other ills arising from malnutrition brought on by the diet of rice and fish which many of them were not accustomed to, they should receive disability pensions of not less than 50 per cent. They are entitled to that. That is the opinion of the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It is also the opinion of those who compiled the Woods report. They all think that the pensions of these veterans should be set at 50 per cent or more of disability because these men underwent torture and privation in prison camps unlike such camps anywhere else in the civilized world.
I can remember seeing some women who belonged to an organization known, I believe, as the first world war widows of Canada, or something like that. There were two or three of them who were over 80 years old and when they came before the committee we congratulated them warmly for having lived so long. Unfortunately they were not given the pension the committee recommended they should be given. I am saying this because the minister is in a unique position in the government. He can recommend to the government that payments falling outside the scope of existing social legislation be made to veterans. He can recommend that these payments be based on the needs of our veterans who served our country so well, and their dependants. His recommendation could cover those men who participated in the war but who are not, strictly speaking, veterans.
For instance, why have our firefighters not been paid the pension they were promised? They ought to be classed as veterans and be entitled to veterans allowances. What about the miners who went to Gibraltar and the

June 20, 1969

merchant seamen who served in our merchant marine during the war? Strictly speaking they were not in the armed forces, yet many of them were killed in the war. They were wearing their own uniforms, although they were not in the armed forces. They filled a need as important as the one filled by our soldiers, sailors and airmen. We have an obligation to these people and we should discharge it.
The minister does not have to say, "Let us wait for the Woods report." We do not need to wait for anyone or for any report. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has made it abundantly clear that all these people should be looked after. Certainly it may mean giving these men money that the general public is not entitled to. But the veterans of Canada ought to be set apart from the general public. The minister has a moral and economic responsibility toward the veterans and he ought to go before cabinet and say, "I know this assistance does not come under our social security structure; I know it does not come under the pension legislation or under any retirement program or under the Canada Pension Plan. Nevertheless, considering the superhuman sacrifices these men made for Canada we have an obligation to look after them to the best of our ability."
I hope no one will say that the war ended 25 years ago and that we will not have another one. That sort of thing was said after the first world war. Our men who joined the forces at the beginning of hostilities in the second world war did not say, "Just one moment now; what's in this for us? What sort of veterans pensions will there be or how big will disability allowances be?" They did not say that. They volunteered to join the forces and went overseas hoping we would give them a fair shake if they came back. There is no connection between a pension paid to a veteran and a family allowance payment or any other social benefit payment that is made in Canada, just as there is no connection, or very little connection, between merchant seamen who operated ack-ack guns on ships during the war and the people who stayed behind.
Benefits paid to our veterans are not in the same category as other social benefits paid to the rest of our people. For the government to say that both classes of benefits are the same is wrong. If we do not discharge our obligations to our veterans we are not keeping faith with those men who served Canada so well. Many friends I went to school with do not

Veterans Affairs Committee Report ask for veterans allowances. They do not have to. They are lying beneath the soil of other countries. Those who came back had the right to expect that Canadians would recognize their obligation to them. This obligation is being neglected year after year.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
It has been 25 years since the end of the last war, yet we have not solved the problems of the Hong Kong veterans. Is it because certain people in high places in the Department of Veterans Affairs collaborated with the Japanese even though the Japanese were not in nearly as bad shape at the end of the war as others? This charge has been made. I am not mentioning names. If hon. members want the names, I will give them. The members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs are well aware of this charge.
Why are these veterans not being properly paid? They have appeared before the committee and informed its members of the diseases from which they suffer. Because medical treatment is not available in Canada to control these diseases, they have to look for treatment elsewhere. Nothing special is being done for them. The Woods report recommended an automatic 50 per cent disability pension so that these veterans and their dependants can have full benefits.
I agree with the previous speaker that something should be done for the merchant seamen. Representations have been made on many occasions in this regard. There have also been many representations with regard to firefighters recruited during the last war. These people talk about the promises made by the minister of full benefits for them when they returned to Canada. What has been the result? Twenty-five years of delay!
I am very concerned that the government will not implement the recommendations of the Woods report. Why did the government appoint this commission if they did not intend to accept the recommendations in the report? The government should have said they were no longer going to honour their commitment to the veterans.
I was shocked when the veterans land legislation was put into the same category as general legislation. Parliament said that money would be lent to veterans at one per cent over the prime borrowing rate, but this is being done under almost every piece of legislation in the lending field. Why could the veterans not have been given another 10 years' extension at the 5 per cent rate?
10472	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report
I know of many veterans who have not been able to raise the money to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act. Why could there not have been an extension? Why was there a cut-off? Are we to assume that a person 50 years of age is too old to build a house? There should be special legislation for veterans as well as maintaining the present legislation. Why did the government say after 25 years, that is enough of that foolishness, we will cut it off?
I am shocked at the way the government is dealing with the veterans charter. When the veterans charter was designed and developed after the war, it was one of the best pieces of veterans legislation in the world. I am surprised that only 25 years later the government is trying to destroy and distort that charter at every opportunity. Changes made to the Veterans Land Act may only be the beginning. The minister should state that he will not agree to any curtailment of veterans rights.
I do not know what is going to happen to the Woods report. I do not know to what extent the government will accept or reject the report. I do know that there is not a veteran in this country who is not disappointed and disgusted with the government for commissioning a report on abuses in veterans legislation and then not being prepared to introduce legislation immediately to correct those abuses. I have attended a number of meetings of the Legion and other veterans organizations. In every case these veterans are unhappy with the government and disgusted with the minister for not pressing the implementation of many of the recommendations in the Woods report to provide them with immediate benefits.
We are all aware that the government is carrying out an austerity program. However, this program should not be applied to legislation respecting veterans. What happened to the former Minister of Veterans Affairs may also happen to this minister. The former minister was unable to get the nomination again in his own constituency. The present minister is not doing much better than the former minister. The minister should seriously consider this matter in order to avoid becoming very unpopular with the thousands of veterans in this country.
The veterans are depending on the minister to implement the recommendations of the Woods report in order that they may receive these benefits. I strongly urge the minister to consider this matter for his own peace of 
DEBATES	June 20, 1969
mind. He has a responsibility to all the veterans of Canada who have been waiting a long time for final justice in their relationship with their country through the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Fronlenac):: In my
remarks on the comments made by the previous speakers, I for one would like to support unreservedly those words which conjure up the time when I myself was a bit young. I was not old enough to go to war, but I followed very closely the unfolding of that conflict which allowed us to preserve the freedom to speak in this house.
I agree with all that has been said, because I often receive complaints from veterans in my constituency who feel that they are not treated adequately. Too often, owing to a mere technical mistake, they are not eligible to the pension to which they are entitled.
I know that there should exist regulations, that the generosity of the government is not boundless. It has but limited resources yet it belongs to the department to take a more human approach toward the requests it receives.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I recall a fact which took place a month ago. A veteran who, at the end of the war, had been a few months only in England, came back to Canada where he had served for four years. Because he was short of a few days of service to qualify for service overseas, he could not qualify for a pension that would have enabled him to live decently.
Veterans, as all Canadians, are affected by the increase in the cost of living, and because their pension is not big enough to enable them to live decently, they are treated as people on welfare.
I will not repeat what the previous speakers said, but I will deal with a problem that is for French Canadians, and especially Quebecers, simply shocking.
That happened recently-several hon. members have talked about it earlier-during the commemoration of the battle of Normandy, in France. First of all, I shall read-, for the understanding of the context,-a report from the Montreal-Matin of June 12, and I quote:
-during a trip, all too short, to the Normandy beaches. The commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the allied landing in 1944 was taking place. Thousands of American, English and Canadian veterans were coming back for the first time to the scene of the battle, when French veterans.
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
welcomed them with open arms. Not to mention the people themselves who wanted to show their gratitude in a hundred ways.
From Carentan, a chain of torches were lighted along the coast. Remembrance torches, freedom torches. And in the evening, at Sainte-Mere-Eglise, took place a re-enactment, according to the sound and light technique, of the landing of 1944, with the sound of bombers, Nazi boots, machine-guns and church-bells ringing in token of rejoicing. Even dummy paratroopers were dropped from the sky. And the loud-speakers installed in the public squares repeated the old coded messages from the B.B.C. in London announcing the invasion.
On the same day, that is Friday, June 6, a ceremony was held at the Beny-sur-Mer military cemetery under the auspices of our own Department of Veterans Affairs. This cemetery could be mistaken for a British one because most inscriptions. if not all, are in English only. All commands to the troops were given in English during the ceremony: guard of honour, salute, last post, reveille, prayers, flower-offering, Scottish lament, benediction. The Canadian ambassador in Paris, His Excellency Paul Beaulieu, saved our honour by reciting a few verses from Charles Peguy.
There are problems. And do not tell me that the department does not have enough money to pay tribute to our veterans. Some of them had a French name, and if it was "Lambert", you can see it on their tombstone spelled "Lambpert". Even in death they have to put up with this lack of respect. I wonder what is the place given to Quebecers. I am not surprised at all the troubles facing Canada today, for justice is not done to our people.
I shall go on with the quotation:
Veteran soldiers of the Regiment de la Chaudiere asked that one of their own be allowed during the ceremony to lay a wreath on behalf of Quebec. That would have been a veteran who took part in the landing in June, 1944. The suggestion was met with a flat refusal by the delegates of the federal Department of Canadian Veterans Affairs.
He was finally allowed to lay the wreath once the ceremonies had ended; such arrogance was even more disgusting in view of the fact that that Quebec veteran was Mr. Hugues Lapointe and that in Quebec he represents the Queen as Lieutenant Governor.
When in order to pay tribute to our veterans, we are forced to put up with such humiliations, as a representative of the province of Quebec I do not have the right to accept a re-occurrence of such a situation. It will have to be corrected so that in the future on the Normandie beaches the tribute be paid in our language, with our prayers in the way we intend to live.
I continue with the question:
The delegates from the Regiment de la Chaudiere, shocked by such a public blunder, organized for the next day a ceremony at the very site of
Veterans Affairs Committee Report the landing, on the shore. It was a small and intimate ceremony, without protocol display, in the presence of the villagers.
Our Canadians who have fought so hard, who have helped preserve our freedom, are driven to organize a small gathering in a small village in order to pay such a high tribute. Our brave soldiers did deserve, I think, a much greater tribute.
And I will close by mentioning another rather unfortunate incident. The federal Department of Veterans Affairs had organized a press conference on the evening of June 5, at the City Hall in Caen. Here are the facts as related:
The whole thing took place in English only. A briefing about the ceremony which was to take place the next day at the military cemetery of Beny-sur-Mer was held. A public relations official went as far as to suggest that the Canadian veterans should not be allowed to take pictures during the ceremony, for proprieties sake, he claimed.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to drag this on interminably, but I believe that by quoting this newspaper article, you will understand, as I do, that such glaring injustices certainly generate disunity in Canada, and I would not like to be always compelled to remind people that justice must prevail. I hope that the department will take the necessary steps to insure that this kind of situation does not happen again elsewhere.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I intend, in the few minutes that are left to me, to try and answer all the arguments that have been presented at this stage of the debate. I first want to answer the arguments of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont).
He told us that he fully endorsed all that had been said by the two members who spoke before him.
But the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) who spoke first was himself at Beny-sur-Mer. He complained that the English language was neglected during the ceremony, while the hon. member for Frontenac complains that everything was in English.


Bernard Dumont: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I clearly said that I agreed as to all the economic problems, but I pointed out other problems.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the first hon. member who spoke congratulated us, and with due reason, as to the reconstitution of the
10474	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report landing in Normandy towards the end of the last world war. That celebration, commemorating the 25th anniversary of that landing, was organized by the Department of Veterans Affairs in co-operation with the Department of External Affairs.
The reports submitted so far by all those who were present were most laudatory. They congratulated us, even saying that the Canadian ceremonies were, by far, more significant and impressive than those of our allies.
The hon. member who first took the floor complained that there were not enough ceremonies in English whereas the hon. member who has just resumed his seat complains that there were not enough in French.
I therefore believe we have struck the right balance. This is a striking example of the difficulty of achieving true national unity in Canada.
That is understandable, because people, instead of using their heads, their common sense, often give way to their passions.
When people complain, on the one side that there was not enough English, and on the other not enough French, there is every reason to believe that the Department of Veterans Affairs struck, as I said, a happy medium and respected quite well the ethnic composition of the country.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker? [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), after discussing the Beny-sur-Mer ceremonies, discussed the needs of our war veterans. In his opinion, if I recall correctly, he claimed there was a creeping paralysis and a total indifference on the part of our government. He also stated that the attitude of the government was to ignore the requests of the veterans and of members of the house. Then he dealt more particularly with the need for pension increases, implying that very little had been done in the field of pensions on this side of the house.

