1973-03-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the accumulation of silt at the mouth of Ladner Harbour, making it virtually impossible for fishing boats to enter or leave at low tide, I ask leave of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House instruct the Minister of Public Works to immediately instruct his department to begin dredging the Ladner Harbour so the fishermen's livelihood can not be adversely affected by the poor condition of the harbour.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter or urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the confusion which exists in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act as well as in social welfare, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That a special committee of the House be instructed to consider the possibility of progressively replacing the existing social measures with a guaranteed minimum annual income scheme which would incite people to look for work.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, and the motion cannot therefore be put.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 and arising out of a question asked several times last night by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a Liberal Party dinner in the city of Toronto, the question being: "Do you know the Conservative Party policy?" I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick):
That this House requests the Leader of the Opposition to furnish as soon as possible to the Prime Minister a complete copy of the Conservative Party platform-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Do not laugh. Some hon. members will not like what is coming:
-and that this House instructs the government to steal therefrom policies beneficial to the Canadian people in addition to those policies already stolen since October 30, 1972.


Mr. Speaker:: I suspect that the motion is being proposed by the hon. member in jest. I would not think the motion is of the type which the House would want the Chair to put. I would hope the hon. member would allow the Chair not to put the motion, at least at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to propose a very important motion.
2016

March 8, 1973
Motions
Mr. Speaker, this is in connection with grants by the Department of External Affairs for Canadian book presentations to American high schools.
Therefore, I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House refuse the application of a book presentation program to American high schools by the Department of External Affairs and that steps be taken to have funds granted by the Department of External Affairs transferred to the Secretary of State who shall be ordered by this House to apply a similar program for Canadian high schools which are often short of material.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The wish of the House is not clear. Is it the wish of the House that I put the hon. member's motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If some hon. members are opposed to a motion and do not want to give unanimous consent, they should indicate so clearly, so that the Chair will be able to announce the result of the poll. In this case there is not unanimous consent.

There being no unanimous consent, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I solicit the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a case of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of ambiguities in the implementation of the government's bilingualism policy, of the substance of the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and of the views expressed publicly by him, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault):
That a special House committee be set up to study ways and means of implementing the recommendations of Mr. Keith Spicer.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, it requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity; the motion therefore cannot be put before the House.


INFORMATION
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discussion of a serious matter.
Since the Department of National Health and Welfare has decided to enclose messages of public interest with family allowance and old age pension cheques, and since it is likely that other departments will want to use the same tactic, we have a right to question the trend of these messages.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin):
That this House require all so-called messages of public interest to be sent out to Canadians by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the same cover as family allowance and old age pension cheques, or by any other federal department to accompany routine correspondence, to be first examined by the appropriate standing committee for approval, amendment or rejection, in order that the messages may in no instance be employed to any end other than the objective information of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, and so the motion may not be put to the House.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-157, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (coasting trade).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Shipping Act to ensure that all movement of goods and people from one Canadian port to another Canadian port be carried out in Canadian ships. The members of the New Democratic Party feel that Canadian bottoms are preferable to foreign bottoms.
March 8, 1973

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

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

Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-158, respecting national hire the handicapped week.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to set aside the first week in May as national hire the handicapped week. The intention of the bill is to give recognition to the advantages of hiring handicapped persons, to encourage employers to hire handicapped persons, and to encourage the news media to recognize the accomplishments and merits of handicapped persons. This would be done through an extensive advertising campaign and through the design and issuance of a special stamp to publicize the important role of the handicapped in the working force in Canada.


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

Ronald George Atkey: for leave to introduce Bill C-159, to amend the Department of Manpower and Immigration Act (handicapped persons).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill to amend the Department of Manpower and Immigration Act by providing that the minister's duties relating to the development and utilization of manpower resources in Canada would include a specialized placement service for handicapped persons. In this way, it is hoped that the minister would establish a separate handicapped placement and research branch to work with employers to identify, develop, list and advertise meaningful and productive jobs which can be performed by handicapped people, to explore ways of educating employers as to the possibilities and benefits of hiring handicapped persons, and to explore the job capabilities and occupational opportunities of handicapped persons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
25789-55)

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the minister's statement to James MacKenzie of the Globe and Mail on Friday last that Canada and the United States have agreed to set up a joint working committee for both east and west coasts to discuss aids to shipping and environmental protection, can he tell the House whether in fact a joint committee has been established, whether that committee has in fact ever met and, if so, has it submitted any report to the respective governments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply, but perhaps I should indicate to the hon. member that it is not regular or in order to ask a question based on a statement made by a minister outside the House. The rule is clear that such statements made outside the House can be brought into the discussion only to the extent that a member may want to ask the Prime Minister whether such a statement represents government policy. We might assume that the question has been asked without reference to the statement made outside the House and the minister can reply on that basis.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The word "committee" is inappropriate. However, there have been meetings and there will continue to be meetings between myself and Mr. Russell Train, who is the presidential adviser in Washington on environmental matters. We did meet last April, we met again in July and we are scheduled to meet again early next month on matters of the nature of pollution on both our coasts. I might add that officials from Canada and the U.S. are meeting and studying problems on both coasts, but there is no ministerial committee.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for clarifying the situation. Can he tell the House whether the government of Canada has obtained from the United States agreement that Canada has a direct and legitimate interest in decision-making related to the environmental dangers associated with the TAPS tanker route?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. The best we have been able to do is to get the United States to vote for a Canadian resolution at Stockholm which admitted that they were responsible for effects outside their country of the nature of pollution.


John Allen Fraser: In reference to the minister's answer with regard to the discussion he is having on behalf of the government of Canada with the government of the United States, can he tell the House whether he on behalf of the government of Canada has put any specific proposals before his counterpart in the United States and, if so, what they are and whether they have been accepted by the United States?

March 8, 1973
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Davis: We have made proposals to the United States, relating to the west coast. The United States has replied that it would like to discuss east coast matters as well and we agreed with that. We have had a number of meetings at the official level, as I mentioned earlier. I could report in detail at some other time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. It arises out of the answers the Prime Minister gave me on Monday last, March 5, as recorded at page 1885 of Hansard, in which he said, speaking of the committee we have been discussing:
It was a committee which had been suggested by President Nixon as a counter-proposal to our request that this matter be sent to the IJC.
I want to ask the Minister of the Environment whether or not the committee which was suggested by President Nixon is to be set up or whether in fact there is to be no committee and the government has no intention of pressing to have a committee set up to deal with the very serious problem of tankers coming down the British Columbia coast from Valdez to Cherry Point?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the sequence as I recall it is this: About a year ago Canada was pressing for a Canada-U.S. reference to the International Joint Commission concerning the matter of tankers on the west coast and the possibility of oil pollution in Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia area. The response of the United States was negative. President Nixon, as I recall it, however, suggested as an alternative that a committee be established at the ministerial level. Our response was that we might better proceed in the manner I have reported, namely, the Minister of the Environment for Canada working with Mr. Train of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the House is correct in assuming that while the President of the United States suggested the setting up of a committee it was the Canadian government that refused to proceed with that proposal and that no such committee will be set up? Would the minister be prepared to tell the House why the government did not accede to the suggestion that there be a joint committee to look into this problem?


John (Jack) Davis: The suggestion of the President was really limited to Mr. Train and Mr. Ruckelshaus who administers the environmental protection act in the United States. It was not a number of ministers on both sides that the President had in mind.


POLLUTION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of reports by the Ontario Department of Health that mercury levels found in Indians living

in the Dryden area stand at 20 to 30 times what is considered as the safe level for human beings, can the minister indicate if he is considering establishing deadlines for existing pulp and paper companies by which time they would be required to remove dangerous pollutants such as mercury from their effluents?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, all discharges of mercury of any significance ceased several years ago because of our standards. The continuing problem results from mercury in the sediments downstream from the plant.


David Orlikow: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is his department or his department together with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development discussing with the Ontario government the possibility of supplying alternative sources of food to the Indians in areas such as this so they will not be required to eat as a major staple in their diet fish which are so heavily contaminated?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no representations on this matter from the provincial authorities. My colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, would probably be the person in the best position to answer the hon. member's question.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue concerning honest taxpayers and courageous workers.
Considering the fact that truck drivers who are on the road more than 10 hours per day are eligible to tax deductions for their meal expenses, can the minister say if he has ordered the Quebec regional office to stop all procedures instituted in respect to the files that I submitted to him, until the investigation which he has announced to me in a letter has been completed and a decision reached? If so, can he say why those persons have just received from the Quebec regional office summons ordering them to pay in 10 days?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I got the full weight of the hon. member's question. There have been no special instructions given to the director of taxation at Quebec. There is provision in the Income Tax Act for a particular procedure in such cases, and each case is considered individually on its own strength. However, I do not think there is any special investigation called for.
March 8, 1973


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Due to the fact that the officers of the Quebec local office seem to be working with a document relating to the tax reform applied to the year 1972, and that the cases I have submitted to the minister are related to the years 1970 and 1971, could he say if he intends to put an end to the procedures, and when? Can he assure me that he will personally inform the persons whose cases I have submitted to him not to make any payment as required by the Quebec office until he informs them personally about the decision reached following the investigation?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I have no word that there are any assessments which are not fully founded, but if the hon. member wishes to speak to me personally I will be glad to discuss individual cases and see whether any further consideration can be given to them.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General as the keeper of the Queen's conscience. It has to do with a bill of the British Columbia legislature entitled the Land Commission Act, which may become law tomorrow. I ask the minister whether or not the law officers of his department have examined this bill, and in particular certain provisions, to the end that a determination has been made whether or not these unusual provisions come within the legislative ambit of the legislature of British Columbia under its exclusive authority over property and civil rights?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check to see how far any examination of this question has gone at this stage of the proceedings.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. That is the reason I ask. I ask the minister this question in the absence of the Prime Minister. Having regard to the widespread aroused public opinion concerning the dangerous implications of this incredible legislation, does the government intend to request the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia to reserve Royal Assent so that consideration can be given thereto by the Governor General in council?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious, from the way the question was put, that it is hypothetical in its nature. But I could say to the right hon. gentleman that the ordinary procedure, if there is doubt about the constitutional validity of provincial legislation, is to allow that legislation to be tested in the ordinary way in the courts,
Oral Questions
and if there is doubt about the political nature of such legislation it is tested in the provincial political arena.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question because once the bill is passed and action is taken thereon it will be impossible for the rights of individuals to be protected. It is often said that once eggs are scrambled they cannot be unscrambled, and I wish the minister would look into this, though I realize of course, his total aversity to anything of a political nature.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. If the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia is presumptious enough to make any determination other than the one he is required to make, will he see that he is removed from office?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if in fact the government has started an investigation of Bill 42 introduced in the legislature of British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I really answered that question at the beginning in dealing with the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I did not get that answer. I think the minister said it would be. Has the department started an investigation-just yes or no?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert I will be checking to see the extent to which investigation has gone on. When these matters come to the attention of the department it is unusual to undertake a thorough examination of them at this stage, but I will see how far it has gone.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonlon-Slralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the deteriorating train service in western Canada, as evidenced by the fact that recently some 30 passengers from Edmonton to Red Deer were obliged to stand in the baggage compartment, and on a recent Sunday night a passenger was unable to board the daylin-er at Innisfail because of lack of seating accommodation, will the minister investigate the current situation and specifically try to find ways to improve rail service between Edmonton and Calgary?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall investigate it, and I would like to have the names of those people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Douglas Roche: Would the minister make a statement on motions about the government's plans to save railways as a vital means of passenger transportation in an age dominated by jets and big airports?



