1971-01-11

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
THIRD SESSION-TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT 19-20 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
23786-1*
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 11, 1971


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I dislike starting the new school period with problems. However, in pursuit of my duty I must raise a question of privilege, notice of which I have given to Your Honour. I consider it to be an exceptionally serious issue, Mr. Speaker. It is one that would be very serious under any conditions, but at this stage of this Parliament, when opposition members have experienced through three sessions the rather arrogant attempts by this authoritarian government to cut the heart out of the parliamentary process, it is even more important that this question be raised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The matter I raise has some implications for the Chair as the guardian of our rights and privileges and the protector of minority parties in the House, and to some extent it also affects the officers and staff of the standing committees.
On December 16, after debate, the House gave second reading to Bill C-180 dealing with packaging and labelling, a measure that can be of great importance to many people. To facilitate passage of the bill, members of the opposition-certainly all members of this party-agreed to a restricted debate so that the bill could be given second reading and referred to the committee. At that time the minister quite properly stated there would be ample opportunities when the committee sat for members of the public who may be interested to appear before that committee, although the minister made it quite plain that he was only speaking as a member of the House and that it was up to the committee to decide its own procedure. I should add that the order was in the usual form with no restrictions on the right of the committee to hear evidence. Under Standing Order 65(8) there is ample opportunity for members of the public to appear before the committee, and there were no restrictions in that regard.
.10 p.m.)
Two days after the bill received second reading the House recessed until today and as far as I can tell from examining the records and through discussions with committee members there has been no meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to which the bill was referred. The bill has never been
considered, nor has there been any decision as to the method of procedure. Yet on December 29 a letter was sent over the signature of the clerk of the committee to Mr. Ernie Steele of the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, who had previously been in touch with the committee clerk about making representations on the bill. Mr. Steele received this letter the next day, and I must put part of it on the record. It refers to a previous letter from Mr. Steele which had been brought to the attention of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), to whom I gave notice that I would be raising this question today. It stated:
Your letter of November 16, 1970, has been brought to the attention of Mr. Steve Otto, Chairman of the Committee, who has requested me to advise you as follows:
When the committee is considering a subjectmatter, outside witnesses will be invited to appear in order to present briefs and answer questions.
During its consideration of bills, the committee will hear only the minister and departmental officials: furthermore, briefs can be submitted but not presented orally at sittings of the committee. Therefore, if you wish to submit a brief on Bill C-180, for distribution to the members of the committee (an up-to-date list is attached), please send me, at your earliest convenience, 25 copies in English and, if possible, 10 copies in French.
The Chairman suggests that you might wish to contact individual Members of Parliament who could support your views, through members of committee who could be the spokesmen for your group: when the committee is considering the bill, Members of Parliament would be welcome to attend and be available to the members of the committee for the purpose of information, argument, etc., when the minister and departmental officials are being examined.
The Chairman feels it would be just as effective to have your case presented as per the procedure outlined above as it would be if it were presented directly.
In passing, I must say I am amazed at the attitude of the hon. member for York East who two years ago circularized a statement to all his constituents in which he said that in his view the committee procedure of the House was not working successfully because the government was insisting that all committee members must do what they were told. He was not a chairman, then.
I suspect that this outrageous attempt to circumscribe the operations of a committee of the House involves more than just the opinion of the chairman. The wording used, the detail in the letter and the way in which proposed rules are laid down, together with previous statements I have heard, indicate that the government is laying its heavy hand on the committees and has issued instructions to chairmen, committee officials and possibly to its own members to act in this way. I suggest that more than just the internal operations of the committee are involved when a letter of this kind is sent over the signature of the clerk of the committee, apparently on the instructions of the chairman.

January 11, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
Incidentally, I hold no brief for the particular organization I have mentioned. I am sure that these people, together with representatives of consumer groups and others, wish to appear and speak for themselves. Instead, apparently they are to be allowed only to present briefs and to involve members of this House as lobbyists representing special interests. This is a grave situation and I maintain it cannot be permitted to pass without question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I could say a great deal more, but I submit a prima facie case of privilege has been made out. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this letter and the questions involved I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections he directed to examine the whole question of this letter dated December 29th and sent by the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to Mr. C. G. E. Steele, and all of the surrounding and relevant circumstances, including any specific instructions the Clerk might have received and what general instructions have been issued to the Committees Branch.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he cannot make such a motion unless the Chair has decided that there is a prima facie case of privilege.


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is not prepared to receive the motion at this time. The Chair will allow the hon. member for York East to say a few words in reply since his conduct as chairman of the committee has been particularly impugned. Thereafter the Chair will take the matter under advisement.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a nice way to start the second part of the session. May I point out to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that this is not a question of privilege. The committee is master of its own proceedings; I believe Your Honour has held that to be so many times. It was the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs that decided some two years ago that when a bill is considered only departmental officials and the minister are to be heard and that when a subject matter is considered witnesses will be invited. A representative of the hon. gentleman sat on the steering committee and so did others. This decision was approved unanimously by the committee, and these are the rules that are being followed today.
Unlike the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, may I advise you that the minister did not have anything to do with this. Indeed, I had to reprimand the minister for presuming to tell the committee how its business should be conducted. The committee is conducting its business in accordance with the ruling made by the committee. The committee can still change its mind if it wants to; that will be up to the committee.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can only be one question of privilege before the House at a time.


Donald MacInnis: This is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has indicated that no debate will be allowed at this time. I do not think there should be a debate. If the hon. member has another question of privilege I will hear it in a moment, but in any event I indicated that the first matter would be taken under advisement. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a different question of privilege, I will now hear her.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is equally well a point of order. My point is that an inaccurate statement has been made by the chairman of the committee and as a member of the steering committee I want to set it right. May I do so?


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Donald MacInnis: The chairman made the point that the steering committee had decided that no witnesses would appear when legislation was referred to the committee. We did not make any such decision, Mr. Speaker. We made the decision that when the subject matter of a bill had already been discussed by the committee we would not consider it necessary to hear witnesses after second reading. The subject matter of the packaging and labelling bill has not been before the committee at any time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE LATE JOSEPH-ALFRED MONGRAIN

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I refer with the deepest sorrow to the death of Mr. Joseph-Alfred Mongrain, the member for Trois-Rivieres, who passed away on December 23.
A member since 1965, Mr. Mongrain was devoted to the interests of the citizens of his riding and gave constant proof of his untiring dedication to his work. His active participation in municipal affairs well prepared him for the role he was to play in the House of Commons. Mr. Mongrain leaves behind him the memory of a generous man, a man of ideas, independent in spirit, for whom politics was a total commitment.
I know that all members join with me in paying tribute to his memory and in extending the sympathy of this House to his family and friends.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the Acting Prime Minister to the late Mr. Mongrain. He was a man with whom we all had very pleasant relations, a man who displayed the ability to discuss matters in the House with vigour without in any

January 11, 1971

way affecting personal relationships. We all feel that the House has suffered a very real loss. As the Acting Prime Minister has said, he was a man of real independence of spirit. He sat in the House as an independent member for some time.
I wish to join with the Acting Prime Minister in expressing our regrets, our sorrow and our sympathy to the members of his family.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members were both astonished and appalled to learn of the passing of Mr. Mongrain, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, during the Christmas-New Years recess.
Mr. Mongrain was a friendly man who I think had the respect of members in all parts of the House. He was one of those rare politicians who are comparatively free of bitter partisanship. Every year he brought a delegation from his constituency to visit Parliament Hill and invited members of other parties to come and meet them. He was popular not only in the House but in his own constituency as indicated by the fact that he was twice mayor of Trois-Rivieres and for one term was president of the conference of Canadian mayors.
His death is a serious loss to this chamber and to the party with which he was associated. The members of the New Democratic Party wish, through you, Sir, to express to Madame Mongrain and her children and to the people of Trois-Rivieres our deep regret at the great loss which they and we have suffered.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste and myself were astounded to learn of the sudden demise of Mr. Mongrain, member for Trois-Rivieres. We will certainly miss him, for he was remarkably clever and had a sense of humour. Even though we could not always agree with his opinions, it was nevertheless possible to exchange views with him. I would like to join all the other members to offer the stricken family our most sincere sympathy.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister I should like to table press releases issued December 22 concerning changes in the ministry involving the departure from the cabinet of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and the appointment of the hon. member for Dollard as Solicitor General.
Questions



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(1) I wish to table copies in both official languages of the first annual report of the Department of Communications.



TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD ACT


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered
to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Nowlan: What was the success rate on applications to the Canada Council, in each of the past five years, for (a) doctoral fellowships (b) post-doctoral fellowships (c) leave fellowships (d) research grants of $6,000.00 or less (e) travel grants to International Meetings?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows:
SUCCESS RATES-ACADEMIC PROGRAMS 1965/66-1969/70
1965/66	1966/67	1967/68	1968/69	1969/70Doctoral Fellow-	%	%	%	%	%ships	40	66	62	60	56Post-doctoral	Fellowships Leave Fellow-	72	53	ships	50	68	69	58	36Research Grants	($5,000 or less) Travel Grants to International	91	88	88Meetings	97	100	79	53	56
January 11, 1971
Questions


POLYMER CORPORATION-DISENGAGEMENT OF INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Has the government requested that Polymer Corporation of Canada disengage its 4.5 million dollar investment in Sentrachem Limited in South Africa and, if so, on what date did it make this request?
2.	Has Polymer Corporation acceded to the government's request and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. and 2. Polymer's management informed the government early in the year that in view of the heavy financial requirements for its growth and diversification program, it was reviewing its 1963-64 investment in Sentrachem and subsequently made the decision that it should sell its shares. The company is now in the process of liquidating this investment.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1 What was the total amount of money in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?
4. What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Fund during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The total amount of money in the Public Service Superannuation Account as of: (a) March 31, 1968: $2,875,823,276; (b) March 31, 1969: $3,178,376,807; (c) March 31, 1970: $3,695,308,333.
2.	Interest was paid on this account at the rate of 4 per centum per annum up until the quarter ending June 30, 1969. T.B. Minute 692055 dated September 25, 1969 amended section 35 of the Public Service Superannuation Regulations, and the actual interest rates subsequent to this date were as follows: Quarter ending September, 1969, 1.2416 per cent; December 31, 1969, 1.2575 per cent; March 31, 1970, 1.2868 per cent; June 30, 1970, 1.3174 per cent; September 30, 1970, 1.3262 per cent.
3.	The total amount of interest credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending: March 31, 1968: $110,897,897; March 31, 1969: $117,950,358; March 31, 1970: $130,993,152.
4.	The total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending: March 31, 1968: $84,113,503; March 31, 1969: $86,964,343; March 31, 1970: $95,880,827.


SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What is the estimate of the total amount expected to be contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the period April 1, 1970, to March 31, 1971?
2.	What is the estimate of the total amount expected to be paid out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as supplements to the pensions of all those entitled thereto during the period April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971?
3.	What was the total amount actually credited to the Supplementary Benefits Retirement Account (a) as contributions by employees (b) as contributions by the government during the six-month period April 1 to September 30, 1970 (c) what amount was added as interest and, at what rate, during the same period?
4.	What was the total amount actually paid out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the six-month period April 1 to September 30, 1970, in the form of pension supplements, and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
5.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as at September 30, 1970?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	(a) $11.8 million; (b) $11.8 million.
2.	$18.6 million.
3.	(a) $5,801,992.52; (b) $5,801,992.52; (c) $5,709.44, 7J per cent interest for period April-June, 1970; 7J per cent interest for period July-September, 1970.
4.	$9,275,800.43 to 70,877 persons.
5.	$9,219,222.10.


GRANT TO INDIAN-ESKIMO ASSOCIATION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Did the Secretary of State Department provide a financial grant related to the meeting held at Coppermine, Northwest Territories attended by representatives from Indian and Eskimo communities across the arctic and, if so, what was the amount of that grant?
2.	Is the government giving consideration to providing more monies to this new organization of Indian and Eskimo communities to assist them in obtaining their objectives?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the departments of the Secretary of State and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. The Department of the Secretary of State provided a grant of $15,000 to the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada to assist it in meeting the travel expenses of Eskimo and Indian delegates attending the Coppermine Conference.
2.	No provision has been made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for financial assistance to the new organization of Indian and Eskimo communities entitled (Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement) COPE.


PERCENTAGE OF CANADIANS EARNING LESS THAN $7,000 YEARLY
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What percentage of Canadian taxpayers In the last available year earned less than $7,000 a year?
2.	Are there any members of the Canadian Consumer Council who earn less than $7,000 a year?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue, Taxation and Consumer and Cor-
[. Pelletier.]
January 11, 1971

porate Affairs as follows: 1. 74 per cent of Canadian taxpayers earned less than $7,000 in the year 1968, the latest year for which such statistics are available.
2.	The earnings of members of the Canadian Consumer Council are not known by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED REGARDING REFORM OF ABORTION LAWS
Mrs. Maclnnis: For the period January 1, 1970 to September 30, 1970, how many representations have been submitted to the Government of Canada regarding reform of Canada's Abortion Laws, urging the Canadian Government to remove abortion from the Criminal Code, making it a medical decision between physician and patient?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Justice, National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices as follows: 364, which includes 76 names signed on one petition.


NEWFOUNDLAND-REPRESENTATIVES OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN PROVINCE
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Who are the representatives from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion working with the Government of the Province of Newfoundland, and what are their titles and responsibilities?
2.	Who are those directly responsible for the area which includes the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and what are their particular responsibilities?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. The Department's officers located in Newfoundland are: Mr. J. L. Miller, Director-generally responsible for departmental activities in Newfoundland. Mr. R. A. Kieley, Senior Infrastructure Officer, Mr. D. M. Burt, Junior Infrastructure Officer-concerned with departmental activities related to implementation of the Newfoundland Special Areas and Highways Agreement. Mr. C. D. Reynolds, Resource Adjustment Officer-concerned with ARDA and with implementation of the Newfoundland Resettlement Agreement. Mr. A. Davis, Industry Development Officer-concerned with the utilization of the Regional Development Incentives Act and other promotion of industry in the province.
2.	The responsibilities of each of the above-named officers are not limited to any particular district, but are province-wide.


GREATER VANCOUVER AREA-FINANCING OF LOW COST HOUSING
Mr. Goode: Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation plan to refurbish the supply of money for low-cost housing in the greater Vancouver area?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its
Questions
1971 capital budget, will provide a substantial amount of financing for the provision of housing for low and modest income people.


FREDERICTON AIRPORT
Mr. MacRae: Have any surveys been made within the past twelve months regarding the extension of the runways of the Fredericton Airport?


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: No, however, the Ministry of Transport conducts continuing reviews of all major airports in Canada, including Fredericton, to assess requirements for extension of runways and expansion of other facilities serving civil aviation in Canada.


MANPOWER-SPECIAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Lewis: 1.	How many new trainees, by province, will benefit from the approximately $20 million in additional funds to be provided to the Department of Manpower and Immigration in an extension of its manpower training programs as announced by the Minister of Finance on October 13?
2.	What is the breakdown, by province, of the $15 million being provided under a special employment program directed to capital projects in regions where unemployment is higher as announced by the Minister of Finance on October 13 and what special criteria have been used with regard to the financial allocation?
3.	For each department and agency, how many people have been and are to be employed for a variety of operations and maintenance tasks under the $25 million allocated by the Minister of Finance in his speech on October 13 and, for each class of employees employed or to be employed, what is the respective remuneration or salary?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and by the Treasury Board as follows: 1. It is estimated that a minimum of
12,000	to 13,000 persons will be trained under the special program. The actual number trained in each province will depend on the kind of training provided, the cost and the duration of training courses, and will not be available until the program is completed.
2.	The breakdown by province of the capital projects portion of the special program is as follows:
British Columbia	$000's 2,305.2
Alberta	351.8
Saskatchewan	924.5
Manitoba	1,455.3
Ontario	160.0
Quebec	8,464.0
New Brunswick	163.2
Nova Scotia	180.4
Prince Edward Island	439.7
	14,444.1
2252

January 11, 1971
Questions
The criteria used in allocating the $60 million dollars of additional expenditure involved judgment as to the extent to which unemployment, reflecting long-standing structural relationships in the various regions of the country, exceeded the level of about four per cent. On that basis, approximately half the excessive unemployment is to be found in Quebec, the balance in other parts of Canada. In the distribution of expenditures within Quebec and within each of the other regions, predominance was given to the need to select for implementation work which would create a relatively large amount of employment per dollar expended and at the same time contribute to the programs of government.
3.	Figures are not available on the number of people that will be employed nor the remunerations they will receive from the approximate $25 million allocation for operation and maintenance tasks. It is anticipated, however, that some 3,670 man years of employment will be provided through these tasks. Since a man year is the employment of one person for a complete year, it is therefore obvious that many more persons than the 3,670 figure mentioned above will be employed as this money must be spent within the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971. The type of person to be hired will consist of some higher paid people such as engineers; however, due to the type of projects involved, it is expected that the majority of those employed will be in the lower paid categories of unskilled and semi skilled.


CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the present seating capacity of the waiting room of the Charlottetown Airport?
2.	What was the seating capacity prior to the recent enlargement of the terminal building?
3.	How many commercial flights use the Charlottetown Airport on a daily basis and, what is their passenger capacity?
4.	For how many automobiles does the Airport parking lot provide space?
5.	Is it intended to enlarge the runways at the Charlottetown Airport and, if so, when and by how much?
6.	Is land for expansion of the Charlottetown Airport being acquired or surveyed?
7.	When is an Instrument Landing System to be installed?
8.	Are further improvements contemplated for this Airport and, if so, on what date?
9.	What is the floor space of the present passenger terminal and what was it prior to the enlargement referred to in part 2?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Sixty-three persons.
2.	Thirty-three persons.
3.	(a) Boeing 737 twice daily, Seating capacity 109; (b) Dart Herald three times daily, Seating capacity 42.
4.	Fifty-eight automobiles.
5.	No.
6.	Not at this time, however, a task force has been set up to produce a master plan for the development of airport expansion commensurate with the service provided by the scheduled carriers.
7.	Anticipated in 1972.

8.	(a) An expansion of 1,280 sq. ft. to the Air Terminal Building is to be completed in 1971; (b) General improvements to Runways, Runway Lighting Systems and other airports facilities, as dictated by the development of the master plan referred to in 6 could take place within the next 5 years.
9.	Present Terminal, 2,960 sq. ft.; before enlargement, 1,569 sq. ft.


NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND SALARIES
Mr. Mazankowski: How many public servants were employed by the government during the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69 (a) what was the total cost of the payroll in each fiscal year (b) what was the average salary in each fiscal year (c) what was the percentage of increase?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Number of employees
(a)	Payroll
(in thousands of dollars)
(b)	Average Salary
(c)	Percentage Increase
1967-68	1968-69
201,601	204,177
$1,261,472	$1,363,776
$6,267.20	$6,679.30
6.7 per cent
The above data relates only to those employees for which the Treasury Board is the employer and does not include casual employees of less than six months. Source: DBS-Federal Employment Statistics.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	As the present time, how many offices are maintained across Canada by the Department of Justice and, in each case (a) where are they located (b) when were they opened (c) what is their purpose?
2.	How many lawyers are employed in each such office and, in each case (a) what are their names (b) at what cost?
3.	What other staff is employed and, in each case (a) in what capacity (b) at what cost?
4.	What is the budget for each office for the current year?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1. In addition to Headquarters in Ottawa, the Department of Justice maintains the following Regional Offices which were opened on the dates indicated below:
(a) Halifax opened Montreal Toronto Winnipeg Vancouver
(b) July 1, 1970 July 19, 1965 January 1, 1966 April 1, 1969 August 1, 1967
Department of Justice officers are also attached to the offices of other government departments or agencies at Sydney, N.S.; Moncton, N.B.; Saint John, N.B.; Belleville, Ont.; Edmonton, Alta.; and Saskatoon, Sask. Two Crown Attorneys are stationed at Yellowknife, N.W.T., and one at Whitehorse, Y.T. (c) The purpose of each Regional Office is to carry out such legal functions of the Department of Justice as may be assigned to them or which may arise within the respective regions
>
:
January 11, 1971

2.	The names of the lawyers employed in each Regional Office, and the costs of employing them are as follows: Halifax-3 lawyers: R. P. J. Anderson; J. M. Bentley; B. N. Burgess. Cost $54,150. Montreal-13 lawyers: G. Cote; G. Drolet; L. P. Landry; J. R. G. LeBlanc; M. Lecours; G. R. Leger; H. Masson; G. Monette; A. Nadon; P. Paul; M. Peterson; J. Potvin; G. Tremblay. Cost $207,127. Toronto-16 lawyers: F. A. A. Baker; R. F. Batt; A. J. Belisle; E. A. Bowie; P. Bozowsky; N. A. Chalmers; P. S. Duffy; J. S. Gill; M. Greenbloom; L. R. Olsson; W. R. Persram; D. J. A. Rutherford; D. G. Scott; R. B. Thomas; P. A. Vita; J. F. Wcislo. Cost $251,750. Winnipeg-5 lawyers: E. Kucher; D. Margolis; M. M. Morgan; A. Sarchuk; A. Schroeder. Cost $98,450. Vancouver-19 lawyers: W. G. Barker; W. T. Begg; G. C. Carruthers; N. Christie; G. O. Eggertson; A. G. F. Gilchrist; D. J. T. Graham; P. W. Halprin; S. J. Hardinge; W. Hohmann; C. M. Hyde; S. A. Hynes; T. E. Jackson; D. R. Kier; W. Mah; N. D. Mullins; G. A. Noble; R. G. Wismer; C. Stolte. Cost $310,550.
3.	Other staff and the costs of employing them are as follows: Halifax, 3 secretaries, $17,956; Montreal, 9 secretaries, 3 clerks $75,101; Toronto, 14 secretaries, 8 clerks $130,514; Winnipeg, 4 secretaries, 1 clerk $31,446; Vancouver, 10 secretaries, 2 clerks $69,497.
4.	The budgets for these offices for the current year are as follows: Halifax, $93,000; Montreal, $406,000; Toronto, $464,800; Winnipeg, $206,000; Vancouver, $451,000.


CONSTITUTIONAL RAMIFICATIONS RESULTING FROM LECLERC CASE
Mr. Telraull: 1.	What was the legal position of the federal government in the case of Mr. William Leclerc heard before the Provincial Court of the City of Montreal by Judge M. Perron?
2.	Following this case, is the federal government considering the possibility of introducing an amendment to the constitution and, if so, have any steps been taken in that direction?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices as follows: 1. It was decided that the federal government would not intervene in this case, at least not at this stage, before the Provincial Court.
2.	There has been no specific consideration of the results of this case, as it is still before the courts. General discussions are being held with the provincial governments about the distribution of powers in relation to the capital market in the course of the constitutional review.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-PERSONNEL STATISTICS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many men were members of the RCMP in each of the past five years?
2.	Of the total RCMP strength in each of the past five years (a) how many men were English speaking (b) how many were French speaking?
Questions
3.	How many English speaking officers were assigned to each province in each of the past five years?
4.	How many French speaking officers were assigned to each province in each of the past five years?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. April 1, 1970, 9413; April 1, 1969, 8918; April 1, 1968, 8615; April 1, 1967, 8250; April 1, 1966, 7560.
English	French
Speaking	Speaking
Members	Members
April 1, 1970, 9413	8487*	926*April 1, 1969, 8918	8032*	886*
*Figures are approximate as precise statistical records have not been kept. No records are available prior to dates shown.
3 and 4. Officers are assigned to provinces on the basis of authorized strengths and in accordance with established priorities in respect of language and other requirements. Statistical records of exact numbers by provinces in each language group have not been maintained.


CITIZEN PROTECTION STUDIES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the government studying the advisability of introducing legislation creating an ombudsman to ensure better protection for citizens?
2.	What is the status of studies concerning citizen protection against government and bureaucracy?
3.	Who is conducting the studies and will they be Tabled?


John Napier Turner: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: 1, 2 and 3. Protection of the citizen has been, and continues to be, a fundamental concern. How best to achieve optimum protection for the citizen in his relations with the federal government is under continuous study, and many steps have already been taken to redress the imbalance between the two. The recently enacted law of expropriation is an example where additional protection was given the citizen against the arbitrary powers of expropriation that existed heretofore. Likewise, the Statutory Instruments Bill which provides for public scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, the re-organization of the Exchequer Court into the Federal Court of Canada, the measure respecting hate propaganda, the establishment of a Law Reform Commission, and measures to be introduced regarding the right to privacy were drafted, or will be drafted, with this fundamental concern for civil liberties in mind. It has not been shown conclusively that the office of ombudsman offers the citizen a greater measure of protection against the state than he enjoys with an informed legislature and a responsive government.


CRIMINAL CODE-IMPOSITION OF PECUNIARY PENALTIES
Mr. Foriin: With reference to the pecuniary penalties provided for in the Criminal Code and under Sections 622 and 694 of the Criminal Code, will the government consider imposing the penalty in
23786-2*

January 11, 1971
Questions
proportion to ability to pay so that the poor will not be more penalized than the affluent and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


John Napier Turner: With the exception of a very few cases where minimum penalties are provided for, the penalties provided by the Criminal Code are maximum penalties, and the decision of what is an appropriate penalty is properly left to the courts to determine on the basis of all the circumstances of the case, including the ability of the convicted person to pay. It is considered that adequate remedies by way of appeal are available to a convicted person who considers that the amount of a fine imposed upon him is excessive.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 333
Mr. Fortin:: 1.	Does the government intend changing the name of the Exchequer Court of Canada to Federal Superior Court?
2.	Is the government considering the possibility of making the Immigration Appeal Board a division of the proposed Federal Superior Court?
3.	Is the government considering or will it consider the possibility of making the Tax Appeal Board a Fiscal Matters Division of the proposed Federal Superior Court?


John Napier Turner: 1. As a
result of Bill C-172 the Exchequer Court of Canada has been retitled and reorganized as the Federal Court of Canada.
2.	The government has no intention of proceeding in the manner indicated at the present time.
3.	The intention of the government in respect to the Tax Appeal Board is indicated in Bill C-174 which is now before the House.


&quot;VAPONA NO-PEST STRIP&quot;
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare undertaken any study to determine the effect of inhaling, over a period of months or years, the pesticide dimethyl-dichlorovinyi-phos-phate, the active agent of the Shell Chemical Company's "Nopest Strip" and, if not, for what reason has the sale of this product in Canada been approved?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department to require the pesticide to be clearly labelled "Poison", as has been done in Holland and other European Countries?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No. The Department of National Health and Welfare does not approve the sale of any product in Canada and has not approved the sale of the Shell Chemical Company's "Vapona No-Pest Strip". It is understood that this product is, however, registered, for specified purposes, under the Pest Control Products Act, which is administered by the Department of Agriculture.
2.	The labelling of the "Vapona No-Pest Strip" is the responsibility of the Canada Department of Agriculture.


COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION-CANADA'S CONTRIBUTION TO MAINTENANCE OF CEMETERIES
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many military cemeteries does Canada maintain abroad?
2.	In which countries are they located?
3.	What is the maintenance cost of military cemeteries abroad? Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs as follows: 1. Four. In addition, serving servicemen and dependants may be buried in cemeteries maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Department of External Affairs.
2.	Two in West Germany and two in France.
3.	At present there is a 20 year lease totalling $16,178 for maintenance of graves of servicemen at Werl, West Germany. Maintenance costs of graves of dependants buried at Zwiebrucken, Choloy and St. Hilare, are borne by non-public funds and are not a charge on the Department of National Defence. In so far as service personnel buried in cemeteries maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is concerned, maintenance costs are charged on a pro rated basis annually and are paid from defence appropriation "miscellaneous expenses". Such costs are not readily identifiable without a great deal of research. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission maintains the graves of all Canadian war dead who are buried abroad. Canada contributes to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission an amount in direct ratio to the number of burials. In 1970-71 Canada's share, paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs, will be $558,000.


PUBLIC SERVICE-POSITION OF MR. RICHARD GWYN
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has Mr. Richard Gwyn left the position of Executive Assistant to the Minister of Communications and, if so (a) has he entered the federal Public Service (b) in what capacity and in which department (c) at what level and salary?
2.	Did he enter and win a Public Service competition for this position and, if not, what was the basis for his appointment?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. (b) Director, Socio Economic Planning, Department of Communications, (c) Senior Executive Officer 1, Salary range $20,000-$25,000.
2.	Mr. Gwyn was appointed by the Public Service Commission by a process of selection other than competition as provided for by Section 10 of the Public Service Employment Act.


CORNER BROOK, NFLD.-PROVISION OF CMHC FUNDS FOR ARTERIAL ROUTE
Mr. Marshall: Has the Province of Newfoundland made application to CMHC to provide funds for an arterial route in the City of Corner Brook and, if so, what progress has been made?


Robert Knight Andras: The Province of Newfoundland has not made application to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide funds for an arterial route in the City of Corner Brook.
(Mr. Fortin.]
January 11, 1971


STATUS OF HOLDERS OF RHODESIAN PASSPORTS
Mr. Robinson: Is it government policy that people holding Rhodesian passports are denied entrance to Canada?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External
Affairs): In a resolution passed on May 29, 1968, the Security Council decided "that all States Members of the United Nations shall: (a) Prevent the entry into their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport, regardless of its date of issue, or on a purported passport issued by or on behalf of the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia; (b) Take all possible measures to prevent the entry into their territories of persons whom they have reason to believe to be ordinarily resident in Southern Rhodesia and whom they have reason to believe to have furthered or encouraged, or to be likely to further or encourage, the unlawful actions of the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia or any activities which are calculated to evade any measure decided upon in this resolution or resolution 232 (1966) of 16 December 1966." This is a mandatory decision of the Security Council, and Canada has complied with it in accordance with its obligations under the United Nations Charter. The entry to Canada, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport is prohibited.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-MAN-HOURS SAVED AS A RESULT OF UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Labour during each year since computers have been used?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: Estimates of man-hour savings achieved by means of computers cannot be made because the type of records required are not maintained. There are clear indications, however, that the use of computers has made available a substantial amount of information that would not have otherwise been available and has done so without any significant increase in man-hours.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-LAY-OFFS AND HIRINGS AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Labour, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: (a) Nil. (b) Records are not maintained in a manner which would permit the identification of employees hired specifically because the department is using computers, with the exception of those personnel classified as CSA or Corn-
Questions
puter Operating Personnel. There are 24 employees so classified in this department.


WHEAT BOARD SALES-AMOUNT PAID BY GOVERNMENT TO FINANCE INTEREST CHARGES
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the past 10 years, what amount was paid by the government to finance interest charges on Wheat Board sales?
2.	What amount, which was attributable to the interest charge, was charged to each pool (that is, wheat, oats or barley) in the same period?


Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The program to assist credit sales of wheat by subsidizing the interest rate to competitive levels was initiated in 1969. Up to November 30, 1970, the government had paid $809,168.58 under this program.
2.	Nil.


OXFORD, N.S.-POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 465
Mr. Coates:: 1.	Have complaints been received by the Department of Public Works with regard to the post office constructed at Oxford, Nova Scotia and, if so, what was the basis of the complaints and from whom were they received?
2.	Has consideration been given by the Department of Public Works to the enlargement of the post office at Oxford, Nova Scotia and, if so, what action will be taken?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, two complaints about the modest size of the building, from D. L. George Henley, M.L.A., Cumberland and from the local branch of The Royal Canadian Legion, were referred to the Department.
2. No.


PARRSBORO, N.S.-POST OFFICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date was a decision first reached to construct a new post office at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia?
2.	Have delays occurred in constructing a new post office at Parrsboro and, if so, for what reason?
3.	On what date are tenders to be called for the construction of this facility?


Arthur Laing: 1. June 26, 1967.
2.	Yes, the Post Office Department requested that the project be deferred until the 1971-72 fiscal year.
3.	It is planned to call tenders in the fiscal year 1971-72.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-COST OF PUBLISHING &quot;LABOUR NEWS HEADLINES&quot;
Mr. MacRae: What is the estimated annual cost to the Department of Labour including the wages of staff, printing, paper, distribution, etc. of the publication entitled "Labour News"?

January 11, 1971
Questions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Department publishes a periodical entitled "Labour News Headlines." Estimated annual cost:
Wages of staff (six employees working a combined total of three and one-quarter hours a day, pro-rated against the publication) $3,003.00
Printing cost (217 plates X .07 cents)	15.19
Paper cost (1,000 sheets per issue X $2.00 per
thousand X 217 issues)	434.00

The bulletin was first published August 8, 1955, for internal Departmental use. Distribution was extended to the Senate, House of Commons and other interested parties on November 21, 1969.
masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5 Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	Tenders were not requested because it was essential that the building owner carry out the work, which affected the building's mechanical and electrical services, to maintain continuity of guarantees under the lease arrangements.
3.	The owner of the building, Metcalfe Realty Company Limited engaged the contractor.
4.	5 and 6. Not applicable.


OTTAWA-TOWER &quot;B&quot;, PLACE DE VILLE OTTAWA-TOWER &quot;B&quot;, PLACE DE VILLE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-04340 covering partitions and miscellaneous work on the 6th, 7th and 8th floors, Tower "B", Place de Ville and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract
(a)	what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades.


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	Tenders were not requested because it was essential that the building owner carry out the work, which affected the building's mechanical and electrical services, to maintain continuity of guarantees under the lease arrangements.
3.	The owner of the building, Campeau Corporation engaged the contractor.
4.	5 and 6. Not applicable.


OTTAWA-MACDONALD BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-06245 covering alterations on floors one to nine inclusive, MacDonald Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi)
[Mr. MacRae.l

Question No. 473-Mr. Paproski:
1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-06246 covering alterations on second, third, fourth and fifth floors, Tower "B" Place de Ville and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5 Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6. With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	Tenders were not requested because it was essential that the building owner carry out the work, which affected the building's mechanical and electrical services, to maintain continuity of guarantees under the lease arrangements.
3.	The owner of the building, Campeau Corporation engaged the contractor.
4.	5 and 6. Not applicable.


OTTAWA-SIR GUY CARLETON BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-13376 covering alterations to Sir Guy Carleton Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and


January 11, 1971

interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	Tenders were not requested because it was essential that the building owner carry out the work, which affected the building's mechanical and electrical services, to maintain continuity of guarantees under the lease arrangements.
3.	The owner of the building, Gillin Engineering and Construction Limited engaged the contractor.
4.	5 and 6. Not applicable.


OTTAWA-TOWER &quot;B&quot;, PLACE DE VILLE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-07932 covering alterations to floors 9, 10, 16 to 21, Tower "B", Place de Ville and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	Tenders were not requested because it was essential that the building owner carry out the work, which affected the building's mechanical and electrical services, to maintain continuity of guarantees under the lease arrangements.
3.	The owner of the building, Campeau Corporation engaged the contractor.
4.	5 and 6. Not applicable.


RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS-STUDIES OF POSSIBLE ECOLOGY EFFECTS
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What steps does the government plan to take to give legal force to the recommendations of the Science Council of Canada that persons embarking on resource development should first research the possible damage to the ecology of the region in question?
2.	Is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or any other department undertaking any study of the effect of the Bennett Dam on the ecology of the area near Fort Chipewyan, Alberta?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Fisheries and Forestry as follows: 1. Resource development programs on all lands coming within federal government
Questions
jurisdiction are controlled by departments of this government and such programs will be studied to ensure at all times that possible ecology effects are known. The recently announced federal government guidelines for pipeline construction in the north is an example of government policy in this regard. Under the Fisheries Act potential developers may be required to submit plans and specifications of their proposed works, so that pollution control provisions can be checked and approved or rejected.
2. The governments of Canada and Alberta have agreed to establish a task force to be headed by a Director nominated by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, to gather all of the information required to make firm recommendations to both governments on the action necessary to assure that the needs of the Peace-Athabasca Delta region are met by the spring of 1972. It is assumed that the region referred to is the area near Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. The information to be compiled by the task force will include study of the effect of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the ecology of the Peace-Athabasca Delta region. The Department of Fisheries and Forestry is setting up a task force to gather relevant data on the Lake Athabasca problem, and to determine appropriate remedial action.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-LIST OF DRUG QUALITY AND EQUIVALENCY
Mrs. Maclnnis: On what date will the government make public its list of drug quality and equivalency as recommended by the Special Committee on Drug Costs and Prices in 1967 along the lines already undertaken by the Ontario Government?


John Carr Munro: The Department of National Health and Welfare will publish the first list of drug products meeting specified criteria of quality, early in the year 1971. This material will appear in the Drug Information Bulletin "R*", a monthly publication of the Food and Drug Directorate which is sent to all physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and retail and hospital pharmacies in Canada.


ARGENTIA-PLACENTIA, NFLD.-DESIGNATION AS SPECIAL AREA
Mr. Carter: 1.	Has the Newfoundland provincial Government made representations to the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion to have the Argentia-Plaeentia area designated as a special area?
2.	Was the Argentia-Plaeentia area included in the Newfoundland provincial Government's recommendations for the designation of special areas under the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion in that province?
3.	Has the Newfoundland provincial Government requested assistance from the appropriate department for the provision of Technical and Trade School facilities in the Argentia-Plaeentia area?
4 Has an offer of assistance been extended by the government to the Newfoundland provincial Government for the provision of a Technical and Trade School in the Argentia-Plaeentia area and, if so, was the offer accepted or rejected?

January 11, 1971
Questions


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows:
1.	and 2. Special area designations are decided after consultation on priorities with the provincial government concerned, not by the making of representations.
3.	No.
4.	No.


CMHC-LOANS TO HOME OWNERS IN ISOLATED AND SPECIAL AREAS
Mr. Hopkins: Will the present CMHC practice of granting loans to home owners in larger towns and cities in isolated areas of Canada be expanded in 1971 to include towns and cities in special areas as designated by the government?


Robert Knight Andras: In 1971, direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act will continue to be directed, as in 1970, toward increasing the volume of housing available to low and modest income families throughout Canada. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its direct lending will also endeavour to meet the most urgent housing needs, which have usually occurred in new resource towns and in smaller cities and rural areas throughout the country, arising from an inadequate distribution of loans by the institutional lenders. It is anticipated, however, that an increased volume of lending by lending institutions will decrease lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in some of the smaller towns and rural areas in 1971.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Does the Public Service Commission have complete jurisdiction in decision making in so far as the Public Service Employment Act is concerned?
2.	What are the specific terms of reference of the Public Service Commission in the decision making process?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Yes, except where otherwise provided for under the following sections of the Public Service Employment Act: (i) The Governor in Council has full authority under sections 32(6)(a), 34(1), 38 and 44. (ii) The Governor in Council has authority under sections 35 and 39 provided a recommendation is made by the Commission, (iii) A Minister has authority to appoint his Executive Assistant and other persons required in his office under section 37(1). (iv) The Deputy Minister has authority under sections 26, 27, 28(2) and (3), and 29(1).
2.	The Public Service Employment Act.


HOLDINGS OF CANADA SAVINGS BONDS IN 1969
Mr. Godin: 1.	During 1969, what was the amount of Canada Savings Bonds held by individuals in Canada?
2.	What rate of interest is paid to them?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. At December 31, 1969, the amount of Canada Savings Bonds outstanding was $6,683 million of which more than 99 per cent were owned by individuals and estates, the remainder being held by associations, corporations and charitable organizations.
2. Rates paid on Canada Savings Bonds outstanding vary according to the issue held, and for certain of the issues, interest coupons are payable at various rates. The terms of all CSB issues outstanding may be found in the publication, Loans of Government of Canada and Loans Guaranteed by the Government of Canada.


CANADIAN OIL RESERVES
Mr. Aiken: 1.	How many barrels of proven oil reserves are estimated by the National Energy Board to be available in Canada?
2.	At the anticipated rate of consumption, in how many years will these proven reserves be depleted?
3.	Is there any difference of opinion among geologists concerning the amount of Canadian oil reserves?
4.	Has any oil yet been discovered as a result of drilling in the Mackenzie Delta area?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): The National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. The estimated crude oil reserves in Canada, as of December 31, 1969 were 8,619,805,000 barrels, not including the synthetic oil reserves of the Athabaska Oil Sands.
2.	Twenty-one years and five months.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE-MAN-HOURS SAVED AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of the Secretary of State during each year since computers have been used?


Gérard Pelletier: It is estimated that approximately 3,240 man-hours have been saved by the use of data text computer system in the Department of the Secretary of State since installation in February 1970.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE-LAY-OFFS AND HIRINGS AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of the Secretary of State how many employees have been (a) laid off
(b)	hired?
January 11, 1971


Gérard Pelletier: (a) None, (b) None.


CBC WEEKEND PROGRAM ON ABORTION
Mr. Roy (Timmins): 1.	How much did the presentation on the subject of abortion shown on CBC Weekend Program November 22 cost?
2.	Who at CBC took the decision to make this program?
3.	How much were the American producers paid for the program and under what terms and conditions were they hired?
4.	Were any of the performers remunerated in any way by the producers or from any other source?
5.	Were any of the expenses of the performers paid in any way by the producers or from any other source?
6.	Who conceived the whole production?
7.	How and by whom were the performers approached, including the Vancouver aborted students, and how was their individual consent obtained?
8.	Was the aborted girl associated by membership, or otherwise, with any group which supports the legalization of abortions?
9.	How many CBC officials saw the presentation before it was shown on the network and who were they?
10.	Who suggested the televising of the presentation on the network?
11.	Did any CBC official, or other person involved, express opposition to the showing of this program on the network?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose such details as the cost of specific program material since such information could adversely affect the Corporation in its competitive business relationships. However, payment for the item in question was well in line with amounts normally paid for procured color documentary material of an exclusive nature.
2.	The item was made by William J. Warren and Peter J. Lake, two Los Angeles producers. The executive producer of "Weekend" agreed to buy the item following consultation with his supervisors and with legal counsel.
3.	The producers were not hired by the CBC but, as indicated above, they were paid a normal amount for the item.
4.	No one who appeared in the item was paid by the CBC and, to the best of the CBC's knowledge, no one was paid by the producers of the item.
5.	Not to CBC's knowledge, and certainly not by the CBC.
6.	The producers, Mr. Warren and Mr. Lake.
7.	The people involved in the item were approached by Messrs. Warren and Lake. Last winter Mr. Warren was doing research for a feature article, subsequently carried as a cover story in "Newsweek" magazine, on the matter under discussion. He made contacts then with the officials at the clinic. The girl involved came
Questions
to the attention of the producers through the clinic. The producers provided written consent from the girl involved.
8.	To the best of the CBC's knowledge, the answer is no.
9.	The executive producer of "Weekend" consulted with his supervisors extensively on this matter and screened the item for his immediate supervisor, the head of Current Affairs-TV, for the Director of TV Information Programs, and for the Managing Director of Television. As a result of these discussions, several changes were made before approval was given for the presentation of the item.
10.	The item was offered to the "Weekend" unit by Messrs. Warren and Lake and the idea was accepted and recommended for presentation by the executive producer, with his recommendation subsequently approved by his supervisors.
11.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-RE-ENLISTMENT COMPARISONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In each of the past 5 years, what has been the percentage rate with respect to the total Armed Forces of re-enlistment at each stage for (a) officers (b) non-commissioned ranks?
2.	What were the corresponding figures for 1960?
3.	What is the current re-enlistment percentage rate for the professional categories within the Armed Forces such as doctors, dentists, nurses, lawyers, graduate engineers and pilots?
4.	What is the current re-enlistment rate for serving graduates of (a) Royal Military Colleges (b) "cadetships" directly from Universities?
5.	What is the current re-enlistment rate for men and officers who had resigned and were out for a period of time?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The percentages of the total Canadian Armed Forces who enrolled during the following years and who had previous military service are:
Year
Officer
Other Ranks
1966	0.42	per	cent1967	0.45	per	cent1968	0.13	per	cent1969	0.17	per	cent1970	(until 31October) 0.08	per	cent
0.6 per cent 0.8 per cent 0.2 per cent 0.5 per cent
0.3 per cent
2.	1960, officers, 0.18 per cent; men, 0.3 per cent.
3.	The percentages of officers enrolled in specific categories during 1970 who had previous service are: doctors, 10.0 per cent; dentists, 4.1 per cent; nurses, 0.9 per cent; lawyers, nil; graduate engineers, nil; pilots, nil.
4(a) There have been no enrollees during 1970 who had previously served in the Canadian Armed Forces and who were graduates of Canadian Military Colleges.

January 11, 1971
Questions
(b) There is no readily available method to identify serving officers or men who had previous service and who entered the service directly from university.
5.	1.9 per cent of officers enrolled during 1970 had previous service. 5.1 per cent of men enrolled during 1970 had previous service.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	For each month since January, 1970, what proportion ol Canada's unemployed were enrolled in occupational training programs?
2.	(a) How many trainees were subsequently employed (b) how many of those that were subsequently employed held jobs for in excess of one year (c) if the answer to Parts (a) or (b) was based on a survey, what percentage of those surveyed replied?
3.	(a) What proportion of entrants into the training program was previously unemployed (b) what proportion of entrants into the program had previously received occupational training?
4.	How many employers had contracts with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to provide training or retraining for workers in 1968, 1969 and 1970?
5.	What different programs are provided under the Adult Occupational Training Act and what is the average cost per trainee in each?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Persons receiving training are not considered to be members of the labour force and the questions cannot be answered. The ratios of referrals for training, to the number of unemployed at the time of the DBS survey during 1970, are as follows: January 1970, 6.0 per cent; February 1970, 6.1 per cent; March 1970, 3.4 per cent; April 1970, 3.2 per cent; May 1970, 1.9 per cent; June 1970, 1.4 per cent; July 1970, 1.4 per cent; August 1970, 2.8 per cent; September 1970, 6.5 per cent.
2.	(a) The results of a follow-up survey of trainees who completed training during 1970 are not yet available. Of trainees who completed full-time training at public institutions between January 1, 1969 and September 30, 1969, 75 per cent of respondents who looked for work were employed within three to four months, (b) Information not available, (c) 61 per cent of trainees surveyed returned replies.
3.	(a) Of the persons surveyed, 68.9 per cent who commenced training during the period January 1, 1969 to September 30, 1969 were unemployed prior to commencing training, (b) Information not yet available.
4.	1968-69, 1,304; 1969-70, 3,415; 1970-71 (April to October), 1,178.
5.	Preliminary figures for 1969-70 indicate the per trainee cost for full-time and part-time training for the four types of training purchase agreements is as follows:
General purchase (from Provincial institutions) $ 983* Apprenticeship (from Provincial institutions)	568*
Training-in-industry (Federal contribution)	177
Private schools	1,326*
*Training costs and training allowances


'BAY OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER DEVELOPMENT-ACCESS TO STUDY PAPERS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to Question Number 373 answered on November 30, 1970, could the government indicate, in light of the response, why the Public Records Section, Manuscript Division, Public Archives of Canada has indicated it will not allow access to such documentation and study papers i.e., The Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board's Study Papers, until April, 1975?
2.	Is there a conflict between Public Archives policy and the policy of the government with respect to these study papers and, if so (a) what is the nature of this apparent difference of opinion (b) can it be resolved so as to permit free access to the detailed documentation upon which the report of the Board dated October 31, 1969 and entitled "Feasibility of Tidal Power Development in the Bay of Fundy" was based?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board recommended in its report that one copy of the records and supporting technical data and reports contained in its study office, following orderly assembly and indexing, be placed in the custody of the Public Archives of Canada to be made available to any of the subscribing governments, acting jointly or severally, in a future study of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy. This recommendation was concurred in by the government. It was considered that a five-year term of restricted access to this material was appropriate; and this term dates from April 1970, when the material was placed in the custody of the Public Archives.
The answer to the second part of the question is there is no conflict.


Mr. Forrestall:: Why did you not tell me I just could not have it?


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL GRANTS TO NOVEMBER, 1970
Mr. Burton: For each province in Canada and Canada as a whole, what is the total estimated (a) federal government financial grants (b) new employment, under the Regional Development Incentives Act of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion from the Act's proclamation to the end of November, 1970?


Mr. Martin O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Estimated
Financial
Grant
(a)
$	826,446
995,273 19,415,222 15,147,577 33,589,667 5,525,773 4,902,911 1,360,690 3,491,518 502,837
New
Employment
(b)
279
1,299
2,285
7,532
1,419
1,475
744
Total
$85,757,914	16,065
January 11, 1971


STUDIES RESPECTING DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL PARK EAST OF JAMES BAY
Mr. Laprise: Have there been any studies made with respect to the development of a national park east of James Bay or elsewhere in the constituency of Abitibi and, if so (a) what did these studies consist of (b) who made them (c) were they made following a request from and in cooperation with the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, as part of a continuing process of general and preliminary studies of various areas in Canada to assess potential for parks development. (a) The studies involved map reviews and a short aerial reconnaissance, (b) They were made by the National and Historic Parks Branch, (c) No. They were made independently to ascertain if any areas might warrant joint consideration with the Province of Quebec.


SALES OF DAIRY HERDS IN ONTARIO
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many sales of dairy herds producing industrial milk have occurred in Ontario since April 1, 1970?
2.	How many milk quotas have been transferred as a result of such sales?
3.	How many milk quotas have been retained by the government as a result of such sales?
4 What are the names and addresses of the vendors of the herds in Part 1?
5.	What are the names and addresses of the transferees in Part 2?
6.	What, in each case, in Part 5, is the amount of the quota transferred?
7.	In Part 6, was the entire quota transferred, or was some part thereof retained by the government for future allocation?
8.	(a) What is the total amount of eligible quotas retained by the government since April 1, 1970 (b) how much still remains in government hands for reallocation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: In so far as
the Canadian Dairy Commission is concerned, the answer is: 1. The Canadian Dairy Commission does not have knowledge of all sales of dairy herds producing industrial milk. It has knowledge only of such sales with respect to which an application for the reallocation of the subsidy quotas is received.
2.	From April 1 to December 11, 1970, subsidy quotas were reallocated to 3,050 parties following the purchase by them of all or part of the dairy herd of a quota holder.
3.	Nil.
4.	5 and 6. To extract and compile from the individual applications the details requested would require some 700 man hours. The Commission does not have the necessary staff for this purpose.
7.	The total amount of quota reallocated was 8,758,290 pounds of butterfat.
8.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.
Questions


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- MAN-HOURS SAVED AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during each year since computers have been used?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Not applicable. See Hansard October 5, 1970, page 8744.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- LAY-OFFS AND HIRINGS AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, how many employees have been
(a)	laid off (b) hired?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not applicable. See Hansard October 5, 1970, page 8744.


CAPACITY OF ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
Mr. Korchinski: 1 What is the total capacity of the country elevator system? 2. What is the total capacity of the terminal elevator system?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. The
total capacity of the country elevator system is 398.8 million bushels.
2. The total capacity of the terminal elevator system is 161.1 million bushels.


RETIREMENT PENSION OF FORMER PRIME MINISTERS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What, in dollars, is the present retirement pension of former Prime Ministers?
2.	Does this amount include the parliamentary pension payable to Members of Parliament and, if not, what is the total retirement pension available to former Prime Ministers?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. $16,667 per annum, as indicated in the latest Estimates, and under the terms specified in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
2. The answer to the first part is, no. The parliamentary pension payable to Members of Parliament is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM, SCOTT, SASK.
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1. Is the Experimental Farm at Scott, Saskatchewan to be closed down and, if so, on what date?

January 11, 1971
Orders for Returns
2.	If a decision in this regard has been made, will it be reconsidered having regard to the further representations made by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Scott and the Reeve and Council of the Rural Municipality of Tramping Lake?
3.	If the closure is proceeded with, what provisions will be made for (a) staff members between the ages of 59-65 (b) other members who have built permanent homes with the understanding that they would continue in office on good behaviour until retirement age?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. No
decision has been taken to close the Experimental Farm at Scott, Saskatchewan.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


FINANCING OF CARTIER REFINED SUGARS LIMITED
Mr. Watson: 1.	Were cheques issued by the Industrial Development Bank on January 4, 1965 representing the equity portion of IDB financing of Cartier Refined Sugars Limited and, if so (a) what were the amounts (b) to whom were they made payable and, if to more than one party, for what reasons and upon whose instructions (c) was the President and Chief signing officer or the Board of Directors of the company notified (d) where and on whose behalf were they deposited (e) were they withheld from the company until after March 12, 1965 (f) what officials of IDB were involved in the transactions?
2.	Did IDB consider the procedures followed with respect to the actions outlined in Part 1 irregular and (a) if so, was any disciplinary action taken (b) if not, for what reasons?
3.	Is it IDB policy to assist companies in takeovers of new competitive enterprises?