DEBATES	June 20, 19G9
Perhaps in a very friendly way I should refresh the memory of the hon. member. Of course we all know or should know that pensions were first implemented after the first war in 1919. At the time the basis of the payment was the assessment of disability based on the requirement for enlistment, that is, that a person had a healthy mind and a healthy body. The pension rates established in 1919 were composed of a basic rate and a bonus because of the abnormal economic situation. The bonus was increased in 1920 and in 1925 was absorbed into the basic pension. Throughout the dark years, the 1930's- and they were not exactly known as Liberal years-no increases were made in the basic rates. Of course none were made during the war years.
In 1948, however, pension rates were increased from $900 a year for a single pensioner to $1,128 a year. In 1952 they were increased to $1,500 a year. In 1957 they were increased to $1,800 a year. In 1961-and I salute my hon. friend-they were increased from $1,800 a year to $2,160 a year. In 1964 they were increased to $2,500 a year. Two years later in 1966 they were increased again to $2,760 a year and finally last year, 1968, there was another healthy increase of 15 per cent to $3,180 a year for a single veteran and more of course for a married veteran. In other words, between 1960 and 1968 disability pensions increased from $1,800 to $3,180 for single veterans. This takes in three rapid increases in the years 1964, 1966 and 1968. I for one would not call this creeping paralysis or total indifference.
Of course the cost of living is going up and these rates are always under review. At the present time they are under review in conjunction with a number of other types of payments made to Canadians by the federal government, as indicated by the Prime Minister on June 17. At that time he stated:
We have to review all aspects of social legislation. We are doing this; we do not want to settle special cases. A special plea can be made not only for the veterans but for old people, for retired civil servants and for all sections of people in society.
Although we are always looking forward to improving the lot of our war pensioners, this is no reason for us to belittle our present record. As a matter of fact veterans in Canada and all of us agree that Canada stands second to none in her treatment of war veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
June 20, 1969	COMMONS


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The hon. member also expressed his anxiety, and rightly so, about the Woods Committee report and the white paper. He felt that perhaps there might be some kind of camouflage to prevent the Woods Committee report from reaching the Veterans Affairs Committee or some sort of camouflage to prevent these recommendations being acted upon. Perhaps at this time it would be appropriate for me to give him and other hon. members some of the background material in this connection.
First of all I should state that on only three occasions since the origin of disability pensions have persons outside of parliament been called upon and authorized to inquire into the operation of the Canadian Pension Commission or the operations of the predecessor of the Canadian Pension Commission, the Board of Pension Commissioners. There was a review in 1922 by a royal commission which is now referred to as the Ralston Commission. Ten years later, in 1932, a committee chaired by the Hon. Mr. Justice Rinfret and later by the Hon. Louis Arthur Audette was appointed to inquire into the administration of the Pension Act. The third occasion was September, 1965 when my predecessor, the Hon. Roger Teillet, appointed1 a committee to survey the work and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission. This committee was under the chairmanship of the hon. Mr. Justice Mer-vyn J. Woods.
The terms of reference of the Woods Committee were broad in scope. The committee was expected to bring in a report in 90 days. The members of the committee, however, discovered that the matter was so complex and the roots of the ramifications so deep that it took them two and a half years to bring down a report. I should point out that these three commissioners were highly experienced veterans, including among the three two very able justices one of whom was a past president of the Royal Canadian Legion. Yet those three people took two and a half years to prepare their report. It is understandable that we should be given at least half that time to bring this report into fruition.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The three commissioners conducted a very extensive investigation into the organization, methods, procedures and interpretations used in the adjudication of disability pensions. The response to the appointment of the Woods Committee exceeded all expectations. As a result, the committee conducted 41 hearings in Toronto, Quebec City and here in Ottawa.
Veterans Affairs Committee Report Those appearing before the committee included representatives of 14 veterans organizations, 13 members of parliament, the Canadian Pension Commission, the Veterans Bureau and representatives of the Canadian Armed Forces. The Woods Committee recorded many hundreds of pages of testimony; it carried out research, and finally, after the time-consuming task of evaluating the mass of material gathered, submitted a report of three volumes totalling 1,319 pages. If I recall correctly, the report contained 148 recommendations.
As soon as the report was handed to my predecessor he tabled it and an interdepartmental committee was appointed to study in depth the 148 recommendations contained in the report. The committee of officials completed its exhaustive review. I, of course, had to digest these studies in order to make my own recommendations, which are now under intensive study by the government of Canada. Hon. members will appreciate that any such study, if it is to have any value at all, requires searching analysis; we have to determine the social, legislative and financial implications involved in the recommendations. As I said before, many of the recommendations are complex in nature. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider whether in some cases more appropriate solutions can be found than those proposed by the Woods Committee.
As I have mentioned in the house on several occasions, a white paper outlining the views of the government will be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for study in conjunction with the Woods Committee report.


An hon. Member:: When?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: During the session, as I have said all along. The white paper will encompass all the recommendations of the Woods Committee and indicate the government's position on how the Pension Act should be improved to enable it to meet present-day needs. The hon. member asked, "When?" He should look at Votes and Proceedings and he will see a notice of motion referring the report of the Woods Committee to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. If hon. members are so anxious to have the Woods Committee report and the white paper referred to the committee, I would expect them to give swift and unanimous approval to that reference when we move the motion. As a matter of fact, if there is unanimous consent I would move the motion right now.
10476	COMMONS DEBATES	June 20, 1969
Veterans Affairs Committee Report


William Arnold Peters: Doesn't the minister know there will be no time for the committee to meet?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: When hon. members return in September it is my understanding that before the house meets the committee will sit. I presume this will be one of the committee's tasks. It will be given every opportunity in the world to study the Woods Committee report. When the members of the committee have read the report they will understand exactly what I mean when I say it is very complex and comprehensive. Of course, when the committee has studied the report and the while paper it will be up to the government to enact legislation based upon decisions reached by the committee.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe was anxious to tell the house that in his opinion the government of Canada was doing very little for our veterans. He went on, if I understood him correctly, to imply that the government should not be dealing with Latin America. If that is the case, I would like to know the policy of his leader and his party in this matter. The hon. member also complained that the government was spending too much money on foreign aid. Again, I would like to obtain the opinion of his leader and party in this regard. I would also be interested in knowing whether he was speaking on behalf of his party when he complained about our proposed recognition of China. He did not appear to be very happy about the sums of money spent during centennial year; yet the National Centennial Act which established the basis for those celebrations was enacted in 1961 by his party. Is it the position of his party and his leader that the money spent in 1967 for celebrating the 100th anniversary of Canada was not well spent? We would like to hear about that.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) covered very much the same points. He dealt at random with several points without really making one. The only one I can remember dealt with the Hong Kong prisoners. I am very familiar with the plight of the Hong Kong prisoners; several of them come from my native village. This recommendation, like the 147 other recommendations, is part and parcel of the Woods Committee report. I cannot discuss that report at the moment without first knowing the policy of my government in the matter.
I do not wish to take up more of the time of the house. I think I should conclude by saying that the government of Canada is not neglecting our veterans; in fact, in the past 
fiscal year we spent over $400 million in assisting them. The budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs has been increasing every year. We have in the department very able personnel. I believe most veterans across the country would agree with that. It was said by one hon. member that the government of Canada does not recognize the special debt owed by Canadians to our veterans. This is not true; we treat our veterans in a very special way. We do recognize that the citizens of this country owe them a great debt. We are providing our veterans with more advanced veterans legislation than can be found anywhere in the world. Canada is one of the few countries that still has a department of veterans affairs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is an excellent department, doing an excellent job.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I learned of the matter I wish to raise only at lunch time, so this is the first opportunity I have had to raise it. I might have done it at two o'clock but I did not want to interrupt the remarks of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Dube). I am sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not here and that no minister other than the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) is present, but I hope that the minister will convey to the government my strong protest, and I am sure the protest of every hon. member who thinks about the matter.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I learned at noon hour today that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has arranged to hold a press conference at four o'clock this afternoon to make a statement and to answer questions regarding his recent trip abroad. Hon. members will recall that this morning the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be here on Monday and whether he would make a statement on his trip. If my memory serves me right, the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be
June 20, 1969

here on Monday and would make a statement on those aspects of his trip upon which he considered it necessary to report. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister knew at the time that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had arranged for a press conference this afternoon.
Together with all other hon. members, particularly those sitting on the opposition benches, I am becoming more and more enraged by the attitude of the members of this government toward parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: It is not unreasonable to expect that when a minister of the Crown makes a special trip abroad to meet the governments and authorities of other countries on matters about which we do not know he ought to report to the House of Commons before he reports to the press, and that the members of this house have a right to hear him before the press does.
I made some inquiries about the time of the minister's arrival in Ottawa. I cannot be sure about the details, but I am told that he arrived in Ottawa before the house started its sitting this morning at eleven o'clock. But whether or not he did-and I think my information was pretty reliable-the Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the house would agree to revert to motions at any time during the day, even during an allotted day, for the opposition to hear a report from the Minister. The minister could have come here at two o'clock and given us his report, after which he could have gone to the press conference at four o'clock.
I want to know what it is that is making the government act this way. I said in an interview which was published in an Ottawa paper some time ago that I had the impression that the present Prime Minister really had no use for parliament, that it was a kind of necessary unavoidable evil for him to have to appear in the House of Commons and to allow the other ministers to waste their time here. This is the way it seems to me that he looks at the situation. Every time there is an important matter about which parliament should hear, we read about it in the press before the minister involved appears in the house to tell us what he is doing. Why are the ministers of the Crown so insistent on downgrading the purpose and usefulness of parliament, particularly of the poor hon. members who sit behind the treasury benches, who I understand are going to meet to see whether
Question of Privilege
they cannot persuade the government to assign some role to them in parliament which will lessen their frustration?


Mr. Cullen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am on a question of privilege.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member is berating the backbenchers, but I think he has already put his question of privilege and now we are hearing a harangue about his feelings. I think he should confine himself to his question of privilege.


David Lewis: June 20, 1969
Question of Privilege


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to second this motion and support the position taken by the members of the New Democratic party in this respect. I must say that 1 find it impossible to understand why the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have a press conference rather than come to the house and make a statement on a matter that is evidently of great interest to members of the house. I also find the attitude of the government toward the house impossible to understand. I have always taken it for granted that when a minister has an important statement to make and the house is in session he makes it to the house.
I cannot understand the attitude of the present government. Is the government taking this attitude because the opposition parties have been co-operative and have agreed to abandon some of their ancient rights with regard to holding up supply? Is it for this reason that we are not getting straightforward answers and have to put up with statements such as the one made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) upon his return from the NATO meetings?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, if the two hon. members who spoke before me took the trouble to read the regulations again, they would see-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is already a question of privilege before the house, and the Chair can consider but one at a time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will not be long because it will not take me long to make my point. My point is that the fact that members of the opposition parties have been co-operative in expediting the business of the house does not mean that we will lie down and tolerate this sort of thing, nor would the people of this country expect us to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Therefore the point must be very obvious to all of us, and I have great 
pleasure, although I find it regrettable that I have to do this, in supporting the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I am sure every member on this side of the house at least will support him. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs has a statement to make, let him make it in the house. The house will afford him every accommodation for doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a few moments of the time of the house to say that I support the question of privilege of the hon. member of the New. Democratic party, asking for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to come and make his statement before the house, to which he is responsible, around four o'clock, before imparting it to newspapermen, as it happens most of the time.
I also want to support firmly the two members who spoke before me and tried to bring the government back to democratic reason. As for us, we have honestly and sincerely been asking ourselves since the election of this government if, in reality, we are faced with a dictatorship or a democracy.
If there is friction throughout the country, that is due to the dictatorial attitude of the members of the cabinet of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If the Prime Minister encounters closed doors in various places, he can beat his own breast, since we are supposed to live under a democratic regime and we strongly believe that the democratic principles should prevail. Therefore, I urge the ministers and particularly the Prime Minister to act accordingly. The Prime Minister's ideas should be in accordance with the democratic principles and not his socialist leanings.
I wish to make it clear here that we labour under the socialist rule, and that we must absolutely escape it and revert to true democracy. That is why I gladly support the motion brought in by a Socialist who is for democracy. That is why I am most pleased to support this motion as a Democrat, and I want to call the people's attention on such infringements to democracy. We must absolutely put a stop as soon as possible to such doings if we do not want to be ruled within a year by the worst dictatorship of all.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. The Chair believes that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for York
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
South (Mr. Lewis) is not justified. The hon. member may have a grievance against the government but I find this is a bad moment to raise the matter because he will have the opportunity to do so in due time.
Now, I would like to quote citation 88 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
(2) All motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the Leader of the house.
Consequently, I do not think it proper to deal with the question now.