HOUSING


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that certain owners of limited dividend projects are taking advantage of proposed increases in the old age pension and raising the rents of tenants who are pensioners, and are citing CMHC authorization for the raising of such rents while a lease is in effect, will the minister take this matter up with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and instruct that body not to authorize any increases in rents covered by leases that have been in effect since January 1, 1973?


Hon. Ron Basiord (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to explain to the House the other day, both the owners of the limited dividend projects and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are bound by the terms of the agreement, copies of which I will be happy to give to the hon. member. That agreement provides that actual increases in costs of operation are passed on through rent increases. I have asked the corporation to watch any such applications for rent increases and to treat them very rigorously. In a number of these buildings we have had a number of meetings between tenants and owners, organized by CMHC, and in each case CMHC has tried to reduce the increases to the maximum amount permitted under the agreement. If the hon. member has specific tenants and specific buildings in mind, I wish he would bring them to my attention, particularly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his offer to send me certain documents. Would he like me to send him certain documents showing that landlords are citing CMHC authorization for the increases'they are making?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to receive such documents-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Calgary North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here are two of
them.



REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON RENT INCREASES AFFECTING OLD AGE PENSIONERS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the rents have been increased by 20 per cent in many cases as a result of the agreements the minister has mentioned, will he undertake not only to ask for strictness in this regard but to veto and put a moratorium on all increases so that the old age pensioners can enjoy their pensions without having them taken away from them by landlords and CMHC?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I made clear the other day, where CMHC owns the buildings we have already implemented a freeze for 1973 on all rent increases as they apply to senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: However, where we are just the mortgage holder or are bound by the terms of a limited dividend agreement, we have got to observe that agreement and, as a lawyer, the hon. member knows that that is the case.



AVAILABILITY OF QUAD PROGRAM DATA TO BULK PURCHASERS, PHYSICIANS AND OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the minister in an open letter to the editor on March 1, 1973, in the Ottawa Citizen, indicated that data generated by the QUAD program would be provided to bulk purchasers of drugs, physicians and other health professionals, and in view of the fact there appears to be disagreement between the minister and top officials in the department concerning the therapeutic equivalence of drugs, could the minister indicate if this data is now available, and has it been provided to the above groups on their request so that a meaningful assessment of the QUAD program can be determined by those responsible for prescribing drugs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have had the opportunity of outlining to the House the attitude of my department: it does not differ from mine on this subject.
In addition, with regard to the availability of information, I can say that it is available upon request to any province or bulk purchaser.
Finally, with regard to the general question of the QUAD program, I shall be in a position to make another statement on the matter tomorrow.


John Robert Holmes: In light of correspondence I received from the executive assistant to the minister on March 6 indicating that my correspondence dated March 2 requesting the
March 8, 1973

above data is presently under study and that a definitive reply would be going forward shortly, could the minister indicate at this time what that reply will be and, if it is in the affirmative, when can I expect to obtain that data?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the question of the hon. member. Does he want this information for himself or does he want it transmitted to the provincial governments?


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I think my question was quite straightforward. I indicated that I had written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare requesting that information, and that I received a letter from his executive assistant indicating that further action would be taken at a later date. I would simply ask the minister to indicate at this time whether an affirmative response will be given to my personal request for such information and, if so, when will I obtain that data?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member feels that he belongs to the group of provincial governments of that of bulk purchasers. I do not see why such information should not be passed on to him. As to convey the information to the people on an individual basis, I am now considering the matter. As a rule, I would authorize such a procedure. However, there are some difficulties, I am told, from a legal point of view, and this is why the hon. member has been kept waiting for an answer.



INVESTIGATION OF USE OF FISH PASTE FROM KRILL FOR TREATMENT OF ULCERS AND ARTERIOSCLEROSIS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the outstanding results announced in the use of fish paste from Krill in the medical treatment of ulcers and arteriosclerosis. I should like to ask the minister if this has been investigated by the Food and Drug Directorate?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my department for information in this regard and I shall be pleased to pass it on to the hon. member as soon as I have it.
Oral Questions
[Trans lation]



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he advise the House whether he has seen the memorandum from the Local populaire of Montreal and supported by many Montreal organizations objecting to Bill C-125 and suggesting instead the establishment of a minimum guaranteed income plan? If so, what answer is the minister planning to give to that memorandum?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have had representations from the Greater Montreal Anti-Poverty Committee and they have been supported by other organizations made known to me. I met with the leaders of the delegation from that group some three or four weeks ago and arranged for a subsequent meeting with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which has since taken place. They are constructive meetings and the recommendations are being seriously considered. We will make known our decision in due course.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising from the decision of Air Canada to discontinue the practice of customs pre-clearance for Canadian businessmen bound for the United States, utilizing the facilities of Toronto International Airport. In view of the hardships that this decision imposes upon businessmen travelling to the United States, can the minister indicate to the House whether he has had any discussions with Air Canada with a view to reinstating the policy of customs pre-clearance and, if not, is it his intention to do so and will he make a statement to the House to that effect?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is undoubtedly better informed than I am. I do not think that the decision has been taken yet. So, if I am right, he is the one who is misinformed. The matter is still under study.
The matter of pre-clearance is an extremely complex one which could facilitate travelling for Canadians in certain cases but which could also be the cause of severe prejudice for Canadian companies.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot give a complete answer within a few minutes. No decision has been arrived at and I think it is still under discussion with the Department of External Affairs and air carriers.

March 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would the minister undertake to inform the House whether it is his intention to pursue the matter of the provision of customs pre-clearance facilities at the second international terminal at which I understand facilities have not been made available for pre-customs clearance?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as there has been a decision, I shall so inform the hon. member. As a matter of fact, a delegation from the United States Congress was here a few weeks ago to make an inquiry into the matter of customs pre-clearance. The U.S. government itself is not sure whether the policy is to be continued.
At any rate, as soon as we shall have a somewhat more specific reply, I shall be pleased to discuss it, but I feel the hon. member should not announce decisions which have not yet been made.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Transport.
In order to facilitate the employees' work in international airports, does the minister intend to install centres in cities where passengers could purchase their tickets and have their luggage checked by customs? Passengers could then board aircraft directly thus reducing the existing confusion in international airports?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Transport):: I am willing to consider this suggestion which seems most interesting, Mr. Speaker.



AIR CANADA


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the minister indicated in the House on Monday that he would inquire into the matter of the Telepac system in Montreal which forces Ottawa residents to contact Montreal for Air Canada reservations, can he now indicate whether he has made that inquiry and whether Air Canada is willing to revert to the 1972 system or to the 1970 system whereby it had a sophisticated set-up here that was still running and that Air Canada is still paying for but not using?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret but the information I have now from Air Canada-I intend to go on discussing it with the responsible authorities-does not at all confirm the complaints made by the hon. member. Should I have the opportunity to meet him. I would like him to clarify some of the claims regarding the reservation system.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will give the minister the information I have and I think he will want to see a few heads roll. Has he had an opportunity to receive a report from Air Canada on the insurance settlements regarding those people who have been waiting since the unfortunate crash in 1971?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that is a supplementary but the minister might reply and the Chair will then recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received the report; some claims have been settled and others have not.



LEASE OF LOCKHEED 1011 AIRCRAFT-REASON FOR BORROWING FUNDS IN NEW YORK

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further supplementary to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact Air Canada is borrowing some $26,600,000 to lease Lockheed 1011 aircraft, would the minister advise why it was necessary for the funds to be borrowed in New York and why the sale of these certificates is not being made available to the public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be put to the Minister of Finance or the President of the Treasury Board. I am not a specialist in these matters.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the request of the Minister of Finance in his budget that the provinces do most, if not all, of their borrowing within Canada, would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why Air Canada is being allowed to borrow $26,633,000 on the bond market in the United States and why the issue is being limited to institutional investors and four American insurance companies which have taken up almost half of this loan at the present time?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the circumstances but I will take the question as notice.
March 8, 1973

Oral Questions



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that both the budget and throne speech debates are now over and we should be moving into a legislative program, is the minister going to reintroduce the same legislation as last session on off-track betting or will there be new legislation more in line with the requests of those provinces that have studied the matter?


An hon. Member:: Have you got a piece of the action?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if we tried to please all of the provinces that have studied the matter we would not be able to do anything because there are fundamental differences of view. We are looking, with the provinces, at possible changes, particularly the strengthening of provisions against the existing messenger service type operations. I would hope to be able to introduce the bill in a somewhat modified form at some stage during this session, but the exact timing depends upon further discussion with the House leader and other members.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Will the minister indicate whether he is aware of the very real concern of most of the law enforcement agencies, in the central part of the country in any event, that the present bookie system and the whole set-up in respect of racing is still feeding international syndicated crime in this country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the concern involved. As a result of that concern, when we introduced a bill in the last session there was some hope that hon. members might have passed it quickly in order to put an end to present types of messenger service until the hon. member shot from the hip from Queen's Park.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister advise the House whether he has received a report from the committee of officials of his department and of the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland on the storm damage last November? What position is his department going to take in regard to compensation for the fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our people have worked with the province of Newfoundland in order to assess the damage and see what compensation is warranted. We insure fishing vessels. The province will have to look after the gear.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MARKET PROSPECTS FOR HIGH ERUCIC ACID RAPESEED

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Will the minister make a statement on the probable market possibilities for high erucic acid rapeseed this coming fall? I ask this question because of the very poor performance of the low erucic varieties this past year and the consequent reluctance of producers to seed. Many producers are asking for such a statement.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider whether anything further can be said. I will let the hon. member have a copy of the newsletter that has gone to all producers with the so-called March 1 planting information and which has some reference to the high erucic, low erucic situation.



POSSIBILITY OF PLEBISCITE ON BRINGING RYE, FLAX AND RAPESEED UNDER CONTROL OF WHEAT BOARD

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the government at the present time contemplating introducing a producer plebiscite on whether rye, flax and rapeseed should be brought under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board? If so, is it going to be done before the end of this crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I believe the time has come when a plebiscite or some other form of formal consultation should now take place. In other words, the period of attempting to put the appropriate amount of information in the hands of producers has pretty well come to an end and not much further progress will be made unless an actual plebiscite or consultation period is set. Therefore, I contemplate doing that as soon as the final form of consultation is decided upon. However, I would not envisage any effect on the marketing system for the crop year beginning August 1, 1973. Under ordinary good business practice, I think far longer notice than that is required before any change is implemented.



