1970-10-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it has been agreed by the various parties that in the debate on the business of supply motion that will be called on orders of the day speeches are to be limited to 30 minutes for the main speakers for the government and each of the opposition parties and that remaining speakers are to be limited to 15 minutes.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker. I think there might be special consideration for the minister if he does not want to speak at the beginning of the debate. I suggest that he be allowed 30 minutes, but he would be, of course, the main spokesman for the government.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Smile.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine what that is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives finally won an election.


An hon. Member:: But they lost in Nova Scotia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is true, as has been reported in the press, that the government invoked the War Measures Act
because, among other reasons, it believed that a group of influential Quebeckers had set out to see whether they might supplant the legitimately elected provincial government of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might like to ask the question in other terms. He has asked the Prime Minister to confirm or deny the truth of a report. In those terms the question obviously is not in order. Perhaps it might be asked directly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government invoked the War Measures Act because, among other reasons, it believed that a group of influential Quebeckers had set out to see whether they might supplant the legitimately elected government of the province of Quebec?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I gave in the House yesterday the reasons why the government invoked the War Measures Act and I also gave them last Friday. They are the same reasons, and among them is not included the reason alluded to by the hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister why he has not already and why he does not now clearly repudiate the story attributed to top level governmental sources, which can only have been calculated to damage the reputations of a number of influential Quebeckers who happen to be critical of the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange that I have been called upon to deny this particular rumour when the hon. member knows that there have been many rumours circulating on this subject for the past many days. I do not know why the hon. member is particularly concerned with the government denying this one. It is not the habit of this government to deny or confirm any such rumours that happen to be circulating.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not even in view of the people who are making the allegation?



SUBSTITUTE LEGISLATION FOR WAR MEASURES ACT REGULATIONS-PROVISION OF BILL TO PARTY LEADERS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the special bill which will replace the War Measures Act has now been distributed to the Attorneys General of the various provinces, will it also be given to the leaders of the opposition parties in view of the fact they were asked for their suggestions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
understand the nature of the representation, Mr. Speaker,

October 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
precisely because I asked for the suggestions of the leaders of the parties in the House. We have also asked for the suggestions of the provinces which will eventually be involved with the application of any such act. I do not see what the hon. member is suggesting beyond that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I could clarify my question, Mr. Speaker. The bill in question has already been distributed to the Attorneys General. The leaders of the various parties were also asked for suggestions. I ask the Prime Minister if he will make available to the leaders of the various opposition parties the bill in question so they can analyse it, look at it, study it and be informed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the purpose of the opposition was to do precisely these things when a bill is brought into the House for first reading. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that it should be discussed with the leaders of the opposition parties before the House is seized with the bill.


Mr. Hees:: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Mr. Lewis:: It is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings.



WAR MEASURES ACT-WHEREABOUTS OF BERNARD LORTIE

George Harris Hees: Can the
Prime Minister advise the House and the country regarding the whereabouts of a 19-year-old Ottawa student, Bernard Fortie, who was detained by error? His location has not been revealed by either the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Quebec police.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member would get the name straight, I might be able to make inquiries.


George Harris Hees: Bernard Fortie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: A slight correction, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest there should be a substantial correction.


George Harris Hees: The name is Lortie. The Prime Minister has had plenty of time to digest the question. Maybe he can now advise the House on this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now that the member knows who he is, we will try to find out where he is, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the snide type of wisecrack the Prime Minister makes. The whereabouts of this young, 19-year-old student-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


George Harris Hees: He couldn't care less!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is debate rather than a point of order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for York South.



WAR MEASURES ACT-NUMBER OF ARRESTS, RELEASES AND DETENTIONS-DYNAMITE, ARMS AND AMMUNITION RECOVERED

David Lewis: My supplementary question would have been more appropriately addressed either to the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. In these circumstances I would have thought that one of the law ministers of the Crown would be here despite the roster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: They are responsible for implementing the Act. Since neither minister is here, I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the House a report on the latest information regarding the number of people arrested under the Public Order Regulations, the number released and the number still detained, because they are now detained under the 21-day extension?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is wrong in his premise that one of the two ministers is responsible for the administration of this Act.


David Lewis: May I remind the Prime Minister that I did not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a supplementary. To remind the Prime Minister of something is debate. If the hon. member has a supplementary, he should ask it now.


David Lewis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggested that I had a premise with which he disagreed. I merely want to say that I did not have that premise. I said "implementation", not "application".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Precisely.


David Lewis: There is a difference. I ask the Prime Minister whether he has the most recent information which one of the other ministers might have had as to the number of arrests under the Public Order Regulations, the number released and the number still detained in jail.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


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


David Lewis: A supplementary question.

October 27, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member for Compton, but I believe the hon. member for York South would like to ask a supplementary question.


David Lewis: I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any further information regarding the amount of dynamite, arms, ammunition and so forth recovered by the police in their numerous searches? I am not asking for the number of pounds. Has there been a substantial amount recovered or is the answer given by the Solicitor General a few days ago still correct, that there has not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We know approximately the amount which has disappeared. I do not know what has been found as of today. The Solicitor General will give this answer in the House if he is asked.



WAR MEASURES ACT-CHARGES LAID-NUMBER HELD BEYOND SEVEN DAYS WITHOUT CHARGE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any charge has been laid against anyone arrested for commission of the new crime created by the regulations under the War Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have heard of none, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary ascertain whether any such charges have been laid and tell us the number of people involved? Could the right hon. gentleman ascertain at the same time how many persons have been held for longer than seven days at the request of the Minister of Justice of Quebec without a charge of any sort having been laid?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will attempt to get this information for the House and have one of the law officers of the Crown answer. I can only say I hope it will be as much as possible the spirit of the Act that charges will be laid under the Criminal Code rather than under the War Measures Act, but here again I cannot speak for the province of Quebec which is entrusted with administering the Act.



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which I would like to direct to the Minister of Finance.
Has the Minister received a reply from Canadian banking institutions with regard to his request to reduce the prime rate, or preferential interest rate which these institutions charge their best customers?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. Has the minister received a letter from city of Toronto Alderman Anthony O'Donahue asking that the mortgage on Rochdale College be foreclosed and that the building be taken over by the government on the grounds that it is a vertical flophouse and has been damaged to an extent estimated at $168,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that it is not in order to ask simply whether a minister has received a letter.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: May I rephrase the question, then? In view of the alderman's charges that the college is a centre for promiscuity, drug-taking and drug-marketing, and that it is a launching pad for revolutionary groups, is the government prepared to get tough and correct this disgraceful situation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: indicated to the hon. member the other day in reply to a similar question that we are very concerned about this matter. We are examining it at the present time and I hope to be able to consult with my colleagues about the decision in the very near future. Our decision will undoubtedly be communicated to the House.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the minister not give us a better indication of when this statement is likely to be made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonfon Wesf):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement at an early occasion on the results of his discussions with the chartered banks and with the Governor of the Bank of Canada in connection with the level of interest rates, and also indicate on what basis the government fixed its rates for the new Canada Savings Bonds now on sale?


Edgar John Benson: First, I should say I was in touch with the chartered banks on Friday, as I indicated to the House. I expressed my opinion to them with respect to the prime rate of interest. I did not ask them or tell them to change their rates because, after all,

October 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
that is their business, but I did express the opinion of the government.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Is the minister telling the House that if the banks do not respond to his request he does not intend to take any action?


Edgar John Benson: After all, I did not intend to threaten the banks. They express their opinions on our policies from time to time and I think I have the right to express our opinions on their policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In his discussions with the chartered banks, was it indicated to the minister that the banks might be better disposed to reduce interest rates at the close of the Canada Savings Bond campaign?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not the case. I simply indicated my views to the heads of the chartered banks and they said that they would take them under consideration.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify this important matter, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether, in the event that the chartered banks do not act in the best interests of the country, the minister intends to take action on behalf of the people of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that the question as asked is hypothetical.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I hope Your Honour will be a little indulgent as my question is rather involved. Does the minister plan on introducing an amendment to the Aeronautics Act to cover a loophole in the regulations arising out of a Supreme Court ruling in 1968 that the Air Transport Committee did not have the power under the Act to issue orders, with the result that today illegal air transport operations are cutting into the revenues of licensed carriers? If so, does the minister intend to give this matter the urgent priority it deserves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am quite prepared to be indulgent, and since the hon. member has gone to all the trouble of asking the question perhaps the minister should be given an opportunity to answer it.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to keep my answer as short as possible. This matter has been known to us for some
time. There have been consultations with the Air Transport Association members and their executives, and also with representatives of the CTC. If it is deemed that amendments to the Act are necessary in order to correct the situation, I will proceed in the manner suggested by the hon. member.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I shall address my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. Inasmuch as it appears that all those who have been arrested under the regulations passed under the War Measures Act have been fingerprinted and photographed, whether charged with any offence or not, will the minister call to the attention of the authorities concerned that fingerprinting is not authorized either under the War Measures Act or the Identification of Criminals Act?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to put that question to the minister.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPAYMENT OF DEBT-CARR REPORT

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport.
In view of his statement on June 23 last that a very comprehensive study was being made on the reimbursement of the St. Lawrence Seaway debt, I would ask him whether that study is still under way and whether a report thereon will soon be tabled in the House.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House a couple of weeks ago, I believe it was, that we were awaiting the final report of an organization known as Carr and Associates, the report being a comprehensive study of all aspects of the seaway operation. That report was received during the past two or three days and the officials are studying it. I have asked for a summary to be prepared as quickly as possible, and on the basis of that we will then decide what the next steps are going to be.



INDUSTRY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the

October 27, 1970

Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government to introduce in the near future incentives aimed at bringing about greater productivity in this country, as the index of industrial production has been falling steadily since the first of the year at an annual rate of 7 per cent?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if the government has new policies to announce they will be announced in the House, not in answer to a question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of that usual stock answer may 1 ask how long the government will remain in its present state of petrified immobility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Wellington.


George Harris Hees: This is a very important matter to the country, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be important, but that is not a question that is acceptable under the rules.
# * *



IMMIGRATION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the policy of the government to deport United States army draft dodgers or resisters if they are found guilty of any wrongful act in Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may be familiar with the general state of the law in respect of deportation. If he is referring to situations where someone has committed an indictable offence, the law would apply to any category of persons in the same way.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what the policy will be if these people are apprehended under the War Measures Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will appreciate that this appears to be a hypothetical question. I should think a question in those terms would hardly be in order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he can reaffirm the policy of the government announced by his predecessor which was that deserters and draft dodgers would be treated just like any other people applying for entry into this country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there should be no difficulty about that and I think the hon. member should appreciate that if there is a change in policy that will be announced.
Inquiries of the Ministry



TIGHTENING OF LAW TO PREVENT ADMISSION OF PERSONS WITH SAME AIMS AS FLQ

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a question yesterday and now that I see the minister is in the House perhaps he can throw some light on this matter. Has there been any change in reference to immigration laws and regulations concerning people who have the same objectives and aims as the FLQ, to upset the government by means of crime or violence? Has there been any change?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change but, of course, persons with a seditious intent would not be admissible under ordinary circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering then whether the minister can explain why Dr. Spock, who is speaking at various universities and colleges, and who has been found guilty of an indictable offence in the United States and is out on bail, has been allowed into the country at this time in view of the War Measures Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the question as asked is in order. The hon. member will recognize that it is asked in the form of an argument and because of this is not in order. I recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rephrase the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might return to the hon. member in a moment.



WHEAT-SALE TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA-GRADES INVOLVED

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can he inform the House about the progress of negotiations being carried on between the Canadian Wheat Board and the People's Republic of China regarding a contract for the sale of wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can report that these negotiations have now been concluded and the Wheat Board commissioners are returning home having completed a sale to China of a maximum of 98 million bushels of wheat for delivery over a 12-month period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, will the minister inform the House what grades are involved in this sale?

October 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the grades shipped will be largely No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 northern wheat, with some quantities of Durum and some quantities of Alberta red
winters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AVAILABILITY OF BOXCARS FOR DELIVERY OF WHEAT

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the House in welcoming this announcement. I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House and the country that boxcars will be made available for the delivery of this wheat inasmuch as they are so badly needed in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised a number of times and I have reported on the discussions which have been held between the Wheat Board and the railways and between myself and these bodies, and on the assurance of the railways of the supply of boxcars according to the schedule which has been developed by the Wheat Board for the movement not only of these quantities but of the record quantities of grain we expect to export this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot, but I notice there are at least 30 or 35 members rising for the purpose of asking questions. We should try to limit the number of supplementary questions. At the moment I recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to ask a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the expected deliveries that have already been announced by the minister and the Wheat Board, can the minister assure the House that this commitment will be met, particularly in view of the difficulties at the already jammed ports at the Lakehead and Vancouver?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the hon. member of is that everything is being done to make sure that any possible difficulty which crops up is in fact met.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture since the Minister of Agriculture has not been present during the last two days and because the question is urgent. In view of the

fact that dressed hogs sold for $22 per hundredweight on the public market in Saskatoon on Monday this week, is the minister prepared to initiate action under the Agricultural Stabilization Act since the support price level now set by the Agricultural Stabilization Board is $22.17 per hundredweight?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for raising the question and I shall bring it to the attention of the minister with the expectation that an answer can be given tomorrow.



RAPESEED-RECEIPT OF TRUCKLOAD DELIVERIES BY SASKATOON TERMINAL

Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar regarding deliveries of rapeseed. I am advised that the Board of Grain Commissioners issued instructions to the trade under date of October 14 that the inland elevators at Saskatoon and Edmonton would receive rapeseed on a trucklot basis for the account of grain companies. This facility is now in operation.



FINANCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister give consideration to taking appropriate measures against the chartered banks of Canada to prevent these institutions sending out unsolicited credit cards which place a liability on everyone who receives them through the mail?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider the hon. member's representation.



INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT-CANADIAN POSITION IN DISCUSSIONS ON RENEWAL

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his capacity as minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Would the minister take the first opportunity under motions to place before the House the position the government is taking in current discussions opened yesterday by the International Wheat Council with a view to renewing the existing International Grains Arrangement and could he indicate who is representing Canada at these meetings?
October 27, 1970


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, senior officials are representing Canada at the meetings. I do not think it would be particularly useful to make a statement on motions. Nothing in particular has changed from the government's position as stated in the past. We support orderly marketing in the international field, and I think it would be premature to discuss the negotiations at this stage.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):: wonder what that was all about, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister to cause an inquiry to be made into the recent very substantial increase in the conference rates for the export of lumber from eastern Canadian ports to the United Kingdom, which will have a very serious effect on the volume of exports of this commodity?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to look deeply into this matter for the hon. member. I assure him that we will continue to give the same generous consideration to New Brunswick that we have always given.



POLLUTION


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It arises from the development of regulations under the new Fisheries Act. In view of the minister's statement to the effect that he intends to circulate the draft regulations in connection with various industries such as pulp and paper to people outside this House, I wonder whether he would table these draft regulations in the House at the same time they are being distributed to others so that we may examine them?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and
Inquiries of the Ministry
Forestry. In view of the extensive overfishing by foreign draggers off our shores and in view of the position clearly brought out on the CTV program "W5" on Sunday, can the minister indicate whether his department is now taking any new initiatives to offset the overfishing by the Soviet Union and Germany in particular and to bring his action up to date with his awareness of the need and the problem?


John (Jack) Davis: am endeavouring to do that, Mr. Speaker. Before the Russian delegation left last week we had a few preliminary discussions about a possible initiative on the east coast of a bilateral nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the hon. member but I seek the co-operation of hon. members in relation to supplementaries.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, this problem is so urgent that I feel you might be a little lenient with our questions in this regard. Can the minister say whether Canada is taking any new action to increase its efforts in the area of oceanographic studies and can he give assurance that the recent moving of the problem north on the west coast of Canada means that we did not give away valuable resources-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is one of a very general nature which should be placed on the order paper. If there should be an element of urgency involved it could be returned to tonight.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we have just had negotiations with the Soviet Union and there is a feeling in Canada that we have given away resources because of the lack of knowledge of oceanography.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the question and I suggest it should either be placed on the order paper or, if my assessment is wrong, there is provision in the rules that it may be considered at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if the Quebec government had consulted the federal authorities before agreeing to recognize the committee that has been established to provide assistance to political prisoners, as announced yesterday by the Quebec Attorney General?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I know that, on this whole matter, discussions are now underway between the federal Minister of Justice and his Quebec counterpart. I cannot say if such discussions dealt with this particular committee.

October 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
However, the responsible minister may want to take notice of the question and, if the hon. member puts it to him some other day, he would be in a position to give an answer.



ADEQUACY OF POLICE INVESTIGATION METHODS-IMPLEMENTATION OF ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Saull Sle. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that some three weeks have elapsed since the abduction of Mr. Cross and in view of published statements by law enforcement officers in this country and in the United States that established police investigational methods are not adequate to cope with current revolutionary and terrorist tactics, does the government contemplate reviewing its policy with reference to federal law enforcement agencies and possible implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Security pertaining to a special security force for Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the premises to the question are very serious. On the review suggested by the hon. member I can only say that this question was reviewed last year in great detail and, as the House knows, the decision was taken to appoint a deputy commissioner who would have special responsibility for this and the House knows that the deputy commissioner was taken from outside the force. We feel that this combines the advantage of the commission's report and reflects also the general confidence the country has had in the force in the past.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the statement made by his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion about a week ago in the House that these people, referring to the FLQ, have infiltrated every strategic place in the province of Quebec, can the minister assure the House that the security measures which have been taken over the past years have been adequate to prevent such infiltration into either the armed forces or the civilian staff of his department?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I have every reason to believe that the security measures have been effective for that purpose.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question for the minister who reports to the House on housing and National Capital Commission matters. Can he say whether consideration is being given at this time to the establishment of a committee of Parliament to concern itself with all matters dealing with the national capital and, if so, whether the intention is to establish that committee during the present session?


Robert Knight Andras: The question has already been put to me but no decision has been made. In the meantime, of course, there is a committee to which those interested in National Capital Commission affairs have access, and that opportunity will continue. However, in answer to the question of the hon. member may I say precisely, not yet.
sj:	*



BARLEY-EMBARGO ON EXPORT

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Has an embargo been placed on the export of barley and, if so, what is the reason for this policy at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, certainly no general embargo. If there is a particular market which the hon. member is inquiring about, I would be glad to have further details and inquire on his behalf.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps I could elucidate with a supplementary question. Is the Wheat Board accepting export delivery orders for barley at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: On a matter like that involving the commercial considerations that enter into the Wheat Board's decision, I would refrain from comment in the House.



SKAGIT RIVER-METHOD OF OPPOSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SEATTLE CITY LIGHT COMPANY

['I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs considered that until the problem of the kidnapping of Mr. Cross, a foreign representative in Canada, was solved, it would be improper for him to leave the country, at least at this time.']
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I am not too sure whether this is a matter of urgency. However, in view of the fact that I am unfamiliar with the subject matter raised by the hon. member, the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


John (Jack) Davis: We are still looking into the matter, Mr. Speaker.
$ if:	^



Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he enlighten the House as to the reasons for the cancellation of the visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to Africa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs considered that until the problem of the kidnapping of Mr. Cross, a foreign representative in Canada, was solved, it would be improper for him to leave the country, at least at this time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he discuss with Canadian National Railways, which has in the province of Saskatchewan, on the one hand, classified itself as a company coming under federal jurisdiction in order not to have to meet the provincial holiday pay regulations, their attitude, on the other hand, in classifying themselves as a provincial company for the purpose of avoiding having to pay their employees the higher federal minimum wage?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I
believe that hon. members are aware that part of what might be called this controversy is before the courts vis-a-vis the hotel employees. I will be glad to take the other part under consideration and discuss it with CNR.



RETIRED EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS-ACTION TO IMPLEMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR INCREASE

Mr. Gaetan J. Serre (Nickel Belt):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House whether he has had any indication that the officials of the CNR will comply with the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications concerning increases in the pensions of its employees? If not, what action is he contemplating in order to force the CNR to comply with this recommendation?
Veterans Allowance Increases Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport): I
have answered this question in the House previously. I have formally advised the CNR-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to suggest that as the question has been asked and answered we might go on to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whilby):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice whether he could assure the House that people would not be prosecuted for acts which were not criminal committed prior to the invocation of the War Measures Act. He replied correctly that the administration of the Act resides with the Attorney General of the province of Quebec in this case. Given the importance of this notion and its centrality to the rule of law, would the Prime Minister assure the House that he will make such a recommendation to the Attorney General of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will
ensure that the answer which the minister gave yesterday to the House is brought to the attention of the Attorney General of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe) moved:: That this House urges the government to implement at an early date by way of the appropriate legislative amendments the recommendations contained in the 2nd report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs dated 9 June 1970 and in addition thereto to provide for early payment of adequate increases in the allowances under the War Veterans' Allowance Act 1952 as amended.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is significant that we have chosen today to discuss veterans affairs because in a few days, on November 11, we will hold the 52nd memorial service since the end of World War I.
It is significant also that we have reached a stage in our history when suddenly, as a nation, we are faced with a crisis which may affect the freedom which

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases Canadians have enjoyed for so many years, a freedom which made us the envy of many other nations which are faced with internal strife almost as a daily routine.
What Canadian, let alone the government of Canada or any Member of Parliament, would have imagined that internal disorder, that uprisings from minority factions, would threaten our democratic way of life at this time in our history? I mention this significant fact because it was not until there was a threat of violence, and indeed the sacrifice of a dedicated Canadian's life, that the country united as one behind the government in their decision to introduce measures to deal with terrorism within our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Marshall: Canadians also united as a nation when hundreds of thousands of our citizens offered themselves in world wars, not only to protect their own country but to offer and dedicate their lives to stop nations in other parts of the world from inflicting their will, their undemocratic and tyrannical philosophies on free living countries.
We, in Canada, are faced with a breakdown in our national unity because we have forgotten how true national unity is created in a country such as ours. National unity cannot be legislated by governments, by sitting around a conference table, by studies and commissions, or by presenting bills in Parliament. National unity is created in the hearts of people and passed on over the years because our ancestors suffered hardship in discovering and building Canada. We affirmed this unity between 1914 and 1918 and again between 1939 and 1945. Our war veterans pledged their loyalty to Queen and country and defended Canada against tyranny from without. These veterans fought not as people of English, French or any other origin, but each and every one of them fought side by side as comrades and as Canadians.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I think that this might be a good time to look again at these Canadian citizens who made the greatest contribution to preserve our peace through suffering, sacrifice and dedication. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we should take a lesson from the way they were able to maintain unity over the years. They did not remain strong, loyal and united by changing their colours, their flags, or their symbols to identify themselves. Nor did they remain united by distinguishing between members. All veterans in the Canadian Legion, or in any of the other veterans' organizations, are full fledged members regardless of race, creed or colour, or regardless of whether they are rich or poor. And they have the same crests of distinction, Mr. Speaker-each and every one of them-the same beret, the same coloured blazer. The only people in the veterans' organizations who get special attention are the poor, the disabled, the sick. These organizations have raised a good deal of the money to help these veterans through the sale of a red poppy of the same design for some 50 years.
These veterans organizations honour their dead with the same wreaths, and at every gathering they remember those who have fallen with these same words:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
And unless we do remember them, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to disintegrate as a nation. Unless we continue to remember those who are left to grow old, those who unfortunately were wounded and remain incapacitated, then we will surely have condemned those veterans who look to our affluent government for assistance.
Our motion today urges the government to implement at an early date, by way of the appropriate legislative amendments, the recommendations contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, date June 9, 1970, and in addition to provide for early payment of adequate increases in the allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act, as well as an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions.
I do not want to pre-empt the Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I spent some time in my office over the weekend re-reading his remarks, as reported in Hansard of June 20 last year, when we introduced another motion on veterans affairs. I am sure he will repeat many of the things he said then about the rapid increases in disability pensions from 1948 to 1968. He called the increases from 1964 to 1968-from $1800 to over $3000-rapid increases, and he referred to the increases in 1968 as healthy ones.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not here before 1968 but I have been here pretty steadily for over two years and I haven't seen anything happen very rapidly in 1969 and 1970. But I have witnessed, as we all have, a rapid increase in the cost of living in 1969 and 1970, in each and every month. In 1968, the increase was over 4 per cent. In 1969 it was 4.5 per cent. To date in 1970, it is almost that rate again. I have received appeals from all across the country concerning the rapid deterioration of bodies and lives, not only of the disabled war veterans of this country but also of many of the 4 million poverty stricken. Yes, there are lots of things happening rapidly in this Canada of ours, but they are all going rapidly wrong.
The minister has also stated on very many occasions that we should not act too rapidly in bringing about legislation because the review of the Woods committee was so complex and the ramifications so deep that it took them two and a half years to bring down their report. It should be understandable, therefore, if the government takes half that time to bring the report to fruition.
We agreed to this suggestion, as did all the veterans' organizations, and I list them: The National Council of Veterans Associations, the War Amputations of Canada, the Hong Kong Veterans, The National Dieppe Prisoner of War Association, the Nursing Sisters Association, the Canadian Corps Associations, The Canadian Paraplegic Associations, The Sir Arthur Pearson Association of War