Edgar John Benson: 1, 2 and 3. It
has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to answer questions concerning the internal administration of the Industrial Development Bank.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nowlan: For each of the provinces, in each of the past five years, what were the total expenditures for (a) doctoral-fellowships paid to students studying (at the time of application) in that province (b) doctoral-fellowships paid to students of home residence (at the time of application) in that province (c) doctoral-fellowships paid to students pursuing doctoral studies in that province (d) post-doctoral fellowships paid to residents (at the time of application) of that province (e) leave fellowships paid to residents (at the time of application) of that province (f) research grants of $6,000.00 or less, paid to residents (at the time of application) of that province (g) research grants of $6,000 or less, paid in that province (h) travel grants to international meetings for residents of that province, by the Canada Council?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF CANADA COUNCIL FELLOWSHIP AWARDS AND RESEARCH AND TRAVEL GRANTS
Mr. Nowlan: For each of the provinces, in each of the past five years, what was the number of (a) doctoral-fellowships awarded to applicants studying (at the time of application) in that province
(b)	doctoral-fellowships awarded to applicants of home residence (at the time of application) in that province (c) doctoral-fellowships awarded, to pursue doctoral studies in that province (d) post-doctoral fellowships awarded to applicants resident (at the time of application) in that province (e) leave fellowships awarded to applicants resident (at the time of application) in that province (f) research grants of $6,000.00 or less, awarded to residents (at the time of application) of that province (g) research grants of $6,000.00 or less awarded which were payable in that province (h) travel grants to international meetings awarded to residents of that province, made by the Canada Council?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO CANADA COUNCIL FOR FELLOWSHIPS AND RESEARCH AND TRAVEL GRANTS
Mr. Nowlan: For each of the provinces, what was the number of applications, in each of the past five years, received by the Canada Council for (a) doctoral-fellowships from student studying (at the time of application) in that province (b) doctoral-fellowships from students of home residence (at the time of application) in that province (c) doctoral-fellowships to be held by students pursuing doctoral studies in that province (d) postdoctoral fellowships from residents (at the time of application) of that province (e) leave fellowships, from residents, at the time of application, of that province (f) research grants of $6,000.00 or less, from residents (at the time of application) of that province (g) research grants of $6,000.00 or less payable in that province (h) travel grants to international meetings from residents (at the time of application) of that province?
Return tabled.


VISUAL ARTS AWARDS, BURSARIES AND GRANTS BY CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	For each of the provinces, in each of the past five years, what was the number of visual arts (a) awards (b) bursaries
(c)	short-term grants (d) travel grants (e) materials grants, made by the Canada Council to residents (at the time of application) in that province?
2.	For each of the provinces, what was the number of applications to the Canada Council, originating in that province, in each of the past five years for visual arts (a) awards (b) bursaries
(c)	short-term grants (d) travel grants (e) materials grants?
3.	For each of the provinces, in each of the past five years, what were the total expenditures for visual arts (a) awards (b) bursaries (c) short-term grants (d) travel grants (e) materials grants, paid to residents (at the time of application) in that province, by the Canada Council?
4.	What was the success rate of applications to the Canada Council in each of the past five years, for visual arts (a) awards (b) bursaries (c) short-term grants (d) travel grants (e) materials grants?
Return tabled.
January 11, 1971


WRITING AWARDS, BURSARIES AND GRANTS BY CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Nowlan: 1 For each of the provinces, in each of the past five years, what was the number of writing (a) awards (b) bursaries (c) short-term grants (d) travel grants, made by the Canada Council to residents (at the time of application) of that province?
2.	For each of the provinces, what was the number of applications, originating in that province, made to the Canada Council, in each of the past five years for writing (a) awards (b) bursaries (c) short-term grants (d) travel grants?
3.	For each of the provinces, in each of the past five years, what were the total expenditures for writing (a) awards (b) bursaries (c) short-term grants (d) travel grants, paid to residents (at the time of application) of that province, by the Canada Council?
4.	What was the success rate of applications to the Canada Council, in each of the past five years, for writing (a) awards (b) bursaries (c) short-term grants (d) travel grants?
Return tabled.


EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE AND OTHER SPACE IN DARTMOUTH-HALIFAX EAST
Mr. Forreslall: By department, are there any plans to expand office and other floor space either through ownership or leasing in the constituency of Dartmouth-Halifax East in any of the next three years?
Return tabled.


RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION REPORTS
Mr. Salisman: 1.	For each fiscal year 1965/66 to 1969/70, what reports of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission have been referred to the Department of Justice for Court proceedings?
2.	What reports have been brought before the Courts by the Justice Department, and in each case, what was the result?
3.	For those reports by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission referred to the Justice Department for Court action but were not proceeded with, in each case, what are the specific reasons for this action?
Return tabled.


FRED AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDEDAL GOVERNMENT AND NEW BRUNSWICK, 1970
Mr. Burton: 1.	When was the FRED Agreement between the Governments of Canada and New Brunswick, for Northeast New Brunswick first signed, and for what period of time?
2.	What are the federal and provincial contributions to this plan respectively, and what expenditures have been made to September 30, 1970?
3.	When was the FRED Agreement between the Governments of Canada and New Brunswick for the Mactaquac area in New Brunswick first signed, and for what period of time?
4.	What are the federal and provincial contributions to this plan respectively, and what expenditures have been made to September 30, 1970?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns


FRED AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PEI, 1970
Mr. Burton: 1.	When was the FRED Agreement between the Governments of Canada and Prince Edward Island first signed, and for what period of time?
2.	What are the federal and provincial contributions to this plan respectively, and what expenditures have been made to September 30, 1970?
Return tabled.


FRED AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND MANITOBA, 1970
Mr. Burton: 1.	When was the FRED Agreement between the Governments of Canada and the Government of Manitoba on the Interlake area first signed, and for what period of time?
2.	What are the federal and provincial contributions to this plan respectively, and what expenditures have been made to September 30, 1970?
Return tabled.


FRED AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND QUEBEC, 1970
Mr. Burton: 1 When was the FRED Agreement between the Governments of Canada and the Province of Quebec in the lower St. Lawrence Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine first signed, and for what period of time?
2. What are the federal and provincial contributions to this plan respectively, and what expenditures have been made to September 30, 1970?
Return tabled.


PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIAL SERVICES, CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION
Mr. McCleave: What are the names of the companies or individuals, their postal addresses, the amounts received by them, and the nature of work done or service performed, in connection with the item, "Professional and special services", in the budget of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission since April 1, 1968?
Return tabled.


APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE, FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS
Mr. Lewis: 1.	For the fiscal year 1970-71, what is the estimated total Canadian parliamentary appropriation for foreign aid programs?
2.	For the fiscal year 1970-71, what is the estimated total actual expenditures by the Government of Canada on foreign aid programs?
3.	For the fiscal year 1970-71, what are the estimated Canadian Government's foreign aid (a) allocations (b) estimated expenditures to (i) Latin America (ii) Colombo Plan (iii) Commonwealth Caribbean Assistance Plan (iv) Special Commonwealth Africa Assistance Plan (v) Independent French-speaking African States (vi) other countries?
Return tabled.

January 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry BUTTER IMPORTS SINCE 1960

Question No. 305-Mr. Forlin:
1.	For each year since 1960, has Canada imported butter and, if so (a) in what quantity (b) by quantity, from what countries (c) at what average price (d) was this butter earmarked partly for domestic consumption and, if so, in what quantity?
2.	If part of this butter was earmarked for processing to be re-exported (a) how many pounds each year (b) what plants processed the butter (c) what was the quantity processed by each plant (d) what was the cost to the government to have the butter processed (e) in what form, to which countries and at what price was the butter sold?
Return tabled.


GRANT FORMULA, POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION ADJUSTMENT PAYMENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the formula used in calculating the size of the federal grant to a province under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act 1967 (Post Secondary Education Adjustment Payments) for universities only?
2.	For each year that statistics are available, what amount has been granted to each province since the Act came into force?
Return tabled.


CBC PROGRAM CHANGES BECAUSE OF QUEBEC CRISIS
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	What programs on CBC Television have been (a) cancelled (b) postponed (c) altered, on both the French and English networks as a result of the events surrounding the Quebec crisis?
2.	What was the reason in each case?
3.	How many CBC employees on both the French and English networks have been (a) reprimanded (b) suspended (c) fired, since October 5, 1970, and what was the reason in each case?
4.	How many persons working for the CBC on a contract basis have had their contracts cancelled or have been given notice that their contracts wil not be renewed since October 5, 1970, and what was the reason in each case.
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance who is supposed to be in the House today, but since the Prime Minister believes that inflation has been licked perhaps it is no longer necessary for the Minister of Finance to sit in the House. In view of the Prime Minister's recognition during the Christmas recess that unemployment is now the country's number one problem, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government proposes to announce any new measures to deal with this very acute problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should remind the Leader of the Opposition at the outset that the Minister of Finance, like his predecessors including those from the Tory party, has an annual meeting with the Canadian Club of Toronto and this happens to be the day. I am sure he would wish the Minister of Finance to be there on this occasion.
May I say in direct reply that the government has a program-some of the measures are now in effect

to deal with the unemployment situation which we recognize as being serious. I hope we will have the support of the opposition in forwarding these measures as they come before the House and as they are proclaimed under existing legislation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from the Acting Prime Minister that the government proposes to announce additional measures to fight unemployment, and if my understanding is correct may I ask when we may expect to hear these measures announced?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is taking the measures that it feels are appropriate to deal with the unemployment situation. The Leader of the Opposition will recognize, of course, that the way to deal with unemployment is not to practise inflationary policies, some of which he has been advocating. If he is disappointed that we are not following his advice in these matters-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are entering the field of debate both in relation to the question asked and the answer given. The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I had understood that inflation was licked. Therefore may I express the hope that the government will really be prepared to do something-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Commonwealth conference will begin in a few days in Singapore, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Canadian government intends to support the African members of the Commonwealth in urging Great Britain to reconsider its policy of selling military equipment to the Republic of South Africa?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am
sure that the leader of the New Democratic Party is aware of the steps the Prime Minister has been taking in this respect. Indeed, I think it is generally acknowledged that the Prime Minister of Canada has been very useful in his support of the position of the African states and

January 11, 1971

that he has warned the British government of the possible consequences of the resumption of arms shipments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask whether the Canadian government has received any indication that the British government is likely to alter or reverse its policy with respect to the sale of arms to South Africa?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman has seen the statements made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and he is free to draw the same inferences as we are from those statements.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have any arrangements been made to have the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada at the Commonwealth conference released to members of the House soon after it is made?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is part of the genius of the Commonwealth that these discussions are conducted in private, and I do not think it would help if we were to turn the Commonwealth conference into a miniature United Nations.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
[Stage Direction]
REPAYMENT OF DEBT-CARR REPORT [Translation]
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
I would like to ask him whether the Carr report has been submitted to the cabinet, whether the cabinet has examined it and whether a decision has been reached concerning the repayment or the refinancing of the debt of the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Acting Prime Minister. Is the government preparing permanent legislation to replace the temporary public order emergency measures that are now in force?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is the
intention of the government to bring this matter before parliament in the near future.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the government contemplating proceedings to have certain elements of the explosives act, the coroners act and the fire investigations act of the province of Quebec that are in conflict with the Criminal Code declared ultra vires?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning what the government intends to do or to place before parliament regarding the temporary powers act, may I ask whether it is the intention of the government, now that all those in the FLQ have been picked up who were suspected of wrongdoing, to have this legislation terminated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to withdraw the present legislation. The right hon. gentleman will have seen the statements made by the Prime Minister of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada in relation to this subject, and I have nothing to add to what they have said.


John George Diefenbaker: Then what did the minister mean when he said certain legislation was going to come before the House in connection with this matter? Why this aura of indefiniteness?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the question that was put to me it related to more permanent legislation that would give the government authority to deal with civil emergencies of a kind that perhaps would not come under the War Measures Act, or for which the government would not wish to proclaim the War Measures Act which contains powers that would not be required. My answer was to the effect that the government intended in the near future to bring this subject before parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, is it the government's intention to keep the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act in effect until such time as permanent legislation is brought before the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hees:: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question for clarification to the Acting Prime Minister. When he said that the subject of permanent legislation of a public order nature would be brought before the House did he mean to imply that legislation would be introduced or simply that the matter would be put before the House in some way?


Mitchell William Sharp: I mean the latter, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the House the manner in which the matter will be put before the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a decision has not yet been reached, and when it is it will be announced to the House.

January 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister stated in an interview with the press before he left to attend the Commonwealth Conference that new, permanent legislation would be introduced to take the place of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, has the Minister of Justice been directed to draw up that permanent legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not say that and, if you will permit me, I will read what he did say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* % *


WHEAT-ACCEPTANCE BY RUSSIA OF REMAINING QUANTITY UNDER SALE CONTRACT-FLOUR SHIPMENTS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Has he had any indication from the Soviet Union that they will be picking up the remainder of the wheat they contracted for under the agreements?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been some further contacts, particularly in connection with a certain desire on the part of the Soviet Union to take some flour at this time, and negotiations in that regard are going on.


Stanley James Korchinski: Are the negotiations under which the Soviet Union will be picking up some flour part of the agreement to pick up 53 million bushels of wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: They are properly said to be a part of the over-all long term agreement with the Soviet Union and also of the renewal of the agreement which took place a year ago.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Will he ensure that when negotiations are under way for the purchase of flour eastern Canada mills will be given the same consideration in regard to tendering in order that eastern wheat which meets the qualifications may be considered in such export trade?


Otto Emil Lang: It is very much a matter of the mills in competition for this business to arrange for its disposition. I should think that will make it possible for the mills to provide the kind of flour which is required, which I understand would ordinarily be made up of northern wheat rather than soft wheat.




George Harris Hees: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External

Affairs. Was there any difference between the restrictions placed on the use of uranium sold by Canada to Pakistan and the restrictions placed on the use of uranium sold to India, all of which has caused, as the minister knows, considerable controversy in Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are some technical differences. The arrangement with India was under a provision for bilateral inspection between India and Canada, and the arrangement that was made with Pakistan provided for inspection under the International Atomic Energy Authority. This has been the cause of some difference of view between Canada and Pakistan and Canada and India.


George Harris Hees: Is Pakistan now completely satisfied with the explanation the government has given or is there still cause for concern regarding bad relations between our two countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the relations between Pakistan and Canada are excellent at the moment, as is confirmed by the warm reception that our Prime Minister received in Pakistan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: But there are some difficulties, I am ready
to admit, arising out of the difference in the arrangements that were made between Canada and these two countries, partly for historical reasons.
4s *	*


FINANCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I would like to direct it to the Acting Prime Minister who may know something about this subject since he had to deal with it when he was Minister of Finance. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question arising out of the announcement by the Minister of Finance of a new arrangement with the Mercantile Bank extending the number of years by which time 75 per cent of its capital is to be Canadian owned, and increasing fourfold the amount of its capitalization. Would the Acting Prime Minister undertake that either he or the Minister of Finance would make a statement to the House as soon as possible giving the details of this new arrangement and the reasons which led to it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to table now a copy of the statement made by the Minister of Finance on January 7, and perhaps on the basis of that there might be further questions from the hon. gentleman later.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
J anuary 11, 1971


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Acting Prime Minister that I have seen the press release which he is now tabling, and I am sure all other members have seen it. As a supplementary question I would like to ask him whether his answer to my first question means that he refuses on his behalf and on behalf of the Minister of Finance to make a statement on motions to the House so that we can get more details?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly suggest to the Minister of Finance, if it is the wish of the House, that he should make a statement on this important matter. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding, reflected in the question of the hon. member, about a time limit being involved. There is no time limit in the legislation, and there has been no extension of time given.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister's answer clearly shows that a clarifying statement would be useful. As a further supplementary I would like to ask whether the necessary Order in Council has been passed in relation to some of the details of the arrangements made with Mercantile Bank and, if so, would he table the Order in Council?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I am not quite certain.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
-AVOIDANCE OF ABUSE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and of the new Solicitor General perhaps I could direct this question to the Secretary of State. In light of last night's trial by cartoon of the Laporte murder suspects on the CBC program "Weekend", can the minister inform the House whether the CBC is prepared to extend the self-imposed restraint it exhibited during the kidnapping crisis to avoid abusing due process of law in Quebec at this time?


Gérard Pelletier: I shall take note of the question, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry STATUS OF WOMEN


IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As the Royal Commission on the Status of Women has made a report with 167 detailed recommendations, some of them with sweeping and important social implications for all the people of Canada, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what plans have been made toward the implementation of such of these recommendations as fall within federal jurisdiction?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Royal Commission of the Status of Women is under study in the cabinet. No decisions have yet been made.


Francis Andrew Brewin: As soon as the government has decided what it proposes to do, will a statement be made to the House, and is there any minister who is particularly in charge of looking into these recommendations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the government has had an opportunity to consider these recommendations it will, of course, bring its decisions before Parliament, and must do so if they are to be incorporated in legislation. The answer to the second part of the question is that this is a matter of cabinet organization, but in fact the whole cabinet is studying the matter at the moment and specific responsibility has not yet been assigned. I may say I do not know whether anyone in the cabinet wants to be responsible for women.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
sure women do not want to be responsible for the cabinet.
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Has the government now determined whether the CBC should be permitted to set up AM and FM coast to coast networks and, if so, with what completion dates?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the government has no decision to make in the matter. Furthermore, the CBC advises me that a decision has yet to be reached by the corporation itself. We are dealing here with a study now under way with regard to which a decision will be made only later on.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and since he is not in the House perhaps I can direct it to the attention of his Parliamentary Secretary. As a result of the very serious representations that have been made to the government, will the minister inform the House if a decision has been made to make a specialist in plant pathology, and the necessary funds, available to the Harrow Research Station in an attempt to arrest the virus infection which is proving so destructive and costly to the Canadian tree fruit industry?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and if possible will provide the hon. member with an answer tomorrow.

January 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ALLEGED DISTORTION OF NEWS AND BROADCASTING OF PROPAGANDA
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Would the minister give consideration to setting up either a special committee of the House or a royal commission to look into the repeated allegations of bias, distortion of news, and outright propagandizing by the public affairs department of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? I ask this question in view of the fact that this matter has been brought up many times in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question has often been asked, and I have given it the only answer possible to which I refer the hon. member.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the government house leader, the President of the Privy Council. Would he prevail upon the Secretary of State or perhaps somebody else in the government ranks to organize the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, which this late in the session has not yet been organized, so that the CBC and many other topical points of interest could be referred to that committee, including the matter of AM and FM networks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consider this suggestion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will you allow witnesses?


SKAGIT RIVER-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT FLOODING OF VALLEY
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister indicate to the House the steps which have been taken or will be taken by the federal government to stop the proposed flooding of the Skagit River Valley?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might like to reply briefly to the question, but the hon. member, it seems to me, is asking for a general statement and so the question is hardly in order. In view of the importance of the matter raised perhaps the House might consent to allow the minister to make a brief reply to the hon. member's question.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have arranged a visit to Washington on Friday of this week. I will be accompanied by officials of the Department of External Affairs and of my own department.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of reports that the government is planning to provide $5 million for the country of Niger on the understanding that French will be made the official language of that country, would the government consider making the amount $10 million and making that country bilingual?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport but in his absence may I direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to know if the Minister of Transport will use the influence of his office to dissuade Canadian National Railways from reducing its passenger service across northern Ontario by 50 per cent as a result of its decision to cancel trains Nos. 7 and 8?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. McGrath:: Remember the Newfie Bullet. Shame!


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.


B. Keith Penner: When the Parliamentary Secretary is discussing this matter with the minister, would he also urge the minister to instruct the Railway Transport Committee to conduct a form of public hearing into this cancellation, so that the citizens and the communities affected may know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint J ohn-Lancaster.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say when he will have official figures ready on the spillage taking place in the shipbuilding program on the St. Lawrence?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the word should be "slippage". I expect they will be available to the House by the middle of next month. I would hope to have an opportunity of discussing this matter in more detail with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a personal question of the minister. Has he had to have his seat moved next to that of the former Minister of National Defence so that he may learn how to wreck what is left of the department?
[Mr. Lessard.l
January 11, 1971


INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF TASK FORCE REPORT AND INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Scarborough. Since the report of the Task Force on Youth is being studied by the cabinet, can the minister indicate to the House when he expects to table it in the House and whether we can expect any legislation?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for youth policy is the Secretary of State.


An hon. Member:: Heaven forbid!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State. When can we expect the report of the Task Force on Youth to be tabled in the House, and can we expect any legislation to follow?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Task Force on Youth gave me a preliminary report on its work about three weeks ago. We are expecting a final report and as the hon. member may well imagine, the government will have to make its own study of the report before saying when it will be tabled and possibly published.


Gerald William Baldwin: By that time our present youth will be the aged.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Secretary of State say that the House will have this report in its hands before the summer rush for student employment?


Gerald William Baldwin: That would be "student unemployment". That is the phrase the hon. member used previously.


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a related question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the prevalence of statements regarding the potential of prospective programs for unemployed students this summer, can the minister say whether such programs are going to be introduced for the unemployed young people now and, if not, why not?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of special programs is
Inquiries of the Ministry
under review. A review is taking place of the success of the programs which were instituted last year. When it is possible for the government to reach a decision on the course of action for the future, it will be announced.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if there is any truth in the front-page report in the Globe and Mail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PROVISION OF SUMMER STUDENT MILITIA PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-Sf. Barbe):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his consideration of the reintroduction of student employment programs for next summer, will the minister consider the student militia program? Also, will he consider doubling the quota in order that it will be available to a much larger segment of the population?


Otto Emil Lang: As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, the matter of what policy should be implemented is under consideration. When a decision has been reached, it will be announced.
# * *


NATIONAL AND ROYAL ANTHEMS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have enough faith in the Minister of National Defence and his intelligence to believe that he will not be persuaded by his new seat-mate. My question is directed to the Government House Leader. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that I have been asking this question several times a year from year to year. Could the Government House Leader now give some indication to the Canadian people of when we might expect legislation dealing with our royal and national anthems, so that we can have in the public realm this type of symbol of our nation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member raised this question some time ago. I have had some communication with the Prime Minister as to how we propose to proceed or might proceed in dealing with the subject matter during the present session. That discussion has not been completed yet but the matter is really under active consideration.


J. Michael Forrestall: In his discussions with the right hon. gentleman, could the Government House Leader pursue the matter along the lines of separating the two anthems and not necessarily bringing in one bill dealing with both?

January 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES-PROVISION TO RECIPIENTS OF BENEFIT OF ESCALATION PENDING NEW RATES AND CEILINGS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister say whether the necessary order in council has been passed, one similar to those of the last two or three years, so that war veterans allowance recipients who are also receiving the guaranteed income supplement will obtain the benefit of the escalation which will be in effect for the next three months, pending the new rates and new ceilings which are to come into effect in April?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is consideration being given to this being done before the January cheques go out?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is under consideration at the present time.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the minister consider forgoing the reduction in war veterans allowances of 21 cents in some cases and 42 cents in many other cases as a result of changes in the old age pension legislation, since the administrative cost of making such changes would be much greater than the actual reductions in expenditure in many cases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is being put as an argument.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Has the commission set up to study the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board turned in its report? Also, is it the intention of the government to make that report public?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the report has either been received or will be received before very long. Of course, the report is a report to the Canadian Wheat Board. I, personally, will be awaiting it with interest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of my question was not answered. Perhaps the minister did not hear that part of my question. Do the minister and the government intend to make this report public so that the
farmers may be able to understand the operations of the Wheat Board which handles their very vital product?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the report, as I said, is a report to the Wheat Board. I would want to discuss this matter with them. I presume I will be able to do that soon after they have received the report.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he indicate to the House whether the government has decided who will pay the expenses incurred by the Armed Forces to maintain order in Quebec since the October crisis?

Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister seems to have the answer. Could he give it to us.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at one time when this question was asked the Prime Minister said there would be no difficulty in reaching a decision. As far as I know, none has yet been reached.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister say if he has yet established the opening date for the seal harvest off the east coast?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this date will be announced shortly. At the present time it is under discussion with the industry.


EXTENT OF CANADIAN SEAL QUOTA
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary question with regard to the seal fishery. In light of the 100,000 seal quota for Norway and 100,000 seal quota for Canada, are the 50,000 seals taken in the gulf included as part of Canada's harvest in the international seal fishery, which would mean that we are getting gypped by 50,000 seals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that he has put his question in the form of an argument. As such it is not in order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question.

January 11, 1971


John Howard Lundrigan: Are the 50,000 seals from the gulf harvest part of Canada's total quota of 100,000 seals? I ask this question in view of the fact that we only closed the gulf area as part of Canada's waters about one month ago.


John (Jack) Davis: My understanding is that the gulf is an area exclusive to Canada and that the division is made in international waters off the Labrador front.
* # *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Frank Moores (Bonavista-Triniiy-Conceplion):: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister's department prepared a special plan for rural Newfoundland to include those areas not presently included in the special areas legislation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Duff Moores: A supplementary question. The premier of Newfoundland has announced that there will be a special plan, Mr. Speaker. Has the premier of Newfoundland advised the minister of this?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I have often said permanent negotiations are carried on in this connection with the various premiers and as soon as we come to an understanding the House will be informed.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister advise where matters now stand with respect to the conclusion of the two-year interim agreement with the Soviet Union with regard to the west coast fisheries? What further steps have to be taken in order to bring about the final completion of this agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this information might better be given to the House by way of a general statement on motions. However, the minister might like to reply briefly to the question.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have a delegation in Moscow at the present time. The main purpose of the meeting with the Soviet government is to sign the agreement which was negotiated late last fall with the support of the industry.
Inquiries of the Ministry REFERENCE OF AGREEMENT WITH SOVIET UNION TO COMMITTEE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Earlier I asked the minister a question with respect to the meetings at which this draft agreement was negotiated. At that time the minister was asked in the House whether he would take steps to have the two draft agreements, I believe, referred to the standing committee for examination. He said he would gladly do that. Can the minister inform us when this will be done?


John (Jack) Davis: Immediately after it is signed, Mr. Speaker.


WELFARE
Donald MacInnis: have a question for the Minister without Portfolio. Has the minister's department in any way subsidized the conference on poverty?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The
citizenship branch of the Department of Secretary of State made a grant of $5,000 as part of the financing of the conference in Toronto, if that is the one to which the hon. member is referring.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question. Since there has been a grant of $5,000 made to this conference, will the government provide the House with the names of the organizations or individuals who made this request to the government?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I can certainly convey that information to the hon. member in so far as it concerns the citizenship branch.


Donald MacInnis: The minister indicated that he will convey that information. Will he do it at once, please?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member is not suggesting these names should be given at this time to the House.
* [DOT] [DOT]


BARLEY-ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN GRADE AS FEED
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: I wish to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Because of complaints by western farmers that at many delivery points barley graded as 3 C.W. is being accepted as only No. 1 or No. 2 feed, which affects the price by at least ten cents a bushel, what action does the government plan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will give me details of the charges he is making, I will be glad to have them investigated.

January 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH


ALLEGED FREE BUS TRANSPORTATION FOR TRANSIENTS- CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM BY HOUSE
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in connection with the youth program. When the $50 million youth program, which includes provision for a fleet of 25 buses to carry young transients across the country without charge, is finalized, will this matter be brought before the House for consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as
I know, Mr. Speaker, these are purely speculative stories to which the hon. member is referring.
* # *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Are any applications pending or currently in the process of being approved from the city of Montreal under the recent amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that a question of that kind should be in writing and placed on the Order Paper. I doubt whether it is in order to ask of a minister from day to day whether applications have been received from different regions affected by the law. I think it would be better if this question were put in writing but if there is urgency, the hon. member may give the usual notice to discuss the matter at the time of adjournment.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question was prompted by the urgency of the unemployment situation in Montreal which originally prompted the amendments to the Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is not a point of order. The hon. member is arguing the urgency of the matter. The Standing Order is designed to cover this type of situation. If the hon. member thinks there is urgency, his recourse is to suggest that the matter be considered at the time of adjournment.


