1972-05-16

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the right hon. member for Prince Albert proposed to move a motion under Standing Order 43 in the following words:
That the subject matter of public statements made by the hon. member, and in particular those which are of a disparaging nature to the integrity and independence of the bench, be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Before putting the question the Chair expressed reservations about the procedural acceptability of the motion in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 51. Although there appeared to be unanimous consent among hon. members to proceed with the debate, the Chair undertook to look into the procedural aspects of the proposed motion.
It should be pointed out that the unanimous consent of the House contemplated by Standing Order 43 has reference only to the setting aside of the notice requirements provided in Standing Order 42. That is the sole purpose of the Standing Order. It does not set aside the ordinary rules applicable to the form and content of motions.
Thus, when a motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 the Chair has an obligation to ensure that the ordinary usages of the House are observed. Even after the most serious and exhaustive consideration of the matter, the Chair has the same reservations as to the procedural aspects of a motion of this kind.
In the circumstances I would hope that it might be found possible either to redraft the motion and propose it in other terms or, if it is the unanimous desire of the House, to have a debate on this matter in some other form, perhaps under the provisions of another Standing Order or procedure. As hon. members know, there have been discussions in this regard. Hopefully, these consultations will result in due course in some understanding between all parties and individuals concerned. However, this is not for the Chair to decide, and for the moment I would have to leave this in the hands of hon. members themselves.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the reference Your Honour just made to discussions among the House leaders with regard to this matter, may I ask the government House leader whether the agreement we reached yesterday for a debate at nine o'clock tonight, on a different
type of motion but with respect to this matter, will be put into effect?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, it is not entirely my responsibility to determine whether this can be or will be done. First of all, I would prefer to hear the views of the mover and the seconder of the motion in question. If there is a desire along those lines, I would certainly be happy to co-operate with the over-all wish to have a debate, but it is not my purpose to bring about a debate that may not be desired at this point.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has just happened, and on the basis of the notice which I gave you, I am forced to rise on a question of privilege, which I now do, because what occurred yesterday has resulted in a misrepresentation of what I have said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -and has got national attention in a thoroughly unfair way. Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say, in view of the attack made on me by the right hon. gentleman, is that I do not retract anything I said last Friday, nor do I make any apologies for having said it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The second thing I want to say is that the reports of what I said which appeared in the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star were accurate reports. I do not claim that those reports in any way misquoted or misrepresented me, but I cannot say the same thing for what the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert put before the House and before the people of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -because what he said was a complete misrepresentation of what I said and, indeed, of what was reported in the papers to which I referred.
As recorded at page 2243 of yesterday's Hansard the right hon. gentleman said in part:
-I have never found it necessary to attribute the results to a politically partisan court. I admit that judges are not above criticism and they must be subjected to the constant searchlight of public opinion. But to condemn the judiciary blanket-wise as men virtually without integrity cannot be justified.
Later he said:
That means that the judiciary, unable to protect itself, is not independent.
2290

May 16, 1972
Administration of Justice
The right hon. gentleman made these statements and I cannot permit these statements and misrepresentation to stand. I wish there had been a debate but since there is not one and I am not prepared to wait for tomorrow or the day after-this has gone across the country. I am entitled, I submit to you, Sir, to put the record straight now.
The right hon. gentleman may be prepared to let the matter stand now. He has had the publicity which of course he did his best to shun. No doubt his natural reticence was overcome by public demand.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker-


David Lewis: But I do not appreciate what he has done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman rises on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. gentleman exculpating himself by misrepresentation or otherwise but to go into detail he did indicate he is prepared for a debate that is not going to take place.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: All because you do not want it.


John George Diefenbaker: I say that no point of privilege is involved in the way the hon. member is putting the matter before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for York South ought to be given an opportunity to state the question of privilege. He has given the required notice under the Standing Order that he wished to raise the matter by way of question of privilege and the Chair is allowing him to do so at the present time. I might indicate that if the hon. member's question of privilege relates directly to statements made by another member, that other member will have the opportunity, under the practice of the House, to respond. I feel we should not have a debate at this time, but the hon. member for York South obviously has the right to indicate what the question of privilege is on which he seeks a ruling from the Chair.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will give me, in your usual fairness, the right to put my case, and the right hon. gentleman, who prides himself correctly on a sense of fairness, ought to have the courtesy to let me do it before he interrupts. I am sure he did not intend to be unfair but he was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the right hon. gentleman had any charge to make against me he should have made it in the proper way, prepared to take the consequences if his charge failed, just as I would be prepared to take the consequences if his charge succeeded.
I said nothing in my statement last Friday to question the integrity or independence of the judiciary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Not a single word in my statement dealt with that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: If hon. gentlemen had read what I said, and I will be glad to send them a transcript of the tape, they would not scream so. Nor did I say anything about political bias-not a word.
What I said, Mr. Speaker, no doubt in an imperfect way, is the same as was said in this House by a very prominent member of this House and lawyer in this country. This gentleman said some years ago:
Too often appointments to the judiciary in the past have been based on political services, and too often the qualification for appointment to the bench has been the fact that the applicant has been defeated for public office.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, is found on page 5254 of Hansard for 1944 and was made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might agree that at this point he is not proposing substantively the question of privilege which he would like the Chair to consider. This is debate and argument rather than setting forth the question of privilege itself.


David Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, when a member of this House is attacked in the House he has the right to set the record straight, and I intend to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, of course, has the right to do that but he has to do it within the rules and procedures of the House.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to you that I am not going beyond the rules of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -because that is precisely what the right hon. gentleman said in 1944 and many times since, as I could show if I had the time to look up his statements. That is precisely what I said last Friday. I said that many people who reach the bench are defeated Liberal or Conservative candidates and that the moment they reach the bench they think they are gods. As far as I am concerned, they are ersatz gods who do not have all wisdom.


Some hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for York South has the floor.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were directed entirely to judges in the field of labour relations, not to their performance as judges in other fields.


An hon. Member:: That is not what you said.
May 16, 1972


David Lewis: My remarks were related entirely to what I have found over the years, to the lack of understanding of labour relations that is shown by many on the bench. I ask your indulgence Mr. Speaker, to quote to the House a statement made by a very famous British judge, Lord Justice Scrutton, as found in the Cambridge Law Journal in 1921. Lord Justice Scrutton said this in relation to labour:
.. . the habits you are trained in, the people with whom you mix, lead to your having a certain class of ideas of such a nature that, when you have to deal with other ideas, you do not give as sound and accurate judgment as you would wish. This is one of the great difficulties at present with labour. Labour says: "Where are your impartial judges? They all move in the same circle as the employers and they are all educated and nursed in the same ideas as the employers. How can a labour man or a trade unionist get impartial justice?"
Those are not my words. They are the words of Lord Justice Scrutton. He continues:
It is very difficult sometimes to be sure that you have put yourself into a thoroughly impartial position between two disputants, one of your own class and one not of your class.
Those are the kind of words and that is the kind of thought that I expressed last Friday, and I make no apology for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I clearly said in my statement, Mr. Speaker, that I was not defending the labour situation in Quebec, Indeed, I do not defend it. I believe that the best way is to get back to the bargaining table. I believe, furthermore, that the present course which the labour unions have taken in Quebec is leading them into a dead alley, which I regret.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find it difficult to accept the position taken by the hon. member for York South. He has given notice to the Chair under the terms of Standing Order 17 of his intention to raise a matter by way of question of privilege, I assume to seek the advice of the Chair or a ruling by the Chair on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege which would be followed by a debate. If the hon. member makes a speech for a certain period of time, I wonder whether he is not making at this time the speech which he would want to make if there were a debate on the matter. I suggest respectfully to him, and in all kindness, that this is not my understanding of the procedure under Standing Order 17. The matter is serious and important. I appreciate the hon. member's point of view in wanting to allude to the statements which have been made, but an effort should be made by him to try to indicate exactly what the question of privilege is, why the hon. member feels that his privileges have been impaired, and why the matter should be ruled upon by the Chair.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if a debate had been arranged, as I thought was to be arranged, I would not have risen to my feet now, but since a debate has not been arranged, my point of privilege is a simple one. It is that I have been unfairly attacked and misrepresented before this parliament and the people of Canada. I cannot imagine any
Administration of Justice
democratic parliament or assembly denying me the right to set the record straight and to tell this parliament and the people of Canada what I said and what I intended to say. I will not be very much longer. I ask Your Honour's indulgence to let me do this. Your Honour can put me down, but I certainly will not be seated by the catcalls round the House.
I said that I was not defending the labour situation in Quebec and I regret what is now taking place. I saw this situation in Quebec, I saw that the difficulties had been temporarily quieted and that there was an opportunity for the situation to straighten out. But then the judge in question handed down what I believe to be-and this is what I said-"were savage sentences which resulted in the turmoil which is now regrettably taking place in Quebec".


Some hon. Members:: Order!


David Lewis: I say to hon. gentlemen that if I had made a speech condemning the workers who are now causing the trouble, everyone here would have said I was a hero, but because I condemned the judge who imposed these sentences-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to insist that under the terms of Standing Order the hon. member is required to indicate what the question of privilege is. The hon. member may feel he has a right to redress and a right to explain the situation. He certainly has that. I am sure all hon. members want to give the hon. member for York South a chance to explain his position, but we should try to not have the debate which might have taken place in other circumstances.
The hon. member for York South suggests that he should have the opportunity at this time to make the speech he might have made on another occasion. I am not sure that is quite right. I think we should limit ourselves as much as possible to the question of privilege. Perhaps at some other time the hon. member might have an opportunity to pursue the line of thought which he is presenting to the House at the present time. Again I want to insist that the hon. member has rights, and I am sure I express the thoughts of all hon. members when I say we all agree the hon. member should be given an opportunity to express certain views in relation to the question of privilege.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the simple point I have tried to make is that what I said last Friday I believe is right in terms of our kind of society and our kind of judicial system.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: I was an amateur student of jurisprudence and the philosophy of the law, and it has been held in many cases that judges are subject to criticism, that they are not free of criticism. What I did last Friday was to criticize the judge responsible for sentences that resulted from reckless ignorance of the forces at work in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
2292

May 16, 1972
Administration of Justice


Some hon. Members:: Order!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I had a right to make that kind of criticism, whether members agree with me or not. Therefore I was entirely unfairly misrepresented in the House. When I started to speak my intention was to move, and if Your Honour will permit me I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the following motion:
That the false charges made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert as recorded on page 2243 of Hansard for Monday, May 15, 1972, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration of report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will, of course, give consideration to the motion proposed by the hon. member for York South. In view of the fact that the motion is directed toward him, the right hon. member for Prince Albert is entitled under our procedure to say a few words in reference to the matter which might be helpful for the guidance of the Chair in determining whether the question should be pursued further either in the House or before a committee. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House a long while and I have always maintained the traditions of proper debate. I have never made a misrepresentation intentionally at any time. I am not going to say of the hon. gentleman, "Methinks he doth protest too much", but the degree of his annoyance and exuberant exaggeration can only be attributed to the different reaction he has received throughout the country than he received when he spoke to the steel workers. I would not for worlds misinterpret him on any occasion.


David Lewis: But you did.


John George Diefenbaker: It is easy to say that. But the record is clear and definite on the interpretation which was made. What I had to say yesterday was said without my having read any of the editorial comments across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I took the course I did because I was shocked that a member of parliament, a distinguished member of the bar with a tremendous income in the labour field, should have made disparaging remarks about the courts, whether or not he ever appears very often within the courts.
As to my interpretation of what the hon. member said, I need only look at the press. In the Globe and Mail there is an article headed, "Lewis For The Lawless". I shall not speak of the alliterative value of that headline, but of Messrs. Pepin, Laberge and Charbonneau the article says: Repeatedly, deliberately and coldly they urged strikers to disobey injunctions. Insistently they urged strikers to ignore other union leaders who were counselling respect for the law.
It goes on:
This denigration of the courts makes it difficult to understand how reasonable and intelligent men who have an understanding and sympathy with labour's difficulties-

As I have, and I have acted for them without charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I shall omit the last sentence out of regard for the hon. gentleman as a most distinguished debater.
In the Ottawa Journal the heading above the leading article reads: "In Contempt Of Law". I am not going to read the article because I would not want to transgress as the hon. gentleman did. Then I see in the Gazette an article headed: "NDP's David Lewis Unfair, Non-factual, Irresponsible."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe I have to make the same remarks to the right hon. member as I did to the hon. member for York South. I am hoping we will not have at this point the debate which might be held in other circumstances. The hon. member for York South was given some leeway in expressing his point of view. The position of the right hon. gentleman, I suggest, is to give his views in relation to the hon. member's allegations with respect to his own statements in the House. Perhaps we might limit the discussion to that particular point.


John George Diefenbaker: I naturally desire to follow most meticulously the rules of the House, but those rules were transgressed so palpably by the hon. member who preceded me that it becomes necessary to explain. I shall simply say this. I understand how deeply he feels, because there are some people who, if there is a ten-acre field and only four cowflaps in it, would walk into them all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: We farmers use down to earth expressions. The hon. gentleman says I misinterpreted him. Well, Mr. Speaker, I read what he said. Instead of telling the people in his audience to use the rights open to them under the law, in other words, not to become self-appointed martyrs, instead of telling them that they had the right to appeal which would have cleared up the matter simply, he did nothing of the kind except in a general way. All I would say is that if I misinterpreted the uncertainties and the sinuosities of the hon. gentleman's speech, then I am in good company in all the press all over Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no further debate on this point. The Chair will have to make a ruling whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege. If an affirmative ruling were made there would be a debate which could go on for the rest of the day, with the motion proposed by the hon. member being put to a vote eventually. I would suggest that the matter might be held in abeyance.
It should be noted that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for York South was based on the assumption that there would not be a debate. My understanding is that there is still a possibility that there might be discussions. Certainly there are many possibilities open to hon. members-the submission of another motion
May 16, 1972

which might be more acceptable under the terms of Standing Order 43, for instance. Then there is the possibility of discussion during the budget debate. There are other procedural avenues open to hon. members. If it could be arranged, it would be much better for hon. members to debate this lively issue under another Standing Order rather than under Standing Order 43 or on a question of privilege.
I have always hesitated, and still hesitate, to agree that the conduct or statements of hon. members-for example, the statement made by the hon. member for York South or the statement by the right hon. member for Prince Albert-ought to be put to the scrutiny of a committee of the House. I cannot believe this is the unanimous wish of hon. members. I would still hope that through consultation hon. members might find among themselves a way of resolving this matter. For the moment I think nothing would be gained by my ruling that there is a prima facie case of privilege and suggesting that there be a debate on the subject from this moment on. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The only contribution that I want to make is to say something to Your Honour about whether there is in fact, in our judgment, a prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is allowed to do that, all hon. members would be allowed to and we would effectively have the debate that I suggest ought not to be had. The practice of the House is very clear. The Chair hears the hon. member who rises on the proposed question of privilege, and it has been the practice of the House, respected very generously, I might say, by hon. members, that the hon. member whose conduct and statements are referred to essentially by the proposed question of privilege is allowed to reply, as has been the case today. Certainly we would be embarking upon a dangerous course if, in addition to such statements, we allowed the hon. member for Greenwood and another 10, 15 or 20 members to speak to the question of privilege and to indicate why they think there is or is not a prima facie case. I do not think the hon. member should be allowed to do that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, naturally I accept Your Honour's ruling but I thought that Your Honour had asked for advice on the point of privilege. I did not intend to join in any debate, which Your Honour has ruled is not acceptable at the present time, but I did want to make to Your Honour some observations on the point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I am suggesting that that is contrary to the practice of the House. I would earnestly suggest to hon. members that I do not think this kind of contribution made by the hon. member for Greenwood or by other hon. members would be helpful to the Chair.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think it would be helpful to the House if we knew whether or not Your Honour has decided that the hon. member for York South does have a prima facie case of privilege, or
Oil Tanker Route
whether Your Honour is postponing the matter and will give a decision later.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I had indicated that. I indicated that I should like to take the matter into consideration. I thought I also indicated that I had serious reservations about ruling that there was a prima facie case of privilege. As I have said, I have always had doubts as to the advisability of sending a matter where the conduct of a member is impugned to a committee of the House. I may be wrong, but to my mind I feel that the moment there is a prima facie question of privilege that is, in a way, a reflection upon an hon. member. This is why I have hesitation in saying that we should proceed on that basis.
I am not going to make a decision now. I am taking into account the fact that there have been discussions among hon. members and I am hoping some way can be found, if it is the desire of hon, members, to have a further debate on the matter. I trust that in the hours or days ahead some resolution along those lines may be arrived at as a result of consultations inspired by good will.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Editors's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion relates to the decision made yesterday by the House to communicate its concern about the movement of oil in tankers down the coast of British Columbia to the government of the United States. Therefore, apropos, of that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House authorizes the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to conduct an examination of the proposal to move oil by tanker from Valdez Bay in Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington with a view to developing and preparing supporting evidence relative to the concern expressed by this House on May 15, 1972, on the question of the said oil tanker route in order that such supporting evidence may also be transmitted to the government of the United States of America.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 16, 1972
Canada Development Corporation Act


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon. member's proposed motion cannot be put.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether we could have some explanation of why the Liberal party denies this motion but agreed to the motion proposed yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Is it a matter of having a twofaced policy on this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Howard (Skeena)-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canada Development Corporation Act (mineral processing)".
Mr. Speaker:: Before proposing the motion of which notice has been given by the hon. member for Skeena, it might be appropriate for the Chair to offer one or two brief observations.
At first glance it does appear that the title of the proposed bill may be defective in that, while it purports to amend the Canada Development Corporation Act, it does, in effect, give that body, or some other corporation, the power or authority to establish a smelter or refinery in northwestern British Columbia under the provisions of the Canada Development Corporation Act. Ordinarily, it seems that authority of that kind is granted under the provisions of private legislation.
Additionally, there is the question of the propriety or legality of endeavouring to direct the use of the funds of the corporation which, in part, consist of private as well as public moneys.
The procedural difficulties to which I have alluded should be considered in due course by the House and by the Chair. The motion will be put at this time without ruling on the question immediately, subject to further scrutiny of the question in due course.


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill C-210, to amend the Canada Development Corporation Act (mineral processing).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, someone has asked me to explain but I think you have done that adequately by indicating the purpose of the bill. It seeks to stop the export of job opportunities for Canadians in regard to processing of minerals in this nation by seeking to give the Canada Development Corporation, a body set up by this parliament, the authority, either by itself or in conjunction with other corporations or with the province of

British Columbia, to build a smelter and/or refinery in British Columbia.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-211, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance who a few days ago referred to his expectation that there would be fluctuations in the labour force for some months ahead. This has been borne out by the report from Statistics Canada for the month of April compared with the month of March. I will not ask the minister to engage in any lengthy explanation, but can he say in a few words why this phenomenon is taking place at this time?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the fluctuation in the month to month figures in the budget speech a week ago Monday and have nothing further to add except that, while I take some encouragement from the trend represented by today's figures, it is still small encouragement for the 600,000 men and women who are out of work.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister takes encouragement from this because I was going to ask him whether, in view of the fact that employment in three very employee-intensive industries, manufacturing, services and recreation, and sales declined in the month of April compared with the month of March, he would review his position that the economy has sufficient stimulation under the measures he proposed last week.


John Napier Turner: I stand by the position I presented to the House in the budget, and obviously the hon. member, if he disagrees with it, will continue the debate.
May 16, 1972


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, again expressing disappointment that the minister is encouraged by this reduction in employment in these labour-intensive industries, I should like to ask him whether he would at least immediately review his decision to maintain in effect the 3 per cent increase in income tax which is to become effective on January 1 next?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would think the stimulus given to the industrial part of the economy will be a welcome remedy for the particular factors to which the hon. gentleman is referring.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the employment prospects of some 11,000 rubber workers in Ontario and Quebec hinge upon the government's decision in the Michelin case in Nova Scotia, would the minister for once give us a clear answer to the question of whether or not the government has given the Michelin Corporation the right to import certain tires into this country duty-free for two years or does it intend to give that right in the near future?


John Napier Turner: I have already been clear about that. Whatever the decision is, it will not affect the Ontario part of the industry in the way the hon. member alleges.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to phrase it politely. The minister suggested he has made the answer clear, but with respect I suggest it is anything but clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that whether or not a question is clear is debate. The hon. member and the minister could spend quite a bit of time on this point.


John Edward Broadbent: I will rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister answer this question: Has the government granted the Michelin Corporation such a right or does it intend to do so in the future?