AIR TRANSPORT


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I presume my question should be directed to either the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the appropriate minister advise the House with regard to a possible commercial airline service between Canada and Cuba and, specifically, what negotiations have gone on, are going on or may be contemplated in connection with a commercial airline service between our two countries?
2024

March 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there are no negotiations going on at the present time for the establishment of regular service between Canada and Cuba.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there is a delegation from his department in Cuba today and, if so, what is the purpose of it being there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has caught me unawares. We have had some discussions going on about programs of technical assistance and there may happen to be a group there. However, I will make inquiries.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the general public's rising concern about the cost of government and in view of the fact that the mini-bus shuttle service that transports members from the Confederation Building to the House of Commons is costing the Canadian taxpayers $7,000 a month, can the minister assure the House that in the long run this system of renting buses is cheaper than purchasing them outright or cheaper than building a tunnel?


An hon. Member:: Let them walk.



NARCOTICS


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since his department recognized that it was necessary to provide funds to nonprofit organizations for rehabilitating people who make a non-medical use of drugs, can the hon. minister tell us if it will be the case this year, that is to say if he will continue giving grants to these nonprofit organizations so that they continue their rehabilitation work for patients who used such drugs?


Marc Lalonde: My answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, and the estimates tabled in the House include amounts which will be earmarked for that purpose.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's recent visit to Washington, can he now inform the House as to the decisions regarding the use of DES implants as they relate to the existing imbalance in the regulations between Canada and the United States?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss this matter when I was in Washington. I have been told that the studies will be finalized some time this month. We will be told what the United States government intends to do at that time.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Is the minister giving some consideration to a Canadian embargo on United States fat cattle and dressed beef in view of the DES regulations in our two countries?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the action the government will take will depend upon the finalization of the study in the United States. We are prepared to take whatever action is necessary in order that our beef producers will not be put at a disadvantage.



CHURCHILL RIVER DIVERSION-REQUEST FOR STOPPAGE OF WORK UNTIL LICENCE ISSUED UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT AND INVESTIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Manitoba Hydro has awarded contracts for work on the Churchill River diversion at South Indian Lake in Manitoba, and in view of the fact that no licence has been obtained under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, would the minister advise the House whether he has taken any action to stop the work until a licence is obtained and, if not, why not?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into the case and make a report.


Charles Keith Taylor: Would the minister assure the House that a complete investigation into the effects of the diversion upon the environment and the livelihood of the residents of the areas will be made and that public hearings will be held in the area before making a final decision on the application for a licence?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall establish which elements of the question are under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and which ones

March 8, 1973

come under my department and we will be happy to inform the hon. member of our conclusions.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. Arising from the decision of the province of Manitoba to allow Manitoba Hydro to proceed with the diversion of the Churchill River and in view of the provisions of the Canada-Manitoba study agreement relating to environmental studies, would the minister advise the House whether representations have been made to the government of Manitoba with a view to discontinuing work until the studies are completed?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Manitoba agreement relates to environmental effects of works which are being studied. One of the clauses in the agreement requires that these effects be taken into consideration when designing the particular work. There are a number of them in respect of this particular development for water power purposes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the Minister of the Environment inform the House whether he has received the interim reports provided for by the agreement? If not, when does he expect to receive such reports and, if he receives them, will he act upon them?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I expect to receive the first interim report within the next few weeks. There will be a series of reports over the next three years.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On April 20, 1973, the town of Ocean Falls will cease to exist. Can the minister inform the House whether he or any other minister has been approached by the provincial government of British Columbia as to some possible development in the area?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my memory is that no such submission has been made, but it could be that it has been received at the official level. I will be glad to make inquiries and inform the hon. member.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister inform the House if his department has experienced any problems in the relocation of the people living there?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of the question.
Oral Questions



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. I should like to know if the minister has received a reply from the Minister of Communications of Quebec in regard to the letter that the federal Minister of Communications tabled in the House on February 23. Regardless of the reply when he answers the first part of the question, can he tell the House if there has been any change at all in the position of the Quebec government, and of other provinces but particularly of the Quebec government, and that of the federal government since February, 1972?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The answer to the first part of the question is affirmative, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the letter of my colleague the Quebec Minister of Communications was tabled in the Quebec Assembly and published in the papers.
As to the second part of the question, I find it rather difficult to answer since it is so broad. The hon. member is asking if there has been any change during the past year in the attitude of the Quebec government or any other province. I must answer yes since we are in constant discussion with at least five of the ten Canadian provinces and, of course, in each case minor changes come up in the discussion but I have to say that we have not reached any final settlement of the questions which will be raised in the green book. If it were the opposite it would be useless to publish that book.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for part of his answer. Since the Quebec minister has had the courtesy to table in Quebec his letters to the Minister of Communications in this House, would the minister table his letters to the minister in Quebec so that we may know the full story through the exchange of letters regarding this entire problem of communications and cablevision and the fact that for over three years there has been an absolute vacuum in policy and an absence of leadership? Would the minister table these letters and consider doing so post-haste?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member will forgive me for not applauding his speech.
As to his question, the answer is yes, and with pleasure. [English]


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did have some extensive remarks to amplify my question, in an attempt to fill in the Minister of Communications who needs filling in quite a bit, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this question of communications.


Some hon. Members:: Order!
2026

March 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question because we are running short of time. The hon. member has been recognized for a supplementary and he should ask it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, hon. members across the way who called me to order should have directed their call to the Minister of Communications to bring some order to this whole question of communications, because in one of the letters tabled in the National Assembly in Quebec the Minister of Communications of Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then I will rise on a point of order and not 'on a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My point of order is that this is a complete farce and travesty. We are trying to breathe some life and sense into a policy on communications, because we have a minister who is the most uncommunicative minister this House has ever seen. My point of order is that as a member of this House I feel, even though I have some bilingual capacity, that it is just a little too much to expect members of this House to go to the National Assembly in Quebec and get letters that have been tabled there showing one side of the conversation carried on with the Minister of Communications here. I suggest that the whole matter ought to be expedited so that when the green paper finally comes forward from the federal minister we will have available the correspondence that he sent to that minister in Quebec.


Mr. Nystrom:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-ton-Melville rises on a question of privilege.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This, clearly, is debate. The hon. member is abusing the question period-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -something that no member should do. We are all affected, no matter to which party we belong, when an hon. member abuses the rules of the House, as the hon. member is doing now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, 1 do not hesitate to stand in my place and say there has been a perversion of the rules and an abuse of the rules by the members to my left in carrying on a completely incestuous coalition with the members of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If you want to talk about abusing the rules, we could go back a few days when other hon. members abused the rules. I did not pay any attention to that abuse and I will not pay any more attention today to the hon. member because, quite frankly, I do not think we should waste the time of the House any more in listening to what the hon. member has to say. My supplementary question

to the Minister of Communications is, will he table his correspondence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked as a supplementary whether the minister will table some correspondence. I thought the minister had answered affirmatively. That is my understanding. Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Joliette.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-INDEMNIFYING OF NATIVE PEOPLE

['Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), who was speaking when debate ended last night, is not present today. If he is present tomorrow we will consider working out some arrangement to deal with the motion that is so important. As to the budget bills, I am not in a position to indicate on what particular day they may be brought forward.']
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the James Bay project is still very important for the future of the province of Quebec, is the minister in a position to say if this government will limit itself to meeting the demands of Indians or is it prepared to co-operate in carrying out this project within the limits of its jurisdiction while at the same time encouraging the payment of adequate compensation to residents?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was right about being concerned about the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will transmit the question of the hon. member to the minister who will surely give him an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader about the business of the House for the rest of this week and next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with debate on the old age security bill, followed by the bill on war veterans allowances. Then, we will take the Export Development Act and the National Housing Act amendments. Monday and Tuesday of next week will be opposition days, and we will continue with this legislative program following Tuesday of next week.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the discussion which took place yesterday about the motion to refer certain matters to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, is the minister considering the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), namely, that the time between two o'clock and four o'clock tomorrow might be dedicated to that proposition? When the minister
March 8, 1973

is answering, can he tell the House at this time when the budget bills will be introduced? I am sure that will be of interest to many members.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), who was speaking when debate ended last night, is not present today. If he is present tomorrow we will consider working out some arrangement to deal with the motion that is so important. As to the budget bills, I am not in a position to indicate on what particular day they may be brought forward.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-147, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to conclude my remarks on the government's proposal to increase old age assistance. On Friday last I said the sum was grossly inadequate. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) rose to correct a passage in Hansard, in which he was reported as saying that the government had effectively banished poverty for the aged in this country. He said he did not say that, and I believe him when he says he did not say that. Yet, obviously, somebody in the government thought it, Mr. Speaker, because that text did not appear in Hansard by accident. Obviously, somebody deep in the mushroom cellars under the headquarters of the Department of National Health and Welfare wrote those words. There is a cabal that believes that this government has effectively banished poverty for people over the age of 65. They committed those thoughts to paper, but fortunately the minister was embarrassed enough by their ever-eagerness to do us the honour of correcting his remarks, substituting a somewhat less offensive piece of governmental braggadocio. Nevertheless, he doubtless believes that the government has done a good job for our old people.
So, obviously, do my hon. friends to the south of us in this chamber. I should like to dwell for a few moments on some of the remarks that the members of that party have made. Their leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), said during the debate on the budget that he thought that my leader had "lost his marbles"; I think that was the phrase he used. I want to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, something that the leader of the New Democratic Party-or should I say the not so new and not so democratic party-said. I hear hon. members to my far
Old Age Security Act
left crying "Oh!". The leader of the New Democratic Party said during the budget debate that he suspected my party were so hungry for power that they would vote for the communist manifesto. I suggest to them that if they had to, in order to keep this government in power, they would almost vote for the Regina manifesto. They have turfed out of their party everyone who laid claim to believing in the philosophy of socialism which they are supposed to espouse. Anybody who is young and a socialist has no place in the councils of the NDP; that is a matter of record so we do not have to debate it here.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the statement that the hon. member for York South made during the election campaign, just one week before election day last October. He was in Victoria at the time and was talking about pensions. He said that his party, if it were elected, would immediately institute a pension plan raising the basic pension to $150 a month. He then said this: "You send a large number of NDP members to parliament and we'll make life hell for the Trudeau government". During my education I studied under Jesuits, among others, and sometimes they were at pains to describe to us the tortures of hell. They frightened me, since I was a young boy at the time; in fact, they scared the hell out of me. But I can say that I have not seen any members of this woefully inadequate government across the way suffering torment of any kind at the hands of the New Democratic Party, least of all the torment of hell.
The fact is that the leader of the New Democratic Party, who accused my leader of losing his marbles, may be in need of a little geriatric assistance. I am not going to accuse him of having lost his marbles or of having his mental faculties in any way diminished by his great age, but I would suggest to him that sometimes one's sight begins to play tricks with one when one reaches a certain age, and that the Trudeau government is over on that side, not on this side where most of his invective has been directed.
If he and his party really want to see a pension that is better than the one now being put up by the Liberal government, I suggest that they defeat the government and let another election take place. We do not want the help of that rag, tag and bobtail minority down there. We do not want to form a government that depends daily for its existence on a little blowhard minority with no mandate. What we want is an end to a situation in which this parliament can be frustrated in its attempt to get on with things because of the fact that this little group of 31 members, fully one-third of whom are here by virtue of victories consisting of less than 2,000 votes plurality, has the misplaced and I submit misused power to impose its will on the crippled giant across the way.
These members tell us that daily they are shoring up the government because they want to see programs passed that are good for the people. I am not at all surprised to hear them say this, but I did go back over my files today and I found that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has long held the view that co-operation with the Liberals is a defensible philosophy for a New Democratic Party politician to profess. In fact, back in 1965 there was a scandal within the NDP caucus in this House of the most serious proportions. It seems that the