James Aloysius McGrath: I accept your Honour's invitation.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Frank Howard: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Canadian Mental Health Association has validly and seriously attacked the fundamentals of the young offenders bill, C-192, and since a new minister is occupying the portfolio concerned, will the government consider withdrawing the bill in order that it might be redrafted more in line with common sense?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I will direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. It is in connection with the current outbreak of rabies in western Canada. What measures is the federal Department of Agriculture undertaking to counteract and control the current outbreak of rabies that is affecting the western provinces?


Marcel Lessard: I thank the hon. member for his question. I will bring the matter to the minister's attention. I hope a proper answer can be provided on Thursday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is the federal government prepared to provide full compensation to the owners for the loss of any animals caused by contracting this disease?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Jean-Eudes Dubé: moved that Bill C-203, to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago I had the privilege of making public a white paper on veterans pensions, setting forth the views of the government on the recommendations of the Woods Committee for amending the Pension Act. The white paper was extremely well received, both by veterans and the general public. I am delighted to be speaking at this time on a bill designed to incorporate into the Pension Act almost all of the proposals we made in the white paper. Some have been amended, some have been expanded and several have been enriched.
On December 2 last, this bill was tabled in the House for first reading. It was most satisfying to read in the press the next day that the National Association of Veterans Organizations had expressed its satisfaction with

J anuary 11, 1971

the scope of the legislative changes which are included in the bill.
Besides, the Legion, which is the national publication of the Royal Canadian Legion, in an issue which came out during the weekend, was entirely of that opinion.
Before commenting on the provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to make a few remarks about veterans pensions and the recipients themselves; why they receive them and why we award them.
There are nearly a million veterans in Canada today. They represent the contingents of Canadians who fought in the South African campaign, in World Wars I and II, in Korea and in other United Nations peace-keeping operations. Fortunately most of them do not bear any visible scars from combat but there are many who do. There are also, left behind, many widows, mothers, sons and daughters of those who made the supreme sacrifice. These are the people for whom this bill has been written. There are 133,212 veterans and 29,100 dependents in receipt of pensions as a direct result of death, or disability, arising out of military service; 37,000 of these pensioners are survivors of World War I and 125,000 are World * War II veterans and their dependents.

It was the Canadian fighting men in the first world war who, a few short years after Confederation, brought Canada from a boisterous youthfulness to sinewy maturity. More than 53 years ago, on an April morning on the slopes of Vimy Ridge, they carved, with their bayonets, the name of Canada into the granite monuments to sacrifice. They brought Canada into full-fledged nationhood so meaningfully and so forcefully that this country was included as a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles.
A generation later, legions of Canadians again answered their country's call to arms and, like their fathers before them, sprang to its defence with a fearless defiance. They fought and died for the freedom of Canada. They fought because their institutions and ideals were threatened. They fought against philosophies which were antagonistic to our way of life and to our democratic institutions. And they fought for those ideals in faraway and forbidding places. They fought, and some of them died, in the cold, dark, winter nights in the North Atlantic; in Hong Kong, Italy, Normandy and the low countries; in the dull, smoky skies over Germany and even in the steaming jungles of Burma.

It is for these men, their families and the dependents of those who have died, that my department exists. It is for these men that successive Canadian governments for 50 years have sought to keep pensions, allowances, medical treatment, education and training, up to date with the changing times and circumstances. It is for these men that this government is introducing this bill.
The Pension Act has been the cornerstone of the Veterans Charter for half a century. It is the main legislation through which Canada recognizes her obligation to compensate for disability and death in so far as it
Pension Acts
is possible to equate monetary compensation with human suffering and bereavement.
The Pension Act provides not only for the payment of pensions to the disabled veteran but also to his widow and orphans and to his dependent parents, sisters and brothers. Pension entitlement can also make the recipient eligible for other benefits such as medical treatment, war veterans allowances, special re-employment training, funeral and burial grants and, after his death, advanced educational assistance for his dependent children.
Mr. Speaker, in all stages of the work leading to the presentation of this new bill, which incorporates such a massive overhaul of the Pension Act, the keynote was flexibility.

This flexibility was deliberately built into the whole procedure by the use of the white paper technique which invited dialogue and input from the people most vitally concerned, the veterans themselves. Their enthusiastic participation in this dialogue is a credit to the technique and to themselves. It is also a tribute to the open-door policy adopted by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The standing committee listened diligently, conscientiously and patiently and came up with a most valuable report. I have previously spoken about the dedication of the members of the standing committee and the wisdom and scope of their recommendations. I can only repeat my appreciation of their meritorious services.
There are so many benefits in this bill that I shall not attempt to describe them all in detail at this time, but I am very anxious to explain the five most important ones. There are some changes and innovations which will affect more veterans than others; and there are some which will have a more immediate effect on those veterans whose hardships are more extreme than others.
The first major new proposal which I should like to explain is the exceptional incapacity allowance. This new benefit refers to certain 100 per cent pensioners who suffer extraordinary physical, social and psychological impairments and who, because of the nature of their disabilities, are exceptionally incapacitated. They may be living in a helpless condition or be in constant pain and discomfort. Their disability might be causing loss of enjoyment of life and could even shorten their life expectancy.
There are nearly 5,000 pensioners in Canada today who are classified in the 100 per cent pension category and the capacity of many of them to enjoy life is materially lessened as a result of their service-related disabilities. I would like to mention at this point that the philosophy or intent, of instituting additional allowances of this kind was shared by members of the Woods committee, the government's white paper and by all the veterans associations that appeared before the committee, and is included in this bill.

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the white paper proposed to recognize this exceptional burden of disablement by making an annual allowance of not less than $400 and not more than $1,200 for specified amenities for the exceptionally disabled, 100 per cent pensioner. You will see in the proposed new legislation that the government has not only maintained its support of this philosophy but it has doubled the amount of the allowances proposed in the white paper, thus responding to the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee.
The minimum and maximum allowances, as proposed in this bill, are $800 and $2,400 per annum. While these allowances will normally be paid on a monthly basis, they may also be made in lump sums for specified amenities to relieve pain and discomfort and to increase, as far as possible, the enjoyment of life for the pensioner. This new exceptional incapacity allowance is, of course, in addition to any other allowances to which the pensioner is already entitled by the act and will be tax free.
The second important new clause I wish to speak about relates to the proposed pension review board. This part of the bill was given intense and painstaking study by every group and body involved in the overhaul and restructuring of the Pension Act. The students of veterans legislation agree that this proposal is the key change in this up-dating of the Pension Act.
The Woods Committee had urged that appeals of Canadian Pension Commission decisions should be subject to consideration by a completely independent body, whereas the white paper proposed another version which, while similar in principle, was different in structure. The veterans organizations at first concurred with the proposal made by the majority of the Woods Committee but they subsequently modified it considerably. The proposal which is now delineated in this bill is that recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and demonstrates again the flexibility of the government's position under the white paper technique.
The Pension Review Board which is now proposed will be a new and independent body and will consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by the Governor in Council. This will provide the veteran who is dissatisfied with a previous ruling of the pension commission with a new and improved adjudicating process for an appeal to a higher and independent body.
Under the proposed procedure, the Commission will continue to be responsible for the first two levels of adjudication, as at present, but the Pension Review Board will function as a final court of appeal for all pension claims and will be the final authority on the interpretation of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that all decisions concerning veterans be made with the utmost fairness and with scrupulous impartiality. I am convinced this has always been the case but I am wholeheartedly in favour of any change in the legislation which will solidify this impression in the minds of the veterans and the general public.
[Mr. Dube.1
The third change in this new bill, to which I would like to draw your attention and which is indicative of progress in this area, concerns the creation of a new agency called the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. This Bureau will be independent of both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Pension Commission, and will be directly responsible to the Minister.
For the past 40 years or so, the veteran who so wished was entitled to free legal assistance for the preparation and presentation of his application for pension.
It is the Veterans Bureau, a branch of the Department of Veteran Affairs, which puts free of charge at the disposal of veterans this legal assistance service. Such administrative dependance of the Veterans Bureau upon the department or the Canadian Pension Commission has sometimes led to misunderstanding about the role and the allegiance of the Veterans Bureau.
Therefore, the government has thought that it was absolutely necessary to dispel any impression that the Veterans Bureau does not always stand up for the veterans. It is therefore proposed to give this agency the new name of Bureau of Pensions Advocates and to make it, under the act, a separate and independent agency, somewhat in the manner of the Canadian Pension Commission.
In addition, the relation between the new Bureau and the pensioner will be the same as that existing between a lawyer and his client, which means, in practice, that the Bureau will no longer be obliged to convey to the Commission all the information it has on its client.

The fourth feature in the new act, to which I want to draw particular attention, deals with an area of pension legislation which has always created problems. I am referring to that section of the act which, over the years, has come to be known as the "benefit of doubt" section. This section has application to every facet of pension adjudication. Almost every time the Pension Act has been amended the wording of this section has been subjected to lengthy debate and it has been rewritten several times. Its vagueness has led to many interpretations.
Although the "benefit of doubt" was written into the Pension Act many years ago, "doubt" in this context meant different things to different people. We have now specifically defined what it means. We have now identified the guidelines for both claimant and adjudicator. The onus on the applicant will be less stringent than it is in the ordinary civil courts of the country. It will not be necessary for a pension applicant to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. It will be sufficient for the veteran to produce credible evidence that is not contradicted. Furthermore, the adjudicating authority must draw every reasonable inference in favour of the applicant. Simply stated, this means that in any case in which any reasonable doubt exists, and in which any credible evidence is not refuted, the claim must be resolved in favour of the veteran.
A fifth impressive innovation in the Bill is also a completely new part of the Act. It is designed to recog-
January 11, 1971

nize the special situation of those who suffered as a result of being taken prisoner by the Japanese in Hong Kong on Christmas day, 1941. The exceptionally rigorous and debilitating conditions that marked their almost four years of captivity have left an imprint of misery on this group in a way never before experienced by other Canadian veterans. The nature of their disabilities is so unique that the government has proposed special legislation to provide a minimum pension of 50 per cent for all Hong Kong veterans who make application and have an assessible degree of disability. This will, of course, make their dependents eligible for survivor pensions in the event of their death.
This new part also makes provision for the widows and dependents of those Hong Kong veterans who died prior to the effective date of this Act. Their deaths will be presumed to be attributable to their service, thereby making their widows and dependents automatically eligible for survivor pensions. With the enactment of this proposal, the Hong Kong veterans will have finally achieved the special recognition they have sought for the past 25 years.
When I had the honour of addressing the annual meeting of the Hong Kong Veterans in Toronto last summer, I confessed to a special feeling for the men of C-Force; the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada. Perhaps, as minister for all veterans, I should not have made this confession, but many members of the Royal Rifles came from my home territory of the Restigouche-and Matapedia valleys, and I can still remember the great grief and sorrow which swept the countryside when Hong Kong fell back in 1941, near Christmas.
Another comment I made at that same meeting in Toronto was the hope that this new legislation could be introduced during this session. I am most happy that this hope has come true. This legislation will apply not only to the Hong Kong Veterans and their survivors, but to all Canadian veterans who were captured by the Japanese in the Pacific theatre of war and who were held prisoners for a year or more.

Mr. Speaker, these are the five most significant and advanced changes we propose to incorporate into the Act. There are many other new sections which will enhance and enrich the rights and benefits extended to our Canadian veterans and their dependents. I would like to deal briefly with some of these.
The section, in the present Act, dealing with military service in peacetime and in the militia will be clarified by the introduction of guidelines which define military duty. These guidelines will spell out, for pension purposes, the various activities in which members of the forces participate.
Clothing allowances for bilateral amputees will be increased and provision will be made for special allowances to those pensioners who require specially made clothing or apparel due to the nature of their disabilities.
We are proposing additional pensions for those who might suffer the loss of a paired limb, or organ, from any
Pension Acts
cause whatever. In other words, if a veteran was in receipt of a pension for the loss of a leg as a result of military service and subsequently lost his other leg in an automobile accident he will be entitled to an additional pension amounting to 50 per cent of the normal assessment for the loss of the second leg.
Provision is being made for posthumous assessment where pension was paid at less than 48 per cent at the time of death to determine whether the disability was fully assessed at that time. This may, in some cases, entitle the widow, children or other dependents, to receive survivor benefits.
Another new clause proposes to allow additional pension awards to a member of the forces who suffers an additional disability that is wholly, or partly, a consequence of the disability for which he is already receiving a pension. His right to additional pension in respect of a consequential disability will no longer be denied simply because he engaged in an activity which he ought to have known could cause additional disablement.
We are broadening the legislation regarding the payment of attendance allowance to provide that the allowance will be payable during the month of admission and during the following month of hospitalization.
We are proposing to amend the act so as to extend from twelve months to three years the retroactive period for which a pension may be granted.
I would like to point out that the government is also planning to institute several changes in pension procedure which will not require legislative action but which will have beneficial financial implications for the veteran.

For example, the stabilization of pensions for World War I veterans was effected in 1948. We now propose to stabilize pensions arising out of service subsequent to the First World War. This means that any pensioner who reaches, or has reached the age of 55, and whose pension has been unchanged for three years or more, will not have his pension reduced even if his condition should improve.
Other recommendations, already accepted but not requiring amendments, include an increase in the attendance allowance for the totally blind to the maximum rate of $3,000 per year; the increase of the attendance allowance for the bilateral Symes amputee to $1,200 per year, and the discontinuance of the deduction of $15 per month from the pensioner's treatment allowance whenever he is admitted to hospital. These changes will be implemented at about the same time this bill is given Royal Assent. It is the government's intention to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I will, of course, be available to appear before that committee along with officials of my department and of the Canadian Pension Commission.
As hon. members know, the terms of reference of the Woods Committee did not include pension rates as set forth in Schedules A and B of the Pension Act. However, hon. members will recall that I announced an increase in

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
pension rates in this House on December 2 last. This is the fourth increase in the basic pension disability rate in the last seven years. The first increase amounted to 10 per cent and was granted in 1964. There was an increase of 15 per cent in 1966 and a further increase of 15 per cent in 1968. The latest increase of 10 per cent, which is effective April 1, results in an actual pension rate increase of 55 per cent over the last seven years as compared to the consumer price index rise of just over 26 per cent during the same period. The percentage increase is, of course, compounded, but when we transfer these percentages into dollars we see for example that the 100 per cent pensioner with a wife will now receive $4,464 per annum compared to the $2,880 he received seven years ago.
The government is proud of this new bill, designed as it is to give the disabled veteran and his family a package deal in pension benefits. The complete revamping of the Pension Act, and the increases in pensions which we are proposing, are synchronized with the social and economic conditions of today. The commitment of the Canadian people and the government to those who forged the steel of this country's character on the anvil of war will forever endure.
At the Dominion Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion in Ottawa last summer I stated that the most important improvements in veterans legislation since the end of the Second World War would be presented to this session of Parliament. I made that same promise to the Hong Kong Veterans Convention in Toronto and to the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Convention in Vancouver. This bill is the fulfilment of that promise. I am confident that the hon. members of this House will want to give it their support.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask a question of the minister, Mr. Speaker? Do I understand correctly that the burden on the veteran who seeks a disability pension is that he must simply establish his case on a preponderance of the evidence rather than establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt? What is the philosophy in that regard? I am sorry; I tried to listen carefully to the minister at this point but was not able to be sure what he meant. Would the minister indicate what the philosophy is.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to say that the burden on the veteran will be much lighter than it is in criminal or civil courts. As you know, in the criminal courts the Crown must establish proof beyond any reasonable doubt. In a civil court, the plaintiff must introduce a preponderance of evidence in order to have a decision in his favour. With reference to a veteran, we propose that so long as he is able to adduce credible evidence, and that evidence is not rebutted, the case must be decided in favour of the applicant.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Sl. Barbel:
Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear the minister's comments and the announcements he made. Although I
congratulate him now, I hope he will not be too harsh with me when he hears the criticisms I have in respect of certain areas. I wish to say I was pleasantly surprised to find that the first item of business to come before the House at this part of the session deals with the second reading of Bill C-203 to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. This certainly is as it should be. When I rose on a point of order on December 18 before Christmas and asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) whether he would assure the House that this bill would be called on a priority basis, little did I realize I had made such an impression that the bill would be the first item called. I extend my thanks to the President of the Privy Council, to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) and probably to the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, whom I also wish to congratulate upon his appointment to the position of party whip.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I am sure that all others who are particularly interested in veterans affairs, both in this House and across the country, are pleased we are now making some real progress instead of dragging our feet as so obviously has been the case over the past many months. At this point in time, when the veterans of the first World War are in the age bracket of around 75 and 77, I am not sure that we who are supposed to govern can ever regain the confidence and trust of the many thousands of veterans who have looked to us, and to those who have gone before us, for a continuing appreciation of what we owe those who sacrificed so much. It will always be a wonder to me how this government can so lightly treat its responsibility to those war veterans who are incapacitated, especially at this point in time when a great many of our veterans are in the twilight years of their lives. We have dragged out the deliberations on the Woods Committee report and the production of this legislation. Over two years have passed, and we are now only at the second reading stage of the bill.
I can well remember the deliberate delays and then the tales of woe which were given as reasons for those delays. There was the five week delay last year when the chairman of the committee was absent, and yet the deputy chairman sat in his place in the House. Is it not strange that with over 20 Liberal members on that committee, in the opinion of the government not one had the ability to chair the meetings of the committee other than the appointed chairman. Then, we had the excuses about printing, translation and the wheels of justice turning slowly. In my opinion we have here more clerical, administrative, legal and translation staff than anywhere else or in any government in the world probably, aside from the U.S.A. If the reasons given were just, then we certainly must review this government's capability in this field because something is drastically wrong.
Since I have been associated with the Veterans Affairs Committee I have communicated with many veterans across this country, not only the many who have written me asking for help in respect of their applications for

January 11, 1971

assistance under the various provisions of the act but also many who were not asking for help but who were trying to help others. It was very interesting to find that not one of these veterans shouted with joy at the announced increases in respect of the disability allowances or pensions. I am sure the minister, and other members on the committee from the government side of the House, must have received some reaction from war veterans in their constituencies and from branches of the various veterans organizations. I would be very pleased to have copies of any letters which were complimentary to these announced increases. I am sure the minister will direct his public relations department to give me a list of those who directed accolades to his department.
Certainly, the recognition by the Legion and the standing ovations the minister received would indicate that the veterans organizations are very happy both about the announced increases and some of the amendments to the veterans legislation arising out of the recommendations in the committee's report. So I can only conclude that there are two distinct groups of veterans in this country of ours. I hope that with more experience I can find out more about this fact of life, so that I may overcome the frustration which has been building up inside me since I occupied a seat of responsibility in Parliament.
Under the War Veterans Allowance Act a single veteran receives $105 per month. If he will really be happy with $120.75 a month, then I am wrong, especially when the poverty line recognized by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicates that he needs around $162 per month. If a married veteran receiving the present combined rate of $175 will now be able to live in this day of inflation on $201.75 per month, when the Dominion Bureau of Statistics poverty line indicates that the sum of $270 per month is necessary to clothe and educate his family, then I will admit I am wrong again. It would seem, therefore, that someone with responsibility for disabled veterans is not being too straightforward concerning the objectives. Some persons somewhere with directive capacity, who could bring pressure to bear on the decisions of government are impeded in their thinking. These are the people on whom veterans depend for their care and welfare.
In this connection, too, I intend to find some answers in the coming months of the session.
For some strange reason this government, until this year of concentrated pressure, has been so bound by its one-track mind concerning what the priorities of this nation really are that it has completely ignored the plight of those burnt-out veterans who receive assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act and is granting a negligible 15 per cent increase. I say we owe these veterans an increase of at least 4 per cent a year over the past five years to cope with the recognized average increase in the cost of living. This would be 20 per cent. Really, if the government were to follow its own restrictive guideline in respect of increases in wages and prices, the increase should be 6 per cent per year over five years, especially at a time when most of these veterans are in the 75 or over age bracket. I say further that the increases should have been made retroactive for at least
Pension Acts
one year, which is certainly not unreasonable or at least the increases should have been made effective immediately on their announcement.
Why consideration was not given to orphans of veterans and to associated income ceilings is not very easy to understand. Can the orphan or his guardian manage to continue normal care on $60 a month or, in the case where there are three orphans, on a combined total of $141 a month?
There are other areas of concern within the War Veterans Allowances Act which must be revised. One of the most important pertains to eligibility. I refer specifically to the section in the act which provides that a veteran must have served in the United Kingdom during world war I for at least 365 days prior to 12 November, 1918 including sailing time between Canada and the United Kingdom. So much could be done for the few veterans in this category who are in the late years of their life if this qualifying period were reduced, even the very few who are restricted by the lack of a few days of service.
There is no reason why consideration should not be given, after so many years, to offering relief to war veterans allowances recipients in the area of casual earnings. I refer in this regard to cases where recipients may have casual earnings of up to $800 a year for single persons and $1,200 a year for married persons without their allowances being reduced. We must surely agree that this only deters their initiative and will to live a better life and to provide for their families.
Restriction with regard to farm incomes must also be reviewed, and I hope that these sections in the act will be considered sympathetically when viewed in the context of the proclamations by this government regarding equal opportunity for all Canadians. We know that all the phrases turn out to be only political utterances of computerized thinking without any human feeling.
Before leaving the subject of war veterans allowances, l would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly appointed chairman of the War Veterans Allowances Board, Mr. Don Thompson, who is probably one of the most knowledgeable men in this country in veterans affairs. His knowledge and experience as national secre-the Dominion Command of the Canadian Legion should stand him m good stead in his appointment, and I sincerely hope that his experience will prove to be of decided advantage to the veterans of this country in his area of responsibility. I hope also that his immersion into bureaucracy will not pollute his thinking in so far as veterans are concerned, and that he will remember for ever the contribution he can make in spite of the frustrations he must have experienced during the many years he has served so many war veterans. While I realize the limitations with which he will be faced as chairman of the board, I am sure I speak for all hon. members in wishing him well in his appointment.
I would also like to take this opportunity on behalf of
,,?nmm^mbers t0 offer our sincere appreciation to Colonel W. T. Cromb, the former chairman of the War Veterans
23786-3i

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
Allowances Board, for his spirit of comradeship and dedication in serving veterans over the years, as well as for the assistance he offered to all members in line with their duty to veteran constituents. It is not difficult to use the phrase "service beyond the call of duty" in Mr. Cromb's case, and we wish him well in his retirement. I would just like to remind the minister again that the increases under the War Veterans Allowances Act, even with the new maximum allowable income, are still below the poverty line. I hope that he will make another appeal to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to reach at least this level of requirement.
In moving on to the subject of veterans disability pensions I think I must say, in a spirit of comradeship, that the amendments are in the main satisfactory but, if I may use part of a well worn expression "too little too late"; the "too late" certainly applies. The method of *operation of this government has become very obvious. I can refer to their proficiency in delaying tactics when it *comes to living up to their responsibility in providing for those Canadians who cannot look after themselves. I must say that I have been rather naive when I look back and note the amount of time that elapsed between the setting up of the Woods Committee and the stage at which we have arrived at this moment.
The Woods Committee was set up in 1965, and we on the Veterans Affairs Committee, after coaxing and cajoling, managed to have the report referred to the Veterans Affairs Committee in 1968. Here we are in 1971, having only reached the second reading stage of the bill. Almost six years have passed, and by April of this year we hope that direct action will be taken for the war veterans of this country. I can only sincerely admit that in my responsibility as part of the opposition I must have been either too naive or trusting in going along with government action to maintain the status quo and in having allowed the strategy of this government to work. I, therefore, apologize to the dependents of veterans who have passed on for the procrastination of those who govern now as well as those who have governed before, and for their failure to those citizens of our country to whom we owe the greatest debt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: briefs, demonstrations and pleas. Would it not be feasible to reconsider additional funds plus backdating of the supplements for these few?- We, the undersigned, feel that at least the amount recommended by the Commons Committee would enable a quadruplegic to live on a comparable basis to the paraplegic.
This letter is signed by four quadruplegics, Mr. Speaker. One of the signees was a veteran by the name of T. Damiano, who appeared before the Veterans Affairs committee. He is the only one I recognize, but I will not forget him too easily. I hope that he will forgive me if I remind those veterans of the committee who sit here in this House that he was brought in in a wheelchair. He had no legs, and two uncontrollable stumps for arms as a result of wounds suffered in the Korean war. He should be wheeled into the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, and placed before the cabinet to see the condition of some of those we so easily forget.
One of the headlines that I noticed in a magazine indicated that we were taking a great step forward. I say this headline should have read, "It's About Time We Took a Step Forward." But another headline explains the situation more clearly. It reads, "Amendments to the Pension Act-The Most Extensive Improvements in Half a Century." It has taken us 50 years to realize the needs of the war veterans of this country. Should we be so proud of ourselves, Mr. Speaker? Each and every one of us is responsible.
I hope especially that members of all past governments, who might take the time to reflect on what has happened over the past 50 years, are satisfied that they have done their job conscientiously. I hope I will not hear the same tale of woe in subsequent speeches concerning how much it would cost, or that we would have to raise taxes to increase benefits for the poor and disabled. As I said in my speech on December 2, I cannot accept that ridiculous explanation.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the increases are satisfactory and should be acceptable in the majority of cases. On April 1 the 100 per cent disability pensioner will receive some $4,464 per year if he is married, and his single counterpart will receive $2,640 per year. Provision is now made for an increased clothing allowance to those in receipt of pension on account of two amputations, and a special allowance to a pensioner whose disability requires the wearing of specially made wearing apparel. Special pension status will be granted to former prisoners of the Japanese, those who were captured in Hong Kong in 1941. But please note, Mr. Speaker, this is almost 30 years later. There are, in addition, amendments to authorize automatic pensions for widows and for orphans of these veterans.
Another amendment will authorize payment of special allowance to 100 per cent pensioners who are exceptionally incapacitated, but still qualifying conditions are inserted whereby authority will be vested in a new, completely independent five-man pension review board. A new definition of the benefit of doubt clause will provide a guide for applicants, advocates and adjudicators in the preparation and the processing of pension claims. Other amendments will provide for payment of
Pension Acts
additional pensions to those suffering consequential disabilities, and will provide for the payment of additional pensions to those in receipt of a pension for the loss of a paired organ or limb, and of an additional pension for the loss of the pair of those organs or limbs. There is also an amendment to extend from 12 months to three years the period for which a pension may be granted retroactively.
There are amendments to establish a bureau of pensions advocates outside of the Department of Veterans Affairs and for the establishment of two new boards for the hearing of appeals, namely, an entitlement board and a pension review board, as well as for new procedures for the making and hearing of applications for awards to clarify certain provisions of the Pension Act. I also welcome the minister's announcement about the Board of Legal Services, and I hope that this will speed up consideration of applications.
No, Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the recommended increases. These were deliberated over many months by the Veterans Affairs Committee in a non-partisan manner which does all members credit. But I can only say that, unfortunately, they have been recommended too late for many who have passed on before this time.
It is the intention of my party to avoid delay in the passage of Bill C-203 and, in spite of the many shortcomings which could be pointed out, it is our intention to get the bill before committee as quickly as possible so that we may get on with the other stages before enactment.
I am sure we all agree that time is of the essence in the rationalization of the many administrative details which must be worked out so that veterans will receive the benefits afforded by April of this year. There are still many discrepancies in the over-all legislation which must be corrected. There are still many areas where the bill falls short of the expectations of the veterans as recommended by the veterans organizations, the Woods Committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee.
If I seem to be parochial in my comments, Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will bear with me while I spend a few moments to present a plea on behalf of the newest province of Canada, my home province of Newfoundland. Under the terms of confederation in 1949, many of Newfoundland's veterans were left hanging in the air because of the peculiar circumstances of their service. Out of a population of 500,000-and at the time of hostilities it was a good deal less-as of October, 1970, there were 1,990 war veterans receiving war veterans allowances and 1,633 receiving civilian war allowances, or a total of 3,623. Some 1,540 are receiving disability pension, and there are 350 who are dependent pensioners.
I am sure hon. members will note that even at today's population figures, over 10 per cent of the Newfoundland population served their country in time of war. It should be clear, then, that I am not being overly forceful when I say it becomes obvious that those who arranged the terms of confederation were not too familiar with the