October 27, 1970

Blinded, The War Pensioners of Canada, The Army, Navy and Air Forces Veterans of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Legion.
The Veterans Affairs Committee also agreed, and that committee has sat since last September considering briefs presented by these organizations. We also considered the white paper presented by the government. We reviewed the 148 recommendations, and we presented a report in June of this year. I am sure that the minister would agree, and that the chairman of the committee will confirm, that there was complete co-operation at all times during our deliberations. I am sure he will also agree that the veterans organizations were most co-operative in compromising on the cost of many of the recommendations advocated by the Woods Committee, in order to expedite legislation. I am also sure he will agree that all concerned gave enough time to the consideration of such a complex report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Marshall: Just this month, Mr. Speaker, before the end of the second session, my party offered complete co-operation to expedite the passing of legislation because time means everything to the disabled veterans. I can only appeal once more to the minister and the government to return the consideration by bringing in legislation immediately. I know such legislation is on the list of bills for this session, but since it is number 22 I hope it does not have to wait its turn to come before the House. I also hope this bill will rapidly be given a much higher priority by those who decide what legislation is to come before the House.
Last August, just over one year ago, as a result of the Woods Committee the government tabled its white paper on veterans pensions. So, we should all be ready to admit that we were given enough time to study the complex report of the Woods Committee and its ramifications, as the minister requested.
Probably the most pressing of the recommendations in the Woods Committee Report were numbers 92 and 93 dealing with a basic minimum pension of 50 per cent for all members of the Hong Kong force who were interned as prisoners of war by the Japanese, and that the widows of ex-members of the Hong Kong force be eligible for consideration of an award of widows' pensions under section 25 of the Act. If I may quote from the white paper, Mr. Speaker, it said:
That these veterans deserve special consideration has been recognized by government, and it is now proposed to ask parliament to formally recognize this obligation by proposing a separate act which will provide for a basic minimum pension of 50 per cent for all Hong Kong veterans who apply for it, and who have assessable degrees of disability-The effect of this provision will make widows and orphans who were not in receipt of disability pensions of 48 per cent also pensionable under the act and such pensions would begin with the effective date of the special legislation.
There were only 395 Hong Kong veterans as of 1968 receiving less than a 48 per cent pension. The white paper indicated agreement, and in fact promised special
Veterans Allowance Increases legislation over a year ago. An amendment to cover these veterans could have been put before the House any time after the presentation of the white paper and could have been passed at the snap of a finger. But here we are, over a year later, and still nothing has been done.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jack Marshall: The cost of implementation of this recommendation would be only some $600,000. Yet the government continues to procrastinate while the bodies of these veterans continue to deteriorate. Those who suffered through four years of the most extreme hardships of torture, of malnutrition and the affliction of avitaminosis, for which there is no cure, continue to await some humane consideration after so many years.
There are some 65 members of this House, Mr. Speaker, who are veterans of World War II, and two who are veterans of World War I-the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The majority of these veterans sit on the opposite side of the House. A good number of them sat on the veterans affairs committee. I wonder if they have any humane feelings; they who must know of the suffering of these veterans. I wish they would show some intestinal fortitude by standing up in their caucus meetings and pleading for some reasonable sense of priority in the implementation of legislation for the veterans.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer once more to the minister's reply last year in which he quoted a statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister on June 17 last year:
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.
Well, bully I say to him, Mr. Speaker, but I also say that the increases for the poor, the aged, the blind and the retarded have not been coming along too rapidly. The white paper on social security is also ready, but that appears pretty far down on the list of impending legislation. I hope it includes some indication of action to implement increases for those burnt-out veterans coming under the War Veterans Allowances Act. The increases for these veterans and their families have not been too rapid or healthy.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The last increase for veterans in this category was in 1966, and we do not hear too much bragging about the single rate of $105 per month or the married rate of $175 per month for these veterans. I do not have to remind the House how much below the poverty line these figures are.
It is worth while mentioning, Mr. Speaker, the situation with regard to war veterans allowances, because if ever we have failed our citizens we have failed those who are recipients under the War Veterans Allowance

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases Act. These are the veterans who become eligible after the age of 60 and are permanently unemployable because of physical or mental disabilities, or who are unable to maintain themselves due to a combination of economic handicaps and physical or mental disabilities and are unlikely to be able to do so. It is worth while mentioning the restrictions on these veterans. A single veteran in this category cannot have assets over $1,250 and a married veteran cannot have assets over $2,500.
I would like to show you some of the letters I get, Mr. Speaker, telling me that the veteran or his wife went out to try to earn a little more to buy some extra food or clothing, or to buy a little radio in order to hear about this great Canada and the great things that are coming in the new decade we are entering. Then, they find that what they earned is deducted from their next month's cheque.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame.


Jack Marshall: All that the department has done for these veterans during the past two years I have been in the House has been to cut down the staff of certain district offices which are charged with the responsibility of helping these people and of seeking out those who can qualify for this pittance on reaching this age. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I repeat-bully for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he says a special plea can be made not only for the veterans but for the old and for all sections of society. These people agree, too. Everybody in Canada agrees. They all come under the massive social security report which sits in the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) ready to be tabled; and the related legislation sits way down on the list I mentioned before.
So, let us bring forward the legislation on veterans pensions and social security. The special plea of these people is getting louder and louder, Mr. Speaker. So, let us show some humane consideration instead of philosophizing and let us pay attention to the needs of these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Marshall: I am sure that the minister will advise us of the exact dates on which the pensions legislation and that relating to income security will be introduced. I hope he will not give us the same answer that the Prime Minister gives when he criticizes the opposition for asking the government to spend money. He answers that if we want the government to pay out more money they will have to raise taxes, and then the opposition will criticize that. Well, in case he is going to use this tale of woe again I will tell him I am not accepting it, because it is a lot of bully beef.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Marshall: In my short period of time in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have learned that money is thrown around
by this government "like it was going out of style", and for some of the strangest things that one could imagine. They are too numerous to mention, but one example would be the giving of grants to town fools. I must say, though, that I did not appreciate the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) yesterday in the House when I asked, simply and courteously, whether he would advise the House when the legislation on income security, which includes war veterans allowances and the veterans pension legislation, would be presented. His answer, though, is a pretty good indication as to where he stands with regard to veterans. It is obvious that he was one of the six cabinet ministers who vetoed the recommendations of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and directed him to cut his recommended increases to the poor by some $500 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jack Marshall: I wonder which of the other cabinet ministers were included in the nasty six?


An hon. Member:: They are all the same.


Jack Marshall: There are many items in the Veterans affairs Committee report with which I could deal. I refer to the 100 per cent pensioners; to stabilizing pensions; to benefit of doubt and appeal procedures, and to attendance allowances. Not the least of these matters is the basic rate of pension; but I am sure my colleagues will deal with these adequately. I will close my remarks with this appeal to the government.
I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) would have liked to have brought forward legislation before now. It is apparent that he is deterred by a cabinet which continues to downgrade the department and by the "whiz kids" who prefer to create new departments like Information Canada, which can only be described as a $7 million money-eating monster to produce political propaganda that nobody wants to hear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Marshall: There is also an inference to be drawn from the government's spending sums like $200,000, on art work that kiddies in kindergarten could do better. I only hope, as a result of this debate, that the minister, with the help of many veterans who are members of caucus, will appeal to the government to stand behind the promises made to the 160,000 of the almost 1 million Canadian war veterans. I hope he will do this with the zeal and vigour which he says is being used in the care for veterans, and that legislation will be brought forth, before it is too late to care for many of them.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Otfawa Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, are pleased with the motion that has been brought forward, which gives us the opportunity of reviewing a matter that occupied the attention of

October 27, 1970

many members of the House in the course of the previous session. The minister will speak at the end of this debate and will reply to the points raised by members on the other side of the House. I know that hon. members here anticipate his remarks with a good deal of interest.
The veterans affairs committee, at the end of our sittings in the spring, presented a report which was unanimously adopted in this House. It has been a source of some satisfaction to those of us who worked on the committee, Mr. Speaker, to know that there has been so much team work in what we were doing and that the committee was able to examine a great deal of evidence.
It is now 25 years since the initial veterans charter was adopted in 1945. The process of revising the work of the Pension Commission began in 1965 with the appointment of the Woods committee. That committee took some 3 years to do its work. It presented 1,300 pages of evidence and 148 separate and distinct recommendations concerning the work of the Canadian Pension Commission. Of those recommendations, the overwhelming majority was acceptable to the government and involved a restructuring of the Canadian Pension Commission and a simplification of its procedures. But the report of the committee went considerably beyond a mere restructuring and reorganization. It introduced a number of basic principles which called for a careful examination; it was not possible for the government at that time to accept them, just as it was not possible to accept the report of the Carter Commission on taxation.
The device which the government adopted in this case was the device of the white paper. In August, 1969, the minister who is now sitting in this House brought down a white paper on veterans affairs which was a very significant document. A number of hon. members participated in the matter of the Hong Kong veterans. I have discovered, and I have received correspondence subsequently from a number of veterans who were so involved, that some of our men were captured in Indonesia, Malaya and many other parts of the Far East, and they suffered as much privation as the Hong Kong veterans suffered. The white paper clearly recognizes our obligation and, without question, its recommendations were unanimously accepted.
The white paper also dealt with other matters, such as the benefit of the doubt provision. It talked about restructuring the Veterans Bureau and brought forward a number of recommendations acceptable to the government which were, without any question, acceptable also to everyone who understood what had happened in this field. But, in bringing down that white paper, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) very carefully stated that this was a general outline and that the government would not take an inflexible position. The government was indicating those areas which were acceptable to it and it was asking, in the most democratic fashion possible, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which was composed of members from every party represented in the House of Commons, to look at the Woods report and the white paper, to sort out matters and make recommendations to the government concerning those
Veterans Allowance Increases
other matters on which it had not been possible to reach agreement.
I had the honour, Mr. Speaker, of being the chairman of that committee. That is something of which, during the course of my public career, I have been very proud. I regard the service in the past session of this Parliament as one of the greatest opportunities I have had.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The committee met 39 times. It heard from 14 organizations and a number of witnesses, including the minister and spokesmen of the department. The committee never lacked a quorum, Mr. Speaker. I say that by way of tribute to those members who served on the committee. This committee met when the House was not sitting in September of 1969. When a committee meeting was called, we never failed to establish a quorum.
I wish to pay the greatest tribute to the minister at this point. Without question, in his attitude, appearances before the committee and representations, he carefully avoided taking any dogmatic or firm position. He always said "This is what we think is right; this is what we are prepared to do." He put forward some proposals in which he believed, as well as those who were giving him advice. They firmly believed this was the best pattern of administration with regard to the appeal procedure.
Although the committee studied the entire range of 148 recommendations, the members spent a great deal of time in two major areas of special concern. I wish to speak today about these two areas. The first was a request of the veterans organizations to establish an independent body which would be above the pensions committee and which would pass judgment at the appeal stage.
In the course of my life I have had the honour of serving in the public service of Canada for nine years. During that time I learned a little about the principles of public administration. The principle of standing one independent body above another independent body was of great concern. Where such a structure has been established, it has not always been a good pattern of public administration. There is a basic rule which states that the laws of the land must be respected and accepted by the great majority of those to whom they apply. A law and a body of procedure that is not acceptable to the people who must live and work with it will not be a good law or a good procedure. This was the basic principle that guided the committee in its report regarding the appeal procedure. We felt we had to make this recommendation in light of the persistent and non-deviating suggestions with regard to an independent appeal board.
There was no way to judge the workload after the initial backlog was dealt with. There was no way to judge how many persons would be required for these different agencies after there was a stabilization of workload. For that reason, we recommended that appointments should be for a five year period. We suggested that the government study this after five years to see whether the procedure was the proper one.

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
Another area which gave us a great deal of concern was those veterans suffering from severe and multiple disabilities. The white paper contained a set of proposals with regard to this. The proposals in the white paper were misunderstood in some quarters. There were representations to us to the effect that a means test was required. I certainly did not read that into the white paper. The minister expressly repudiated that anything like this was intended. Without question, the committee made it clear that the case for additional allowances for certain categories of multiple and severely disabled veterans above and beyond the 100 per cent basic rate was a strong case.
The hon. member who moved this motion in very emotional terms stated the debt that Canada owes to those who served. There is no greater debt owed by a nation than that owed to those who served a nation and suffered physically, emotionally and mentally. Many of our veterans have had many trials and tribulations. The committee made some recommendations which went above and beyond those in the white paper.
The report we presented was in two sections. We listed those recommendations of the Woods Committee with which we were in general agreement and those in which we were not in agreement. We stated our reasons and, in some cases, suggested modifications. The committee completed its report and presented it to this House in June. It was unanimously adopted by resolution of this House. I was pleased to see a reference in the Speech from the Throne to legislation that will be introduced. When the minister speaks on this subject he will be able to say much more than I can say.
A great deal of attention has been given to the recommendations of the committee by various organizations, the minister and his department. It has been the source of a good deal of pleasure to note in the August issue of the Legion, the national magazine of the Royal Canadian Legion, that the cover featured photographs of the committee members. The editorial that follows is very complimentary. I will not quote it in detail. It reads in part: -the report has the unanimous concurrence of the House of Commons and we assume that the next step will be for the Minister of Veterans Affairs to seek Cabinet approval of the report, following which officials of the Department of Justice can set to work preparing the necessary legislation.
The editorial is a very realistic appreciation of the steps in the legislative process. There is a very quiet, confident note in the editorials of the Legion and publications of other veterans organizations. It is a clear appreciation of the good will that has been displayed. This good will has not been marred by partisan behaviour in the committee. I am confident there will be a general acceptance of the program to be introduced.
I wish to quote from the latest issue of the war amputees Fragment. The remarks in this article concerning the report of the committee are particularly complimentary. Perhaps it would be better if some other hon. member repeated them. It reads in part:
The 1969-70 Parliamentary Committee can take its place, right along with the renowned Veterans Affairs Committees of the

past. It was the task of this Committee.. .to take the raw material of the Woods Report, measure it against the Government's own White Paper on Veterans Pensions, add in the rather well-documented views of the Veterans organizations, and come up with a proposed plan which would meet the need.
There is every indication, in spite of the fact the committee turned down some of the key recommendations such as age escalation, that these organizations are generally pleased with the work of the committee. The question we must now ask ourselves is, what is to be the pattern? What is it reasonable to expect?
On Friday of last week we completed the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Other national emergency measures were brought before this House which were the subject of special debate. I know that time can pass in the course of a session without us really being aware of it. I say to the members of this House that the veterans of this country can have complete confidence in the measures being prepared and brought forward for legislative enactment. From the statements made by members opposite, this matter will not be prolonged in a partisan debate. Members will work in the spirit in which the work was carried out in the committee and they will be pleased to approve this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are delighted that this day in the House of Commons is being devoted to a discussion of veterans affairs, and I take much pleasure in commending the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for having introduced the motion which we are now debating. If I might say so, I could not have drawn it better myself. But having said that, I must indicate that at the end of my remarks I intend to move an amendment to make it slightly better than it is.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I go along with the remarks which have been made by both the previous speakers concerning the excellence of the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have had a fair amount of committee experience over the years in this place and I have served on no committee I have enjoyed more. We had matters of real substance to deal with, we found dedication and devotion on the part of all members of the committee, and I believe that as a result of our work and co-operation we produced a report which, in the end, was better than I had hoped at the start might come out of that committee. May I say in this connection that it was precisely because of the unanimity we felt in that committee concerning all the important phases of our work, and because of the unanimity on many points at all stages-the Woods Report, the white paper, the committee report-that I regret there has been so long a delay in implementing those things upon which we were agreed.
I look upon the introduction of this motion today by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe as primarily a way of speeding things up. If as a result of today's debate the minister can announce that the legislation will be on the order paper within the next few days,
October 27, 1970

this will have been a very worthwhile day. Like other hon. members I am greatly concerned at the length of time it has taken to get action on these matters. The dates are well known to us all but perhaps I might repeat them. It is more than five years since the Woods committee was commissioned to do its job. True, it was a big job and it took the committee a long time to complete it. But when that committee was appointed, the hope was that something would soon be done to improve the position of veterans. Yet here we are, five years and a month later, and we still have not seen the legislation which was recommended as a result of that study.
The Woods committee was appointed in September, 1965. It made its report in March, 1968, about two and a half years later. It was a year and several months before we heard anything from the government of the day. Eventually, the white paper was produced; that was in August, 1969. I am happy to say that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs began its deliberations in the following month, September, and its report was made to the House in June, 1970. As has been stated by previous speakers, shortly after this report was presented to the House, the House of Commons concurred in it. I recite these facts for two reasons: first, to indicate the length of time we have been dealing with these matters and, second, to show that with regard to all those things on which we have agreed there has been enthusiasm, unanimity and concern. I do not like this long delay. In fact, it seems to me that once this session started and the debate on the Speech from the Throne had been concluded, almost the first legislation brought into the House by the government should have been the bill implementing the promised improvements in our veterans legislation.
The motion proposed by the hon. member who began this debate deals in the main with two subjects. First, there is the whole question of the amendments to be made to the Pension Act arising out of the study by the Woods committee. Then there is the question which was not referred to the Woods committee, namely, the consideration of changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act. Accordingly, I should like to divide my remarks between those two general headings.
First, with respect to the proposed changes in the Pension Act, other members have already indicated that there are some changes upon which we agree. Let us have them as soon as we can. In particular, we have agreed on certain new procedures that are to be established, and we have agreed on the special appeal board to be set up over the Pension Commission. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) was perfectly correct in his description of the way in which this matter was discussed in the committee and I think it is fair to say that the various veterans organizations, particularly the representatives of the National Council of Veterans Organizations who stayed with us right through the piece, deserve great credit for their assistance and for their perseverance. As hon. members know, what has been recommended in the matter of appeal procedures is a five year trial period and, like the hon. member for Ottawa West, I believe an arrangement of this kind will work only if it suits those concerned. I trust that the legislation will carry out this particular recommendation.
Veterans Allowance Increases
One of the features in the Woods Report, in the white paper and in our own report, which has been agreed on right down the line, concerns the treatment of Hong Kong veterans. The provision is a straightforward one, namely, that any Hong Kong veteran who has any disability at all should be treated as having a 48 per cent disability, or more, so that his pension will be a 50 per cent pension and so that his widow will automatically get a widow's pension in full. This has not been contested at any point and I still do not know why some effort was not made last session to bring in a bill to put this provision into effect. We have agreed on it all down the line and we made an offer in the committee on behalf of our respective parties that if such legislation were brought forward it would be agreed to without debate. I regret very much that no action was taken by the government in response to this offer.
We also agreed that there should be a settlement of the question of the quantum of the basic pension. A number of questions of that sort were agreed on in the committee, whether on a unanimous basis or after discussion, and I see no reason why these things should not be before us right at this time.
There are two or three matters about which we felt strongly in the committee, on which agreement was not reached. Even though no reference was made to them in the report, I hope, even at this stage, that consideration will be given to them. One has already been referred to, the provision for automatic aging. The veterans organizations felt very strongly about this, and so did many of the members of the committee. I hope that those who are going to draft the legislation might yet take a good look at that particular proposition.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I hope that all of the recommendations contained in the report will be included in the legislation. For example, I have in mind a provision about which we had a good deal of discussion in the committee, namely the treatment of widows of veterans where the pension of the veteran before he died was less than 48 per cent. As hon. members are aware, in such cases there is no automatic pension for the widow; her only recourse is to make an application under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Despite the non-concurrence of the White Paper, our committee recommended that a provision be made in such cases for a pension as of right to be paid to the widow on a pro rata basis. I admit that in some cases that would not amount to much. In some cases the widow would still have to fall back on the War Veterans Allowance Act, particularly if her late husband's pension was down around the 10 to 20 per cent level; but it would mean a good deal to those whose pension was between, say, 35 and 45 per cent. This was recommended by the committee and particular attention was drawn to it in the preamble to the report. Therefore, I hope without question that that provision will be in the legislation when it is presented to the House which I hope will be in a few days.

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
I think the picture is reasonably clear in regard to those things that were covered in the Woods report. We started with a lot of disagreement, a certain amount of disillusionment and some uncertainty, but as a result of our living together with this problem for a long period of time, and as a result of the very good work done by the veterans organizations which appeared before the committee, we reached a pretty solid consensus about the things that should be done in regard to those matters that had been referred to the Woods committee. As a result of that unanimity I plead that there be no more delay and that the legislation be brought in. I am satisfied this House will give it very quick passage indeed.
However, before one leaves the Pension Act, which as I say was referred to the Woods committee, one has to take note of the fact that there was not referred to the Woods committee the basic amount of the disability pension. Any suggestion about increasing veterans pensions-I am now talking about disability pensions-was not, therefore, part of the terms of reference of the Woods committee nor part of the terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
I do not think we will be as proud of ourselves as we like to think we will be if, despite all this work, and despite our devoting time in the House of Commons to the question of veterans legislation, nothing is done to increase the rate of pensions paid under the Pension Act. I hope that matter will be dealt with.
If it is necessary to bring in two separate bills in this regard, then let that be done. Let there be included in one bill the matters we have agreed upon, those matters about which there is unanimity in every case or almost unanimity, and I am convinced that every party in the House will let the bill reach the statute books in record time. Then, let us also have another bill dealing with the rates of pension paid under the Pension Act.
This leads me to the other aspect of the motion moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, namely that something should be done at this time to provide for early payment of adequate increases in the allowances paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act. To my regret the subject of the War Veterans Allowance Act, not having been referred to the Woods committee, was also not included in the terms of reference of the standing committee. But the veterans and widows who come under the aegis of the War Veterans Allowance Act are the people who seem always to get the short end of the stick.
I plead that the minister not delay any longer the bringing in of amendments to that act. Let him not ask us to wait for the White Paper on social security or on income maintenance, or whatever it is to be; that matter has been delayed for so long that there is no telling when it will be brought in. And when it is, I assume that it will deal with matters relating to the population of Canada in general.
I have no hesitation in standing here as a non-veteran, like the minister, and saying that we owe something special to the veterans who have served this country. I

want to see what is sometimes called the social security legislation for our veterans, or call it, if you will, social welfare legislation-the War Veterans Allowance Act- kept a few stages higher than the social security or social welfare legislation that applies to the population as a whole.
That was the basis on which the War Veterans Allow-anc Act was brought in in the first place. That was in the period when the old age pension was payable at age 70 only, and on a means test. The purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act was to provide to those who had served in World War I an opportunity to get at age 60 a pension that would compare with the old age pension that was paid at age 70, and to get that pension not only at an earlier age but on a means test that was less stringent than the old age pension means test.
Over the years there seems to have been the tendency somehow or other to ask why, since this is social welfare legislation, it should not be enmeshed in our general welfare legislation. I do not think that approach is good enough. Those of us in this Parliament who cannot claim to be veterans would be a little ashamed, I think, if we were to abolish the principle that Parliament ought to do something better for those who served their country in time of war.
Therefore, I call for the War Veterans Allowance Act to be dealt with separately from the white paper on social welfare or income maintenance. We have touched on some matters already without waiting for that paper. It used to be agreed that everything had to wait for that paper which is to be brought down by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but last December there was an announcement, and then in March certain legislation was presented to the House. I was very glad that the legislation was introduced without waiting for that paper, because it dealt with the pensions of retired civil servants, retired members of the armed forces, retired personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and quite a few others. It even made a slight reference to Members of Parliament. None of these groups was called upon to wait for the white paper on social security. I am not at the moment asking any questions about the motives for that action at that time, for my views are well known, but the fact of the matter is that the ban against dealing with matters of this kind until the white paper on social security has been published was broken by the introduction of that legislation.
I think the same can be said with regard to the white paper on unemployment insurance. Certainly the committee dealing with that white paper is asked time and time again how come it has that white paper before the country is given the white paper on social security. So I suggest that the sacred principle that we must wait for the white paper of the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been shot high, wide and handsome.
If there is any group of people that deserves special consideration, it is the group we know as our veterans. Therefore, I insist that it will not be enough to bring in legislation simply implementing our report, and hence dealing only with the Pension Act and those matters
October 27, 1970

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases retired RCMP personnel, retired members of the armed forces, the permanent forces and so on became effective. It is also the date on which certain changes took place in the Members of Parliament pension plan. I would say that these increases we are now asking for our veterans should be retroactive to that date, and not one day later.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House also urges that consideration be given to the making of any increases to be provided under the Pension Act or under the War Veterans Allowance Act retroactive to April 1, 1970, or to such earlier date as may be appropriate in certain cases."
I hope that in the way in which the House can do so, namely by what it says and by the attention it pays to this debate, the House as a whole will endorse the proposition of the main motion, that there should be early legislation in respect of the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. I hope it will also endorse the proposition contained in my amendment, that the increases we hope will be provided under these two acts will be made retroactive back at least to April 1, 1970. Surely, this is the least we should do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair has looked at the amendment just put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and it has a reservation as to the reference to the Pension Act in the amendment, knowing that the motion refers only to the War Veterans Allowance Act. This might have the tendency to open the debate further than intended by the general terms of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). In any case the Chair will, with this reservation, accept the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would you permit just a brief comment. The motion moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe calls for legislative amendments that contain the recommendations set out in the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I happen to know that you were a member of the committee and Your Honour must know that everything in that report is a request for amendments to the Pension Act. It seems to me it is just a different way of saying the same thing, when I refer to increases under the Pension Act as well ?s to increases under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I do not wish to go into the terms of reference or the questions the hon. member has in mind in respect of the committee's recommendation concerning an increase in pensions. I have indicated to the hon. member that the Chair is ready to put the motion with some reservations. Therefore, I shall put the question immediately. The hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) moves: That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House also urges that consideration be given to the making of any increases to be provided under the Pension Act or under the War Veterans Allowance Act retroactive to April 1, 1970, or to such earlier date as may be appropriate in certain cases."