March 8, 1973
Old Age Security Act
caucus at that time became very cross with the hon. member and wanted to remove him as House leader. There was a special caucus meeting held to discuss this proposition, and the reason they gave for this meeting was that the hon. member was too helpful to Liberals.
The hon. member has been quoted on many occasions- the most recent I have been able to find was in January last, but he is on record as long ago as 1965-as saying that he thinks minority government is the best kind of government. He believes that under that system more will be done for the Canadian people than if there is a majority government, though he makes one very important reservation, of course, which is unless a majority government be formed by him and his colleagues. So in that principle as in all others we find there are two sides to the question and that it depends very much upon whose ox has been gored. All of us who are in politics have compromised from time to time. But the amusing and sometimes bemusing thing about the NDP is that while they are in the process of making their tortuous and painful circumlocutions to arrive at B when they left A, they will never admit that they have done so and become very cross indeed when anyone accuses them of that. Thus it was that the leader of that party, having committed his party members to vote for the budget, said he was doing so because the budget contained no concessions to industry. How he arrived at that conclusion, of course, I shall leave the House to decide; I cannot imagine how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.
I am sure hon. members will be pleased to hear that I have just about reached the end of my speech. May I merely conclude by saying that we do not believe that a $100 pension is enough. I hold that view to the extent that I cannot vote for this proposal. It is my intention-and I hope I will be joined by members of the House from all parties-to continue to work as hard as I can, in common with members like the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who has worked all his parliamentary career to this end, to better the lot of the pensioners. Those who snigger at this, Mr. Speaker, merely betray their total ignorance of what has been happening here over the past few years. I intend to join forces with that hon. member and other members who have concern for the old people of this country in order to try to make sure they receive, before too many months go by, an amount of money that will enable them to live in the peace, dignity and harmony that they deserve, having worked hard and carried this country on their backs for all their working lives.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last speaker, I realize how fortunate we are to have a Liberal government in power today compared to a Conservative government. The last speaker is a man of many parties. I think when he was younger he was a member of the Liberal party. When he went into the trade union movement he was a member of the NDP, and now that he has become disenchanted he is a member of the Conservative party. I do not doubt that time will see him go over to the Creditiste party.


Peter Reilly: I would go over there before I came to you, Jack.


John Gilbert: I would remind the hon. member of the statement issued during the election campaign by his party as set out in a Conservative publication entitled "Policies and Commitments" dated September, 1972.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-West (Mr. Reilly) is rising on a question of privilege.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) correctly, he said that at one time I had been a member of his party. I deny that totally. It is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member's performance this afternoon I am rather happy that he has never been a member of this party. I think he had sympathy for our party at one time, but now we have a real, deep sympathy for him of a different nature.
I would remind the hon. member of the Conservative party publication entitled "Policies and Commitments" dated September, 1972, which did not even contain a chapter with regard to pensions. At page 52 under the heading of "Poverty" there is the statement that the Tories would maintain the present plans and remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the cost of living adjustment. At that time the old age pension was $82.88, and the Conservative party did not even know that the Liberal government had taken off the 2 per cent ceiling in respect of the cost of living adjustment. This is the program the Conservative party presented to the people during the election. The leader of the party has attempted since to say it could be inferred from his speeches that the old age pension under the Tories would have been between $90 and $95. We then heard the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the main spokesman for that party on pensions, say many things, but not one word regarding that the Conservative party would do concerning pensions. He said not one word as to the amount.


An hon. Member:: You didn't say you were going to support the Liberals either.


John Gilbert: The hon. member said that the 1973 pension should be $107, but there was not one word in respect of what the Conservative party would do concerning the amount of the pension. I think it would be fair to say that
1,800,000	senior citizens are delighted with the changes contained in the legislation, and I want to commend the minister for bringing it forward. I recall that before he was a member or a minister he was the grey eminence behind the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He had a keen, analytical mind and a bureaucratic approach to political problems. After listening to his speech introducing the changes I now realize he is intellectually strong, decidedly competent, deeply sensitive, compassionate and strongly determined to take care of senior citizens.
Much the same can be said about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has been a crusader, a man of convictions, a man of concern and a man of compassion. When he spoke as the spokesman for

March 8, 1973

our party he set forth the historical and philosophical development of pensions. Many of us, after hearing his speech, felt that he was a man Canadians have grown to respect and admire for his fine contributions to social legislation for pensioners. I just noticed one of the members leave. I imagine he is most embarrassed at the position and policy of his party concerning pensions.
This legislation indicates that the Prime Minister and his party got the message of October 30, 1972. I feel that the people of Canada are the main beneficiaries of minority governments, and that it is fair to say many Canadians applaud the decision of the New Democratic Party, announced shortly after the election, that we would support the government in power, be it Liberal or Tory, provided progressive legislation was brought forth to the benefit of all people in Canada.
On January 4 the Liberals did bring forth a Speech from the Throne which contained many promises concerning pensions, housing and foreign ownership. We in the NDP supported the government on the basis that an opportunity should be given the government to translate its promises into legislation. Then, on February 19, the Liberals brought forth a budget which contained certain goodies relating to tax cuts, an improvement in the pensions of senior citizens and veterans and cuts in respect of sales tax. That is why we in the NDP supported the government on the budget, even though we had certain reservations about expansionary measures in respect of unemployment.
What is the position of the Progressive Conservative party? Had we voted with them against the budget we would have deprived the people of Canada of all those benefits derived from it. I said in my opening remarks that the Conservatives never stated that they would give an increase. In fact, not one word has been forthcoming from any of their speakers in respect of the amount of the increase to pensioners.


Mr. Yewchuk:: How much would you give, John?


John Gilbert: I will get to that in one moment, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Yewchuk: Tell us now.


John Gilbert: It is shocking to realize they did not even know that the 2 per cent ceiling in respect of the cost of living had been removed back in May. It is quite obvious that the Liberals cannot fault the Tories because back in 1957, as a result of their legislation, they became known as the "six buck boys". We recall in 1970 at Christmastime they gave the magnanimous increase of 42 cents to senior citizens.
Again we must appreciate that the best effort of the Tories was $65 at 70 years of age, and I think the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) had the right to mention that during the debate. The very best effort of the Conservative party was $65 per month at age 70. The payment of $100 basic old age pension and the combined OAS and GIS of $170 with a payment of $325 to a married couple represent a step in the right direction.
Somebody asked what we in the NDP would do. We stated clearly that our position was related to an amount
Old Age Security Act
of $150 on the principle of universality. We have stated many times that this would do away with divisiveness and administrative complexity-and I refer to the combined OAS and GIS-being brought about concerning pensions.
I	would remind hon. members that the NDP government in British Columbia has ensured that every pensioner will get a minimum of $200 a month. This indicates that even though we are tied to $150 in respect of basic old age security pensions, we are prepared to move to take care of Canadians who are finding it difficult to meet expenses today. We feel, and I am sure the last speaker will bring this to the attention of the province of Ontario, that the government of Ontario should ensure that every pensioner in this province gets a minimum of $200. I had thought my good friend would make this type of remark concerning pensions, rather than attack his friends to the left.
The minister, when he spoke, set forth the figures which showed that 500,000 pensioners were in receipt of the full old age pension and guaranteed income supplement, and that another 550,000 were in receipt of partial OAS and GIS while 750,000 were in receipt of OAS alone, the basic pension. This indicates the three different groups of pensioners we have in this country today. He also pointed out that the provinces have established priorities with regard to other groups in the community such as the disabled, single family parents, unemployable unemployed, and low income people. He quite rightly pointed out that the Canada Assistance Plan provides a measure of relief to the provinces which are participating in it because of the 50 per cent contribution by the federal government. This type of comment is justified and constructive, but I think there is a necessity for the federal government to establish priorities concerning the unemployed, inflation and social security measures.
In respect of senior citizens, I think the priority at the moment, after the passage of this legislation, should be, first, in relation to housing. There should be more senior citizens' housing so that the senior citizens can rent housing at reasonable rates. This would mean that any increases that they are now receiving would not be swallowed up through increases in rent. Also if we were to increase the amount of housing available for senior citizens we would probably have a practical demonstration of what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) called the trickled-down theory in housing, whereby senior citizens who now occupy large homes might move to more comfortable accommodation and avoid the necessity of looking after repairs, painting and so on. If they so wished, such persons could move into senior citizens accommodation and thus provide more homes for younger families. I believe it is very important that more senior citizens housing be constructed.
Another priority for our senior citizens would be the provision of drugs at reasonable prices. I recall that when the government eliminated the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs many people thought we would have a substantial reduction in the price of drugs. This did not happen. In fact, studies indicate that some drug firms absorbed that
II	per cent and put it into their pockets. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Manitoba, under a New Democratic Party government, brought forward its