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
needs of the province in so far as its veterans were concerned. This statement is strengthened by the fact that some 30 people are responsible for the administration of some 5,500 veterans and their dependents. It emphasizes my various appeals to the department to provide more help to seek out the many veterans who are being denied the assistance for which they are eligible, appeals which have fallen on deaf ears in the department ever since 1968. This means, as I have proved, that many Newfoundland veterans are still being denied their just and well deserved benefits.
The staff at the district headquarters in Newfoundland should be complimented on the way in which they handled the workload with which they are faced, especially when the Newfoundland district has a much higher rate of growth in WVA. and CWA. cases than any other of the 18 districts in Canada. I stress, Mr. Speaker, for fear of contradiction, the rate of growth. There are many other areas of shortcomings faced by Newfoundland veterans, not the least of which must be directed to the United Kingdom, causing delays of up to two years. This is a fact that even the Woods committee failed to realize, and deemed acceptable.
There are some 3,700 Newfoundland Foresters who served in World War II and, although they qualify for benefits under the Civilian War Pensions Act, recognition of their service must be reconsidered. I intend to make representations for them in future deliberations of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
To return to the national problem, Mr. Speaker, there are still many deficiencies apparent in the Pension Act to anyone who reviews the provisions which apply to the Veterans Land Act, Canadian Merchant Seamen, Canadian Firefighters and others who offered their lives during wartime. I feel sure that the Veterans Affairs Committee will face these problems in the same spirit of comradeship that was displayed in dealing with the amendments with which we are faced today. We must not forget, when we seek help for war veterans, the contributions that are being made and have been made over the years by veterans' organizations. Not only do they help those in need but they have made a distinct contribution to the youth of Canada-I refer mainly to the Canadian Legion -by contributing to the education and recreation of our young citizens.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times before, that if this government will remove the blinkers when we are struggling in frustration at our inability to instil a sense of national unity, it will be guided by the display of comradeship which is projected through veterans' organizations without regard for race, creed or religion, and only in a dedication to help one another. We need not travel to foreign lands to project an image that we are not able to live up to; so, let us stop and reflect on how we became great as a nation before it is too late. Let us look at the sacrifices of some one million veterans who offered their lives during past world wars to enable us to govern in peace and pride. Let us put some sincerity into our thoughts, so that every Canadian, wherever he lives, will be as he must be, provided with equal opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It has been a long time in coming. It includes many progressive steps that we, in this party, warmly welcome. I trust that the minister will not be surprised if I have a few critical comments to make as I go along, but I want our initial word to be one of appreciation that, at long last, we have Bill C-203 and that it will soon be on the statute books of Canada.
I should like to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) in paying special tribute to the veterans organizations. I have in mind the excellent assistance they gave to us as we studied the Woods Report and the white paper in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Their principal spokesmen almost became members of our committee. They sat with us for hours on end. I think all members of the committee will agree that they were a tremendous help to us. The officials of the department were also helpful to us; but that is their job. They are supposed to be.
While we are in the mood to extend greetings, I should like to join with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) in paying tribute to the excellent work done by Mr. W. T. Cromb during the years when he was chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board. We also wish to extend our congratulations to Mr. Donald Thomspon, who recently was secretary to the Royal Canadian Legion but who has now become the new chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board.
This reference to the War Veterans Allowance Board gives me the opportunity to note, as did the minister and as did the previous speaker, that the bill before us today is not the only piece of veterans legislation to be dealt with in this session. Indeed, we anticipate one or two more pieces of legislation that will come down very soon, namely, bills that will amend the Pension Act in so far as rates are concerned and a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act as well. These are very important changes that must be made. Otherwise, this bill will have little meaning for many of our veterans. We have in mind the announcement the minister made on December 2, 1970. Like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, we feel, although we welcome any increase, that the amounts of increase thus far proposed are not adequate and it is most unfortunate that they have not been made retroactive. Asking our veterans who have already waited a long time for these increases to wait until the month of April, should not, we feel, be the position of this government and of a grateful Parliament.
I was sorry that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was not able to give an immediate and affirmative answer to the question I put to him during the oral question period this afternoon. It had to do with the increase in the guaranteed income supplement that will apply in January, February and March. One has in mind the fact that over the last two or three years, whenever this has happened, veterans who have been receiving both the war veterans allowance and the guaranteed income supplement have had the total amount of income they could
January 11, 1971

receive raised so that the increase in their guaranteed income supplement would not come off their war veterans allowance. It seems to me that as that has been done for the last three years, there ought to be no question about it this year. 1 realize that this applies only to the months of January, February and March, because, beginning in April, there will be new rates both for the guaranteed income supplement and for payments made under the War Veterans Allowance Act. We are talking about small amounts of money and it seems a shame that we have to plead and argue for these little amounts to be given to our veterans. However, Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the whole question of rates under the Pension Act and of allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act is not now before us. Those questions will be dealt with in separate legislation. At this point we are dealing with Bill C-203 which, in the main, amends the administrative aspects of the Pension Act.
As the minister and the previous speaker pointed out, this bill covers a great many matters. Indeed, the Woods Report contained 148 recommendations. In our standing committee's report on the white paper, we pronounced on each of those 148 recommendations. In some cases where we made favourable recommendations, the government has acted upon them in the bill. So, any attempt to deal with all the details of this bill at the second reading stage would be in vain. Therefore, like the two previous speakers, I wish to direct my remarks to five or six of the main points in the bill now before us.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the change in the bill regarding the benefit of doubt. Perhaps it is only a change in wording, but we hope that it will have a far reaching effect. The legislation, as it now stands, in section 70 provides for the benefit of doubt to be given to the veteran; however, the language of section 70 is couched in such a way that it is still necessary for the veteran to produce more evidence than seems to us to be necessary. We are very glad that the language of section 70 of the Pension Act has been done away with and that in its place we are to have the language proposed in a new section 1A. I think it is worth putting that language into Hansard. It reads:


CONSTRUCTION
[Stage Direction]
1A. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed-
The word "liberally" is spelled with a small "1", I am glad to say. The section continues as follows:
-and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.'
That is the basic ground rule, and this has been included in the new act as new section 1A immediately after the title itself. We think that even its location in the legislation is significant.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Other sections of the new act will spell out the details of the procedure
Pension Acts
that are in line with this ground rule. I know that many veterans across this country are hoping that this new and more realistic benefit of doubt approach will result in an opportunity for them to receive a consideration that they have not yet received. So, Mr. Speaker, this is one feature of the legislation that we welcome most warmly, the new provision for a real benefit of doubt to be accorded to veterans who apply for pensions under the Pension Act.
The second feature of this bill to which I should like to refer is the section dealing with the Hong Kong veterans, their widows and other dependents. I believe this is one of a number of instances, and it is an important one, in which the actual recommendation of the Woods Committee has been followed down the line. The government accepted this recommendation when it produced the white paper. The standing committee went along with it as well, and now the heart of this recommendation is contained in this bill.
As I understand it, any veteran who was at Hong Kong, and I welcome the minister's reference to the Winnipeg Grenadiers and others who were there in 1941 and were prisoners of war during the years that followed, who has any assessable disability is to be regarded as having at least a 50 per cent disability and therefore a 50 per cent pension. As hon. members are aware, the magic of 50 per cent is that the widow of any such veteran will qualify for a pension as a right.
The new legislation is worded in such a way that it is quite clear that this also applies to the widows of those Hong Kong veterans who have already died. This provision, Mr. Speaker, is eminently satisfactory except for the effective date. We think it should have been put into effect two or three years ago. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, we welcome it wholeheartedly.
I now move to the third item on which I wish to make a few comments. I refer to the section in the legislation dealing with what is to be called an exceptional incapacity allowance. The minister can point out that in the end the veterans organizations seem to be willing to accept this provision in the form in which the government has included it in the bill, but I am not completely satisfied. The government should at least have accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I remind the minister and hon. members that that recommendation was in the form of a compromise.
The minister stated that the government is doubling its original offer and that this is a response to the members of the standing committee. Whether that means anything depends on the original offer. In the white paper, despite the more generous suggestions in the Woods report, the government proposed what is now called an exceptional incapacity allowance ranging from $400 to $1,200. Because the government is offering from $800 to $2,400, the minister says the amount has been doubled. The difficulty is that the standing committee, after discussing this at great length and being willing to compromise, in

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
order to get something on which we were unanimous, recommended that this kind of allowance for 100 per cent pensioners who require more than the 100 per cent should range from $700 to $3,500 a year. The government is shortchanging the committee and the veterans of this country by proposing a maximum figure of $2,400 after our compromise suggestion of a maximum of $3,500.
I fell there is still merit in the position taken in the Woods report, and by veterans organizations, to the effect that payments in addition to 100 per cent should be tied to special categories. If a person has a certain condition, he should receive an additional pension as a matter of right. We went over this in great detail. We suggested adding together the various percentages in some cases. Quadruplegics would receive very high percentages. Possibly that will not work. That is why we agreed to specify certain categories. This is what was done.
The national veterans organizations of Canada on pages 20 and 21 of their joint statement of March, 1970, set out categories that should be established. They suggested that if a veteran is in one or more of these categories he should receive a certain increased percentage in his pension. The veterans organizations took the position that it should be done in that way as a matter of right rather than something granted by the commission.
The legislation does not use the words means test or needs test. However, it is to be done at the discretion of the commission. Most of us feel there is a danger in that. It would have been far better to grant these increases to those whose pensions are already at 100 per cent, on the basis of a precise schedule, as a matter of right. I hope that when we get into committee and have an opportunity to compare what the government has included in the bill with what the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended, the flexibility to which the minister referred will still obtain and that we will be able to make changes in this portion of the bill.
As is often the case with this kind of legislation, we welcome the fact that something is being done. We are glad that additional amounts are available for those people receiving 100 per cent pensions. However, we do not like the extent to which they seem to be matters of grace and matters of determination by the commission, rather than matters of right on the basis of certain categories or certain precise conditions.
I am sure that all hon. members were impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe with regard to the quadruplegic who appeared before our committee. We were all impressed with the letter sent by several of them in the Sunny-brook Hospital in Toronto. The number of quadruplegics in this country is not very great. Indeed, the number of those with extensive multiple disabilities is somewhat limited. It seems that this grateful country that we frequently talk about could well afford to grant these people everything they need. We must do everything we can in terms of money to lessen their discomfort and disenjoy-ment of life. We do not think this will be done properly if it is a matter of discretion. It should clearly be a

matter of right. Although we welcome the exceptional incapacity allowance which is included in this legislation, it is my hope that when we deal with this bill in committee there will be some improvements in this section along the line recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
I now wish to deal with a very important, but complicated, question. That is the new set of procedures that will obtain under the revisions set out under this bill. Although in the first instance the government did not accept the recommendation of the Woods committee for a separate review board, but proposed its own arrangement, in committee we were quite pleased that in the end the government agreed in principle that the first two levels of consideration of pension applications be under the jurisdiction of the Canada Pension Commission, first the commission and then an entitlement board, but that in addition, a pension review board should be established, to be completely independent from the operations of the Canadian Pension Commission. We think this recommendation of the Woods committee was excellent The fact that the government changed its position before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is evidence of the fact that the veterans organizations made a good case.
I believe this will make a difference to the veterans of this country. They will know that their applications for pensions will be dealt with by the Pension Commission and by an entitlement board, and if they are not satisfied they will have the opportunity of applying to another body that was not involved at the first two levels, namely a pension review board. We think this is good. We are glad it is being done. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, in my attempt to compare the language of Bill C-203 with the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I feel that some subtle but very significant changes have been made. My impression is that the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs not only wanted this pension review board to be completely independent but as informal as possible so that the veteran or his representative would receive the most humane consideration of his case.
As I read the legislation I get the distinct impression that the pension review board is being set up somewhat along the lines of a court; it seems to me that too much red tape has been introduced, too many ground rules are specified. It is all done in such a way that instead of this review board being an informal arena in which aggrieved veterans can have their cases examined in human terms they will be present at a courtroom scene where their chances will not be as great as they would otherwise be. If the government is prepared to go this far, and agree to the establishment of a separate review board as proposed in the Woods Report, as requested by the veterans organizations and as recommended by the Standing Committee, I think it should set the board up in such a way that it will really work-not only that, but give the impression to everyone that it is, in fact, working.
January 11, 1971

To turn to a few of the details, it seems to me there are certain things that will overload the work of this review board. One has to do with the right of the pension commission to reconsider a matter. As the bill reads, this can only be done if the review board agrees to its being done. It appears to me that hundreds, if not thousands of cases of this kind will go up to the review board and clutter up its operations. Many of these cases are such that they could easily be dealt with by the commission itself at the lower level; if the workload of the review board is cluttered up with them the board will not be able to do the humane job that is called for in the name of the veterans.
Generally speaking, veterans have been pleased with the work of the Pension Commission. Certainly, those who have got their pensions have been pleased. Veterans organizations have had to admit that the Commission has done a good job over the years. Nevertheless there has been enough dissatisfaction, enough feeling that provision for a final review was unsatisfactory, to lead, now, to the setting up of a pension review board. I plead that we should not create a court situation but work out a more humane arrangement in which a veteran will really be given an opportunity to have his case heard sympathetically.
One of the recommendations on this point was ours. I am referring to recommendation number 22 from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I should like to read it into the record.
Leave to Re-Open Appeals: The Veterans Organizations propose that there would be no requirement for a "leave to re-open" procedure before the proposed Pension Review Board. If new grounds or evidence exist, the application for "Leave to reopen" would be the responsibility of the Commission. When the applicant has exhausted his procedural rights before the Commission he would be entitled to have his case reviewed by the Pension Review Board. In a case which had previously been adjudicated upon by the Pension Review Board, and no new grounds or evidence existed, the Review Board would review the case a second or subsequent time, should the applicant's representative request this action. This is believed to be in keeping with the basic concept of the Woods Committee, which was to the effect that there should be no "finality" in applications under the Pension Act.
Your Committee concurs in this proposal and so recommends.
This is what the veterans wanted. I believe it is what Parliament wants to provide-that in this important matter of seeing that justice is done to veterans there should be no finality, no point at which a veteran is told: There is nothing more you can do. The situation thus envisaged is not established if in setting up this new board we hamstring it with a lot of ground rules and red tape which defeat the purpose of the committee's recommendation. This is a detail we can examine when we get into the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on this bill, but I give notice now that I would like to see the ground rules for the pension review board made more flexible and more humane so that the purpose we have in mind might really be met.
1 move on to one or two other things I should like to speak about. I welcome the clause of the bill which provides for the stabilization of World War II pensions.
Pension Acts
As the minister says, it took many years after the first world war to take this action in the case of those veterans. Now, at last, we are doing it in the case of World War II veterans. There are a number of other provisions in the bill having to do with dependants and their education, accidents which occur off-duty and so on-quite a long list of things which are good and which make the bill such that it can be said to be an improvement in our veterans legislation. However, as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe said so well, no matter how much we improve the administrative arrangements, if we fail to show proper concern in terms of disability pension rates and in terms of the amounts granted under the War Veterans Allowance Act, the veterans will ask: What was the use of the Woods Report; what was the use of spending all the hours which were spent on this measure? So I hope that after we have got this bill through, and after members in all parties have had a chance to speak on it, the government will reconsider the rates which the minister announced on December 2, shortly before the Christmas recess.
Returning to the bill itself, there are two things which are not contained in it. I regret they are not there. The first is a provision for automatic increases in pensions at certain ages. This, I have to admit, is a point we lost in the committee, but that is no reason it could not have been put in this bill. The Woods Report recommended it and the veterans organizations pressed very hard for it. This, it seems to me, is something we can all readily understand-that as veterans get older their needs become greater, their capacity for making money on the side lessens. It is a sensible and realistic proposal that in certain circumstances disability pensions should move upward, even all the way to the 100 per cent pension at a certain age. As a matter of fact, I think this is a principle which could well be applied to old age pensions generally, but here would be a good place at which to start. This is a question on which we were divided in the committee. We who wanted this proposal accepted were out-voted, but I still hope the government might consider its adoption.
There is one other provision which we approved and which was recommended in the committee's report but which is not to be found in the bill before us. Hon. members who are on the Veterans Affairs Committee will be able to guess at once what it is. I refer to recommendation No. 106, which consists of one sentence:
That a proportionate pension be paid to a widow where a pensioner in receipt of pension of less than 48 per cent dies.
Recommendation 107 is similar and would have had the same effect with regard to dependants other than a widow. Although we did not win the vote on recommendation 107, we did win the vote on recommendation 106, which I have just read, and again this recommendation is part of our report. It is listed with those matters in which we concur. True, the vote was not unanimous, but it was a majority vote and that becomes the committee's decision.
2284

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
We hear a great deal said around this place about the importance of committee work. I have seen other ministers come before the House and admit that their position was overruled by the standing committee, and they accepted it. As a matter of fact, I think in all fairness I must say that since we revamped our committee structure most of the changes made to bills by committees have been accepted by the responsible minister when the bills returned to the floor of the House. I am very sorry that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has not seen fit to accept the will of the committee with regard to recommendation 106.
Perhaps I might be permitted to take a moment to explain the obvious. At least, it is obvious to all who are familiar with this particular field of legislation but perhaps I should place on the record what this is all about. As hon. members are aware, under the Pension Act as it now stands if a veteran with a pension of 50 per cent or more dies his widow automatically gets a widow's pension under the Pension Act. However, if a veteran has a pension of less than 48 per cent-and in all of this 48 per cent has become the magic figure-should he die his widow gets no pension whatever. There is no grading at all; this is an absolute cut-off point. Most hon. members are aware of this because they have had to deal with it.
The Woods Committee dealt with this issue and made a very clear recommendation. It recommended that in the case of widows of veterans who have a pension of less than 48 per cent a proportionate pension should be paid. As I say, that was a clear recommendation made by the Woods committee. This was rejected by the government in its white paper but the standing committee in its report back to the House recommended that its recommendation No. 106 be inserted into the act. We are now considering Bill C-203 and we find that the recommendation of the standing committee in this respect has been ignored. I regret and deplore this, and I hope that even yet the government will give consideration to it.
May I just read a few words from the Woods Committee report on this question since, as I say, it appeals to me as one of some importance. I should like to refer to volume III of the Woods report. Hon. members might think that this volume is a whole report in itself, but it is only one third of the report. At page 884 the committee report reads:
Your Committee considers that a widow and other dependants have a vested right in a pension awarded to a member of the Forces for disability. This right is based on the premise that, by reason of injury, disease or aggravation thereof where such were attributable to, incurred during, or related to military service, the pensioner's earning capacity was reduced in his lifetime, usually during his most productive years.
The dependants of that pensioner should have a moral and legal right to be maintained through the earning capacity of that member and when the earning capacity has been reduced, and replacement thereof is made by way of pension, the dependant has a vested right in that pension.
This vested right applies to the pension paid to the dependants while the member is alive, and when he dies, should continue to apply during the lifetime of a widow and dependent parents and dependent brothers and sisters, and during the pensionable age in the case of children.

Pension is an integral part of the economic life of a family. Pension, and the causes from which it arose, in one degree or another affect the entire life of the pensioner-and likewise that of his wife, family and other dependents. The effect of this does not disappear on the death of the pensioner, but is continued to the extent that the widow and other dependants are subject to the effects of the results of the member's service. While this effect will vary in degree and extent, it is always present. To a man earning $5,000 a year, for example, a 40 per cent pension of $100 a month represents a significant portion of what he has to live on. To deprive his family of the financial help that he received while alive not only places his dependants in a position of facing a larger problem of readjustment, but in effect terminates the acceptance of responsibility on the part of the state, arising from the service of one who was the cornerstone of the family economy. In effect the view is adopted that the family's right to expect anything from the pensioner terminates with his death.
The family has a vested interest in the pensioner's estate and in all that he was. The cut-off of assistance by way of pension on death of the pensioner fails to take proper account of the larger implications of his responsibility.
Then, there is a paragraph pointing out that in the case of pension of 50 per cent or more the widow is taken care of because of the already accepted principles that apply above the 50 per cent level. The Woods Committee then concludes by saying:
The "vested right" principle would of course apply to the dependants of pensioners in receipt of 50 per cent or more, but it is not necessary to make it applicable, in that the "contributory" principle takes precedence. When, however, this "contributory" principle does not apply, in that the pension was in payment at less than 48 per cent, the dependants would still be entitled to a portion of pension on the "vested right" principle.
Admittedly, they would have entitlement only to the percentage to which the pensioner's assessment had indicated that he was disqualified in the unskilled labour market. Your Committee considers, notwithstanding, that the vested right should be recognized, and has made a recommendation accordingly.
I have read at some length from pages 884 to 886 of volume III of the Woods Committee report because I think those paragraphs put the case very clearly. Certainly, it seems to me that these statements should not be ignored. I repeat that every one of us in this House has had to deal with widows of deceased veterans with a pension of less than 48 per cent who feel aggrieved. I know we are told that these widows can turn to the War Veterans Allowance Board and to other sources, but surely the Woods Committee has stated the case very clearly and we ought to pay attention to it. Let me say again that if it is contended around here that this Parliament is better for the committee system, then let us not spoil it by ignoring the recommendation that was made by this important committee. I hope that when the bill goes to committee something can be done about this particular clause.
As I said when I began my remarks, the bill as a whole makes quite a number of improvements, and we therefore welcome it and give it our support. We shall be glad to deal with its details in committee. However, I hope in particular that we will be able to do something to improve the terms of the exceptional incapacity allowance. I hope we will also be able to do something to make the Pensions Review Board more responsive to the needs of the veterans and to the ideas that the Woods Committee and the standing committee have expressed. I hope
January 11, 1971

that we will be able to do something for the widows whom I have just mentioned in connection with my reference to recommendation 106. Then, when we have done all that, I hope the government will reconsider the amounts mentioned in the announcement of December 2 by the minister and that the increases in pension rates and in the war veterans allowance will be much larger than he proposed. I hope also, that instead of our veterans and their dependants having to wait until April, 1971, the increases granted by Parliament will be made retroactive at least to April, 1970. Surely, we should do nothing less.
[Translation\


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as all those who have spoken before me, I am happy that the House gives consideration to the second reading of Bill C-203 presented by the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) on December 2, 1970, which had been expected for a long time.
As other hon. members have already said, this bill is very valuable because it brings forth amendments that should have been made long ago.
However, the first reproach that we must make is that the amendments to the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act should be in force, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just said, much earlier than April 1, 1971, not only because of the increased benefits to veterans, but also because of the improved method of assessing their disabilities.
This bill comes too late, for thousands of veterans have suffered in the past from the inadequacy of pensions, taking services rendered by them into consideration.
Generally speaking, the bill provides a 10 per cent increase in the amount of pensions. It also provides a special pension for Hong Kong veterans and the establishment of a Review Board, which, in my opinion, is very important. But here again the 10 per cent increase and the establishment of a Review Board can have very different consequences for certain veterans, since everything depends on the assessment of their disabilities.
In fact, if the veteran's pension is raised by 10 per cent while the assessment of his disability is carried on a stricter basis, this 10 per cent increase will not improve the lot of those who are now entitled to a pension which is not commensurate to the services rendered to the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I have in mind several cases involving veterans. In one case, the Pension Commission has delayed for four years its decision to allow a veteran to undergo surgical operations. That decision was taken only six months ago. Four years ago, the Commission had deemed these operations unnecessary and had sent the veteran back home on the grounds that his pain was all in his mind. However, the Commission has recently ruled
23786-4i
Pension Acts
that this pensioner's sufferings were nothing far from imaginary and this fellow was given persmission to be operated on absolutely free of charge to him
Assessing the veteran's disability is the core of the problem. If in the future the criteria for assessing disability are made more rigid, then the 10 per cent increase allowed today will soon be absorbed.
It will be objected that Bill C-203 provides for the setting up of a five-member Pension Review Board. I trust that this body will be able to make the necessary humanitarian rulings but, on the other hand, we all know very well that the extent of the adjudication powers of the Pension Review Board will only go so far as the regulations applied by the department will allow.
Actually, if the department shows too much rigidity in its application of basic criteria for assessing the case of certain pensioners, the Board will have to follow those recommendations, those basic rules before deciding which of the veteran or the Pension Commission is right.
That is why the general principle of the bill is good. We finally have the pleasure of acknowledging that fact. However, time will tell whether review boards are ghost committees much too restricted in their decisions. We are aware of the work of review boards in other fields, in other departments. We know very well that to be really effective a review board must sometimes overthrow the decisions of officials but, on the other hand, it must obey the instructions, rules, recommendations of the department. If the department is too strict when it determines the fundamental criteria to evaluate possible disabilities of veterans, the bill now before us will not be enough. But we congratulate the minister for finally tabling the bill in the House. All admit it seeks to help war veterans.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Criminal Code-suggested removal of abortion provisions; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-regional economic expansion-Argentia, Newfoundland-report on effects of closing of United States naval station and, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-regional economic expansion- Montreal-applications by city under amended Incentives Act.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.