John Napier Turner: I have said to the hon. member on two occasions that the government has not granted that right.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Richmond wish to ask a supplementary? If not, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Beaudoin:: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of a report that Microsystems International has laid off some 50 employees and plans to lay off more. In view of the fact that Microsystems International has been allotted more than $31 million under the defence industry program, of which over $8 million was spent by March 31, 1971, and in view of the fact that Microsystems International sells its products to Northern Electric of which it is a wholly-owned subsidiary, has the minister looked into the matter of these lay-offs and whether there will be further lay-offs and has he discussed the question of the allotment of funds to that company in view of the lay-offs?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree there are many questions in his question. The Department of Manpower, of course, is aware of the lay-offs and can only place at the disposal of the company the traditional facilities of the department and provide the facilities at our disposal for the people who are unemployed. I have tried to find out as precisely as possible the future prospects of employment in Northern Electric and intend to visit that company personally some time next week.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of National Defence under whom I believe the defence industry program comes. It has been indicated that it comes under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. May I ask that minister whether there have been any discussions with this subsidiary of Northern Electric about the very large sum of money allotted to it and whether it is using that money properly in view of the lay-offs which are now taking place and are threatened for the future?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that a company receives money from the government for one reason or another, be it regional development or research and development, does not assure that the company will not experience any difficulties for centuries to come. Indeed, I do not really understand the purport of the question in the way in which it is formulated now.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I formulate the question again and perhaps make it clear. In view of the very large allotment of funds to Microsystems International and in view of the fact it claims to have had losses through sales to its parent company and therefore is laying off people- all its sales are made to Northern Electric, its parent corporation-I ask the minister whether he intends to look into the situation to see whether the funds which the government has made available and has undertaken to make available in the future are being used in a proper way or whether the company is not carrying on its busi-

May 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
ness as it should and should not be allotted any further funds?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will gladly look into this, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-SUGGESTION THAT MUNICIPALITIES SELECT PROJECTS-DISCUSSION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Secretary of State.
With regard to the Opportunities for Youth program or the Local Initiatives program, does the government intend to allow municipalities to select their projects or will the selection continue to be made here in Ottawa or in Montreal? Have arrangements been made to consult the municipalities involved which know their own needs very well?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question of the hon. member applies to the Local Initiatives Program. The minister in charge is here in the House; the hon. member may wish to direct the question to him.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question with regard to LIP, but I would not want the minister to overlook the Opportunities for Youth projects which interest municipalities.
Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us whether, in the future, the government or the officials of his department intend to consult the municipalities when time comes to grant subsidies for LIP projects?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, because we are very sensitive about the rights of the provinces, our dialogue and communications with the municipalities during the winter took place through the provincial authorities. In other words, a sum of money was placed at the disposal of the provinces to be allocated according to their criteria to specific municipalities within the provinces.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
I understand the minister's explanation that municipalities must obtain the province's approval but since provincial authorities always reply: Yes, your project has been accepted; it is now up to Ottawa to say yes or no, could the minister tell us if Ottawa is in a position to consult the municipalities involved?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What I did was to announce some weeks ago that projects of the type the hon. gentleman is describing so aptly could be extended until the middle of June because of the red tape that had been synonymous with municipal programs. In other words, these projects can be continued beyond the end of May until the middle

of June or even slightly beyond that time in order that they may be completed.



REASONS FOR LOWER PARTICIPATION RATE OF YOUTH IN LABOUR FORCE-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the report today by Statistics Canada that there has been a smaller than usual increase in the participation rate of those under the age of 24 but still a quarter of a million young people looking for work, and as this was before those in institutions of higher education came into the labour force, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has made any inquiries or whether any inquiries will be initiated by the government to see whether the reason for this lower participation rate is that young people have dropped out of the labour force and may now be enlarging the welfare rolls in various provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that may be one explanation of the erratic figures in the participation rate, but I believe that various ministers have stated at different times that the participation rate is moving with a great deal of inconsistency at present, and we are trying to find the explanations for that. I understand that even certain forecasting circles are refusing to forecast the rate of unemployment because of the erratic nature of the participation rate. We are trying to find the answer to the very helpful suggestions of the hon. member.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: About eight weeks ago when there was a larger than usual increase, the Prime Minister gave me a somewhat similar answer and suggested at that time that the whole problem was being examined in some detail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should try to limit the length of questions. The question period started some ten minutes ago, and I believe we have had only three questions. If we have lengthy questions, many of our colleagues will be left on the sidelines.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the Prime Minister indicate when we may have specific answers with regard to this continuing problem, and second, whether or not special action is being taken by the manpower counselling office set up for young people in the last few weeks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer to the first part of the question, discussions have taken place between various officials and officials of Statistics Canada in order perhaps to arrive with greater precision at the real unemployment figure and to gain more knowledge of the participation rate. I do not think that the results of those discussions are apparent yet in any conclusions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In connection with the second part of that question, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who might indicate whether, in view of the still very large number of over a quarter of a million unemployed young people, special action is being taken by his department to deal with this very serious problem?
May 16, 1972


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There has been no new program, Mr. Speaker, other of course than in the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Efforts have been made to make the present plans more beneficial. One example is that there will probably be three times as many students travelling and working in Europe as a result of manpower initiatives than at this time last year. In addition, many of the young people will be working on local initiatives programs that have been extended to the extent of $30 million.



INCREASE IN IMPORTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COUNTERACT TREND

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As imports into Canada have increased at three times the rate of exports during the first four months of this year, thereby showing that countries selling in Canada did so far more aggressively than Canadians selling abroad, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that this kind of question is not in order. He is making an argument. That is not a question and it is difficult for the Chair to allow the hon. member to proceed.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what steps his department is taking in the immediate future to counteract this trend?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, most people who pay attention to these matters have already understood the situation which simply is that the economies of the industrialized countries of the world are not growing very rapidly and in some cases are declining. This makes Canadian exports, particularly of industrial materials, more difficult-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should not make a statement now.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the drop in Canadian exports has been largely in manufactured goods, those that produce jobs, and as these can be sold abroad actively, as another government once proved, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline what steps he intends to take? Let him just say yes or no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not accept the postulate and that is why I cannot agree with the conclusion.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



PHOSPATE CONTENT OF DETERGENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In light of the commitment given by the minister last October that the phosphate content in household detergents would be reduced to not more than 5 per cent by the end of 1972, will the minister say, in view of recent press reports, whether this commitment still stands?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Fisheries intend to carry out any reorganization of his department in order to arrest what appears to be a downgrading of the fisheries service within the department, especially in the light of the recommendation made to the minister by the Fisheries Council of Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, since there is no downgrading of the fisheries service, I do not think any reorganization would be warranted.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Would the House leader make government time available later this week for passage through the House of Public Bill C-174 in order to assure reasonable competition in the coming election?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, government time this week is very precious, and I am afraid I cannot accede to the hon. member's representation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the pressure on government time this week, would the House leader give his undertaking for next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to consider that further representation for later in the session.

May 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURE-COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries-careful, George, my mike is open.


George Harris Hees: Saved again.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the statement by the president of the Southeast Fishermen's Association in New Brunswick that the salmon fishermen would start fishing operations by June 1 unless a common rate of compensation is paid to all fishermen, has the minister established a sound and acceptable proposal to cover the salmon fishermen's loss of time, fishing gear and income?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been held with representatives of the fishermen's groups in the Maritime provinces and a formula has been struck which will be offered to fishermen individually in that area.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give every assurance that he will deal directly with the fishermen themselves in the negotiations?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, it is our intention to negotiate fisherman by fisherman and to reach a settlement on the form of compensation which I believe will be satisfactory to the fishermen.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. Will all full-time fishermen who have been denied a licence to fish for salmon receive compensation from the department?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF COMPENSATION FORMULA

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries. If I heard him correctly, he made reference to a formula being struck which would form the basis for settlement with individual fishermen. Would the minister agree to table the formula in the House so that members can have an opportunity of examining it?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this evening, when the Fisheries and Forestry Committee meets on the subject of salmon, might be a more appropriate time and place to table it.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
When the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stated in Joliette, during the weekend, that Quebec government Bill-19 should never have been accepted, was he expressing the views of the federal government, or was he speaking as a former labour leader?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a statement but if a provincial legislation is involved it is of course not subject to federal government policy, unless it were considered anticonstitutional, which I have no knowledge of.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister nevertheless tell us whether the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was expressing the views of the federal government when stating that Bill 19 should never have been accepted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a matter, Mr. Speaker, of knowing what he did say and when the hon. member is quoting the word "accepted", I don't know what is involved. Accepted by whom?



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Does the government intend to take any measures to keep down interest rates for housing in addition to the new residential mortgage financing bill?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the measures introduced yesterday by way of a bill will assist in that endeavour.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, because the time is getting short and because many communities are planning to hold celebrations in conjunction with the centennial of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, can the Solicitor General advise when he will be announcing the plans of the federal government in that regard?
May 16, 1972


Hon. lean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this program is now being finalized and I intend to make it public on the 99th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police next May 23.



PLANS FOR CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION-POSSIBLE ISSUANCE OF COMMEMORATIVE SILVER DOLLAR

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Will he also announce at that time, or before the fact, that the Mint is going to strike a special silver dollar for that celebration?



AIR CANADA


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It refers to one I asked him about ten days ago concerning the reduction of air services to Europe from western Canadian airports. At that time he undertook to provide an answer later. I wonder if he has the answer now?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister oi Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am advised by Air Canada that the reduction is for a limited or interim period only between the end of the winter-spring schedule and the start of the summer schedule. If the service has not yet been restored to what it was previously, it very shortly will be.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but he is not here and neither is his parliamentary secretary so I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that an Indian friendship centre in Toronto has closed and that three others are about to close, can the Prime Minister say why funds have been withheld from these centres and whether anything is being done to ensure that funds are made available as expected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I did not understand the question. I will read it in Hansard and try to give an answer.


Mr. Osier:: I have a supplementary to the previous question.


Mr. Ryan:: On a supplementary-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want, to ask a supplementary, if that is all right with you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems we now have three supplementaries. Perhaps I should first recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who has a supplementary to the previous question, and then the hon. member for Athabasca followed by the hon. member for Spadina.



AIR TRANSPORT


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it also concerns airlines. The Manitoba Government's Bill 21 does several things, but in view of the implications this measure appears to have for the free operation of mainline airlines and the development of northern transportation, as well as weakening the federal government's regional airline policy for Manitoba and the northwest, does the minister intend to have the constitutional legality of this legislation examined?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is clearly not a supplementary question. I find it difficult to allow the hon. member to ask a question when he seeks the floor on what is allegedly a supplementary and it is clearly not so. At the same time the hon. member has taken the time of the House to ask the question, and the minister might be allowed to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a copy of the bill in question. I will have it examined and report back later as to its ramifications.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Can he indicate whether a decision has yet been made as to which department, that of the Secretary of State or that of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is responsible for grants to Indian friendship centres?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as a general principle both departments have authority to give grants to assist Indians and other groups of citizens to pursue their studies and representations. That is the principle, but if the hon. member has a question relating to any specific centre I could find out which of the two departments is in fact dealing with it.

May 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



FRIENDSHIP CENTRE, TORONTO-REASON FOR DELAY IN GRANT

Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. As the grant to the Toronto Indian friendship centre was apparently promised by the Secretary of State's department, as a grant from the province is dependent on the federal grant, and as the centre has been forced to close its doors because of the delay, would the Prime Minister look into the situation forthwith with a view to straightening out where this federal grant should come from?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the hon. member's question that the federal grant, if it is to come, would come from the Secretary of State's department. Therefore, I will refer the question to him and ask him to reply to the hon. member in the House.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. For some time the minister has been looking into the matter of reviewing the regulation defining income under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Has the minister reached any decision with respect to that regulation, and is he able to make any report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for not being able to report fully. I have been away from the House more than is customary in recent days. I will look into the matter and see if we have arrived at conclusions on the basis of the representations received from the affected groups, both employers' associations and employees' associations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that this was one of the big hang-ups in handling unemployment insurance payments last winter, can the minister assure the House that this matter will be clarified before the House prorogues?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will admit that this was one of the reasons for the delays but I would remind the hon. gentleman that with a plan such as we have put together, providing up to $100 a week under very liberal conditions-I am talking about small "1" liberal conditions-someone has to pay for it and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really think we are entering into debate between the hon. member and the minister.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT BY PREMIER BOURASSA ON FEDERALISM-POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Sunday night the Quebec premier publicly stated that he was gradually losing faith in the principle of a viable federalism, because of the lack of consultation prior to some federal decisions. Considering the circumstances, can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that, from now on, prior consultations will take place between the two governments with regard to any question having a direct or an indirect bearing on the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that, for the past four years, this government has shown that it was ready to consult the provinces more than any other federal government in the past.
As for the practice followed in certain areas, an exchange of correspondence between Premier Bourassa and myself, between September and March, indicated that we were even prepared to insert in our statutes methods of payment which would depend on the provincial legislation. We were prepared to do this not only in the field of family allowances, but also, as indicated in my letter, in other fields. This letter has unfortunately remained without effect, on the one hand, because discussion was centred on family allowances and, on the other hand, because the other subjects could not be raised. However, the attitude of the federal government still remains the same: We wish to consult the provinces as much as possible and we shall keep on doing so provided, of course, the latter do not break negotiations with us.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister?



QUEBEC POSITION RESPECTING RECENT BUDGET-CONTENTS OF CORRESPONDENCE ALLEGEDLY EXCHANGED

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the Quebec premier on that occasion spoke of changing his government strategy for the development of future federal-provincial relations and even of retaliating, has the federal government received since then any communication from the Quebec premier pertaining to the recent federal budget and, if yes, can the Prime Minister reveal the contents of this communication?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered yesterday that, to my knowledge, no such representation was made to the government. Since then I do not know of any formal communication. I repeat, I believe the House and the general public should indeed read my letter of March 11 in which, I think, I proposed to the Quebec government that the discussions we were having on family allowances be extended to

May 16, 1972

other fields. We were prepared to modify our legislation to take into account provincial priorities whenever possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind hon. members that only a few minutes are left before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Lotbiniere may ask a supplementary question and I will raise the next subject immediately afterward.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Prime Minister, in replying to these questions, is using the past tense, would this mean that he is keeping the same strategy in connection with these relations or this policy or should we understand that the federal government does not intend to raise this subject during the next federal-provincial discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that once more the hon. member misunderstood my reply. I repeat that if he would refer to the letter I sent at the beginning of March to the Quebec premier, he would find that on the contrary the federal government is prepared to make those adjustments in the field of family allowances but also to discuss the adjustments in other areas connected with social legislation.



ELECTIONS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding the bill introduced today by the President of the Privy Council at the request of the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has had consultations which Would enable him to tell the House the length of time it would take after the bill is passed before it would become operative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated in answer to a question of that nature-I am not sure if it was in the House or outside the House-that we think it is such a good bill and so close to the recommendations of the Barbeau committee on which eminent Conservatives and NDP members sat and so close to the recommendations of the special committee of the House, that it might be passed with unanimous consent perhaps as soon as the opposition has taken knowledge of the bill. Perhaps it could be done tomorrow by unanimous consent.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister misunderstood the question. Irrespective of the merits of the bill, and we will decide that after we have had a look at it, can he indicate whether he has had discussions and consultations with officials which could lead him to tell the House how long the bill would take to become operative after it is given Royal Assent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not had direct discussion with the electoral officers on this matter but I am informed that the electoral law as it now reads makes it difficult for a bill to be applicable unless a period of six
Inquiries of the Ministry
months is given to the electoral officer after the passage of such a bill modifying the electoral act. Of course, the House is always in a position, if it wishes, to amend that previous act and to decide unanimously that they want it to go into operation the day after tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: Bring it in and see what we do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. I suggest, respectfully, to the hon. member that perhaps we might return to this subject^ tomorrow. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which relates to the retention under Canadian registry, if at all possible, of tugboat operations. Would the minister give consideration to deferring applications for transfer out of Canadian registry of tugboat operations on the east coast and the St. Lawrence River until such time as the operative sections of his colleague's bill with respect to foreign takeovers are capable of being brought into play in this situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that suggestion under advisement. I am not sure what the legal limitations are but I shall be glad to look at them.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP BILL-INQUIRY AS TO DEBATE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who some time ago attached great importance to the foreign ownership bill becoming law as rapidly as possible. I should like to ask him when this bill is going to commence its progress through the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely this is a matter for discussion between the House leaders. I think all parties have agreed that this week we should proceed as quickly as possible with the bill to increase the guaranteed income supplement and the veterans' pensions bill. As soon thereafter as the parties can agree on any other bill that they want to pass by unanimous consent or quasi-immediate action, we would be prepared to give these bills very high priority.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. If

May 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
the hon. member has a supplementary, the Chair will come to him in a moment.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General on a subject which has aroused public opinion regarding certain happenings in our penal system. Can the minister inform the House and give his assessment of the extent of damage done by certain inmates of Mill-haven penitentiary last week when in a reported protest or strike they wilfully destroyed an estimated $4,000 worth of federal property in that new prison?

Hon. ]ean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to look into this matter.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: In view of the minister's new but ill-advised policy of full wages for inmates, will he not deduct the amount of damages from their wages?


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



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On Thursday, May 4,1 asked the minister if the National Capital Commission has made a contract, or is considering the making of a contract, with the Pinkerton Agency, a subsidiary of an American firm, for the provision of services in the national capital area now provided by the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Is the'minister now in a position to answer my question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked the question I sent for a report but apparently it has not come yet. I will get it immediately for the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings has a supplementary.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister following the question put by the hon. member (Mr. Speaker.]
for Peace River. Could the Prime Minister outline to the House the specific nature of any deadline which the government seems at breakneck pace to be trying to attain by the end of the week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the only deadline we have in mind is that if the old age pensioners-I do not know if it applies to veterans-are to receive their increased payments by the end of June rather than waiting another full month to the end of July we will have to pass that bill in all stages by the end of this week. Of course, if the opposition wants to take upon itself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lisgar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State-


George Harris Hees: It is going to be automatic on election day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lisgar has waited 40 minutes to ask a question and he should be given a chance to do it now.



FINANCE


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State about the intergovernmental committee which has been set up to deal with tax changes as they relate to agriculture. Is the minister now in a position to inform the House what some of the changes are at which this committee is at present looking?


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.


Jack Burnett Murta: Will the committee that the Minister of State is associated with be looking at changes involving certain aspects of the capital gains tax and certain aspects of the basic herd allowance which pertain to agriculture?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can certainly bring those matters to the attention of the committee if he so wishes.

May 16, 1972



FISHERIES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. It has to do with the implications of the ban on the Atlantic salmon fishery. Has the minister consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to determine whether there are any implications involving the rights of our native peoples, that is to say, their treaty rights, arising from the ban on this fishery?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are some implications. These consultations are proceeding.



PILOT PROJECT FOR USE OF INTERIOR ELEVATORS- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the federal government is going ahead with a pilot project to determine the feasibility of channelling grain through large interior terminal elevators, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to make a statement on motions outlining some of the details of this program, such as the elevator companies involved and so on?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has already pointed out, this is a rather modest pilot project. I announced some of the details in Winnipeg the other day, as I am sure the hon. member is aware.



TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR WHEAT-REASON FOR DELAY IN PAYMENTS TO ONTARIO PRODUCERS

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary inasmuch as it pertains to wheat. In the absence of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, may I direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. The payments that are related to the two-price system for wheat were made to western producers some time ago but Ontario wheat producers have received nothing yet. Can the minister explain the reasons for the holdup and when these payments will be on their way?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is inaccurate to say that Ontario producers have received nothing. The application forms have gone forward and obviously we cannot process them until we receive them. We have tried to set some kind of deadline for the receipt of these applications but we will not be firm and say that is the last day on which they will be accepted. We also have to work out the other details to make sure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but we have gone beyond the end of the question period. I notice that the hon. member seeks to ask a
Pension Act and Other Acts
supplementary, but other hon. members have not had a chance to ask even a first question. I say that with apologies particularly to the distinguished members occupying the front benches, who have been very patient. I hope they will not hold it against the Chair because the Chair has tried today to give priority to a number of distinguished colleagues who are not on the front benches. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Laing that Bill C-208, to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. May we have order, please.

Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

I hope that the important discussions taking place between hon. members might be continued behind the curtains so that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can carry on with his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when second reading of Bill C-208 was called on Friday last, it was my privilege to respond to the brief remarks made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing). As those who were here then will recall, I was most happy to extend to him my warm compliments for the things he said on Friday afternoon. That was an immediate, off-the-cuff response of mine. Having given the matter further thought, I still extend to him my compliments. Of course, I may have some suggestions to make in a few minutes, but may I repeat that there were three things the minister said on Friday afternoon that were extremely welcome.
First, he made it clear that the 3.6 per cent increase in the pensions and allowances of various kinds that are received by veterans, their survivors or dependents, is not to be in substitution for an increase in the basic rates of any of those pensions or allowances. The second assurance he gave, which I regard as important, was that the
3.6	per cent increase being provided under this cost of living escalation arrangement will apply to every kind of pension and allowance that is paid under any legislation coming under the responsibility of the Department of

May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
Veterans Affairs. One could have assumed that that would be so from the advance publicity given to this legislation; even so, it was good to hear the minister say that, as he did, on Friday.
The third assurance which the Minister of Veterans Affairs gave on Friday, which I find extremely welcome, is that the necessary order in council will be obtained so that veterans who are both on the guaranteed income supplement and the war veterans allowance will not receive an increase from one authority, only to have it taken away by another.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that those are welcome statements; they are an improvement over certain statements which have been made on some occasions when veterans' legislation has been before the House of Commons. That being so, I hope the minister will work hard in the time that remains to him as head of his department in seeing to it that more improvements along those lines are made. However, Sir, I feel that there are some comments and suggestions that I must make under each of these three headings, and I must also make one or two others.
I return to the first assurance, namely, that the increase to be provided, on the basis of the cost of living increase, of 3.6 per cent is not to be a substitute for an increase in basic rates. As I said on Friday, I hope that assurance applies not only to the basic rate of disability pensions provided under the Pension Act, but that it will also apply to the basic rates set out in the War Veterans Allowance Act and in other acts to be amended by this bill. Perhaps we could take it for granted that if there is to be further consideration of the basic rates, that it will be a consideration of all basic rates, including those in every statute with which we are concerned.
The point I wish to emphasize particularly is this: I hope this is not just a swan song assurance given by a minister who is heading for retirement. I hope that what the minister has said is not just an expression of his own view. I have reason to believe that this is his own view, and I commend him for it. Nevertheless, I hope he is speaking with the authority of the government. After this parliament ends and somebody else becomes Minister of Veterans Affairs, if that somebody else is still a member of the present administration, I hope he will be bound by the assurances the minister has given, namely, that these 3.6 per cent increases are not in substitution for increases in basic rates.
I think we understand quite readily the complaints and protests that came almost immediately from the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations about the 3.6 per cent increase. Many of them felt that this increase was it. They felt it was the increase the minister had been talking about in recent weeks and that with this increase being made, nothing more would be said about an upward adjustment of the basic rates. This is extremely important. I hope that before this debate ends, at the end of the second reading stage, in committee or on third reading, the minister will give us the assurance that his statement about basic rates still being under active consideration is not only his own view, but is a commitment of the present government.