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words about the motion put forward by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) as well as the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
There have been many studies and proposals concerning veterans. The government's White paper is an outcome of the Woods report.
Mr. Speaker, all this work was essential. Legislation providing for the welfare of our veterans should be revised because many of them have primary economic and financial needs to met, although they are unable to perform certain tasks as adequately as healthy people.
The legislation has been revised several times. Each year, the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the House have dealt with the needs of veterans.
I believe the information received until now is adequate and I think we could recommend implementing the conclusions of the Woods report. Besides, enforcing the decisions taken concerning the needs of the veterans has become imperative. It has always been a question of money and I believe that the implementation of the Woods Report was delayed on the same grounds. Indeed, the more we beat about the bush, the cheaper the whole business becomes for the Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, it is in the area of veterans' pensions, in my opinion, that we find good reason to congratulate the government. What is particularly remarkable is the attention it has always given to veterans and their families by paying them pensions constantly in keeping with the rising cost of living.
During the war and even afterwards, the widow of a veteran received at least $100 a month for herself, $40 a month for the first child, $30 a month for the second child, $25 a month for the third child and every other one. These are allowances which I consider appropriate.
What is also remarkable is that the children of veterans' widows, while receiving monthly allowances of $40, $30 or $25 were entitled at the same time to monthly allowances of $6 for children under ten and of $8 for those between 10 and 15 inclusive. Those over 15 who wanted to go on with their studies received higher allowances than those paid to the children of parents who were not veterans.
The pension of war widows has been increased very often in keeping with the cost of living. As a matter of fact, from $100 during and after the 1939-1945 war, it
October 27, 1970

had gone up to $115 a month in 1958. Today, it is even higher and reaches $150 a month, I think. I have no intention of blaming anyone for giving special consideration to veterans, war widows and their children. On the contrary, I believe such action deserves commendation. I even believe that, in many cases, the government could show even greater generosity to those who have sacrificed their lives, their freedom or their health in order to save their fellow-citizens during world wars or other conflicts. It is only in 1968, or 23 years after the last world war, that it was decided to make a thorough study of veterans problems and this culminated in the 1,300-page Woods report. We are still trying today to consider an increase in veterans pensions and other allowances as part of the commitments of the government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as regards the studies about our duty to pay Canadian citizens certain sums of money other than salaries for work done or interest on capital, I feel that they are not undertaken with the primary concern of meeting the basic needs of our citizens, but always for considerations other than the right to existence which is the right of every citizen all through life, whether a soldier or an ordinary citizen, the son of a soldier or the son of an ordinary citizen, the widow of a soldier or of an ordinary man, who works the whole year through and who is liable also to be a victim of incapacity or of premature death on the workfront instead of the battlefront.
Mr. Speaker, the man who dies at work is also serving his country without enjoying the same benefits as soldiers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I suggest to the hon. member for Compton that the debate must bear on the terms of the amendment and the subamendment under consideration, which concern the second report of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, as well as allowances and pensions paid to veterans.
The fact that the hon. member was going to engage in a discussion which goes beyond the scope of this debate leads me to remind him that even if his remarks suggest that other Canadians are in need of government aid and that these people may be considered just as important as veterans, the hon. member must just the same speak directly to the amendment and the subamendment now under consideration.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; it is perhaps true that I somewhat wandered from the subject, but I think that those comments are pertinent. However, as a result of your suggestion, I will try to discuss only the amendment and subamendment concerning the passage of the legislation and the carrying out of the reports' recommendations, especially those of the Woods report and the many questions raised therein.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on pension rates. Those rates were not referred to the committee to survey the work and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission, or Woods committee. It,
Veterans Allowance Increases
however, heard statements on the matter which were summarized in its report. The rates now in force and their relation with the standard of living in Canada were dealt with in a special study. The government intends to take it into consideration with respect of the general assessment mentioned earlier.
The amounts that have been paid since January 1, 1968, represent an annual pension of $3,180 for single veterans and of $4,056 for married veterans, as well as an annual supplementary allowance of $2,400 in some cases. The supplementary pensions for pensioners' children are $408 for the first child, $520 for the second and $240 per year for the others. In the case of orphans, those amounts are doubled. On the other hand, all those recommendations were accepted, I believe, almost unanimously, by the committee which recommend the adoption of the Woods report and its main recommendations.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the subamendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reads in part as follows:
-that consideration be given to the making of any increases to be provided under the Pension Act or under the War Veterans Allowance Act retroactive to April 1, 1970, or to such earlier date as may be appropriate in certain cases.
We, Creditistes, support that subamendment, Mr. Speaker. Parliament must implement those recommendations as soon as possible, with a view to meeting the needs of veterans. The main recommendations in the white paper introduced after the publication of the Woods report should also be taken into account.
In this regard, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned several things I would have liked to say, but in order not to repeat the same thing, I shall say merely that the Creditistes approve the amendment of the hon. member, as well as the motion of the Progressive Conservatives, to the effect that we should, as soon as possible, implement the recommendations of the report, with a view to giving our veterans the benefits to which they are entitled.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, June 20, 1969, and again May 4 of this year, were days allotted to the opposition and they chose to deal with the subject of veterans pensions.
This is a worthwhile and welcome debate because it reflects the interest of members of all parties in the human side of the question. In all the years that I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-and that dates back to the time when the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was the committee chairman-I have seldom encountered partisanship when the needs and the wellbeing of war veterans were being considered.
It may be useful to put on the record the introduction to the government's white paper on veterans pensions. It reads in part as follows:
For the past 50 years, Canada has recognized and freely accepted her obligation to pay compensation for disability and

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
death arising out of military service, in so far as it is reasonable and practicable to equate monetary values with human suffering and bereavement.
This is done through the Pension Act, the keystone of Canadian veterans legislation since 1919. It provides for the payment of pensions to the disabled veteran, his widow and his orphan, and to his dependent parents, sisters and brothers.
In addition, an award of pension also makes the recipient or his family eligible for other benefits. The veteran himself becomes eligible for medical treatment for his pensioned condition, special re-employment training if he needs it, war veterans allowance, and funeral and burial grants. After his death, his widow is eligible for war veterans allowance, and his pensioned children for advanced educational assistance.
The veterans of Canada comprise about one twelfth of the country's total adult population. Approximately 832,600 of these are veterans of World War II (or of both wars or of Korea) and another 112,600 are veterans of World War I. Of these two groups a total of 136,800 veterans were in receipt of pensions under the Pension Act as of December 31, 1968, and a further 29,800 pensions were in payment to the dependents or survivors of veterans.
[DOT] (4:10p.m.)
For many years the Pension Act and the Pension Regulations which preceded it, have provided that pensions should be related to earning power; and the adjudication of pension claims has been the responsibility of an independent and impartial tribunal.
While adhering strictly to these basic principles, successive governments have found it necessary to review and amend the act in one way or another. Indeed, there have been few years during the half century when some change hasn't been made to the act.
The government is indeed aware of problems affecting war veterans, as well as thousands of other Canadians, and it is doing all that is possible to meet the situation in a rational way. There is no reason to assume that it has not kept faith with our comrades.
With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I shall not find great difficulty in supporting it. I recall the statement that he made during the debate on June 20, 1969, when he voiced the suspicion that the government was going to draft legislation in advance of hearings on the Woods Report. We all know how wrong he was in his assessment, Mr. Speaker.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs held 39 meetings and heard witnesses from no less than 19 veterans organizations. I wish at this point to name the principal ones: The Royal Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, the War Pensioners of Canada, the Sir Arthur Pearson Association for War Blinded, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Canadian Corps Association, the Nursing Sisters' Association of Canada, the National Dieppe Prisoner of War Association, the Hong Kong Veterans Association of Canada, The War Amputations of Canada, the National Council of Veterans Association in Canada, the Nationally Chartered Veterans Organizations, etc.
The Committee examined in detail each of the 148 recommendations of the Woods Report and, of course, all the proposals contained in the White Paper were closely scrutinized. The long and laborious study of the White
Paper, which kept the Committee working several weeks during the summer parliamentary recess, is evidence that the members of the committee took their responsibilities seriously. When the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented the report to the House, its members had reason to feel that a good job had been done. It was a good report upon which, no doubt, legislation will be based.
One cannot exactly blame the government for the delay in the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report, because a great deal of work is involved in the preparation of such a complicated piece of legislation. As an example, the Committee spent considerable time reviewing the appeal procedures suggested on the one hand by the white paper and, on the other hand, by the Veterans Associations, which were essentially modifications and extensions of the Woods recommendations. We were very much concerned about the principle of an independent review board being stacked on top of an independent pension commission. This appeared to raise a fundamental question of public administration, but the representations by the Veterans Associations were strong, persistent and deliberate on this point and, under the circumstances, the committee decided to recommend that the procedures essentially recommended by the veterans associations in the final hearings in April 1970, should be adopted with a slight modification.
The committee had also reservations concerning the observations of the veterans associations on the ability of the Canadian Pension Commission to delegate responsibility to field staff, and also on the suggestion that a single commissioner should be able to make decisions. It was the opinion of the committee that decisions should be signed by more than one commissioner in the interests of uniformity of administration. The committee had also reservations regarding the ability of 12 commissioners to be able to cope with the work load.
The committee felt that it would be difficult to foresee the operations of the Pension Review Board with any degree of certainty or to forecast, with any degree of assurance, the number of claims which would come before the board and the commission for adjudication in the future. Therefore, the committee suggested that the organization and procedure of both the Review Board and the commission be reviewed every five years. For these reasons, the committee considered the appointment of commissioners for a specific term being preferable to a life appointment, which veterans organizations had recommended. I have cited only one of the many points in the recommendations which are of a complicated nature, requiring a great deal of work in drafting the bill, which once introduced I am confident will please everyone concerned.
I am not questioning the sincerity of the mover of this motion. In fact, I congratulate him. Nevertheless, it should be made clear that we on this side consider the interests of war veterans with just as much zeal and dedication as any of those sitting on the benches of the opposition. I have also great faith in the minister, who has pointed out on several occasions that it is the Gov-
[Mr. Badanai.l
October 27, 1970

ernment'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.
I am confident that the Government will always ensure that Canada's pension legislation is kept in harmony with modern concepts of social justice and its obligations to those who, in war and in peace, have placed their lives at the service of their country.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with interest several very able addresses on this vital subject. The matter of veterans affairs is one that should never involve political partisanship. The welfare of those men and women who served their country in time of war, and of their dependents, is too important for it ever to become so petty as to involve political partisanship. I was glad to see that those who addressed the House refrained from that.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) is a man for whom we in our party have a very special affection. Others in the House have spoken about the technical side of what has happened; 1 should like in the few minutes at my disposal, and I promise not to be too long, Mr. Speaker, to address myself to the human factor. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe served in the last war as a private soldier. He went to France on D-day, June 6, 1944, perhaps as the only man in the Canadian army with the rank of provisional officer cadet. He was waiting for his turn to go to OCTU, for his officer's commission. The colonel of the regiment, with which I was also serving, invited him to go along, and so the hon. gentleman took part in the greatest military operation in the history of the world as an officer cadet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Chester MacRae: He later ended up with the rank of full colonel and was in charge of the entire reserve forces in the province of Newfoundland when he retired to come to Parliament. I felt he gave a very masterful address.
I must say, too, although perhaps some of my colleagues will not agree with me, that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who served as the chairman of our committee during the past year, also gave an impressive address. Our relationship has been a very happy one. My major interest in public life has always been veterans affairs and I found that during this past year especially we have worked very well. There was very little, if any, partisanship in the committee. There were some points with which we did not completely agree in the deliberations of the committee, yet the report we brought down was an unanimous one. I think the report was a good one, too.
Although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not a veteran, I know he has a very deep interest in the veterans of this country. He has
Veterans Allowance Increases
expressed that on many occasions. Although I disagree with his socialist theories, being a right wing Conservative, I appreciate his deep concern for the welfare of his fellow Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Chester MacRae: The hon. gentleman from Fort William (Mr. Badanai), who has been a friend of mine since he came to this House in 1958, also addressed the House very well, I felt. I can well remember what his predecessor, the Reverend Dan Mclvor, said to me in 1957 after I had made my maiden speech in the House of Commons. I was speaking on veterans affairs, and on the estimates of the minister of that day, the beloved Colonel Alfred J. Brooks, who later became Senator Brooks and leader of our party in the Senate. After I had spoken, Mr. Mclvor came over. He crossed the floor of the House and congratulated me and he gave me a piece of advice that I have remembered ever since. He said, "Don't try to be an expert in too many fields; there is too much going on here. Take up two or three subjects and try to know as much as possible about them." I never forgot that. He was a very fine gentleman, as is the hon. member for Fort William.
I should like to say this: it is now 52 years since the end of World War I and 25 years since the end of World War II. Those years have gone by very quickly. Of the more than 1.5 million men who served in Canada's wars, about 961,000 are still living. They Eire 961,000 very, very important men and very important women. May I recount an incident that took place in the last Weir. As hon. members know, a hospital has been built at Ste Anne de Bellevue. I had occasion to visit Ste Anne de Bellevue in 1941. My brother was dying there at the time. He had enlisted in the Regiment de Maisonneuve, a French Canadian regiment. There were men who had been there since 1914 and even 1918. Many of them were undergoing psychiatric treatment, because these men had been shellshocked. In the Second World War they called that condition battle exhaustion, although I think shellshock describes it better. What struck me was this: when they passed me in the corridor in my officer's uniform, they recognized the officer's rank and snapped to attention and saluted. That moved me deeply. These men were living in the past, in those days when their minds had been destroyed by the shell fire and yet they recognized an officer.
Previous speakers in this debate have referred to the work done by the chairman of the committee. Other speakers have alluded to the report of the Woods committee which I think, Mr. Speaker, is the most important document on veterans affairs that has ever been produced. It refers to veterans problems-perhaps problems is not the right word. It refers to the situation of veterans in this nation. I know Mr. Justice Woods personally and I served with him on the national command of the Canadian Legion. That report was a masterful document. As other speakers have said, the white paper followed the tabling of that report. Submissions were put forward by many of the great veterans organizations in this country.

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and others mentioned the organizations which made their views known.
Finally, after many meetings, and after deep thought and a great deal of work, we had the report of the veterans committee brought before the House of Commons. I share the regret of other members of my party and I suspect, of members on the government side as well, that we have not yet introduced any legislation. I have a very special reason for saying that, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply interested in the welfare of our veterans, as the minister knows. We were born in the same county and have both lived for most of our lives in the same community in the Restigouche River Valley.
Let me say that the brutality, the starvation, the privation, humiliation and torture that were suffered by the men of the Royal Rifles of Canada, and the Winnipeg Grenadiers at Hong Kong is second only to the horrible treatment that was meted out to those who were imprisoned in Hitler's concentration camps. I know that the minister will agree with me when I say that many of these men are broken in body and mind. I have seen the welts on their bodies and the scars. I know one young lad from Campbellton who died after being beaten wi'h rifle butts because some Japanese guard was displeased with something he had done.
These are things we ought to think about when we consider these men. I do not mean to be critical, but I feel that the legislation should have been brought down a year ago so that we could have taken care of these Hong Kong veterans by bringing them all up to the 48 per cent level. I understand that 395 of them have not yet been brought up to that point. I think the legislation ought to be made retoractive because, in this past year, several more of them have died. The mortality rate among these men has been very high because their lives have been shortened through the starvation they endured day after day, month after month and year after year. The food they were given daily was the amount of rice a man could hold in the palm of his hand. That was not all. They trapped rats and spiders as well as snakes to try to obtain a little more protein to keep them alive. So, I say to the minister in all sincerity and honesty, do not delay any longer; let us do something for these very, very courageous men who have suffered so much on our behalf.
I should like also to mention this point. It has been discussed in the past. It concerns the hon. gentleman who is occupying the chair at this moment. The veterans affairs committee went to Europe in 1966. Its function was to attend a number of ceremonies, to visit battlefields and visit Canadian cemeteries. We discovered that there are 850 cemeteries in France. We visited the battlefields of the Second World War from Normandy to the Rhine. We went to Ortona and Casino. Then, we went to the first war battlefields, to Ypres, Vimy and Passchendale and to the others. It was a most moving experience. I know that there has been a certain amount of criticism of committees going out of this country. They are criticized even for travelling in this country. Nevertheless, I
believe completely that that was one of the most valuable trips, for want of a better word, that any committee has ever taken.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On that trip, Mr. Speaker, you were the Chairman of the committee. I think I speak for all who were there when I say that we found Your Honour to be a gentleman; able, kind, efficient and sympathetic. I became better acquainted with Your Honour. It was a pleasure to be with you at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Chester MacRae: Recently I read an editorial on remembrance. On the 25th anniversary of D-Day, one year ago, I had hoped to be in Europe. However, a heart attack intervened. Some of my colleagues attended, including the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), both of whom served in France on D-Day. In Holland there is a memorial to the Canadian Scottish, a very fine Canadian regiment. Among the Europeans, the Dutch people were among the most horribly treated by the Nazis. Under Hitler's tyranny some unspeakable brutalities occurred. Recently, I spoke with a widow who is now living in Fredericton. She informed me that when the Germans left her village in Holland near the end of the war most of the men were already in slave labour camps. The last act of the Gestapo and the S.S. troops was to take the 17 remaining men in the village, mostly teenage boys and old men, line them up against a wall and shoot them. The Dutch have much to remember.
A year ago a group, mostly former officers, placed a wreath at the memorial there to the Canadian Scottish. After the wreath was placed some young lads, 17, 18 or 19 years of age, tore down the wreath, stamped it into the ground and insulted the Canadians standing there. Of course, the older people were horrified. They apologized and made amends. An editorial regarding these young people stated, "How can they be expected to remember what they were not around to forget?". But there are still a great many Canadians who are here to remember. There is no more important body of Canadian citizens than those who wore a uniform and served in time of war, and no more important body than the women and children who waited for a husband or father who in so many cases did not return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Chester MacRae: I support the motion of my distinguished and gallant comrade in arms, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the subamendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). With all the sincerity at my command, I urge the minister not to delay any longer than necessary the introduction of the best possible legislation for these very important Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 27, 1970


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and pleased, like those hon. members who had the floor before me, with this opportunity to take part in the debate on the important motion introduced by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), whom, besides, I wish to congratulate.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to congratulate also the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) for the very elaborate speech he delivered a while ago, supplying us with many explanations and interesting and useful information concerning his work. All of us recognize that he was a most devoted and dynamic chairman of the Committee on veterans affairs.
It is therefore my pleasure to express my opinion on the motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
This motion is actually quite interesting and comes at the right time since we have just finished the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and the debate dealing with the adoption of the measures which the government has had to take to deal with certain problems threatening the peace in this country.
The government is encouraged to introduce a bill aimed at implementing as soon as possible the recommendations of the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and one cannot but be delighted. So is it in so far as increases in the allowances paid to veterans are concerned. It is normal that Canadians hope that the upgrading of allowances will allow all veterans to face the current increase in the cost of living.
We are very happy to have the opportunity to discuss this motion, with the hope that effective legislation will be passed soon. Veterans have the same needs as other citizens, but they have merits that others do not have.
While some other Canadian citizens were able to take advantage of their younger years in order to prepare for their future, by getting an education which would allow them to practice a trade or profession, ensuring their welfare and that of their families, those veterans sacrificed many years of their youth.
And the purpose of their activities during those years they sacrificed, so to speak, was certainly most sublime. This was the defence of our country, of freedom-which gives us cause for reflection, these days-of democracy, and Christianity.
The veterans I know best are of course those of my riding of Rimouski. Several of them come regularly to see me. Then I am able to ascertain that their needs are very easy to meet and that the government should more and more look into their problems in order to give them the help they deserve.
There are some of them who, after having lost the best years of their lives, as I said earlier, are facing financial and other difficulties. There is at present no special measure to help them.
There are others who, after having met with accidents which cannot easily be documented at times-accidents
Veterans Allowance Increases which could have occurred as they were performing their duties-are suffering terrible pain and are extremely handicapped. There is perhaps a lack of specific organizations to study their cases in order to apply the law in their favour and that of their family.
Sometimes, they do not get the proper kind of counsel when going before the Appeals Board. They often lack money and sufficient education to properly inform counsel defending them.
It might, in certain cases, be appropriate to have legislation authorizing them to avail themselves of the assistance of independent counsel, or, as we say in Quebec, of lawyers in private practice.
There should not be undue emphasis, in order not to mislead the Canadian people, on the fact that the government or Parliament delays taking active and efficient interest in presumably bringing forth a bill since, after all, legislation for the purpose of assisting veterans does exist.
When, a little over five years ago, the government established the Woods Committee, other people realized how important the problem was. Within the framework of the country's overall policy it was desirable, while helping veterans as much as possible, to proceed with some caution. As a rule commissions cannot get their work done quickly.
It is said that the report was tabled in 1968, or thereabouts, and I find it normal that the government should have prepared a white paper to make it easier to pass suitable legislation.
Since we are living under a democratic system, it is necessary that the representatives of the people may express their views on these issues. Even though commissions of scientists had scrutinized these questions, the committee went to work. The hon. member for Ottawa West said earlier how exhaustive the study was and with what determination all hon. members discussed the matter for the greatest benefit of veterans.
The committee report was brought before the House in June 1970, before the summer adjournment. At the beginning of this new session, we are precisely talking about legislation to be introduced eventually.
As for the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I listened to it with much interest. While he was depicting the situation to us, I noticed his experience, the ease with which he spoke of these matters, his knowledge and his skill. Generally speaking, I share his views on this subject. As for retroactivity to April 1, 1970 for veterans' allowances I feel that his arguments are very interesting. I also wonder why he draws so much attention to other problems.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I support the principle of the motion and the amendment and I am happy to find that some concern is shown for our veterans.
I hope that the government will, as soon as possible, introduce a bill that will satisfy the wishes of those who have fought for our country and our principles in other lands throughout the world.
614

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
Mr. Speaker, when we have shown our veterans that, together, we have endeavoured to improve their lot and to enable them to be active citizens despite handicaps or diseases which are a direct consequence of their activities on war theatres, then all of us can make a contribution to the progress of Canada. I hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) will take the necessary steps in this connection.
[DOT]	(4:40 p.m.)