March 8, 1973
Old Age Security Act
budget a short time ago in which provision was made for free drugs for all senior citizens. This is a measure which I think should be promoted by the federal government in an attempt to spur on the other provinces to take action concerning drugs for our senior citizens.
The next item of priority in respect of senior citizens should involve food costs. Some protection should be given to the Price of basic foods enjoyed by senior citizens. An article in the Toronto Star of February 26 by Anne Wanstall indicates how the sudden hikes in prices have affected many people. She said:
Supermarkets are first in line as consumers fire pot shots that could grow into cannon balls. If last week's mail is anything to go by, the executives who make the policies which determine the prices we're asked to pay, had better come up with some answers.
Then, she gave an example:
Wanda Pratt of Weston has a gripe about the rising price of prune juice. "About six weeks ago I paid 39 cents. Then it went up to 42 cents; two weeks later up to 49 cents and last week to 52 cents. They can't tell me that this was all due to a poor crop of plums."
She points out that this purchase poker that the chain stores play with regard to food prices must stop because it directly affects different groups within the community. One group which is substantially affected is the senior citizens.
Another priority in respect of the senior citizens I think should involve the situation where one spouse is under 65 years of age. In his speech the minister indicated that the cost of granting a pension to a person who is between age 60 and age 64 while the other person is over age 65 would be $150 million. I suggest this would be an expense well worth incurring, since there are many cases in which one pensioner is over age 65 while the other is under age 65. These people suffer severe hardships today. When we think that we are contemplating giving an amount of $500 million to corporations through tax benefits, surely we can give an amount of $150 million to the senior citizens in order to cover that situation.
I believe the government should also consider as a priority the lowering of the age in respect of pensions to 60 years. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the test may have to be that of employment. There is a great deal of unemployment at the moment and many people feel that the lowering of the pensionable age to 60 on a voluntary rather than a compulsory basis would draw out many workers who are now 60 years of age and over.
I recall the experience I had in Toronto. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was kind enough to send me as a representative of our party to a pension conference. At that conference I put forward the suggestion that we should lower the age limit to 60 years. I received an interesting answer from one of the senior citizens. She asked me if I agreed that Senators and Members of Parliament should quit work at age 60. She wanted to know why I was asking them to quit when Senators and Members of Parliament continue for many years beyond age 60.1 am inclined to agree with her point. It underlines the necessity of retirement at that age being voluntary rather than compulsory. The adoption of this proposal would involve the lowering of the eligible age in

respect of the Canada Pension Plan, and some of the other pension funds, because it would not do to have a person retire at age 60 and receive merely the basic old age pension, plus perhaps the guaranteed income supplement, and then have to wait until age 65 before receiving benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. That is one problem. The other problem is that we would have to include an acceleration clause in the Canada Pension Plan in the same way it is incorporated in the old age security plan. This should be a requirement. Otherwise, the amount of pension received by people when they retire will be reduced substantially as a result of the increase in the cost of living.
These are the three areas to which the government should give first priority for study, research and development of policy. We in the NDP welcome the changes in the legislation, but we look forward to further improvements in the near future.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seize this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-147.
I do not rise to fight this bill, but to approve it. We do not have the chance to approve stronger measures, so we shall at least give our approval to the minimum and we hope the bill will have third reading as soon as possible. That is why we do not wish unduly to delay the committee stage of the bill.
In this connection, I wonder why it should be referred to committee; we might just as well complete the second and third readings right away, and say: That's that, the bill is passed, for I cannot see what major amendments the committee could make. Some amendments will be proposed, but since amendments increasing government expenditure cannot be made in committee, I see no compelling reason why the bill should go to committee. Still, procedure must be followed, even if it does take time. We must reply to those who ask when the bill will go through, saying: Wait for the procedure to take its course.
It has always struck me in the House that, when any government introduces some social reform, they always make it seem to the people like some wonderful bargain that they had not been expecting. When you get down to studying it, there is really very little to it.
The process is reversed when it comes to proposed taxation. They speak quite bashfully to the public, and say: Well, it isn't much really. Just a little tax that you will hardly feel at all; whereas in fact it is a monstrosity. This is the sleight of hand that they try out on the public. What I dislike is the dishonesty of it.
Why not call on the population and simply say: This is what we have to offer. The government should stop playing cat and mouse with the people. After all, they are not at all more stupid than we are. Everybody can see through the government's game and this is why today they hate only some methods of the government. In fact, those methods have always been used.
The bill before us will increase the pension to $100 a month. First of all, they say that the pension is being raised from $82 to $100, which is not true since by the end
March 8, 1973

of March the pension will automatically fall to $86.61. The increase coming into force on April 1 amounts to only $13.39 a month. Once more, let us speak the truth. I like things to be clear and I do support truth. This is why I wish to quote the appropriate figures very clearly.
Many politicians deliberately tell people in their faces: the pension will amount to $170. This is another story that proves false. The pension does not amount to $170 but to $100 a month, and to this sum can be added a $70 supplement-I call that public assistance-subject to all kinds of inquiries whose purpose is to try to avoid granting it. Mr. Speaker, while adding a $70 supplement, they do not intend to do justice to the older citizens because the purpose of all these inquiries is to try to avoid granting it. Therefore, let us not call that a pension.
When referring to the pension in the House, I always have said: The pension, to be fair and equitable, must first of all be universal. If we allege that the pension amounts to $170, let us grant it to everybody indiscriminately. We should not make the senior citizens believe that they will receive monthly pensions of $170 because if they have another income their pensions are decreased. Therefore, what they are told is not true. Personally I simply tell them: Your pension is now $82 and it will be raised to $100. The rest of the pension can vary since what you get will depend on your income.
Those who have worked hard during their lifetime to save some money-it was the practice of our fathers and grandfathers for their old days-made a mistake. Because they have saved a few hundred dollars they will not get the $70 supplement. They are penalized by the government for their foresight. Today wealth means getting into debt and you must be old and in debt to receive the odd favour from the government. This seems to be the kind of education that we are trying to give today to our youth and I think it is very, very bad.
We simply ask for a pension. If we have again an opportunity to discuss that question in committee, we shall again ask for a true pension of $170 and 100 per cent universal for all senior citizens. When I say "all senior citizens" I mean the spouse younger than her pensionned husband. I always understood that when a pension is paid to the husband it is a family pension and if his wife is younger she is entitled to this pension.
We cannot expect an elderly couple to live five years on the salary of a single person. And I am very surprised that the government has not understood this fact because before the budget was introduced I was really sure that the pensioner's spouse was going to be eligible for the new pension. But it is not so, we still remain in the same old rut, we keep the same old principles and we leave the spouse aside and without any income.
The spouse may have some income in some provinces but not in Quebec. As soon as the husband gets $170, the Quebec Department of Health will tell him: that is enough. In Quebec, two persons must be satisfied with $170 to make a living. What a bright reasoning. These couples will have to fight again, beg and implore small politically bred inspectors to see if they have not inherited a few hundred dollars. We are against such ways of pro-
Old Age Security Act
ceeding and this is why I say and repeat that only when the pension is universal will elder people begin to be treated as they deserve.
Secondly, like the New Democratic Party we often advocated in this House lowering the eligibility for pensions to age 60. I suggest this would be a very interesting matter of debate in committee, because bringing the age down to 60 does not require any effort on the part of the government and we offer them a means to really fight unemployment. As a matter of fact, according to some research I did at Statistics Canada, if we allowed people aged 60 to 65 to retire, we would provide 400,000 new jobs, which would enable 400,000 heads of families who now depend on the public treasury, who have 5, 6, 7 or 8 children and who cost the two levels of government $400, $500 or more a month, to go and earn a living in industry and take the place of the people who could retire if they were given $325 a month.
Mr. Speaker, the two levels of government would thus save money, in addition to which there would be 400,000 fewer unemployed. That is why we have suggested that pensionable age be reduced to 60; it would help the government solve the unemployment problem. Frankly, I am surprised again today that the government has not even mentioned it.
I do not know whether it is being discussed at the ministerial level but I feel this would be the best thing; let us stop applying bandaids to reduce unemployment, ban-daids such as LIP projects, municipal projects, to create employment. A small political bonus is given industry; then we are told that 200 jobs have been created. That is not true; often, 200 jobs were wiped out. There is a bit of political play and we are told that will solve the problem of unemployment; that is not true.
Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the problem of unemployment will only be solved through a massive movement of workers. As for senior citizens between 60 and 65, they should be given real instead of sham pensions. Thus,
400,000	unemployed heads of families could earn a living in industry and there would be only 300,000 unemployed left.
In addition, a salary should be paid to mothers. In that case, according to a survey 200,000 mothers would reintegrate their home, and there would be 200,000 fewer unemployed.
These are all suggestions, Mr. Speaker, that we make to the government so that it try and solve this famous unemployment problem. Once again, it is not by trying all kinds of little political tricks that a solution will be found to this unemployment problem. Everything that is done is unfair. Cases of injustice are multiplied by political patronage.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I greatly appreciate the little we are getting today; we shall give our full support to the bill but we truly hope that the government will propose within a few months a more concrete, more realistic bill that will enable it to deal with the unemployment problem.
We also would have liked the bill to provide for an agreement on drugs with the provinces. Today, the big problem of senior citizens aged 65 and over is that of drugs. They require so much care and so many drugs that

March 8, 1973
Old Age Security Act
when they have to pay, life is not a bed of roses in many homes.
In my riding, I had the opportunity to visit most of the homes for the aged and I think that their problem is one of drugs.
If, one day, we could give them such things as drugs, as we do for welfare recipients, this would lessen a great deal the worries of senior citizens. We would thus find a solution to another problem facing these people.
I do not know what the situation is outside the province of Quebec, but I am telling the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to be on the lookout, because Quebecers are often being tricked. Every time an increase was granted, Quebec hurried to get it back right away and this is expected to happen again. It has already started in the case of rents and it is going to happen in nursing homes, Mr. Speaker. In such cases, older people suddenly realize that they are poorer than before, after a bill is passed, because the moment the government is giving people more money to improve their lot, the Quebec government sends out two or three inspectors to recover this money for the benefit of the provincial treasury.
It is too bad it's happening in my own province, but I must say it and I have to warn the minister about this.
We are in favour of this bill and we do not want to delay it being referred to the committee.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a few comments on this very important bill. At the time of the budget debate, I had, like many others, the opportunity to voice a few opinions about old age security.
As this bill provides for a substantial increase in the income of older people, I am sorry that consideration was not given to granting the old age security pension to people under 65.
I would have believed it possible to give the old age security pension to the persons of 64 at least, for the present year. I think that many hon. members have already addressed this request to the minister in this House. I presume that the minister responsible and his officials have looked into the matter of reducing the eligibility age for old age pensions.
In view of the present social situation and the technical changes which have occurred in industry, there is an urgent need to give to people of 60 years of age and over a well deserved retirement. I am not the first one to draw the Minister's attention to the unemployment situation in the country. Personally, I feel that it would be a great help toward alleviating this problem which has been with us for several years and that it could allow people of 60 and over to receive the pension even though we may extend the process over a five-year period as we did before when the eligibility age for the old age security pension was lowered from 70 to 65.
I believe that this would have been possible and I worry a little about the attitude of parties in general which could not get together and force the government to take such a step. I am thinking particularly of NDP members who,

since I came here at least, have many times expressed their interest in our senior citizens and underprivileged people. And I was very surprised that the NDP Party did not dare bring forward an amendment to that effect when the budget was tabled. I will not look for the reasons, because many members know them. However, I must remind the members of the New Democratic Party that they must respect the principles which they have always bravely upheld in this House and I wonder to what extent the public is aware not only of some kind of hesitation, but also of a certain amount of dishonesty in connection with the principles they have always extolled.
I think that the parties and members opposite would have surely been pleased to support an amendment brought in by the New Democratic Party and aimed at granting old age security pensions at least to people 64 years of age going down gradually to those 60 years of age. I take the liberty of reminding members of that party the position which they have always held in this House and may they also be reminded that the Canadian people are somewhat concerned about their inaction with respect to those principles.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore like to take this opportunity, while admitting that the increases are most acceptable and interesting for our senior citizens, to remind the Minister of the importance of reconsidering-if this has not already been done-the possibility of enabling more people aged 60 or over to "go on leave". I would not go so far as saying that all those who could go on leave to-morrow morning, because of old age security pensions being granted at the early age of 60, should be replaced in industry. No, sir. For various reasons, I think that some industries would not hire other people to replace them. Still, I think that thousands of people could go into retirement and that jobs could be found for thousands of unemployed. Thus our present social context would be improved by allowing people aged 60 to go on leave and by having employment made available to 20-year-olds for whom the State often spends as much as $100 a week.
I feel that this should be considered by this House and also that it is important to remember all the efforts that this government has made during the past five years injecting money into various parts of this country, in order to fight unemployment; we find that in spite of all these efforts, the unemployment rate has increased twofold if not threefold. I therefore feel this measure would promote a healthy social atmosphere and once more I invite hon. members of this House to give serious thought to this possibility and to urge the government to take early action. In the present situation, this possibility exists. All opposition members can certainly join forces and impose such action on the government, should they hesitate too long.
I venture to believe that the minister will take these remarks into consideration, as well as those of previous speakers and will give a positive reply to those who anxiously look to this legislation. Furthermore, recently, in my riding, the Central Council of the CNTU, during its Convention, adopted a resolution which I communicated this week to the minister. On the basis of my prior representations concerning this legislation, I urge the minister to grant sixty year olds the old age security pension.
March 8, 1973