I now come to the second point that was made by the minister the other day in his brief statement, namely that the 3.6 per cent increases are to apply to all of the pieces of legislation administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and any other allowances or pensions paid by virtue of the authority set out in the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. I have to make the obvious point that increases in pensions for those who already receive them is very good, but there is still the problem of many veterans who are not receiving pensions at all, particularly pensions under the Pension Act to which they feel they are entitled.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I welcome the job we did in amending the Pension Act last year. I welcome the improvements we made to that act; the clarifying of the benefit of the doubt clause, the establishment of a new procedure and making it possible for any case, no matter how often it has been turned down, to be dealt with all over again. It was inevitable that procedures of this kind would result in a terrific backlog of cases. The members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs have been informed that the backlog is something in the order of 5,000 or 6,000. I again plead, as we have pleaded in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, that additional medical personnel or whatever personnel are needed be obtained so that this process can be speeded up.
We were very understanding with respect to the report submitted by the Canadian Pension Commission to the effect that it first dealt with the Hong Kong cases and then picked out a few other categories in terms of need. I believe the members of that commission are now giving consideration to the cases of older veterans, veterans of World War I. However, the point is that the promise and the news in the press that there is to be an increase is not of much help to the veteran who does not receive a pension at all, particularly when he feels he should be receiving one under the Pension Act.
I want to again make the point I made the other day. Not only should all pensions that come under the minister's responsibility receive the escalation that is provided, but the minister should pay some attention to the points we have been making to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) to the effect that the escalation should be on the most generous basis possible. We do not think that an escalation should merely enable one to continue to buy the same quantity of goods and services that he could buy when he want on pension. That is not good enough. People are not only faced with a rising cost of living, but also a rising standard of living. Who helped to make these rising living standards possible if it was not our veterans? This annual escalation is welcome. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs might give a lead to the Department of National Health and Welfare by giving some serious study to an even more generous arrangement for escalating on an annual basis the pensions of our veterans. I suggest that this type of escalation should be related to the growth in the gross national product.
May 16, 1972

I now come to the third item I talked about on Friday. As we reached the end of government time on Friday, I was trying to get the minister to nod his head in connection with some statements I was making. His head seemed to be pretty stiff at the time. It did not go up or down. Fortunately, it did not go from side to side either. Your Honour then called it four o'clock. I realize I may have put questions to him that could not be answered with a simple yes or no. I want to go a little further into this question of what is being done with regard to the situation that obtains where a veteran is receiving old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the war veterans allowance.
I repeat that we are pleased that the minister has said extra money will not be given with one hand and taken away with the other. Veterans have the right to fear that is what will happen because it has happened on several occasions in the past. In recent years, when there has been an increase in the guaranteed income supplement of $1, $2 or, as was the case in the month of April, $2.70, the Department of Veterans Affairs has made sure that what was given with one hand was not taken away with the other. However, when there have been more substantial adjustments, there have been changes in the ceilings with the result that what was given by the Department of National Health and Welfare was taken away by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I may also say that the actual result, particularly in the changes that were made a little over a year ago, was a narrowing of the advantage that War Veterans Allowance recipients previously enjoyed over the civilian population. Our veterans are quite justified in fearing that will happen again. The minister said quite clearly that this will not happen and that there will be an order in council to ensure that what is given to the veteran under the guise of the guaranteed income supplement will be added to his total, not given with one hand and taken away with the other.
I think the minister agreed with me the other day that as far as Bill C-208 is concerned, all it does in this regard is provide that the maximum income ceiling set out by statute will go up by the amount the allowance is increased as a result of the 3.6 per cent escalation. As I pointed out the other day, 3.6 per cent of $121, which is the maximum war veterans allowance for single recipient, is only $4.35, and
3.6	per cent of $201, which is the maximum war veterans allowance for a married recipient, is only $7.23. If the single veteran is given an additional $4.35 on his allowance and what is in this act applies, that is the only advantage he will get. But the minister made it clear, and I hope this is a commitment that will be carried through without delay, that the amount to be received as guaranteed income supplement will be exempted from the ceiling imposed by the War Veterans Allowance Act, even as amended by this escalation.
Let me deal with this in terms of actual situations. There are no veterans over the age of 65 who get $121 a month in war veterans allowance if they are single, or $201 if they are married. Any veteran who is over 65, and who is drawing an old age security pension, has been told in a very effective manner by the War Veterans Allow-
Pension Act and Other Acts
ance Board to apply for the guaranteed income supplement. Varying amounts are paid, but the standard case, of which there are thousands of examples, is this: a single veteran is drawing $80 a month as old age security fund and $55 by way of guaranteed income supplement- except that this has now gone up by $2.70. He is therefore drawing only $26 by way of a war veterans allowance. That is all. This brings him to a total of $163.70, that is, $161 under the Act, plus $2.70 because the guaranteed income supplement was escalated in April by $2.70. The point I am making is that the average single veteran is not getting $121 in war veterans allowance; he is getting only $26, and 3 per cent of $26 is only 93 cents. So the increase a single veteran will get in his war veterans allowance amounts to 93 cents.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will also get $15 a month in his guaranteed income supplement. This makes it extremely important that the $15 be exempted from the ceiling. In the case of the married veteran, the picture is that he and his spouse are getting $160 in old age security payments, $95 by way of guaranteed income supplement, plus the $5.40 by which the supplement was increased in April plus $16 in war veterans allowance. That is the picture for thousands of veterans. So veterans get an allowance under the Act amounting to $26 if they are single, and $16 if they are married. I have already pointed out that 3.6 per cent of $26 is only 93 cents. Well,
3.6	per cent of $16 is only 57 cents. It is a strange situation when, under the terms of the War Veterans Allowance Act, the increase granted to a married man will amount to only 57 cents, as opposed to 93 cents a month for a single veteran.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thus, it is clear that the real advantage to most war veterans on the allowance will come not through the legislation that is before us but by way of Bill C-207 which is in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). This situation exists because of the action taken by the War Veterans Allowance Board in directing veterans to apply for the guaranteed income supplement. If this had not been the case, and if veterans were drawing more by way of veterans allowances than they are presently drawing, the 3.6 per cent would work out to a larger amount. In other words, the minister has inherited a number of problems because of the way in which these arrangements have been handled in the past. It is an omelet which will be hard to unscramble.
I ask this question, hoping for an answer at some point during this debate. When the order in council is sought and a certain amount of money is allowed as an exemption above the statutory ceiling, what will the amount of that exemption be? I assume the exemption will go up. Will it go up by $4.35, which is 3.6 per cent of $121 even though the average veteran is not getting $121, but only $16? I think it will, because of what is said in the statute. But what about the rest of it? Does it cover the 93 cents? Does it cover the 57 cents? And what about the fact that these increases, when they take place, will be built on a

May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
situation which reflects the fact that in the month of April veterans were already getting the extra $2.70 or the extra $5.40 if married? I am sure I have made things sufficiently complicated that the minister does not know what answer to give. The point I am making is this: I think the veterans should be given the best possible advantage from this legislation. They should really get both the additional $15 or $30, which the Minister of National Health and Welfare provides in Bill C-270, and they should get the additional
3.6	per cent, not just of the $16 or the $26 they are drawing, but of the $121 or the $201 available as a war veterans allowance.
I do not wonder that the minister said the other day he could not undertake that these cheques could be adjusted by the end of June. I do not wonder that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should have said today that the old age security cheques could be adjusted but that he was not sure about war veterans cheques. However, I hope that if we can get this legislation passed quickly the cheques can be adjusted by the end of June. Even if there is some delay, though, let the order in council be properly drawn and the adjustment be properly made so that the veterans may get the benefit of both increases, not just 93 cents and 57 cents, but the benefit of 3.6 per cent of the maximum total available under the allowance plus the amount available under the amendment to the old age security legislation and the guaranteed income supplement.
I could go on, but I believe it is unnecessary for me to do so. Like many other members of the House I have been through this too often-I have too often seen increases for veterans partially reduced because of a means test or income test in various pieces of legislation. One of the biggest hoaxes we ever saw around here was the provision in connection with the guaranteed income supplement that moneys received by way of war veterans pensions or allowances would not count as income against the supplement. It sounded good, Mr. Speaker. But then whoever was responsible for the administration of war veterans allowances declared that any money received by way of guaranteed income supplement did count against income received by WVA recipients. It is that kind of a mix-up that the minister has inherited. I hope he will sort it out in the most generous way possible. I am relying on the minister's statement the other day that the government will seek an order in council to correct the situation. I urge him to see that it does. I hope that the fact it is to be sought means that it has not been finally drawn, and that after this discussion of the matter the minister's officials will take a good look at the question to make sure that there is as full an increase as possible for war veterans allowance recipients.
I am about through with the remarks I wanted to make at this stage, Mr. Speaker. Again I express my thanks to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and his colleagues for letting me go first the other day when their spokesmen happened not to be here and the bill was called rather suddenly. I am not going to take advantage of the rule that permits the first opposition speaker unlimited time; that does not often happen to us and we are not in the habit of making use of that rule.

However, before I sit down I just want to say that I still think that an area where we could and ought to start establishing the principle of a guaranteed annual income is with our veterans. The very fact that we have these many complications to which I have referred adds urgency to this plea. I think parliament has done well over the years by having provided in the Pension Act pensions for disability. Parliament also recognized that there are veterans who served and came back to Canada without any pensionable disabilities, yet were burnt out, had suffered, and deserved consideration from the parliament and the people of Canada. Therefore, we provided the War Veterans Allowance Act as a companion piece to the Pension Act. We have over 50,000 veterans today benefitting from the War Veterans Allowance Act, some on pension as well, many not. I think over 30,000 widows and other dependants also receive payments under the War Veterans Allowance Act. So, parliament's heart has been in the right place and this legislation has been a good thing. Nevertheless, the more complications develop, the more it seems to me to make good sense to set the age at 55 and to have a reasonable figure of at least $3,000 a year single and at least $4,500 a year married and to say: "This is a guaranteed income which we will provide for our veterans". This would cut through all this business about 57 cents and 93 cents, and all the other technicalities and difficulties which we have with us in this legislation.
I fully agree with the statement that my near neighbour, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), made the other day about the responsibility of the parliament and people of Canada to our veterans. This is a responsibility that a member like the hon. member for Edmonton West, who himself served in World War II, feels very strongly. Those of us who did not happen to serve feel it with equal, perhaps even greater force. That is why I believe we should put this proposal into effect.
May I say again that I welcome the tone of what the minister said on Friday. He did not say all the last words; there are a few more things to do. However, I urge very strongly that he use the remaining time that he has as a cabinet minister in this important portfolio to see to it that the commitment to adjust the basic rates is carried out. I also urge him to use his remaining time to see to it that the process of awarding pensions is speeded up, and that a still better escalation formula is found.
Finally, I plead with him as strongly as I can, as one who is pretty close to his generation, that we give a great deal of thought to our old soldiers, the World War I survivors-though, mind you, many of the World War I survivors are now getting on in years-and make sure that they get the kind of deal they deserve. I feel that this deal will be best met if we establish for all veterans who are 55 years of age and over a guaranteed annual income and for all, whatever their age, full and adequate recognition of their service to this country.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should first apologize for my absence on Friday when this bill was unexpectedly introduced into the House following the conclusion of the second reading of the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act and the guaranteed income supplement. I am quite agreeable to the arrangement that was made at the suggestion of the hon. member
May 16, 1972

for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and so today I am following "the other Knowles". When we say "the other" we sometimes think of "the other place", but I am sure the hon. member would not want to be associated with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Knowles" is right.


William David Knowles: I join, I think, with every member of the House in expressing my agreement with the general tenor of the amendments contained in this legislation which is known as Bill C-208. It is designed to give assistance to our veterans, many of whom are living on pension or war veterans allowance, and are seeing their pensions and allowances eroded by the rapid rise in the cost of living. So that anything that can be done for those people I am sure every member of the House welcomes. Therefore, it follows that we agree with the principle of automatic adjustment of veterans allowances and pensions, and especially with an arithmetic formula which is tied to a specific time date whereby veterans organizations do not have to come constantly cap in hand to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) asking that their pensions be upgraded to meet the rising cost of living; that will now be done automatically and we are all happy about that.
Naturally, we also want to give the bill speedy second reading and get it into the hands of the committee where we shall have a greater opportunity to examine the legislation in detail and to obtain some answers from the minister and his officials regarding some of the apparent contradictions and anomalies that appear from a reading of the legislation at the present time.
We would also like some answers to the specific matters outlined in detail by the previous speaker, as a result of which it looks as though the increase in veterans allowances, announced with great fanfare, will actually turn out to be a mere pittance. We hope that this will not be the case and that the minister will seriously consider the representations that have been made to him, with which I know all members on this side of the House agree.
I also concur with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we have in the present Minister of Veterans Affairs a man who is both understanding and co-operative, a man I personally would like to see continue on in the department. I feel he is a man of compassion, one who might be able to persuade his officials to bring about some far-reaching reform in our veterans legislation, especially as it affects war veterans allowances and the pensions. With the attitude he has I know he will be very receptive to some of the representations and suggestions that we are making to him today.
The changes that we are talking about, which come into effect on January 1, affect pensions and allowances only. It seems to me it would have been far more meaningful, and would have given the veterans a real boost, if the government had also taken another look at the basic pension rate and adjusted it in line with the increase in the cost of living. As we all know, the basic pension rate is the rate of an unskilled labourer in the public service of Canada. Over the years and up to the present time, this rate has been allowed to lag further and further behind the increase in the cost of living. At the present time the
Pension Act and Other Acts
basic pension rate is $3,504. The average annual earnings of unskilled labour in the public service stands at $4,550 which means a difference of $1,046. This amounts to a lag behind what they really should be receiving of about 30 per cent, according to the formula understood by all veterans organizations, namely that the basic pension rate should be related to that of unskilled labour. The amount of money needed to overcome a 30 per cent lag would be considerable. By any reasonable calculation, this would amount to $71.3 million.
* (1610)
I believe it is proper that we should take a look at whether or not we can afford this type of increase, which on the surface would appear to be a considerable sum of money. The table I wish to place on the record shows the relationship between the gross national product in Canada and the expenditure on pensions for disability pensioners and their dependants arising from World War I and World War II. In the year 1930, the gross national product was $5,728 million. The pension liability in that year was $37 million. The gross national product was 154.8 times the pension payments. In 1965, the gross national product had risen to $52,056 million. The pension liability had also increased to $181 million. The gross national product at that time was 232.4 times the amount of the pension liability. What I am saying is that in 1930 the gross national product was 154.8 times the pension liability and in 1965 it was 232.4 times the pension liability.
Therefore, it would appear that Canada is well able to afford a substantial increase in pension liability, always bearing in mind in addition the following facts: the expenditure in respect of World War I veterans, and even World War II veterans, will commence to decline very rapidly in the future. The law of attrition takes effect. These people are reaching the age at which the grim reaper takes his toll. The number of pensioners decreases at a rapid rate. When we speak of $71 million we are not thinking of this as a continuing amount year after year but rather as a rapidly declining figure. I believe this should be taken into account. I repeat that the gross national product is now 232 times as large as the pension liability, and I believe this figure surely reflects the government's ability to pay a substantially increased amount to our war veterans.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs having announced the arithmetical formula, surely it would be a very simple matter to also adapt the basic pension rate to a similar formula. This is the sum and substance of the brief presented by the National Council of Veterans Organizations on different occasions and in particular by the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in March of this year. I think, as I have shown, it is not as unreasonable a request as one might think when one mentions an increase of $71 million.
I said I would be brief. We want to see this bill pass second reading and be referred to the committee. Therefore, I shall honour my pledge to be brief. I have touched only on one point, namely, that we should make some provision to adjust the basic pension. Others of my colleagues will be dealing with other specific subjects at which I believe the minister should take a very close look. Amendments will be suggested when we reach the clause

May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
by clause consideration in the Committee on Veterans Affairs. In particular, my colleagues will be dealing with the very question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning the anomaly which appears to exist with relation to war veterans allowance, old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplement. There is considerable confusion, and we want some enlightenment on this touchy issue because if the veteran is to receive an increase of a few odd cents after all this fanfare about increased pensions, he will be a disappointed and frustrated man. Surely, this is no way to treat the men who gave so much of their lives to this country in time of danger.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the other afternoon when I spoke on the budget proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), I dwelt at some length and with, I have been told, considerable emphasis on what I consider to be the anomaly that is being proposed by the Minister of Finance in relation to those war veterans allowance recipients who would get the guaranteed income supplement. Nothing had been said up until that point which changed the purport of my remarks. As a matter of fact, if the truth be known, the Minister of Finance on that occasion nodded his head in agreement that this was to be the case. I do not know what transpired between the time I spoke on Thursday afternoon and the time the minister introduced this bill on Friday afternoon. However, there was an indication from the minister, as recorded at page 2,233 of Hansard that he would be seeking authority for an order in council, under section 22 and I presume paragraph (d), to increase the maximum income permissible to the recipients of war veterans allowance.
As has been indicated by my colleague from Norfolk-Haldimand and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it would be very interesting to know just how high the ceiling is to be raised. After all, there is some confusion. I am satisfied there is confusion concerning precisely how the cost of living escalator will affect the war veterans allowance portion of the permissible income of the individual, taking into account the escalator attached to the guaranteed income supplement, the road along which the minister is directed to travel and in respect of which he has no choice. This has always been a very burning question. I am more than amazed at the attitude within the department and the War Veterans Allowance Board that this is the way he should go; that is, when we come to an income support measure based upon war service the veteran shall avail himself of the general civilian provisions before he can choose to receive benefits under the war veterans allowance. I find this is an extraordinary position to have taken and certainly, if I were in a position at any time to do so, I would want to see a thorough revision of that position.
In the presentation of the budget and the budget documents, which I have in my hands, as well as in the comments on television and in the press, a great deal was made regarding the separation of the cost of living escalator clause from the guaranteed income supplement. Immediately people started calculating on a 3.6 per cent

formula. I say that the 3.6 per cent formula is a fraud because that is not the true increase in the cost of living over the previous year. The formula should take into account the number of points of increase in the consumer price index because, as I said in my remarks on the budget speech, 3.6 per cent of the base of 100 is merely 3.6 points, but 3.6 per cent of 130 is actually 4.8 points. There is a world of difference. On the same basis, if the increase curve on the consumer price index were to go up at the same rate each year, the government, whatever party may be in power, could pat itself on the back and quote percentile figures showing that in actual fact the cost of living index was going down when that would not be the truth. This has been the basis of the increases in the cost of living formula for all the pensions, both civilian and veteran. I say it is a hoax to that extent. Of course, in principle it is an acceptable step forward, as we again indicated the other day, but a remarkable reversal of the attitude of the government and of all the ministers involved from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down as indicated by their votes on those particular proposals put forward by the opposition. But now that we are on the road to an election, all these goodies come floating down.
The guaranteed income supplement increase is not $15, it is $12.12. There was a blur between the cost of living escalator and the increase in the guaranteed income supplement. Separate paragraphs were used, but everywhere it stated very carefully that the combined increase in OAS-GIS shall be $15. Therefore, instead of getting an extra $30 in GIS with a cost of living escalator provision attached, the increase in GIS for the war veteran should be $24.24 per couple, with the cost of living index making up the difference to $30. So, let us be clear once and for all what that increase is.
I shall not take the House through the complicated calculations put on the record by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but few if any recipients of the war veterans allowance get the full allowance. It is not possible because of the combination of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. What is remarkable is that in the case of a recipient of the war veterans allowance, if his wife is five years younger than he is, has been working for five years and then retires, she gets a small payment under the Canada Pension Plan to which she contributed. This is actually a return to her of moneys which she paid in, not revenues. This payment is chargeable as income to the recipient of war veterans allowance. His wife's Canada Pension Plan payment is not income and should not be considered as income.
In the same way, if a war veteran's wife who had been a schoolteacher or a nurse in previous years had had enough foresight to buy an annuity, albeit a small one, whether a Dominion of Canada annuity or an annuity with an insurance company, when payments from it are received by either the recipient of a GIS or war veteran's allowance they are charged as income. Even though there is a difference in allocation, these payments are charged money in the hands of the wife belonging to the couple and disentitling the husband to a war veteran's allowance. I find that terribly unjust in those particular cases.
May 16, 1972