January 11, 1971
The Canadian Economy PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mrs. Graca Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: unworkable as well. We have achieved miracles by modern technology, but technology has been responsible also for many of the very serious problems facing us today. Among these are the enormous growth in the world's population, the deterioration of our environment and the interdependence of a world shrinking because of the amazing advances in transportation and communications. Now, we must turn our technology toward the new goals of solving the problems which technology has created. Foremost among these problems is how we are going to give practical recognition to the fact that people are people wherever you find them. As humans, they have approximately the same needs for light and air and space, for housing and food and water, for education and work, rest and recreation, for intimacy and privacy, and above all, for growth and self-fulfilment.
If you do not believe me read a book like one of Margaret Mead's books or those of any other person who has studied people with black skins, white skins, yellow skins, rich people, poor people, and you will discover that these people are all human beings under the skin. They have human feelings and will not put up indefinitely with being used as things by people who have more affluence, more prestige and more power and who believe they can use these people indefinitely for their own advantage.
Because of the greater knowledge and inter-relationship among countries and peoples throughout the world today, there will be no end to the unrest and violence we are witnessing in increasing measure until some modicum of equality of income and opportunity is achieved throughout the world. Canada is where we begin. But we must begin elsewhere too. Last summer's white paper on foreign policy made no mention of the targets for external aid called for by the Pearson report. It called for at least one per cent of the Canadian national product by not later than 1975, a commitment that Canada made years ago but has only half reached. It did promise $60 million more for the following fiscal year, but as the Oxfam News commented:
Here, however, is a conflict between two of the policy objectives given priority in the white paper-economic growth and social justice. In many areas, the review seems to oscillate uneasily between these two objectives-but where there is a clash of priorities, the emphasis comes down consistently on the side of economic growth-that is, growth for Canada. The Just Society is subordinate to the search for increased wealth.
I could add; that is, increased wealth for industrial corporations. This government began with the lofty objective of the Just Society. Today, it operates with a maxim of another kind: Principles are good but dollars are better. The dollars, of course, are reserved for the affluent at home and abroad. The poor must beg and share the pennies. Sometimes, when some of us urge the redistribution of income and the proper planning of production as I am doing today, we are told with an indulgent smile that we are naive. Someone is naive all right, but it is the people who believe they can operate the technology of 1971 with the ideas of earlier centuries.
The Canadian Economy
Speaking before the board of governors in Copenhagen last October, World Bank president Robert McNamara warned of the dangers ahead in a world where:
At least a third to a half of the world's people suffer from hunger or nutritional deprivation and where the average person in a high standard area-
Meaning Canada, among others.
-consumes four pounds of food a day compared with the average one pound and a quarter in a low standard area. Infant deaths per 1,000 live births are four times as high in the developing countries as in the developed ones. A man in the west can expect to live 40 per cent longer than the average man in the developing countries.
The figure may be a fraction higher in Prince Edward Island which has the highest record for longevity in Canada.
There are 100 million more illiterates today than there were some 20 years ago-some 800 million illiterates today. The gap between the per capita incomes of the rich nations and the poor nations is widening, both relatively and absolutely. At the extremes that gap is already more than $3,000, and present projections are that it may well widen to $9,000 by the end of the century. In the year 2,000, per capita income in the United States in terms of today's prices is expected to be approximately $10,000; in Brazil $500; and in India, $200.
Mr. MacNamara further comments:
Frankly I do not see this as a situation in which any of our shared hopes for a long peace and steady material progress are likely to be achieved.
Sober words covering a world of sombre foreboding. Conditions at home in Canada are going the same way, if less dramatically. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It is because our government refuses to recognize that the just society is not a slogan on which to get elected but the only way in which technology can be made to work without destroying us. I wish that the government would take the just society seriously and realize that it is the only recipe which can save us from being destroyed by our own technology. In world war II the British government, with its back to the wall in the dreadful struggle to save the British people from Hitler discovered that the only way it could muster the full productive potential and vital morale of the men and women of Britain was to effect fair shares for all. You remember how the King of England had a rim on his bath tub marked permanently so he would not use more water than the prescribed five inches that he felt he should have under the fair arrangements in Britain. They shared the scanty supplies of food and they shared the dangers and difficulties heroically. In the end, the British people proved invincible. I think that, in the end, the Canadian people will prove invincible, but only if we can genuinely share the good things in this country horizontally from coast to coast and vertically from the rich to the poor.
Today, I want to say plainly to the government that if they, and we, are to save Canada from all the forces that

January 11, 1971
The Canadian Economy
will tear us asunder, they must do the same thing. They simply must take measures to bring the incomes of the Newfoundlanders up to the incomes of the Ontarians. They simply must take steps to prevent the 38 per cent of Canadian unemployed people being Quebeckers. They simply must find ways and means of working with the municipalities across Canada to finance hospitals and schools, sewage plants, transit systems and low income housing that are needed so badly and that would provide employment for so many. It is time they stopped pouring public money through the sieve of well-heeled corporations, Canadian abroad, U.S. and others, in the vain hope that the provision of jobs for people and not profits for shareholders will be the main consideration.
We need a new ethic to bind us together if we are to keep Canada in one piece and develop it into the lovely, harmonious country it could become. That ethic is the -conviction that every Canadian has the right to share in the good things of this country and the responsibility to share in the planning and development of this country. My resolution is only the first step in building the confidence and co-operation essential for this tremendous undertaking. I commend this resolution to the very serious consideration of this government, knowing well that it embodies the absolutely essential first step to achieving a united country which will be of some use in bringing about a harmonious and united world.


B. Keith Penner: Anyone who has ever experienced the frustrations of being poor; anyone who has ever seen at first hand the social and psychological effects of poverty, must certainly be dedicated to the elimination of this disease in our society. The abolition of poverty, however, by redistributing income and planning production resources so that a more equitable standard of living for all Canadians is brought about is hardly possible within a short period of time. I say that because, on the one hand, a responsible government must concern itself with the goals of economic growth. This is what provides jobs for people.
The hon. member to my left indicated that this is the most effective way to eliminate poverty, and to that extent I agree with her. On the other hand, the government, besides trying to expand the economy and provide for its growth, must also search for ways to bring about a greater equity in the distribution of income. If there were to be a sudden increase in the redistribution of income in the form of a large expansion of income security programs, for instance, this could very well impede economic growth in a number of ways. It would shift government expenditures away from activities that contribute to growth, such as stimulation of new output, improvement in productivity, manpower training, research and so on. Increased benefits would have to be paid for by increased revenues through higher taxes, and that must result in higher production costs. These higher costs would result in a slowdown of the Canadian economy since Canadian producers would be unable to complete in both the domestic and foreign markets, and this in turn would result in still greater unemployment and a greater need for welfare.

In discussing the abolition of poverty, the problem begins with the question of how to define poverty. Although many definitions are possible, it is obvious that any single definition of poverty is arbitrary and clearly subject to disagreement. To the poor, however, poverty cannot be defined in statistical or sociological terms. Their condition exists as a daily fight for survival. Their deprivation is real, not a trick of rhetoric or statistics. Moreover, for many of the poor, poverty is not a temporary situation but an enduring fact of life.
In the usual sense, poverty exists when the resources of people are inadequate to provide a socially acceptable standard of living. The classification of what standard is socially acceptable, and the measurement of resources that people should have to keep up an acceptable standard, of course present many difficulties.
The Marsh Report of 1943 pointed out that a yardstick to determine poverty was necessary because the starting point for all social security discussions must be the minimum level of family income, and because such a standard measures the adequacy of existing legislation and social assistance practices. Once a minimum standard of living has been defined, there comes into existence as well the impetus to eliminate poverty. Therefore, the establishment of so-called poverty lines is necessary in order to have efficient social planning.
Poverty today is certainly something quite different from that which existed in pre-industrial and early industrial societies. Today, poverty in Canada is not so much a question of subsistence although, Mr. Speaker, there still is in existence some subsistence poverty, particularly I think among the native peoples of Canada. Mostly, however, poverty now is a question of relative deprivation.
Generally speaking, the standard of living of Canada's poor is related to a much higher across-the-board standard of living. Thus, poverty is no longer related only to the satisfaction of basic needs but also to the aspirations of people for higher standards. By some this has been called the revolution of rising expectations. The concept of minimum need in our affluent society extends far beyond mere physical needs to include conventional and social needs. A minimum standard budget, therefore, must represent the lowest possible level that does not compromise the family's physical health or their selfrespect as members of the community.
In Canada, recommended intakes of food are suggested in the Dietary Standard for Canada, together with the Canadian Food Guide. The Report of the Federal Task Force on Housing stated that everyone in Canada is entitled to "clean and warm shelter as a matter of basic human right." As for space, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a standard for public housing which includes a kitchen, living room, a bedroom for two parents, and no more than two children in one bedroom. Clothing costs can be calculated on replacement rates.
January 11, 1971

Items other than food, clothing and housing cannot very well be based on scientific calculations, but it should be clear to all that when a family's income is just large enough to cover what is considered necessary for the maintenance of health and working capacity, poverty still exists and poverty still exists because money is also needed to satisfy those social needs which enable one to avoid being an object of pity or of ridicule in the community in which one lives. Canada has tried a number of different techniques in its efforts to fight poverty. There are some universal plans. There are some social insurance plans. But since it would be far too costly to provide social insurance and universal flat-rate benefits sufficient to meet all needs, there will be a continuing need for social assistance programs related to family income and needs.
Social assistance must recognize a family's need for adequate income, for the maintenance of personal dignity and independence, and as well it must encourage selfreliance. Social assistance should progress from poor relief to social insurance by improving assistance benefits, enlarging the concept of need, and by removing the moral stigma attached to recourse to assistance.
I just wish to mention in closing a word about guaranteed income, Mr. Speaker. Using this technique, the government pays subsidies to all poor households in order to raise their already low incomes, and to reduce or fully close the poverty income gap. This approach is less costly than universal payment plans, and is less offensive to recipients than the needs or means test. It is a more efficient anti-poverty tool than either the demogrant or social insurance techniques. The main thrust of this type of program is to help the working poor.
The guaranteed income or income test approach has been used in the case of the guaranteed income supplement for old age pensioners. By using this technique, Canada is one of the few countries in the world to have tried this new approach in which income tax data and the amount of the benefit are linked together. I think that all of us in this House recognize that we have a long way to go in our efforts to eliminate poverty. But having defined the problem, and having had the courage to face up to it, considering that there are always limitations of resources, I am convinced that some important steps forward have been taken, and I know that some other equally important steps may be expected soon.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Sf. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, to abolish poverty in Canada is not an easy task, and indications are that no legislative action can achieve such an objective within a short period of time.
In the past, public policy in the economic field has been directed, as it continues to be directed today, towards maintaining a high level of income and employment, and in the social field towards the development of a comprehensive range of income maintenance programs and health and social services. It has been generally expected that as national income rose, and social security provi-
The Canadian Economy
sions improved, there would be fewer and fewer people living in poverty.
Much of our concern today centres around the fact that traditional economic and social policies have not solved the problems of our industrial society to the extent expected, and that our programs are not adequately meeting the needs of the poor. In order to examine the shortcomings of our system with regard to the poor, it is important to examine the concept of poverty and its consequences in Canada.
What is the meaning of poverty? The basic meaning of poverty is deprivation. The poverty-stricken are deprived in relation to the affluent and the well-to-do. A moment's reflection on the subject makes it clear that poverty varies with time and place in terms of recognized values. Starvation, death due to exposure, and loss of life due to some lack of resources are the only absolute forms of poverty, while the remaining types of deprivation are relative. Everyone knows that being poor in Canada means something different from being poor in India, and that poverty in Canada is much different today from that in the thirties or in many earlier decades.
Poverty involves both economic deprivation and social alienation. Economic deprivation develops when poor people have insufficient access to certain goods, services and conditions of life which are enjoyed by the rest of the community. The most obvious effect of poverty on personality is that children of the poor soon become conditioned to failure which, in turn, leads to social alienation. Expectations are first learned in the family and if continued failure is the expectation, ambitions of the young remain low. In this way poverty is self-perpetuating, passing from one generation to the next.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we ought to ask ourselves who are the poor in Canada. In labour market terms, the poor can be divided into three classes: the unemployed, the underemployed and the unemployable. The second category includes the working poor who are working fulltime but whose earnings are abnormally low in relation to their needs. The third category includes retired people, widows and deserted wives with dependent children, the totally disabled and vocationally handicapped, all of whom have practically nothing to offer in the labour market.
An examination of the incidence of poverty in Canada for 1967 indicates that out of the 840,000 families estimated to live below the poverty line, about 60 per cent have family heads who are participating in the labour force. This includes both the unemployed and underemployed. The income of these families is presumably beyond public assistance levels and, according to the criteria underlying the determination of poverty lines, is not sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of living. More than half of the poor families in the labour force are headed by paid workers employed at low wages and with large families. Somewhat less than half are headed

January 11, 1971
The Canadian Economy
by self-employed individuals who are engaged in farming, fishing, hunting or in small businesses.
Let me now talk about the unemployed. A major factor of poverty in families is the unemployment of the family head. In fact, the degree to which families are exposed to poverty varies with the employment of the heads of families. There is some unemployment even in the best of times and it is generally accepted that some unemployment is unavoidable. Because of structural changes, seasonal and other factors, a 4 per cent unemployment rate on a national basis means that not everyone can work, and that wages will be lower than they would be if there were greater competition for workers. It also means that young people without work experience, the uneducated and many others, fall victim to unemployment through no fault of their own and are thus exposed to poverty. Higher rates than 4 per cent would, of course, aggravate this situation still further.
At any given time people may be unemployed for a variety of reasons. In Canada, on the average, seasonal variations account for about one-third of total unemployment. In many of our depressed areas this is the principal cause of poverty. Those with limited education and marginal skills are finding work only with increasing difficulty. Technological changes, producing shifts toward occupations which call for higher education and particular skills, pose a growing threat to the uneducated and the unskilled. The victims of unemployment may be squeezed even harder in future years by an increase of automation. The combination of the computer and automated machine promises a tremendous increase in production, with a reduction in human labour requirements.
The underemployed are people working less than they want to, in part-time or casual jobs or at occupations where productivity and income are low. Underemployment in the latter sense is a major poverty factor, especially in rural areas, and can be regarded as incurable underemployment. For many male workers who are the heads of families, it is not the current joblessness that is the primary cause of poverty but, rather, the history of an erratic series of short-term jobs or a spell of uninterrupted employment at low pay, coupled with a large number of dependants to be supported out of family income. A large proportion of these people are working full-time, even though their wages cannot keep their families out of poverty.
Most of the full-time workers in this situation appear to be now engaged in low paying occupations. They may have more difficulty in obtaining needed help than a victim of unemployment. An unemployed person is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and, when these expire, for social assistance. On the other hand, full-time workers with low earnings cannot get any further help even though their incomes are inadequate. Most provincial welfare departments are reluctant to subsidize fulltime earnings in circumstances of extreme hardship. Welfare authorities have to consider the twin problems of weakening incentives to work and subsidizing inadequate wages.

The heads of about 40 per cent of families as well as 61 per cent of unattached individuals living in poverty are not in the labour force. As mentioned before, these include retired people, widows and deserted wives with dependent children, the totally disabled and the handicapped.
Let us consider the retired, Mr. Speaker. The aged population exhibits a relatively high degree of economic insecurity, despite the fact that more of the aged than of any other group currently draw some support from public programs. Moreover, the poverty of the aged affects considerably more people. Some aged persons are married to persons not yet 65 who are also poor, and others with no spouse are sharing the house of a younger relative. Still others, whose numbers cannot be estimated statistically, are supported in part by relatives not living in the same house.
As the aged move out of the labour market and into retirement, their incomes go down while certain of their needs grow. An indication of the extent of low incomes in this section of the population is indicated by the fact that in 1970 about 48 per cent of old age security recipients qualified for the guaranteed income supplement which assured an income of $1,337 for a single person and $2,674 for married couples. Deteriorating health adds to the problems of the aged as their faculties decline and their housing needs change. The cost of accommodation to meet such needs is often beyond the reach of the aged, since in most places subsidized housing and special services are not available to them.
May I now talk about the disabled. Of the estimated
1,300,000	Canadians who have some degree of permanent physical disability, about 520,000, or 3 per cent of the population, have disabilities classified as severe or total. One half of this group is of working age, but only one in four has earnings from employment. Disabled persons make up a significant part of the poor in Canada. Physical and mental defects that lead to disability affect a substantial proportion of the population. It is estimated that congenital defects, chronic diseases and accidents restrict at least one person in ten from carrying out the usual activities of daily living. Several provincial welfare departments have indicated that about one-third of assistance recipients are in families receiving aid because of ill health or disability.
With regard to the poverty of minorities, in the last few years, after decades of relative indifference, Canada has become seriously concerned with the plight of its native peoples. The attitudes surrounding Indians, Eskimos and Metis, both from within and outside their communities, have created a wall of misunderstanding between them and Canadian society. In the past they have been given little systematic help either to preserve the values of their own culture or to adapt to the demands of the white man's world. As a result, a high proportion of these people are chronically dependent and live in some of the worst conditions to be found in
January 11, 1971

Canada. The terrible plight of so many of the children of our minorities is unmistakable.
Regarding women in poverty, families headed by women, and unattached women, constitute a significant proportion of the poor. Of all families headed by women, about 35 per cent have low incomes. With a married couple, a wife participating in the labour force can boost the family income. The woman who is the family head can only count on her own earnings, if she works, which average less than a man's. Often such family heads are widowed, deserted, separated or divorced and have dependent children, making their economic and social position that much worse. With practically no income of her own, she may be struggling along on social allowance because she feels obliged to give her children full-time care or cannot find employment. On the other hand, she may be working part or full-time and coping as best she can with her children's needs in her off hours.
Why does poverty persist? It is often argued that anyone who wants to escape from poverty can do so simply by seeking and accepting work. It is contended that the poor should be expected to lift themselves out of poverty without any help from society. Those who favour such arguments ignore the social factors which prevent people escaping from poverty. The more important factors are family size, ill health, education, location of poverty, housing, low earnings and the poverty spiral. I could list many. I wish to deal with a few of these factors.
With regard to family size, the cost of supporting a large number of children can result in poverty for workers with even relatively high earnings. The average Canadian family has three or four children. While the birth rate has been dropping steadily in recent years, the decline has not been uniform. Rural-urban differences and differences between socio-economic classes are still noticeable. Families in which the head had the least education are generally the largest. Consequently, big families have the least capacity for overcoming poverty and tend to have the worst poverty problems.
On the matter of ill health, the results of the Canadian sickness survey of 1950-51 indicate that ill health is one of the main reasons for people becoming and remaining poor. The low income group suffer proportionately from more disabling illnesses than the rich, and receive a smaller amount of health care. Children under 15 in the low income group are also more affected than those of corresponding age in higher income families. Although the most advanced medical techniques in the world are available in Canada, the poor receive a lesser advantage from them. In fact, the sickness survey confirmed for Canada the crude correlation shown by other studies between infant mortality rates and per capita personal incomes. Ontario, with the highest income, had the lowest death rate; Newfoundland, with the lowest income, had the highest.
There is evidence to prove that no group suffers more ill health than the poor. Medical authorities state that the
The Canadian Economy
poor have more heart disesase, rheumatoid arthritis, unrehabilitated injury, mental illness, tuberculosis, illness whether chronic or acute, and higher death rates in all ages than do Canadians at large. Medical advances benefit the poor only after a certain time lag.
With regard to education, the relationship between low levels of education and poverty is obvious. A 1966 DBS study showed that in February, 1965, workers with some elementary schooling or less had an unemployment rate of 13.8 per cent, compared with 1.9 per cent for those with high school education or more. Also, with respect to duration of unemployment the study shows that 63 per cent of workers who finished elementary school or less were unemployed for four months or more, compared with 10 per cent for those with high school education or better. In 1961, 47 per cent of all Canadians aged 15 and over had no more than elementary schooling. With a high proportion of the poor being uneducated, it is unrealistic to expect great improvement in terms of income. Those with a low level of education receive the low paying jobs which offer little opportunity for advancement.
Regarding location of poverty, Canada has two kinds of economic inequality related to geography: urban-rural and regional. More than half of Canadian low income families live in cities and 45 per cent live in rural areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I must point out to him that his allotted time has now expired.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I came into the House for private members' hour today primarily to listen to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) present, defend and develop the motion she has put before the House. I did not intend to enter the debate. However, in light of some of the points she has made, I wish to make a few spontaneous remarks on what I consider to be one of the most important notices of motion to appear on the Order Paper to date.
Having listened to the lecture and the rhetoric of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I cannot help but feel that she and her colleagues must be disappointed in the substance of what she has said. There is no question but that she was critical of the government. It is undoubtedly true there are areas in which the government can legitimately be criticized. That is a truism. It is certainly the case that poverty presents us with a problem, perhaps the most serious and pressing which we confront at this time. But when the hon. member introduces a motion which deals with the concept of redistributing income, of planning our productive resources and creating wealth by using modern technology, I do not find it easy to forgive her for failing to elaborate on the substance of her motion or to offer any detail concerning the reasonable and important concepts we are asked to consider.

January 11, 1971
The Canadian Economy
When the hon. member came to the gut issue, the central part of her motion having to do with the redistribution of income, her proposition amounted to this: adopt a workable plan for a guaranteed annual income. We have all heard these cliches, we have heard these slogans, we have heard these suggestions from a variety of sources. The question to which we must address ourselves is: What is this workable plan and what, precisely, do we have in mind when we speak about redistributing income? The hon. lady embellished one cliche with another cliche. She talked about taxation according to ability. Where does that put her, or the party of which she is a member? I am sure there is no one sitting in this House who would not agree that people should be taxed according to their ability. What, precisely, does it mean?
Embellishing the second cliche with a third, and summing up the totality of her argument, she talked about using the resources of technology to deal with poverty. Again I express my disappointment. The hon. member is concerned about this question. She is as concerned about it as any member of this House, and has so demonstrated on many occasions. Today she added nothing to our knowledge of this question or of the possible solutions. I am sure this does not stem from a lack of good will on her part or from a lack of good faith, but it does underline the point that the hon. lady has been unable to advance our thinking on the subject. She has demonstrated the point made by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) and my hon. friend from St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), that the whole subject is infinitely more complex than either she or other members of her party are prepared to admit.
I turn now to a conference which took place over the weekend, the Poor People's Conference, in order to make one or two observations about its importance as one of the new and more interesting developments which have emerged in the past two or three years. I have not yet seen the resolutions from the conference but I have read some of the press reports of the proceedings. What is perfectly clear is that in Canada today we are entering upon a new period of militancy. Supported by organization, a sense of purpose and a will to do something about conditions of poverty, the poor themselves are joining forces to do something about their situation. This represents an important change and in my view it is a most hopeful development, though it will not in itself put an end to poverty.
If there is any group in our society which can make hon. members of this chamber and legislatures across the country aware of the national dimension of poverty, the inadequacies of our welfare system and of our housing programs, it is the poor themselves. When the poor themselves organize militantly, strongly and determinedly we shall become more conscious of their needs, and the pressure to get away from the slogans and from the cliches in which we have all been indulging over the years will become so great as to be undeniable. At this point the measure of Parliament and of the legislatures will be taken.

One of the things which has disturbed me most about the Poor People's Conference is that because these people are meeting in Toronto to upset the status quo, questions are raised suggesting that they are engaged in a movement which is, somehow, seditious. The questions were asked today: Who organized this group? What is their background? If I am wrong, I apologize in advance, but it appears to me that implicit in this sort of questioning is the suggestion that this is not an authentic Canadian organization of people who are concerned about the future of their country. Somehow, the suggestion is made, as it was in an editorial in the Peterborough Examiner, that this was a seditious conspiracy; look behind it and you will find the Communist party or some other sinister group.
Well, if the Communist party is behind this, it is to their credit, because they have recognized a problem and are ventilating it. I am tired of the implication that every time people in lower income groups get to their feet and raise questions about welfare or housing conditions, their patriotism and their integrity can be called into question. I am tired of the suggestion that the poor are being used by groups whose intentions are sinister, thus clouding the real issues.
I hope this conference has dispelled some of the myths prevalent in this country about the poor. One of the questions which is invariably asked whenever one talks about welfare is: Are these people really prepared to work; are they really prepared to contribute? As we have seen from the reports of this conference, this question was put squarely by the people themselves and is being answered positively. They say: Give us work and we will do it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway told us there should be jobs for these people, that everyone in this country should have work to do. This is a noble position to take.


Mr. Peters:: You mean there are some who do not support that proposition?