Furthermore, I do hope that if unions like the CNTU with a membership of thousands of workers are favourable to that legislation, it would be proper to give this old age security pension to all those who are 65.
I shall limit myself to these few remarks. I did not want to let this opportunity go by without asking again for the passing of a law which would provide the old age security pension to those who are 60.
And I would also invite the minister to consider the possibility of giving this pension to the spouse who has not yet reached the age of 65. It is absolutely unfair for a couple when both are over age 65 to get $325 while a senior citizen whose spouse is younger has to live on $170.
Since it is unfair, I feel it is imperative for the government to study seriously the possibility of giving more assistance to the couple who is inconvenienced and antagonized by an act that grants $325 to one couple and $170 to another.
I know that by proving to the department of National Health and Welfare that the couple's income is not sufficient, some compensation may be obtained. But I also know very well that several persons have a hard time proving their entitlement to those supplementary benefits, that are often necessary, and that it often takes months of inquiry for the department to recognize their right to them.
So I think that such injustice should be corrected and that these people should be reassured by enacting a legislation whch would be fairer and more flexible and which would allow us to solve a great number of problems.
I will conclude my remarks, in expressing the hope that the minister will take them into account and that the political parties which have the opportunity to bring the government to enact that solution will unite and that the New Democratic Party will not hesitate in following the principles they have always defended in this House.
As far as I am and many others are concerned, we entertain certain reservations about the honesty they have always displayed towards senior citizens. It is never too late to take action. I would hope that, the various parties in this House will combine their efforts, either in committee or through another way, to make it possible for the senior citizens to obtain that pension as soon as possible, or at least to get it on a five years trial basis as it has already been done in other circumstances.
That would really show that we want to do something that an effort is being made to solve the problems; I believe that it would be a very good step for the minister, the Government and the Parliament to take.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Before recognizing the minister, I must point out to the members that if he now speaks he will close the debate, according to the Standing Order No. 37.1 now give the floor to the member for Champlain.


Marc Lalonde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Old Age Security Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. minister of National Health and Welfare on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I understood that it had been agreed by the parties that there would only be one speaker for each party this afternoon, and that I would close the debate. I would gladly do so, and as far as we are concerned we will have no other speaker.
Now, it is my understanding that the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) wants to make a speech. I am afraid that this would upset the debate; if the Honourable Member for Champlain makes a speech, I fear that members from other opposition parties will also want to speak, as well as members of my own party who have agreed not to take part in the debate this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. minister will understand that the Chair is never involved in such agreements between parties. Therefore, if an hon. member rises, he must be allowed to speak, and so I call upon the hon. member for Champlain.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister's point of view very well. I was not here when that agreement was made. In any case, since we are only at the second reading and committee stage, I expect to make representations to the committee, and also at the report stage. For now, I should like to hear what the honourable minister has to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. As I just mentioned I will recognize the minister. According to Standing Order 37, I must remind hon. members that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate. The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


An hon. Member:: So be it.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to thank the hon. member for Champlain for his co-operation. If I have understood correctly, he had not been informed of the agreement between the parties, and I am sorry that this information did not reach him. I indeed hope that at the committee stage and at all other stages he will have the chance to make his position clear to the rest of the House.
I do not intend to speak at length; I believe members of all parties have had the opportunity to express their views. The fate of our senior citizens is a matter of the deepest concern for all members, whichever party they belong to. I have, for example, noticed several members on both sides of the House raising the matter of a possible lowering of the eligibility age. Others have talked about granting a certain amount to spouses of pensioners when the spouse is not of pensionable age.
Obviously, those are questions we are all concerned about and would like to see implemented as soon as possible. I must say that that question has been submitted to me very frequently by my Liberal colleagues since I have had the honour of assuming the responsibilities of Minister of National Health and Welfare.

March 8, 1973
Old Age Security Act
I would like to reassure hon. members that I am not opposed to it in principle, far from it. I hope I have shown in the speech I made at the beginning of the debate on second reading that I consider it my duty to look into that problem with my provincial colleagues in the light of an over-all reform of social security in Canada. As I indicated in that speech, we have over 150,000 abandoned mothers who must look after 350,000 children and who at the present time receive benefits which are a shame to this country and unworthy of the condition in which they find themselves.
There are also 200,000 disabled people in Canada, between ages 18 and 65, who are now getting much lower benefits than those paid to older people. There are also
575,000	persons under social security who are also getting much lower benefits than those paid to older people.
While considering the question of reducing the age of eligibility for pension benefits, we should look into the whole question of benefits that are paid to the needy in this country. It is not only a question of trying to solve the problem of people from 60 to 65 but of tackling the poverty issue in all its aspects. I believe this would be the best way for us to meet the expectations of all Canadian citizens and the best way for this parliament, I think, to overcome poverty problem which unfortunately is still too acute everywhere in Canada despite the wealth of this country.
I am pleased to note that the oppositions parties generally agree with the government and will support this bill. [English]
However, I am a bit confused about the stand of the official opposition on this whole issue. I listened with great interest to the various speakers from the Conservative party on this proposal. I am still hard put to come to a clear understanding as to exactly where they stand on this whole question.
When the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie) spoke at the opening of the debate, he said that his party would support the bill. I was very happy to hear this. However, the last speaker from that party said that he would not support it. I would like to know how many members of that party agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) and how many agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough, whose word I accept that his party will support the bill. However, this kind of position does not help to understand the fundamental attitude of the Conservative party with regard to assisting the aged people of this country.


An hon. Member:: It is not enough.


Marc Lalonde: I am coming to the amount. Even after this debate, I am still not able to assess where that party stands. I first understood that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) referred to his own proposals of $92 or $95 at the most. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), in a kind of supreme effort, raised it to the level of $97.88.
When the hon. member for Ste. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) was speaking the other day, he developed an instant policy. In spite of all the pontifications and exhortations in his speech, I have not been able to find a particular 
figure. All that I heard was that he would like a civilized basic old age pension. That is a beautiful objective, but it is not very helpful in determining that particular level.
I was worried, concerned and even flabbergasted by the approach of the Conservative party to the question of attitude vis-a-vis the aged people. With all due respect to the hon. member for Hillsborough, I heard some members supporting programs like New Horizons in order to provide our aged citizens with activities and a more meaningful life rather than merely providing them with money. The following day I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) clearly state that, while not opposed to the aged people, he was opposed to the New Horizons program. This is clearly in the record. He is a member of the party which, in the previous debate, wanted to cut to $1 the amount allocated to New Horizons. There again, I would be pleased to accept the word of the hon. member for Hillsborough. I assume that he was speaking for his party, although voices in the background and certain previous actions during the course of this session seemed to indicate that that party would like to be on both sides of the fence all the time.


John Gilbert: Right on.


Marc Lalonde: There is another aspect of this question that also surprises me about the attitude of the Conservative party in this matter. This arises from the exhortations of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe when he was talking about the necessity of acting immediately to either cover the spouse or reduce the age for the payment of benefits. The hon. member asked the government for immediate action on this, even though he knew very well that I had stated quite clearly in this House that I have discussed this matter with my provincial counterparts. We were unanimously of the view that, at this particular time, we should not touch the structure of the system of old age security in this country, but that this question should be part of the general review that will take place of the social security system. They were not opposed in principle to reducing the age for benefits, but they said, "Before you go ahead and do that on your own, let us have a meeting; let us see what are the priorities in this country for the payment of social benefits, and let us see, together, whether the first priority should be lowering the age for the payment of pensions or whether the first priority should not be in other areas of welfare in this country." That is what the provinces said, all of them, including those in which the Conservative party happens to be in power.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) now says, "We want all this now." He is the same member who, during the campaign, went around accusing the government of rigidity, of not listening to the provinces, of acting on its own, of arrogance-you name it. That same hon. member and that same party to which he belongs, after having talked about co-operation with provinces, satisfying the provinces and what not, now come before the House and say, "Go ahead; act now; forget about the provinces; do not care about them." You know, I would have hoped for more consistency in that respect.
March 8, 1973


An hon. Member:: But he is a former Liberal.


Marc Lalonde: Some people also suggested that I was taking a somewhat too partisan approach on this question, and arrogating too much credit to Liberal governments in the area of old age pension benefits. I should like to give more credit to opposition parties, more credit to the Conservative party. I would love to do that, if that party had a better record on this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Previously in the debate I said that we do not know whether that party is for or against the New Horizons program, whether it is for co-operation with the provinces or not and whether it will vote for this bill or not. If one looks back over history one will see, Mr. Speaker, that of the basic amount of $100 in basic pension benefits that we have finally reached after 30 years or more, the Conservative party has contributed $19. Worse than that, its contribution represents $19 out of $170, or $38 out of $325. That is the record of the Conservative Party on this whole question. So, I think members of this House and the people of this country have every reason to be a bit suspicious about the boastings of the Conservative party in this respect.


An hon. Member:: How much has the NDP contributed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The NDP is
responsible for all of it.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a short question relating to the 42 cents that the government gave our senior citizens for a Christmas present?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer questions when we consider the bill in committee, probably in the first few days of next week. I am stating facts. They are all there, for all to see.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Tell us about the 42 cents.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how there can be room for argument. I am sorry if my words seem to hurt the feelings of some hon. members. I would not want to hurt hon. members.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister is not hurting us.