I know that sections of the War Veterans Allowance Act impose a means test, and I believe that if the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs really had the interest of the war veteran at heart they would have done something with section 6 of that act. Section 6 defines exempt income, and it should include a provision covering these cases. What is even worse is that section 8 of the act, which establishes values of personal property in excess of $1,250 where the veteran and his spouse own personal property of value in excess of $2,500, is ignored. There is also the requirement that property shall not exceed $10,000 in value. That is based upon 1965 values, Mr. Speaker, when the cost of living index stood at 107.4. The cost of living index in April, 1972, stood at 138.2, an increase of 30.8 points, or some 27 per cent. Yet those figures still remain on the statute book and constitute a bar.
I hope the minister will make a reply to the points that we have raised from this side of the House. Certain hesitant steps have been taken, but now that the act is open for review we should tackle elimination of the ridiculous rule of residence in Canada for one year prior to qualification. I invite the minister between now and election day, when he must vacate office, to acquaint himself with the situation of people qualified for war veterans allowance and who live in the United Kingdom or elsewhere outside of Canada. The representations on this point must make up a file a foot high.
I have tried to persuade the minister's predecessors on this point, but all the time we get the same assertion to the effect that there are administrative difficulties involved. That is utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Where there is a will there is a way, but unfortunately the government has not shown a will to deal with this matter. The Canadian Veterans Association of the United Kingdom, Colonel Victor Jones, and many others have presented brief after brief on this point. But the point is not being dealt with in this bill. There are great gaps in the amendments which are being presented. As I say, some hesitant steps are being taken. This would be a welcome opportunity to make the necessary changes.
The bill need not be limited to the budgetary proposals of the Minister of Finance. I certainly hope we can get some satisfactory answers from the minister to the representations made by hon. members in this debate. I also hope that the legislation will not remain long in committee because, as has been pointed out, there is no automatic $15 or $30 being added to cheques in this case. Individual calculations must be made. If the officials take as long to make these calculations as they do to make public service superannuation calculations, many a veteran will have passed on to his reward before he gets an increased cheque. However, I commend the legislation to hon. members, notwithstanding the many gaps in it.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to seize the opportunity afforded by the consideration of Bill C-208 to make known my views concerning the situation in which veterans are placed at present.
Pension Act and Other Acts
This bill provides for a much-needed and long-awaited increase in allowances. I have strong reservations, however, as to the final result of such measure.
Obviously, wide propaganda is going to be given to the implementation of this bill. This is nothing new, as the propoganda given to government measures is always wide enough to demonstrate the advantages of measures taken at several levels-whether they are provincial or federal measures, they are always given enough propaganda so that people expect something extraordinary.
At present, for instance, a number of rural Canadians are led to believe that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation assumes a good share of the rents of urban dwellers, who can easily benefit from the advantages offered by this organization, while in fact the contrary is true, since the number of families in this country which receive those allowances designed to assist them in paying their rents is minimal compared with the number of those who have to pay a fairly high rent to that same organization.
If we go back a few years, in the field of agriculture, for instance, because of wide propaganda given to settlers, to all the people who were new to agriculture, veteran farmers used to believe that they were being forsaken and that settlers had a much easier life since they could obtain grants right, left and center whenever they applied for them. That was a most erroneous concept of the life of settlers, since there was no relation whatsoever between the allowances they actually received and those which had been promised to them on the eve of an election.
In other words, governments promise a lot and give very little in relation to existing needs and to efforts made.
Today, Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes an increase of 3i per cent, and this is just fantastic. It is one step forward. It is better than nothing. In my opinion, it is time, now more than ever, to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister who is at present piloting this bill.
However, since I have known for many years the veterans who live in the Portneuf riding, which I am pleased to represent, I can say that the measure before us does not fully meet their present needs. And if we refer to the increase in the cost of living, to the dollar devaluation, we can see that the new benefits fall far from the real needs of veterans, their widows or their children.
Mr. Speaker, I shall indulge, at this stage, and for my colleagues' information, in reading the exchange of correspondence about one case. This is a letter which was addressed to the former Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Dube) on January 26, 1971.1 quote:
The above-mentioned person, who is a veteran's widow, has let me know that she receives only $145 per month, as a pension.
Considering that this lady is paralyzed in one arm, and should therefore get a maid's help;
Considering that her bad health requires expensive drugs;
Considering that the pension of Pierre Laporte's widow was established in relation to the cost of living, would you be so kind as to review the case of this Canadian woman, who suffers unfair hardships, if one considers the amount of goods and services that are offered in this country.
Thank you for your kind co-operation.
Sincerely yours

May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
On April 16,1 received the following answer:
Dear Mr. Godin:
My assistants having given me a report on the case of Mrs. Jane Doe from Ville Les Saules, I can now answer the letter you sent me on that matter.
Following your letter from January 26 last, a department official went to see Mrs. Doe to inquire about her situation and try to find a way of providing her with additional help under the existing legislation. At the time of that visit, the income of Mrs. Doe was made of benefits she receives under the Old Age Security Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act; those benefits provided her with the maximum income authorized for a widow under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, namely $145 per month.
As the increase in maximum yearly allowances was approved by Parliament, the monthly income of Mrs. Doe is thus $16 higher.
On the faith of information obtained by the department official during his interview with Mrs. Doe, it seems that the coming into force of those income increases would greatly contribute to iron out your correspondent's financial difficulties.
During the interview, our representative has brought out all the possibilities of assistance available to Mrs. Doe, particularly from the Army Welfare Fund and similar organizations-
-such as the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul and other organizations.
On with the quotation:
Unfortunately, it seems that Mrs. Doe's needs did not come under the criteria established by the administrators of these organizations.
I thank you for your interest in the welfare of this veteran's widow and I sincerely regret that the only additional assistance available to her is that resulting from the recent amendments to the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Yours truly,
Jean-Eudes Dube
Mr. Speaker, I personally visited this lady who is 66 years old. She is the widow of a soldier and she lives in a hovel where she has to pay $250 a year for heat. She wants to move, as the song says, but she cannot afford to do so. Apart from the rent, she has to pay additional taxes for snow removal, garbage removal, etc. Being truly short of money, she has even closed the switch on her hot water tank because, she says, "in this way, I save $2.50 per month".
This lady also tells me: I do not understand why the minister can do nothing to help me, and I do not understand why I should be content with $161 a month when Mrs. Laporte is receiving $16,000 a year. I know that Mr. Laporte died while on duty; my husband also died while in the service. Why is there such a big difference between my pension and that of Mrs. Laporte?
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Mrs. Laporte needs $16,000 a year. But, truly, I remain puzzled faced with the analysis made of the two cases. As Mr. Laporte was a provincial minister, Mrs. Laporte is a provincial widow who receives $16,000 a year from the federal government. In the case of the widow of a federal employee, the limit is $161 a month.
To my mind, this situation is not only ridiculous but it smacks of the federal government program, and specially that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which incites people to revolution. One cannot look at these two situations and remain cool over the whole thing, it is so revolt-

ing. It is revolting for the serviceman's widows who is ill-treated and it is revolting for all her relatives and friends.
Unfortunately, servicemen's widow are not the only ones who are deprived. We have the impression that the present situation is really wished for by the Prime Minister, who seems pleased to see people rising against each other, being jealous of one another.
Mr. Speaker, an increase in allowances for the eligible is fine. However, I would not want to let go unnoticed the qualification method for these pensions.
The disability clause is the one that is most confusing. The treatment inflicted on some veterans following certain tests they have to undergo in front of the physician of the department responsible for these allowances, is unbelievable.
As an illustration of what actually happens, I will read into the record a letter concerning an application made by a veteran. This letter was mailed on January 8, 1970 by the Canadian Pension Commission to a veteran of the Port-neuf riding and I quote:
Dear Sir:
With reference to our former correspondence and to your letter received last December 29,1 have to inform you that following the recent consideration of your case by the appeal board, the commission has decided that your eligibility for the benefits of the pension act in respect-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I hesitate to let the hon. member proceed with his comments in the way he presently does. I have to call his attention to the fact that the bill now before the House obviously purports to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act, but I do not think that the Chair could allow, at this moment, a general debate on all aspects of that legislation.
The bill now before us provides for an annual increase in pensions, based on the cost of living index, but I do not believe that the Chair can, on this basis, authorize the hon. member to deal with the allocation of pensions or with decisions of the Canadian Pension Commission.
The hon. member who spoke a while ago before the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) has shown a tendency to wander in the same field and when the Chair was about to intervene because he was speaking about Canadian veterans living in the United Kingdom, he reverted to the question now being debated. I would ask the hon. member for Portneuf even though he may wish the Chair to allow him to complete reading of this letter, to come back to the matter under consideration as soon as possible.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I see that you realize that this is the time if ever to discuss the fate of veterans. After all, if we do not discuss it today I wonder when we will be able to do so. However, not only will I comply with your request, but I will spare the House the first letter which I was reading and quote only the reply to it.
This letter was addressed to me by the Department of Veterans Affairs and followed on the correspondence already exchanged. It reads in part:
According to the information which I have just received, Mr. Smith is eligible under the Pension Act because of his hallux valgus with plantar calluses, an ailment which he suffered prior to his enlistment and which was aggravated in a proportion of two
May 16, 1972

Pension Act and Other Acts
filths during his service in the armed forces on a military operations theatre. The reports from the medical examination which he underwent last February indicate that the total disability caused by this ailment is estimated at 10 per cent while that which makes him eligible for a pension on the basis of a two fifths aggravation is 4 per cent. Therefore, Mr. Smith is not eligible for monthly pension payments, but under the act he has been granted compensation in the amount of-
I also have here a letter from the wife of a veteran who says that her husband has to stay in hospital twice a year. In 1964, his invalidity had been estimated at 25 per cent, and his pension was based on 5 per cent of that 25 per cent, which in fact entitles him to $21.90 a month. I do not find that exorbitant. Frankly, to grant 3.5 per cent of $21.90 is almost to make a laughing stock of the veterans.
Now, doctors do not all agree on diagnoses. This pensioner has pulmonary problems, but who knows when, the day or the hour, his problems started? In a letter his wife wrote me dated May 9, she states that their family doctor recommends that her husband take a one-year rest. But as he has a family, and obligations, he cannot affort to take it. He is 51 years old.
Whatever their age, the veterans should be looked after because, in my view, they probably deserve more than the afflicted in the concentration camps of the communist countries.
As His Excellency the Governor General stated in the Speech from the Throne, if our country is rich, there is no reason to force to work the veterans who are tired, worn out and sick, who have killed themselves with work. All the more so as there are enough healthy people looking for work to replace those who deserve a rest.
Mr. Speaker, considering this evidence and considering these victims, I am inclined to believe that certain doctors employed by the Canadian Pensions Commission have become dishonest. We are under the impression that these people must justify their position by doing everything they can to harm those who are discharged on account of illness or disability as a result of years devoted to the defence of our country and even of other countries.
In order to rate a serviceman below 5 per cent, Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the letter signed by the minister, they go so far as to speak of 2/5 of 10 per cent.
When it comes to experience, we all know that the Canadian government, through the Canadian Armed Forces, leaves no stone unturned. They test aircraft, aircraft carriers, hydrofoils. We send our soldiers for a while in the Baffin Island area to find out how people can live there. Savings are never important; experiences are what matters. In my opinion it is therefore not normal that these loads fall on veterans who always have to tighten their belt.
Since there are a great many such cases I take the liberty of asking the minister to do his utmost and order an investigation into that matter. If some Canadian Pension Commission officers are not acting or working properly, they should be replaced as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, if some legislation provides for the protection of animals there should be one providing for the security of human beings, especially veterans and their families.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before recognizing the next hon. member it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Fisheries-Atlantic Salmon-Suggested boycott of Danish goods; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Regional Economic Expansion-Position of discussions with provinces on programs; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Industry-Versatile Manufacturing Limited-Proposed expansion in United States rather than Canada-Discussions with company officials.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Laing that Bill C-208, to amend the Pension Act* the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, in replying to some questions-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. May I bring to the minister's attention that another hon. member rose at the same time as he rose. Knowing that if the minister speaks at this time he will close debate, I think the Chair ought to recognize the other hon. member who rose. The hon. member for Algoma.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I believe some discussions are going on with a view to continuing debate on this bill through the private members' hour. I do not know whether the House leaders want to comment at this time or whether we shall hear comments on this subject at five o'clock. At any rate, I believe discussions to that effect are going on; perhaps we shall know at five o'clock what is to happen.
May I comment briefly on the bill before the House this afternoon, Bill C-208, which makes provision for a cost of living escalator clause to apply to the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance Act and the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. In one way it is unfortunate,

May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
perhaps, that this bill is being debated at this time or that it will be debated tonight, because the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is holding its hearings on the reference from this House concerning prisoners of war. The National Prisoners of War Association Will be presenting a brief, as will be the Dieppe Veterans and Prisoners of War Association. I hope that time for debate will be extended this afternoon, because some of us will be busy in that committee this evening and will only have an opportunity to speak this afternoon.
I believe that the principle set out in this bill, namely, applying a cost of living formula to veterans pensions and allowances in order to provide for annual increases, is one of the most important principles that we shall introduce in connection with any pension scheme. In the past, the 2 per cent escalation applied to the Canada Pension Plan and guaranteed income supplement; there has been no similar allowance or increase for our veterans. In the past they were granted a lump sum increase to offset the effects of inflation. This bill, therefore, will let veterans know exactly the increases that they are to get, because their allowances and pensions will increase as the cost of living increases. This increase is to apply not only to the basic pension itself but also to the attendant allowances, the clothing allowance, the dependent parent allowance, the exceptional incapacity allowance and other allowances which may be of benefit to the pensioner.
The minister made clear on Friday that he does not consider this increase as a lump sum increase for meeting the demands that the National Veterans Association has made to the department and to the government. Rather, this is to be an increase which will compensate for the effects of inflation. In other words, if our dollars because of inflation are to be cheaper, our veterans are to get more dollars.
The minister made it clear that the basic rate of the Canadian veterans pension is under careful study. I believe that the National Veterans Association made it clear that they want to see the basic rate increased to $4,550, which I believe is close to the basic, average labour wage paid in the federal civil service. I am sure that many hon. members who represent veterans will want to see the government moving as quickly as possible in that direction. I know that veterans associations have responded by pointing out that the increase which has been granted will only offset the effects of inflation, and that it is not like an actual lump sum increase which would bring pension benefits to levels that the associations feel are desirable.
The amount of veterans legislation that this parliament has dealt with, especially in the last year, is notable. Last year, under Bill C-203, changes were made which established the Pension Review Board; the Bureau of Pensions Advocates was established as an independent body. That bill also introduced exceptional incapacity allowances and special benefits for Hong Kong veterans as well as the benefit of a doubt provision. Also, there were increases last year in the war veterans allowance and veterans pensions of 15 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. I should like to add my words of support for this bill. I understand that approximately 200,000 veterans across this country will benefit from this bill. The minister has said that he wants this bill passed as soon as possible so

that veterans will benefit as quickly as possible. To that I lend my support.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed in today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' public bills:
February 25, 1972-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of corporal punishment).- Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general agreement on the part of all members of this House to allow this bill to be withdrawn, inasmuch as its subject matter has finally become part of a government piece of legislation which is now before a committee of the House. That piece of legislation will return here soon for third reading and will be forwarded to the other place.


An hon. Member:: It is back.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hear that it is back. Its consideration is moving with despatch. I hope that its passage through this place and the other place will be speedy, in view of the recent sentence imposed by a judge in Hamilton. He ordered ten strokes of the lash to be given to a young man, thus proving that some judges have not got the message-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be careful!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -that this outmoded form of punishment is no deterrent and does not protect society. I would therefore move:
That the bill be withdrawn, its subject matter having been dealt with by way of government legislation.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for having withdrawn his bill because, as he explained, the government has decided in its wisdom to include Bill C-2 in the amendments of the Criminal Code. The bill will be discussed in the House in the near future on second reading since the committee has considered it in detail and the report has been submitted.
Now, concerning the remark made by the hon. member following an article published in the Globe and Mail today about the sentence applied in the case of a 16 year old boy condemned to imprisonment and ten strokes of the lash-
May 16, 1972


Mr. Prud'homme:: This is disgusting!


Albert Béchard: -half of them to be given during the first 30 days and the other half 30 before he comes out. I understand the hon. member.
However, I am surprised to hear him say that some judges did not get the message because he must know that in this country justice is administered by judges and not at the executive level or by the government.
Anyway, I think that the hon. member is satisfied with the provisions of Bill C-2 which completely removes this form of punishment from the Criminal Code.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify this, I might say that I hope the judiciary and other officials across the country will use judicial restraint because in a very short period of time the government bill will become law and, I hope, serve the country well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair cannot allow debate on the subject matter at this time. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to withdraw the bill because the subject matter is contained in another bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill withdrawn.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: that Bill C-18, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make it perfectly clear that the first allegiance of a Canadian citizen is to Canada and the Canadian constitution and to confirm in our oath that Canada is a free and independent nation. The bill suggests that we have the following oath in our Canadian Citizenship Act:
I, A.B., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Canadian Constitution, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
So help me God.
In my opinion, the present oath is unsatisfactory. It reads as follows:
I, A.B., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
So help me God.
I say that the present oath is unsatisfactory because Her Majesty is the head of state of several commonwealth countries. If we swear true and faithful allegiance to her, it is difficult in logic to determine where our loyalty lies
Canadian Citizenship Act
when the Canadian government disagrees with other commonwealth countries. I know that legally Her Majesty is Queen of Canada, but this is a legal fiction. It is very difficult to explain to the ordinary citizen how Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second in the right of Canada can vote against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second in the right of the United Kingdom as she did in 1956 at the United Nations during the Suez crisis. The symbolic Her Majesty was voting against herself. She was taking two opposing and contradictory positions.
Of course, as I have already said, this is a legal fiction. It does not really happen that way. What really happens is that Canada votes against the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or Singapore. Unfortunately, with the type of oath we have at present, many persons find it confusing to understand how they can swear allegiance to Her Majesty and still place their full loyalty with Canada. I submit that it is much more honest, clear and understandable that we pledge our allegiance to Canada and the Canadian constitution. If this is what people are doing, this is what they should say.
Many new Canadians have told me how disappointed they were with the present oath when they had to take it at the citizenship ceremonies. Many of these people had given up their countries of birth to come to Canada. Of all the countries in the world, they had chosen Canada to be their country and to pledge their allegiance to her. In the citizenship ceremonies, however, they were pledging their allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors. As I said before, this is confusing. It is not an honest type of oath. It does not reflect the reality that we want to see.
While I agree that in most cases commonwealth countries agree with each other, there are serious instances when they do not. I gave the example of Suez. There have also been disagreements over trade, Rhodesia, and South Africa. Possibly there will be further disagreements with the United Kingdom over other matters. There could be a disagreement with the common market provisions once they are in force.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are denying the commonwealth.


William Warren Allmand: No, I am not. This is not a measure to abolish the monarchy in Canada, to withdraw from the commonwealth or to change our constitution in any way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a giant step toward it.


William Warren Allmand: The monarchy is part of our constitution. If we pledge allegiance to the Canadian constitution, we include the monarchy in that oath. The principal difference is one of emphasis. At the present time the emphasis is on Her Majesty, only one part of our constitution. Under my bill, the emphasis would be on Canada and the entire Canadian constitution, but not eliminating the monarchy.
I am of British origin and I have great respect for the British monarchy and British institutions. Having said that, I think Canadians should stress those things which make them Canadian and which unite them as Canadians.

May 16, 1972
Canadian Citizenship Act
In this respect, we should adopt symbols which can be accepted by most Canadians. According to our last census, only 23 per cent of Canadians are of English origin while the balance of the population is made up of native peoples and people from many other countries. I admit that there are many other matters which are more important than this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I have spoken on these other matters. As a matter of fact, I have many private bills dealing with them. However, I think that this subject is important enough for me to put forward my ideas, and to do something about it. As I say, this is not a high priority item with me but it is something which has vexed many of my constituents, it is something which vexes me; we have to take a stand on these things and this is what I am doing. I repeat, this is not a move directed against the monarchy or against British institutions. It is, emphatically, a measure for Canada, and I am proud to present this bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I offer you a new pair of glasses because I must tell you that between the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself, there is a difference not only in appearance but also in respect of politics.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just 100 pounds.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, no!
I fully recognize the hon. member's right to put this bill forward, but I disagree violently with the content thereof. The very form of the bill is an anachronism. I call attention to the words:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows-
And then Canada's citizens entirely disregard the Crown. What the hon. member has forgotten is that the Parliament of Canada consists of three elements-the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons.


William Warren Allmand: I said that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member may have said so. But if, in his view, this is the oath that a new citizen should take, then he is saying that the oath a Member of the House of Commons should take should be changed into the form he now proposes.


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then I say to him, such an oath would be an entire denial of our form of constitution, of our form of government. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. I do not know how often he may have assisted at citizenship ceremonies, but at least ten times a year at the invitation of the judge I go to Edmonton citizenship court at which new citizens of Canada take the oath, having first renounced their citizenship of some other country. At this point, may I say that the oath

proposed by the hon. member is deficient in that it fails to denounce the country of citizenship of the person about to become a Canadian citizen. To that extent, I say the form is deficient.