James Hugh Faulkner: No one opposes that proposition, but the question to which we must address ourselves-and no enlightenment has come from members of the NDP-is this: How can substantially more employment be provided? Perhaps we should be talking about the prospect of full employment and whether it is realizable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair, to resume same at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
January 11, 1971


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dube that Bill C-203, to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, before recess we were considering Bill C-203 which aims mostly at making the existing veterans legislation more flexible.
We were saying that this bill certainly had much merit because we often-times noted that the legislation which had not been amended for a long time, was in need of change. We are happy that the minister saw fit, perhaps a little late unfortunately, to make more flexible the legislation which at present makes it possible for all veterans to receive a pension.
Our main criticism of the bill is that it does not provide for an annual automatic adjustment of the pension to take into account the increase in the cost of living.
Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated over the Christmas recess that inflation no longer existed in Canada-just as if one fine morning he had met inflation on the street and had grabbed it to throw it into the nearest garbage pail-price inflation and pocket deflation still exist in Canada. In fact, they still exist as far as veterans are concerned and they will continue to exist as long as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tolerates the present financial system in which price inflation and pocket deflation find their roots.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that the House is now studying a bill dealing with veterans and I do not believe that he can take this opportunity to discuss the Canadian financial system.
It seems to me that he is straying from the question somewhat and I would ask him to limit his comments as far as possible to the essence of the bill under consideration.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my remarks were not altogether relevant, but as we are dealing with pensions I was saying that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) should have provided for an automatic yearly adjustment of the pension so that the latter would remain in line with the cost of living which I was commenting upon.
If the Minister of Veterans Affairs had included such a clause, he would have rendered a valuable service to all veterans whose pensions are constantly eroded by increases in the cost of living, although the Prime Minister has announced that its vertiginous ascent would be stopped by a suppression of inflation.
The 10 per cent increase of pensions provided by this bill represents roughly the cost of living increase for an
Pension Acts
18- month period. That is the reason why the increase provided in this bill does not constitute a long term measure, considering inflation.
Before putting an end to my comments, I hope that the new Pension Review Board which will be asked to study the cases of veterans will do so in a humanitarian spirit, and that veterans who will have to call upon the board do not have to put up with a lot of red tape.
Thus, vexations would be eliminated rather than the greatest possible number of applications from veterans through a useless multiplication of required formalities.
Mr. Speaker, we shall have other opportunities to discuss this bill, whether in committee or on third reading; we hope that the committee will make recommendations out of these suggestions so that the minister will be able to take them into consideration and turn them not into words but into concrete actions; the bill has been delayed quite a while before being returned to the House and I think more time will be needed to complete its consideration.
That is why I feel the Minister of Veterans Affairs should take this opportunity to incorporate all valid recommendations into the act. To my mind, the recommendations of the committee and those of this House are valid because they are based on facts. I am thinking of some of the anomalies in the act which we want to eradicate by the passing of this bill and certain amendments we will propose on third reading.
Still, we must congratulate the minister for having introduced this bill which, on the whole, pleases many veterans, for it has been expected for many years. It will serve at least to reduce the bureaucracy and give more flexibility to the administration. The Review Board is intended to make decisions more human. Formerly, they were made by a civil servant and there was no right of appeal.
I congratulate the minister and I ask him to kindly take into account our recommendations, especially those of the committee.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it was rather amusing for one to sit here all afternoon and listen to the official spokesmen of the opposition parties very grudgingly give credit to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) for the step forward he and the government have undoubtedly taken for the veterans of Canada. I appreciate that books have been written about the duty of opposition parties being to oppose. I always have felt that opposition should be tempered by common sense. In this instance, instead of casting any reflection on the minister responsible for this legislation, each and every member of the opposition parties should give him due credit, and credit is certainly coming to him. Most certainly this is the way the veterans of Canada feel about the minister.
May I respectfully suggest that in your quieter moments, Mr. Speaker-I know that they are not numerous-you read the national magazine of the Royal Canadian Legion. On the front cover of the January,

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
1971, issue appears the words "A great step forward". If you have time, Mr. Speaker, you might turn to page 10 of that magazine and read the editorial which reiterates this statement on the front page. The editorial is entitled "A great step forward-amendments to the Pension Act-the most extensive improvements in half a century". Those words express the feelings of the veterans of Canada for this government in respect of Bill C-203. These are the observations the minister should read and digest. He should consider criticism when it is advanced in a proper manner and, if necessary, change some parts of the bill.
On the other hand, may I respectfully point out that all that we as Members of Parliament have to do to answer the criticism put forward by opposition members this afternoon is ask this question: Would they prefer to be pensioners under Canadian laws, or pensioners under English laws? Would they rather be Canadian veterans, or Polish veterans? Everyone knows how hard the Poles fought during the last war. I had the privilege of fighting with one of their divisions in Italy and France. I assure the House that no one fought harder than they did, and no one suffered more casualties on a percentage basis I again respectfully ask members of the opposition parties whether they would rather be Canadian veterans living in Newfoundland or any other part of Canada, veterans of the Polish army living in Poland, or veterans of the English army living in England.
Let us examine the pension legislation of the wealthiest country in the world, the United States. Let us compare that legislation with Canadian legislation. I do not refer specifically to the legislation proposed in Bill C-203 but the legislation as it has existed until now. Hon. members will find that even before the introduction of this bill, Canada took second place to no country in the world as far as its treatment of veterans was concerned. That does not mean there cannot be improvement. This government, as has been the case with governments in the past, is worried because of the effect inflation and the rising cost of living has had on pensioners in this country. These veterans, just as anyone else, deserve an increase. According to the Canadian Legion, Canadian veterans have accepted this bill almost in its entirety. They have congratulated the minister for taking this great step forward in veterans legislation.
Once again this afternoon we heard from an hon. member of the House who is looked upon with fondness, not only because of his gentle manner but because of his common sense. I refer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He congratulated the Minister of Veterans Affairs but suggested that these increases, rather than starting next April 1 should be made retroactive to April 1, 1970. Let me say respectfully to that hon. member and others that I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Anyone can promise anything if he does not have to back up his promises. I do not know how long the hon. member has been here, but I would guess it is probably 20 years. I say most respectfully that if he is here another 30 years, and he will be a reasonably old man by then-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no!
[Mr. Whicher.l


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -will never have to back up the promises he made this afternoon or those which he makes almost every day of the week.


Jack Marshall: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether, under the War Veterans Allowance Act, the hon. member knows how much advantage a veteran aged 77.6 years will receive from the increases which will become applicable on April 1, 1971.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is a very good question. I have not figured out the answer. I will let the veterans of Canada figure it out for the hon. member. The Canadian Legion has said that this legislation is a great step forward, and in this way I think the veterans of Canada have answered my hon. friend. We should be proud of the veterans legislation which has come into effect in the past. I have the honour of being a veteran, along with dozens of members of this House. I think we should compare our veterans legislation with similar legislation on a world-wide basis. We should compare our veterans legislation with that of the United States. Pensioners in that country receive much less than our pensioners.
The veterans of this country, including those in this House in all parties, fought hard against a great race of people who were our enemies at the time. Those enemies were very fine fighters. I refer to the German race. I should like to know how much veterans living in west Germany receive in pension. If the hon. member has any idea, I ask him how much the veterans now living in east Germany receive in pension. They receive about 30 per cent of what Canadian veterans are receiving. We should be proud of that fact. We should be proud, not because German veterans are receiving less but because our people are being looked after to the limit of our financial resources.
One hon. member said today that veterans on disability pension were only receiving 10 per cent. It was said that a certain percentage is lost each year because of increasing inflation, and that pensions have not kept up with the cost of living over the years on a comparative percentage basis. We must remember that we are not only concerned with the increases proposed in Bill C-203. We must remember the percentage increases of the last seven years. Veterans pensions have increased in that period by over 50 per cent. This is something of which the Liberal Party, which is in power today, and the Conservative Party, which was in power for some time, can be proud.
* There is to be an increase of 15 per cent in war veterans allowance. A married couple will receive $201 per month and a single person will receive $121 per month. We must also remember that veterans will be allowed to earn additional money. A married couple will have the right to earn up to $271 per month, and a single man will have the right to earn up to $161. These figures may seem somewhat insignificant, but I respectfully remind hon. members that the increase in disability pensions will cost the taxpayers of Canada $22 million per year and the increase in war veterans allowance will cost $21 million per year. In total, probably at least $50 million is being given by the taxpayers, and rightfully so, to
January 11, 1971

the veterans of Canada. Perhaps this should have been given in the past. We would have been glad had this happened in the past. Nevertheless, when one is considering what should be done, one must keep two things in mind. First, we must remember that the veterans of Canada are number one, and second we must consider how much the taxpayers can afford to give in order to have happy veterans, which presumably we will have as a result of the implementation of this bill.
I suggest most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that members of the opposition are whistling Dixie when they try to be critical of this bill. I was impressed this afternoon by the reference of one opposition member to the 100 per cent pensioners who have severe disabilities, for example, the paraplegics. I remember very well a lad who had been wounded in Korea. He was an absolute physical wreck. When he attended our meetings, he sat beside me. I gave him a cup of coffee. I had to hold it to his lips because he was unable to hold it himself. No one can be too sad in such a case. Here is a young man who has given his all for his country. The question, however, is how much money one can pay to such a man. If we gave him $1 million, would he take it? I am sure not one member of this House would change places with that boy for $1 million. Obviously, we cannot give it to him in any event. Therefore, in my opinion we must arrive at a respectable figure for those who are totally disabled. It must be a figure which will allow them to provide for themselves food and drink, the very best housing, an automobile and all the comforts of life. By this legislation which is being introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs I am sure they will be in a position to afford these things.
After all, these veterans are to receive an increase of 10 per cent in their basic pension, and it has been suggested they receive an extra $800 to $2,400 a year provided that money is needed. I believe this is good, common sense. I have examined this bill very carefully. I appreciate what has been said about the committee. I appreciate that veterans representing many organizations appeared before the committee which met on many days over a period of many weeks. As has been said, they became part of us. In my opinion, they and the members of the committee did an excellent job. We all realize we cannot give too much to a veteran, but because of the increases suggested in Bill C-203 I, along with other veterans of Canada, agree with the editor of The Legion that this legislation is a great step forward.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind my hon. friend, who referred to German veterans receiving only 30 per cent of what Canadians receive, that they do not deserve .03 per cent because of the hardship they inflicted upon many people and because of the six million people who were destroyed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate; it is not a point of order.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to enter this debate because of its importance
Pension Acts
to me and to the veterans of Canada. I was very pleased to see that the first item of government business for this session was to be Bill C-203. I wish to join our distinguished colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who regretted that it had taken so long for this legislation to be brought before the House. I do not entirely blame the minister for this. I think he would have been very pleased to introduce the legislation long before this date.
The veterans affairs committee of this House of Commons has been a good committee. I have been a member of it for 13 years. The committee which studied this matter for 16 months was an especially good committee which had a very good chairman. I think we worked together very well. But it is 16 months since we began our study of the Woods commission report. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, as I believe others have, that the 10 per cent pension increase which is to come into effect on April 1 should be retroactive. I believe the government somehow or other should find the funds with which to make payment to our veterans retroactive to last October or, preferably, for a full year.
I am particularly interested in clause 1A of the bill which provides as follows:
The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.
There is this statement in the explanatory notes:
-The purpose of this amendment is to make clear-
That is, to the Parliament of Canada, to the government of Canada and to the Pension Commission.
-the purpose of the Pension Act and to give guidance to those persons charged with its administration.
I feel this section is well worded. I was interested to see that clauses 57 and 58 in part IV of the bill deal specifically with Hong Kong veterans. We have been promising this particular aid and recognition for a long time. The plight of those who served in Japanese prison camps was more devastating than that of most of us who served in World War I or World War II. It has been said that civilization is just a coat of paint. That was especially true between 1932 and 1945 in Germany, when under Hitler there was the greatest tyranny the world has ever seen. The genocide of six million Jews is one of the blackest chapters in the history of mankind. Civilization was also shown to be just a coat of paint by the Japanese treatment of Chinese, Australian, New Zealand, United States and Canadian prisoners. There is very little parallel in history.
I was glad to see that recently-we all have received this publication-a national association of war prisoners was formed. Now that our Hong Kong prisoners have received some measure of recognition, I think we might very well direct our attention to the men who served in prisoner of war camps in other than the

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
Far East. There is no question that those who were deprived of their freedom and were herded into prisoner of war camps, those who had the minimum of food to keep them alive, who were humiliated and in some cases were shot because they tried to escape, should now be given more recognition than perhaps they have in the past.
The hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) will speak later and perhaps he will tell the House that when he was shot down over northern France his co-pilot survived to be taken prisoner of war. When he tried to escape from a German prisoner of war camp, he and 50 others were shot on the orders of Adolph Hitler. We know only too well that those who served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, especially prisoners who were in eastern Germany near the end of the war, were marched across Germany in the late winter and early spring. They slept in ditches, in the snow and in barns, and they lived on turnips.
We know what happened to the prisoners of the 12th SS Panzer division in France which was commanded by a general named Kurt Meyer who later served a sentence in Dorchester penitentiary for his war crimes. Almost every man they took as prisoner never reached a prisoner of war camp but was shot on the spot, usually with his hands tied behind his back. Others who did survive witnessed this.
I have said that we should give special consideration to our Hong Kong veterans. I realize, as one deeply interested in veterans affairs, that every case is different, just as every man's service is different from that of every other man. May I say this on a purely personal note. It is a little more than 30 years ago when, as a young officer, I was stationed on an island in the St. John River at Woodstock, New Brunswick. It was a pleasant time. We were fit, and it was a wonderful way to fight a war. But it was very different indeed from the shell-fire on the Normandy beaches at Carpiquet and Caen. It was different from the service of those who flew over Germany when the flak was so thick that they said you could walk on it. It was different from the service of the men who served on the little ships on the North Atlantic, covered with ice two or three feet thick. If they slipped, they had five minutes in the North Atlantic before they died.
I believe that every man who served in action lost ten years of his life, not just the five or six years that he served. Colonel John McCrae who wrote "In Flanders Fields" wrote other poems, among which was one about South Africa, where he served. He wrote:
That day of battle in the dusty heat
We lay and heard the bullets swish and swing
Like scythes amid the over ripened wheat
And we the harvest of their garnering.
The effects of the war are now being felt more and more by the men who served. We see it now when we read The Legion each month. I wonder if I will see the names of some of my friends there among those who have died. More and more we see World War II men
dying in their mid-fifties, in many cases suddenly. The incidence of heart attacks among them is very high, as I am sure it was among the World War I survivors at that age. Perhaps it was never recognized that this was due to their service.
I have on my desk the cases of two dozen veterans in whom I am interested. Several of them have had heart attacks as young men. There is also a high incidence of mental illness among them. I do not think it is good enough to say that they would have had heart attacks or mental breakdowns anyway. These are men who have been in action. When we were being discharged, the general objective was to get out as fast as one could-to get out of the uniform and into civilian clothes. Perhaps if we had had a more thorough examination at that time much of this might have been discovered. It was even worse after World War I, when if a man could walk and was warm, away he went for discharge and that was the end of his service. Some of them were so anxious to get out that they even concealed disabilities which they had. Eric Maria Remarque, who wrote "All Quiet on the Western Front," said the following of those who served in World War I:
A generation destroyed by war even if it was spared by its shells.
This also could be said of those who served in World War II. Why did men and women do this? Why did they serve? They served because they valued freedom. It has been said, callously, that some served because they did not have a job; others because they were adventurers. Maybe that is true of some, but the great majority, more than 1J million men and women who served, did so because they believed in the ideal of freedom. What were they willing to give up? The inscription on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier says that here were men and women who were willing to give the most that man can give, life itself, for God, for King and country, for loved ones, home and empire, for the sacred cause of justice and the freedom of the world. Those are the men and women whom we are considering this evening.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's masterful introduction of Bill C-203 this afternoon, and the speeches of several hon. members who followed him in the discussion dealt with every aspect of the legislation. Inasmuch as there is unanimous agreement on its substance, I propose to be brief and to allow other hon. members an opportunity to be heard.
There was never any doubt about the government's intention to five up to the promise made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) since he was appointed minister, that a bill would eventually be introduced designed to incorporate into the Pension Act the best possible deal for veterans that the country could afford at this time. All the proposals of the white paper, many of which greatly improved and expanded the act, provide better benefits and in some instances even improve the recommendations of the Woods report.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs charged with the responsibility of hearing sub-
[Mr. MacRae.l
January 11, 1971

missions from veterans organizations from across the land, including studying various recommendations, proposals and counter proposals over a period of several months, I am very happy and proud that the results contained in the bill under discussion are, by and large, considered to be very satisfactory by all concerned.
The editorial in the most recent issue of the national magazine of the Royal Canadian Legion, mentioned by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), expresses genuine satisfaction with the bill. With your permission, Sir, I wish to read part of it. The headline reads, "A New Deal for Veterans." The text reads as follows:
Another milestone on the long road toward obtaining war pension legislation improvements was passed last month with the introduction of Bill C-203 in the House of Commons by the Hon. J.-E. Dube, Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The scope of the legislative changes in the Pension Act-the most extensive in half a century-reflect the sincere concern of the minister and the government for the welfare of those who, when they were needed, placed their lives at the disposal of their country and for whom Canada has a special obligation.
It is a source of deep satisfaction to the Legion and other nationally chartered veterans organizations that the proposed changes in the Pension Act meet most of the requirements that were set out in the Woods report, and subsequently supported by the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs.
The improvements in the bill, such as the pension review board and the extra allowances for multiple disabilities, have clearly indicated that the minister meant what he said when he gave assurance in the House some months ago that the government's views in the white paper were not "rigid or immutable" and that the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee, which supported many of the proposals by veterans' organizations, would be given "full and sincere consideration."
Other important changes, such as the special pension status to former prisoners of war of the Japanese, the establishment of the veterans bureau as a separate entity with a closer relationship with pension claimants, the broadening of the "benefit of the doubt" clause, the new appeal procedures, and the more humane approach to the whole system of awards, should go far to remove many of the wrongs that have irritated disability pensioners for many, many years.
The sincerity of the government in dealing with this legislation is best illustrated by the appointment of Mr. Donald Thompson as chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board, who served for 11 years as Dominion secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion, one of the most active, untiring and dedicated persons to the welfare of war veterans that I know. I am sure that this appointment will please war veterans from coast to coast. I should like to extend to him my personal congratulations. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who made this appointment, should share in the general congratulations which this move will surely generate.
Every one of us, especially those connected with veterans affairs, knows the minister well, appreciates the fact that he accepted the responsibilities of his office with dedication and humility and firmly resolved to do for our veterans what no other minister dared to do for them in the past. The minister insisted on introducing legislation for the welfare of veterans, legislation second to none in the world, with modern concepts of social justice and of
Pension Acts
obligation to those who in war and peace have placed their lives at the service of their country.
I should also like to congratulate the chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who presided over no less than 39 meetings with infinite tact and consideration, to say nothing of the patience which he demonstrated during some especially complicated and long discussions. On the other hand, members were really interested in advancing the best possible methods of dealing with intricate questions.
By introducing this legislation the nation has recognized a debt to the disabled veterans, the crippled and the blind. Mr. Speaker, as the years go by it is regrettable to observe that as November 11 rolls around, fewer and fewer people are formally observing Remembrance Day. But while public response may have paled, the significance of November 11 remains unchanged. The courage and valour of those who fought in the wars for freedom and suffered wounds and loss of limbs, are branded on the pages of history. Mr. Speaker, their contributions are without equal, and by approving this legislation we will merely be expressing our thanks for their blood and their courage.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. It is a well known fact that in times of national emergency we call on our young men to defend our country against aggression. In times like that we appreciate, perhaps more than we do in ordinary times, the value of the freedoms we all cherish, and we conclude that we are morally justified in asking our young men to volunteer for the defence of their country, as many living Canadians have done on two or more occasions.
When these crises pass, a grateful nation feels that it owes a debt of gratitude to those who have defended it against aggression, and it is well for us to recall that on at least two occasions we in Canada, in common with most of the western world, came within a hair's breadth of losing the freedoms that we cherish so highly. We escaped that fate by the skin of our teeth. In such a situation there was a common feeling among the citizens of Canada that the nation had a high moral obligation to those who had served in the armed forces in time of war. One way they felt this moral obligation could be discharged was to compensate as much as possible veterans whose health was damaged because of war service, or who were disabled because of wounds and therefore to some degree were incapacitated with respect to earning a livelihood. It was felt that veterans who had disabilities should be compensated at least by an amount equal to the wage of an unskilled labourer. That was the attempt, originally, and in 1920, at the end of World War I, the amount provided under the Pension Act was $900 a year, equivalent to that paid to a cleaner or a helper in the federal civil service.
But as time passed, with the depreciation in the value of money and the increase in the cost of living, veterans

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
pensions always lagged behind. Eventually they were adjusted, but never quite up to the equivalent of the earnings of an unskilled labourer. Adjustments were made retroactively, so to speak, so that our veterans' position always fell behind that of the unskilled labourer. As a result, the differences between the veteran's pension and the wage of an unskilled labourer were cumulative. This was pointed out very forcibly in a submission made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet entitled, "the Crisis in Veterans' Pensions and Allowances". It was made by the national veterans' associations of Canada. I will not list them. There are 11 or 12 of them. The brief reads in part as follows. I quote from page 3:
A history of pension increases shows that in 1920 the amount provided under the Pension Act was $900 a year. This was the equivalent of the amount paid to the cleaner and helper in the federal civil service. No further increase was granted until 1948, when the basic rate of pension became $1,128. Subsequent increases resulted in maximum pension as follows:
The pension went up to $1,500, then to $1,800, to $2,160, to $2,400, to $2,760, and to $3,180. These would be 100 per cent pensions. I point out that very few veterans, of course, qualify for a 100 per cent pension. Therefore, we should not assume that every veteran who receives a pension gets anything like this amount per annum. The brief goes on to say:
It is understood that the cleaning serviceman (formerly cleaner and helper) is no longer rated as a standard classification and has become subjected to regional fluctuations. It is still possible, however, to isolate and identify a category of male untrained worker in the public service of Canada. In this respect, our survey indicates that the average wage for such category is approximately $4,500 per annum.
Using this category as a replacement for the cleaner and helper, the gap between the original basis of war disability pension and the equivalent being earned by unskilled labour in the federal civil service is now approximately $1,300 per annum.
That is one measure, Mr. Speaker, of the cumulative effect of lags in the adjustments to the pension paid to our veterans. Of course, as time passes it is understandable that the memories of situations which existed in World War I and World War II should fade. Those memories have become less vivid in the minds of the public and, therefore, in the minds of the electors; and governments perhaps tend to be less sensitive about the need of veterans as time goes by. A new generation is growing up which has no memories of the crises through which our nation has passed.
A number of myths about veterans are held by some people, and especially the young. They assume that practically every veteran receives a pension. Although I do not have up-to-date statistics, figures of a little over one year ago indicate that of the 961,000 veterans of world War I and World War II who were then living, only
169,000	were in receipt of disability pension. Therefore, less than one in five received any pension. The figures include dependants, widows, and so on. So far as war veterans allowance is concerned, only 85,000 out of one million veterans receive war veterans allowance. That is less than one veteran in 11.
I want to disabuse the minds of those who think that all veterans receive pension whether they need them or not. According to the history of the administration of pensions, they have been very restricted. It is rare indeed for a veteran to get any pension or benefit to which he is not entitled. On the other hand, I am certain that thousands of veterans receive no pension because of the difficulty of establishing technically their entitlement to pension.


Mr. McIntosh:: Shame.


John Angus MacLean: This process has been going on over the years. It is 25 years since World War II ended, but I am sure every member of the House receives correspondence from veterans who are still trying to establish their entitlement to pension. Another view that many people hold erroneously about veterans pensions is this. Many people say, "The Veterans' Land Act administration was set up to help us deal with veterans. We settled them in rural areas of the country, and therefore most veterans live in little establishments that were subsidized by the government shortly after the war." People think that the cost of living of the veteran is not very high and that increases in the cost of living, and the rate of inflation, do not affect him much. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Sixty five per cent of our veterans live in urban areas. There are 154,000 of them living in Toronto, and 100,000 in Montreal. As a result, they feel the full effects of increases in the cost of living.
I wish to make a few remarks specifically about Bill C-203. I congratulate the minister, the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs, the officials of the department and the veterans organizations which appeared before the Woods commission and the House committee. Their actions and arguments resulted in these improvements to the Pension Act. I am pleased that special recognition has been given to veterans who served in Hong Kong and were prisoners of the Japanese. I think that, is a good move. I think it is also excellent that special allowances are to be given to 100 per cent pensioners who have exceptional disabilities.
The bill, however, deals chiefly with the administration of the Pension Act. I think that the changes in the bill are improvements in most cases. However, even the improvements will tend to dislocate the administration of veterans pensions. This detrimental effect will be felt temporarily, until those who administer the act become completely conversant with and efficient in its administration. I think the formation of the bureau of pension advocates outside the department will be beneficial. The same applies to the pension review board. The redefinition of the benefit of doubt is long overdue; however, I am still skeptical whether the improvement has gone far enough. I am sure many veterans still suffer because they were not given the benefit of the doubt in the sense that Parliament intended when the veterans legislation was first introduced.
Also, there are omissions from the bill. It is not logical to say that a widow should not qualify for a pension if
(Mr. MacLean.]
January 11, 1971

the veteran to whom she was married was in receipt of a pension of less than 48 per cent. Provision should be made for a pro rata pension for widows of veterans receiving a pension of 48 per cent or less.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As our report recommended.


John Angus MacLean: I am fully aware of that. I think the government should have accepted that recommendation. I wish to deal briefly with what is perhaps an area of omission. I am rather surprised that the minister did not include an amendment to the schedule which increases across the board the rates of disability pension. He no doubt has a perfectly good reason. I am not clear about the intention of the government in that regard. Why was it omitted from this bill? I am only guessing, but I presume an omnibus bill will be introduced which will again amend this act and the War Veterans Allowance Act which will establish schedules of payments. If that is not done, perhaps it will be by way of a bill granting supply. In any event, it is regrettable that these increases are not now established and that they have not been made retroactive to at least some degree.
There are a number of other matters I would like to speak about regarding increases to veterans disability pensions, war veterans allowance and their application to certain situations. However, although Your Honour has been very lenient, technically I would perhaps be out of order in discussing them at this time, because this bill does not grant across the board increases in rates. Hopefully, there will be another opportunity when legislation will be introduced to increase the rates announced by the minister. On that occasion there will be an opportunity to discuss the rates of disability pensions and war veterans allowances and their application to the veterans of this country.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, we are considering one of the most important statutes ever enacted by this Parliament, the Pension Act. I speak of this with feeling because my father died of his war wounds when I was very young. I was raised in a home where for many years the only income was the war veterans pension. I am sure hon. members know that this legislation is, and has been, important for the support of a great number of people in Canada. The existence of this legislation in the various forms it has taken over the years has provided hope and opportunity that many thousands of people otherwise would not have had.
I have approached this discussion with some hesitancy. I feel impelled to disclose the reason for this. At the time the Woods committee was in existence, I was occasionally called upon to offer it professional advice. I hope it will not be considered that my connection several years ago with the work of this committee disentitles me to speak at this time. What we have before us this evening is the product of the work of many hands. When the Woods committee was appointed in 1965, it was expected by
Pension Acts
some people who were not aware of the complexities of pension legislation that it would be able to make simple recommendations that might quickly be enacted into law. This obviously was not possible.
The thorough investigation conducted by the Woods committee is fully evidenced by its excellent and long report. It indicates the degree of complexities which have developed over the many years of the history of the Pension Act. I wish to express on my behalf and, I am sure, on behalf of all hon. members the debt of this nation to a distinguished former naval officer and jurist, the Honourable Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods who headed this committee with such distinction. His committee has made an imperishable contribution to the public affairs of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan Gordon Blair: The government is entitled to great credit for the manner in which it dealt with the recommendations of the Woods Committee. The presentation of the initial governmental proposals in the form of a white paper was commendable because it enabled these proposals to be exposed to the full rigour of a searching inquiry by a parliamentary committee. I cannot speak too highly of the work of that committee. It has justified to a major degree the committee system and has made a very great contribution to the development of the pension legislation of this country.
I do not intend to detain the House very long. My comments will be directed to three aspects of the legislation as it is now placed before us, aspects in which the government proposal varies from the report of the committee. I offer the observation that after the thorough study of the legislation by the committee and the important dialogue between representatives of various organizations and the committee, it is indeed a serious matter to see departures from its recommendations where they deal with important matters.
The first aspect on which I wish to comment is the proposal with regard to multiple disabilities. In effect, the government has proposed that the special allowance for disabilities be limited to $2,400 per annum. After very careful study of the matter, the committee recommended that it should be $3,500. I am sure that no one in this chamber feels the need is not great or that the need is not admitted. The question must, surely, be one of cost- the fiscal consequences of this new and enlightened proposal. I hope there will be in the committee ingenious and informed parliamentarians who will find ways of reopening this matter for discussion.
My second point is in connection with the procedure known as leave to review. At the present time, when decisions are made by the Pension Commission which are adverse to an applicant, the applicant has the option to make application for leave to review when new evidence or circumstance develop. The committee recommended that this procedure be continued. However, the proposal of the bill is at variance with this recommendation. I suggest that it may impose quite severe complications upon

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
applicants and pensioners. It is now proposed that a veteran who wishes to reopen his case may no longer do so by making a simple application to the Pension Commission. He will be compelled to apply to the new pension review board, and only if this board decides that his application can be allowed may he reopen his case with the Pension Commission.
My objection to this procedure is based on two grounds. First, I regard it as one which imposes an unnecessary barrier against a veteran who wishes to have his case reopened. Second, this procedure is completely at odds with the standard procedure which applies to all other administrative tribunals created by Parliament. Parliament has created many tribunals. The decisions of a great majority of them can be appealed to the courts or even to the cabinet on special occasions. But as far as I know, they all observe the distinction between courts and administrative tribunals which is well understood in this country, namely, that the decisions of administrative tribunals are never final and that it is always possible to reopen a case upon application.
For example I cite the Railway Act which governs the operations of the Transport Commission. Section 52 provides that it is possible at any time to apply to the commission to change a decision which it has made. I make a special appeal on behalf of veterans, that the procedure now proposed be simplified in order not to deny them the easy right they presently have to reopen a case. Do not impose upon them the complication which would surely follow from the procedure which is now recommended.
A third aspect on which I wish to comment is the operation of the new tribunal, the pension review board, created pursuant to the recommendations of the Woods committee and the parliamentary committee. It will perform an important appeal function in finally deciding difficult cases, but the statute enshrines it in too much formality. The statute provides that all cases before the board must go to a formal hearing and that the hearing must be conducted before a quorum of at least three board members. It is important to note that the Woods committee, after a thorough study of appeal procedure, recommended strongly against this type of mandatory formality, as did the parliamentary committee.
The recommendation of the Woods Committee and of the parliamentary committee favoured a much simpler procedure: the conduct of ordinary appeals to proceed in writing before single members of the tribunal, leaving it to the tribunal itself to determine when cases were sufficiently important or difficult to require formal hearing. I need not say in this House that to require the necessity for formal hearing in all cases will cause delay, expense and complication.
The representations made by the veterans organizations both to the Woods Committee and to the parliamentary committee indicated clearly that they were interested in expedition in the decision-making process. In addition, this House should have regard to the experience
of previous years. In 1924, and again in 1930, Parliament established appeal tribunals of the nature contemplated in this legislation. The experience of those tribunals, locked in, as they were, with all the formalities and trappings of formal hearings, was that they became clogged up and collapsed under the weight of the great number of cases placed before them.
Generally, I have found it is the desire of people that cases before appeal tribunals should be heard in public with a certain formality. What we are now considering appears to be an exception to this rule but, in my opinion, we would be foolish to ignore the position taken by the veterans organizations which have indicated, from their great experience, that the type of formality contemplated here is unnecessary and would defeat the purpose of the creation of the appeal tribunal.
There are undoubtedly other points of great importance in this legislation; they have been commented upon or will be commented upon by other speakers. I conclude by commending the government and all members of the House who have played a part in bringing this important bill before us in its present form. As one who does not have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I express the hope that the committee will find it possible to improve this great legislation along the lines I have indicated.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, each time there is a debate on veterans legislation, many members want to express their ideas to their colleagues and to the public, which shows how much interest they take in this subject.
The minister told us this afternoon that he had had the pleasure of tabling a white paper on pensions last year and that most of its recommendations had been included in the bill now under consideration. I wish to express my own appreciation to the minister for finally introducing such legslation.