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me much pleasure to take part in this debate today. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and, speaking as a relative newcomer to this chamber, I can say that my service on that committee has been one of my more rewarding experiences as a member of the House of Commons. In that committee there seems to be no sparring for political advantage; everyone seems sincerely and honestly to be working for the benefit of the veterans of this country.
I support wholeheartedly the motion moved so eloquently by my hon. friend the member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). No one who listened to his speech could help but be moved by the sincerity with which it was delivered and the well chosen language in which it was couched. I congratulate him upon the timeliness as well as upon the content of this motion.
The theme of my own remarks is the need for urgent action. Other hon. members have pointed out that there are certain landmarks evident in the course of our progress toward effective legislation. Mention has been made of the work of the Woods committee, perhaps the beginning of this long road, and of the deliberations of the veterans committee of the House of Commons under the impartial chairmanship of the hon. member for Ottawa-West (Mr. Francis). The report of that committee was tabled in this House. Then, it was in the hands of the Minister of Veterans Affairs so that he could bring forth the much needed legislation. But since that time I fear we have had nothing but promises that the question is being studied, that his officials are working on the legislation. This legislation has been long awaited. I have no doubt that the officials are doing their best. But surely this is not good enough. How long must we wait? Perhaps it is not unfair to say that we are beginning to wonder whether the government is so callous as to wait for the law of attrition to come into operation; for the inexorable passage of time to take its toll of our veterans in the country. Those men who risked their all in the service of their country surely deserve a better fate.
[DOT]	(4:50 p.m.)
Reference has been made in the debate to the timeliness of this motion in view of the fact that in two weekstime we will celebrate Remembrance Day. This was alluded to by the mover of the motion. Surely this legislation, so long in production and in introduction, would be the finest tribute to the fallen and the brightest wreath for the cenotaph of memory that the minister could lay in the ceremony that remembers our veterans.

In honouring them in this way, we would not only be honouring those who have paid the supreme sacrifice; we would also be giving desperately needed assistance to the living, to those who are barely existing on present veterans allowances.
The other facet of the motion deals with the very great need for an increase in our veterans allowances. Perhaps it would be redundant or repetitious again to draw attention to the poverty line laid down by the Economic Council of Canada in 1968, which was set at $1,800 for a single person. Surely, during these inflationary years the cost of living has increased much beyond that figure, yet the allowance for a single veteran is only $1,260 a year. The poverty line was set for a married person at $3,000 a year, yet a married veteran receives an allowance of only $2,100 a year. I suggest that is adequate evidence that there is a long awaited need for an increase in our veterans allowances.
If that is not enough, Mr. Speaker, let me inform you that any member of the House who has visited a Legion branch or a branch of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Associations to talk to the men knows that many of these veterans are living in conditions of what I would call object poverty and despair. As has been pointed out, when these people are able to earn a few extra dollars by one means or another, this money is immediately deducted from their veterans allowance. Not because our officials want to do this; in the main they have the welfare and the good of our veterans at heart. But the officials are tied by the act and regulations under which they work. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, if it is necessary to bring in two bills, then let us do so. But let us see if we cannot do something to assist people living in the conditions I have described.
I said at the beginning that I would be brief, and I conclude simply with this. I urge, with all the sincerity, at my command, that the government bring in the long awaited bill or bills to benefit our veterans. Let the minister rest assured that he will receive all the assistance necessary from members on both sides of the House to give the legislation speedy passage.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau); health and welfare-measures to reduce the cost of hospital, medical and dental care; the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart); national defence-reconsideration of closing of Rivers air base; the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan); fisheries-initiatives to offset overfishing by foreign draggers-Oceanographic Studies.
October 27, 1970



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marshall:
That this House urges the government to implement at an early date by way of the appropriate legislative amendments the recommendations contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs dated 9 June 1970 and in addition thereto to provide for early payment of adequate increases in the allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act 1952, as amended.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at
the outset that I welcome the motion. I particularly welcome its timing, so very close to November 11, and also that it has been moved before the promised legislation has been presented to the House. Members of the House who have been widely interested in the welfare of veterans endorse any vehicle that highlights our responsibilities to our veterans.
I was a little disturbed, though not particularly surprised, at the comment of the mover of the motion that the Liberals or the members of this party should stand up and be counted, that they should raise cain in caucus about expediting this proposed legislation. I say to the hon. member that I hope he is not falling into the same trap he fell into in 1968 when he underestimated the ability, talent, intelligence and independence of the members of this party.
Let me also inform the hon. member that it is not only in the quiet and secrecy of the caucus that Liberal members put forward their points of view. Before the national convention of the Dieppe veterans and the P.O.W. association I spoke in favour of the kind of action that this resolution envisages. In other words, we are not pressing the government quietly and secretly in caucus, but doing so before the public and in public print, as is the case in the House today.
As a member of the committee on veterans affairs, I feel that the members of the committee have good reason to be proud of their efforts on behalf of the veterans. This committee is probably one of the most non-partisan committees that exists. All members of the committee who have spoken today have highlighted this fact. It has been my privilege to sit as a member of this non-partisan committee, and I think it is the most non-partisan committee of which I have been a member during the two years I have been a Member of Parliament.
I think tribute must also be paid to those members of our veterans organizations who collaborated to present the consensus of their member groups. I think mention should also be made of the splendid presentation made by Mr. Don Thompson and by Mr. Chadderton, who had the job of focusing the needs and requirements of our veterans organizations for the committee in a way we
Veterans Allowance Increases could understand them, as well as high lighting the salient features and points that these groups wanted to make.
We have received some splendid commendation in The Legion magazine, which called the veterans affairs committee report a victory for the democratic process. I should like to say amen to that. The manner in which the report was documented and presented should command the attention of all who would like the government to change the legislation. However, in order to encourage the success of the democratic process, I agree with the mover of the motion that the legislation must be presented as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so.
Although every member of this House is familiar with the history, I think it should be pointed out once again that there were 148 recommendations made in the Woods committee report. And what a splendidly comprehensive and informative report it was. Following that, we had the government's white paper with its comments on the areas in the Woods committee report that it was prepared to accept, the things it would like to change, and those recommendations the government found unacceptable.
Then, following that, there were some 23 appearances by representatives of veterans groups alone, to say nothing of several other meetings held with officials from the department. I was particularly pleased that the veterans representatives saw fit to meet with the officials of the department when a misunderstanding of interpretation arose so that the true facts could be put before them, rather than what one person thought a section meant compared with what another person thought it meant. Then, they appeared before us with a consensus of interpretation as to what the white paper and the Woods committee report had to say. Following all this, we presented our committee report. It would seem to me that based on this report, the history of investigation and discussion of other reports, we now have all the background material. It is now time to act. As one who sits as a member on the government side I recognize that governments must establish priorities, but it would be my feeling that the veterans have every right to insist that their welfare rates are very close to the top of the list of priorities.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
On November 11 we will be reminded not to forget. We will be reminded that this generation saw their duty and accepted it. I suggest that we should not lose sight of the fact, as Mr. Robertson said in his book "The Shame and the Glory", written about Dieppe and that group, "these were a generation of remarkable Canadians". Probably at no other time in our history has there been such a united Canada, and our veterans led us along this path. I am sure that each and every member of the service proudly wore the "Canada" Patch on his shoulder. A significant step toward our independence was taken when we declared war, not automatically on the coattails of Great Britain, but after some consideration so that it was, in fact, a Canadian decision.
23226-40a

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
The least we can do for the deceased veteran is to remove as much stress and strain from the family he left as is possible. We have splendid legislation and only recently made amendments to the Children of War Dead Act. This is a good piece of legislation. We also have to recognize that among all too many veterans there is an apathy. I say this is an apathy, not laziness. Our most sophisticated medical opinion has now given recognition to this fact. It is abundantly clear now that men who suffer from this kind of apathy do so usually because of the service they performed during the war years or as a result of the effects of their incarceration as prisoners of war. We must also not forget those who are less capable of earning a living as a result of injuries suffered during the war.
It is my feeling that if a veteran is to be helped he must be helped by the members in this House. Veterans have a splendid record of self-help through funds established to assist those who are temporarily financially embarrassed or who need immediate cash assistance. This, at best, is a stopgap measure and the kind of thing that should never be necessary. To date the veterans groups have accepted their responsibility through the presentation of their brief to the committee. The Legion groups have, in addition, a scheme for calling the Members of Parliament before their various meetings to speak to them. They invariably ask us this question each and every time: Mr. Member of Parliament, what have you done for me lately? It is my hope that after this legislation there will be a regrouping so that other gaps in the legislation may be plugged.
We must always be vigilant to the needs of veterans. We in this House of all people have an obligation not to short change the veteran or, as the poem says, "We will not break faith with those who died". We will and we must remember the veterans. It was surprising for me to hear that Canada had no prisoner of war association. I appreciate there is the Hong Kong veterans group and also the Dieppe and POW veterans organization. There is no POW association as such.
The Hong Kong veterans position, as so clearly pointed out by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), was such that they did not need a large association. Their plight was so obvious the public recognized that they must be helped by the government. The Dieppe and POW associations have endeavoured in the past to have medical examinations conducted to ascertain if there was a pattern of illness running through these particular veterans. About 1,600 medical records were studied by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We seem to forget, when talking about POWs, that the Dieppe POW's were roped and later chained for a period of one year. There was always the possibility in their minds that they might not come out of it alive. Toward the end of their incarceration, a number of them were forced to go on long marches. One of the veterans who appeared before our committee told us of a 700 mile forced march.
The reason I comment on the necessity for a prisoner of war association is that during their incarceration there were no medical records kept for these prisoners. It is for

this reason I should like to see the benefit of the doubt clause exercised in favour of these veterans.
There is one more point I should like to leave with the House, Mr. Speaker. Somehow we have to get through to the younger generation, that generation after mine. I was not old enough to serve in the second world war and my heroes were not Rocket Richard, Gordie Howe and other hockey players. My heroes were Colonel Merritt and those who served in Canada's forces. Somehow we have to get through to the younger generation which has never known war, but some of whom are the most violent protesters, that veterans do not glorify war. When they attend services on November 11 they are paying tribute to brave comrades, dead and alive and the strongest anti-war sentiment is expressed by those who participated in war. I was surprised and disturbed to hear that in some areas thought has been given to creating a civil disturbance during the Remembrance Day parade when those veterans are paying tribute to dead comrades. I hope these misguided individuals will not be carried to that extreme. I hope they will appreciate that through this kind of remembrance the veterans are not glorifying war but are pointing to the horrors of war.
In summary I want to say this. We must not lose sight of the need for priority for veterans. They were successful before our committee. They were persuasive in their arguments and they made many of us change our point of view. The democratic process worked. Legislation is required soon. I have every confidence in the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube); I am sure he will take this action and take it in a hurry. If he is in doubt about this I would plead with him to rid himself of this doubt and bring before this country the kind of legislation the veterans have urged.
In the National Legion News for June, following the report of the committee, these comments were made:
The long-awaited parliamentary committee recommendations on the Woods committee report have won warm approval from Canada's veterans.
The report of the committee of veterans affairs, presented Monday in the House, embraced many of the recommendations of the original Woods report. The newly elected president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Judge Redmond Roche, Montreal, described it as a "significant step forward in the restructuring of Canada's pension program for veterans".
He termed it a most helpful document which should form the basis of new legislation which will bring about long sought improvements in veterans' pensions.
This is my concluding word. Judge Roche, speaking on behalf of the 11 national veterans organizations, has expressed hope that the government will proceed with the drafting of new legislation based on the report.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I say, in rising to speak on this most important motion before us, that I intend to be exceedingly brief. Members who have spoken before me have fully and adequately conveyed almost all my thoughts and sentiments on matters affecting the veterans of this country. May I say that about the only thing with which I disagree, is the confidence in the Minister of Veterans
October 27, 1970

Affairs (Mr. Dube) expressed by the previous speaker. I am not prepared to give him a vote of confidence until we have action, not excuses, legislation and not a series of promises. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it is only after action that the minister will be entitled to a strong expression of confidence. I hope the time is not too distant when I, too, can express confidence in the minister.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Without any fear of contradiction, I can say I feel certain hon. members of the House are unanimous concerning the need for changes in the legislation, changes in the regulations and changes in policy. Because I am so strongly convinced that statement is correct, I shall not take the time to repeat what has already been said concerning the excellence of the work of the Woods commission and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I believe it is obvious that the only thing that requires repetition is that in the time available as many of us as possible should express to the minister and the government our belief that there is a matter of urgency involved and a need for action. I most certainly agree with hon. members who have said this is a matter of top priority. It certainly is in the constituency of Vancouver East.
There are thousands of veterans in Vancouver East, and thousands of them are members of veterans organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion and the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans of Canada. All the time they say: when, oh when, is something going to be done? Is the government delaying because month by month and year by year so many of us are dying that there will be fewer and fewer in respect of whom the government will have to accept a greater financial responsibility? This is what the veterans are saying, everybody knows it. I think it is shameful that it should be necessary for our veterans to engage in this type of thinking. It certainly is necessary, however, when we realize that the studies were first commenced over five years ago and we are still awaiting the legislation from the government.
I said I would not repeat what has already been brought to the attention of the minister and the government, but I should like to add the thought that I hope in his deliberations the minister is prepared not only to bring in legislation dealing with the Hong Kong veterans but also Canadian prisoners of war in other areas. One only has to speak to the veterans, as I do so often being a member of both the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans of Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion, to be aware of the effects of the imprisonment, starvation and hell they went through in the camps in Europe, some of them for long periods. I believe this merits immediate consideration. I hope the government will keep this in mind.
I most certainly hope there will be immediate action to resolve a great many of the veterans problems which are brought to the attention of Members of Parliament. I refer of course in particular to the vicious, pressing situation surrounding those who of necessity receive the
Veterans Allowance Increases War Veterans Allowance. This has been mentioned by many members, particularly by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, I wish to add my plea for immediate action in this regard because of the numerous cases which come to my attention and which I know come to the attention of other hon. members. I should like to stress something that perhaps is one of the greatest matters of urgency, apart from a change in the regulations and increases in pensions. I refer to the need to get away from something that I know must be a major concern to Members of Parliament in handling veterans problems. I refer to the fact that quite often it is necessary for a member to say he cannot do anything for a veteran because the board states that the condition is a pre-enlistment condition. If I have ever heard a hypocritical statement that is it.
When the government of Canada needed men and women to offer their lives and limbs for Canada, these men and women were examined by doctors and their cards said that they were A-l. Then, they went overseas and thousands did not return. Yet, years later when those who did return suffer from disabilities caused by their experience in war, they are turned down because of a pre-enlistment condition. Mr. Speaker, I know all of us express in our hearts the opinion that if the man has offered his life for Canada when Canada required his services, and when Canada and the government said he was A-l, no government and no country has the right years later to say he cannot receive the allowance he requires because of a pre-enlistment condition. Because of my experience over a long period in handling the cases of veterans I wanted to mention, in addition to all the other arguments, the necessity for recognition of the urgency involved before too many of our veterans pass on to the Great Beyond.
I noted with interest the remarks of previous members about Remembrance Day being two weeks away. Thousands upon thousands of people across Canada will be standing before the Cenotaphs of our country honouring the fallen. That is as it should be. But it brings to mind the statement of the men and women who offered their lives in war, "We shall not fail". The veterans of Canada, Sir, did not fail this country in time of need. I think perhaps the greatest honour we can give, not only to those who died but more specifically to those who came through and lived, is to say that by November 11 the government shall introduce all the various pieces of legislation required to meet the needs of the veterans and to bring into effect the acceptable sections of the report of the Woods commission and of the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I conclude by saying, sir, the Canadian veterans did not fail us. Let us not fail them.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. I do so at somewhat short notice. I was very interested in, and I should like to say here and now that I support, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Mar-

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases shall). His constituency does not quickly come to mind but I heard the hon. gentleman's speech and I will remember it for a long time.
When you recognized me, Mr. Speaker you referred to me as the hon. member for Victoria. In Victoria, we have many veterans who are disabled and many of then-dependents, and the next of kin of deceased veterans. I think Victoria, in particular, has a reputation for being a city which did not spare its sons to defend what it thought was just cause, whether it was in the Boer War, in World War I and World War II or in the Korean War. Speaking personally, in my little class at school in Victoria, of the 13 pupils 12 were veterans of the second world war and the thirteenth could not be a veteran because he was serving in the U.S. merchant marine.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
When we speak of veterans pensions-and this is one of the few points that has not been brought up so far in this debate to my knowledge-many people think that all veterans receive pensions. We all know that this is not the case. We are speaking here today not of everyone who has served this country but of a special few, and of the survivors of those special few. I enjoy my work on the Veterans Affairs Committee because we help each other to help others, and surely that is what Parliament is all about. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that veterans in good health in this House and in the various veterans organizations, of which there are 11 across the country, are not trying to help themselves. We are trying to help others: the disabled, the next of kin of our war dead, and the so-called burnt-out veterans who cannot make their way in this competitive and complicated world. These are the people we are trying to help. We all do it in our own way.
I look around me and I see many of the hon. members who have already spoken on this and on the other side of the House who have helped out in special ways. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) spoke about the Hong Kong veterans. A great number of us put in reports and recommendations to the Woods committee when it was conducting its hearings. I put forward a series of recommendations at that time, and now I would like to put in a special plug for the benefit of doubt clause to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who just preceded me. I feel very strongly about this. I am speaking about the benefit of doubt as it relates in particular to veterans who served overseas, because as you, Mr. Speaker, know and as every other veteran knows, veterans who have served Overseas have often been denied the benefit of doubt because they have no proper medical documentation. Every veteran here will agree with me when I say that the best documented veteran is the soldier, the sailor or the airman who stayed behind in Canada. Naturally, he has the best documents because he did not have a chance to lose them anywhere. So, as I say, I would like to put in this plug for the overseas veteran who is suffering as a result of the so-called benefit of doubt clause, and I hope it is removed soon, the sooner the better.
The other day when I was at the Calgary airport I saw the now elderly and somewhat tattered Lancaster aircraft mounted outside the airport as a monument to the past. For me it was a poignant sight and it set me to thinking of our war dead, of our veterans, and of our efforts on their behalf. When I say "our efforts" I am thinking not only of the House of Commons and its Veterans Affairs Committee but also of the various veterans organizations and groups which have appeared from time to time before our committee to put forward their ideas and to give us the benefit of their advice. I had an opportunity to work closely at one time-and I am happy to say we were rewarded with some success a few years ago-with one of these groups. I am referring to the Hong Kong veterans. I will not say any more about their plight because I think much has already been said on this subject, but certainly we must not stop in our efforts to help them until every last one of them receives the minimum 48 per cent disability pension which will give protection of some sort to their wives and families.
Looking at this aircraft on the pedestal outside Calgary against the backdrop of events in Canada today, I wondered what had happened to our sense of values. We may personally and individually place the welfare of our veterans and their dependents or their next of kin high on our own scale of priorities, but this sense of values of which I speak, and its high place in our personal scale, must be reflected and incorporated in the legislation passed in this House. I can find no fault with the motion brought before the House by the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's-St. Barbe, and I urge the government to take speedy action to bring about a sizeable increase in both the range and the scale of benefits available to veterans and their survivors. I ask the government to go beyond the point of restoring the purchasing power of the former pensions and allowances. To my mind, those pensions and allowances were far too low, and I ask the government to remember that.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Finally, I ask the government to remember that when we enter into wars we have to realize that there is always a price to pay and it takes a long time to pay because it is a price in blood and a price in money. We are asking the government today to see to it that the nation does its duty by paying money. This is the least expensive and easiest form of payment. We should not have to wait much longer. Judging by the tone of this debate so far and by my experience with other veterans legislation that has been introduced by the government in this House, any legislation that they may care to introduce to alleviate the situation described here so eloquently today by other hon. members would, I am sure, pass very quickly. I am equally sure hon. members would delay not one whit any other government business that the government may wish to bring before the House. So my final plea, Mr. Speaker, is through you to the minister and the government to let us now get on with our job.