David Lewis: What paragraph did you quote, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Citation 88, paragraph 4, Beauchesne's fourth edition. We are dealing with the business of the house.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to point out that no question of privilege was involved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. [English]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marshall.
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks in this debate may I say I am pleased to see the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) in his place to hear the observations of members of the opposition and all those who are interested in the welfare of war veterans. I was also pleased to hear him refer to the Woods report which is much in the minds of members of the opposition parties, as it is in the minds of veterans across the country. As the minister reminded us, this committee was established on September 8, 1965, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods. It produced a most voluminous and comprehensive study. The veterans magazine has this to say about it:
Months in preparation, meticulous in detail and bristling with 149 recommendations the Woods report is hailed as a momentous production.
Veterans Affairs Committee Report
Mr. Ron MacBeath, past president of the Legion, had this to say:
Every aspect of war disability pensions has been gone into thoroughly. There are 149 specific recommendations for improvements and beneficial changes-
All veterans organizations hailed this report as marking a turning point in government treatment of veterans and their problems. What is bothering everyone is the undue delay in the implementation of the recommendations of the committee. The house has not even been given an opportunity to debate most of these recommendations.
On February 3 the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that the government was preparing a white paper and would not send the Woods report to the standing committee until the white paper had been published. Well, we are still waiting and we are doubtful now that any action will be taken before the summer recess. The minister has endeavoured to justify the delay that has taken place but we have certain suspicions about what has really been happening. I will come to this later.
While the government has been declining to take action, the cost of living has continued to rise. The cost of the groceries which war pensioners buy for their tables, the rent for the homes in which they live, their bills for heating, lighting and taxation, if they own their own homes, are rising steadily. For others in our society incomes are rising. But the veterans can do nothing about their situation. They are trapped in the stagnation of fixed pension incomes. The income of veterans ranks lower and lower on the totem pole of our society, in a society which seems to determine its classifications in accordance with financial position. The Legion's national magazine looks at the situation this way from the point of view of the war pensioner, especially in relation to housing:
Housing for our senior citizens has depreciated to the point at which the situation can be considered a crisis. This is especially so for those in a fixed income bracket. Having no means of supplementation they find their standards of living rapidly deteriorating by reason of the present economic situation.
Surely the minister can muster compelling arguments before his cabinet colleagues that an interim supplementary pension is in order until the course of action recommended in the Woods report can be implemented. We have gone almost a full year without anything being done, and still there is no glimpse of
10480	COMMONS DEBATES	June 20, 1969
Veterans Affairs Committee Report
light. The subject must go before the committee for discussion. Legislation must be drafted and brought forward. It may well be another year before anything can be done on behalf of our veterans. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that an interim supplementary allowance be made to these people who are experiencing such hardship in	the	present
circumstances.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The suspicion arises that the government is not only producing a white paper but is drafting legislation in advance of hearings. We are suspicious because of the treatment that has been given the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We remember that the transportation legislation had already been drafted by the government even before the report was presented. We are also witnessing the sad spectacle presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who has told the house that his department has already made up its mind in regard to legislation on smoking and health. In light of this, our veterans organizations that wish to present their views on the Woods committee recommendations to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs have good reason to fear that they will be unable to do so or that their recommendations will not be embodied in the legislation which is to come about.
Ten of our national veterans organizations have joined in preparing a united brief which they hope to present to the Veterans Affairs Committee. However, since this opportunity has been denied them for some time now their recommendations have been mailed to each member of the house. They put forward four major considerations that should be uppermost in the mind of the government. The minister knows what they are and does not need to be reminded of them, but I should like to place them on Hansard.
First of all, they recommend that there should be an independent pension appeal board and, second, that more adequate compensation should be paid to our Hong Kong veterans. I was glad to hear the minister say that he was sympathetically disposed toward these veterans, even though he had not had first-hand experience of their plight, as I have. Third, they recommend that there be more adequate compensation for pensioners who are suffering from multiple disabilities. I believe the veterans organizations are asking for a 300 per cent increase in this compensation, perhaps a little steep but nevertheless a 
matter we should concern ourselves about. The fourth area concerning veterans groups all across the country is the need to establish a basic rate of pension related to the income of the unskilled labourer in government service. If that were done our pensioners would not find themselves in the economic trap they are in today.
In order that I do not talk only theory and complain of what the government is doing or failing to do, I should like to speak about conditions as they are at the grass roots of the problem. I refer to those men and women veterans, particularly the men, for whom the whole program was designed and whom it serves. I have been in touch with some of the welfare offices in the seven Legion branches in my riding and ascertained some of the matters that are of immediate concern to them. I trust that the minister is aware of them. First of all, the burnt-out pension should be increased. That view was expressed to me by the service officer in the Delhi area.
In the Hagersville area the matter bothering them the most was one we have already discussed, namely, the implementation of the Woods report. Another matter that welfare officers are constantly running into in trying to solve the problems of our veterans is that the wife of a veteran who is on pension can earn only $1,250 without her husband's pension suffering as a result. In view of the rising cost of living, the increased cost of practically everything required to maintain a household, surely this figure is totally unrealistic. Even an adjustment of this sort would give some help to the people now suffering and awaiting the implementation of the Woods report.
Welfare officers of the Legion branches are also concerned about another matter. They feel that the reference to overseas service should be deleted from the conditions under which veterans may obtain relief. After all, it is not always the fault of the veteran that he was not sent overseas. He was under the command of the Department of National Defence or the Canadian forces and went where he was sent. He had no control over this. Surely this condition should be deleted from any consideration relating to assistance.
In the Waterford area the Legion officer underlined a point I have already made. He mentioned that a veteran who is partially disabled can earn only $900 without reduction of his pension taking place. In light of the present-day increase in the cost of living this amount too is totally inadequate. These are
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
all matters that I ask the minister to look into before the Woods report is implemented, which I understand may be a year away.
In the Simcoe area the service officer of the Legion expressed concern at the phasing-out of Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto where many veterans in this area had been sent. He is concerned lest the load now placed on Westminster Hospital in the London area will overtax the facilities at that hospital and our veterans will find themselves without hospital services. I trust that the department is keeping abreast of the problem and is estimating the admissions that will be required during the next few years, so that Sunnybrook hospital is not phased out too early. These are some of the matters of vital concern which go to the grass roots of the problems of our veterans.
Before I conclude I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to use his good offices to speak to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans), a tough man to deal with as we all know, about the new postal rates, the effect of which is placing an undue burden upon the Legion, formerly called the Legionary, the magazine of the Royal Canadian Legion. Not only have the postal rates been increased but the magazine has been excluded from the preferred rate given to newspapers and magazines. As a result the cost of mailing this national magazine to our veterans has increased by 1,400 per cent. Surely the Minister of Veterans Affairs can do something to see that the magazine is at least placed on the preferred list.
Having made these comments, I urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs to take into consideration some immediate plan of action to help our veterans until the recommendations of the Woods report are implemented.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to preface my remarks in this debate with a brief account of my participation in the celebrations in France and Belgium marking the 50th anniversary of the 1918 armistice. The government of Canada provided 100 first world war veterans with transportation and all the facilities for what proved in reality to be a great pilgrimage superbly organized by the minister and officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The pilgrimage was to pay our tribute to the comrades left behind forever on foreign soil.
Canada has in France and Belgium 13 battlefield memorials commemorating the exploits of Canadian and Newfoundland troops. We
Veterans Affairs Committee Report visited every one of them, and at each one a memorial service was held and wreaths laid by representatives of each unit that made up the Canadian expeditionary force; and on each occasion a wreath presented on behalf of the government of Canada preceded the wreath-laying ceremony.
During almost two weeks of ceremonies and receptions I was astonished at the military precision of event following event, a prodigious triumph of organization on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, led by the then deputy minister of veterans affairs Ernest Cote, himself a veteran of the second world war. His organizing ability, ably assisted by other officials of the department, made the entire trip a pleasure for everyone participating in one of the most colourful, brilliant conceptions of commemorative ceremonies that I have ever seen. It was one of the greatest patriotic demonstrations Canada ever staged on foreign soil, most of the credit for which should properly go to the untiring efforts and hard work of the officials of the department.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I think I am expressing the views of my colleagues on this side of the house when I say that this debate is worth while and welcome because it reflects the interest of members of all parties in the human side of the subject. In all the years I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs I have never encountered partisanship when the needs and aspirations of our war veterans have been dealt with. The mover of the motion under consideration is to be congratulated for his report on the 25th anniversary of the cessation of hostilities in the European theatre of war. All the same I disagree most emphatically with his suggestion that the government is dictatorial and not doing its utmost on behalf of veterans. I regret the irresponsible statements the hon. member made. They were adequately and effectively answered by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I congratulate the minister on his very fine presentation.
The minister has pointed out on several occasions that it is the government's duty to consider the problems affecting the one million veterans of Canada. Happily, not all of them require assistance, nor do all especially need to appeal to the government. However, of the one million veterans, 14 per cent are pensioned, about 8 per cent are in need of veterans allowances and about 1 per cent are
Veterans Affairs Committee Report continuously in need of hospital care. For those in need, and an appreciable number of our veterans are in need, provision was made and included in the 1968-69 estimates to the extent of about $426 million. This is an increase of $19.1 million over the 1967-68 estimates and reflects the concern of the government about the welfare of veterans and their dependants who need help.
There have been three revisions in the pension rates since 1964. The first one was effective from September 1, 1964, and represented a 10 per cent increase across the board. The second increase became effective on September 1, 1966. It represented a 15 per cent increase in the basic rates in the pensions for veterans and widows. The third revision, which went into effect on January 1, 1968, brought in a 15 per cent increase for all veterans in all cases. No Canadian war veteran needs to apply for charity for himself or his family. I am confident that the government will enact legislation which will make unnecessary the humiliating recourse to public welfare.
The recommendations placed before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs by several veterans organizations have been most helpful to members of that committee on which I have been most happy to serve. I can say that submissions were made with dignity and restraint. I am sure the government has taken note of them. The minister pointed out to the committee on April 17, 1969, certain matters of importance to veterans. I quote what he is reported to have said: First, the program of welfare services, allowances and other benefits is one that seeks to ensure that all persons eligible for war veterans allowance, civilian war allowance and other veterans benefits are assisted to the full extent of the provisions of the various statutes affected.
The second is the pension program administered by the Canadian Pension Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Under this program, pensions for disability and death are provided as set forth in the Pension Act. The program also includes the adjudication of claims for pensions under several other statutes including The Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act and the R.C.M.P. Pension Continuation Act.
A third program is concerned with the provision of treatment services to veterans and to other designated classes of patients as authorized by the veterans treatment regulations.
Fourth, the Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act program seeks to effect the successful settlement of qualified veterans as farmers, small holders, commercial fishermen and homesteaders, including Indian veterans on reserves.

June 20, 1969
The fifth of the programs, departmental administration, is concerned with the effective and efficient provision of a number of common professional and administrative services.
The opposition has been rather harsh in criticising the unavoidable delay in referring the Woods committee report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for study and recommendation. This report is merely a survey of the work and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission and was presented to the former Minister of Veterans Affairs in March, 1968, shortly before the dissolution of the last parliament. I assume that hon. members have read this very thorough study of the organization and operation of the Canadian Pension Commission. The study contains some far-reaching recommendations, many of which will undoubtedly result in major amendments to the Pension Act. Hence we have had the unavoidable delay in dealing with this legislation.
One recommendation of the study is the establishment of an appeal board which will have jurisdiction over the Pension Commission. Under the present system appeals may be heard by commissioners. An applicant, must present his case to commissioners working with colleagues who may already have ruled against the applicant. There is no appeal to an independent body. The Woods Committee report states that when an applicant's claim has been denied there is no agency or court to which he may take his case. It is therefore perfectly clear that the system is inadequate in ensuring justice. The objection to what is recommended may stem from the assumption that the appointment of a pension appeal board would result in superimposing upon the commission a superior authority. I agree with the report where it says that, in essence, the commission should be an administrative body which can operate satisfactorily only if the responsibility for final decision is transferred to a senior body such as a pension appeal board.
Cases involving claimants in my constituency have been brought to my attention. After having been rejected by the commissioners these claimants have gone to their own doctors and the medical reports of those doctors were turned down by the pension commissioners. This leads one to believe that there is a form of discrimination in the handling of independent reports. When I made representations on behalf of some of these unfortunate claimants I was told politely that the private doctor's report had been considered by the commissioners but that the orginal diagnosis

June 20, 1969	COMMONS
would still stand. All this is an additional reason for my wholehearted support of the Woods Committee recommendation that a pension appeal board be appointed.
The government has given a great deal of consideration to increases in federal pensions, old age pensions, retired civil servants pensions, and veterans pensions. I am confident that when the whole social security review has been completed a policy will be established in keeping with our well-rounded national social welfare program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube), who is following this debate with the interest I would expect him to show, feels that because he could say that last night he introduced a motion to refer the Woods report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs he has scored a debating point. I am afraid I must say to him that that is all it amounts to-a debating point. The basic unfairness in the way in which the government has handled the Woods report still stands so far as veterans and veterans organizations are concerned.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Let us take a moment to look at the record with respect to the handling of this very important study of the administration of the Pension Act. As the minister pointed out, the Woods Committee was set up in September, 1965. It soon found that it had more to do than could be done in a few months. Indeed, it was March 22, 1968, before its report was presented to the government. I should also mention another date, namely, March 26, 1968; that was the date on which the report was tabled in the house.
The next important date in connection with the Woods report is September 13, 1968, when the minister was asked in the House of Commons about the reference of the Woods report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. These are the words he used in reply to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I quote from page 24 of Hansard for Friday, September 13, 1968:
In reply to his question may I say it is our intention to have the Woods Committee report referred to the House of Commons Committee on Veterans Affairs as quickly as possible, and to act on the recommendations of that committee as soon as we received them.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that statement was very clear and the commitment involved in that statement was clear and solemn.
Veterans Affairs Committee Report
Later in that same month, on Monday, September 30, the minister was again questioned about the Woods report. As recorded at page 564 of Hansard the minister stated:
First of all the Woods report will be referred to the Veterans Affairs Committee. We will have to ascertain what decisions the members of that committee will take before the minister can decide what legislation will be enacted.
I submit that the position of the government in September of last year was very clear. The government promised that the Woods report would be referred by itself to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the members of that committee would be given an opportunity to study it and make their recommendations to the minister and the government before the government had decided what was to be done concerning the recommendations of the Woods report. That has all been changed, Mr. Speaker. That commitment has not been kept.
On February 3 of this year the minister was asked by the chairman of the standing committee, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), when he intended to refer the Woods report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. At page 5045 of Hansard the minister said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to advise the hon. member and the house that at the present time we are preparing a white paper respecting veterans pensions and the Woods committee recommendations. This white paper is being given high priority and we expect later on this session to be able to refer both the white paper and the Woods committee report to the House of Commons committee.
When that reply was given, it seemed harmless enough. However, during the weeks and months that have gone by since then we have realized what a change of position has taken place. Originally the committee was to get the Woods report and advise the government as to what it felt should be done with regard to the recommendations in that report. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs will not now receive the Woods report by itself, but the Woods report plus a departmental white paper which sets out, before the members have any chance to express their views on the Woods report, what the government is going to do about it.
I have not seen the white paper. I do not know what is in it. I have a pretty good idea it will be a document which will declare that many of the things in the Woods report have already been put into effect in one way or another. It will be a document which will indicate the difficulties and financial problems
10484	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report associated with some of the recommendations in the Woods report. Then it will probably list those recommendations in the Woods report which the government is prepared to accept.
This is not being fair to the committee system of the House of Commons. The whole idea of the beefed-up or rejuvenated program of activity for our committees is that private members of parliament shall have more say about what is going to be done. Are the committee members going to have an opportunity to deal with the recommendations of the Woods report directly, or are they simply going to be told the decisions the government has already made and only be given an opportunity to concur in those decisions?
The minister expressed the hope there will be ready consent to the passing of his motion to refer the Woods report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have no objection to this. The motion will be on the order paper on Monday and it can pass without debate at that point so far as I am concerned. I suggest, nevertheless, that it is a case of breaking faith with veterans and veterans organizations to do it this way as opposed to the way it was promised to be done in September of last year.
As has already been pointed out, any item that is referred to committee next week can hardly be dealt with by the committee next week. Maybe we will be here longer than we anticipate. We may be here for the month of July, taking into consideration what has happened here today. I would love to stay on.


An hon. Member:: We know that!


Stanley Howard Knowles: some of the hon. members in the back row on the other side of the house do not want to stay, they can persuade the government to drop the proposed Standing Order 75C.
As the minister stated in his remarks earlier today, the best that can happen is for the report to be in the hands of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in September, 1969. The promise was clear in September, 1968, that the report would be referred to the committee as quickly as possible. When the committee gets the report in September, 1969, instead of getting it with a free hand to listen to the veterans organizations and make the recommendations that the members of their own free will might have made, they will get it with a government document telling the government members on that committee, at any rate, how far the government will go. The chance of anything coming out of the 
DEBATES	June 20, 1869
committee beyond what is in the white paper is very slim. In fact, it is just about nil. That is not playing fair with the veterans of this country.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), the minister and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), if he gets into the debate before it is over, can tell us all the wonderful things that have been done and how good the programs are. What counts is what is being done now for the veterans, and we think this treatment is unfair to them.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Despite the fact that other members have referred to them I think I should say a word about the many things in the Woods report that need to be acted upon. My namesake, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), pointed out that there are four things that have been singled out for top priority so far as veterans organizations are concerned. They are the question of an appeal board, dealing with cases of multiple disabilities, special treatment for the Hong Kong veterans, and the whole question of establishing a proper arrangement for a basic rate of pension.
But when one looks over the Woods report, its three volumes and its many pages, he finds it deals with a great many questions, many of them the concern of veterans across the years, such as the matter of pre-enlistment conditions, questions about blindness, the re-opening of claims, the benefit of the doubt clause, attendance allowances and so on. There are questions relating to widows, and many others of that sort.
Then on the fringe of all this there are questions relating to the War Veterans Allowance Act, to the situation faced by the Dieppe prisoners of war, merchant seamen, firefighters, and so on. There is a great host of problems of this kind, many of them dealt with in the Woods report, others not dealt with but related thereto, all of which make this a terribly important document, and we think it is most unfortunate that a whole year will have been lost because the government failed to keep its commitment made on Friday, September 13, 1968.
The minister says that the standing committee can meet in September after this motion is passed early next week. Well, if we are going to be here next week, and maybe the week after, and the week after that again, the committee does not need to put off its work until September. It might as well sit
June 20, 1969