Marc Lalonde: Let me point out that the $19 increase for which the Conservative party is responsible took the form of two increases, both of which happened to be introduced just before an election.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But it looks pretty good compared with 42 cents.


Marc Lalonde: That party has a consistent record in that respect. My party increased old age pension benefits in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973. So, I do not think anybody, especially those on the opposition side, can accuse us of cynicism or opportunism in this respect. If any party can be accused, it is another party which shall remain unnamed for the time being.
Old Age Security Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish the minister would tell us about the 42 cents.


Marc Lalonde: I should like to conclude by touching on two points, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: If hon. members wish, I can talk for much longer on this particular subject. Much more could be said. However, I think we will let the opposition, particularly the Conservative party, go scott-free today on this subject. We may have to come back to that party later on.
I was particularly pleased that the House passed unanimously a motion objecting to the increase in rents that will take place in many cases across this country following the increase in benefits. I hope private citizens will take note of the views of this House in this respect and I hope, in particular, that provincial governments will take note of the view of this House in this respect.


An hon. Member:: Why does this government not take note?


Marc Lalonde: An hon. member asked, why does this government not do that? The minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has taken a clear stand on this question and said that this government has frozen the rents of old people, especially those occupying housing owned by the federal government. I should like to be able to say the same about provincial governments presently being run by the Conservative party. I should like them to give us a similar assurance.


Paul Yewchuk: They are the "have" provinces.


Marc Lalonde: For several years, after increases have been given, several provincial governments have increased rents and absorbed most if not all of those increases provided by the federal parliament to old age pensioners.

And on that account, the point raised by the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada surely deserves notice.

I note that provinces are paying old age pensioners living in provincial institutions what they call comfort allowances, which vary between $15 and $26, according to provincial policy. What happens is this: it seems that the provinces collect the old age pension cheques and hand over to these old people amounts which vary, as I said, between $15 and $26, for their day-to-day expenses. The proposed increase in the case of a person who will receive both the basic pension and the guaranteed income supplement will be over $20. I hope that the provinces will not keep all that increase, and still pay to old age pensioners only the so-called comfort allowance of between $15 and $26. If we examine previous experiences, we will see, I am sorry to say, that several provincial governments have acted in that way. I hope that the increase the federal parliament will grant to old age pensioners will not find its way into provincial coffers. I hope that the views of

March 8, 1973
Old Age Security Act
this parliament on that question will be noted by all provincial governments.

As to the question raised earlier by the Social Credit spokesman concerning drugs, there is no doubt that it is a problem which comes first under the responsibility of the province. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that if some elderly people are in need and if they receive, in addition to the pension paid by the federal government, allowances from a provincial welfare department, the government pays first 50 per cent of the additional amounts and the drugs will be paid in the case of these people, in the same way as in the case of people who depend on welfare allowances.
I must also mention that some other provinces have already set up or intend to set up a system under which drugs will be available to people who are 65 or more.
Here again, these are questions that will certainly be discussed during the meetings I shall hold both with the provincial ministers of health and ministers of welfare.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to keep this debate going much longer. I want simply to thank the hon. members who had the opportunity to express themselves on this subject during the last two days of debate and I would like to apologize particularly to the government members who wanted to express their views on this subject and who accepted not to take the floor in order to speed up the debate and to expedite passage of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Hamilton West rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One short question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can ask a question only if the hon. member who has the floor is willing to answer a question.


Marc Lalonde: I will accept a question, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will not be long, Mr. Speaker. I was impressed with the historical recitation given by the minister of the plight of our senior citizens. However, he conveniently forgot, I hope through inadvertence rather than through purpose, the fact that at one time there was a figure of 42 cents mentioned by him. I am wondering whether the minister can advise the House how that figure came about, and how he can take such pride in the policies of a government that had the cheek and the nerve to offer the senior citizens a 42-cent increase. I know the minister was not here at that time but was in the bureaucracy. Perhaps he could answer that question for me.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, I was not in the House at that particular time and I do not recollect all the facts. But if I remember correctly, this was at the time when this government introduced a very progressive step in the form of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. A $25 additional payment was made to every elderly person in the country who, because of their income situation, were unable to make both ends meet. This particular adjustment was made at that time so as to

round out the figures of $80, while at the same time we increased the GIS from $31.83 to $55. My hon. friend should look at all of the facts. I did not inadvertently miss that point. The government rounded out the basic old age pension to $80, but also increased payments to senior citizens in need by almost $25, which I think is a pretty good record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the minister agree to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asking him a question?


Marc Lalonde: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would accept another question. Even though he seems to have said no at this point to the payment of the pension under the Old Age Security Act to those between the ages of 60 and 65 on the basis of any one of several plans, is the minister still willing to have this matter thoroughly discussed in the committee to which this bill is being referred, and is he prepared to keep an open mind on the possibility of something still being done in this respect during this session?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first question is concerned, I shall certainly be very pleased, if allowed to do so under the rules of the committee, to have a full discussion with hon. members on the question of lowering the age and all other aspects. Second, I want to assure hon. members that I do not have a closed mind on this question; I have a very open mind. I would love to be able to do this, but as I have mentioned we must look at the matter in terms of general priorities in the field of social security at the present time, taking into account the resources that may reasonably be made available in the short term.
With regard to action being taken in the present session, there will be further meetings with the provinces. I do not know whether the meeting being held in April will be sufficient to enable us to arrive at some agreement, or at some consensus, or whatever is the term we use for what we do with the provincial governments. If a consensus develops with the provinces that this is an area which should receive priority, then I would be happy to raise the matter with my colleagues and see whether we can take some action.
At the present time my view is that before committing ourselves to making any such move in the immediate future we should take a very careful and thorough look, not only at whether there should be a lowering of the age for pension entitlement but also at all of the calls that people in this country who are in need make upon the public purse, whether it be the federal purse or the provincial purse. As the hon. member knows, many demands are made on the provinces in the field of welfare for people below 65 years of age.
I am not in a position to commit the government or myself to taking action on this subject in this particular session of parliament. I have said that I feel that the next step to take in this session-and I do not know how many sessions there will be in this parliament-is to substantial-
March 8, 1973

ly improve the family allowance scheme. Can we then take a third step, which would be to decrease the age for pension entitlement during the course of this session? Personally, I would doubt it, but I have an open mind on the subject and will keep an open mind.


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

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-148, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking at this time on a bill designed to improve the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. I should like first to recall briefly to the House some of the significant improvements which have been effected in the legislation governing war veterans allowances and civilian war allowances since January 1972.
On March 21, 1972, the regulations were amended so that exempt casual earnings were not restricted to a four month period.
On May 15, 1972, legislation was approved which exempted cost of living increases in the OAS and GIS payments in the amount of $15 for single war allowance recipients and $30 for married recipients.
On May 19, 1972, the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended to provide for escalation of the rates and ceilings effective January 1, 1972 and on January 1 of each succeeding year, in accordance with increases in the consumer price index.
On November 9, 1972, the regulation was removed which assessed as income for war veterans allowance and civilian war allowances purposes, a percentage of the value of a home in excess of $10,000.
On January 13, 1973, the amount of casual earnings permitted in any year was increased from $800 to $1000 for single recipients and from $1200 to $1500 for married recipients.
Finally, the war veterans allowance and civilian war allowances rates and ceilings which were in effect on December 31, 1971 have since been improved by $10 per month for single and $16.61 per month for married recipients.
The bill now before you will further increase these rates and ceilings by an additional $20.14 single and $39.60 married. This provides a total increase of $30.14 or 24.8 per cent, single, and $56.21 or 27.8 per cent, married, since December 31, 1971. The orphan rates have similarly been increased by more than 24 per cent during this 15-month period.
War Veterans Allowance Act
Another major feature of this bill is the removal of personal property limitations which now stand at $1250 single and $2500 married. This means that it will no longer be necessary for an applicant to liquidate his assets in order to qualify for an allowance.
I am especially pleased and proud to speak to this bill because, although rates and ceilings, casual earnings and permissible property values have changed many times since the War Veterans Allowance Act was passed in 1930, this is the first time a bill has been introduced in this House which proposes the complete removal of the limits on personal property. This will mean that war veterans allowances and civilian war allowances will, as of April 1, 1973, change from a means tested program to a modified income tested program.
I am sure all members will agree that those who are eligible to receive payments under these acts merit our special concern. Their eligibility is based on service to Canada during a time of war. These people, both servicemen and civilians, risked their lives for their country. We should not forget that they are entitled, not to favours, but to what they have so valiantly earned and justly deserved. The adoption of this bill will simply assure these people a better standard of living.
Many of these men left home and enlisted at an early age and, because of the years they spent in the service of their country, were not always able on their return to improve their education or training to attain a degree of skill which would have been within their reach had they not enlisted. The result is that in later years when they suffer some disability, which may not be directly caused by their war service, they have difficulty in providing for themselves and their families. These men are, to a large degree, casualties of war, although they may not have been wounded. Their widows and orphans also deserve our special consideration.
I believe, Sir, that the measures proposed in this bill will be welcomed by every member of this House as concrete evidence of our awareness of the special contribution this group of Canadian citizens has made to their country and as a clear indication of our commitment to treat them in a fair and just manner.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, after the past two months of tension in this House of Commons I think that during the debate on Bill C-148 you will see a change of tempo. There will be no banter back and forth across the floor. I can assure you that the Veterans Affairs Committee is a committee, the members of which have comradeship, esprit de corps and understanding. We are dealing with a topic that is diminishing in importance in the country. It is a topic which nobody can argue is anything but significant in our society, since it relates to the war veterans of Canada who deserve everything we can give them.
I am pleased to follow the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who is presenting his first bill in the House of Commons, and I congratulate him. While I did congratulate him at the committee hearings when we were discussing the supplementary estimates, I hope members will allow me to repeat what I said as I feel it should be placed in the Hansard record. I repeat my