October 27, 1970


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I of course support the motion and I am only sorry that we have to raise this matter again. It is now 25 years since the fighting stopped in Europe, and somewhat less than that since the boys came home from Korea. But in my opinion the occurrences of the last few weeks have clearly shown that in the final analysis there is no prosperity, no freedom in a rough world except when some of our citizens pay for it with their lives, their health and their devotion. On behalf of these people who cannot be here to beg for themselves I am proud to be able to be here and beg. I am only sorry that we have to beg.
Many years ago the people of Canada, through their representatives in the House of Commons, passed the Pension Act. I believe that act is quite adequate to handle the situation. There is no necessity for a long report like the Woods committee report, which comprised some 1,300 pages in its final form, outlining in clear terms the duty of the Canadian people and of the Canadian Parliament to the people I have mentioned. Nevertheless, we now have that report. It was somewhat expensive to obtain. It is comprehensive. The Woods committee went into almost every phase of the Pension Act. As a result it has underlined what was clearly understood before its work began-that the people of Canada want to give those who have served their country so nobly and well, particularly in war, full compensation within the budget that they can meet.
The act was not foolishly generous. It only purports to give these men and their families a minimum return, which is nothing less than to put them back into civilian life as nearly as possible to the competitive position they occupied before they joined the forces. The level at which it was hoped to return them to civilian life was that of an untrained labourer. Perhaps some people would say that here is democracy working at its best. Equality was the dominant thought in the minds of the taxpayers of Canada when the Pension Act was first passed. They understood it would be administered in the fairest way possible. Section 70, which I think is the key to the whole act, stated in clear terms that the benefit of the doubt was to be given to veterans.
For reasons which the preceding speaker clearly brought out, the best soldiers, best sailors and best airmen are frequently incapable of documenting how they lost their health, unless they were wounded by gunshot, shrapnel or mine explosion to the extent that their wounds are self-evident. But it is very difficult for those who served in the front line and those who were prisoners of war to produce any document to prove that their failure in health is due to their war service.
I repeat that the people of Canada, through their members of Parliament, placed a section in the act stating that the benefit of the doubt was to be given to these men. If the benefit of the doubt had been given to them, there would be no necessity for a great deal of the Woods report. But the Hong Kong veterans had the greatest difficulty over the last 25 years even in getting a proper hearing because the people who interpreted the act asked them, "Where are your papers? Where is your medical
Veterans Allowance Increases evidence?" But, Mr. Speaker, we saw men blinded by malnutrition. We saw 190-pound men reduced to a handful of bones.
I had the privilege to help some of these people off the troopships when they came home. Their mothers did not recognize them; their wives did not recognize them. Because a third of them were blind at that time, they were not able to recognize their mothers and wives. Do you need the benefit of the doubt under conditions like that? But it has taken us 25 years of argument, hairsplitting and voluminous reports to reach the stage where we have achieved unanimous approval of measures to meet their needs.
The members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs were unanimous in the recommendations. Most of them are veterans themselves and know the story well. That committee unanimously recommended immediate action. I am very proud of the members who sat on it, from the very amiable chairman right on down through all party lines. They worked hard. They gave up several weeks of their own time to sit on the committee, to make sure that a concise and accurate report was given to the House.
But what did we get then, Mr. Speaker? We got delay. We got talk about priorities. We need no talk about priorities in this matter. Where do we put those men to whom we owe our affluent society, all the great chances we have in Canada, all the wealth we have, all the freedom we have? All we are asking is the absolute minimum required to keep them in decent clothing and shelter. The minimum pay of an untrained labourer in the public service is all we are asking for them.
The Standing Committee has given its unanimous approval. I do not know why there should be delay. I for one would be willing, without debate, to vote the necessary money. I am willing to have my income tax raised- and that is a rare concession-if that is what is holding matters up. If it is only lack of money, let us pay it. Let us borrow the money if we do not have it, and pay it to these people. I do not want to go into a long list of the frills that we have enjoyed, but I deny that there is in this case any valid argument on the necessity for weighing priorities. This matter is of the highest priority. It is a debt we all owe.
The only argument that could be advanced for not giving an increase here and now is that we do not have the money. But I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say we are one of the most prosperous young nations on earth, that we have the answers to most of our economic problems, that we have things under control, but that we cannot pay this miserable debt to the people who most need assistance.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is a great opportunity for our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who perhaps in the past has been misled by his own ideology or training in peacetime schools, to show us that now, in the age of his maturity he can give

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
us the kind of leadership in peacetime that we expected in wartime for our soldiers. It is not necessary for one to be a veteran in order to reward our soldiers. The present situation gives the Prime Minister a great opportunity to show that he is now willing to stand where Canadian servicemen stood in 1939 when they faced physical danger.
If the Prime Minister has only to face political danger, I think he ought to be willing to give us leadership in this regard and to tell an unwilling cabinet and an unwilling treasury board to approve improvements in veterans legislation. I challenge him directly to say that to the cabinet. If he gives his approval to measures which will improve the lot of the veterans, I do not think many members of the cabinet, of the treasury board or those on his side of the House will oppose him. They will go along with him.
The members who served on the Veterans Affairs Committee said unanimously that these improvements are long overdue. Lest people think that I, along with the Veterans Affairs Committee, am trying to take credit for the country's awareness of the plight of the veterans, let me hasten to say that the Canadian Legion has carried on this great campaign on behalf of fallen comrades and those who have been left behind. If being turned down on many occasions could discourage some people from acting, the organization representing the Hong Kong veterans would long ago have quit trying to do something. Nevertheless, they showed the same fortitude in carrying on this campaign on behalf of their needy brethren and others as their brethren showed in the past. They made a heroic attempt to see that the right thing was done.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say that I appreciate the effort and assistance of Dr. Richardson who brought in a magnificent report on behalf of the Hong Kong veterans. I think his report would have been unnecessary if section 70 of the act had been properly utilized. He documented the ills from which most of these boys suffered; ills such as avitaminosis, which in plain, layman's language means starving to death slowly. That magnificent report gave us an opportunity to act correctly because it brought clearly to our attention the very specific needs of this group of men.
I was greatly heartened, Mr. Speaker, when I heard that the Hong Kong veterans were to be the beneficiaries of specific legislation. We gave unanimous consent to this proposal in committee, so far as we could speak for all members of the House, and said we would not oppose the legislation in the slightest degree. Also, we gave credit to the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and of the Department of National Health and Welfare for knowing exactly what was needed so far as veterans were concerned. We have agreed unanimously over the years that these veterans should receive special attention and that we should set aside substantial sums of money in order to help them. Their priority must be brought up to date.
In Canada we have no system of rewarding a man for valour. We invest him, when the situation merits, with a plain red ribbon. But the man who carries this plain red
ribbon-I am referring to the Victoria Cross, the highest award we can give our heroes-will no doubt say that there are many equally brave deeds which have never been recorded. I suggest that the greatest award we can give our heroes is in taking soon a new look at our veterans legislation, so that we can reward those who served so well in our time of need and look after their wives and families who, in many cases suffered even more than the soldiers who had comradeship to bolster their morale and share their burdens even unto death.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if any member of this chamber wanted to select a motion for debate to demonstrate to all Canadians that it is possible for us in the House of Commons, despite our varying orientations on many issues of policy, to attain an amazing degree of unanimity, he could have selected none better than the motion now before the House. Indeed, the motion does credit to its mover. It is one that I hasten to support.
For my part I wish to comment on a matter that has not been mentioned today in the many eloquent speeches on varying aspects of the topic before us. There is a tendency in our culture for people who are not veterans to be embarrassed when someone mentions veterans affairs. They assume that non-veterans should hold their peace and leave the discussion of veterans affairs to the "pros", to the people with actual experience. I suggest to the House that a fairly plausible argument could substantiate the opposite point of view. It is this. It seems to me that we ought to be pleased in Canada that we have not experienced a major conflict since the Korean war and that therefore we do not have a continuing supply of newly created veterans. It is a good thing not to be in the "veteran-making" business.
Secondly, it seems to me that we ought to be very pleased that our young Canadian men and women who have reached their adult years following the Second World War are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are veterans. Like others in this chamber who have spoken this afternoon, I am one of those. However, I have the good fortune to come from an area of eastern Ontario that has a large number of Legions. There are seven in my constituency. I know personally a number of veterans who keep me well informed from the "inside" point of view.
In dealing with comments that have been made in preceding speeches, I say very forcefully that I completely concur with what several speakers have said. I think the first member to mention the subject to which I am about to refer was the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae). Other hon. members also spoke on the matter. I concur in the suggestion that the Hong Kong veterans are entitled to special consideration. They have a special claim, and this fact should be reiterated in this House time and again.
The circumstances of their lives are more difficult than those of some other veterans who were treated better.
In addition, I think hon. members all know of the sense of frustration felt by families in which a veteran has

October 27, 1970

died. I refer to the sense of frustration in particular of people who have become aware, as most Canadian families which include a veteran are now aware, that we are literally on the eve of a significant overhaul of our veterans legislation. Constituents have come to me recently to express a keen sense of frustration and even bitterness about a veteran, a member of the family, who has died before this progressive step has been completed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I assume that the reason for placing this subject before the House today is that we are so close to November 11. Approximately one year ago, on November 7, 1969, the member for York North (Mr. Danson) introduced Bill C-146, to amend the Remembrance Day Act. The gist of the bill was that the Sunday prior to November 11 would be a national day of remembrance or memorial. As the hon. member stated at that time, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is at present, ignored by large segments of our society and misunderstood by equally large segments.
There are two choices in this matter. One alternative is to hold the line and, in spite of the worst fears of many of us, witness the continued erosion of this very significant day of remembrance in the history of Canada and, indeed, in the history of the world. The alternative is to reorganize and restructure. I am not sure of this quotation, but I think it was Cicero who said, "He who is ignorant of what happened before he was born is destined to remain a child for ever." This quotation came to mind this afternoon when I listened to the hon. member for York-Sunbury tell the House of the incident where a group of Dutch youths tore down a wreath which had been placed on a memorial by a number of Canadian veterans. I suppose for some there is a thin line between being a warmaker or a warmonger and, on the other hand, holding in reverence the casualties of war.
The purpose of the Woods committee was to analyse the situa ion in which veterans now find themselves so that our society might better, and in very practical ways demonstrate our corporate reverence for those who paid the price and suffered the pain of war without idolizing or praising that which must be diligently avoided. We must aid war victims, not nurture reference for war. I suggest that w.e should do something-I do not pretend to have a brilliant insight into this matter-along the lines suggested by the hon. member for York North, that is, something to help our young people better appreciate the significance of Remembrance Day. We might thereby create a better mood in respect of this whole subject.
An hon. member mentioned there had been rumours that during the parades for Remembrance Day ceremonies this year some people were planning demonstrations on the assumption that those who parade on November 11 are swordrattlers, warmongers and hawks, and if you are not that kind of person you should oppose them. This is a dastardly misreading and misunderstanding of the facts. Because of this situation I again looked at the bill of the hon. member for York North. I know he was vilified by many people in our country, even by some
Veterans Allowance Increases
loyal veterans. But perhaps we could do something so that Canadians would seriously and positively appreciate what we try to do on November 11. If one had \o help war victims, without idolizing war, in the days of sword and spear, it became all the more essential in the days of bullets and bombs and a must in our day of mushrooms and missiles.
Every member of this House must, as I do, receive letters and delegations on behalf of veterans whose situations are tragic. As the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) pointed out, all veterans do not automatically receive a pension. I am continually amazed at the number of Canadians who somehow assume that by virtue of being a veteran one receives a pension. People write to their Member of Parliament and ask why a certain veteran is not receiving a pension. It is obviously a widely held belief that all veterans automatically receive pensions, but as the hon. member for Victoria correctly stated, this is not true.
Obviously, for a few veterans a present situation in which they find themselves, unfortunate as it may be, cannot be linked in any direct way to war service. We are all aware of this and I need not belabor the point. However, for some there is a linkage. Therefore, time is of the essence as far as the implementation of this massive updating of our veterans legislation is concerned. When veterans die while such sweeping improvements are just around the corner, there is naturally a sense of frustration, sometimes bitter, not only by the next of kin but by all sensitive members of the House and indeed all Canadians who champion this cause.
I firmly recognize and appreciate the fact that war veterans legislation is being given proper priority by the government of Canada, especially by our distinguished Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). I wish to read two paragraphs from the white paper on veterans pensions.
Since World War I, Canada's legislative programs for the rehabilitation and welfare of her ex-servicemen and their dependants have been recognized, internationally as well as nationally, as being broad in their scope and generous in their provisions. And this legislation has been kept flexible and dynamic; it has been amended regularly to meet the changing needs of those it serves, and to adjust it to changes in the concepts of social justice and in the Canadian economy.
Through the Pension Act, Canada endeavours to compensate as fairly as possible for the economic disadvantages caused by disability of bereavement which is related to military service. To place an accurate monetary value on human suffering and sorrow would be virtually impossible, because of the many imponderable and subjective factors involved.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to call it six o'clock. He has only two minutes left in which to speak. If hon. members agree, it might be better to allow him to finish his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murray Arndell McBride: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to emphasize the conclusions of the white paper. I concur in

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases the sentiments of the magnificent speech of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). I am aware, and I am sure hon. members recognize, that much of that which we try to recompense through veterans pension plans is without price and beyond cost. It is impossible to place an accurate monetary value on human suffering and sorrow. However, let it be clearly recorded that Canadians of all ages should be delighted to see more tax dollars, a larger part of the public purse, being used to aid that noble and diminishing number, the war veterans of Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may call it six o'clock, but it does not guarantee that he will be recognized as the first speaker at the commencement of the sitting this evening. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'oclock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with interest the debate upon which the House is now engaged. I begin my contribution by saying that I fully endorse the excellent motion which has been placed before the House by my hon. friend from Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). He is a fellow Nova Scotian who went far afield and has done well in the great province of Newfoundland. Of course, we shall always welcome him back when the time comes.
I also endorse the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Taken together, the motion and the amendment make a very forceful plea. The report of the Veterans Affairs Committee is, of course, founded upon the studies undertaken by the Woods committee; the background has been discussed in detail by other hon. members and I do not intend to repeat what they have said. Nevertheless, there are a number of aspects I wish to discuss; some of them may be called housekeeping or legal matters.
I agree with those who have said that the report which the committee made to this House and to the government was an excellent one. It covered most of the points made in the Woods committee report and set out the lines which it hoped the government would follow when introducing legislation affecting veterans. The government now has the report in its hands, and the question is: What kind of legislation will be brought in and when will it be introduced? Of course, we do not know precisely what is to be contained in the legislation and this is why we, as members of the opposition, are putting our ideas forward at this time.
There are certain provisions which I feel should be contained in any legislation to be placed before the
House. One of the recommendations contained in the report concerned the appeal procedure. As I recall the government's White Paper, it proposed the setting up of a directorate of pensions as a branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the effect of which would be to restrict opportunities for appeal. I trust the government will provide, in the legislation to be brought before Parliament, for a separate pension review board as recommended by the committee. This would afford veterans the opportunity, at their request, to submit pension cases for final review on the basis of a final interpretation of the act. This is most important. I can think of a number of veterans in my area and, for that matter, throughout the country who would undoubtedly have their files reopened if this course were adopted.
Another question which comes frequently to the attention of the Pension Commission and, undoubtedly, to the attention of hon. members, concerns the presumption of medical condition. This matter was referred to earlier today by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). It is possible that under the terms of the existing legislation the commission can do no other than reach the decisions it does. But since so many of these decisions are reached on the basis of a veteran's pre-enlistment medical condition, I must go along with the hon. member for Vancouver East in this respect. I trust that the legislation will deal with this question of the presumption of medical condition. The white paper, as I recall it, stated that if an adverse medical condition manifested itself within six months of a man's enlistment, it would be excluded from this presumption. The committee felt that this period should be limited to three months.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
To return to the question of the interpretation of the Pension Act, I recall sitting on several Veterans Affairs Committees and one clause that always gave us, and undoubtedly many veterans, problems was the benefit of the doubt clause. The Woods committee report proposed a completely new basis for the benefit of the doubt principle which would mean, in effect, that a pension adjudicator would be allowed to find in favour of a veteran's claim even though the veteran had not established his claim by a preponderance of evidence. In such a case the claim would be resolved in favour of the veteran rather than the government through its Department of Veterans Affairs.
To be fair to the government, the white paper recognized the problems that have arisen over the interpretion of this section of the act and proposed the rewriting of the section to incorporate guidelines in regard to what constituted the benefit of the doubt. Although I hope this proposal will be taken up, I contend the benefit of the doubt principle should be applied in favour of the veteran, not in favour of the government. A veteran should not have to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence.
I have also had quite a bit to do with veterans bureaux in the Atlantic area as well as in Ottawa, and I have nothing but praise for them. It has been suggested that the veterans bureaux are serving two masters, and I do

October 27, 1970

not think that this should be the case. I would support the conclusion agreed upon by the parliamentary committee and proposed by the Woods committee that the veterans bureaux should be established under a separate part of the Pension Act so they can report directly to the minister. They should be cast in the role of acting strictly as the applicant's advocate and should be relieved of the responsibility of reporting unfavourable evidence to the commission. Such a recommendation was endorsed in the government's white paper and supported by the parliamentary committee of which I was a member.
I have several files in my office in connection with members of the regular forces who have been injured while on duty. According to the relevant section of the act, members of the regular forces must show that any injuries were sustained in the course of duty. Sometimes this is quite difficult to prove. In some instances, where there was an irregularity, it has been held they were not acting in the course of their duty. For example, I recall a case concerning a young airman who was walking across an air base in this country, against a red traffic light, en route to the control tower when he was knocked down by a civilian vehicle. The commission did not rule whether he was injured in the course of his duty, but held that since he was guilty of contributory negligence at the time, he was not entitled to a pension. There is no provision in the act to deal with this situation.
The committee was of the view that the act should be revised to provide presumptions upon which a pension could be approved where death or disability had arisen from physical training, sport activity, transportation and other acts done as part of service operations, training or administration. I hope that this point will be covered by the minister and will be included in the legislation to come before the House.
Other hon. members have spoken about the burnt-out pension under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have many files in my office on this issue. It has already been pointed out that the present allowance is $1,260 for a single person and $2,100 for a married person, both figures being below what we have called the 1968 poverty line of $1,800 and $3,000 for a single and a married person respectively.
I also want to raise the question of permissible income, which is better known as the income ceiling. I think this ceiling should be raised. At the present time, to be eligible under the legislation the combination of other income and the allowance that a veteran receives must not exceed, if he is a single man, $1,740 a year or, if he is a married man, $2,940 a year-still below the poverty line. I suggest the income, including the war veterans allowance, the burnt-out pension, should be at least $2,280 for a single person and $3,840 for a married person.
Not long after the guaranteed income supplement legislation was passed, I met a veteran on the street in my home town who told me he had applied for the GIS because he was told it would not affect his war veterans allowance. However, his war veterans allowance was cut and he found himself worse off, financially, than he was before he applied for the GIS. I fail to see any equity in
Veterans Allowance Increases this situation. I contend that payments like the guaranteed income supplement, old age security and so on, should not be considered income and included in the income ceiling prescribed by the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I have taken enough time in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I fully endorse the matters that have been put before the House by the committee. As I said when I commenced my speech, the question is: When will the government bring in the new legislation? I say the sooner, the better. I hope the legislation will contain the most important of the points that I have put before the House this evening.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by extending my congratulations to the mover of the motion under study, the member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and to all those who took part in this debate.
I should like to say how happy I am in my capacity as Minister of Veterans Affairs to see that all members put veterans affairs above political partisanship and sincerely voice their opinion on what should be done for our veterans.
We all agree that the Canadian people will be forever indebted to our veterans and that we must do our utmost to help them.
Besides, successive governments since World War II have accomplished great things to give veterans what they deserve. We are proud of what our governments did for those men who did not hesitate to go overseas and fight for our democracy and freedoms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I could summarize the measures our country has taken since World War II to show its gratitude, but I shall only mention the program for rehabilitation to civilian life, education assistance to veterans, assistance programs for the children of war dead, measures to help veterans settle on farms and housing assistance. I cannot keep on like this, although I would like to do so, because in all fairness, we must recognize that all Canadian governments have acted decently with respect to war veterans.
Last May, I had the opportunity and the privilege and the honour of heading a delegation of veterans who went to Holland to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the liberation of the Dutch people. It should be recalled that Holland was liberated by Canadian troops. Actually, this is the only country in the world ever to be liberated by Canadian forces. During the ceremonies, I had a chat with Prince Bernhardt and among other things I told him about my duties as Minister of Veterans Affairs and about the activities of my department. His Royal Highness was amazed at the efforts made by the Canadian government for the well-being of its war veterans. Indeed, I know of only one other minister responsible for

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
war veterans apart from me, and it is my French counterpart. Our allies, the United States and Great Britain have decided after a period of 25 years that having such a department was no longer justifiable. We have continued to do so and I am pleased to announce to the House that next week, I will have the opportunity to go to France, to revive our common memories, to renew our good relations with that country, to meet my opposite number the French Minister of Veterans Affairs, and to visit Vimy and Beaumont-Hamel as a representative of the Canadian government before those great monuments which are the symbol not only of glorious wartime feats, but also of the many Canadians who gave up their lives or in certain cases their limbs or their health.
But the members of the Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, do more than stand at attention in front of monuments-
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)

What we are trying to do is not only to stand at attention before monuments, but we do remember veterans and we are continuing year after year trying to give them the best possible services available in Canada. These services will cost Canadian taxpayers this year $500 million-half a billion dollars which we are dispensing for our veterans. We are trying to do this in a very efficient manner so as not to spend uselessly the taxpayers' money. I am sure that no Canadian will ever reproach us for giving that much attention and that much financial assistance to our veterans. I know that all hon. members, especially from what I have heard this afternoon, want us to do even more. They can rest assured that the points they have made this afternoon with reference to disability pensions and war veterans allowances have been well noted.
Of course, it is not my place to make an announcement now, but I can assure the House that this government, as all Canadian governments have in the past, will do its utmost for our veterans. Before we talk about increases I should state-perhaps the public does not know this- that at the present time a Canadian veteran with a family of five receives in disability pension the sum of $5,496 a year, tax free. I am very pleased about that and I say it with joy. Of course, we intend to do more. Some hon. members who spoke this afternoon claimed that veterans were living in dire poverty. With regard to war veterans allowances, they were increased in 1965 and again in 1966. We know of course, that the cost of living has gone up; we are not blind to that situation.
Most of the members who spoke this afternoon stressed the urgency of passing legislation in this field and said we were not moving fast enough. I would agree with them. I would be the happiest man in this House if all my problems were solved in one day-but this is not how democracy works. If the wheels of justice are slow, the wheels of Parliament are even slower. This legislation is not being delayed by me.
Perhaps I should state a few facts. It took two years for the Woods committee report to be presented. It is a good
report which contains 148 recommendations. The House of Commons Committee on Veterans Affairs sat for ten months. I should compliment that committee and its chairman. The members took time off from their holidays and away from their families and businesses to come here and work on behalf of the veterans of this country, with no extra pay. During that time they heard a number of witnesses-I do not know how many-from veterans associations who appeared on 19 occasions; they received 19 briefs. The committee studied those briefs and produced a report. I received that report only the day before this House adjourned for the summer recess. During the summer recess the report was brought before the appropriate cabinet committee, at which time decisions were taken. The whole matter now is being sent to the Department of Justice for the purpose of producing legislation. I am confident that the legislation will be introduced in the very early part of this session.
This all took a long time, I agree, but it was not delayed by me or by anyone in the House. This is the normal process of legislation; it does take time. When the legislation is introduced, I think all members of this House will find that it was well worth waiting for, because it will be good legislation; it will be advanced legislation, modern, generous and very humane.
We have been talking all afternoon about veterans. I am not a veteran; I was only 12 when the war was declared. People do not seem to realize that 50 per cent of the population of Canada today is under the age of 25. There is what you might call a generation gap or a memory gap. If there is a generation gap between two generations, I think the large portion of the burden of bridging that gap is not on the younger generation but, rather, on us. We are the ones who created the world in which they live. They were not even witness to the events that shaped our times.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I think that veterans and veterans associations, which are very well structured across the country with Legions in almost every small town, have a role to play and are equipped to play it well. They must explain to the young people what they themselves did 25 years ago to preserve the freedom of the world, its unity and the unity of this country. I believe the veterans of this country now have a very strong role to play in our unity. They may be called upon to fight again, not with guns and bayonets but with the moral fibre of their courage and with dignity because of the respect and appreciation they receive from the people surrounding them. They should use that quality to again help the government and the members of this House to cement unity in this country.
When they fought 25 years ago they cared not whether the comrade next to them was from Manitoba, Quebec or New Brunswick; they fought together for principles in which they believed very dearly. They came back here and there was no war outside the country to which they would be sent. There is no war in this country now, but there is no doubt there is a struggle in which they can help and make a contribution because of their experience

October 27, 1970

and the appreciation they have acquired from their fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I shall thank again those who have taken part in this debate. I am most satisfied to realize once again that they have put veterans affairs above party politics, and that we are all convinced of the need to do more for those who have fought to preserve democracy and our freedom. I fully agree with them and I wish to give myself entirely to this cause. I have the feeling that, in a short while, all veterans will be most satisfied with the government's attitude towards them.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the minister permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes.


Jack Marshall: Would the minister indicate to the House what is to be contained in the social security report which is to be tabled during this session, in the way of social security measures affecting veterans who come under the War Veteran Allowance Act?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: It is very difficult for me to anticipate legislation or report on it before it is presented to the House. However, so far as I am concerned, as I have said many times in this House, war disability pensions are paid as of right to Canadian veterans and will continue to be so paid. So far as war veterans allowances are concerned, these are closer to the field of welfare in the sense that they are not paid because of disability but because veterans are deemed to have aged more quickly because of their service overseas. I can assure the House that whatever is done will be an improvement on the present situation.


Mr. McKinley:: I have a further question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be allowed to ask a question of the minister if the minister is prepared to reply, but I might point out to hon. members that a number of hon. members wish to speak and we should give them an opportunity to do so.