while we are debating matters of procedure here in the House of Commons unless, of course, the government comes to its senses.
Some of us regret that with all the attention we have been forced to put on the Woods report the whole question of the War Veterans Allowance Act seems to have been lost in our concern about the Woods report. After all, the Woods report deals only with that section of veterans legislation that relates to disabilities, and pensions paid under the Pension Act and some other acts related thereto. But a great many of the veterans of this country get some financial recognition foi their condition and suffering, because they served their country in war, only under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and we feel there are improvements that need to be made in that legislation that are just as important as the improvements called for in the Pension Act and other veterans legislation.
Ever since this parliament began I have been pleading with the new minister that the War Veterans Allowance Act be referred to the standing committee along with the Woods report. His answer has been that that is up to the committee. That is one way to answer such a question, but of course it is up to the government to make the kind of motion that will produce an actual reference. I still feel that if the position of veterans generally is going to be considered by the committee it should have before it not only the Woods report and all those matters that relate to disability pensions, but also the War Veterans Allowance Act, an act in which real improvements are needed.
I know we can be told by the minister that changes have been made in recent years. In fact he went back to tell us what veterans were getting in 1919 and 1920. Well, Mr. Speaker, in 1920 I got summer work at 25 cents an hour and thought I was getting pretty good pay. Possibly some people may think that is all I should be getting today. It is no good talking about rates of veterans pensions in those years, or the rates five or ten years ago. The fact is that we are living under a new set of conditions, and if any group of people in our society deserves the attention of government and parliament it is the veterans, their families, their widows and others that they have left behind.
I have made one or two specific references to the War Veterans Allowance Act. There is one item in particular that I admit I have spoken of a good many times and which I think is a piece of hypocrisy to which our 29180-663
Veterans Affairs Committee Report veterans should not be subjected. I refer to the situation that obtains as between the guaranteed income supplement and the war veterans allowance.
When the guaranteed income supplement legislation was put through the House of Commons much was made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), then the Minister of National Health and Welfare, about the fact that the income test in the guaranteed income supplement would not take into account any pension received by veterans, whether a disability pension or a benefit under the War Veterans Allowance Act. And that is true. When a person applies for the guaranteed income supplement any money he is receiving under the War Veterans Allowance Act is not counted as income.
Big deal, Mr. Speaker! The same veteran who gets the guaranteed income supplement, despite the fact that he is getting money under the War Veterans Allowance Act, then finds that because of the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act the money he is receiving as a guaranteed income supplement counts as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act, and what he receives under the act is cut back.
We think it is bad enough that there is no improvement for veterans because of this new legislation-at least it was new then- but to maintain that piece of hypocrisy, telling the country and the veterans that war veterans allowance income does not count against their guaranteed income supplement, when the reverse is the case, is no way to treat the veterans of this country. That is an anomaly which I think should be straightened out. It is not something which happened by accident. We debated it at length when we were discussing the guaranteed income supplement, but we could not seem to involve the Minister of Veterans Affairs of that day in any campaign to get the situation changed. But we think it should be changed now.
This is one of the reasons I feel that when the Woods report is referred to the standing committee, and for my part that can be done on Monday, there should also be referred the War Veterans Allowance Act so that the whole position of our veterans can be gone into by that committee. As I have already said, at the risk of seeming to be a killjoy and wanting to spoil some of our members' summer plans I would like to see that committee meet soon rather than in September, a full year from the time when the promise was
10486	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report first made to refer this matter to the standing committee.
In his eloquent remarks the hon. member for Fort William expressed complete confidence that when the government finishes all its reviews of old age pension matters, blind pensions, the Canada Assistance Plan, retired civil servants, veterans and all the rest, it will come up with a plan that will improve things for everybody. I am afraid I do not have that kind of confidence in the government. Having raised pension matters time and again since we first met here last September,
I am afraid my feeling is that the government just does not care about our older and retired people, just does not care about the people who have to rely on these kinds of pensions for a decent standard of living.
What bothers me, and I think in his heart of hearts the Minister of Veterans Affairs shares this concern, is the lack of concern on the part of the Prime Minister and the present government for people in these categories, retired civil servants, old age pensioners, retired employees of the C.N.R. and veterans. These people cannot live on reviews, they cannot live on studies being made of all these various programs, they cannot live on fine statements about these things being involved in the problems of inflation, taxation and all the rest of it. If these retired people, these older people, these veterans, deserve our attention let us give it to them with good grace. Let us give it to them in a generous way. Let us not mistreat them. Let us not treat them with bad faith as, in my view, has been the case with veterans since this government came into power.
I regret very much the long delay in dealing with the Woods report and all these other matters, but now that a motion is on the Order Paper let us have the matter referred. Even yet I wish the minister would hold back his white paper and allow members of the standing committee, on the basis of the representations that the various veterans organizations will make to it, to make their own recommendations to the government in line with the clean and solemn commitment he gave on September 13, 1968.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oiiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I know there is by agreement a cut-off on this debate at four o'clock and I am also aware that other hon. members wish to speak. Therefore I shall be very brief. I wish to put on the record the facts concerning the
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
DEBATES	June 20, 1969
standing committee which dealt with the estimates in the hope that I will be able to correct a misunderstanding which apparently has arisen in some quarters. The estimates of the department were referred by order of the house of February 20 to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of which I have the honour to be chairman. Under the rules of the house there is no doubt that the committee could deal only with the estimates which were referred to it. I shall cite citation 304, sections 1 and 2 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 244:
1.	A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the house.
2.	A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference.
In considering these estimates the committee met on April 17 at which time it heard from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). It met again on April 23 and again on April 25. On April 17, as the result of a question specifically asked by one of the members of the committee, the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission placed on record a series of statements relating to those aspects of the Woods committee recommendations which had been implemented by the department. He placed on the record of the committee a series of detailed comments. That was on April 17. The committee was adjourned at that time. As chairman I pointed out to hon. members that it might be their pleasure to await the transcript which would provide an opportunity for detailed crossexamination of the witness. On April 23 when the committee met again the transcript was not available. The committee proceeded to hear other witnesses and to ask questions of the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission.
On April 23 a letter was prepared and delivered the next morning to members of the committee. It was signed by the Dominion Secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion. With the permission of hon. members I should like to insert this letter in Hansard or place it on the record. I hope I have permission to insert this letter of April 23 signed by D. M. Thompson and addressed to the chairman and members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am not quite sure whether the hon. member would like to have the letter appear as an appendix to Hansard or whether he would like to read it into the record. I might caution him
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
as I have other members, that it is an irregular practice to do this. The hon. member has the option to read the letter into the record, although we try to discourage this. Of course the letter could, with unanimous consent, be placed on the record.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I would normally read it but in the interest of saving time I am trying to adopt an expeditious procedure because I know other hon. members are anxious to speak. I shall cite one paragraph:
In the event that further information on this matter is desired we would be pleased to make ourselves available to appear before your committee.
On April 25 the committee again met. I presume individual members of the committee had received this communication from the Royal Canadian Legion. There was an opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses. They were all available before the committee at that time. On April 25 the committee terminated its hearings and reported back to the house the estimates of the department in accordance with its terms of reference.
I think there has been some misunderstanding here because some members seem to think the committee was then at liberty to call the Legion personnel to give testimony before the committee because they were most anxious to make comment in respect of the testimony of Mr. Anderson. The fact is that the committee had very specific terms of reference, the estimates of the department, before it. According to the citation I have read there is no question that the committee did not have the discretion to depart from those terms of reference at that time.
There is now before this house a notice of motion which will come up on Monday next to refer the report of the Woods committee to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It has been indicated by the spokesman for the New Democratic party that the members of that party are prepared to give unanimous consent to this motion. I hope at that point there will not be prolonged debate because it is obviously in the interest of the veterans of Canada that the committee should meet to set up an orderly procedure for dealing with this report at the earliest possible time. Upon the adoption of this motion, which I hope will be dealt with in the same non-partisan way in which other similar matters are dealt with by the house, I intend to call a meeting of the steering committee to discuss the most appropriate time for the committee to meet to deal 29180-6631
Veterans Affairs Committee Report with the recommendations of the Woods committee. There have been suggestions that the committee should meet in September. There are other matters which will have to be taken care of before the committee can make this decision but I hope that this suggestion which has been made from more than one quarter of the house will be given earnest consideration by the committee.
I hope this will clarify a misunderstanding which apparently has arisen in some quarters of the house concerning the work of the committee and the opportunity of a group such as representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion to take part in the committee's hearings at a time when there was a specific reference before the committee.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, while listening to my colleague from Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), I noticed that he asked permission to have a letter inserted in Hansard and that you were about to ask unanimous consent of the house, but this did not materialize. I want to know if my hon. friend is insisting to obtain unanimous consent of the house in order to place this letter on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the point of order may I say that it is entirely up to the hon. member for Ottawa West if he wants to insist that the letter be tabled, but I should point out that it is an irregular practice to table letters, speeches or charts. However, perhaps there is consent by the house that the hon. member for Ottawa West may include this in his remarks. This is a matter which is entirely up to the house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think there is any point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There might not be a point of order but I am trying to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
10488	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The letter from the Royal Canadian Legion to the chairman and members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, dated April 23, 1969, reads as follows:
Gentlemen: We were very interested in the statement made to your committee by the chairman of the Pension Commission on 17 April 1969. In his statement Mr. Anderson dealt with a number of the recommendations of the Woods Committee which according to him have been implemented or are in the process of implementation.
In accordance with our usual practice we analysed the information given by Mr. Anderson in the light of our experience in the field of pension work and the knowledge gained as a result of our intense study of the entire Woods Report.
Knowing the deep interest of your committee members in the Woods Report, we felt that you and your colleagues might find a copy of our analysis of Mr. Anderson's statement helpful in your deliberations. We are therefore providing sufficient copies for each member of your committee.
In the event that further information on this matter is desired we would be pleased to make ourselves available to appear before your Committee.
We are sending copies of this letter with our observations to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission.
Yours very truly


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleagues, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for introducing in the house a motion which gives members the opportunity to discuss some of the problems of Canadian veterans. I also wish to congratulate him on the effectiveness of his action. He has finally smoked out the minister from behind his cloud of secrecy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do not be too optimistic.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I will try not to be.
It seems to me to be more than a coincidence that this notice should appear on the order paper on the eve of a motion to refer the recommendations of the Woods Committee to the standing committee. So I want to congratulate my hon. friend for his counterattack in trying to get some action from the minister.
This motion gives me and other members an opportunity to add our protests to the protests of every veterans organization and all the veterans throughout the country who cannot understand why the government has been dragging its feet in respect of such important legislation. I have heard one or two government apologists make the statement that all is rosy and that the department has

DEBATES	June 20, 1969
done wonders for the veterans. If this is the case, why then has every veterans organization throughout the country sent letters and telegrams protesting the manner in which the minister has been conducting the affairs of his department? This does not add up. I think it is rather tragic that we have not had more action by this new minister who was appointed to his portfolio with a great fanfare of trumpets. The veterans and veterans' organizations of this country had high hopes that action would be taken because new blood was coming into the department. They believed he would finally get something going in the department, and expected great things to be done for them.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What has happened since the minister's appointment? The great things that were expected have fizzled out miserably. The Woods Committee report was presented to the then minister of veterans affairs in March, 1968. It is now June, 1969, and the minister has taken his first action in connection with a study of that report.
I emphasize what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a few minutes ago. I, too, deplore the methods the minister has used and the action he has taken in this regard. He has not played fair with the committee. He has told the house repeatedly that the study of the report had been delayed in order that a white paper could be prepared and presented to the standing committee at the same time as the report. I refer to the minister's words as reported in Hansard. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dealt briefly with this matter. On September 13 last year the Minister of Veterans Affairs promised that the report of the Woods Committee would be referred to the appropriate committee of this house as soon as possible. He confirmed this on September 30. On February 3, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the minister replied, as reported at page 5045 of Hansard:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to advise the hon. member and the house that at the present time we are preparing a white paper respecting veterans pensions and the Woods Committee recommendations. This white paper is being given high priority and we expect later on this session to be able to refer both the white paper and the Woods Committee report to the House of Commons committee.
What has happened in the meantime? It could be that some members of the government did not agree with the minister's
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
avowed intention to have the committee study the Woods Committee report. The minister then started to hedge on this question. On February 27, as reported in Hansard at page 6007, the minister gave the following reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. Speaker, as I answered before, the government is now preparing a white paper and both the white paper and the Woods Committee report will be referred to the committee later this session.
That reply would certainly indicate that the white paper and the Woods Committee report would be presented together to the committee. Then, on March 17, as reported at page 6726 of Hansard, in reply to a question asking what was happening with regard to the report of the Woods Committee, the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the Woods report has certainly not fallen into oblivion. The government is preparing a white paper to be submitted to the Committee on Veterans Affairs simultaneously with the report-
That is clear enough. On March 24, as reported at page 7007 of Hansard, the Minister of Veterans Affairs in reply to a question used the following words:
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the government at the present time is preparing a white paper on this matter. Both the white paper and the Woods Committee report will be referred to the proper house committee later in this session.
He confirmed that on April 14. Then on April 28, as reported at page 8048 of Hansard, the minister in reply to a question about the Woods report said:
As soon as the white paper is ready we shall refer it to the appropriate committee.
The minister's statements are self-explanatory. All through the session we on this side of the house have pressed him to take action on the Woods Committee report. He first said it would be presented to the committee right away. This is standard phraseology on the part of the government; it always says that action will be taken soon or in a few days. The minister told us repeatedly the report would be sent to the Veterans Affairs Committee for study. Suddenly, there was a change in emphasis and he said the report could not be presented to the committee because the government had decided it was not thorough enough and was preparing a white paper on the subject. For this reason, said the minister, the report of the Woods Committee could not be presented to the committee of the house until the white paper had been prepared. He told us this as late as
Veterans Affairs Committee Report April 29. Suddenly, we find that all the assertions of the minister that the Woods Committee report had to be supplemented by a white paper are out the window and the report will be referred to the committee. Why?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Because the policy has again been reviewed.