William Warren Allmand: Nor does the present oath.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It does.
On the basis of years of experience at citizenship courts I will say this: I do not know why new Canadians in the Montreal area should be any different from those in Edmonton. I have seen great pride among the people taking their oaths of allegiance to the Queen of Canada. And it is the Queen of Canada who figures in the oath of allegiance taken by Canadian citizens-the Queen, not the constitution. Why bring such a bill forward? There is nothing that it improves.
I remember many years ago as a young man taking my oath as a member of Her Majesty's Canadian Forces. I swore an oath of faithful service to my Queen and to my country. There are millions in Canada who did so. It may be that some were not old enough at the time, and did not have that experience. But without denying other members an opportunity of speaking, I would say that the acceptance of the principle of this type of oath of allegiance at this time or in my lifetime would be a most retrograde step. It amounts to a salami-type of republicanism, hacking away here and nibbling away there. The hon. member may smile, but I ask him to go into my part of the country and try to justify this measure. Oh, there would be some people who would not find it repugnant. I do not deny it. But those who say they respect the constitution would not agree with them.
The constitution says the Queen is the head of state in this country and that she is the Queen of Canada. She is not the Queen of Britain, as the hon. member said, as far as Canada is concerned. The hon. member talked about the possibility of exacerbating difficulties which exist between Canada and Britain. My goodness, there have been difficulties all along. Ever since the British landed in North America there have been difficulties between the authorities of that country and the people of this country. Yet this did not lead to any diminution of the recognition of the Queen's position as head of state in this country. And to recognize Her Majesty on one hand as head of state, and then to swear an oath of allegiance to something quite separate is, to my mind, nonsense. Incidentally, half of this proposed oath of allegiance appears in the present oath. Take the phrase about faithfully observing the laws of the country. What is so great about that? The question is: to whom is the oath of allegiance sworn? Is it to the constitution, to something which can be amended, something which is not sacrosanct? This sort of thing would be quite unacceptable to me.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I heartily welcome the opportunity to express my views on the bill brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, not only as a Canadian, but also as the representative of the district of Rimouski, in Quebec, which is situated in one of Canada's most French areas. I am as proud of that title as I am to be a Canadian.
May 16, 1972

The purport of the bill is to provide that new Canadians, those who want to become citizens of our great country will henceforth, instead of swearing allegiance as they do now, to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, swear allegiance to Canada and the Canadian constitution.
First of all, I shall say that I fully endorse the views of my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who feels that this new oath of allegiance for those who want to become Canadian citizens, joining us in our endeavours for the progress of our great country, will make the people of Canada as a whole more aware of the importance of this oath.
The Queen of Canada is the head of the Commonwealth, as we all know. But now, when swearing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen we are, in my opinion, performing a highly symbolical gesture, difficult to explain particularly to all groups of Canadians. Living in a democratic system, we know how important it is to be close to the people, to make them understand the reasons for our gestures and the meaning of our symbols, which are very rich and meaningful for us. However it is sometimes difficult, particularly at the level of the media, to go into a full explanation of these things. They are highly symbolical. Symbols, it is true, are very important and very meaningful. Speech itself, the very words we use at every moment of our lives, are mere symbols. We do not quite realize this from day to day because this is so much part of our environment and our everyday life.
We are surrounded by all sorts of symbols which are both important and useful. However, the Queen of Canada, who serves also as head of the Commonwealth, is the symbol of a great accomplishment in this world. As Canadians, we are members of this great family which we call the "Commonwealth of Nations", formerly know as the British Commonwealth. We must be proud of the part we have played in the creation of the Commonwealth, which, as the saying goes, may be considered something as a feat of strength but which also testifies to a sense of diplomacy, to the understanding of the mankind and to this ideal of unity and peace which we wish to see established in our country and elsewhere in the world.
The Commonwealth countries formed a union, thus setting an example for many other countries which would extend their power throughout the world through means other than the democratic ways we approve, which are based on respect, freedom in peace and free enterprise.
I do not want to take up too much time; I want other colleagues to have a chance of expressing their views on the subject. Asking to take an oath of allegiance to Canada does not prevent the Crown, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said a while ago, from being an integral part of the Canadian constitution. We must insist on that Canadian identity which we want to preserve and encourage. Without wanting to identify with our American friends who achieved what is commonly known as the American "melting-pot", we, in Canada, go on considering this ideal of a country that is a very remarkable mosaic of people. This way, if we insist on Canadian identity in the oath of allegiance of new Canadi-
25316-23)
Canadian Citizenship Act
ans, they will realize that Canada wants to maintain its identity within the Commonwealth.
And I conclude my remarks by pointing out that as to the Quebec group to which we belong and where we are proud to live in spite of the difficulties which a minority has been creating lately, we want to maintain our own identity, as do all the other groups of the Canadian mosaic and every hon. member and every Canadian. Despite the admiration and interest that I feel for a neighbour and friend, I want to preserve my identity, like everyone else.
The same thing goes in my opinion for groups, races and peoples. It is natural for the French-speaking group of Quebec to cling to its identity as it is for our Englishspeaking friends and for other groups in Canada. But all together, in this immense and beautiful mosaic, we are going to continue pursuing our Canadian ideal, insisting on our Canadian identity in the diversity that we want to preserve and develop.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in general support of Bill C-18, presented by my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), but perhaps my reasons for supporting it are slightly different from the ones he advanced for presenting the bill. I would put my reasons in terms of the principle of respect for the law, which I believe is not adequately taken care of by the present oath. I would extend my comments to include not just the oath of allegiance required for citizenship, but the oath of allegiance required in all the contexts with which I am familiar.
This issue was raised centuries ago by the great philosopher Aristotle, in chapter 15 of book III of "The Politics," in this question:
Is it more expendient to be ruled by the one best man, or by the best laws?
This question was not one that originated with Aristotle; the problem had been raised, and an answer given, by Plato, Plato coming out in favour of kingship rather than in favour of law. Aristotle tended to come to a conclusion rather in favour of the law, and I think it is worth looking at his argument for a moment. He said that personal rule may have the advantage of initiative but that the law has the advantage of impartiality; that in the human mind there must always be some element of passion, whereas the law is free from such possibility of perversion. Thus, the rule of law is better, and law must be supreme except where, because of its generality, it fails to deal adequately with the individual case. Even so, he went on, such individual matters are more properly decided by the whole people than by an individual man.
From the viewpoint of our present perspective, the issue is somewhat distorted by Aristotle's presentation. Perhaps he confuses the question as to who really is in control, whether it is a government, or a single person, or government by the whole people, with the question of justice according to law. At least today we would want to give a considerably more complex answer to the question than he gave at that time.
In our country today there is no question that, however we express the oath or our form of government, we are talking about constitutional monarchy, about a form of

May 16, 1972
Canadian Citizenship Act
democracy in which it is the people who are really the sovereign, not a single person. At the same time, however, there is a very important question of symbolism involved. The question is whether the law is better symbolized by a person or by the law itself.
The answer to this question may be different in different circumstances. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asserted that the present oath adequately takes care of this problem because it uses the phrase "according to law". I would remind the hon. member that the use of the phrase "according to the law" in the present oath does not, I believe, refer to obedience of the law by the people. It has limited application merely to the accession to the monarchy. I do not have before me the exact terminology, but I believe the wording is "true allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, according to law". It is "heirs and successors, according to law" which are to be obeyed, and not the law itself. I would suggest that the phraseology of the present oath, therefore, does not do adequate justice to the symbolism of the law, which I would like to see included in our basic oath and in our basic constitutional documents.
This matter might not perhaps have seemed so important were it not for the fact that in recent months many people in Canada have clearly shown their misunderstanding of the question. An organization has circulated to many members of parliament a document dealing with continuance of the monarchy. In this it is exercising its democratic right and I support its right to do so. This organization, however, suggests that any member of parliament who would advocate abolition of the monarchy would be false to his oath of loyalty to the Queen.
Of course, we in this House realize that our basic allegiance is to the monarchy, according to law-and that if parliament should change the law, our allegiance to the monarchy would be changed. I am not here to advocate such a change, but I believe that in considering the form of the oath it is important to realize this fact, because the change, if it took place, would be the new law of Canada and part of our constitution. It is quite lawful for a member of parliament to advocate such a change, just as it would be to advocate any change which is not brought about by unlawful means.
This matter is also misunderstood by some of the leading press writers in the country. Thus we have a situation where an organization in our country attempting to influence members of parliament, and even part of the fourth estate, generally believes that if a member of parliament were to advocate abolition of the monarchy he would in some way be contravening his oath of allegiance. Consequently, we must reconsider the oath of allegiance and try to make it clearer.
I should like to add, along the same line, that we can hardly overstress today, even in the atmosphere that was present in the House earlier in the day, the necessity of obedience to the law and the great status which the law must have. The achievement of justice according to law is certainly not enough if one thinks only of law and not of justice. At the same time, we all realize, after many centuries of struggle, that justice cannot be achieved unless
[Mr. MacGuigan.J
there is adherence to an impartial law which is passed, we hope, by impartial men in parliament and administered by impartial men in the judiciary. It must be a question of the law and not of men. In today's climate, when so many people challenge the law, it is extremely important for us to make clear in all our basic documents that it is the law above all to which we in this country give allegiance. This is the reason I find myself very much in sympathy with the bill proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).
Having said that, I would express two reservations. It seems to me somewhat ironic that the Canadian constitution to which the hon. member referred in his proposed oath of allegiance is still a document of the British Parliament and we do not have a Canadian constitution. We have something which we describe in that way, but we do not have a Canadian constitution that has been made fully our own.
I would be the last to suggest that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace does not realize this. He and I for some two years sat on the constitution committee. We travelled across the country and heard hundreds of witnesses on these questions. The hon. member is certainly as aware as I am of these questions. I merely point out that a situation wherein we do not have a Canadian constitution is one in which the use of that expression in an oath could lead to misunderstanding and to other problems.
In conclusion I would also suggest, with all due respect to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and his very considerable ability with language, that perhaps a poet might do better with this wording. I do not see why the oath has to be always three or four lines in length. I do not see why in a moment of solemnity while taking an oath to be a member of parliament or to be a citizen, a person should not be happy to swear a longer oath than the one proposed here.
I would hope that if the bill should pass in its present form it would be possible subsequently to amend the formula which is proposed therein. I would suggest to the mover that it might be beneficial during the committee stage on this bill, if we should reach that stage, to call witnesses to give their views in respect of the best formula, from the point of view of adequately expressing not only the symbolism of the law but the devotion our people have to their country and to what we hope will be a new constitution.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a long time on this subject but I have been warned that other members wish to contribute to the debate; therefore I shall limit my remarks. My colleague the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is a man whom I greatly admire. I admire him more almost every time he opens his mouth and I witness the effect of his good work. I cannot say strongly enough, however, that I disagree completely with his words this afternoon. I regret having to say that, but I must. It may be a question of difference in temperament, but I believe it is much more than that.
It seems to me that people have loyalty to people. They always have had loyalty to people and not to pieces of
May 16, 1972

paper. This is a natural phenomenon for people. In our parliamentary system, all actions are taken in the name of the head of state. Why should that most intimate, personal commitment, the oath of allegiance, be an exception to this rule? It is a fact that Her Majesty, and at other times His Majesty is part of the Canadian constitution. The Queen is far warmer, lovelier, more lively and therefore instinctively more worthy of allegiance than all the dry pieces of paper and legal judgments that many more learned and possibly more honourable friends could split hairs over until the end of time.
If Her Majesty is part of the constitution, surely it is sophistry to propose that we swear allegiance to all the dead or non-human parts of that same constitution and not the living part which is the monarch herself. I suggest the monarch is the keystone of the constitutional arch, as our Queen is the keystone in the arch of Parliament as well. Remove her and you remove the human symbols of all for which we are striving. And for what result? Just for the record, and to hearten myself and other people who feel as I do, I would like to quote two items and point out that this is an academic debate, thank God, and nothing more. First, we will talk out this bill and forget about it.
Second, so far as the government is concerned, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that the monarchy will last as long as this government lasts. Presumably he means by that, any government that he heads. He also said that the government's position was made quite clear in a white paper which was submitted to the constitutional conference in 1968 and again in 1969. He declared that the new constitution of Canada, if we were to have one, would be a monarchy and the head of state would be the Queen or the King. So the government has been on record for more than two years as taking this position. So long as we have a monarch, the keystone of the constitution, it is to the monarch that we shall swear allegiance and to no one or nothing else.
There is a human aspect to this question that cannot be ignored. All parts of Canada have been a kingdom since white men landed here in the sixteenth century. There were parts of Canada that were kingdoms among the Indians also, because they did not all elect chiefs or councils. Thus, the majority of Canadians have always sworn allegiance either to the crowned head of France or the crowned head of Great Britain or the crowned head of Canada. This is the one true, continuous Canadian fact of identity for over 400 years. Those of us who have kept up on the subject of Canadian identity should meditate on that fact. We have had all sorts of other things: we have had responsible government, we have built railroads, we have put satellites up in the sky, we have brought in old age pensions, we have tried to make life easier, we have fought with people in various parts of the world, we have had good times and bad times; but the one thing we have had continously for over 400 years is a crowned head to whom we Canadians swear allegiance.
If we are looking for a Canadian identity then, the first thing to do is spotlight our continued allegiance to the Crown. I would suggest throwing away a lot of other
Canadian Citizenship Act
things before we throw away that. This is part of our flesh and blood.


George Albert Proud: Yours.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Do not say "Yours," my friend. You have had a monarchy in Canada for longer than I have, because your people have been here longer than mine. A great deal of good blood is flowing in our present monarch which happens to be blood which came from France in the first place. We have all come from the same place and we have the same traditions, so do not say that it is mine, not yours. We are also all going to the same place in the end.


William Warren Allmand: I don't know about that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: There may be different annexes, but it will be the same place. For a Canadian to swear allegiance to the Canadian constitution would be an unnatural act and flying in the face of our history and traditions. I suggest that the monarchy is a very simple fact of life which can be explained to any new Canadian who does not understand it. It can be explained far more easily than to tell them that we find a pressing urge to change our whole way of life and our structure of being.
It is no accident that the most stable, most politically mature nations of this world are almost all constitutional monarchies. Those who speak French in our country have a great deal for which to be thankful. One of the things for which they should be thankful is that, because they have lived continuously under a monarchy, they have missed all the convulsions, bloodshed and terrible things that have occurred in their mother country since France ditched the monarchy instead of making it more pliant and suitable to modern times. So they have no relationship whatever to republicanism. By being Canadian, they escaped that black period of time through which their mother country went. Others have come to Canada from countries with absolute monarchies. It should not be too difficult for them to see that our monarchy is not an absolute monarchy and that their prejudices and fears are groundless here.
Do we want deliberately and unnecessarily to reject our own nature as a nation and to join the ranks of the constitution worshippers, almost all of whom have at some time in the relatively recent past got into serious trouble? There is nothing much wrong with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland or Belgium-constitutional monarchies all. Most of the happiest and most progressive countries are constitutional monarchies.
We will not solve our problems by throwing out our monarchy or by swearing allegiance to some empty piece of paper. People with a lot of happy experience, relatively speaking, compared with many other countries of the world have found that to stick with the monarchy is a pretty good thing.
I will be accused of sentimentality concerning this subject. This I deny. I will own, however, to strong sentiment, which is quite different from sentimentality. I have strong sentiment where our oath of allegiance is concerned, for personal relationships of one human being toward anoth-

May 16, 1972
Canadian Citizenship Act
er are the sole phenomena that give significance to this spinning hunk of rock in space that we all inhabit.
You can keep your dusty piece of paper and do with it what you like, Mr. Speaker, but as for me I will keep on swearing my allegiance to the Canadian Crown.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself compelled to offer a few remarks in connection with this bill. I begin by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member who has just spoken. I do vary, however, from his approach to the matter because he said I believe-I hope I am quoting him accurately-that his approach was not sentimental. I am willing to acknowledge that my approach to the matter is sentimental, but I give anybody the right not to agree totally with me unless it happens to suit him and he has the same feeling.
I would point out that in taking an oath of allegiance we are really swearing allegiance to a person, but in this case that person happens to symbolize something. In the case of a Canadian who swears the oath of allegiance to the Queen, as we all have, he does so because she stands for the Parliament of Canada; she is part of the Parliament of Canada which consists of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. We swear the oath of allegiance to her as a living person, one who symbolizes the things for which I believe we all stand.
Those who fought in two world wars and who have contributed tremendously to the development of our country swore an oath of allegiance to the Queen because she symbolizes the love of liberty; she symbolizes those things for which people from all over this great country of ours were willing to risk their lives. Personally, I think she is a great woman, a great person, and I love her. I am fond of her and I have no hesitation in saying that. But I do not necessarily try to inflict that feeling on other members of the House if they do not have it. However, what I do say is that you cannot swear allegiance to a constitution, to a piece of paper. There is nothing to a piece of paper; it is just something you can scribble on and throw into a waste paper basket. The explanatory note to this bill reads:
Under the present oath of allegiance the applicant for citizenship swears allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. This bill would make the oath more meaningful-
I do not agree that it would make the oath more meaningful. Whoever wrote those words should never have done so. It does not make the oath more meaningful to swear to the constitution, a piece of paper. That, to me, is ridiculous. The hon. member talked about what we should do by lawful means. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more precious to people than what we call justice. There is no justice as great in the world, in my estimation, as British justice. Anybody who knows anything agrees with that.
Because she happens to be Queen of Great Britain does not necessarily mean that she cannot be Queen of Canada. I think it is a very fine thing that we have such a wonderful person to symbolize our great country. Mr. Speaker, the Queen is the symbol of something with which we can all agree. We in this House have our differences and argue our points back and forth. But the
[Mr. Osier.)
minute we get outside this chamber, and even in it, the thing we all agree on is the symbol of the Queen. There is no difference between us so far as the Queen is concerned. We are all for the Queen because she stands for something. Like the old saying, unless you stand for something you fall for anything. That could be so.
In mf opinion it is a great thing to have a person whom we all agree is a wonderful symbol of a wonderful institution and that, of course, is Canada in our case. It may be Britain in the case of people who live there, but that does not make it any less attractive, potent, desirable and precious for the people of Canada.
It would be a terrible thing if this bill were to pass. In the first place, it would not be fair to the people of Canada because no change of this nature should be made without at least a vote of two-thirds of the members of this House or of the people of Canada: it is too serious a matter. People stand up here day after day and talk about the greatness of our country. We have gone along for 100 years with this oath of allegiance and apparently we all agree we have done pretty well, that we have made great progress as a country. Now some people want to change this. I am always in favour of change provided the change brings about improvement. That is the acid test of the desirability of change, to bring about improvement. The change suggested in this bill would be a tragedy; it would be no improvement and it would be a terrible thing to do.
So I say that for sentimental reasons, if you like, but also because she is a part of the Parliament of Canada, no Canadian need be ashamed to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen. So far as I am concerned, I am very proud of it. But even if you are not and do not have the kind of feeling that I have, you still can feel that with this oath of allegiance our country has done pretty well. We have lasted over 100 years and have made great progress. Those who contributed to our heritage and fought the battles of this country took the present oath. They were glad to take it. There were no complaints from those gentlemen when they risked their lives for this country. They did not question the kind of oath they took. They did not ask to take an oath to the constitution.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this change would be a terrible mistake. I cannot express myself in strong enough language. And hon. members cannot even agree on the language; they are already fighting about the language. The hon. member who proposed the bill put in certain language and another hon. member who supported the bill said that that language should be changed. Before they even get it through the House they have started to fight about the language. The whole situation is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to vote against the bill if I get the opportunity.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 would change the oath of allegiance essentially by eliminating the reference to the monarch and substituting therefor "allegiance to Canada and the Canadian constitution". Most hon. members who have spoken on this bill during the last hour-and there have been quite a number of short speeches-have said that we are a constitutional monarchy. Certainly this party and this government have no mandate from the people to accept anything except our position as a constitutional monarchy, and this
May 16, 1972

has been affirmed and reaffirmed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when the question has been put to him on numerous occasions.
I doubt very much that, in the circumstances, this party or this government would want to adopt a policy of eliminating the reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance. I feel very strongly, as hon. members on both sides have said, that the Queen holds a special place in the hearts of Canadians and that the oath of allegiance has real meaning to us. We swear to that oath and it has real meaning to new Canadians who take it. I do not believe that new Canadians coming to this country and learning a little about our history, as they must before they go to the citizenship court, feel anything but pride in taking part in a ceremony in which Canadians have taken part over the years. I think that in fact it gives them special pride in their country and in joining hands with Canadians who have taken this oath in the past.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we call it six o'clock perhaps hon. members would allow the Chair to make a brief ruling in reference to a matter which was raised earlier today in the House.
Earlier today the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17, gave notice of his intention to rise on a question of privilege at the opening of our sitting. In his notice the hon. member indicated that he intended to refer to a motion proposed yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) under Standing Order 43. The hon. member for York South suggested that the words used by the right hon. member were in breach of parliamentary privilege. On this basis the hon. member proposed the following motion:
That the false charges made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, as recorded on page 2243 of Hansard for Monday, May 15, 1972, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report.
The Chair is required to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. If a ruling were made in the affirmative, the hon. member's motion could be put and debated and the House itself would determine whether the matter should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and Report. The suggestion made by the hon. member for York South is, therefore, that the words spoken in the House by the right hon. member for Prince Albert found a prima facie case of privilege.
When the matter was first raised in the House this afternoon, and indeed when the motion was proposed to the House by the right hon. member for Prince Albert
Pension Act and Other Acts
(Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday, the Chair expressed its reluctance at finding that the statements or conduct of hon. members should be referred to a committee for scrutiny. This is a feeling which I am sure is shared by all hon. members. It is certainly a view which is based on long-standing tradition in this House. I am advised that the last instance when a specific charge made by one member against another was accepted by the Chair for consideration as a question of privilege goes back to the year 1924. On that occasion, and on the few other occasions prior to 1924 when such a question went before a committee of the House, the charge against the member had reference to alleged wrongdoing.
The procedural position was explained clearly by Mr. Speaker Michener in a ruling dated June 1959, and reported at page 582 of the Journals of the House of Commons for that year. The then Speaker ruled that a charge in specific terms had to be made before a prima facie case of privilege could be found. The motion proposed by the hon. member for York South does not meet this test. His motion takes issue with what the hon. member calls the false charges made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The assertion made by the hon. member for York South cannot be construed, in my estimation, as being a specific charge as set forth from the Chair on many previous occasions and in particular by Mr. Speaker Michener in the ruling to which I have just referred.
We are dealing here essentially with a matter of debate. I take the liberty to repeat the suggestion made yesterday that this is essentially a matter of debate. I feel that hon. members were suggesting a more acceptable procedure when they themselves suggested yesterday that the matter might be the subject of a debate under another Standing Order or procedure. If there continues to be a disposition by hon. members to debate this question, I assume that by agreement simple arrangements can be made to achieve this purpose.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Laing that Bill C-208, to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance Act, the Children of War Dead (Education
[Stage Direction]
May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on this bill. I am not always complimentary toward the government, but in this case it must be handed a bouquet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: After long delays, a non-partisan approach in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and many years of co-operative planning, speaking and working, we seem to be making a major breakthrough in veterans affairs. I think everyone in Canada, particularly the veterans, knows that the veterans affairs committee is non-partisan.
There have been remarkable contributions from all sides of the House. A good example was the very gracious way in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave our party full credit for giving him the well earned priority of being the first to speak on this bill. He is a senior member of this House and for many years has been a champion of veterans affairs. This kind of co-operation is very satisfying.
I am by no means a senior member of this House, but in the 14 years I have been here I have taken a very keen interest in veterans affairs. The government is to be commended for its recent changes, particularly with regard to the Hong Kong veterans and Bill C-208 which is another great step forward. I agree that our veterans should not have to come cap in hand and beg the Canadian public, through this institution, for the basic income they so richly deserve. I am not going to waste too much time talking about that.
The bill is quite straightforward. It provides for a yearly reassessment of the problem of keeping up with the ever-spiralling cost of living. I am in complete agreement with this principle. As the minister pointed out at page 2233 of Hansard for May 12, in the past there never has been any clear principle enunciated on which to base our pension rates.
In spite of the bouquets I have just handed out, there is still one large hurdle to overcome. This or another parliament in the near future must decide on what kind of yardstick or benchmark the people of Canada wish to base the basic pension. I hope I am not straying too far from the bill. The basis of this bill is to give our pensioners the right deal and this is what prompts me to make these few remarks.
I understand, from representations made by veterans groups and departmental spokesmen, that in the past we have tried to base the general pension on the same level as the wage of an unskilled worker in the federal public service. I have no quarrel with that, because the public purse is not bottomless. However, that should not be the lowest benchmark. From looking at the present pay scales in the public service it is obvious that the basic pension rate has not been maintained at that level. I do not think it is a princely sum. It certainly should not be less than the