Robert Elgin McKinley: The minister has explained to the House that there will be legislation forthcoming which will be generous, among other things, but he neglected to say how soon it will be introduced. Can he say how soon it will be introduced?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am not the master of the House; I do not know how fast we will move. However, it is one of the bills that was annexed to the Speech from the Throne, and I would think it would be introduced early in this session. But how soon, I do not know.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to offer my congratulations to my
Veterans Allowance Increases colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for bringing forward this motion at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I especially congratulate him on the speech he made in the House today, a speech which certainly caught the ear of the House and which demonstrated the hon. member's deep concern and wide knowledge of the problems facing the veterans of this country. Mr. Speaker, the service record of the hon. member, his record of service to the veterans of this country and, indeed, his service to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is well documented in Hansard since the beginning of this Parliament.
I was rather surprised that the minister elected to intervene in the debate at this particular time. One would have expected the minister to wind up the debate.
I am sure that if time did not permit him to do so, the House with its usual traditional courtesy would have extended to him as much time as he desired to properly wind up the debate. I agree with the minister that the debate quite properly should be conducted in a non-partisan manner. But having heard the minis'er I find it very difficult to continue in this non-partisan vein because I believe-and I say this with great regret-that the veterans of this country, to put it mildly, will be very disappointed in the contribution the minister has made to this debate.
I think the veterans of this country expected, and indeed deserve, something a little more tangible, a little more definite and more expressive from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). I do not know what the minister was alluding to when he said that 50 per cent of the population of this country is under the age of 25. I do not know whether he was trying to suggest that the country no longer cares about its veterans. If this is what he meant, I would suggest it is not so because, like the minister himself, I was only 12 years old when the war ended and I am deeply conscious of my responsibility to those who were old enough at the time to volunteer for service, did so and served this country with distinction. As a young Canadian I am deeply conscious of the great debt we owe those who served Canada in both world wars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I am also very conscious of the fact that I have a responsibility to represent in this House the veterans who live in my constituency, in my province, and indeed all the veterans of Canada. We all have this responsibility. I am particularly conscious of the contribution the veterans are making to my own province and to my own constituency, just as I am deeply conscious of the contribution they made to preserve the very society they are now helping to sustain.
Perhaps we should reflect for a moment upon the wording of the motion. It is a very simple motion. It is a motion calling upon the government to do two things. First of all, it calls upon the government to implement a

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases unanimous recommendation of one of the Standing Committees of this House, a recommendation contained in the second report of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, dated June 9, 1970. Second, it calls upon the government, in addition to proceeding with the implementation of these recommendations, to provide adequate increases in the allowances paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act of 1952.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I think it is only fair that we should ask ourselves why it is necessary to proceed in this manner; why we find it necessary to bring in a motion calling upon the government to implement the unanimous recommendations of one of the Standing Committees of this House, recommendations resulting from a study referred to the committee by the House, by the government itself.
The minister has referred to the outstanding work of the Veterans Affairs Committee, as have other hon. members, the endless hearings, the briefs, the hearings of witnesses, the examination of the government White Paper and the examination of the Woods report. All of this was done in a period of 10 months, and in many instances at times when Parliament was in recess.
I find it exceedingly difficult to understand why the government has not acted upon the unanimous recommendations of this committee, especially in light, notwithstanding what the minister has said, of the circumstances of which most hon. members are aware-of the sufferings of many of our veterans today who are operating under great hardship because of the consequences of inflation and the spiralling cost of living that has reduced their incomes under the War Veterans Allowance Act, as well as their pensions, to the point where they have to endure great hardships.
Many veterans unable to continue to work or to find work are forced to fall back on the government and depend upon the War Veterans Allowance Act to sustain themselves. But I ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, how much sustenance can a married man with dependents purchase on $175 a month, which is the maximum payable under the act even with the maximum supplementary earnings of $245 that he is entitled to have.
I ask the minister, as a family man who knows what it is to support a family, to put himself in the position of having to feed his wife and his children on $60 a week, because that is what we are asking the veterans of this country to do by maintaining the present level under the War Veterans Allowance Act. How can any Canadian expect to maintain his dignity while living on such a pittance?
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that those who are unfortunate enough to have to fall back on the War Veterans Allowance Act are being denied the dignity that should be theirs by right and by virtue of the contribution and the sacrifice they have made. Yet we are reducing them to a bare sustenance. The minister, the government, and indeed all of us should hang our heads in shame because I think it is a shame in this affluent
country of ours that we should bring our veterans, who have paid such a price to sustain this country, to such a pitiful state.
We do not even pay any attention to the poverty level set down by the Economic Council of Canada in 1968. Indeed, sir, we pay our veterans less than the very minimum wage laws enacted by this Parliament. Yet the veterans of Canada have to sustain themselves with the knowledge that any promise of an increase in their allowances will only come after a review of the whole social legislation on the statute books of Canada. I hope the minister will pay heed to the pleading of members in this debate. I hope he will live up to the responsibility that is his as Minister of Veterans Affairs and that he will recognize the plight of the veterans.
I reject the view that has aready been reiterated by the minister in the speech he made tonight, subtle though it may be, that veterans allowances should somehow be lost in the general review of social legislation. I say this because when the Parliament of Canada established the very department over which the minister now has the responsibility of presiding, and when Parliament enacted the legislation on the statute books of this country to deal with the problems of veterans and to recognize the role that our veterans have played in maintaining the society we enjoy, Parliament was paying particular attention to the obligation of the whole country to our veterans. Parliament was not suggesting that we should provide for the veterans in the same context that we provide for the unemployed, for the socially indigent or for the handicapped. Parliament was recognizing the special and unique obligation that this country has to those who served Canada in war.
I believe that we are reaching the stage where we are trying to get out from under that obligation, and I think it is a bad thing for Canada. This Parliament has recognized its obligations to those in the country who have to fall back upon the protection of the minimum wage laws. It has recognized the spiralling cost of living in this country, and in so doing has said that by law no one in Canada who is within the jurisdiction of the federal government shall receive less than $1.65 an hour. Surely the government has the same obligation to the veterans of this country, recognizing the same factors that are driving up the cost of living and are depriving veterans of their income. Surely the government must recognize the toll that inflation has taken upon war veterans allowances and upon disability pensions, and should act very quickly.
Not a month has gone by since the outset of this Parliament in 1968 without my receiving an inquiry from a veteran in my constituency asking when the government is going to act upon the Woods report. Barely a month goes by without my having to explain to the veterans why the government has refused to act. It is an empty explanation and one that I could not accept; consequently, I cannot expect veterans in my constituency and in my province to accept it.
[Mr. McGrath.!
October 27, 1970

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Other hon. members have referred to the plight of the Hong Kong veterans in a much more eloquent and forceful manner than I could, many of them speaking from experience. Hon. members have referred to those who have to sustain themselves on disability pensions, pensions which are theirs by right, and to the various shortcomings in the regulations governing these pensions. On that matter I will not dwell at this moment. Suffice it to say that the government has a continuing obligation to the veterans of this country. I think that should be stated over and over and over again until the government is prepared to live to up to that obligation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Sir, in the limited time left at my disposal I would like to refer to one matter of particular interest to my province. The people of Newfoundland, in order to perpetuate the site of an outstanding hallmark in our history, the battle of Beaumont-Hamel in the First World War, were granted the lands covering the site of that famous battle which took place on July 1, 1916, in France. By the use of our own financial resources we built an appropriate memorial and provided an appropriate place to bury our illustrious and honoured dead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to apologize to the hon. member and bring to his attention that his time has expired. He may continue with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the extended time and, realizing the nature of this debate, will not transgress upon the time of the House other than to say that when Newfoundland entered the Confederation of Canada, Canada assumed a responsibility to maintain this memorial, this part of Newfoundland in France, as a part of our war graves, as a part of our national monuments. Now people in my province are very concerned over rumours that have been going about lately concerning our park at Beaumont-Hamel in France, to the effect that the trenches are being filled in and that the area of jurisdiction is being cut down with a view to saving on administrative costs.
I hope that these rumours are without foundation in fact, and that the minister who has responsibility for this department will recognize the obligation the government of Canada has, in being the trustee of this memorial to the Newfoundland war dead, to sustain it in a manner befitting the nature of that memorial.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commence my remarks by congratulating the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for introducing this motion, and by congratulating the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Veterans Allowance Increases Knowles) for the excellent and pointed amendment he made to it.
Following the Second World War there was a mood in this country in which people were determined to see that veterans, those who had fought on behalf of the nation, on behalf of the liberties we all hold so dear, would be given a fair portion of the rewards that society had to offer, and that justice would be given them in terms of opportunities and as a reward for their service. For a considerable period following the end of the war we maintained this objective in a very strong way. However, as the years went by, as the war faded into memory and as the sacrifices of the men and women who participated in that war faded into memory, it seems that government interest in the veterans took a less urgent turn.
We had all hoped that the minister would rise today and give us some specific and encouraging information on the government's approach to changes in veterans legislation. The minister had an opportunity to speak for half an hour and he made a statement. He said all the right things but, when it was all over, the minister had said nothing. That was a very great disappointment to all of us.
Because of my high regard for the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) I am prepared to accept his statement that he would like to implement the very good recommendations of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I think he is saying this with all sincerity. But if the minister feels this way, why is the legislation not before the House, or at least legislation incorporating some of the things on which we have all agreed? If the fault does not lie with the minister, surely there is an area in which it does lie, an area that has to be criticized sharply by this House. Who is responsible? The government has the power; it has the means at its disposal. We can only assume that the minister is not the only one who is holding up the legislation, and that the government has very little inclination to introduce veterans legislation. That is a sad conclusion to reach.
It must be obvious to all hon. members that, when it wants, a government can take quick action. I would like to point out some of the quick actions this government has taken. Let us take an instance in connection with the white paper on tax reform, where we had what was supposed to be a total package, somewhat analogous to the situation with respect to the recommendations of the Veterans Affairs Committee. For a long time the government took the position that no part of the white paper could be modified or changed until the finance committee had met, had made its recommendations and the government had had an opportunity to review those recommendations.
However, on a number of occasions while that committee was still sitting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced very great changes in the white paper proposals, particularly with regard to the natural resource industry and more particularly with regard to the mining industry. Does this mean that mining interests in Canada have more say with, more pull over, and more

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
influence on the government than do the nation's veterans? That would certainly appear to be the case.
I give another example of government action. Recently the government felt compelled to introduce the War Measures Act. At the time it was introduced many hon. members insisted that the act be limited in time and that the government come to the House and introduce more specific and better legislation to deal with the events that had occurred. The government was able to promise that within 30 days it would bring legislation before the House. This is not uncomplicated legislation; I am talking about some very profound changes in the laws of the country. I am glad the government felt able to suggest it could do this within 30 days.
But surely after examination given by the Veterans Affairs Committee to the recommendations of the Woods committee, the government is in a much better position to draft new veterans legislation and put it before the House? I cannot find any possible excuse for the government's delay in changing existing veterans legislation to improve the conditions of many of the men and women who willingly offered themselves in the service of the nation.
It is an unfortunate truth that the government has not placed any urgency on this matter. One suspects that, very much like its attitude toward old age pensioners, the veterans are part of the government's fight against inflation; that the veterans, like the old age pensioners, are being held as hostages in the government's fight against inflation, a fight that it cannot win and a fight that is unjust beyond belief.
Earlier, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre made a most eloquent and, as always, reasonable plea on behalf of the veterans. My hon. friend has on many occasions risen in this House on behalf of those who need the help of our nation. One wonders if, while he was speaking for those veterans, he did not have in mind a broader problem. It is interesting, when one looks back at the history of our treatment of veterans, to realize that when we helped the veterans of Canada we were also helping all people in this country. When we brought in social justice for our veterans we also extended it to other people in our society.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
What we have done for veterans has often pioneered what we have done in social change. We have adopted attitudes that tended to improve the lot of the Canadian people. For example, let me point out one very important area which we could consider-the area of education. We forget that before 1945 and 1946 little assistance was given to people who wanted to go on to higher education. The idea of providing loans or grants for education was not in common currency at that time. Loans were introduced for veterans of the armed forces, and they were able to avail themselves of university educations. From there on society progressively extended help to others, and this turned out to be a most admirable approach which helped other people in society to obtain an education. Much of the vocational training program we have
today has resulted from concepts and policies developed after the end of the war.
Also, let us look back on the Veterans' Land Act. This is one of the first instances in which the government became involved in publicly assisted housing. It is most unfortunate it did not do more of this. Nevertheless, thousands of veterans in this country today would not have homes if they had not been assisted under the Veterans' Land Act. That legislation has changed our concept about the public's involvement in housing. Although we have not gone as far as I should like to see us go, at least that legislation changed some of the attitudes and some of the directions in which this country was going.
When we consider the burnt-out pension and the war veterans allowance, we see the beginning of the concept of a guaranteed income. Indeed, programs that were begun for veterans have often been extended to other areas of our society. I make these points to show why I think it is important for us to support the idea of veterans benefits both for those who are veterans and for those who are not. I say this regardless of the justice of the situation. This country owes an elementary obligation to those people who served in its armed forces. There is the added point that, as I have said, what we do for our veterans today we often will do for other people tomorrow, and veterans legislation is an important indicator of social attitudes.


Mr. Nowlan:: That's enough. No more.


Max Saltsman: Therefore, I cannot accept the arguments presented tonight by the minister. I cannot accept his reasons for delay. We are not delaying because we are so poor in this country that we can do nothing; neither are we delaying because the machinery of government is so creaky that nothing can be done. The machinery is creaky only when the government wants it to be creaky. It acts very quickly in the middle of the night when the government wants it to work that way.
I think members on all sides of the House markedly agree that there has been much too much delay in improving the lot of veterans in Canada, and that this should be corrected as quickly as possible. I was glad to hear that the minister intended making a trip to Europe in order to visit some of the monuments and pay his respect to the brave men and women who died for their country. I suggest to the minister that he could do no better in paying his respect to those brave men and women than by moving quickly and bringing in increased and much needed benefits for those veterans who are still living.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member who rose at the same time I did that I will stay and listen to his speech. I know that he has a good deal to offer the House and I would not miss his remarks for the world. I will not take too long in what I am about to say because, quite frankly, I believe everyone who has spoken this afternoon and evening is in agreement about

October 27, 1970

what should be done and there is no necessity for my talking at length.
My reason for rising tonight is that I feel, as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, that I am under an obligation to say a few words. It is an obligation that I accept most readily, because when I accepted the committees' report as a backbench supporter of the government I did not send it here with the idea that it would not be accepted within a reasonable period of time. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members that those of us who are on the Liberal benches have no intention of seeing the report passed over. The minister gave us his word tonight that within a reasonable period the legislation will be introduced in the House.
Having listened to some of the remarks of my hon. friends to my left, I gained the impression that they think the angels are only to the left of me in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I hope that when the time comes for their being called to the happy hunting grounds, every one of them can fool the Lord and become an angel. But many of them certainly are not in that category at the moment.


An hon. Member:: There speaks a Liberal.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: There are two or three who are-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They are in purgatory.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -almost in that category at the moment, but they have not quite reached it. The unanimous report of the parliamentary committee was presented to the House, and we who support the government have every intention of seeing the veterans bill brought in very shortly.
Before I say any more, perhaps I ought to allude to some of the facts which have been presented to us tonight. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, all governments of Canada since 1945, including the present government, have done a most remarkable job for veterans in Canada. It is not that I think they should not have done more; we all agree that more ought to have been done.
The time has come for us to do more for veterans generally, but particularly for those who are disabled, the Hong Kong veterans, the paraplegics and others like them. Of course, they deserve more. If they do not obtain more, those of us who support the government will have something to say. As has been pointed out in this House on numerous occasions, the time has come for us to help these veterans. The government itself acknowledged this fact and intends to help them.
Let us review some of the things which have been said tonight. When the minister spoke, he said it had been his pleasure to know only one other minister of veterans affairs. Why is that? I suggest that is because apart from
Veterans Allowance Increases
Canada only the French of all the so-called free nations of the world think enough of their veterans to appoint a minister of veterans affairs. So I say to Canada and to the government of Canada: For this you will be able to hold your heads very high indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The minister told the House that more than half a billion dollars was to be devoted to veterans affairs, the highest amount in our history. For this the government is to be commended. I am not saying the veteran does not deserve this; I agree that he needs more. Yet, since more than one half billion dollars is being made available to the veterans of this country I say to the government that, although more should be given, they will be able to stand up high and look the people of Canada in the eye.
The hon. member who preceded me mentioned progressive measures such as the Veterans' Land Act. Where else do they have legislation like that in the world, unless it be Russia or China, countries with life styles I know little about? I would not want to live in them. Where else do they have this type of legislation? Do they have it in the United States? Where else do they have re-establishment, educational benefits and all the other programs effected not only by this government but by all governments from 1945 until 1970? I say to my Conservative friends that when they were in power they did a very good job. Without exception, all governments have done reasonably well. The time has now come for more.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I wish to compliment the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for presenting his motion and bringing this matter to the attention of all hon. members. This question must be dealt with as soon as possible. I ask the hon. member in a very friendly way whether the rest of Canada has had an opportunity to share some of the great benefits which Newfoundland brought into Confederation. I ask the hon. member how much the veterans of Newfoundland were receiving before they joined Confederation? I will not give the answer, Mr. Speaker.
The plain fact is that Canada gives more to veterans than any other free nation in the world, but still not enough to demonstrate our allegiance to those people with 100 per cent disability. How many people in Canada are on 100 per cent disability pension? When listening to some hon. members to my left it seems that every veteran in Canada is on the poverty line, when in fact there are in Canada approximately 5,000 people who are 100 per cent dependent upon pensions.
Many people, including myself, are very lucky. Even though we had long service we did not receive a scratch. We do not receive a pension. For that I say, thank God! Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have given long service but have not derived one nickel from the government for that service other than what they received on

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
returning from the war. As far as pensions are concerned, we pay and are happy to do so. It is much better to come home with money in your pocket and be in a financial position to pay, than to have lost one or both legs or to have been blinded. We who are fortunate are happy to pay even more. We cannot accept the suggestion that all veterans in Canada are on the poverty line. I understand there are many veterans in this House. I do not know whether they can be considered to be on the poverty line. In any event, I had better skip that aspect of the subject for the moment.
I will not go any further than reiterate the facts which
I	have already stated. As a Liberal backbencher, I look forward to legislation being introduced in the immediate future. When I say that, I mean within the next two or three months. I assure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, who spoke so ably this afternoon, that if legislation is not forthcoming within a reasonable period of time I will speak out with him to bring it to the attention of the government with a very sharp barb indeed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) did such an excellent job in outlining the position of the official opposition on matters dealing with veterans, in his extremely able and comprehensive speech, that it is not necessary for me to deal with the points he made. However, for a very few moments I would like to deal with the treatment this government gives veterans who receive the war veterans allowance.
I have three very strong objections to the treatment which the government is meting out to these very deserving veterans. The first is that this government has not seen fit to increase the war veterans allowance since 1966, despite the fact that during the four years since then the cost of living has increased by nearly 20 per cent. Several times each year the opposition has pressed the government strongly to increase the war veterans allowance proportionately with the cost of living. By not increasing the war veterans allowance during the past four years, the government has simply said to the veteran, "Tighten your belt. Do without more and more of the things that you need to keep body and soul together for you and your family".
I believe this is just the reverse of the way that members of the armed forces in World War I and World War
II	should be treated. By giving so much they literally burned themselves out during their war service. They need our assistance in civilian life. That is my first reason for strongly condemning the attitude of this government toward those receiving war veterans allowance.
My second point is that the government prohibits a single man earning more than $40 a month, or $70 a month for a married man over and above the war veterans allowance which he receives. These war veterans allowances are an absolute minimum. It is well recognized that no one could even come close to maintaining themselves on such a small pension. They are simply assistance. If a man wishes to improve the standard of living for himself and his family and works hard to earn
money to supplement the allowance, that is to be admired. To allow these veterans to earn only $40 a month or $70 a month restricts very greatly their ability to maintain a decent standard of living and support their families in the way they would wish and have every right to do, particularly in view of the great service they have performed for their country.
The attitude of the government in this regard discourages initiative. It discourages a man's desire to earn as much as he can to improve the financial position of his family. I am sure all members of the House have felt that this restriction is very unfair. It should be cancelled. A man receiving war veterans allowance should be permitted to earn as much as he can by working.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The other matter to which I object very strongly is the way in which the government treats those members of the armed forces who not only receive the veterans allowance but also the old age pension. As we all know, when the old age pension is increased, as it is occasionally by even this parsimonious government, it is increased for a very good reason; it is increased because the cost of living has gone up and because the government rightly considers that those receiving the old age pension need considerably more to live on. But if a man is receiving both the old age pension and the veterans allowance, any increase in the old age pension is deducted from what he receives by way of veterans allowance. Thus, though the cost of living has increased and pensioners are getting an increase in their pension, the man who is also receiving veterans allowance gets no increase at all.
I ask those who are seated on the treasury benches tonight whether they consider that this is fair treatment of our veterans. There is silence from the treasury benches because their occupants are obviously ashamed of what the government has done in the past few years. They realize it is a disgraceful way to treat those who have served their country so well. It is high time the minister and his colleagues corrected this miscarriage of justice and allowed pensions and war veterans allowances to be increased independently of each other. When an increase in either is brought before Parliament and passed, it should be allowed in full to those pensioners who are receiving veterans allowances, because they have served their country well. Judging by the way in which the government treats those who receive veterans allowances-that is to say in a penny-pinching, miserly and completely unjustified manner-we shall have to press our case very hard if we wish to succeed.
This penny-pinching on the part of the government is in strange contrast with its actions when it comes to buying airplanes of which it has no need. It has been brought to the attention of the House and of the country that four years ago the government ordered $250 million worth of CF-5 planes to enable the armed forces of this country to play a peacekeeping role as part of the United Nations peacekeeping efforts. Two years ago, in 1968, this peacekeeping role was abandoned. But instead of cancelling the order for these planes, because they happened to

October 27, 1970

be produced in the Prime Minister's home riding in Montreal-this can be the only reason-the decision was made to keep the aircraft rolling off the assembly lines though there is not the slightest need for them in our air force. Some of them have even been sent to Europe as a public relations gesture to find out whether they could be of use there. They could not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member is not getting away from the motion which is before the House. He seems to be making a point about the defence policy of the government. I think he should return to the motion and the amendment which are before us.


George Harris Hees: I am simply using this as an example to show that the government has money available to use in any way it wishes. It has chosen to use this money to finance a make-work project in the Prime Minister's home city. I say that a far better way would be to treat those who receive war veterans allowances in a fair, decent and equitable manner. This would cost infinitely less and it would do infinitely more good. I use this illustration to show that the money is there.
The minister should persuade those of his colleagues who take a parsimonious attitude toward the veterans of this country to use some of this money immediately to increase war veterans allowances in the way they should have been increased as the cost of living has risen over the past four years. He should persuade them to allow these people to earn all they can in addition to their allowances and, in so doing, treat the veterans fairly, as they so richly deserve, on behalf of the rest of our citizens who have been able to remain free as a result of their activities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that throughout the centuries every government has been faced with the same dilemma-every kingdom, every principality, every parliament and every minister. It is not a new story. It is said by Arrian in his record of the wars of Alexander, in his history giving an account of the anabasis, that when the great Macedonian warrior addressed his troops just before they returned home, he told them "I have provided for you and I have set up statues to those who have fallen; I have provided you with gold plate from the loot of Syria, India and Cathay." And all those things he did. But the historian went on to say that when the troops returned home they found the gold had disappeared and most of them lived thereafter in abject poverty.
Napoleon's armies fared no better, nor did the armies of Wellington. But these were old days. When we speak of those days we are talking about rewards, we are talking about some sort of compensation. This is not the issue here at all. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) says there is some deep, dark plot on the part of the minister to use veterans pensions in the govern-
Veterans Allowance Increases ment's fight against inflation. That is utter nonsense; it is not the case at all.
I compliment the minister for having stayed here throughout this debate, as he should have done. We are dealing with a million people and with a question which calls for a revision of our thinking, one which calls for a new look. I must say I cannot agree at all with the Woods committee report. The trouble is that commissions, instead of taking a brand new approach to a problem, always get together and say: Let us take a look at the existing legislation. Then on the basis of the status quo they amend, they split hairs, and no new approach is ever taken.
So it is here. We have listened to speeches in this House today in the course of which members have stated they begged the government to show consideration. How dare they beg on behalf of the veterans? Who gave them a mandate to beg? When you beg, you lower a man's dignity. Nobody gave them the right to beg, and the veterans do not want them, or any hon. member, to beg the minister for anything. The veterans gave no mandate to anyone to go around with a cup for alms. This is not the issue. This is where we have gone astray, although it seems that year after year someone feels compelled to beg the government for more money. Where does one get this right? Who gave them this right? This is not a begging situation. What the veterans want is equity, not alms, not some consideration in return for having fought.
It is surprising that after the war the Liberal government took the correct attitude when it undertook to provide veterans with opportunities to go to university, to get an education, to get adequate housing, and so on. This was not a response to begging; it was not a reward for having fought. The whole principle was based upon the fact that veterans had lost time. They might have stayed here and worked and prepared themselves for university, acquired funds, a house, a car and furniture.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The compensation was this: the government recognized that they had contributed to the security of our country and, accordingly, assisted them to place themselves in a position of equality as compared with those who were not members of the armed services. That was the whole point. But when it came to pensions, the government reverted to the age old idiom of gifts. Why did they not go a little further? Why the principle of the unskilled labourer? Is there a presumption that the average veteran would not have been more successful? No, there is not. Yet this provision was passed in 1918 and has been favoured by commission after commission because it was so much easier to continue the same amount in effect than to bend some effort to make a change.
The maximum amount should be the average amount earned by all working veterans. That is the amount that would be equitable. I hope the minister is listening, because this would provide a wonderful opportunity for the government to introduce the concept of a guaranteed annual income. Here is a group asking to be given the

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
opportunity to be placed on the same level as other people. It is a controlled group. Nobody would dare suggest that our veterans would abuse the guaranteed annual income, because they would not be veterans if they did.
Implementation of this idea would dispense with appeal boards, various pension schemes, the onus of proof now placed on veterans, and so on. After all, who can say what in a service-connected injury? I dare anyone to define that expression. Who can judge what is going to be the reaction of a man who lives under constant stress for four or five months of the year? And in the field one is under constant stress. If medical opinion is correct, no one can predict the consequences to a man's health of a life under stress. Frustration, enforced discipline and things of that nature must have an effect on the health of a man. As a result, no one can define what is and what is not a service-connected injury.
Recently I had occasion to plead the case of a man suffering from lung cancer. It is recognized today that the inhalation of smoke affects the lungs. This man was in the REME. I know from personal experience that in these field operation units the men are working under cover since often it is cold, and exhaust fumes from vehicles are constantly being pumped into the air. For five years this man lived in an environment of pollution. Yet the board held that there was no proof his lung cancer had any connection with his service.
The guaranteed annual income would be the answer in such a case. Those who did not need the guaranteed annual income would not take it. Many of those in receipt of disability pension would be only too happy to give it up. After all, the very system we have been fighting for does enable us to make a living and to make our way in the world. As I say, if the guaranteed annual income for veterans is accepted by the government, it will not cost more money. In addition, it will dispense with all appeals, pension boards and eliminate the sort of friction that has been the experience to date.
It was said today that our veterans should be given more money as a reward for valour. Valour, Mr. Speaker, is not rewarded. No man who is courageous or valorous expects reward; he is courageous or valorous because he loves his country. He knew that on occasion he would have to shed blood and tears if he loved his country, and this is still being done to this day. So you do not reward valour.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Wealherhead:: There is no point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Just listen and see whether there is or not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, you yourself, with all the dignity of the Chair, stood when the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) talked about aeroplanes and what might happen if government moneys

had been directed toward war veterans allowances rather than aeroplanes. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) is, frankly, contributing clap-trap to this debate.