Charles Humbert Thomas: As my leader says, the policy has again been reviewed. I asked the minister a question today and he said the policy would be introduced in this session. We do not know how much longer the session will last, but I do not think he has very much time in which to present the government's policy in this regard.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I never said I would bring in legislation. I said the report would be presented to the committee.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I apologize to the minister, Mr. Speaker. At least the report is being presented to the committee; we have that much action from the minister. I vigorously protest the action taken by the minister in this respect. I ask how he can expect the thousands of veterans throughout this country to place any reliance upon his statements. He has been telling us all along that the presentation of the report was delayed because he was waiting for a white paper to be prepared, and the committee could not act on the report until the white paper was presented to it. How can he expect the thousands of veterans in this country to place any reliance on the statement that the legislation will soon be forthcoming? The minister is no longer credible.
Before resuming my seat, I want to make it quite clear that any criticism I have made is directed mainly toward the inaction of the minister. We on this side of the house are perfectly satisfied with the conduct of the officials in the department; they are honest, hardworking, dedicated civil servants and we have no quarrel with them. All we ask is that the minister give them the tools with which to work so they can go ahead and do that which should be done for our veterans. I therefore say to the minister in all sincerity that he should prevail upon those in the cabinet who have apparently been bucking his attempts to introduce legislation which is necessary to improve the situation in which our veterans find themselves. If he does this he will restore some of the shining image he had when appointed to this portfolio.
10490	COMMONS DEBATES	June 20, 1969
Veterans Affairs Committee Report


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I say at the outset that I am not a veteran. I mention this simply to indicate that I have no personal axe to grind. Those who did not serve in the armed forces have a tendency to be impatient with those who did, because we cannot share their comradeship born out of wartime service, sacrifice and association. I share no such impatience. A veteran can bend my ear at any time, on any subject, at any place, and I am flattered to say that some veterans do. I think this arises in part out of my maiden speech, which was given some publicity in so far as veterans associations are concerned, and also the articles I have from time to time written in veterans publications.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
When the Dieppe Prisoner of War Association recently met with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube), I made a point of being present to hear and support the brief they presented. All too often we feel, when dealing with this great juggernaut called government, that there is little purpose in preparing briefs or attending meetings with ministers. Fortunately, the Dieppe P.O.W. Association received a splendid hearing, and the minister undertook to examine a representative number of files to determine if there is a disability common to the Dieppe ex-prisoners of war. The men presenting the brief undertook to provide the minister with a list of the men on their roster. It was gratifying to me personally to find that the list sent by the Dieppe P.O.W.'s was sent to my office for presentation to the minister. Arising directly out of that particular meeting, more than 800 files of Dieppe ex-prisoners of war have been examined and a catalogue of complaints and ailments has been made. I do not know the results of the report but it is gratifying to know that there is a minister who will listen to the veterans of this country.
This interest that I have in veterans affairs is born, I suppose, out of a lifetime of brainwashing because my father saw service in both world wars; in the first one in the Royal Naval Air Service and in the second war in the Royal Canadian Air Force as a squadron leader. One would have thought that this would have been enough, yet he saw fit to join the Department of Veterans Affairs and to give 20 years of service to it. Just before his retirement, he worked as a district administrator for D.V.A. I know the house will pardon this personal reference, but, I hope the house can appreciate it is as a result of this background that my concern for the rights 
of veterans arises. Party loyalty will not divert me from this concern.
High on my list of sources of information dealing with veterans is the magazine Legion. I commend to the attention of all hon. members the February 1969 issue. Pages 13 to 22 of that issue contain an excellent treatise or summary or, as the magazine puts it, "a simplified outline of the facts supporting the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Woods and his committee". This should be required reading for all members of the Veterans Affairs Committee and, most assuredly, required reading for all officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as for the minister himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
could put it in Hansard.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have a copy here also. In my considered opinion, no veteran of any war has received more attention, more consideration, better hospital care or more assistance in training for work and in seeking employment, or more financial help toward an education or toward building a home, than has the Canadian veteran. I do not say this to provoke an argument. I say it primarily because I think it is true, but also because I want to add that we can and always should be looking for ways to do more for the Canadian veteran.
The Legion magazine states in part as follows:
Months in preparation, meticulous in detail, bristling with 148 recommendations, the Woods report was hailed as a momentous production when it appeared last March.
This report is contained in three volumes in excess of 1,300 pages. The pages overflow with wisdom, and there is little doubt that the survey of the organization and the work of the pension commission results in many outstanding recommendations which, if implemented, would be of considerable long term value to veterans and their dependants.
The Legion and 10 other national veterans' associations met at least three times to discuss this report. While some groups are more concerned than others with the specific aspects of the report, there is unanimity in that they all support the report and urge its implementation. I say, "Amen", to that, but I have a lawyer's qualification. I think early implementation is great, but I do not want to see hasty implementation. I am unalterably opposed to it, whether it be for political advantage or whether it be to remove the
June 20, 1369	COMMONS
pressure. There are 148 recommendations, as I said before, and 10 veterans' groups and the Legion itself cannot agree even among themselves on all the recommendations which should receive top priority.
To be fair to these organizations, I think there is general agreement in four areas: the pension appeal board, multiple disabilities, the basic rate, and Hong Kong veterans. In my address I have not catalogued the 148 recommendations, but can the country, and hopefully the opposition and the veterans, see the magnitude of the task facing the government? I urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) to play it cool. I ask him not to seek political advantage. I ask him not to give in to the pressures which are being brought to bear upon him. I ask him not to be rushed into hasty action.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Such as in four years.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: My friend will have an opportunity to speak later. I did not know he would want to butt in at this time. I am trying to speak on behalf of the veterans of this country. A report that the Legion calls "meticulous in detail" has earned the right to careful appraisal.
I salute the veterans groups, and I salute some members of the opposition as well as some members of my own party who keep the pressure on because it must be done. The Woods report cannot be permitted to gather dust. I venture to say that there is not one copy of this splendid report in the hands of the Department of Veterans Affairs that is gathering dust. I will bet that they are dogeared, read and re-read, considered and re-considered.
I do not have the foggiest notion right now what recommendations will be accepted. I do not intend either to speak on all of them, but I do feel that many recommendations should be automatic, and I cite the following examples. First of all I wish to mention routine decisions. Why should hearings and a mountain of paper work be required to decide that a pension should continue to be paid while a child of a pensioner continues to attend school?
The second point concerns hearings. If a veteran is to receive a hearing, then let us not make it a hearing in name only. It is ludicrous and unfair to place a pension claim before a tribunal without the veteran or his representative being present, and to call that a hearing.
Veterans Affairs Committee Report
I should also like to say a word on multiple disabilities. Very early in the fall, as an extremely green backbencher-having tangled for a few minutes with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) this afternoon I realize that perhaps I am greener than I thought-and without knowing all of the recommendations of the Woods committee report, I asked the following question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. While awaiting the completion of the Woods committee report, would the hon. gentleman consider allowing an interim increase, possibly beyond 100 per cent, to triple and quadruple amputees?
I can appreciate the fact that the minister may not wish to deal in a piecemeal way with the recommendations of the Woods Committee report and that he will probably bring in his report in the form of a white paper. However, of all the recommendations, this is surely one in connection with which the minister might wish to give serious consideration to amending the legislation straight away. When one considers the situation of a man who has lost one leg and receives a 70 per cent disability pension and of another man who has lost two legs who receives a 100 per cent pension, one realizes that the loss of one leg is considered to be a 70 per cent disability but the loss of a second leg is only an additional 30 per cent disability. I think this is ridiculous and very unfair to the triple and quadruple amputees.
The fourth point concerns representation. One point to which I should probably have referred earlier in the course of my remarks, and to which I meant to refer earlier, is the question of representation and hearings before the pension commission. At the present time there is an agency charged with the responsibility of defending a veterans case for a pension. This is very commendable, the right kind of thinking and a great approach. The Legion itself calls it a "lofty ideal". But it is a role which has been restricted by the legislation which requires this agency to present both sides of the argument when submitting a case to the pension commission. The Woods committee suggested, and I concur, that a strong lawyer client relationship should exist between the veterans' bureau and the applicant. The committee recommends that the bureau operate as a separate and independent agency charged only with the task of representing the applicant. Who can disagree with that logic?
10492	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee Report
Another matter with which I should like to deal concerns pensioners involved in damage claims. The Legion magazine says it more colloquially but quite succinctly with the following phrase "sorry, ma'am, you can't have both the pension and the insurance payment". The widow who has lost a pensioned husband in an automobile accident would be shocked, says the Legion. I hope this widow would have the presence of mind to blurt out "why not?". Surely, a pension is a matter of right. The Woods committee agrees and says, further, that the pension should be paid regardless of any other payments which may be made to the pensioner or his widow from other sources.
The next point on which I should like to speak is the stabilization of pensions. This is an area where I have some first hand knowledge. The reduction of the percentage of pensionable disability has often had the effect of cutting out a pension which would be paid to a veterans' widow. This must happen in many cases. The sad truth is that a veteran has had little enough opportunity to build up an estate and when he has reached a certain degree of pensionable disability, then on his death his wife receives a pension whether or not his death is attributable to wartime disability. Consider the case of a veteran who has received a percentage of disability allowance necessary for his widow to receive a pension. Suppose he has been receiving this disability pension for a period in excess of five years. Surely, after this length of time he would come to rely upon the supposition that his widow would continue to receive her income, and take this into account when planning his estate. Can hon. members imagine his disgust, and the concern he feels for his wife's position, when, after this long period of time his case is reviewed and he is told he is no longer in the same high category and that the amount of his pension is to be reduced, with the result that his wife will not receive a pension?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I agree that veterans receiving disability pensions should be subject to a series of medical examinations to determine whether or not the percentage of pensionable disability should be reassessed, but surely after a period of three, four or five years-whatever the minister and his colleagues in their wisdom may decide-the percentage of pensionable disability should not be subject to reduction. In effect I am agreeing with the Woods Committee recommendation that a stabilization

DEBATES	June 20, 1969
policy should be established for the guidance of the veteran.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to put all my views on the Woods Committee report before the house. I have tried in the short period to highlight some of the areas which I feel need attention. We on the government side do not have the leeway available to the opposition because we have the obligation to govern, with all the responsibility which this entails. In this case it means we are responsible for finding taxpayers' dollars with which to meet the recommendations. If an hon. member on the government side suggests that maybe, just maybe, we cannot afford it-that is to say, the taxpayers cannot afford it-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Every year, $155 million for the C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: Quiet.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will not be quiet. He is using up the time so that I shall not get a chance to speak.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is gratifying that the hon. member is listening to my address.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Seventy-five million dollars to Ford.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: To suggest that perhaps the taxpayers cannot afford it is almost heresy in the eyes of the opposition. The veteran has been prepared to give his life. How can we talk about not being able to afford it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Maybe if the hon. member listens he will learn something.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have active knowledge of what the hon. member is talking about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Can we have
order in the house?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We have an obligation to the taxpayer, certainly, but I say we have a still greater responsibility to the veteran not to hold out false hopes, not to have him believe that every one of these recommendations will be accepted, not to have him feel that every request made by the Legion or by other veteran's associations is going to be met. I believe it is incumbent upon the government to do all it can to assist veterans and their dependants within reason, and, where possible, I believe the government has an obligation to extend its facilities or to increase the
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
amount it is prepared to pay if the request is reasonable.
If we can afford more by way of pensions, medical attention, V.L.A. loans and so on, who would vote against those increases? We are less callous in telling the veterans we cannot afford it than is any member of the opposition parties who would hold out false hopes to them. I am thankful for the opportunity to express in the few minutes allotted to me my views on the Woods Committee report and some of its recommendations and, once again, to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) not to be rushed into a hasty implementation of some of these recommendations.
Mr. W. C. Scot! (Victoria-Haliburion): Mr. Speaker, I realize that time is limited; I shall be as rapid as possible. I rise to take part in this debate in gratitude and with profound respect for the gallant men and women who have served as members of the Canadian Armed Forces in fields of conflict around the world. These are men and women who gave their all to bring freedom to an oppressed world and to protect and preserve a heritage they held dear-and one which at one time all Canadians held dear. After listening to some of the remarks made today in the house I wonder whether some of us still do.
It is a heritage which the present generation and this government are allowing to erode. These men and women fought for us all-for those of us who were unable or unwilling to do our own fighting. What have we done for them in return? Very little, I submit.
Fifty-one years ago they were told they had won a war to end all wars. Twenty-four years ago their sons and daughters were told the same thing. These were the promises made by the statesmen of the day: these valiant warriors were to return home to a brighter future and a better life provided by a grateful nation. But it seems the grateful nation suffers either from a defective memory or from a conveniently short one. We are more interested in improving the lot of the hardened criminal, the homosexual and the marxist agitator-and let us not forget the deprived high income earner who, in the Finance Minister's own words, is carrying too heavy a tax load. Millions of dollars are being poured into bilingualism. The government somehow managed to find an amount in excess of $46 million to finance that cultural centre down the street. It is easy to see there 29180-664
Veterans Affairs Committee Report is federal money for projects dear to the heart of the present government.
We have to economize somewhere though, and that somewhere is in an area not so dear to the government's heart. Veterans pensions, along with old age pensions, civil servants pensions and public housing, apparently fall into this category. There is money available to provide departmental heads with salaries of $40,000. There appears to be an unlimited source of money to meet the requirements of the Prime Minister's bloated personal staff. Money is available to provide a court jester for the City of Vancouver and to assist in the education of a self-confessed anarchist in Montreal. Money was even made available, as I recall, for a young Canadian to travel to New York City to demonstrate his remarkable talent for smashing pianos. Is the government trying to tell us that the contribution to Canada's wellbeing made by these people is greater than the contribution made by our veterans?
How many times were our servicemen sent into battle ill-equipped by shortcomings in training and experience to endure the hardships of mud and vermin, the horror of seeing one's friends being slaughtered? How many times were they sent into battle with insufficient equipment, insufficient rations and insufficient sleep? They faced these adversities and they faced death or dismemberment without complaint. For those who survived the bombs, the bullets and the bayonets, there remained the uncertainty of a life marred by the effects of tuberculosis, malaria and countless other physical maladies, of broken bodies and broken spirits. They earned a reputation for Canada that people throughout the world still look up to. But that reputation was earned at a heavy price. Thousands of white crosses in far distant lands are testimony to the price which was paid. To the men who lie at rest under those crosses, we can only say thanks for a job well done. But, to those who survived, we can surely offer more tangible proof of our gratitude. These men assured our very presence here today as Members of Parliament. Without their willingness to risk life and limb in the cause of freedom, we would not be here at all, spending the taxpayers' money, disputing the virtues of bilingualism. If we had lost the war the men who might have occupied these seats would have imposed their own language, and French and English would have been rendered as useless as the language of ancient Rome. We sit here in this chamber through the efforts of the men who,