The minister in his observations commended the mem bers of the Veterans Affairs Committee and the representatives of the veterans who appeared before that committee, and praised in particular the manner in which the discussion of this whole subject had been initiated ana carried forward. He stated that this debate was initiated by the Woods report. He praised the technique of the white paper and the dialogue that had been created. This is all very fine, but what a long time it has taken to develop! The debate started in 1965, five years ago. We are now in 1971, and it is not over yet.
The government knew what the veterans wanted, so this could have been a very sneaky trick in order to delay meeting some of the needs of the veterans. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), who spoke this afternoon, said there are many good things in this bill, and I agree. However, I hope it

January 11, 1971

will not take the government another five years to make a review of veterans legislation. I suggest that the government should provide in this legislation the means for reviewing pensions and allowances for veterans automatically so that we do not need to go through the same rigmarole every time we want to do something for our veterans.
I am not a veteran because I have never been in the services, but many veterans have a fixed income, as other hon. members have pointed out, and it is pretty tough for them to have to beg, to write to their Member of Parliament, to the government, to the minister. This is why I hope the committee will examine ways of reviewing the pension situation, with perhaps adjustment of veterans pensions and allowances every year in tune with the cost of living.
I am told that additional veterans legislation will have to be introduced later this session. I ask, what kind of racket is this? As I say, the government has taken five years to produce this legislation. Why cannot the government make a complete review and overhaul of assistance given to our veterans? Too often have we dealt with bits and pieces of veterans legislation during the 2i years I have been in this House. This makes me wonder whether this is simply typical of this government or indeed has been going on for some time. No wonder the public sometimes becomes disillusioned because governments do not do a thorough job.
The hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) pointed out that new legislation will have to be introduced. Obviously, the government wanted to do something for the veterans because it was politically wise to do so. After a while pensions of veterans must be increased to keep abreast of the cost of living. At the same time, the government does not want to go all out because other areas of assistance might suffer. As I say, I am not a veteran but I am a war baby in the sense that I was born during the war. I know nothing about either the first world war or the second, or even Hong Kong, other than what I have read. I was too young to understand what was going on. However, since I have been a member I have learned to appreciate what our veterans are worth, and in this regard I have learned a lot. I have developed a respect for what these people are trying to achieve and for trying to help themselves. I say that sincerely.
Over the last couple of years a great debate has been waged on the subject of Canadian unity. Many members have referred to the fact that the war brought about unity in Canada; it united Canadians. To prove my point, there was a little war in Quebec very recently and the people stood united. The veterans have done a great deal for Canada, and this is why I do not think we can simply wait another five years before reviewing their lot.
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) said that Canada had better veterans legislation than any other country. So what? What does that prove? I do not think it proves very much. Let us not hide behind this sort of excuse. Canada is a better country than any other country, so we cannot simply say that since we have better
Pension Acts
legislation our veterans should be satisfied. We probably live better than most other people.


John (Jack) McIntosh: And because of the veterans.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Probably because of the veterans, as my hon. friend says. One matter that does irritate me-and I hope the new bill will deal with it-is the bureaucracy that confronts a veteran who applies for veterans allowance or pension. I know it is 25 years since the end of the second world war and it is hard for a veteran to produce evidence that such and such happened during the war, but surely some of these veteran applicants can make a logical case. I submit that many times applications are not looked at in their proper context. They are not given the consideration they deserve, and this is what irritates me. I realize that many applications that I and other hon. members receive are of long standing in the sense that the veterans come to us as a sort of last resort. But many applications are returned with the request for more evidence, or they are rejected, or perhaps an appeal is granted and the whole thing starts over again. It depends, of course, what the application is; an appeal cannot be had on anything.
Having worked on a few veterans cases over the years, though not many, I am becoming more frustrated day by day. To my mind the minister and his department should be the protectors of the veterans from the government and from other ministers who are concerned about looking after their own interests. I sometimes feel that the department is protecting the government from the veterans. It is the department that should make a case for the veterans, and present it to the government. I have on my files many letters from veterans for whom I have done some work. I made a note of how many of the applications they made were rejected or received. I came to the conclusion that 90 per cent of the applications were rejected. In many cases there was no evidence to submit and there was nothing more the veteran could do.
I realize that some lobbying has to be done and that the minister has to deal with the pension office, but the results should not be as they have in the past. I hope this bill will result in an improvement in appeal procedures as well as in respect of the benefit of doubt clause. I will reserve my criticism until I see the results. I hope this measure will assist the veterans. Many of them have no other source of income; they rely on these pensions for a livelihood.
This afternoon a number of members suggested the minister is taking a great step forward. There is no question about that. Many of the veterans who have written to me are disappointed about this bill. I have a letter before me, parts of which I should like to read. After explaining to this individual what will happen with the passage of this legislation, he wrote and said he had hoped something better might have come out of the legislation. He said he was sitting with $2.62 in his pocket, waiting for Santa to do something about it. He said he had four army disabilities and was pensioned in

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
respect of two of them-20 per cent for his back, which in itself keeps him from doing a proper day's work, and 5 per cent for another disability which is affecting his ears. He said he had lost his sense of smell and taste. He then said, "Big deal, democracy". He has a gland problem and one year ago was operated on for cancer. I visited this man and I know he simply cannot work. He is hardly able to talk as a result of the cancer which affected his tongue. He is totally disabled. He asked whether I had ever been disabled, and suggested it was a helpless feeling.
Where can these people turn? This legislation is only reviewed every five years. It is true that in 1966 there was an increase in allowances, and another in 1968. We must establish in legislation such as this a means of automatic review in order that something can be done for our veterans on a yearly basis. There are fewer and fewer veterans as the years go by, and we should be able to treat them better than we have in the past.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, when speaking on this legislation we are speaking for 750,000 Canadians, 250,000 of whom are receiving some type of assistance from the government. I listened this afternoon with a great deal of interest to many of the speakers who suggested that Canada has the best veterans legislation in the world. This may or may not be so. I agree that the government has passed legislation increasing pensions by 10 per cent, with a 15 per cent increase to the recipients of war veterans allowance. This is one aspect which affects a large number of veterans. Anyone who thinks that we have been overly generous with those veterans has not considered the contribution they made for Canada. Perhaps as a result of that contribution we are sitting here tonight.
It took us more than five years to decide on this legislation. It is true we had participatory democracy for a long time during which the government set up the Woods committee. That committee investigated this matter at great length and in great detail. It made a number of recommendations. If this government was actually doing for the veterans what several government members have suggested, it would be implementing the Woods committee recommendations. There is not a veteran in this country who would disagree with the recommendations contained in that report. They feel they are fair and just and that they should have been implemented by this government.
Following the receipt of that report, the government did not decide what was equitable but, rather, what could be done for veterans in view of our economic situation. The government asked itself how much it could give the veterans, having regard to what the Woods committee decided the nation owed its veterans. I was a member of that committee and listened to all the submissions. In all fairness let me say I have not been a member of a committee which did more honest work than that one. That committee had the co-operation and support of veterans organizations allied in one group for the purpose of appearing before the committee. The committee also had the benefit of the knowledge and advice of
officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In my opinion they are all dedicated to the best possible treatment of veterans and the development of the best possible legislation.
This bill represents the opinion of the government in respect of those parts of the Woods committee report that can be adopted. It has been mentioned that approval is expressed in this month's issue of The Legion. I apologize to the Legion for referring to this matter when I have not read the latest issue. No doubt it was delivered to my office, but I have not had an opportunity of going there since arriving this afternoon by plane. I am reminded very much of the days when I was a union representative. After negotiating for a long time on propositions I had put to the company forcefully, I returned to my membership to sell them on the settlement I had tentatively agreed to. I did that on the best terms possible. I do not blame the Canadian Legion for following this course. Their representatives put up a good fight. They are satisfied with many parts of the bill and I am sure they would be less than honest if they did not put their best foot forward in selling the bill to the organization.
I agree with the last speaker who said he has received many letters from veterans. I have received a number of letters, as I am sure most hon. members have, and the majority of them contain complaints about this type of legislation. Many organizations have commented favourably on the recommendations contained in the Woods committee report. Most veterans would have been much more pleased had the government implemented those recommendations. The white paper on veterans legislation is represented by this bill, with a few modifications. Credit in this regard can be given to the committee. One of the changes recommended by the committee which did not meet with the approval of the department involves the question of multiple disabilities.
As everyone is aware, the Woods Committee recommended that in a small number of very exceptional and well-deserving cases the pension paid to the veteran should be 3.} times the amount of a 100 per cent pension. I do not intend to go over all the arguments that were presented, but I believe most veterans and veterans organizations are of the opinion that the veteran cannot be compensated for the disability he received. I am speaking of those with quadruple amputations who are totally unable to look after themselves or who are totally unable to receive any advantage from life itself. We have an obligation to these people which certainly cannot be repaid in money. Then we heard about several who, if they received 3J times the money they are now receiving, would not have representatives of Household Finance rapping on their door. This is one way in which they could be assisted.
We have decided by means of this bill to increase the maximum benefit, on proof of need, to $2,400. Taking into consideration all the factors, the members of the committee, which includes government members, agreed that the maximum additional allowance should be $3,500. This was a compromise. The compromise was not made

January 11, 1971

because the minister felt that 3J times was an unreasonable figure, but because the government in its wisdom decided it could not justify the expense. I do not believe the suggested compromise of $3,500 was an unreasonable one. I agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) that this matter should be reconsidered by the committee. I sincerely hope this will be the case.
There really is no point in pursuing other matters. The veterans know that the compromise of the government is a necessary compromise. I think many veterans will be pleased about many of the changes which have been made. I congratulate the minister on the one matter in which he made considerable change. I believe this will be a credit to him and will do a great deal toward solving one of the problems which has vexed veterans over many years. I refer to the establishment of the pension review board. I look forward to it solving some of the problems that have been discussed in the past. It will be a board of last review. I agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and others who said there will be more difficulty in respect of leave to appeal than under the old system. It was exceedingly difficult even under the old system. I believe, however, that this is a step forward.
It is unfortunate, while this piece of legislation will be the charter of veterans for a number of years to come, that we have not written into and attached to it the type of escalator clause which in a very formal way would provide for the changing needs of veterans and would establish a formal method for increasing the veterans allowance as the years go by, rather than having to come before Parliament.
I should like to congratulate the minister, the chairman of the committee, the witnesses who appeared before the committee and the members of the committee. The advice of the veterans agencies and organizations which was obtained over a long period has been very valuable. I was also very pleased with the representations made and the assistance given to the committee by the officials of the department. I am not one of those who very often is in a position to congratulate the officials of a government department for having been helpful to Members of Parliament. In this department, however, we have officials who have shown an independence which on many occasions has favoured veterans. I sincerely hope and expect that this will be true in the years to come.


Mr. Perrault:: That is a good Liberal attitude.


William Arnold Peters: Liberal with a small "1". Since I came here 15 years ago I have noticed that in the Veterans Affairs Committee little partisan treatment has been given by Members of Parliament to veterans legislation. The committee was very liberal, again with a small "1", in its study of the legislation and I expect and hope this attitude will continue as long as veterans legislation is necessary in Canada.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak for very long tonight. The remarks made by hon. members opposite and on this side of the House
Pension Acts
reflect the spirit in which the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs made its report, which I believe has been very helpful to the government in the preparation of the legislation which is before us.
As members have pointed out, the process of review of the Pension Act began in 1965. It involved a commission, a standing committee of the House and witnesses who appeared over a long period. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), in speaking for the groups they represent in this House I believe reflected the non-partisan atmosphere in which the work of the committee was conducted. Obviously, the measure before us is very detailed. The work of the committee involved investigation of a very large report and a large number of recommendations. Only in a committee of the House which is charged with this responsibility is it possible to look at the fairly detailed procedures which are spelled out in the bill.
I believe the process which has been involved here, of a parliamentary committee reviewing the white paper and the detailed examination which followed, is something which students of parliamentary procedure might well look at. The minister said the approach of the government had been one of flexibility. Every member of the committee is aware that this is literally true. The members of the committee looked at the evidence and heard the witnesses with an open mind, just as the minister had invited them to do. I believe the unanimous report of the committee had very great influence upon the legislation which is before us.
Hon. members opposite have raised a number of points which I am sure will be raised before the committee. We will examine them, and no doubt there will be further hearings. I hope, however, that we have now reached the stage where any delay will be absolutely minimal. I as chairman, and I believe every member of the committee, was pleased to see that the first item of business before Parliament in 1971 was this legislation. The minister regretted that it could not be brought in before the recess, but this is one of the things which could not be overcome.
However, we are very pleased that it has reached this stage. With those few remarks may I say that I look forward to an early referral of this legislation to the committee which will, I am sure, conscientiously do its job.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Speaker, and since we want to get the legislation through today, I will be very brief. I am very pleased with most of the bill. The committee worked very hard, and, as our amiable chairman said, the report was unanimous. However, I think an important point should be made. Today, when there are efforts to downgrade Parliament, I think something should be pointed out that is not well known to the public, namely, how hard some Members of Parliament work. Members of the

January 11, 1971
Pension Acts
committee came back during the summer recess to spend three weeks of their so-called vacation on committee work in order that veterans organizations across Canada would be given a full hearing. This is what I call participatory democracy. I am a little tired of the negative reports coming in which downgrade Parliament and its members. But in this case at least, I think the public and certainly the veterans appreciate what we have tried to do.
There are three things which please me most in this legislation. First are the proposed changes to the benefit of doubt rule. I and many of our colleagues feel that if proper attention had been given to the benefit of doubt rule, a great deal of the changes in the legislation might have been redundant. Second, I am very pleased to see this new attempt at giving greater independence to adjudication tribunals, because in a great many cases it is not enough that justice be done. If some of our veterans believe they are not receiving an independent hearing, they go away with a feeling of injustice even if they receive a monetary reward.
Third, what I like in this legislation is the attempt to give the Hong Kong veterans the special treatment which we all know they have long deserved. I would be remiss if I did not say that the final good result is due to the fact that the Hong Kong veterans have a very fine organization which has worked hard over 25 years to obtain final adjudication. Even though they have often been discouraged and have suffered from the disabilities about which they have complained, they have been heroic and the victory is all theirs. Even though I and my colleagues, as well as all members of the House, regret that it has taken this length of time for the legislation to be passed, as I am sure it will be very shortly, this Parliament has given the Hong Kong boys what they have long deserved.
I am a little disappointed that we did not do more on the subject of multiple disabilities, but our committee will go on working. It has been a good committee in the past and I am sure we will get our teeth into the subject. We will not take no for an answer. The matter of multiple disabilities has not been properly handled. I think most of us agree that an automatic increase should be written into veterans legislation so that they do not have to come back cap in hand. These veterans are getting older and their needs are greater. Surely this is one group of people who should not have to come to Parliament cap in hand to ask for something that other branches of our society receive.
I have not checked the third point that I want to mention, but I think the attendant's allowance should be looked into more fully. In many cases the woman has suffered, not only during the war but in the 25 years since the war. The sacrifice has been made by the wife and the family. In very serious cases where an attendant's allowance is needed, it is often the wife who is doing the nursing and we should try to pay her in line with the current remuneration which a nurse in civvy street is receiving. If she has given up a career in nursing to look after not only her husband but a service man or woman who has served Canada well, this matter should be at the top of the list in priority.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to the adjournment debate, may I ask the acting House leader what business will be placed before the House tomorrow and for the rest of the week?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is my understanding that the Canada-New Zealand trade agreement will be the first item to be discussed, followed by the Export Development Act which will be considered tomorrow, following which the House will consider the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I cannot say anything beyond that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the third weekend of last November the Liberal party's policy conference meeting in Ottawa voted four to one in favour of removing the matter of abortion from the Criminal Code. The following day I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he would be guided by that democratic and overwhelming decision of his party and submit such legislation to Parliament this session. He replied that the government had already stated in the Speech from the Throne what they were prepared to do this session, and of course that was to promise a special debate on abortion. As far as I am aware, the date for that debate has not been fixed.
I contend that we have had plenty of debate on the abortion issue. What we need now is legislation to remove the whole matter of abortion from the Criminal Code and to leave it, like every other medical procedure, a matter to be decided between doctor and patient; also, to leave it a matter to be decided, as far as the affected people are concerned, according to their own conscience. At its annual convention in Winnipeg last June, the Canadian Psychiatric Association took essentially the same position. In its August issue the Canadian Medical Association Journal commented editorially in part as follows:
* (10:00 p.m.)
In adopting this recommendation the Canadian Psychiatric Association clearly recognized the underlying moral aspect of

J anuary 11, 1971

this matter which colours the medical, psychiatric and legal considerations, Canadians, including those within the medical profession, range from a truly "liberal" pole, which views abortion within the first 12 weeks of gestation as simply a secondary means of birth control, to a truly "conservative" pole which views interruption of pregnancy in any circumstances as murder. There is no doubt that this spectrum of views will continue to prevail regardless of the law. In a just Canadian society in the year 1970 it would seem appropriate that occupants of neither polar position should be allowed to impose their moral attitudes on the rest of the country. Under the existing legislation with its cumbersome medico-legal machinery which makes it very difficult for women to get legal abortions, it is clear the "conservative" element prevails in spite of the insistence of federal politicians to the contrary.
The CMA Journal is quite correct in stating that we have two definite points of view vis-a-vis abortion in Canada, those who favour abortion and those who do not, and that these points of view are not likely to be overcome regardless of what happens to the legislation. The Journal is also correct in stating that so far those who do not favour abortion have been able to enforce their beliefs on the rest of the Canadian community, as is proved by the fact that up to this point the government has made no move to change legislation under which legal abortions are so terribly difficult to secure. In the province of Quebec, for example, the director of the Family Planning Association recently estimated that during the past year there had been from 10,000 to 25,000 illegal abortions in his province alone.
Pregnancies cannot wait, and where women are concerned they are bound to get relief from unwanted pregnancies in ever-increasing numbers. If they are not given the chance to get legal relief, they will seek illegal relief regardless of the consequences. The only way to stop this practice is to take abortion from the Criminal Code and leave it to the conscience of the individual concerned. There are those of us who believe there are fewer crimes more serious than to bring an unwanted child into the world. No one is going to force an abortion on a woman who does not want one, but surely it is time for the government to change a situation which forces thousands of women to choose between giving birth to unwanted children or undergoing the risks of an illegal abortion.
In view of the overwhelming support from its own Liberal organization for this step, surely the government can find the courage to take abortion from the Criminal Code and leave the matter where all medical procedures should be, that is, between doctor and patient. Surely the Prime Minister, who some years ago had the courage, despite the unpopularity that it engendered, to state that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation, should carry this one step further and make sure that the state does not continue to enforce legislation which has proven to be very deleterious to those in the community who believe they should get abortions safely and legally. Those who believe that abortion is wrong have every right to their opinion, but I am not prepared to grant them the right to impose their beliefs on people who do not share those beliefs. I appeal to the government not to delay beyond this session in taking abortion from the Criminal Code.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the persuasive hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson), may I briefly restate the views which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has placed before Parliament and the public on several occasions.
Since the Criminal Code amendments were passed in 1969, the extent of public concern over this difficult question of abortion has increased considerably. All Members of Parliament have been made aware of the deep convictions held by citizens on both sides of the argument and of positions being taken by various groups and associations in Canada. It is the view of the government that this House of Commons must also be given an opportunity to express itself on the question of further liberalization of the law. This will be the purpose of the special debate on abortion to be held later this session, as was proposed in the Speech from the Throne.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-MONTREAL-APPLICATIONS BY CITY UNDER AMENDED INCENTIVES ACT

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the previous speech. I sincerely hope, at the risk of a pun, that that will not be another abortive attempt to obtain this badly needed information from the government.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary in his seat tonight and to know that he will be responding to my question. Our experience with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) when we have tried to elicit information from him in this House has not been a happy one. Hopefully, sir, we shall be able to succeed with the Parliamentary Secretary where we have failed with the minister. I say that with great respect, because I have great respect for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. O'Connell).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The question I raised in the House today, Mr. Speaker, in my view fulfilled the criteria established by the practice and rules of the House as defined by Your Honour. I realize, of course, and know this was the guiding principle of the ruling made today, that it would not be practical for the Chair to allow questions directed to the minister on all the designated regions of the country, especially since most of the country has been designated under this program. There are designated regions in all the provinces of Canada.
My question was prompted by the urgency of the situation in Montreal. That, presumably, was what determined the course that the government followed prior to the Christmas recess in bringing in an amendment to the Regional Development Incentives Act. The government indicated that it was very important for Parliament to

January 11, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion pass the amendments to the act. The government had announced that Montreal was to be designated as a designated area under the act, and that until the legislation could be passed by Parliament many pending applications and, indeed, industrial development in the Montreal area and in the other areas to be included under the act would be held in a state of suspension.
For that reason, although the opening up of the act gave us our first opportunity to examine the record of the government in the area of regional development, with special regard to this specific act which is the main thrust of the government's regional policy, we acquiesced reluctantly and we passed the legislation through Parliament on the last sitting day before the Christmas recess, December 18. We were told at that time that the act had to be operative for the first day of the new year because there were a number of applications pending and a number of decisions had to be made. We were told that it would be irresponsible on our part to prevent the passage of the act.
We are now in the new year, and we want to know if the act is operative. We are concerned about this matter from two points of view. First, we are genuinely concerned about the high level of unemployment, the critical unemployment problem existing in Montreal and the Cornwall area and, second, we are genuinely concerned about the act not fulfilling its function in other areas of high unemployment in the country, especially in the province of Newfoundland. Statistics brought out during the examination of the minister and witnesses in connection with the amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act clearly demonstrated this fact.
It was with this in mind that I put the question to the minister today. I hope Your Honour will reconsider the ruling that you made today, because this is an emergent and, at the same time, an urgent problem. We have the statement of the minister during the passage of the bill and the statement of the deputy minister to prove this fact.
If the problem is emergent, and if it is urgent enough to include Montreal under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act, then it must be so treated in terms of allowing members of the House to put questions to the minister during the oral question period. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer two questions when he replies. First, is the act now operative in the cities of Montreal and Cornwall and the counties of south eastern Ontario, the newly designated regions? Second, are applications in fact pending and, if so, when will a decision be made on these applications?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for his kind personal references. I am sure his concern is shared by all members of the standing committee who have given a good deal of consideration to these amendments. I welcome his concern that this act become operative as soon as possible.
To answer the first question, I am advised that 12 applications for assistance under the amended provisions of the act have been received to date by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion from applicants in the Montreal area. These applicants have been advised that their submissions cannot yet be considered for processing because the regulations required by the amendments have not yet been passed by the Governor in Council. It is expected that these regulations will be completed next week. They are being given urgent consideration. As hon. members know, these regulations relate to the new loan guarantee provisions of the act, the incentives for commercial enterprises and the removal of the $12 million ceiling as well as other necessary changes related to the amendments.
The enactment of the amendments permitted the government to proceed at once with an Order in Council designating the new region on December 22, and permitted the department to acquire additional space in Montreal and to recruit new staff. The new Montreal office will open next week. Members will be pleased to know that the department is proceeding with all dispatch to prepare itself to fulfill the purposes of the amended act.
At the same time, I wish to point out that the designation of the new region and the provision of incentives within it are not the only important features of the act. In the amended act, for example, the Atlantic region was singled out for special attention in so far as this region, alone among the designated regions of Canada, had the level of incentives raised substantially to offset any adverse effects which might flow from the short-term, temporary designation of the Montreal-Cornwall region. The 12 applications received to date signify on the one hand that there will in all likelihood be a good response to incentives in the newly designated region. On the other hand, the temporary nature of the designation is a practical and reasonable way to balance all the important objectives sought under the act and its programs.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

Tuesday, January 12, 1971