David Bennington Weatherhead: What is your point of order?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My point of order is that the motion now before the House concerns the recommendations of a committee. With all respect to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and others who perhaps have lived in the sanctity of a vacuum of non-political involvement-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -the hon. member's remarks should be directed to the motion, not to questions of valour and a minimum wage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair is aware of what happened in the House earlier this evening. At that time the Chair gave quite a bit of leeway to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and was ready to take the same position and give some leeway to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). As far as the Chair is concerned, I think the House should allow the hon. member for York East to complete his remarks.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will allow him to complete his remarks because I always like listening to the hon. member, except on this one point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I think the hon. member for Annapolis Valley should recognize that the Chair has to make a decision. The Chair has decided, having heard the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, that perhaps the hon. member for York East should adhere more closely to the subject matter before the House. I think the hon. member for Annapolis Valley will have to accept the decision of the Chair.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, it was not I who introduced the subject of reward for valour, but an hon. member opposite. The hon. member said that veterans pensions should be increased because the valour of our veterans should be rewarded. I am pleading the other case. I am saying that our veterans are not asking for reward, they are asking for equity. This is why I approach the minister with a new concept. I suggest that he should not necessarily be tied to old ideas. There is no reason why our veterans groups have to come to Ottawa and plead their cause year after year. They should be given what they ask for as a matter of right.
I realize there are not too many members in the House who are quite as bright as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) thinks he is, and we have to bear with this. But with all respect, I have tried to put to the minister in this debate a different approach to the status of our veterans, to disability pensions and as to what course the House should follow.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I shall be very short. I want to remove any misconception in the mind of the hon. member for
October 27, 1970

York East (Mr. Otto) about what I think I may possess in the form of grey matter. My conception of my own grey matter is in direct ratio to what I hear from the other side, especially what I heard from the hon. member for York East. The more I heard from him, the more grey matter I realized I had. In that respect I think my grey matter does not have to take second place to his, let alone his golden words on a great philosophical point but a point that does not come close to the motion that was moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) who drew an important matter to the attention of this House.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I did not notice many of the members who were here earlier. I was here because I wanted to catch Your Honour's eye. I am not a veteran, and I speak because I am not a veteran. I was too young to serve. I found the veterans in this House this afternoon trying, as I did, to be recognized. If that is any reward I should have the Distinguished Service Medal for trying to catch Your Honour's eye. I finally have been recognized, and I do not wish to take up too much time of the House because I know many other hon. members want to contribute to this debate.
I want to say two or three serious things. This afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who is sitting in his seat tonight as he has sat attentively all during this debate. As the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) said earlier, as well as the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride), I do not think any topic that has come to the floor of this House has been received with such unanimity as this one. All members are in favour of the principle of this motion. This is the reason I find myself motivated to speak.
I listened to the philosophical words of the hon. member for York East. That philosophy, in the right place and at the right time, is always illuminating. It may not be the most educational or informative, but certainly it is illuminating. It sometimes illuminates the barren spots of his grey matter. Be that as it may, because this is a non-partisan debate I will not say anything more on that subject.
I want to say one or two things in all seriousness. I am not a veteran or a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I have in my riding, in that part of the Atlantic area which I represent, a great number of veterans. In fact, I can stand here tonight and say that I do not know of a member in this House who represents more veterans or more legionaires than I do in my riding of Annapolis Valley. I know for a fact from my predecessor in that constituency that more veterans came to his office than to the offices of all the other members from Nova Scotia combined. I have inherited part of that legacy and part of that challenge. Perhaps I am not as capable of dealing with this matter as my predecessors seat were. For that reason, and because of the historic interest in veterans and veterans' problems, I want to say a few words. Believe me, they will be very few.
Veterans Allowance Increases I listened to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and to the hon. member for Ottawa West make very constructive contributions to this debate. Many of the members who followed them were members of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I was struck by one consistent current that flowed throughout their contributions, namely, that this was a non-partisan committee. They suggested there were no politics involved and that the committee listened in a non-partisan way and with interest to the constructive comments in the Woods report and the white paper. We now have the unanimous report of that committee.
Let me put to the House one point, Mr. Speaker-and you stand far ahead of me in your contribution to the war efforts of this country. Having said that, I ask any veteran in this place or outside this chamber, how many of them landed on the Normandy beaches without partisanship.


An hon. Member:: Come on, Pat.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not know who said, "Come on, Pat" but I will come on to him any time he wants me to if he will stand up and identify himself. How many of those veterans contributed their efforts to the wars of this country with a non-partisan spirit and heart? Do not get me wrong; I am not talking about partisanship in the sense of whether you belong to the great Liberal party, the great Conservative party, the great NDP or the great Creditiste party. I ask in all seriousness, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether anyone knows of a veteran who has come to him for assistance with a vacant heart, a vacant mind, a vacant soul or a vacant spine. They are not non-partisan. This clap-trap about non-partisanship is a lot of idiocy.
Who knows more about partisanship than those who contributed their full effort to the war? I say in all sincerity through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the Veterans Affairs Committee and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube), whom I respect as a man who has no peer in this House as far as sincerity is concerned, that the veterans of this country are not interested in the non-partisan aspect of this House.
The motion advanced by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe was designed to benefit the veterans of this country. I have in mind all those veterans who read this report, who read Hansard or sit in the galleries listening to our debates. There are never many in the gallery, because they do not want to hear about the non-partisan character of this committee or of the House of Commons. They know what their partisanship was during the war. They know where their spirits were, where their hearts were. Some of them know where their limbs are now, and some of them who are not here tonight know where their souls rest.
I suggest to you and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the Veterans Affairs Committee and to the minister that we should get away from these pious platitudes about non-partisanship. Let us not waste words about whether we were partisan. Let us do as the Veter-

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
ans Affairs Committee did in its unanimous report, that is, become completely partisan toward the cause of veterans. That is the type of partisanship that should not take second place to any feeling in this House. That is what is lost when speaker after speaker today stood up and talked almost exclusively for five or ten minutes about the committee being non-partisan.
This House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada has put into effect the best pension plan known to man. We were non-partisan in that regard. Do we think that the veteran who wants an adjustment in his pension, or the pension of a widow or child who is dependent upon war veterans allowance, cares about whether we are Liberals, Conservatives or members of the NDP as far as partisanship is concerned? This is just flying a false flag. We are going to flounder in the swampland unless we start to accept reality and appreciate it.
I wanted to contribute to this debate because the people who fought for the rights of this institution and the freedom of speech about which we talk are the very people who will become disillusioned if this Parliament of Canada does not during this session do something concrete about veterans' problems. We must do something for them through the pension plan, war veterans allowances or the Canadian Pension Commission. This commission has worked unceasingly for veterans. It is because I feel very strongly, even as a non-veteran, that I make these suggestions.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I listened to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) earlier this afternoon. He recited the pages of history that I used to read. He spoke about the battles he fought, about which I have read. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe contributed in a way that I will never understand, because I was too young. There is no deed or duty which I find more honourable to accept, and yet sometimes more difficult to discharge, than to try to help veterans who through a letter, through a personal relationship or through a phone call ask me as a member-as they ask all other members of this House-to do something for them.
Without reciting all the things I could recite about the unanimous recommendation of the committee, some parts of which are good, and parts of the white paper some of which are good and some bad, I suggest that we in this House-which is only an institution, one of many under attack today because we have lost touch with reality- say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, with all sincerity, that if this House of Commons, being part of the Parliament of Canada, cannot in the next few days introduce on the floor of the House a bill that will put into effect all the words that have been spoken in unanimity this afternoon, we will lose faith with those who fought to protect this place.
I have heard the sincere Minister of Veterans Affairs stand up before and say many times that legislation would be introduced perhaps in the form of one bill or two bills. I do not care whether there are three bills, but let us move; let us keep faith with those who fought for us.


Mr.   Jean-L. Rochon@Ahunlsic: Mr. Speaker, like those who preceded me, I should like to make a few remarks, with a non-partisan mind, on the motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).
Those who risked their lives, gave their lives or lost their health on the battlefields deserve well of their country, and we who sit in this House must not forget the sacrifices which they made in order that we might live in freedom, freedom which other nations envy us and which shows us more clearly than anywhere else what democracy really is.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I am taking part in this debate tonight is because in 1914 my father's brother set in Vimy ground the flag of the glorious 22nd; in 1944, his son landed on the beaches of Normandy. Today, he is a great disabled ex-service man. On his behalf, I should like to say that I join with the mover of this motion. I also join with those who demanded from the government the immediate adoption of adequate measures in this regard.
The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) reminded us this afternoon of everything the Canadian government has done for our veterans, their widows and families. A few minutes ago, I was listening to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) who spoke of the measures he intended to submit to his cabinet colleagues. I am sure he will know how to convince them to agree to what we want for those who have fought for liberty. I am also sure that in the very near future the government will do its duty towards them.
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speeches made by those who spoke before me, I am reminded of something I read recently where the author says: "To live, to die for one's country, in blood, in mud, facing one's flag, this is beautiful, it is great, even noble, but there is something finer, greater and nobler than that and that is to live for an ideal". For us who know what freedom is, we live for an ideal: Justice and freedom. To whom do we owe it? To those who have given their life, like this cousin of mine who, for more than 20 years, has been sitting in a paraplegic chair.
On their behalf, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the mover of this motion and I am sure, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs said a moment ago, that we will know where our duty to these veterans lies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is probably obvious that there have been some discussions arising from the fact that there are two or three more members who would like to make a brief contribution to this debate. I think it might be found that there is agreement to our moving into the late show at this point-there are just two speakers at that stage-and then resume this debate for a few minutes so that those who would like to make a contribution might have an opportunity to do so. The assurance given me is that these contributions would not be lengthy. I am speaking for members of other parties and

October 27, 1970

make this suggestion in the hope that there might be unanimous consent to it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would agree to the proposal. It would be quite convenient to deal with the late show immediately and then proceed with the debate.


Mr. McCuicheon:: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe this is an excellent suggestion. Perhaps we should proceed on that basis. As I understand it, there are not many more speakers and we would not be kept here too long in any event.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As there seems to be unanimous consent, we will proceed with the adjournment motion.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


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

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, before we start any debate on the question I asked the other day, I would point out to you that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) stood up to be recognized while you were reading your text, if not before, because he had comments to offer-


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


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as party house leader, I would like to state that we support the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) requesting a continuation of the interesting discussion which started this afternoon. Besides, we consider that our rights have been encroached upon since only one speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. If the hon. member wants to make representations concerning the number of members allowed to take part in a debate, he can make them discreetly, but it is nevertheless the prerogative of the Chair to decide what members will speak and when. I do not think this is a question to be discussed at present and it seems to me that we should continue the debate on the adjournment motion. Therefore I recognize the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as recorded at page 425 of the official report of the House of Commons' debates for October 22, 1970, I asked the Minister of National Health
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and Welfare (Mr. Munro) a question which reads in part as follows:
Yesterday, the Department of National Health and Welfare published a report which says that the cost of hospital, medical and dental care has almost quadrupled in Canada between 1957 and 1969. Here is my question: Is the department now considering measures-
-to prevent the quadrupling of these costs again between 1970 and 1980 without improvement in services, or to have hospital and medical services made more accessible to the people?
In the course of my brief remarks tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to prove, with the help of statistics, that the erroneous policy of nationalizing medical services through Medicare was a piece of bluff and has misled the people.
The figures are as follows: In 1957, we spent $1 billion for various medical services. In 1969, these expenses rose to $3.9 billion. As for the area of personal health care, these expenses rose from $600 million in 1957 to $2.5 billion in 1969. Medical care amounted to $272 million in 1957 and to $910 million in 1969. However, between 1968 and 1969, that is to say after the introduction of the famous hospital insurance plan in some provinces, the cost for these items increased by $122 million. Moreover, the cost of drugs was $103 million in 1957 and $270 million in 1969.
In the light of these figures, we have the right to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what steps he intends to take in order to stop this escalation.
Mr. Speaker, if the present situation is allowed to go on, within a few years, medical costs will be beyond the reach of everybody or will take up the greater part of the provincial budgets. The population will not enjoy more services and only confusion will follow.
Almost all provincial governments have been compelled to set up medicare and without being a prophet of doom I think that before five years, in Quebec, we shall go through a recession.
There were still in Quebec-I admit it-under the former medical set up, numerous hospitals that might have been called infirmaries. But, instead of coming to the help of the medical and health services by improving what needed improvement, the federal governement levied taxes on the provinces and then forced them to establish a medical care plan if they wanted to be entitled to a reimbursement of the taxes levied for that purpose. That was the "believe or die" policy and, very soon, it will be responsible for the crisis in which the provinces will find themselves.
Because of the false socialistic principle of state mede-cine advocated by the present government, the following consequences will be felt: Firstly, incompetence will appear at all levels of medical practice; secondly, the real desire of attending the sick that the doctors used to have will disappear; thirdly, the costs of state medicine paid by the government but squeezed out of the taxpayer will become prohibitive; fourthly, we will see mediocrity at all levels of the medical profession; and finally the dying will await death in hospital corridors without getting first

October 27, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
aid, while people with imaginary diseases will fill the hospital beds which should be reserved to the sick.
Medicine will have lost its noble characteristics because instead of providing services to the individual and allowing him to choose his physician, his hospital and all other services, the state will have previously stripped the individual of his purchasing power before controlling medicine and establishing a barrier of redtape between the medical profession and the patients, making everyone dissatisfied, doctors and patients alike.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply tonight to the grievance voiced by the hon. member from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), and I should like to thank him by the same token for his most emotional speech in this respect.
I would like to remind him that in November 1968, the Minister of National Health and Welfare convened an interprovincial conference of health ministers to consider the problem of the ever rising cost of medical care.
Following this conference, a study group was appointed whose report, in three volumes, was introduced in the House last November. As a result of this, a task force was appointed to implement the recommendations contained in this first report. Some recommendations, by the way, have already been implemented by provincial governments.
Finally, the last group was asked to make recommendations to be considered at the next federal-provincial conference of health ministers to be held in December.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members on some aspects of this fundamental problem.
The main reason for greater costs is the spiralling increase in wages which represent from 70 to 80 per cent of the total cost of health care in Canada. In my opinion, this is a very serious problem. We must also consider that the care provided is of a higher standard, that better prophylaxis prevents epidemics and reduces infant mortality.
Besides, physicians, nurses and health technicians are getting more advanced and more general training. The range of diagnostic tests, medication and highly specialized equipment is forever increasing.
This general expansion, which is part of the quality of care, certainly represents another major factor in the spiralling increase of health care costs in Canada.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, these are only a few examples and reality is infinitely more complex.
In any case, the members know very well that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has long realised the existence of this thorny issue and that he has taken every possible measure to solve it. The federal government and the provinces are fully aware that there is a very serious financial problem, and I can say that all levels of government are prepared to co-operate in order to remedy this unfortunate situation.

LEnglish]
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


NATIONAL DEFENCE-RECONSIDERATION OF CLOSING OF RIVERS AIR BASE
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23 I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) the following question as reported on page 513 of Hansard:
Has the decision to close the Canadian Armed Forces base at Rivers, Manitoba, been reconsidered, since it is the only suitable airfield available for transporting troops in any emergency from Camp Shilo, as was shown by the extreme difficulties experienced last week in the enforced reactivating of Rivers in order to move troops to Montreal?
The minister's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, these facts were very much taken into account when the earlier decisions were arrived at but there has been no reconsideration since the event the hon. member was referred to.
The reason, Mr. Speaker, I have brought this matter up on the adjournment debate is that the people of Rivers and the people of Western Manitoba deserve a better answer than the minister gave. In fact, there are many questions pertaining to Rivers Air Base that this government has never answered or explained. I want to state that if the government can save tax dollars by closing surplus military bases, I agree with them. However, I have never agreed with the closure of Rivers Air Base. This is one of the last bases in Canada that should be closed.
In August of this year, the government announced the closure of two Manitoba bases, Gimli and Rivers. This left two air bases in Manitoba, Canadian Forces Base Winnipeg and Canadian Forces Base Portage. Why did these two remain open and why was Rivers closed? Canadian Forces Base Winnipeg is located adjacent to the Winnipeg International Airport and, needless to say, it causes much congestion of the air lanes in that area. This congestion is increased every day. If the government wants to save the taxpayers' money, why didn't they close Winnipeg instead of Rivers? Winnipeg Air Base is located in Greater Winnipeg and this property could be sold for millions of dollars. Rivers is located in the middle of the Prairies and the government will recover little of their investment on its closure.
Military men will tell you Rivers Air Base is in better condition than most bases in Canada. It has more days on which flying can be undertaken than any base in Manitoba. It is not situated close to the commercial air routes. It has all concrete runways. The permanent married quarters at Rivers are far superior to the ones, for example, at Portage. I can give you many reasons why Rivers should never have been closed.
For the last four years, delegation after delegation from Rivers and Western Manitoba have told the government these facts. But it is obvious the government was not prepared to listen to reason. The people of Rivers are annoyed, and they should be. Two years ago the former Minister of National Defence, told the people this base would not be closed. During discussions I had last spring
October 27, 1970

with the former minister of national defence he told me the British were prepared to lease Rivers Air Base for a training school. He said the British were driving a hard bargain but he thought a lease could be worked out. I suggested the Department of Regional Economic Development should become involved in the negotiations. Perhaps with some incentive from this department a deal could be worked out with the British. If the base were closed this government would have to spend thousands of dollars in trying to locate industry for Rivers. What better industry could there have been than 1,000 British troops training in Western Manitoba? This plan would permit the present maintenance staff to be kept on at the base. The government have never given any explanation of what happened to these negotiations with the British, Mr. Speaker; it is time they did.
After the crisis we have experienced in Quebec in the past month, the government will have to review its whole military policy. Not only has it been proven we are short of troops but now, apparently, we are short of air bases.
The government announced in August that Rivers Air Base would be closed by September, 1971. I understand the control tower at Rivers was closed on October 15. Then, only three days later, when troops from Camp Shilo had to be flown to Montreal, with great difficulty the tower at Rivers was re-activated. In the period of a day, I am told, nine Hercules and two Yukon planes came into Rivers to pick up troops and their equipment. Why did Rivers Air base have to be used? It was used because it is only 30 miles from Camp Shilo, one of the largest army bases in Western Canada. In addition, Rivers air base has concrete runways capable of handling these large transport planes that are necessary to move troops quickly in times of national emergency. Why was Portage air base not used, one of the bases the government has left open in Manitoba? Mr. Speaker, I say if the truth were known the Portage base, with its asphalt runways, cannot handle the large troop planes. Only last month I was informed a Hercules plane went through the runway at CFB Portage.
These events of the past ten days again make the people of Rivers and western Manitoba ask, why were the Winnipeg and Portage bases left open and Rivers closed? Was it at the expense of our national security? Was the government playing politics when they closed Rivers? I would hate to think so.
I strongly urge the government, Mr. Speaker, to tell the people of Rivers what the future of this airbase is. The announcement of its closure was made on August 25. At that time the Department of National Defence, the Department of Regional Economic Development and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson), who is from Manitoba, told the people of Rivers a suitable use would be found for the base and the government would assist in every way possible.
The people of Rivers have been getting the same runaround for the last four years. This community is being destroyed and many businesses have closed. Many homes are vacant and the economic prospects for this town are
Veterans Allowance Increases very gloomy. Why is it this way? Because the government will not announce what plans they have for Rivers.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to tell the people of western Manitoba whether Rivers will be re-opened as a military base because of its strategic location. Is it to be turned over to the Department of Indian Affairs for vocational training? Is it to be turned into an industrial park so the Department of Regional Economic Expansion can locate industry there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated to the hon. member when he asked the question, Mr. Speaker, the decision regarding the closure of Rivers base is final. It is not being reconsidered. The facts which the member referred to in his question, and again this evening, were fully taken into account when that decision was made. There will be no change in that decision.
The Canadian Forces Base Rivers, a flying training base, is being closed for financial reasons, that is to keep within the Department of National Defence budget. The airport was not re-activated, as the hon. member suggested in his question, because it had never been de-activated. While the manning of the control tower has been discontinued, the base will not close until September of 1971. For this particular incident, the control tower was manned by base personnel without any difficulty.
It was decided to use the airport because it was still active as a Canadian Forces base. When it is phased out, troops from Shilo will be able to move through Brandon airport. I should not lecture the hon. member on the geography of his own province, but Brandon is closer to Shilo than Rivers or CFB Portage. Indeed, in terms of proximity, Brandon is far more accessible than Rivers. I suggest to the hon. member that of the many reasons which from time to time have been advanced for keeping Rivers base open, the one he has referred to, namely that it can be used to move troops, is probably the least persuasive.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will now revert to Government Orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Marshall):
That the House urges the government to implement at an early date by way of the appropriate legislative amendments the recommendations contained in the 2nd report of the Standing
638
[Stage Direction]
October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
Committee on Veterans Affairs dated 9 June 1970 and in addition thereto to provide for early payment of adequate increases in the allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act 1952 as amended.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I am pleased Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to express my views on this most creditable and vital subject. I am sure the veterans in our society will take heart when they learn that the substance of the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has come to the floor of this House for debate. I should also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration in extending the time available for debate on the subject in order that everyone who wishes to do so will be able to express his views today. I have sat in my place for most of the day and I have been heartened by the eloquence, the emotion and the sincerity which have been evident in all corners of the House. It does seem to me that this matter should have come to the floor of the House long ago. Certainly, any further delay would be inexcusable. If this debate proves to be just another false start on the road to the ultimate legislation, the government will find itself facing the full fury of both the members of this House and of the country at large.
A great deal has been said today about the valour of our warriors in past days. The fact is that no one can say sufficient about the sacrifices of our veterans to compensate them for the suffering and the hardships they endured. We must do far more than talk, though. I think we are all agreed that we must spice our words with action. Regardless of the war in which a veteran served, the present generation owes him the same debt as did those who lived in the same era. The sacrifices made by our soldiers, sailors and airmen have preserved our society, our sovereignty and our freedom for all the generations which followed them and the debt owed to those people is therefore passed along. The responsibility to bring veterans legislation up to date has fallen squarely on those of us who sit in Parliament today and it would be irresponsible of us to pass it along to anyone else. We must deal with it now in a manner in keeping with its character as an entitlement. I say "entitlement" because I want to speak out against the government's announced intention of holding back new veterans legislation until it has prepared an omnibus paper on the whole spectrum of social welfare legislation.
There are several reasons for my objection to this approach, not the least of which is the one I have just mentioned. Veterans compensation and pensions are totally unrelated to other types of benefits under welfare programs. The veterans of this country have earned certain entitlements which are uniquely theirs. Those entitlements are fundamental to our society and to our system of government. It is shabby and unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, to ask these people to stand in line for welfare to supplement inadequate pensions or compensation, because they paid for our freedom with their health and their limbs.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
Veterans benefits are not public welfare assistance and if all of the rest of my remarks become lost in the dark corners of the record, I want it to be remembered that I object most strenuously to any further delay in implementing legislation which will confer on our veterans adequate compensation, and confer it in a manner which will reflect the dignity with which they made their contributions. It is beneath our dignity as Canadians to do less than other nations are doing, and have done, for their veterans. It is beneath our dignity to strip the dignity from those who have given all they had to give and who now expect only what they have been led to expect. It is all too typical of this government to tell veterans that they will have to wait until they have been integrated into a vast bureaucratic jungle which will administer a multitude of unrelated situations, while at the same time playing down the significance of their contributions.
The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) pointed out a few days ago that the government seemed to be preoccupied with saying to hippies, yippies, draft dodgers and deserters: "Come to the promised land; come to Canada and work against our government and institutions". It is a sad commentary on our government, indeed on all of us, when we allow such a philosophy to take root in this land, a land made secure by the blood, pain and suffering of our own young men and women of past generations. It prompts one to ask whether there is anything left in Canada that is sacred. It is incomprehensible to anyone who has contributed and is now contributing to our society how government can take our hard won freedoms and institutions so cavalierly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is the duty of the Chair at this time to bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that he is getting away from the motion and the amendment thereto now before the House. I think he should try as much as possible to relate his remarks directly to the motion and the amendment.