June 20, 1969
Official Languages
in two world wars and in the regional conflicts of recent years, thought freedom was worth fighting for. Yet we hesitate to pass legislation which would make life a little less burdensome for these men. They are not asking for very much, just enough to permit them to live their lives in dignity. Why do we hesitate in this regard, Mr. Speaker?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I should like to read into the record an excerpt from a letter that I received from one of my constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the house directs otherwise, I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that, pursuant to the order made earlier today, the item under consideration is now deemed to have concluded and we must move on to government orders.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 18, consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill, and motion No. 3 (Mr. McQuaid), and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: to adversely affect somebody ,he may give that person a hearing.
I suggest what would happen would be this. A commissioner makes an investigation. He makes up his mind to bring in a recommendation. He then stops and says to himself: "If I bring in this recommendation, an individual or a department may be adversely affected, so I had better hear from them". This person or department would then be heard, but after the commissioner had up his mind. I ask the house whether this is the kind of treatment we are to expect today in this just society. I say this is wrong. I say that if the commissioner is going to investigate a department, or one area of activity of a department someone is responsible for administering, he should notify that person and allow him to attend the private hearing. I know the public is not allowed to attend, but at least the person concerned should be allowed to appear and prepare a defence, if that is necessary. He should be allowed to do so before any recommendation is drafted, and certainly before the commissioner reaches the conclusion that he is going to make an adverse recommendation. This, to me, is part and parcel of our system of justice in Canada.
I have always found that if I wanted to convince somebody to take a certain stand it was best to do so before he had had the opportunity of making up his mind. At this time he will listen much more attentively and concern himself with both sides of the question. No such problem arises under clause 28, because the mind of the commissioner is already made up. It is only for the purpose of giving the person concerned what appears to be fair and equal treatment that the commissioner calls him in and gives him a brief hearing. I think it is safe to say that he will not be listened to very attentively or with any interest. This is making a mockery of the system of justice with which we have lived for years.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Perhaps the Minister of Justice will tell us that the commissioner will not do anything. Perhaps he ought to read clause 28 again. It reads in part:
-to answer any adverse allegation or criticism, and to be assisted or represented by counsel for that purpose.
It is obvious that any recommendations the commissioner may make will be recommendations affecting adversely some person. The Minister of Justice cannot say that the commissioner does not occupy the position of a
Official Languages
judicial body in this country. Any person who hears evidence and makes recommendations on that evidence occupies the position of a judicial body. It is true that the commissioner cannot impose fines or penalties; but he has the power to report, to recommend and, above all, to condemn. Clause 28 specifies those powers. From my reading of the clause, it is clear that once the commissioner has made up his mind to condemn someone he may call that person before him before all the evidence on which the condemnation is to be based has been gathered. I hope the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) understands me. To judge from his frown, he appears to misunderstand me. It is because clause 28 is included in the bill that many in this country are suspicious of this entire legislation.
The N.D.P. member for York-Scarborough spoke at length about how necessary it is for the government to display the right spirit in implementing and enforcing this legislation. That is not good enough for me. The N.D.P. may be content with this legislation, but I am not. The N.D.P. has always been a party that believes in authority. They have always believed that the authority of the government should be supreme in all phases of a country's life. That is why they buy this bill 100 per cent.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wishes to insult me, at least he could have the courtesy of referring to my constituency in a proper way. I represent the constituency of York South.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Sianbury:: I was flattered to be singled out.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Never mind, Mr. Speaker. I may not have named the correct constituency but I put my finger accurately on the philosophy motivating the N.D.P. From time immemorial they have believed that the authority of the government should be supreme in all phases of life. They want the government to manipulate and control people. That is why they want this legislation. And look what happens to people when the government is all powerful and all supreme. Look what has happened in Soviet Russia and in Communist China. The governments of those countries are authoritarian and socialist. I well remember what happened in Saskatchewan, where I was born and bred, in the early 1940's when the leader of the present New
10496

June 20, 1969
Official Languages
Democratic Party went tramping across the country preaching to the people that governments should be all powerful and control everybody in the country. The experience of 20 years has mellowed the hon. member. The N.D.P. no longer supports the Regina Manifesto. Now, they have the Winnipeg report, a watered down version of their original ideas. But they still believe the government should exert supreme authority in the country. They still believe it should be all powerful and that it should control everybody and everything. That is why they support this legislation.
Although the hon. member for York South Is a lawyer of fair renoun, he supports the present legislation which is a travesty of justice and which ignores all the safeguards built into our legal system. He accepts his party's position that the authority of the government must be supreme everywhere and that the government must control everything in a country. I do not support that concept. I believe individuals should live in freedom and be free to express themselves as they wish. They should not be subjected to socialist authoritarianism. I say this knowing full well that not all socialists in this house are in the N.D.P. The three wise men, as they were called, are still socialists.
I am surprised at the Minister of Justice. Why is he tarnishing a good reputation by supporting this authoritative piece of legislation. Why did he, with his learning and love of justice, talk at great length on June 18 in defence of clause 28. His remarks cover pages and pages of Hansard. At one time the minister was concerned about individuals. That is no longer true. Today he supports this legislation which will give the commissioner the power to peer into every nook and cranny of Canada and to snoop into all our lives. This all powerful Czar will not be able to snoop into the offices of Members of Parliament. But that is the only limitation to his power.
In my opinion the key words in clause 28 are "if" on line 31 of page 16 of the bill and "may" on line 35. The clause does not say "shall adversely affect" or "will adversely affect". It merely uses the word "may".
Clause 28(2) reads in part:
-if at any time during the course of an investigation it appears to the Commissioner that there may be sufficient grounds for his making a report or recommendation that may adversely affect any individual or any department or other institution, he shall, before completing the investigation, take every reasonable measure to give to that individual, department or institution a full and ample opportunity to answer any adverse allegation-

It is clear that those supporting the legislation also support a philosophy which says that the government must be all powerful in all areas of a country's life.
I now wish to deal with clause 30 which is every interesting and which reads in part:
(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath, and to produce such documents and things as the Commissioner deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This clause gives the commissioner quite a lot of power. Clause 28 of the bill relates to some person or department about whom the commissioner is concerned. That party can be called before him and made to produce documents and evidence which will, in a sense, condemn him. Fortunately, the last line of clause 28 states that the person or department is allowed to have counsel. That was a generous stroke of the pen. They are giving a condemned person a right to counsel.


Mr. McQuaid:: Far too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) says, "Far too late".
Clause 30 reads in part:
-under this act, in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record;
Subclause (c) of clause 30 reads:
-whether or not such evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law;
This power is far beyond that given to a court. The government is not worried about how it gathers evidence. There has been a great deal of discussion in the last two or three weeks regarding wire tapping, which is not really admissible in a court of law. That would not bother this group. They would use any evidence, no matter how it was obtained or how fair or just it was. They would use it whether or not it would be admissible in 4 court of law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to inform the hon. member his time has expired. Unless there is agreement on the part of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous agreement. I regret to advise the hon. member there is at least one "no."
June 20, 1969


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They must not like what I am saying.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: I again ask if there is
unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It does not really matter. They do not listen anyway. Once before the hon. member tried to give me additional time but his group would not listen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Is the house ready for the question on the amendment of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it, and the amendment is lost on division.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived, on division.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Orders and the advice I gave to the house earlier this week, this vote will be deferred.
Perhaps I should be allowed to express an afterthought in connection with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). As hon. members will note from a reading of pages 4 and 5 of today's order paper, that motion proposes to amend clauses 28, 29 and 30 of Bill C-120. It appears
Official Languages
each motion at the report stage should actually be directed to a specified clause of a bill rather than a number of clauses. Such motions, I submit, should not relate to two or more clauses, as in the case of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan. It is my submission that at the report stage of a bill it is intended that every provision of a bill may be isolated and dealt with directly.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan, which will be voted upon later, tends to thwart the operation of that principle. A complex motion dealing with several clauses of a bill inevitably leads to complicated amendments which further confuse and becloud the question being considered. I think my point will be apparent to those hon. members who studied the amendment to the motion which was advanced by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I might say it was actually the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South which made the Chair realize that perhaps the motion, as it had been proposed, should have been split in three. I should say that the motion of the hon. member for Cardigan should have been split into three motions rather than a single motion, but this perhaps may be a bit too technical.
I say this to protect the position of the Chair if on other occasions motions of this nature are proposed at the report stage. All this having been said, it is in the nature of an afterthought because a motion had been accepted, put to the house and will be voted on in due course.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be permitted to add a post-cript to Your Honour's afterthought? This problem concerned the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) and others in this party. Possibly what I have to say should be directed not only to Your Honour but also to members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization when they deal in the future with matters more important and more consequential than the report which was filed today. As Your Honour realizes, we are groping around trying to find our way through the new rules.
Frequently an amendment involves a certain number of clauses. In order to secure an appropriate consequential amendment, it may be desirable to try and include in one motion the various clauses of the original bill which have to be modified to bring about the principle which the mover of the amendment has in mind. I just mention this, your Honour, so,

June 20, 1969
Official Languages
that when in their infinite wisdom the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization come to review this part of our procedure they might keep in mind Your Honour's words, as well as the problem that is created when a bill contains in several clauses a principle that the mover of an amendment is trying to change.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Melvin James McQuaid: That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, he amended by adding to clause 34 thereof the following subclauses :
"(4) Where a member of the House of Commons, on or before the third sitting day next following the day the Speaker of that House tables any report made by the Commissioner under section 33, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the report as a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, the matter shall be deemed proper to be discussed and shall thereafter be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of the standing order of the House applicable to the subsequent stages of the proceeding.
(5) The annual statement to Parliament made by the Commissioner under this section, when tabled respectively in the Senate and House of Commons, shall thereupon be referred in each House to a committee designated by the Speaker."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is intended simply to act as a very necessary check on the manner in which and the degree to which this bill, if it is enacted as law, will be administered. I have previously mentioned, and I submit again today that it is purely an administrative bill.
So far as the apparent principle of the bill is concerned, that is the provision of bilingual services in those areas where a sufficiently large number of people require them, and so far as the idea is concerned of trying to make everybody feel at home no matter where they are in Canada, I entirely agree. But I still maintain that the bill, from clause 1 to clause 41, is a purely administrative one, and the purpose of this amendment is to try and place some safeguards around the proper administration of it.
I wish to sound a very sincere warning. If this bill, when it is enacted as law, is not properly administered then the government is in very serious trouble. The whole success of the bill is going to depend on its proper administration. A great deal of the success of the bill is going to depend on the man who will be designated as commissioner. That is one of the reasons why, a few moments ago,

we called for a vote on an amendment with respect to the powers of the commissioner.
I am afraid that the commissioner is not going to be the little, innocuous, harmless individual that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) tries to paint him. Certainly, the powers to be given to him under this legislation would not lead one to believe he will be an innocuous individual. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Canada are making no mistake about it, this man will be a very powerful individual unless some of the safeguards suggested in our previous amendment and in this one are written into the bill.
I do not know whether it was done deliberately or otherwise, but the fact is that the bill provides no effective method for reviewing the operations of the language commissioner. I have studied it carefully and I can find nothing in it that gives anybody any power to review the operations and functioning of the language commissioner. Therefore, this amendment is intended to check to some degree the manner in which the bill will be administered.
I suggest that centuries of experience have taught all people who favour a democratic form of government that the powers that are given to the executive, the powers that are given to parliament, and the powers that are given to the courts must be checked by counter balancing powers given some other authorities. Take the example of our courts. We start with the lowest court in the land, the Magistrates court. If I am not satisfied with the decision handed down in the Magistrates Court, I have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the province. Under certain circumstances if I am not satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court of the province, I can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. There must be counter balancing powers, but in this bill unfortunately there is no right of appeal. This is something which we will raise later on by way of another amendment. There is no appeal against the decision that the commissioner will have the power to make.
The administrative powers given to the executive are subject to known check, either by the judiciary, or in many cases by parliament itself. But there is no power of review or appeal in this legislation. There is no appeal to the courts or to anybody else. Since there is no power of appeal, then we say that the controlling power should be right here in parliament. This is why we are trying to
June 20, 1969

insist that the report of the commissioner should be subject to scrutiny by parliament.
Let us examine the bill. Clause 19 reads:
(1)	There shall be a Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, hereinafter in this Act called the Commissioner.
(2)	The Commissioner shall be appointed by Commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.
I think at this point it is worthy of note that except for the concession which is apparently given to parliament of hiring and firing this very powerful man, parliament is to have no further knowledge of him. In other words, we are given the power to take him on in the first place. We are given the power to fire him if he does something wrong while the house is in session. We see him coming and we see him going, but apparently that is all we are going to have to say about him.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This bill fails to designate a minister to answer for the commissioner. This is very strange in respect of a bill of this nature. Who is the minister to be who presumably will try to exercise some power at least over this very, very powerful commissioner? Why did the government not have the courage to name in this bill the member of the executive council under whose jurisdiction this man will work? Why did they not have the courage to tell us under which department this person will work? Perhaps he will be the Secretary of State. We do not know. Stranger things have happened. I remember not too long ago in this house we debated for many days the organization of the Canadian Transport Commission. Not long after the debate was concluded the minister who piloted the bill through the house saw fit to resign his seat. Then, not many weeks after this he was appointed to head the commission. Is the same thing to happen in respect of the Secretary of State? He is helping to pilot the bill through the house. Will he be the commissioner? I think members of this house would like to know under whose jurisdiction this person will operate.
We are not told who will exercise this very valuable check on the administration of the act. We suggest this information is unjustly refused. Those who are promoting the bill tell us there are other checks. Let us examine again clause 33 subclause (1) of the bill. It reads:
If within a reasonable time after the making of a report containing any recommendations under
Official Languages
section 31, no action is taken thereon that seems to the Commissioner to be adequate and appropriate, the Commissioner, in his discretion-
Mind you, this is only in his discretion.
-and after considering any reply made by or on behalf of any department or other institution concerned, may-
Not "shall" but "may".
-transmit a copy of the report and recommendations to the Governor in Council and may-
Again, it is permissive.
-thereafter make such report thereon to Parliament as he deems appropriate.
According to that clause, it is entirely permissive for the commissioner to make a report to parliament. It says he may in his own discretion. If he is unhappy because a department or institution ignores one of his reports, he may complain to parliament if in his opinion the nature of the report is such that it should be brought to the attention of parliament without delay. Then, clause 34 (1) reads: In addition to any report that may be made by him under section 33, the Commissioner shall-
This is obligatory.
-each year prepare and submit to Parliament a statement relating to the conduct of his office and the discharge of his duties under this Act during the preceding year including his recommendations, if any, for any proposed changes in this Act that he deems necessary or desirable in order that effect may be given to this Act according to its spirit and intent.
This clause requires the Commissioner to make an annual report to parliament. The net result is that the only certain control parliament has over the languages commissioner is, first, to participate, for what this is worth, in hiring and firing and, secondly, the privilege of reading the annual report of the commissioner. Parliament may, on occasion when the commissioner considers he has a case so flagrant that he believes he should report it to parliament without delay, read such a report. That is the only concession extended to us. We are given the right to read the report. The important thing is that as the bill stands today there is not one provision in it which requires this report to be taken off the table and debated in this house. That is the weakness of this bill. That is the reason we are asking that this bill be amended, so that the report of this very powerful and influential man to parliament can be taken from the table and discussed in this house where it should be discussed. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.