average rate of pay for an unskilled worker in the public service. I do not know why that principle was not included in this bill.
I do not think it is too difficult to establish a rate. There has been unanimous approval by the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, at least in the meetings which I have attended over the years. I have heard no objection from the press or the veterans organizations. I understand they would be very happy with this basic rate. It seems fair and equitable and would not put an undue strain on the Canadian public. After all, this is one of the richest nations on earth, per capita. Our potential is such that we can well afford to give this basic rate to our veterans who risked life and limb for Canada.
I am pleased to note that section 70 of the Pension Act, the benefit of the doubt rule, is being put into effect. I wish to refer to one outstanding case. This is not criticism; it is commendation for the way in which the pension commission, the pension advocates in particular, have done their job. I will not mention her name, but the woman involved is very grateful. She has been awarded a widow's pension which has been backdated three years. The pension commission, the doctors and everyone else involved reached the conclusion that her husband's death came about partly as a result of his war service but he had not applied for a pension soon enough.
Earlier attempts had been unsuccessful, but the case was reopened under section 70 and the widow was awarded a pension backdated three years. This, of course, will last her to the end of her days. I am personally familiar with this case. The award will relieve her of the necessity of living with her in-laws; it will enable her to pay hospital bills, and so on, which had accumulated over the years.
This is an example of what can be done by everyone getting together and giving a worthy Canadian citizen her rights in acknowledgement of many years during which she and her husband suffered in the interests of their country. This is section 70 brought up to date and working well. I wish to commend the pension commission, the authorities in the department and everybody involved for demonstrating that the will of parliament can still make itself felt and that even after many years we can show a sense of fairness to those who have served Canada so well.
I have already given credit for the changing of the position of the Hong Kong prisoners of war. I am one who has always felt that the laws of Canada should work equally for each and every one of us. I am therefore impressed by the logic of the argument that those who served in other theatres of war besides the Far East and who perhaps suffered equally or, in some cases, even more, should have their cases treated in the same way. Thus, when prisoners of war in other theatres come forward I know that our committee on veterans affairs will look very favourably on their presentation. They should certainly have the same opportunity to present their case, and I hope they will get exactly the same type of hearing.
One should remember, of course, that simply to award a blanket pension to Hong Kong veterans will not dispose of all their problems. The basic pension may not be adequate
May 16, 1972

in all cases. Some of these men, who may not be satisfied with a 50 per cent pension, might wish to come forward and show that, for instance, they have aged prematurely as a result of their war service, or that a heart condition is related to their deprivations while in captivity. It would be difficult to prove that this is not the case, and we shall welcome veterans who wish to come forward to present such claims.
Mr. Speaker, I realize there are others who wish to take part in the debate. I thank the Chair for allowing me to stray from the mere monetary considerations of this bill and I thank the House for its attention.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words on Bill C-208 entilted "An Act to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allocance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder."
I will only state that for many years, under the previous administration and under the current administration, we have been requesting a better treatment for our veterans of both world wars.
We know that veterans did not obtain the attention they deserved from the government. And for many years one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has been fighting to improve the plight of veterans and all those living on fixed pensions.
While the cost of living index rose sharply over the last few years these pensions remained stationary. Bill C-208 provides for the adjustment of pensions to the cost of living index on a retroactive basis to January 1, 1972. We heartily welcome this bill which, even though still imperfect, will nevertheless give special consideration to our veterans because all of us in this House have received representations from veterans complaining about their inadequate pensions which are not a privilege but a right.
War veterans were promised during the war that once they returned to Canada, they would never again know poverty depression and problems such as we had faced during the depression. But we were practically on the verge of such a crisis with the kind of pensions that these people were receiving.
I hope that these pension increases will substantially help our veterans and their families. Indeed, the bill makes provision for their children's education and for their widows.
Mr. Speaker, we believed that this legislation would be included in the program advocated for many years by the Social Crediters. All these bills relating to old age security, war veterans and needy mothers pensions and so on would have been integrated in a comprehensive program applicable to Canada as a whole with the consent of the provinces.
I can hardly see how a province could have objected to the implementation by the federal government of a com-
Pension Act and Other Acts
prehensive program whereby all Canadians, war veterans or otherwise, would have been treated equally.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, we are happy that this bill has been introduced. As I said earlier, we have been asking, time and again that war veterans receive better pensions for themselves and their families, have easier access to property by helping them, for example, to build their own houses or acquire farm lands should they wish to settle on farms, in order to show them that we take into account the fact that they had entirely dedicated themselves to the defence of their country, Canada.
Therefore, we are quite glad that the government thought of the war veterans and their families. We support this increase in veterans' pensions.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say a few words on this bill.
As I pointed out on the night the budget was brought down when reference was made to legislation designed to increase the old age security pensions and veterans allowances, the official opposition has been asking for an increase in old age pensions and veterans allowances for the past three years.
When I mention the official opposition, I think I would be unfair if I did not point out the efforts also made for the past three years by my colleagues the Creditiste members from Quebec when we asked for a substantial increase in old age security pensions so that the latter would reflect the increase in the cost of living.
As the hon. member who spoke before we was saying, our senior citizens were the pioneers, the people who built this country, who through their efforts, their energy and their labours built the society in which we now live.
I feel it is unfair for the government to choose a time when an election is forthcoming to say to senior citizens: We are at last thinking of you and we are granting you a substantial pension increase-very substantial indeed- $2.88 per month.
We also know that the system is going to create a degree of selectivity. This means that not all senior citizens are going to receive this monthly increase of $2.88, but only those which the establishment and public servants will select on the basis of criteria established through cabinet orders and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, obviously we support this increase in old age pensions and veterans' allowances. I would like, however, to take this opportunity to raise the veil on a conflict which exists at present between the federal government and that of the province of Quebec. Everybody knows that at the present time in Quebec we are going through extremely difficult circumstances that were not caused by the federal government. As a Quebecer, I cannot ignore the Premier's outcry against the federal government last Sunday, on television.
It has been claimed, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated it this afternoon that there was no conflict between Quebec and the federal government with respect to income security. In the meantime, an outstanding member of the Quebec Government, Mr. Castonguay, minister of Social Affairs, threatened to resign last week when he stated that the federal govern-
2322

May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
ment, by bringing in its income security policy, had done wilful damage to the integrated security income plan that the Quebec government intended to implement. The right hon. Prime Minister, with his usual wisdom, tried to straighten out the situation. When at least three ministers of a Liberal government, on friendly terms with the present federal government, say they will resign because the Quebec policy was jeopardized by federal government action, I say there is a crisis, and this cannot be concealed by any statements made by the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro)-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Martial Asselin: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should not like the hon. members to believe I am standing in the hon. member's way. Not at all. I understand very well what he means by saying that the federal government wanted to thwart the provincial government's action.
What I should like to know is whether the hon. member can tell us why the Quebec government did not introduce its integrated guaranteed income plan before Ottawa introduced a measure to increase old age security pensions. Why does the Quebec government always have to wait for Ottawa to take the first step, and then criticize instead of falling into step and entering into a dialogue with the federal government? I want to know if the hon. member is aware of that?


Martial Asselin: I am aware of it, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, I shall reply to the question the hon. member has just asked me. If he is willing to re-examine the Victoria proposals, as well as the position taken by the province of Quebec on social security, he will realize that the exclusive spending power of the federal government without consultation with the provinces was questioned. The provinces also have spending powers and they are at the end of their tether.
If the Canadian Confederation does not allow continuous consultations with the provinces about the spending power, how can the provincial government, which is much closer to the ordinary people, implement programs likely to relate to the family or the individual? Of course, my colleague who interrupted me just now will be unable to say that I am wrong when I say that the problems having to do with the family, with the individual, and especially with the Quebec community, concern the Quebec government rather than the federal government.
I also say this to my colleague: the Victoria proposals should all be revised to prove to what extent the Quebec government wanted then to have the tools required to achieve its objectives with regard to families and individuals.
When the party on my left claims to be in favour of the family unit, of the fulfilment of the individual, of wealth and society, as integral parts of a community such as that of Quebec, I ask myself no questions.

So I say that the federal government has the right, by virtue of the constitution, to increase old age pensions. As the Quebec premier said recently, that province is not a province like to the others. For Quebecers, Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Martial Asselin: I will come to that.
For Quebecers, the government which is closest to the people, better qualified for governing and pursuing their objectives, is indeed the Quebec government. For the English-speaking provinces, it makes no difference whether it is the federal or the provincial government as those people do not have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the hon. member to be honest in his statements. If there is a province that is willing to fight as much as Quebec to keep its jurisdiction, its rights, it is British Columbia, and there are others in Canada. In fact, each province wants as much freedom as it can get. At this point, I shall take the liberty of asking the hon. member another question.
When he says that the social question is a provincial jurisdiction, I agree wholeheartedly. But, what is stopping Quebec from applying its integral program, its guaranteed income program? What is stopping it from raising taxes? Instead of telling Ottawa: You raise the taxes and we shall spend them. Thus the people blame Ottawa for the taxes and commend Quebec for spending and increasing pensions.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of my colleague's intervention. He would also like Quebec to continue to impose taxes, when people are already saturated with them.


An hon. Member:: He knows it.


Martial Asselin: Unless one applies a system which flies in the face of common sense, the Social credit system, we will never be able to manage it. I very much would like the hon. member to explain how such a system would work, either in Quebec or in Ottawa.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. Is the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Mather:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a very brief one. I want to remind my colleagues from la belle province that we are supposed to be discussing matters related to veterans pensions. Interesting as their crossfire about Quebec is, I would urge them to keep to the immediate point, namely pensions. There are other members who would like to speak on this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has made a very good point. If there is any relevance in the remarks of the hon. member, it would have to be very broad and in reference to the whole social struc-
May 16, 1972

ture. I would invite the hon. member to be more specific in his remarks.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the bill before the House and referring to recent statements of the Premier and the Minister of Social Affairs of Quebec.
What made me stray from the subject was the questions put by my friend, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). Of course, I tried to reply to the best of my ability. I say, however, that if he really has the interests of Quebecers at heart he should, I suggest, take into account the objectives of the Quebec government.
When that government stated that the increases of old age security pensions and veterans pensions have disrupted an integrated plan the government of Quebec intended to implement, all the Quebec members of this House-


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue is rising on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-208, which is directly related to veterans. Actually, the statements of the Premier and the Minister of Social Affairs of Quebec were not related to the bill before us and did not even mention it. The bill on old age security pensions is not now before the House and I suggest the hon. member for Charlevoix-I bear him no ill feeling, far from it, he is a good friend of mine-should confine himself to the content of Bill C-208, purporting an increase of war veterans' pensions. When we get around to the old age security pension bill, I might then applaud the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Martial Asselin: I made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. colleague who just interrupted me forced me to do so. And as I am not the kind of man to backout I wanted to refute his arguments.
But I say, Mr. Speaker, that we definitely welcome the increase of the general pensions to elderly people as well as to veterans. And I repeat what I said earlier. If the government has moved, it is because we have been trying for three years to convince it that the people covered by Bill C-208 were not having an adequate income.
What I do not like is the fact that it waited till the eve of the general elections-


An hon. Member:: You are so right.


Martial Asselin: -to bring in a bill in order to get votes.
I say that our society has reached a higher maturity level than ever before. It is no longer possible to tell the electorate after distributing goodies on the eve of a federal election: "We shall grant an increase in such and such an area and get all the votes."
At this time, I wish to advise the government that, if they wanted to use this as an election bait, they are completely mistaken, for our people have changed more than they think. They have come of age politically: they can read and listen; now they are able to weigh, analyse and
Pension Act and Other Acts
judge this government not on its election budget, but on its achievements during its four year mandate.
And since during that mandate, a great many people had to suffer considerably because of the unemployment situation, they will not readily disregard the fact that, regardless of these increased pensions to the aged and the veterans, this administration cannot redeem all its mistakes with an election budget.
In this perspective, I say that we are in favour of the increase but I am still warning the government that it is deluding itself if it thinks that all the social and economic errors made during four years will be forgotten and that, just before the federal election, the increase in pensions will have everybody thinking: "Even if the government was wrong during four years, it will still get our support.
I see in front of me one of the most important ministers, the hon. Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) and I want him to know that he is not really thinking about the veterans because they are receiving just before the election that might be held on July 17, a very meagre increase considering their services to the country for the safeguard of democracy and freedom, not only here in Canada, but also abroad.
The minister should not be deceived into thinking, Mr. Chairman, that such a low increase of the veterans pensions will incite them all to vote for a government that for four years forgot about their sufferings, their devotion and their efforts to save democracy.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, with the customary brevity of my party, I believe I can express my ideas in about one minute. I wish to say three things. First, I want to thank hon. members who have spoken for having recognized the long-standing efforts of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in trying to improve the conditions, pensions and benefits of our veterans. Second, I want to welcome the proposal which the government has brought forward, which will at least bring veterans benefits into some sort of line with the ever increasing cost of living. If this is not done, they will suffer a continued reduction in their economic benefits. This measure might be likened to giving a person suffering from a ten-year old hangover two or three aspirins. But even that is a step in the right direction.
Third, and in conclusion, I urge all members of the House-this is not confined to my party by any means-to continue to press the government and the minister to recognize the need for raising the basic pension and other benefits which should go to the veterans of Canada and without which they will continue to suffer a reduction in their standard of living far below that to which they are entitled.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to say a few words about the increase in veterans allowances. It is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-208.
2324

May 16, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
Through this bill, the government wants to increase pensions for veterans while keeping in mind the cost of living. We have been told by many veterans that the increase based on the cost of living does not amount to much. Therefore, veterans are not satisfied with their pensions.
As far as we are concerned, we wish to tell the government that we are pleased that they have been granted this increase due to the increased cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, we are greatly indebted to war veterans. We know what they did for society. We know what they went through, which other people did not experience.
At the same time, I would like to tell the government that other citizens who are not veterans also have equal rights. They are also entitled to our consideration, because I suppose those who died for society and left widows and children behind them should also be considered.
I would give veterans more consideration because they went to war, but we owe a great deal to those who remained in Canada and laid down their lives on the field of labour, those who died for their country and who did their utmost towards its development.
Mr. Speaker, if the increases granted to veterans are justified, we should not be asking ourselves why these pension increases are granted. We must grant them because the cost of living is going up. Why is it going up?
Mr. Speaker, why are we not in a position to administer through an adjustment of the cost of living, in order to prevent it from going up? When you let the cost of living go up, you do so for everybody.
The cost of living, Mr. Speaker, increases for everyone, not only for the veterans and the aged. Some people have no job; they live on welfare allowances and pensions of all kinds. They do not get enough because the cost of living increases and it does so because of them.
If we allocate increases to all these citizens, we shall contribute as well to push up the cost of living. If the cost of living goes up, we also raise taxes.
And this, Mr. Speaker, is a useless exercise. This economic uneasiness reveals to us that our economy goes on falling; it has no stability. It is completely out of kilter and the more we apply this ideological system, the more we apply our economic system, the more we unbalance our economy and the more it becomes difficult to live.
The increase that will be granted to old people and to veterans will be offset by the increase in the cost of living. This will leave them with almost nothing. It is almost useless to grant increases if we are not prepared to deal with the main causes of such an economic disorder.
I am for increases. I want people to have a better life, but I know that we are not dealing with the real problems, that the essential causes are deeper. That is where we should strike first. No one member is ready to take the necessary steps in order to eliminate the causes of the present economic disorder.
The increase in the cost of living should logically be followed by an increase in pensions and wages of all kinds. The situation is deteriorating and becoming ever more complicated.

It is over this aspect, Mr. Speaker, that we should ponder. At the same time-one cannot ask him everything-I would ask the minister to examine the problem to find out whether there would be another means to curtail this increase in the cost of living. We must find a solution to this problem, we must reduce the cost of living. We have been looking for a solution for a long time.
Instead of raising pensions, we ought to lower the cost of living; this would simplify the situation and enable Canadians to enjoy an easier life.
When the unions ask for higher salaries, we could tell them: Instead of increasing salaries, we shall reduce prices; then you will no longer have any reason to ask for pay boosts.
If we reduce prices, we will leave more purchasing power in the hands of the citizens; our economy will be more viable. Exports will be facilitated because our prices will be lowered by as much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should advise the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate. I think that the nature, the aims and the objectives of the Department of Veterans Affairs are such that we can keep this kind of debate on a more non-partisan basis than might be the case in the discussion of legislation concerning any other department.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is truly a service department dedicated to the service of human beings who have served this country. I have been with the department long enough to have a great deal of confidence in the department itself and in those in charge of it who discharge their duties honourably and as fairly as they can within the confines of the resources granted them by the government.
I want to pay tribute to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Through the years it has conducted its business on a basis of anxiety to do the best it can without introducing political dispute. The kind of discussion that took place here tonight could have been participated in by members of parties on all sides of the House. Some of it went beyond the content of this bill, but that is understandable because the bill provided an avenue through which members of the House could express their wishes on behalf of the veterans.
I wish to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has made a rather deep study of pensions, not only in Veterans Affairs but in other departments of government. He stressed that he was anxious that the increase in the cost of living provision should be no substitute for consideration of the increase in the basic rates of pensions and of war veterans allowances. I made that very clear. I have said before, and I say it in the House now, that when we are distributing some $229 million per year in veterans
May 16, 1972

pensions, and some $79 million in war veterans allowances out of a total operating budget of about $15 billion, that does not frighten me and I do not think it frightens any member of parliament.
The hon. member also suggested that this might be a swan-song policy on the part of the department in the remaining short time that I shall be here. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government will be magnanimous enough only to make it comfortable for me in the short time that I remain in the department. In any case, I think that the evil one does, just like the good, lives after one and I think that the influence of the legislation we are considering tonight will certainly be an abiding one on the government in the future.
The one concern I have at present is the backlog of cases. The hon. member suggested that there were 5,500 or 6,000. I have to bring him the bad news that as of tonight there are 7,700 cases. Because of the legislation that was introduced by my predecessor, avenues for appeal regarding pensions were opened to a great number of new people, and there has been a revival of a number of old applications made in the past. We are doing the best we can to hurry them along, to catch up with the backlog but at the same time not to disturb or depreciate the calibre of the decisions rendered.
Other hon. members have discussed the basic rates. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) took issue with the increase that we are allowing to take care of the cost of living index and said we were all wrong. The hon. member happens to be all wrong, and not us, because he was working from the assumption that the index was 100 per cent whereas the points are 130 and 135, and the increase in the cost of living last year was 4.7 per cent, an increase in points from 130 to 135, which works out to 3.6 per cent on the basis of 100.
I do not want to do any more arithmetic, Mr. Speaker, but we were given some arithmetic by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not want to suggest that socialist mathematics are accurate, and I do not want to provide any Liberal mathematics except to remind him that somewhere in the Bible that he knows so well where it says, "The liberal doeth liberal things."
I shall rest my case on some mathematics provided me by public servants. In the case that the hon. member cited I would tell him that on the new basis of a war veterans allowance, 100 per cent for a single person will be $180.36. I think that is not far from the computation he made. The ceiling rises from $161 to $165.36 and there is $15 exemption added to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, both are being added. That is good.