Cliff Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was only trying to impress upon the House the pressing need to give consideration to the needs of our veterans before those of other elements of society that seem to be coming to the forefront. I was going to mention U.S. draft dodgers, and I think this is pertinent to the discussion at hand. These deserters from the United States walk across an imaginary line between two countries and suddenly become something that they were not moments before they crossed the line. It is fundamental that a man cannot be expected to accept responsibility to a new society when he has demonstrated that he cannot accept responsibility to the society in which he grew up.
I contend a man owes a duty to the society that sheltered him while he was growing up. It is not enough to say that the debt has been discharged simply because an individual states that he disagrees with certain policies of his government. In a free society such as ours, there are established rules by which one must live. Without those rules, there would be chaos.
October 27, 1970

In the sort of society envisaged by most of our hippies and United States drop-outs, people who break the rules are put to death or at best sentenced to long terms of hard labour. I cannot accept lightly government policy that gives freely to such people the fruits of our labours and the benefits that we have derived from the sacrifices of our young people who accepted the responsibility of fighting to preserve our country both today and in times past.
There are elderly people in this country who are waiting to have their fixed and inadequate incomes brought into line with reality, with the present rather than the past cost of living index. There are those unable to work for a variety of reasons who must be looked after. There are also our veterans. It is cruel and inhuman for anyone to seek to sweep these human problems under the rug in order to get them out of sight and out of mind. I call on the government to deal with each of these problems separately, to stop trying to put them into a bag in the hope that when they are dumped out they will solve themselves.
Veterans legislation has always been kept apart from other legislation because it is different from anything else. It is no good for the government simply to say that all benefits are related, that no special conditions or considerations bear upon them. Veterans benefits have a special connotation. There are special considerations bearing upon them, and to ignore or deny these considerations is to do the veterans a disservice. The time to table legislation is now, not when the government has found a multitude of other problems to put together in an omnibus type of package. Our veterans are waiting for the answers and for some ray of hope. I call upon this government to use the majority it asked for and received at the last election to give our veterans the answers they want and require.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since the veterans pension program was adopted some 50 years ago, Canada has witnessed drastic changes, economic as well as social. Being aware of this, the Department of Veterans Affairs had inquiries made in an attempt to adapt, to a greater degree, the services of the department to the veterans' requirements.
In spite of those efforts to humanize the services of the department, to adapt them even more to the needs of the pensioners, the fact remains that there are still scandalous injustices within that department, not where the civil servants or the officials are concerned, but because the pensioners cannot make ends meet with the help the department gives them.
Having said this, I would like to deal with another aspect which it seems to me has been neglected. The average age of the veterans of World War I being 74, and that of the veterans of World War II being 52, one can wonder what happens to their widows since, in most cases, because of illness or disability-because they
Veterans Allowance Increases fought proudly for Canada-they die prematurely. As a result, their widows and other dependants are very often destitute.
Mr. Speaker, the motion and the amendment aim at securing the adoption of many recommendations made by study committees.
One of those recommendations had to do with the wives and other dependents of pensioners, and I would like to be allowed to discuss it very briefly.
The cost of living is increasing steadily. All agree on that. The cost of medicine, housing and food has also increased. Thus, veterans and their dependents can no longer provide for their immediate needs.
Now since pensions are not adapted to the requirements of the people who receive them, some pensioners and their dependents manage very well to live on them, while others can barely subsist.
In my opinion, the pension given to veterans is insufficient. Indeed, the department is aware of that, for on June 30, 1965, it created a relief fund. It is called a relief fund because it is meant to be used to add a supplement to the monthly pension.
This fund is first intended to help the pensioners secure decent housing. In fact, inadequate housing and medical care for veterans' dependents, mainly those affected by chronic sickness, as well as the economic and social consequences of a death, are among the reasons why veterans are asking for the department's services.
Moreover, this fund is important since the financial assistance for special needs or maintenance of income is insufficient to allow pensioners to be self-sufficient or to fit into our society.
We now deal with the basic policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs which is to make it possible for the pensioner to meet his own needs and to adapt himself to this society which he defended so gallantly.
Finally, this fund has been created to meet the department's objectives, namely to achieve close co-operation between the various welfare organizations and to help veterans' widows and dependents.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
This prompts me to remind the hon. members that generally speaking pensioners' wives may not have had the chance to get an education or experience in handling domestic affairs, with the result that when the pensioner dies, the mother is left all by herself with no roof over her head and unable to earn her living because she never learned any trade and she lacks the experience and the know-how needed to handle her own affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the minister will say that hundreds of persons have been helped through this fund, and that it had quite willingly paid several million dollars. Nevertheless, I still maintain that this fund is being used unfairly and inadequately and that, actually, it merely serves as a front which is of no use to dependents or which serves as an excuse to convince the population that the department is taking good care of the dependents.
23226-41J

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
But in fact, experience and the many cases we have witnessed prove that this reiief fund has not really assisted many people. I feel that is a pity because whereas pensions are intended to assist the veteran in readjusting to society, it is also necessary that, upon the veteran's death his dependents be assured of an income allowing them to continue living normally. They can certainly not be made to suffer the consequences of the war.
Mr. Speaker, I have in mind a case which came up this summer in the constituency of Lotbiniere. For several months, a woman from Victoriaville, the wife of a pensioner, appealed, through myself and through other persons, to the Department of Veterans Affairs for supplementary assistance because she was unable to meet her obligations. The department referred her case from one office to another. Finally, as her debts were piling up, she did not know where to turn. Eventually, her creditors called on her and through the bailiff, seized all her furniture. Being ignorant of the law and as she was desperately waiting for help from the special relief fund of the department, she was, at a moment's notice, turned into the street. The afternoon this happened, she came to my office to ask me whether I had heard from the department. When she left my office in Victoriaville to return home, she was at her wits' end. When she got home, she saw the decorations and war souvenirs of her husband as well as her own clothes in garbage bags. She tried to open the door but it was bolted.
For over six months we had been asking for help from the relief fund. All we had were false hopes-it must be said-and that person found herself in the street. She went to the chief of police in an attempt to get some protection but with no success.
We took the matter in hand and it looks as if we shall soon find a solution.
I submit this case to my honourable colleagues not with the intention of annoying them but rather to make them realize the importance of adopting a new policy within that department in order to humanize the services and adjust them to human needs.
The most urgent problem of pensioned veterans is the financial one. When the department realizes this, it will certainly be possible for them to face life more optimistically.
I urgently ask the minister to consider increasing pensions in order to bring them more in keeping with the cost of living, so that the pensioner, instead of being disadvantaged for having risked his life for his country, may live decently.
Also, the government should have more contacts with pensioners, in order to humanize its services and to treat pensioners as human beings and not numbers. There are 945,200 pensioners in Canada. It is impossible for the department to provide a human and personal service to the veterans with the present structures. Even if the department had enough money to help veterans, it should nevertheless reform its structures and humanize its services.
As there are 832,600 veterans from the Second World War and more than 112,600 from the First World War and only 29,800 pensions are paid to veterans or their dependents, the comments I have just made are of the utmost importance. If we want to help our veterans, we must leave no stone unturned to ensure the widow, the mother, the spouse or the dependents of the pensioner the same security as any civilian would have in a similar situation.
Mr. Speaker, if our government wants to be fair, it will deal in a more human fashion with those soldiers who went abroad to fight for their country. However, if it wants merely to grant pensions as it pleases, without regard to the individual needs of each family or to maintain only statutory services provided indiscriminately, I maintain that those services shall not achieve their purpose.
We should, in my opinion, humanize these services, so that scandals and glaring injustices, such as those suffered by the widow of a veteran in Victoriaville, do not happen again.


Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate rather belatedly. I had not intended to, but as the debate went on I could not help but be moved by many of the appeals and references that were made. It is rather interesting, because we are not a military people. This is not our tradition, and sometimes we are inclined to forget the value of the military and of those who have served. But in recent weeks I think many of us have become aware of the value and the outstanding service of the armed forces which serve in peacetime as well as in wartime.
There are times when we are really inordinately proud and grateful for the armed services, and I think the past few weeks have indicated their value to us in peacetime as well as in war. They have served with a quiet dignity, unobtrusively, in a vital role, efficient and well trained for the dreadful tasks which they have been called upon to fulfil, because of that role which is becoming traditional for them, that of peacekeepers.
I had to chuckle a bit at some of the rhetoric used in the debate. I do not mean this with disrespect, because I think back, Mr. Speaker, as you must think back 25 or 30 years to old friends who did not return, who are still there, who probably spoke of politicians who stood up in this House of Commons and chuckled and laughed at them, and probably would chuckle and laugh that you and I might be here now. They did not think of themselves as heroes. They died, sometimes heroically, sometimes otherwise. They were men, above all, who realized that war is not glorious. Some men are glorious in wartime and some are not.
I think of good Canadians, good Canadian names-I just started jotting down a few of them-who are still there: Leszinski, Sawyer, Worthington, Tessier, Rosenthal, Harris, Gugeon, Gagnon, Rayner, Stoll, Lefradi. This is a list of great Canadian names.
(Mr. Fortin.]
October 27, 1970

[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: There are others, too.


Barnett Jerome Danson: There are many others, of course. One could go on mentioning them almost forever. I wanted to join this debate in order to mention some of those names, to remember those people and to pay tribute to the troops who served not only in wartime but in peacetime.
The motion moved by my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) is a very good one and it is with considerable pride that I support it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, even at this late hour I feel compelled to add some words to those that have been spoken today. The motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), is timely in that today has really been the first occasion upon which this House has had the opportunity of discussing veterans affairs after the report of the committee in June. This report was tabled in the House toward the latter part of that month and this subject was not discussed, and could not be discussed, on the general debate we had at the beginning of the session.
I think it is apposite that the House should be discussing today, on the first opposition allotted day, the recommendations of the committee. I had hoped to hear more discussion of the proposals in those recommendations instead of some of the very fine speeches which were made, which were really more in the nature of Remembrance Day speeches. By saying that I do not want to detract from them at all.
I want to underline one or two points that are strictly germane to the motion. First of all, in the report there is one unfortunate, shall we say, omission that has to do, not with the Hong Kong prisoners of war but with the ordinary prisoners of war. Of that group I think I am the only one who is a member of this House. Over the past several years, certainly when I was attending the committee at the time it was hearing representations with regard to the Woods committee report and on other occasions, I have made it a point to urge upon the ministry-and I was hoping during my brief tenure as head of that particular ministry several years ago to initiate the program about which I want to speak-the view that treatment services and/or the Pension Commission should organize a program of calling in all prisoners of war with respect to whom they might not have had a recent, complete medical report.
I had occasion this past summer to be involved with my regimental association. It is composed of members who served in World War I, of the 50th Battalion, and who served in World War II, of the King's Own Calgary Regiment. There I saw the changes in some of my older colleagues in that association and the changes in those of that regiment who are contemporaries of mine. One could see subtle signs, over the years, of some rather disturbing evidence of physical impairment. Some of those men
Veterans Allowance Increases were with me in prisoner of war camps and they are now suffering the accumulated results of the hardships of their experience.
It is not only about those in the army that I wish to speak. I want to talk about all those who were prisoners of war. It is fair to say that the air force prisoners far outnumbered the prisoners taken from the army-I am speaking of ground troops-yet strangely enough, a greater number of army troops have organized into associations which appeared before the committee through their duly appointed representatives. I want again to insist upon the urgency and the value of calling all these men, who are not recorded with the Pension Commission, who are not receiving pensions and who have not in recent years been in for a medical examination. This was done with regard to the Hong Kong prisoners of war. This is how that movement started.
I say without fear of equivocation that the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs were absolutely astounded by the results of the examination. Fortunately, they did not wait for those men to come in on their hands and knees suffering from the debility they now have. This is what we should do. We can get a salutary lesson or definition of what constitutes the long-term results of privation from men who were in this position for up to five years, and others for shorter periods but who had rather more severe experiences. That is my first point.
My second point is in connection with war veterans allowance. This has been a very sore point all along the line for many Canadians who are expatriates of this country, a great many from World War I and many more from World War II. I have personal knowledge of this matter and I have also heard the officials and representatives of the Canadian Veterans Association in the United Kingdom. These Canadian veterans would qualify for allowance except that they have not resided in Canada for the minimum period. They are denied the war veterans allowance. These people are suffering financially. They do not have the means to return to Canada for one year. Some are married and some have reached the ages of 65, 70 and over.
For some unknown reason there is a bureaucratic insistence that there will be a problem with Canadian veterans residing in the United States, flocking back to Canada. There would be no such problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my opinion it is an academic, administrative roadblock which has been set up to deny justice to these men living in the United Kingdom.
The government is prepared to pay war veterans allowance to members of allied forces who qualify and who are living in Canada, but denies this allowance to Canadian veterans living abroad. Some of these men married and are raising their families abroad. I do not understand why the government is continuing its blind persistence in denying these men that to which they are rightfully entitled.
My last point is the same as that raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). It is with regard to the Canadian parks and memorials in France

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases and Belgium. We hear disquieting rumours that for reasons of economy the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs in London is being closed. Some of this administration is being transferred to the British ministry of pensions, and the parks and memorials will be transferred to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
I am sure Your Honour, as former chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, knows the value of memorials such as Vimy and how these memorials depend upon inspired Canadian maintenance and pride. I do not say this because the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cannot look after cemeteries; they are doing a tremendous job. But this is a real symbol for Canadians. If there is a symbol in Europe that portrays the valour and nationhood of Canadian forces during World War I, it is the Vimy memorial; yet we are prepared to transfer it. In any event, this is what we are informed is likely to be the case. I do not think it should be transferred to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for maintenance and care. If it costs a little more, it is worth it. I commend this motion to hon. members and to the government for early action.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for long at this late hour. What I have to say is the reiteration of what I have said in the House before, and what others have said. I support increases in war disability pensions and improvements for veterans at the earliest possible opportunity. In this regard I welcomed the tabling, on the opening day of the new session, of a list of measures projected for the session. Item 22 was entitled "Veterans pension legislation". Should this measure be introduced tomorrow, it would come none too soon for many of the veterans in this country.
A few weeks ago I visited the Beatty Street armoury in Vancouver. This armoury has been used during the summer months, very successfully most of the time, as a hostel for transient young people. However, when I called by on a spot-check, the administration of the hostel was clearly in trouble and unable to handle a situation wherein creatures known as yippies had descended like a baleful plague. This armoury, from which young men had been sent to at least three wars to defend democracy and, indeed, to defend the right to dissent in freedom, the right to join any or no political party, was occupied by a number of these people who had draped revolutionary flags and symbols over the monuments of the minders of Canada's military dead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair does not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but this is not a debate on the general question of veterans or the armed forces. Although as much latitude as possible has been allowed, it is the duty of the occupant of the chair to remind the hon. member that he should stay as closely as possible to the motion and the amendment which are before the House.


Raymond J. Perrault: Your Honour's remarks really bring me to the point I was about to make. When I objected to what I considered to be acts of desecration, one strapping young man met my protest with the rejoinder, "It's a free country, isn't it?" I replied, "Yes, it is a free country; free because other young men, at other times laid their lives and their careers on the line and died to keep it free." But some lived; they came home with their bodies shattered and with their hopes for a productive, happy life, blasted. These are the people we are talking about in this debate. Many of them qualified for war disability pensions, pensions whose real purchasing power has declined steadily through the months and years. We have to do something for them now, soon, and I am confident that we will.
The report of the Veterans Affairs Committee was a good report. Its suggestion that there should be changes in the adjudication and appeal procedure was advanced with clarity and logic. Changes in the basic rate of pension were also proposed. I think we can all support proposals of this kind. Specific improvements were recommended. I repeat, the report was a good report. Now let us as legislators get on with the job-because deeds, not words, count at this time.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because I did not intend to take part in the debate.
I have carefully gone over the motion introduced by the official opposition.
As several of the previous speakers have pointed out, this is a very important motion, Mr. Speaker. I am not a veteran but having been in close contact with many of them over the years, I have become aware of their problems and the weaknesses of the present legislation or of its application.
From 1939 to 1945, the veterans of today were asked to defend, in Canada, or elsewhere, Christianity, civilization and democracy. Considering that only 27,800 pensioners, dependents or survivors now benefit from the veterans legislation, we understand why many of them are not satisfied with its application since they could never obtain anything.
Mr. Speaker, I want to recall that during the various inquiries, veterans have asked the government to amend the legislation in order to correct injustices. The first comment which I would like to make in this respect deals with appeals. On several occasions, I have noted that the present appeals system under the Veterans Act is absolutely antiquated and unfair, and this is due solely to an arbitrary bureaucracy.
On page 10 of the brief submitted to the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs by the War Amputes of Canada, the following can be read:
The Canadian Association of the War Amputees of Canada accepts forthwith the conclusions of the Woods committee in this connection and asks the government to establish an independent Appeal Board ... Under the procedure now applicable to the Commission, no appeal can be made in such cases. One
October 27, 1970

commissioner alone studies the applications; he then obtains the signature of the two other commissioners. If the decision is negative, it is all over!
In another brief submitted by veterans themselves in 1969, there is reference to the establishment of an appeal board, and this time, the same recommendation appears at the beginning of the report submitted to the commitee. One can read in it the following:
... an appeal body above the Pension Commission.
Having studied the Speech from the Throne, we cannot wait for the establishment of this appeal board, nor for detailed changes in the administration of the veterans legislation. I keep on quoting:
Another basic principle in pension administration is that it is not only necessary to do justice but also to give the impression that justice has been done. The Woods Committee report shows clearly that under the present system where appeals are heard by the commissioners themselves, this impression is not given. An appeal board would fill this serious gap in the legislation. The Woods Committee has spoken highly of the comments of the Royal Commission on Governmental Administration (Glassco Commission) as to the necessity of protecting the citizens against arbitrary decisions rendered against them when they cannot appeal to administrative courts-
As it is the case for veterans, Mr. Speaker.
In his letter addressed to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) on January 6, 1970, the chairman of the Veterans Committee of the Royal Canadian Legion was dealing with the same matter.
So, if the government has not seen fit to adopt all the recommendations contained in the briefs previously submitted by veterans associations, it should, I believe, at least accept the most urgent ones.
Before concluding, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the veterans-and God knows they are still willing to work when they are able to do so-should be able to profit from earnings gained through small jobs that they can still do in spite of the handicaps that the war has brought to them.
According to present legislation, when a veteran earns a supplementary income, his pension is discontinued so as to punish him for having had the courage to earn a few pennies.
At page 2 of the brief submitted by the war amputees of Canada in April 1969, section 2 reads as follows:
No interference and no obstacle should hamper the disabled veteran who wants to better his lot through a training course or any other apprenticeship in order to take peacetime employment, so that the money he earns through his remaining capacities should not in any way deprive him of his right to a pension. In other words, his pension is paid to him because of his disability in connection with the unskilled labour market. If he can earn his living with talents acquired through his remaining capacities, he should not suffer the smallest loss on account of it.
Mr. Speaker, it is not normal that veterans able to work because of their talents and good will should be penalized by a decrease in their pension as soon as they can earn money.
Veterans Allowance Increases If we want to keep the promises already made to the veterans when we asked for their services from 1939 up to 1945 in order to defend Canada, it seems to me that we should not deceive them today by forcing them to remain idle and by punishing them for the money they were courageous enough to earn.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be the spokesman of the great number of veterans who reside in my riding. I remember that they used to invite me every year to the Remembrance Day ceremony in honour of their brothers who fell on the battlefield.
This year, this ceremony will take place on November 15.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
I already know they are going to ask me to tell the government they want greater attention to the matter of the pension paid to them, which is clearly inadequate in a period of inflation.
I remember one veteran. In fact, I remember the day my brother, a soldier during the 1914-18 war, returned to Canada. The date was December 16, 1918. I was then five years old and had waited up until 1 a.m. to see him arrive. I had been making my mother tell me of what was going on, of the perils to which our soldiers were exposed. I was therefore anxious to witness the return of this man whom I barely knew since I was scarcely two years old when he had enlisted. I could hardly wait to see him with my own eyes and to hear with my own ears the tales he had to tell. My whole life was deeply influenced by those events. Since then I have always had the greatest respect for these brave young men who sacrificed the best years of their lives for the safeguard of our liberties.
We owe them a debt of deep gratitude and our most profound respect. We must pay them back not just with words but also with deeds. Effectively, we must give them the financial assistance needed to enable them to enjoy in their own right the privilege of liberty and security.
We may feel proud to say that our sons died on the field of honour. In Europe, our war cemeteries are well kept by the local populations. Last May I had the opportunity of visiting the one near Rouen, and I was quite impressed to see the great respect the people of this region have for Canadian soldiers, and the gratitude they feel for Canadian veterans who twice defended the freedom that they enjoy now.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion now under study and the related amendment should be supported by all members, because Canada can afford to grant greater benefits to veterans than those they enjoy now. This very evening, when I did not expect to participate in this debate, I had the visit of a veteran who told me of his problems.

October 27, 1970
Veterans Allowance Increases
I told him: Today, the opposition introduced a motion about veterans. Alter discussing the matter with him, I decided to come back to the House to become the spokesman lor this person and lor all veterans who, in 1970, truly deserve a better deal than they have been getting so lar.
I sincerely hope that Parliament will act more promptly, so that the older veterans may also, in the last years ol their lives, have the security and Ireedom lor which they have so valiantly lought. I am convinced that, in this way, we shall give their children definite prool that the country truly wants to recognize the sacrifices that their parents have made to preserve Ireedom.
That might also serve as an example lor our youth who could also be inspired by the confidence shown by the adults in their country, which they want to continue to build not lor the old who are going to die tomorrow
but lor the young who will be happy to live there in peace, while assuring to veterans the security they need.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there appear to be no other members who wish to take part in the debate at this time. Therefore, I now move that this House do adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure ol the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion ol Mr. Gray the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Wednesday, October 28, 1970