June 20. 1969
Official Languages
Government members may say there are various ways to get the report off the table. No doubt they will point out that we now have opposition days and that this matter could be taken up on opposition days. I say there are enough things going on over there to occupy all the opposition days the government has seen fit to give us without discussing the report of the languages commissioner. We should not be required to use an opposition day to discuss such a report. Surely, the representatives of the people of Canada should be given something more than an opportunity to read the report of the languages commissioner. Surely, they should be given the opportunity to discuss that report in parliament. In essence that is all the amendment we are introducing now asks. We raised this matter before the committee. The government members saw fit to argue that if we extended this privilege to parliament we would be taking away some of the powers of Mr. Speaker; that we would be interfering with the procedures of the house, that the house is master of its own rules and that no statute of parliament should regulate the procedure of this house.
I suggest, with all respect, that there are today laws of this country which do regulate the procedure of parliament, and no serious exception has been taken to them over the years. If we examine the British North America Act we will find that sections 44, 45, 46 and 47 deal specifically with the Speaker of this house. Section 48 of the British North America Act deals with a matter so important as our quorum. Section 49 deals with a matter so important as our voting. Sections 53 and 54 deal with the procedure in respect of our appropriations, and tax bills as well as money bills. Section 91 of the British North America Act has a provision which requires a two-thirds vote on a particular question. These are examples of the procedure of this house being regulated by statute and incidentally by a statute which actually is not a Canadian statute. The British North America Act is a statute passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
* (4:50 p.m.)
Since the 1949 amendment we have been able to amend certain of our rules of procedure, but we have to do so, by an act of parliament and not by a standing order of the house. So we say in all seriousness that it is not valid to object to the amendment on the ground that we are trying to control the 
actions of the house by a statute, and this was never done before. It has been done before. We suggest that this safeguard should be written into the act. Subclause 4 of our amendment reads as follows:
Where a member of the House of Commons, on or before the third sitting day next following the day the Speaker of that house tables any report made by the commissioner under section 33, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing the report as a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, the matter shall be deemed proper to be discussed and shall thereafter be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of the standing order of the house applicable to the subsequent stages of the proceeding.
I realize that the amendment does in a sense take away from the Speaker some of the powers he ordinarily exercises under our standing orders. When we introduced the amendment we had in mind the intent of the bill itself, namely, that if the commissioner considered a matter to be so urgent that it required immediate attention, he would not have to wait until he submitted his annual report but could make a special report to parliament. We thought that if the matter was so urgent that it required a special report to parliament, nothing would be wrong with requiring that the report be debated immediately.
We do not want to do anything that would lessen the power and discretion exercised by the Speaker and, I must say, exercised very wisely in most cases. In the light of that, and upon reflection, we decided that it would perhaps be more acceptable if subclause 4 were struck from our amendment and it were confined to subclause 5, which reads:
The annual statement to parliament made by the commissioner under this section, when tabled respectively in the Senate and House of Commons, shall thereupon be referred in each house to a committee designated by the Speaker.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) will introduce an amendment which will have the effect of striking out subclause 4 of our amendment, but providing that the annual statement of the commissioner, and any other report the commissioner sees fit to make to parliament, shall be referred to a committee designated by the Speaker. What can possibly be wrong with an amendment of that kind? All we ask is that the report of the commissioner, rather than lying on the table where it will probably die, be referred to a committee of this house.
Many reports are referred to committees of the house. It is absolutely useless to ask
June 20, 1969

the commissioner to make a report to parliament if parliament is not given an opportunity to discuss and examine it. Where could this better be done than before a committee of the house? I appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members on the other side of the house to accept my amendment. What can possibly be wrong with a request of that kind? What possible objection can the government have to it? Is there anything wrong in asking that a committee of the house consider the report of the commissioner? Why would the government be afraid of that? Why should they say this is not a reasonable request?
As I have already said, practically all reports are referred to committees which examine them and report back to parliament. All we ask is that the annual report of the commissioner, as well as any special report he may see fit to make under the powers which will be given to him by the act, be referred to a committee of the house designated by the Speaker. We are not asking anything more than that. We are not asking that the house adjourn to debate the question as a matter of public importance. All we are asking is that we be given the right to examine the report in committee. We suggest there is nothing wrong with that. It is a safeguard. Just as sure as we are sitting in the house today, some people in Canada will feel that if there is no provision for the report to be referred to a committee, if there is no provision in the bill for taking the report off the table, there is something wrong; people will be suspicious about the procedure we are adopting, and they will have every reason to be suspicious.
This is not an unreasonable request, and we therefore very seriously recommend it to the government. The government will not be backing down at all if it accepts the amendment. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has indicated that he does not see why the house should change any decision arrived at in the special committee set up to study the bill. Let us not forget that the special committee comprised only 12 members of the house, and there are in the house 264 members. Therefore, 252 members did not have a chance to consider this matter in committee.
Surely, the minister was not serious when he suggested the rest of the membership of the house should be denied the privilege of discussing and perhaps adopting some of the things the committee in its wisdom saw fit not to adopt. We recommend to the government, and all members of the house, the amendment as it will be amended by the hon. member for Peace River. 1 can assure the house
Official Languages
that if the amendment is passed there will be throughout Canada a much better feeling so far as the official languages bill is concerned.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I would point out that at this stage the hon. member will require the unanimous consent of the house to move that a portion of the amendment be withdrawn.


Gerald William Baldwin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we are following the practice that was followed on two previous occasions, the last time by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). Rather than the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) asking that the amendment he has moved be withdrawn-he would need unanimous consent to substitute another amendment-I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Cardigan. I submit this procedure will be within the four corners of the previous decision of Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
May I be permitted to read my amendment, following which Your Honour can consider it? I move:
That the motion be amended by:
(1)	deleting the proposed subelause (4); and
(2)	inserting in the proposed subclause (5), next after the word "section", the words "and any report that may be made by him under section 33"; and by renumbering the subclause as subclause (4).
I have a number of quite unofficial copies in English and in French for hon. members who, I know, will be clamouring for them.
May I say before I sit dawn that the effect of the amendment will be precisely as set out by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), to nullify the effect of the proposed subclause (4) which permits a member of the house, under certain conditions set out more particularly in subclause (4), to let a report be brought before the house. My amendment would leave the remedy exclusively in subclause (5), namely an automatic direction to the commissioner that the report be referred to parliament and dealt with there. That is the effect of the amendment which I moved.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) was kind enough to inform me earlier of his intention, and the intention of his colleague to

June 20, 1969
Official Languages
move an amendment to the motion which is now on the order paper. I informed him that so far as I was concerned, and I am sure that my colleagues take the same position, I would support the motion as now amended, subject to a small subamendment which I shall move in a moment and which I hope will be acceptable to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and his associates.
Let me say that toward the conclusion of the sittings of the special committee on this bill I moved a motion that the special committee recommend that all reports tabled before parliament be referred to an appropriate committee. That motion, which is on record in the committee's proceedings, was ruled out of order by the chairman of the special committee. I think, if I may say so, that this was done quite properly because of the very specific terms of reference of the committee. I refer to it merely to say that from the time when this idea was brought to the committee, I personally took the position that I could not accept the proposal that there be a provision in this bill that any motion moved under Standing Order 26 must be accepted by the Speaker. The reason for this is, first, the reason which the member himself gave, that we should not reduce the Speaker's powers in these matters and, second, that in most instances I cannot see the value of a debate on the floor of the house where the commissioner is not present. I said at the special committee that it is much more sensible to refer the commission's report to a committee of parliament where we can call the commissioner before us, interrogate him on his report and find out from him what criteria and principles he applied in carrying out his duties. It seems to me that that is much more desirable than a general debate on the floor of the house before that kind of scrutiny has taken place.
Therefore, I am totally in harmony with the hon. member for Cardigan and the hon. member for Peace River with regard to the principle of their amendments. It seemed to me, in the special committee, and it still seems to me, a little strange to embody that kind of proposal in the act instead of making it a rule of the house that the matter be referred to committee. But I am persuaded- and I do not mind saying it-by the hon. member for Cardigan that ther there may be value in having this in the bill. Therefore, I will move a subamendment, explain it and add my appeal to the hon. member for Cardigan that the two ministers responsible for piloting this bill, and who are now in the 
house, accept his amendment and my subamendment.
I will move in a moment that the words "to a committee designated by the Speaker" be replaced by the words "to an appropriate committee". My reasons are very simple. First, I do not think it is fair to the Speaker to place on him the burden of having to decide to which committee the report is to go at that stage. It seems to me that it is the job of parliament to decide which committee will deal with a particular function under an act of parliament. It is unfair, and, if I may say so without offence, it is not very sensible to lay on the Speaker the duty of deciding to which committee the matter should go. I think that it should be a committee of parliament. Second, I think that the way it is worded "a committee designated by the Speaker", conveys the possibility that there may be a different committee for each report. I hope that there will be either a standing committee or a special committee dealing with this matter only, that is with the reports of the commissioner, or, alternatively, one of the present standing committees, such as, for example, the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to which these reports would be sent.
I therefore hope that my very simple subamendment is acceptable to the hon. member for Peace River. It seems to me to improve the amendment which he moved. I should like to add my words to those of the hon. member for Cardigan in making a plea to the ministers who are here to accept the amendment and subamendment.
I see a case for saying that a bill should not normally contain such an instruction, but I think the ministers will agree that this is not an ordinary bill and that it is a bill dealing with a very delicate matter. It is a bill which has aroused certain fears, although I have said many times that I am confident that these fears are not justified. It is a bill which requires as careful a scrutiny by parliament as the situation makes necessary. The amendment and the subamendment do not in any way affect the principle of the bill. They do not affect in arty way the powers of the commissioner. They do not in any way affect the operation of the bill. They do give a guarantee that the reports of the commissioner will not merely lie on the table of parliament but will be scrutinized by a committee of parliament and, more than that, that the work of the commissioner will be scrutinized through questioning by an appropriate committee of parliament.
June 20, 1969

I agree entirely with the hon. member for Cardigan that the acceptance of these amendments does no violence to the principle of the bill. I join him in making a plea to the ministers concerned to accept the amendment and the subamendment so that there may be one occasion on which this house is unanimous with respect to an improvement which is suggested by members of the opposition.
Therefore, I move:
That the motion be further amended by deleting the words "to a committee designated by the Speaker" at the end of subclause (5) and that the following words be substituted therefor: "to an appropriate committee".
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Before getting down to the new situation created by the subamendment, I wish to address myself to the argument, again introduced by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), that the commissioner is a powerful individual. I have expressed myself already on the subject of his powers, and what I believe to be his limitations and I do not intend to repeat what I said in this regard on Wednesday evening.
As to there being no appeal, in the sense of a judicial appeal, from the commissioner's recommendations, let me repeat that the commissioner is not a judicial officer; he is not conducting judicial proceedings; he is not deciding questions involving personal rights; nothing he does attaches obligations or penalties. He will be a creature of parliament, responsible to parliament, and he will report to parliament.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: To which minister?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member has, as usual, with his sense of intuition anticipated just what I was about to say. The reason no minister has been delegated as being responsible is that the commissioner, having the duty to review the performance of the spirit and letter of this bill as it affects every department, should be impartial with respect to every department. In other words, it would not be appropriate that he should be responsible to a particular minister, a position which might give rise to a conflict of interest in relation to the performance of that particular department. Consequently, the commissioner will report to parliament through the Clerk of the Privy Council. The appeal, in terms of the report, is, of course, to parliament.
Official Languages
The purpose of the amendment by the hon. member for Cardigan, as I understand it, is to ensure that the reports of the commissioner are considered by the house or by one of its committees, whether they arise from special investigations under clause 31, or whether they be the annual reports under clause 34.
The hon. member will recognize that this matter did receive consideration in the special committee and that it was decided by the members of the committee not to attempt to tie down the House of Commons in advance to any procedure for the consideration of these reports. Members of the committee felt it was not advisable to attempt by statute to prescribe parliamentary procedure and to intervene in the internal proceedings of the house. Therefore, when we deal with the new subclause four suggested by the hon. member under which leave could be asked to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing the report as a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, we feel that the special order No. 26 now in the standing orders is sufficient. Upon the tabling of a report, this latter procedure could be brought into play as a parliamentary procedure, not as one provided by statute. This part of the amendment was rejected by the committee for the reason that it is open to the house already under standing Order 26 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance at any time depending on the circumstances.
In view of the new subamendment and the subsubamendment-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
motion, the amendment and the subamendment.


John Napier Turner: -the motion, the amendment and the subamendment, and the striking of the addition of subclause four, presumably, by the hon. member for Cardigan, which would impose on parliament in a statutory way the necessity for debate, and in view of the fact that there is now a simple procedure, if one reads both amendments together, for referring the report to an appropriate committee within the discretion of the house, not imposing any obligation in advance, I should like to suggest that we stand this particular clause so that I can reflect on it over the weekend and discuss its effect with the leader of the house.


David Lewis: We should like you to reflect favourably.

June 20, 1969
Official Languages


John Napier Turner: Certainly, the elimination of proposed subclause four puts a different complexion on the matter. We would like to let this stand and have the house proceed to something else.


David Lewis: Could the hon. member for Cardigan not buy the Minister of Justice a meal over the weekend and persuade him before he sees the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald)?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
was not in a very good mood today.


John Napier Turner: We would like to look at this from the point of view of the house rules.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister accept a question? Supposing an hon. member of the opposition wished to direct a question in the house with regard to the activities of the commissioner. To whom would this question be directed if the commissioner does not report to any particular minister?


Gerald William Baldwin: That is academic. We do not get any answers, anyway.


John Napier Turner: Presumably the proper time for a question to be asked with respect to the conduct of the commissioner would be when the report was tabled in the house. Then, the house would be left to its own procedure.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, come on. You can answer better than that.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Perhaps the minister did not follow my question. It may be hypothetical but this situation could arise. Suppose I or anyone else, as a Member of Parliament, wished to direct a question in the house during the question period in connection with what was being done under the official languages legislation, to which minister would that question be directed?


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister.


John Napier Turner: I would think so, yes. The Prime Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that this clause stand as suggested by the minister?


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the next amendment stands in the 
name of my hon. friend from Calgary North. Unfortunately, he is not here at this particular time. He is away on a very important mission. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to us as we extended to the Minister of Justice, that we stand the next one, No. 5, and proceed1 with motion No. 6.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by deleting clause 38 thereof and substituting the following:
"38. (1) The right to speak a language other than either of the two official languages shall not be restrained or restricted in its natural development in any way.
(2) The Governor in Council may by order in council enter into an agreement with the government of any province which has been authorized by legislation so to do, for the purpose of encouraging natural development of any such minority language especially as regards the use of such language in matters of education.''
He said:	Mr. Speaker, let me briefly
recapitulate the circumstances leading up to the motion that is now before this house. When the B and B commission made its report one of the commissioners, Professor Rudnicki, made what might be called a dissenting report which is attached to the main B and B commission report. In it Professor Rudnicki made certain claims and suggestions with regard to the languages of other minority groups. He went a very great distance beyond what was expressed in the B and B report.
When the bill was drafted and brought down, the government saw fit to introduce clause 38, which deals with this particular issue. So that this clause might appear for the benefit of those who might read these remarks, clause 38 provides:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as derogating from or diminishing in any way any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this act with respect to any language that is not an official language.
Despite opinions that may have been expressed to the contrary, this is simply a question of saying that anybody who wants to speak another language may do so without penalty. No less is contained in the principle implied and expressly indicated in clause 38..
June 20, 1969



Quite frankly, there are a number of us who think that this clause does not go far enough. Without taking the position that Professor Rudnicki took in his dissenting report, some of us feel there is room for an intermediate position, and this is expressed in the amendment that I have proposed and placed before the house.
Let me deal with the reasons for moving this particular amendment. First of all, while we are all Canadians, and Canadians first and always, there are different problems in different regions. As a matter of fact, there is no question that the reason for this legislation is precisely because of that fact. Western Canada does have a somewhat different history with regard to its exploration, development and economic progress. All throughout the latter part of the last century and into this century, immigrant boats from Europe came to this country and discharged their passengers in eastern Canada. These people travelled across northern Ontario and into the prairies. The people of the Ukraine, Poland and other parts of central Europe settled on the raw lands of the prairies, following a particular pattern from Manitoba into northern and some parts of central Saskatchewan, and northern and some parts of central Alberta. Thus a perceptible pattern of settlement and colonization was established. These people, settling on this raw land without the benefit of civilization, literally created by their bare hands a fine and viable community in parts of western Canada.
In saying that, I am in no sense diminishing the great contribution made by other people as well, but this is a situation that has developed and which appears obvious in western Canada. It is a fact of life which cannot be ignored in our contemplation of this question of language, racial groups and minority rights.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder who has the floor?