Arthur Laing: I might also assure him that the orders in council to which I referred have now been executed. I think I need say no more at the present time, Mr. Speaker, except that I appreciate the consideration which hon. members on all sides of the House have given this bill. I hope it moves along as quickly as possible. It is restricted to a very small section of the assistance towards veterans and in no way whatsoever impairs the right of this House, of members of the House or of the veterans' organizations themselves to continue to press us for an increase in the
Pension Act and Other Acts
basic rates. As a matter of fact, we have received some representations on this already and my officers have done some work to give indicated costs to us of a variety of increases that might be made possible, of course always subject to the resources that the government has at the time. Again I thank hon. members who have participated in this debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to mention to the House the desirability of giving consent to deal with order No. 30, the report stage of Bill C-207. There are a number of report stage amendments attached to the notice paper. With consent, we might deal with those if they are in order. When we have dealt with them, then we can consider putting off further discussion of the report stage until the House has had an opportunity to look at report stage amendments which have been filed by the official opposition and which will appear on the notice paper tomorrow.
Further, if before ten o'clock we have reached the limit of our study of Bill C-207 for today, I would suggest to the House, as a matter of advance warning, that we consider dealing until ten o'clock with the report stage of Bill C-2. There are some committee amendments to that bill, and apparently there is unanimity. There have been no fresh amendments and it might be possible to deal with that bill this evening following whatever progress we make on Bill C-207.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the course proposed by the minister meets with our approval. We have no objection at all to giving consent wherever necessary to advance the discussion of Bill C-207 at the report stage, subject to the proviso to which the minister has referred and the caveat which I now file, that this consent is without prejudice to our right to deal with the amendments we have tabled today and which will be up for consideration tomorrow. I think we would be prepared to deal with this matter tomorrow to the extent that it is possible to do so, and we will give consent for that purpose. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to now deal with the amendments already before the House to the extent that the Chair wants to give them serious consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we gladly concur in the proposal to proceed now with the report stage of Bill C-207, at least for the purpose of finding out whether the amendments that are on the notice paper are in order.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without
[Stage Direction]
May 16, 1972
Old Age Security Act
amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that there is agreement among hon. members that we might proceed at this time with the report stage of Bill C-207 and in particular, perhaps, consider motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 which are before the Chair and of which notice has been given.
I think I owe it to hon. members to indicate that in my view these four amendments are clearly out of order. In each case they involve a charge on the treasury. Unless hon. members wish to consider amendments which are not in order, I do not see how I can allow these motions to be put. I would be pleased to receive advice from hon. members. If hon. members want to give their opinions, I will consider them. The first one is as follows.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce) moved:: That Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by inserting a comma after the word "who" in Clause 2 at line 23, page 1 and adding the following:
"has reached age 60.".
This is obviously, I think, a broad amendment, since it would force the Crown to incur additional expenditures. This type of motion, as everyone knows, requires the recommendation of His Excellency. If hon. members can convince me that my interpretation of this amendment is erroneous, I shall be happy to put it to the House, but it seems clear to me that the amendment is not in order.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, we are somewhat amazed at the procedure used tonight in the absence of the sponsors of these amendments.
At all events, I share the views of the Chair as to the acceptability of the first amendment, which in the main tends to call the government's attention on the fact that it would be desirable to introduce an adjustment with respect to the age of eligibility to old age security pension.
In these circumstances, I perfectly agree that the ruling which the Chair has just given is in strict compliance with the Standing Orders and we accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his eloquent words and his generosity in accepting the proposal of the Chair. What troubles me slightly is that the reservation I have just made with regard to motion No. 1 also applies to motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4; I wonder if the hon. member will be as enthusiastic in recognizing, in agreement with the Chair, that all those motions would entail additional expenditures on the part of the Crown. The hon. member may want to make certain remarks that would help the Chair express an opinion on motion No. 2 which reads as follows:
-That Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by deleting the word "who" in Clause 2 at line 23, page 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"even if his age is lower than the provisions of the present Act if
the spouse receives a monthly pension by virtue of the said
Act.".
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) seems willing to express his views concerning the motion. Of

course, this is merely concerning the procedural acceptability of this motion.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have listened with great interest to your comments, the importance of which cannot be questioned, on motion No. 2 submitted by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).
Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that this is expenditure. Indeed, the motion reads as follows:
"even if his age is lower than the provisions of the present Act if
the spouse receives a monthly pension by virtue of the said
Act.".-Mr. Laprise.
I agree that, literally, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of expenditure, and an exclusive prerogative of the government.
However, I maintain that a basic principle is involved, the very principle of the bill. The bill provides that an old age security pension will be paid to persons from age 65. We want to tell the government that we hope that it will adopt this view that, when a person is entitled to the old age pension under the regulations and the old age security act, his or her spouse, whatever that person's age, whatever that person's income be also entitled to the pension.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that you are right. It is a question of money, since it is a question of giving more money to these people who are not the same age as their spouse. But it remains that in our view that is a very secondary aspect, since it is not the question of money that is important but the question of principle.
For instance someone who has reached age 65, who gets the old age security pension while the spouse, 52 or 55 years old, is not receiving it cannot make both ends meet and this compels us to fight bitterly against the actual principle of the bill.
We intend to fight against this principle in order that the couple in need, when one spouse only receives the pension, may be able to draw it, whatever might be the spouse's age.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider the spirit rather than the letter so that elderly people in Canada, even if they are married, are not penalized.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere is quite original in bringing in such an argument. He suggests that the Chair should consider only the principle, that is the motion's purpose, which is to provide advantages to a class of the population which he considers underprivileged. All hon. members will, I am sure, agree with the hon. member for Lotbiniere and his colleague as to the principle. Unfortunately the Chair must sometimes go beyond priciples and abide by the Standing Order of the House, which clearly indicates, as the hon. member for Lotbiniere agrees, and recognized when presenting his argument, that the Speaker must abide by the Standing Orders and by custom and tradition of our parliamentary institutions. I suggest that it clearly is not possible for an hon. member to present a bill or an amendment involving disbursements, unless such bill or amendment be accompanied by a recommendation of the Crown.
In this case, unless the hon. member can apprise me of a recommendation from His Excellency, I must rule that the
May 16, 1972

amendment cannot be put. The hon. member of course knows as well as I do that the arguments he has just presented can be brought forward at the third reading stage. Hon. members for Lotbiniere and Bellechasse, and their colleagues as well, will of course have the opportunity at that time to come back to the substantial arguments they have just submitted for the consideration of the Chair.
It is in blushing a little perhaps that I must say that my ruling concerning motions Nos. 1 and 2 applies, unfortunately, to motion No. 3 as well as to motion No. 4 which reads as follows:
That Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended (a) by deleting from Clause 3 the words "eighty dollars" at line 3, page 2 and substituting therefor the words "two hundred dollars" (b) by making consequential amendments to Clause 5.
I notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and perhaps members are ready to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier), who is trying to convince the Chair that this amendment is in order, and I will hear his argument.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much tonight to persuade the Chair to accept my amendment, because I think that the legislation as amended would better reflect pension reality.
When reference is made to pensions in this House, people think that this is not welfare. This is why I ask that it be a pension of $200 a month and not a pension of $100 and a welfare allowance of $100. These terms are always used. The public is going to be told that senior citizens have been granted a pension.
Actually, it is not a pension. This is why I suggest through my amendment that the pension be increased to $200 instead of $80 and that the words welfare assistance be deleted.
If you compute the amount of taxes used to pay this pension, and if you take into account the total number of older people, it can be estimated that these pensions and allowances will cost $150 a month for each senior citizen.
What else shall we do? We are supposed to give people $150; actually, we are cheating them because we are not really giving them $150. However, it costs more than $150 to send all these investigators to meddle with our senior citizens' affairs and create all sorts of trouble for them.
Our senior citizens deserve a pension and we must provide them with one and put an end to this situation where they must have recourse to social welfare.
Maybe some hon. members will again talk about the lack of money, as it was stated a moment ago. This goes beyond the scope of the act, for it will be necessary to spend more public funds. If the government will not make any change to its budget, let it provide for a new issue, through the Bank of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to indicate to the hon. member for Roberval that my objection to the motion was not related in any way to the Bank of Canada but rather
Old Age Security Act
to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms and to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
The hon. member understands that as well as I do and probably better than I do. I wish to remind him that the very interesting arguments he has just put forward could be very easily presented, I am sure, when the motion for third reading will be considered.
For the time being, I am deeply sorry to conclude that to conform to an old tradition, such a motion cannot, at the present time, be presented to the House.
Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to rise a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: No, Mr. Speaker, I thought we had skipped motion No. 3, unless I am absent-minded.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that the comments I have made in respect of motions Nos. 1 and 2 equally apply to motion No. 3. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Lotbiniere if he has any comments or special considerations to submit to the House. I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. friends would be happy to listen to his comments regarding motion No 3. I for one, would gladly do so.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind attention. I agree once more that it is a question of spending public funds, but here again, it is the principle that should prevail namely that on the one hand, you are right in applying the rules, but on the other hand, as you say so eloquently, all my colleagues are interested in helping our senior citizens. I wonder if the minister who is empowered to spend public funds could not sponsor the motions in question, provided there is unanimous consent, in order to solve the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere that even if the minister should sponsor the motion before us, it would not be sufficient since it would require the approval of the Crown. This approval should appear in the order paper and, as I said, I have been through this document but could not anywhere find that His Excellency has made a recommendation regarding the expenses involved in motion No. 3.
There are still a few moments left before we come to the consideration of the other motions. The hon. member might get in touch with His Excellency to determine whether it is possible to obtain his consent in this regard.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will certainly be in touch with His Excellency after the next election.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Is this just to pass the time?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: No it's precisely because we do not want to waste any time.
I have noticed the interest of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in our debates

May 16, 1972
Old Age Security Act
and I am positive, as are all hon. members, that had it not been for matters of procedure, all these amendments would have been accepted unanimously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must go on to the next item.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to my hon. friends of the Social Credit party that we might ask the Bank of Canada to print new Standing Orders for the House.


Mr. Gauthier:: It would certainly be better than if it were done by the present government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Late notice has been given of three motions, Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The Chair has just read them and had a brief consultation. It may well be that some of these motions are not in order. I refer firstly to motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) which reads as follows:
That Bill C-207, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by striking out the words "eighty dollars" at line 3, page 2 and substituting the words "ninety dollars".
To my mind, that motion is clearly out of order for the reasons I indicated a moment ago. It offends the royal recommendation which is on record, and I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe North would not want to do that.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) would not want to offend the recommendation of His Excellency. He is the last one who would want to do that. These motions were filed today. We listened with interest to what Your Honour said about the four motions filed by members of the Creditiste party. Our motions were filed earlier today and we thought they would not appear on the notice paper until tomorrow. We would not object to their being considered tomorrow. There are one or two, to my recollection, in connection with which I propose to raise strenuous argument.
As I say, I did not think we would be dealing with them until tomorrow and I do not have the amendments before me. I think, therefore, in line with the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), we might adjourn further proceedings on this bill until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That having been said, we may consider that motion No. 5 is still under consideration. I doubt very much that I can change tomorrow the opinion which I have just expressed, even though the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) may advance strenuous argument. In fairness, however, I think it would be much better if we allowed these motions to stand until tomorrow so that the Chair and all hon. members may have a chance to study them more closely.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It seems to me that we can make progress if we

call order No. 3, the report stage of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code.



CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. 1972 AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE, CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT, NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT, PAROLE ACT AND VISITING FORCES ACT

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the amendments that were adopted in committee will be found in Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, May 11. I rise on a point of order with respect to a technical error that appears in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). As I understand it, the amendment to clause
4	would strike out lines 4 to 13 inclusive on page 5, when the intention of those who accepted the amendment in committee was to strike out lines 4 to 19. This is simply a technical error.
If the House will permit me to make an amendment it will restore the intention in the reprinted bill so that all the lines that were intended to be struck out will be struck out, and not lines 4 to 13 as inadvertently mentioned in the amendment to clause 4. I realize that I require unanimous consent to make this technical amendment. It is not of substance. It was drawn to the attention of the minister by the legal officers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order to ask the minister whether page
5	of the reprint of the bill as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs conforms to the error that is in Votes and Proceedings of May 11 or whether it conforms to what was intended. After all, what would be before us at this point would not be in Votes and Proceedings but in the reprinted bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe you cured your defect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe our good friends the printers have corrected the committee's error.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the error does appear in the bill. As I understand it, it would be corrected if an amendment were accepted that Bill C-2 be amended by striking out lines 24 to 29 on page 5 thereof.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can our shirts be kept on for a minute?


Mr. Speaker:: The House will enjoy a moment of silence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the moment is over. I have obtained the advice of top-flight legal counsel. I am informed that it was the understanding of the committee that what now appears as lines 24 to 29
May 16, 1972

on page 5 should not be there. Therefore we would give unanimous consent to making that amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I gather I am now permitted to move the amendment. I move:
That Bill C-2 be amended by striking out lines 24 to 29 on page 5 thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Laing: that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one question on this point? Again, I have obtained legal advice. He is an NDP lawyer and will not send me a bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we strike out lines 24 to 29 which are now identified as subclause (2) of clause 9, would it not then follow that the "(1)" that is in line 16 should also come out? Do we not end up with only one clause as clause 9? Does the minister see what I am driving at?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless there is someone here to tell us we are wrong, I suggest that the minister's amendment should include the elimination of "(1)" where it appears after "9" in line 16.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that makes sense to me. There does not seem any necessity for the "(1)" when there is only one. If we made an egregious error, the Senate can probably correct it.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Arthur Laing: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary be kind enough to enlighten the House as to the amendments? I do not know whether it is his intention to speak. We will be very brief and as far as we are concerned the bill will receive third reading. Does the parliamentary secretary intend to indicate the thrust of the amendments made in committee, for those members of the House who were not privileged to be there and participate in its flexible wisdom?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I was quickly called a while
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
ago-considering the good intentions shown by the members lately.


An hon. Member:: It is because it is a serious matter.


Albert Béchard: I know and I thank the hon. members, if it is in order to pass this bill tonight, by having it go through the report stage and the third reading.
All the members who sat on the committee-distinguished members from both parties-certainly explained at their respective caucus recently the amendments that were brought forward, in some cases important amendments and in other cases minor ones.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) deals with clause 4 page 5 which was changed, as we have seen, as regards contempt of court in and outside the court. Here is what is mentioned in the bill as to punishment:
9. (1) Where a court, judge, justice or magistrate summarily convicts a person for contempt of court, whether committed in the face of the court or otherwise, and punishment is imposed in respect thereof, that person may appeal
(a)	from the conviction, or
(b)	against the punishment imposed.
Now in the existing legislation, as the bill has not gone through all stages yet, section 1 reads as follows:
9. (1) Where a court, judge, justice or magistrate summarily convicts-
(2) Where a court or judge summarily convicts a person for a contempt of court-
An amendment was moved following the submission of a very important brief by the Canadian Airline Pilots Association.
If my memory serves me right, because I did not have any time to refer to all my notes before coming to the House, the Airline Pilots Association was worried about the fact that the bill applied in particular to aircraft hijacking. However, we were told that there could be cases of hijacking on the ground by people who are not on board, but who, by telephone, may cause a lot of trouble, to an aircraft or to the pilot's family, who would be thus threatened by a person not on board.
A few other amendments were introduced. Of course, I should read the bill through, but I know that members of the official opposition, of the New Democratic Party, but none from the Social Credit Party because the latter never attended any meeting, agreed to these amendments wholeheartedly and unanimously.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to all committee members whatever party they belong to for their contribution and cooperation and for the positive manner in which they approached the matter and handled the procedures during the debate on this bill.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we shall be able, I hope, to proceed with the third reading of the bill, which will enable the government, particulary with regard to air piracy, to ratify the Conventions of the Hague and Montreal, for we were told by the official from the Canadian Airline Pilots Association that nowadays the worst danger for pilots who have very heavy responsibilities is hijacking, which has become very common, not only in this

May 16, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
country where it has happened a few times unfortunately, but in the whole world.
Several countries signed this agreement following a general and universal request and I believe we will be pioneers in this area since Canada will pass a legislation providing for the protection not only of pilots but also of the population that travels in those aircraft which are so huge that they could sometimes accommodate the whole population of a village in my constituency.
We are aware of the tremendous responsibilities of these pilots and this is why we are happy to see that members are eager to pass this bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was not fortunate enough to be present during the committee meetings but I join the parliamentary secretary in saying that the members of the committee did a commendable job. I refer especially to the members of the Ralliement Creditiste who participated in the House. The parliamentary secretary mentioned two areas specifically-the right to appeal from contempt proceedings and the proposals relating to hijacking and air piracy.
The Criminal Code regarded as a whole constitutes a social contract whereby individuals give up a certain measure of individual freedom for the sake of society as a whole or, as Jeremy Bentham said, to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Today, when we enter an age when it is becoming increasingly evident that many minority elements in society, not so much in Canada as in other parts of the world, are taking the position that violence may be used as a means of achieving social change, it is essential that the provisions of the Criminal Code be kept constantly under review: it is not good enough to let six or seven years go by without making amendments.
Anyone who has read the proceedings which took place in a court in Chicago when The Seven were tried must have been appalled by the conduct of the defendants and to some extent by the conduct of the presiding judge. To avoid this kind of thing, a remedy of appeal must be available in contempt cases. Let us not delude ourselves that it cannot happen here. It can. It is because of the need to preserve freedom and independence on the part of the judiciary to deal with violence as a means of revolutionary change that we must constantly review the needs of society as expressed in the Criminal Code, the social contract to which I have referred.
Air piracy is becoming in many parts of the world a means whereby changes are sought in the social structure through violence, intimidation and murder in line with certain particular views without worrying about the wishes of the rest of society, the majority of the people. We shall see a repetition of this conduct in all parts of the world and, I believe, to some extent in this country. I would therefore say it is essential that the contract providing for stability in society must be kept constantly in line with conditions of the day and amended in such a way that the rights of individuals are affected as little as possible but always bearing in mind the social purpose to be achieved. This is, really, the attitude with which we

must approach these changes, and in doing so we give our approval to third reading of the bill at this time.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the main criticisms of this bill were put forward by the New Democratic Party when the bill was debated on second reading and I shall not repeat those criticisms. But I should like to underline one of the main areas which is missing from this bill, and that is the right to counsel. I would have thought the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) would have included this provision in the bill. We in the NDP were most disappointed by its absence. I hope that when the Minister of Justice amends the Criminal Code in the future he will include this provision, which is a necessary and vital one if we are to have a contemporary criminal law which is credible, enforceable, flexible and compassionate.
That is one of my main criticisms, and the other is this. There appears to be an approach by the government to refer many problems of criminal law to the Law Reform Commission and to await their study before any action is taken. The Law Reform Commission has a great number of subjects to study and on which to report to the government, and I hope this will not be the excuse of the government for not taking action. If we are to have law and order in this country we must have, as I have said, a contemporary law that is credible, enforceable, flexible and compassionate, and to shelter behind the Law Reform Commission will not do the government any credit.
The main area of concern to me which is now being studied by the Law Reform Commission is the adversary system. I have felt for many years that the adversary system fell far short of meeting the requirements of a criminal law based on the philosophy of the reformation and rehabilitation of a person accused of a crime. It is in this area that we must conduct studies in depth and take action if there is to be a response by the people. I hope that not only will we study the adversary system but also the law relating to mens rea.
Bill C-2 covered many areas of concern to a large number of Canadians in the last ten years and I cannot help but underline the credit that must be given to the government for passing legislation abolishing corporal punishment. This subject has been dealt with in depth and we regard it as a step in the right direction. I have attempted to persuade the Minister of Justice not only to abolish corporal punishment as part of a sentence imposed by a court but to abolish it as a disciplinary measure in penitentiaries across the country. When this is done I think we will be taking a humane and just approach to the treatment of inmates in institutions. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to use his good offices to persuade the Minister of Justice and also the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) that legislation in this area is required.
I was concerned when the bill was at second reading stage, and in committee, that it would not receive passage in view of so many rumours about an election. In committee I suggested that the bill be split so we could deal with the hijacking provisions, and I am happy that tonight we
May 16, 1972

have reached third reading. Not only I but the members of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association have expressed concern that parliament might prorogue without passing the hijacking provisions. I am sure the association will feel much better when the bill is given third reading in this House, passes the necessary stages in the other place and is proclaimed law. Many Canadians felt that these hijacking provisions were necessary for the safety and security of people in flight and that the government was slow in its approach to passing the legislation. The government will now have an opportunity of ratifying the conventions passed at The Hague and in Montreal, making them part of our international law in relation to hijacking.
One of the measures in the bill that we all welcome is that providing for absolute and conditional discharge. In the past, the suspended sentence procedure in the courts fell far short of dealing with people who had been convicted of crime. What it did was to impose a conviction which carried with it necessarily hurtful consequences regarding employment, travel and bonding.
We also welcome the provision dealing with the temporary serving of sentences of 90 days or less. This is a step in the right direction and will mean that many people who are convicted of an offence and receive a short jail term will be able to serve that term during weekends, being able to continue working during the week without losing their jobs, with consequent benefit to their families.
In drawing my remarks to a close, Mr. Speaker, we feel the bill is a step in the right direction. We also hope the government will continue to bring forth bills that make the law in Canada one that is contemporary, one that is credible, enforceable, flexible and compassionate. I look forward to the Minister of Justice being able to take the initiative in this direction.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether hon. members would be prepared to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), in the expectation that we might get the bill through within a very short time. If the hon. member wishes to speak tonight, we might allow him to continue and get third reading of the bill since it seems to meet with the approval of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to not see the clock at this time and complete third reading stage of the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their kindness. I did not intend to add these five minutes to their day's work.
First of all, I would like to correct what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) said about the Creditistes not attending the committee meetings. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the House, that this is a ridiculous accusation. It is very
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
easy for one party with 150 members to sit on all committees. However, when only 13 members have to sit on more than 25 committees, it is a lot harder to do so. We cannot be everywhere at once.
I wish to indicate also that, according to the government, committee reports have generally been shelved. It follows then that it is in the House of Commons that the most efficient work is done, which we do with all our hearts.
Mr. Speaker, I took the floor during the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-2, introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). As I said then, I do accept that legislation, even though I am not too enthusiastic about it. Again, I do accept it even though it surely does not settle the problems of justice in Canada. I have in mind particularly some clauses or some part of the bill.
Indeed we can criticize justice in Canada, but if we take no steps to improve it, we shall settle nothing. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this legislation, even if I already know that the whole problem of justice, the appointment of judges, and like matters will not be settled. But one thing remains, Mr. Speaker, we must achieve some progress.
I should like to call the attention of the House on a particular point. It is, in the bill, clause 44, sub-section (2.1), page 27, and I quote:
Notwithstanding subsection (2), a court, judge or magistrate may remand an accused in accordance with that subsection (a) for a period not exceeding thirty days without having heard the evidence of a duly qualified medical practitioner where he is satisfied that compelling circumstances exist for so doing and that such a medical practitioner is not readily available to examine the accused and give evidence;
Mr. Speaker, this is quite in accordance with this government's philosophy on administration of justice and means that whenever a court, a judge or a magistrate is confronted with an accused in need of a medical examination before a decision is rendered, for more or less sophisticated reasons which are not explained anyhow, the court or judge would have the option to remand an accused who was under detention for observation at all times before the verdict or sentence was passed, without having heard the evidence of a physician, under the circumstances specified in this paragraph.
What are those circumstances? The bill reads:
-where he is satisfied that compelling circumstances exist for so doing-
What does this mean? Here is a extremely vague phrase which allows for any interpretation and which means that before a sentence or verdict is passed, an accused can be released without having previously been examined by a qualified physician.
In the case of a person who suffers mental illness, for instance, or a mentally unbalanced female charged with murder of her newborn child, this means that the judge may release those persons until such time as a verdict or sentence is passed, without first having them examined by a physician, even if it means doing so later on-although no time is specified for that.

May 16, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment, 1972
It seems to me that too much discretion is left to the courts in such cases. I feel that a medical certificate is extremely important for the protection of the accused.
Let me again take the example of a mentally unbalanced woman who has killed her newborn child, and who is released without previous medical examination and brought before the court again 35 or 45 days later, when her physical condition may have changed. This would mean that the accused would not be able to allege that at the time the crime was committed she was mentally unbalanced or had other extenuating circumstances, with the result that she would suffer prejudice because of the oversight of the legislators who would have left such a big loophole in the legislation.
That is why I did not want to speak any longer. I think the point I am making is clear enough to all the hon. members. And in order to amend this clause of the bill, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (M. Rondeau): That paragraph (a) of subclause (2.1) of clause 44, page 27, be deleted and that paragraph (b) be renumbered accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair would first point out to the hon. member that according to the practice and procedure in this House followed over the years, no amendment can be introduced unless it is in writing. In addition, I would remind hon. members that a motion for the third reading of the bill is now before the House and that according to our practice and procedure a bill cannot be amended unless it is referred to the committee with a request that it be amended as required. Otherwise, the hon. member could postpone third reading of the bill but I doubt that the amendment he now suggests-I cannot say "moves" because the Chair has not yet received a copy of it-would be acceptable in its present form.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have not made myself clear, or you have misunderstood me. You said that I did not send you a detailed explanation of my amendment because I know, as you do, that it is not the right time to move it. I wanted to make a positive contribution to the proceedings of the House and mention the changes which I think should be made. I am doing so by just explaining the amendment. I know that to amend it another amendment must be moved and the bill itself must be referred back to the committee for amendment. However, I should like the government members to be aware of the amendment that I should like to see made to the bill.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: To my mind, this bill is very important-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We agreed to sit beyond ten o'clock to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) complete his speech. I do not think we agreed to sit indefinitely. Perhaps the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) could tell us how long he intends to speak.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to inform the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that when it was asked whether there was unanimous consent, I refused because I had some remarks to make. But I do not know why the Chair disregarded my objection to the unanimous consent and, under my privilege as a member, I think that I could make my remarks this evening, if the House allows me to do so, or later, if it does not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. member having time to make them, but I think tomorrow is a better day on which to make them than going on tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. So far as the Chair is aware, unanimous agreement was given to going beyond ten o'clock, with no restriction. The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) says that he expressed a negative opinion regarding the extension of time, but he did not seek the floor to express that opinion. So as far as the Chair is concerned, unanimous consent has been given to going beyond ten o'clock, with no restriction. I put myself in the hands of the House as to how long this debate is to continue, but so far as the Chair is concerned, in my interpretation of the agreement I do not see how I can restrain the hon. member who is seeking the floor, from speaking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought my understanding was clear, that the debate was to go beyond ten o'clock to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere; but if it is thought to have been something else, I will not stand in the way. However, I hope the hon. member will be brief.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will forgive me for interrupting him, but the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) is rising on a point of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to inquire as to the intention of the House with regard to the adjournment debate, because two members of our party are to take part in it and they are waiting. I do not know what great acceleration is needed for the passage of this bill, but may I inquire what is to happen to the "late show"? I might add that I do not think we should sit beyond 10.30 in any event, at least for the sake of the staff.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. So far as the Chair is concerned, I am available and unless the House wishes to dispense with the "late show," it will go on. So I do not see any problem.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When I asked to be recognized, the only thing I said was, if you

May 16, 1972

remember: "Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is 10 o'clock." Immediately, I was asked by all the parties whether I could not make my remarks immediately to expedite the third reading of Bill C-2. I agreed with pleasure.
I made my remarks as brief as possible as I was anxious to co-operate with my colleagues and in order that the bill could be dealt with tonight. However, the House deprived us of our right to speak to get it over with the bill tonight. It is then on the basis of this same point of order that my colleague for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) would like in his turn, even if he has only brief remarks to make, to have at least the privilege of making them; otherwise this would mean that I have been misled. I said I would be brief-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that, as far as the Chair is concerned, this point of order has already been clarified and I do not see, unless the House decides otherwise, any need to come back on our decision to sit beyond 10 o'clock and how the Chair can prevent the member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) from presenting his point of view.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleagues.
In my opinion, this bill is quite important. I have had no opportunity to make my remarks before today. I have personally received many letters concerning certain paroled people who are well known in my riding. It was my duty to rise at this stage of the debate and contrary to the statements of the parliamentary secretary about this bill, my remarks will dwell mainly on the parole system. The Journal de Montreal of November 21, 1971, on the occasion of a convention of the Quebec Police Association reported that the chiefs of police were "fed up"-this is their own words-with the Parole Board attitude. Me too!!
Yet, when we are blamed for not attending the committee meetings which studied the parole system and ignored the recommendation already made to the government by the Quebec Police Association, it seems to me that we are wasting our time in this committee, for we know very well at the present time that some things are taking bad turns in this field.
I have here a pamphlet published by the Parole Board which states on page 3 or 4-the pages are not numbered-and I quote:
Parole in Canada-
-The inmate should normally complete one third of his sentence before he can obtain parole.
Mr. Speaker, on May 12, I received a letter-I refrain from giving names, but this is a patent case-in which the author told me, and I quote:
We have just learned that-, an inmate at the prison of-, is going to receive permission to go outside to work and will have to come back to the prison only on evenings and weekends.
This case is really shocking. This is something that is taking place in the Eastern Townships.
I keep on quoting:
Presently, he goes out as he pleases, accompanied by a guard. It is revolting to consider that the taxpayers' money is used to hire a private chauffeur for this prisoner. Why did he not remain in a
Criminal Law Amendment, 1972
prison of- It would be interesting to find out how he could manage to be transferred to-
Why is it that some persons can thus dispose of the life of their spouse, and in spite of an 8 year sentence given in October 1971 by Judge-, he is released six months later, even though a parole investigation has been refused in February 1972? Is this the only punishment inflicted on a man guilty of murdering his wife, a few months in jail with as many furloughs as he wants,-all this with the taxpayers' money? We protest against such a use of revenues-
Mr. Speaker, I could go on ad infinitum, citing similar cases. The parliamentary secretary can well say that his bill will bring improvements, but some public agencies, police forces, public bodies in Canada have known of some premature releases. Even if a prisoner is supposed to serve a third of his sentence, we have evidence showing that prisoners sentenced to 8, 10, 12, 15 years emprison-ment have come out three or four months after their conviction.
Here is an article published in the Journal de Montreal of November 21, 1971, and I quote:
The Quebec Association of Police Chiefs is fed up with the Parole Board. It feels that it is too generous towards repeaters.
Mr. Guy-Paul Simard, vice-president of the Association and chief of police of Trois-Rivieres, told us yesterday following a meeting of the council that a resolution was unanimously passed in order to draft an exhaustive brief on the matter.
We would like the Board to give a little more consideration to criminal records and show a little more rationality in its proceedings, Mr. Simard said. He added, we have been deploring for some time now the death of policemen killed in the performance of their duties because of individuals who had benefited from the leniency of parole.
Director Simard also mentioned that in many cases, especially in armed robberies policemen were shot at by gangsters who, and I repeat, should have been behind bars.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a complete set of documents, correspondence and even editorials from newspapers, from television and radio, which all express opinions against the bill we want to railroad through tonight.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the following amendment:
That Bill C-2 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of reviewing clause 44 and particularly paragraph (a)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour, and the arrangement that did not contemplate a division at this hour of the night, I wonder if hon. members would agree to defer division on this amendment until tomorrow. There seem to be no further speakers. We could deal with this amendment and have third reading immediately when orders of the day are called tomorrow. If that were agreeable it would assist the situation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very practical idea, particularly because of the "late show" and the staff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could I accommodate by moving the adjournment of the debate?

May 16, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that the House will order that we will have no further speeches and the vote on third reading as the first item of business tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: If I may refer to the proposal of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), am I to understand that his proposal, if accepted, would become an order to the effect that this vote would be taken as the first order of business, without any debate?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, because of our willingness to expedite at all times the business of the House, I agree with the proposal put forward by the President of the Privy Council.
[English\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is so ordered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, on May 10, as reported at page 2143 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would join the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in endorsing a consumer boycott of Danish products entering Canada as a means of protesting the Danish position on fishing for salmon on the high seas. The Prime Minister replied that it is not government policy to promote such a boycott.
The story of the government's ban on the commercial salmon fishery and the reasons therefor have been repeated in this House on a number of occasions. The Minister of Fisheries has stated publicly that the action taken by the Canadian government is intended to embarrass the Danes. Mr. Speaker, how nai've can the Minister of Fisheries be? The reaction from Denmark was exactly what any level-headed person would have expected: they told our government and Canadians in no uncertain terms exactly where they could go and what they could do.
In his statement to the House on April 24 the Minister of Fisheries said that last year the catch of Atlantic salmon by Denmark alone was four times that of all our fishermen. I suggest that that is an understatement. According to the minister's own figures, the number of salmon taken by the Danes last year was 15 times the number taken by fishermen in the three New Brunswick rivers in which the ban has been applied. Why is the government penalizing Canadian fishermen and denying them the opportunity to augment their incomes when actually the Danes are the

worst offenders? The Danes are destroying the resource, not Canadian fishermen. It just does not make sense that we should try to ban salmon fishing for our fishermen and then make Canadian salmon available to the fishermen of Denmark.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, is trying to be the nice guy in international politics. But I say it is about time we showed some spunk.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: We should be more concerned about protecting our rights and those of our fishermen that trying to maintain the image of Mr. Clean. I suggest that Canada should stop beating around the bush. Let us hit Denmark where it will hurt, in the $30 million worth of exports that enter this country annually from Denmark. If this government had any guts it would do everything in its power to prevent the sale of any Danish product in this country. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians would be only too willing to join in such an effort; they would respond to that kind of leadership.
Tonight I should like to urge Canadians across this country to take a stand for their Atlantic salmon fishermen and refuse to buy anything that is imported from Denmark. Treat it as a deadly poison: don't buy it, don't eat it and don't have anything to do with it. Let us continue that policy for as long as Denmark thumbs its nose at Canada.
Unless and until our government and our people are prepared to do that, until we are prepared to stand up and let the Danish government and Danish fishing interests know where we stand, I do not think we have any right to ask our fishermen to go along with stupid regulations which are only having the effect of protecting our salmon resource for the Danes.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: What do you know about salmon?


Barnett Jerome Danson: In response to the hon. member, I have had a close association with salmon, in all its forms, all of my life. This is a serious matter which the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) has raised. It is a new venture into international relations which has been raised in the House. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on, I believe, May 3, this is the strongest representation made on commercial grounds that has ever been made, in his memory, in our country's history in relation to any other country. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, boycotts or sanctions in cases such as this are not government policy.
Our position has been made clear to the government of Denmark. It will be discussed at the International Conference for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The hon. member is calling for a step which is not consistent with Canada's stance in the past. The fact that the Danes are not recognizing the Canadian position in this matter is not reason for us to retaliate and make the situation that much worse. I think that Canada's position is a proper one. We do not think the Danish position is proper. I think private-
May 16, 1972

ly that this is a matter of great personal sorrow as our people have always respected Denmark and the Danish people.
In spite of the fact the government's position is not one of imposing a sanction or boycott, there is nothing to prevent the people of Canada doing what they have done in other cases to show their disfavour with other countries or products from other countires, using their own judgment and following their own conscience with regard to purchasing goods from a country whose views they do not uphold or whose posture they do not support on a specific issue such as this.
I can only repeat that the government has made the very strongest representations, perhaps the strongest ever made on a matter of this kind. However, it is not the government's policy to impose sanctions on such an issue. The representations will be pursued and pursued vigorously.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-POSITION OF DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES ON PROGRAMS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, on April 17 I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) the following question:
Can the hon. gentleman tell us what stage discussions have reached with the provinces, particularly concerning the department's programs and designated regions and special areas beyond the 1972 expiry date?
The minister replied:
We are still in consultation and negotiation with the provinces.
I then asked the further question:
Can the minister tell us whether his department has proposed that the present boundaries and scope of the programs remain as they are, or has he proposed some changes to existing programs?
I must have caught the minister at a loss for words. All he could do was reply with a smart answer. He said:
We are in negotiation with the provinces, not with the hon. member.
I was not aware there had been any doubt about with whom negotiations were being carried on. The reason for my question is my concern about the future of some of the regional development projects and programs in light of the experience over the past year and the fact that some of the programs are due for renewal, revision or expiry within the next month and a half. Now is the time to look at these programs, to learn from experience and figure out the best route to follow and the best policy to adopt in the future.
Basically, there are three areas of concern. One is to analyse the effectiveness of programs to date. Second is to consider future emphasis and priority and programs, and third is to consider the regions that benefit from the programs undertaken. First of all, on the effectiveness of the programs I think our concern rests in particular with the operation of the Regional Development Incentives Act. Two hundred and thirty-three million dollars was committed under this program to the end of March, largely to private industry.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I think one of the basic criticisms of this program is that the government simply fills a passive role. In other words, it simply responds to initiatives taken by private enterprise, taken by others, rather than taking initiatives or leadership itself. In effect, there is no real plan in operation in terms of promoting industrial development, in terms of promoting an over-all development plan.
I think the question that must be asked is, in many cases would these plants have been built anyway? Under the program that preceded RDIA I think it was concluded that many of these plants would have been built even without this assistance, and it has been suggested by many reputable authorities, including one person before the standing committee today, that this is certainly a suspicion and a conjecture with respect to the present situation.
I think another question that should be asked is, could these funds be better used for other priorities, for other programs? I think, as well, we must ask ourselves the question, are we in fact building a high-cost structure into our industrial system? I think we must also ask what progress is being made, or has been made in eliminating regional disparity. The current program has been in effect for only three years. We certainly did not expect miracles to be worked during that time and we did not expect regional disparities to be eliminated. But we did expect to see a greater measure of progress than has been evident to the present time.
In considering future emphasis and priority I think we must look at our infrastructure program. We must place more emphasis on infrastructure programs to develop municipal facilities, community facilities, the types of facilities that are needed by all the people in a community and that in fact reduce the cost of producing goods and services and the cost of living for people living in areas which are disadvantaged.
At the present time the department has special regions in 22 communities of the country. I think this program could very well be extended and that more emphasis is needed in this area. I think, as well, we need to make the Canada Development Corporation the major instrument for carrying out development policy in regions. But it needs to be a different kind of Canada Development Corporation. We need a Crown corporation that is free to act in a variety of ways and is established to benefit the working people of Canada, rather than make profits in particular ventures.
We also have to consider the regions which benefit from these programs. This, of course, involves the designated areas which are now being reviewed. At the present time over one half of the country is in designated areas. There are rumours to the effect that the government is simply going to continue the present boundaries. What sort of imagination is this? It demonstrates an attitude of "I'm all right, Jack; everything's okay." Hasn't the department learned anything during the past years? Are they going to retain the present boundaries? What sort of a rationale is there for retaining the present boundaries?
In my own province of Saskatchewan there certainly is no rationale. I can give a good example involving my

May 16, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
home town of Humboldt, where a detour was made around the town so that it could be included in a designated area. It happens to be the home town, as well, of the one cabinet minister from Saskatchewan. I have no objection to the inclusion of my home town as a designated area. But if there is a rationale for including that community in the designated areas, I can name for the parliamentary secretary and the minister many other communities in the province of Saskatchewan and elsewhere where there are equally good or better reasons for including communities in such designation.
In my own province of Saskatchewan I think there are particular problems at the present time which have arisen over the past several years, in large part due to the mismanagement of the Liberal government which was finally kicked out of office last summer. I think there is a strong case for more emphasis on programs in the province of Saskatchewan.
The latest census figures show that the population of Saskatchewan dropped by 29,000 between 1966 and 1971. When the natural increase in population is considered, the net out-migration is even higher. Since June 1, 1971, Statistics Canada estimates indicate that the population fell a further 7,000 by January 1, 1972, to a figure of 919,000. Income levels in Saskatchewan in recent years are one of the causes of out-migration. Our income levels in 1970 ranked seventh in terms of personal income per capita among the Canadian provinces. There was an improvement in 1971 and I am sure there will be some improvement in 1972 as a result of policies by the new government of the province of Saskatchewan.
Unemployment figures in Saskatchewan may be regarded as relatively low, but this is largely because of the out-migration factor, which means that in effect we export our unemployment.


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


Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I followed the remarks of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) with a great deal of interest. He raised a number of very interesting questions in a rather far-ranging speech this evening. He has made a valuable contribution, as he has in the committee where I think he is one of the most serious and concerned members. As he said, the committee has been dealing with exactly some of the questions he has raised in its hearings which have been taking place over the past several weeks. I would be unable, in view of the time allotted to me, to go over all the ground and reply to him point by point, so I urge hon. members who are interested in pursuing these very important questions to read the evidence presented to the committee.
In view of the exhortation of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) that because of the lateness of the hour we try to bring the sitting to a close as quickly as possible, out of consideration for the staff, perhaps I should content myself by saying that in relation to the question the hon. member for Regina East raised on June 17 regarding the stage which discussions had reached

with the provinces in respect of the status of the designated regions and special areas, as the minister has indicated on a number of occasions, most recently in the House and before the standing committee, the department is consulting the provinces about the review of designated regions and special areas. As soon as the process of consultation is completed and the government has come to a decision, this House will be informed of the outcome. I am afraid that at the present time there is nothing else on the subject that can be said.



INDUSTRY-VERSATILE MANUFACTURING LIMITED-   PROPOSED EXPANSION IN UNITED STATES RATHER THAN CANADA-DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPANY OFFICIALS

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker,
tonight I wish to address to the parliamentary secretary a question which arises from questions that I have been directing to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) regarding Versatile Manufacturing Company, which is based in Winnipeg and has announced its intention to expand its operations into the United States. As most hon. members know, Versatile is a manufacturer of farm machinery and has, in my opinion, contributed more to reducing the price of farm machinery in western Canada than any measure introduced by the industry collectively, and certainly by the government, including its ill-fated Barber report which was stalemated before it was completed and is now doing nothing more than collecting dust.
Versatile is a Canadian company founded by two very industrious and innovative western Canadians on the assumption that farm machinery can be manufactured in western Canada which would not only be very satisfactory in suiting the needs of the agricultural industry but would also be sold at a reasonable price. Western Canadians, farmers and the public in general have watched the operation grow and, I might add, without the aid of government grants and concessions. This corporation has grown over the years to the point where it is now doing in excess of $25 million worth of business, employing some 800 people directly, plus the fact it has some 700 dealers distributed throughout the United States and Canada.
It has exported more than 60 per cent of its total production. I might say it has introduced many new concepts of design which have been followed by many other international manufacturers. It has steadily distinguished itself as a leader in farm machinery manufacturing, but because of the treatment of this company through the tax policies of both the federal government and the Manitoba government to some extent, coupled with the impact of the DISC proposals, the company has now announced plans to develop a subsidiary corporation for the purpose of manufacturing component parts in North Dakota in the United States. It plans to develop a subsidiary which will employ 100 people.
This could very well mean the beginning of the total transfer of this operation to the United States. I have asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether his officials have had discussions and have
May 16, 1972

indeed approached the officers of the corporation with a view to having them review their decision and determine the exact reasons the move is being contemplated. The minister suggested that conversations were held with the officers of the Versatile corporation. However, upon discussing this with the principal officers of the Versatile Manufacturing company I have found this is not the case. As a matter of fact, there had been no consultations prior to my raising the question on May 11 this year.
If, as the minister pointed out, discussions were indeed held, the president and the vice-president know nothing of such discussions. Therefore, I believe in all fairness that if the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is at all concerned about maintaining this important industry in Canada, some meaningful initiative should be taken to meet with the officials of the Versatile corporation in the hope of having this expansion take place within Canada. The president of Versatile corporation pointed out to me that they are not asking for any concessions; they are simply interested in equal and fair tax treatment. For example, Versatile operating in the province of Manitoba pays in the order of 54 per cent corporate tax. It is being asked to compete against major international machinery firms, including such mainline companies as Massey-Fer-guson which I am told has been paying 31.6 per cent in corporate tax over the past three years, based on its international operations, and compared with John Deere which is paying in the order of 10 per cent based on its international operations. Add to this the impact of the DISC proposals and you have a situation which is literally driving this corporation out of the country.
In all sincerity I believe the minister and his officials should immediately take action to set up the necessary machinery and initiatives to hold meaningful consultations and discussions with the senior officials of the corporation with a view to having the operation established in Canada. There is a debate going on today about the branch plant economy which is prevalent in this country. It seems to me that if we do not do anything to bolster the Canadian corporations which are operating within the country, we will have nothing more to look forward to than a continuation of this so-called branch plant economy. I urge the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, to take immediate action to have this expansion by the Versatile corporation come about somewhere in Canada.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to clear up a number of points with regard to the Versatile Manufacturing Company. First of all I want to say quite clearly that officials of our department have been in close contact with a number of officials of the Versatile Manufacturing company, including Mr. Robinson, the president, with
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
whom officials of the department have met and to whom they talked in the last couple of weeks. Over a period of time other officials have been contacted in the department in connection with programs to assist them and advise with regard to marketing and production programs. Officials of Versatile have participated in scientific exchange missions to Germany and Russia and in trade fairs overseas and in the United States. So, as the hon. member can see, our department has had close contact with this company over a long period of time.
I want to say also that insofar as the DISC legislation is concerned, officials of this company have informed us that this legislation has not had a part in their decision to embark upon a manufacturing program in the United States. Also, the plant operation in Canada, which is now operating at a high employment level, will continue to operate in Canada. It is anticipated that this employment level will continue.
I would remind the hon. member of the recent tax changes which were brought in in the budget a week ago, which will reduce corporate tax a great deal and make it possible for companies such as this to compete more favourably with foreign operations abroad. I also want to remind the hon. member that Canadian manufacturers of agricultural machinery do not obtain any assistance from tariffs because of changes that were made a number of years ago which have brought the manufacturing and production of farm machinery in Canada down to the lowest possible level.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Answer the question: Are you going to have discussions with Versatile?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I have answered the question. I said officials have dealt very closely with officials of Versatile for a considerable period of time. I have dealt with all of the points that have been raised in the hon. member's question. I have also said that the company will continue to manufacture in Canada at a very high level, and that the DISC program is not a factor in the decision of the company to establish a plant at Fargo, North Dakota.
All these points refute the points raised by the hon. member earlier. I think they indicate clearly that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been assisting this company in a great many ways to make them into a profitable and prosperous company in Canada and to make sure that they continue to serve the Canadian farming industry with products which are so famous and which have earned such an esteemed place in the Canadian economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Wednesday, May 17, 1972