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, sir. I await the response that I am sure will be generated by those who are waiting to hear the rest of my remarks.
Today those people have woven a pattern in the economic, social and agricultural life of western Canada. In saying that, I am by no means derogating from what has happened, particularly since the second world war, in the great cities of Montreal and Toronto and other metropolitan areas in eastern Canada. Nevertheless, this particular situation to
Official Languages
which I have referred in western Canada has developed, and we cannot, indeed we must not be allowed, to ignore it.
Let me direct my attention for a moment to one of the linguistic groups, the people from the Ukraine. I have lived amongst these people. I was brought up, went to school and first practiced law in such a community. These people are a fiercely proud and independent people who have managed for a thousand years or more to maintain a viable identity, language and culture. Surely, anyone who saw the representatives of this particular ethnic group perform on Parliament Hill during the course of centennial celebrations will agree with me.
Scattered throughout western Canada are hundreds of halls dedicated to the preservation of the Ukrainian language, though not as an official language or to any extent suggesting that this language should be the language of commerce. These people have accepted English in western Canada as their working language. However, through struggle and perseverance, with this fierce national pride that they have, as I say, they have been able to maintain in a viable way their language, their art and their culture.
It has often been said-and this is something that is said every time representatives from the United States and Canada get together-that while people from the same nations in Europe have poured into Canada and the United States, we are unique, we are different. We, in Canada, have been determined to maintain our certain distinctive and diversified ethnic and cultural rights. This privilege was granted us under the British North America Act in a way known to all members of the house. Each time people from Canada and the United States meet we say: "We are the same as you in many respects, but we are different; we are unique. We think we have something to offer because we have the two great language groups in our country". We have a contribution to make in that regard. If that is the case then, surely, would our contribution not be enhanced if we were able to say to the world, "We have other minority groups in our country. Although they do not seek for their languages the status of official languages, nevertheless these groups have been able to maintain their languages and in that way make a constructive contribution to our society."
Official Languages
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I was delighted to learn when I was in Europe that the 18 nations making up the council of Europe had specified that English and French were to be the official languages of the council. As a result, our delegation was able to make a very great contribution on their first appearance. If those in our country of Slavic origin who speak the Slavic languages are able to maintain a viable Slavic identity, could not Canada, considering that there are in the world millions of people who speak the Slavic languages, make an even greater contribution internationally? With those considerations in mind I have proposed the amendment. It does not intend to suggest that languages other than the two mentioned in this bill shall be considered official languages. We feel that if the amendment is accepted it will make the bill more readily acceptable to people belonging to the many different groups we have in our society.
May I now permitted to read some remarks that were made on a previous occasion. I am couching my remarks this way in an attempt to get around the rule which prevents the reading of certain speeches. I hope I will not be ruled out of order. Actually, I am reading from a speech I made myself. I quote:
All over the world we see the lights of freedom and liberty flickering fitfully against the hot winds generated by those who would take away the rights of the people. In many cases, alas, and in many countries, the light has been snuffed out. We read our papers, we listen to the radio, we watch television, we see these things happening, but we say this will never happen to us.
Hopefully not, and yet, the saddest stories of history find form in the sorrow of peoples who, having experienced freedom, having come to take it for granted, have failed to exert that constant vigilance so essential for its preservation and have looked the other way or been indifferent while it was being filched away from them.
That will be the position this party will take, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the iniquitous rules contained in the proposal of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I continue:
The history of the Ukrainian people, the exploits of Khmelnitsky, the greatest of the Hetmans, and the words of Shevchenko make it plain that the Ukrainian spirit has proved itself imperishable in the past and I am convinced it will continue to remain so in the future. It has been well put by the author, C. A. Manning, who says, 'This has made Ukraine through the ages a land of wealth and of sadness, a land thirsty for liberty but again and again debarred from obtaining it.'
But in Canada these characteristics of individual initiative and the love of political liberty have found a climate favourable to the preservation of the national spirit which did not die.

June 20, 1960
As I am a Canadian, so are you all Canadians, so are the people in the province of Quebec, and the people of the province of Newfoundland, and the people of all the other provinces.
In the same way, all hon. members here are Canadians. I continue:
We are Canadians for many reasons. Surely, one of them must be the desire to carry through to completion the most unique experiment in human society-to bring together and welcome within the boundaries of this country people from all parts of the world who accept the common characteristics of Canadian nationality, are proud of it, fiercely proud of it, and yet provide for those who so wish to do the opportunity not only to preserve but to advance different cultures.
What else but good can come out of such an arrangement which permits this to be done? What great blessing must flow from an association on a free and tolerant basis of peoples who establish a national spirit and then inject into that spirit the best characteristics of the respective groups who have made up the nation.
When, if ever, this experiment will end I cannot say. How it will end I do not know, but I do know that I find it exciting to be a part of it. I rest content that my children after me and their children after them will continue to be involved in it and I pay the most unequivocal tribute to those who, like the people of Ukrainian descent in this country, are convinced of the values and virtues of Canadianism but are equally satisfied that they have something in particular to offer, their history and their literature,-[DOT]
It is in that sense, Mr. Speaker, that I offer the amendment to this house.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of rising today to speak on this matter but after hearing the previous speaker relate the background of the ethnic groups which have settled the west, I feel that it is my duty to add a few words because I realize that the hon. member spoke of all the ethnic groups from Europe, China and Japan, but that he did not say a word about the ethnic group from Quebec, namely the French Canadians.
On three occasions I visited the western provinces. I poked around almost everywhere in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta and I realized-and I feel sorry for the minister-that it will be very difficult to explain the official languages bill to westerners.
I heard the previous speaker talk of "Canadian languages" but I was often told in western Canada that English was the Canadian language.
English-speaking people in western Canada should get it into their head, like us in Quebec, that when we speak of Canadians, we

June 20, 1969

always think of the citizens of both languages.
I hoped in vain that the hon. member would speak about the French group, at least the one in his constituency, for there are French Canadians there, but if there are so many French groups nowadays in the western provinces, it could be, if one studies Canadian history, on account of the federal government, of the English-speaking people who thwarted them. I was told so by the French Canadians who live at present in the west. I spent evenings with them, I talked with them.
At that time, subsidies were granted to all ethnic groups from the Ukraine, Hungary, Russia, China, so that they could take over pieces of land in the west, while the French Canadians represented more than 30 or 32 per cent of the population. A certain group of English-speaking people probably got scared and that is why all assistance was refused to people from Quebec who wanted to settle in the West. Those who went there, I am not afraid to say it, paid their own way. The French Canadians who were helped, whom I have met and who come from the United States, received help precisely because they came from the United States. I met three French Canadian families who went to the United States before they came to settle in the West in order to get help.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Facts must be acknowledged, Mr. Speaker. I think that it will help the young Englishspeaking Canadians to understand the situation in the West. Why have approximately three million French Canadians settled in the United States? Because obstacles were put in their way and they were prevented from going out west to clear the land. These three million French Canadians should be living in the West. They are not because, I repeat, of the federal government, because of an English-speaking majority that did not want French to be spoken too much in the West. And they got their way most of the time.
I assure you that when you get the reception I got in French-speaking localities out west and when those people have an opportunity to meet sincere French Canadian members of parliament, then they open their heart. I heard old people tell old stories with tears in their eyes because that land belonged to us as much as to others and French Canadians would have been the first to clear it. If opposition had not been raised at one time efforts would certainly not be made today to have Ukrainian, Russian or some
Official Languages
other language recognized in the same capacity as French, in the West. That bothers me. When I hear an hon. member-who does not admit it so in public-say that he would like to see French treated the same way as Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese and Japanese in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Alberta, I cannot agree.
In speaking in this debate I want to awaken the young English-speaking Canadians who are willing to discuss the matter. I have met young English-speaking Canadians who are open for discussion, who want to learn history. They are wondering why so many Canadians-because young people consider French Canadians as fellow Canadians-have gone across the border to settle in the United States when the farms are so beautiful out west?
They gave me the answer. The oldtimers told me what had happened, how the French Canadian groups in the Peace River district had begged for their transportation costs in our Canadian parishes. They went there at their own expense, helped by the parishioners, to take over their share of an area which was being given to Rusians or to Ukrainians whose transportation and settling costs were being paid.
One has to know those historical facts to understand the bill under study, and to resolve to correct any injustice inflicted at that time. Many English-speaking people- and I congratulate them for it-through this bill, want to do justice to those who are still clamoring for their rights and begging their provincial governments, most of whom turn a deaf ear, to grant them those rights.
In fact, we consider ourselves to be every bit as Canadian as the English-speaking people in Canada. We consider our linguistic rights as important as theirs, and that is why this bill on the official languages is before us today, for which I congratulate the government.
Finally, if a government at one time denied our French-Canadians out west the right to speak French, this government is allowing them to speak French once again, to enjoy their linguistic rights, to use French at work, in court and in the federal administration offices.
Mr. Speaker, I merely want, through my intervention, to make a few things clear, because I believe that all hon. members will be interested in this question.
I had the opportunity-for which I thank parliament-of gathering information on the

June 20, 1969
Official Languages
spot. In fact, I hate talking through my hat. I went without sleep nights to meet English and French-speaking groups in order to get an understanding of the situation and to make allowance for it. I am sure the struggle goes back to the earlier days of colonization. Those who have read the history of Canada are aware of the hypocritical injustice done the settlers.
That is why many people, including our own children, wonder why there are still so many French Canadians in Maine and in the rest of the United States. It is because it was feared that the west might become as bilingual as Ontario, Quebec or New Brunswick. That is why almost 3 millions French-Canadi-an workers were prevented from owning land and that preference was given to Russians, to Poles and to Ukrainians. Not that I dislike them, of course, but in all fairness, our people should have been given at least equal advantages at the time.
Today, when we are asked to give almost the same linguistic rights to the Ukrainians and other ethnic groups, it is generally overlooked that when they came to Canada, they were requested to make the solemn promise they would speak the language of the country. And so, on arriving in Canada, they abandoned their own language, because those are the conditions imposed upon immigrants.
Today, they are happy. They all adopted the English language. We must bear the blow, but let no one tell me that the Ukrainian or the Russian will be treated in the same way as the French Canadians because an ethnic group has committed an injustice in western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this intervention without malice summarizes certain remarks I heard and which surprised me, because they were made even by English-speaking people who do not admit this situation exists. If we want a united Canada, a strong Canada, let us start by working together, within the ethnic groups who settled Canada.
As for those who came to join us, they agreed to speak either English or French. They were entirely free. For heaven's sake, we do not want to be told today that Russian comes before French, for example, or that Polish comes before French, because we are in the West. I heard the same thing with regard to Chinese.
If we were to continue the discussion frankly, we would hear something else. Those who speak in that manner do not dare to speak too clearly. They speak about the rights 
of certain people, certain ethnic groups that are more numerous than others. I recognize that culturally they are right, but linguistically, let them admit that they are in Canada and that they must accept the decisions of the Canadian government.
Today, if parliament tries to ensure more justice, to pour balm upon the discrimination that prevailed forty years ago, it will have done something, and it can be assured that it will have my support as long as it applies that policy.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order, I rise to correct a statement made by the hon. member, I hope quite unconsciously. He indicated that I had or had not said certain things, or made certain representations. On the two previous occasions when I spoke on this bill in the house I made it quite plain that I supported the bill, and I dealt with the problems faced by the French speaking people in northern Alberta. I indicated that while I supported the bill generally as a Canadian, I had a particular reason to support it because of the difficulties of these people, many of them friends I have known for 40 years. When the hon. member indicates that I failed to make any reference to the people of French speaking ancestry in my country he is ignoring the facts, probably quite unconsciously.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I would like to answer the hon. member, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I rise to speak for the first time in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for a preamble to my speech. It is not my purpose at this moment to embark on a detailed dissertation or dissection of the constitutional question. I leave that to others. Besides, I feel that the constitutional issues have been underscored over and over again and are fairly well understood by Canadians from coast to coast.
I would emphasize that there is more to the question than simply the historical, traditional or constitutional aspects. It is basically and above all a question of people, a question of
June 20, 1969	COMMONS
Canadians. It is a question of the kind of Canada we want to have, a Canada for Canadians, regardless of colour, race, origin, religion or social position.
[Editor's note: And Mr. Paproski having spoken in Ukrainian and Polish:]
I have enjoyed using these few expressions in Ukrainian and Polish, Mr. Speaker, but realize I must abide by the rules of this house.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to say a few words, in the house, about the Canadian identity.
The Canadian problem is not restricted to the constitution or to the history of our country.
There is also the problem of Canadians, that of the people itself, of all those who live across the country. First of all, the first inhabitants, the Indians and the Eskimos, and then, those who came to our beautiful country, the French, the English, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Germans, the Italians, the Scotch, the Chinese and all the representatives of the various races who live in this country.
However, by creating a free society, a multiracial and a multicultural society, officially bilingual, will we be able to build a prosperous, peaceful, harmonious, mature Canada we all want to be heirs to?

I think we must adopt the principle that every Canadian and every group has the same rights under the law as every other. There were certain specific guarantees set out in the constitution of 1867. If the Fathers of Confederation in 1867 granted to the French and English certain rights, we are not at this stage going to attempt to rewrite history. But it would be fatal to accept as a principle that
Official Languages
there is some kind of chronological priority of rights which applies to those who came earlier. If this were the case then the Indians and the Eskimos would have more rights than anyone, but as a matter of fact they have fewer.
No one should have any special rights in this or any country except those set out in the constitution, and constitutions can be rewritten. Every person in this country today, whether newly arrived or in the second, third, or fourth generation is an immigrant or descendant of immigrants. This applies to native Canadians who migrated in successive waves across the Bering Strait. There should not, therefore, be any recognition of rights based on earlier arrival. Every Canadian, whether he arrived in 1600 or in 1969, should have the same status, with the possible exception as I have said of the guarantees laid down in the constitution. They are there not as divine rights but as matters of national convenience.
If we are talking about chronological priority, the first arrivals were the Indians and Eskimos. The Scandinavians have a claim. They arrived soon after-"Sail now and pay later." Then came Christopher Columbus. He was an Italian. That gives the Italians a claim. John Cabot showed up in 1497. Jacques Cartier appeared in 1534. There was Carte-Real in 1501. He was Portuguese. In 1524 Verrazano came along. Henry Hudson came along in 1607. We must not forget that Cortez got to Mexico in 1519, too early for the Winter Games. Then, of course General de Gaulle did not make his discovery until 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being six o'clock p.m. this house stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m.
At 6 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, June 23, 1969