March 8, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act congratulations because, as I said, the minister should be an example for all Canada, certainly to those of us here, of what a Canadian can accomplish against all odds and adversities suffered while defending his country. The minister came back to Canada and, as a double amputee, gained the highest achievement to which a veteran in this country of ours could aspire, becoming the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the time to be handing out bouquets to members opposite or ministers, but perhaps it does not hurt once in a while to have the opportunity to exhibit a little human understanding and compassion.
I am pleased also that the introduction of this bill gives us an opportunity to discuss a topic which, as I said before, is unfortunately diminishing in importance in Canada. That topic is veterans affairs. It is diminishing in importance because people are preoccupied with beating each other's brains apart over the material things that seem to be so important. Even with all the expertise at our disposal, we cannot seem to solve the important problems. I am sure the minister knows what I mean, and I am sure he will agree that with all the unrest in the country, Canadian governments could look to the veterans organizations to get an example of comradeship, neighbourliness and humanity. In our continuous struggle to prevent a breakdown in national unity we try to legislate, set up studies and commissions or sit at conferences. I say, Mr. Speaker, that national unity cannot be legislated by governments, by sitting around a conference table, by studies and commissions or by presenting bills in parliament. National unity is created in the hearts of people and is passed on over the years because our ancestors suffered hardship in discovering and building Canada and in making it the great nation it is today.
The veterans of Canada protected the unity of our country in the First and Second World Wars, and in Korea, when they pledged their loyalty to Queen and country and defended Canada against tyranny. They went to foreign countries to do so as well as to protect other nations of the world because our country asked them to do so. They did not ask for any special favours. The contracts they signed were all one-sided. There were no fringe benefits, no automatic increases in pay and allowances, no hospital benefits. What is most important is that they fought together, not as citizens of different origins, not as English or French or any particular race, creed or colour. They fought together against a common enemy as Canadians.
Today, with all the expertise we have we are trying to find out why the youth of Canada are reacting against the establishment. We also hear frequently about their abhorrence of anything military and their attitude against war. I have no quarrel with their attitude. Nobody wants war. I apologize for saying that I have a son who also hates mention of the word "war". I do not want him or any of my children to ever experience war. But let me remind the youth of our country that there are thousands of graves over in Europe of young lads who were 18 and 19, yes, and

even younger, who did not like the word "war" in World Wars I and II. Some of them even lied about their ages so that they could come to the defence of their country, their parents or loved ones. They should be here now enjoying our prosperity and taking advantage of the supposed opportunities that exist; but they cannot because they lie in the war graves of Europe.
May I respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) that in his youth exchange programs he might show a little patriotism by arranging some trips to the war graves of Europe if he wants to do something worthwhile for our youth and for the benefit of this country. We cannot blame our youth for the failure of our governments to live up to their commitments to our veterans for the past 50 years. Yes, we forget too easily, and perhaps I should put on the record these words which appear on one of the war graves in Europe:
Here we lie because we did not choose to live and shame the land from which we sprung. Life to be sure is nothing much to lose, but young men think it is . . . And we were young.
Those were the youths of past world wars; those were the youths who had the right to live, to react and to demonstrate. Perhaps some of them might even be sitting here as members of parliament today, but I am not sure how much they would appreciate what is happening. But we forget so easily. Nobody in his right mind wants a war. But we have to go to war because of the stupidity and selfishness of those who govern, and because of the greed, hate and ambition that lies in the twisted minds of those who gain power through deviousness and the quest for power.
We have seen examples in recent weeks of the results of the war in Viet Nam in which thousands of young Americans also lost their opportunity to enjoy the great future that they had hoped their country would provide. And what did our governments do during the past 54 years for those Canadians who went to three wars for the same reason? I cannot use more forceful words than the veterans organizations did which presented a brief to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs during the joint study on the basic rate of pension. They state:
The dollar value of war disability pensions for 100 per cent disability pensioners, has because of erosion and neglect fallen to a critical level.
This has happened because of the failure of successive governments in the last 50 years to maintain the basic rate of pension at approximately the same level as that paid to unskilled workers in the public service.
It is not 50 years but more like 54 years. There are almost one million war veterans in Canada today who served our country. Many thousands of them made their sacrifice but returned to Canada, took up their lives and occupations and became successful. They caught up to society because of their initiative, drive and knowledge. But they are still veterans. They maintain their interest in their fellow comrades and belong to veterans organizations with the sole purpose of helping their comrades. Some of the successful ones even sit here today as Members of Parliament trying to do their best for their country and for their comrades. But many came back maimed and disabled. They do not want to beg from government, but they are forced to do so because they lost the best years of their lives fighting for their country. The veterans we are
March 8, 1973

talking about are either too disabled to take their place in society or are those who fall into the category of the burnt-out pensioner.
This brings me to the subject of the bill before us, Bill C-148 to amend the War Veterans Allowances Act. I cannot personally, or on behalf of my party, quarrel with the amendments before us because they are good amendments. The bill provides for allowances to $151.14 for the single veteran and $257.21 for the married veteran with an allowable income of $40 and $70. There are supplementary benefits which one in the opposition should not mention, but I feel a most important amendment is the repeal of section 8 which removes the limitation in respect of payment of an allowance to a person who owns personal property. It also removes certain powers in relation to transfer of property in determining the amount of an allowance and provides for the future escalation of allowances under the act to commence on January 1, 1974. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Air Transport-Advance booking charter regulations-Assurance that travellers will be protected against price fixing; the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly)-Canadian Culture-Multiculturalism- Request for grant to Saskatchewan provincial library to buy books in various languages; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Airports-Vancouver International-Proposed new runway-Request for information on environmental impact.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. I understand that an agreement has been reached concerning the business with which the House will proceed. Perhaps this could be spelled out by someone and presented to the House to see whether it meets the wishes of the House.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, we should be taking up the item Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, but there have been discussions about this and I believe it would be acceptable to proceed to Private Members' Public Bills. If that should be agreeable, I should like to call Bill C-31. If we proceed to completion of that through all stages, then I would want to call Bill C-156. For the edification of hon. members, may I say that these bills would change the names of two constituencies, and it is normal practice in the House that when they are presented we take them through all the stages. I would suggest to the House that we use private members' time in this way.
War Veterans Allowance Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Then I gather that we have several decisions to make, but first of all, is it the wish of hon. members that the two bills respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be our preoccupation during the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If this is agreed, it has been suggested that these bills proceed through all stages here rather than be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Do I gather that the wish of the House is that this indeed be the step that we take and the reference be to the Committee of the Whole rather than to the Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May the Chair make a suggestion that those bills receive their second reading in turn and that we then proceed to the committee study on both of them, then report back for third reading on both of them? This would have to be agreed to, I suppose, by the sponsor of the first bill primarily because if anything goes wrong it is his bill that suffers.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine) moved: that Bill C-31, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
He said: I promise to be brief as requested, Mr. Speaker. The bill proposes a change in the name of the riding of Lachine. I would simply explain to the House the two reasons for so doing. The first is that the riding itself consists of three cities, that of Lachine, Dorval, and Pointe Claire and there is a subsequent confusion between the name of one of the cities and the name of the riding from the federal point of view. The second reason is that, as hon. members are aware, the Federal Election Boundaries Commission has been making its recommendations and should some of the proposed changes take place the new boundaries of this riding, as recommended in the submission of that commission, will be more accurately reflected by the name Lachine-Lakeshore, as it is generally known in the area, and in French Lachine-Bord-du-Lac.
I think there is nothing further to add. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House for the privilege of presenting the bill.

March 8, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved: that Bill C-156, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few brief words on the reasons for the change in name. Recently an amalgamation took place of Galt, Preston and Hespeler. There is a considerable sense of loss of identity. These are historic communities which have been combined into a new city called Cambridge. It is my hope, with the approval of the House, to get the constituency name changed so that the transition from the old names that were so well loved in our area to the new name will be made more acceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Bell:: That is the first thing the government has done this session.


Mr. Haidasz:: No, the second.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the House is in such a good humour that I am tempted to ask leave of the House to bring forward my own private members bill, but of course that would be an abuse of the House.
Since we have concluded the business that was set aside for private members hour, and since in the private members hour we have now passed more legislation than has the House of Commons, perhaps on that basis we might rise until eight o'clock this evening.


An hon. Member:: Call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hour now be seen as six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being near six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.10 p.m. 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. MacDonald (Cardigan) that Bill C-148, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted at five o'clock I was giving kudos to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I wanted to mention the changes introduced by order in council rather than as amendments to the act. Some of these were as follows: First, the removal of the penalty imposed on recipients who own and occupy their own home valued in excess of $10,000; second, the removal of the penalties imposed on the sale of the home of the veteran; third, the increase by 25 per cent of the casual earnings of a veteran; fourth, the exemption of $15 and $30 for the veteran, either single or married, who qualifies for OAS/GIS.
I would like to say, with the utmost respect and sincerity, that this and past governments cannot be too proud of the fact that finally in 1973, some 54 years after the First World War, the war veterans allowance has reached a satisfactory figure. Some people may attack me for saying this because the war veterans allowance only came into effect in 1930, but we can take it all under the umbrella of the Pension Act. I can only repeat once more the words in the brief submitted by the war veterans' associations to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs dealing with the joint study report on the basic rate of pension:
This has happened because of the failure of successive governments in the last 50 years to maintain the basic rate of pension at approximately the same level as that paid to unskilled workers in the public service.
The same can be said about war veterans allowances. Veterans are now in the twilight stages of their lives. The First World War veteran is in his late seventies and cannot take advantage of the increase permitted in casual earnings because he is long past the stage when he can work. The World War II veteran is now in his late fifties, and with our new thinking in society today he is long beyond the stage of consideration even for work on a LIP project. Probably the increase in casual earnings will help this veteran, the one whose children are grown up and educated, whose children have gone out on their own. He or his wife may earn a little more income to find a little extra comfort in their later years. Why couldn't the government give a little consideration to these people and increase the allowable earnings to something more meaningful, so that a veteran could enjoy some comfort and at the same time get back a feeling of contributing to society?
None of those who sat in government over the past 50 years can be proud. I do not blame the present minister; I

March 8, 1973

blame all past governments. Here again we have an opportunity to correct all the inequities in the War Veterans Allowance Act, and we still leave some items uncorrected. For example, under the War Veterans Allowance Act a widow or widower responsible for the support of a child may draw the married rate. However, this ceases when the child reaches 21 years of age. This is a great imposition if the child desires to continue in school. Surely we can amend the act to raise the age to 25, to give the child a better opportunity to complete his or her education.
Under the eligibility clause of non-resident recipients, war veterans allowance may be paid to an eligible person who absents himself from Canada if, on the day that he leaves Canada, he is a recipient of the allowance and was resident in Canada for 12 months immediately preceding that day. There are many Canadian veterans who elected to stay in the United Kingdom, however, Mr. Speaker, which should be their right, and because they elected to stay there they are discriminated against. In order to qualify, they would have to move back to Canada for 365 days. Would it be too much to expect our government to finally show some recognition of the contribution they made during the conflicts? Can we have a clear conscience by denying these Canadians, the few hundred of them, the benefit of war veterans allowance just because they decided to stay in a foreign country?
Also, what about the veteran who is in the category where he qualifies, because of the size of his family, under the Canada Assistance Plan and each increase in the war veterans allowance by the federal government is charged against the amount he is receiving on social assistance? Is it not reasonable to give this veteran the same exemption that the veteran gets if he falls into the old age security category? Is he not in the same need? The criteria for war veterans allowance, and specifically the clause covering exempt income, state that certain specified benefits such as attendance allowance, additional pension paid on behalf of children and social assistance paid on behalf of children, are not assessed as income, but some provinces do charge these increases against social assistance payments. Here is another clause which must be corrected before it is too late:
Under eligibility a veteran must have served at least 365 days in the United Kingdom during World War I and prior to November 12, 1918.
I have had cases come to me of veterans in this category having served 364 days, and the department will not allow some flexibility. Is it not long past the time when we should show some human consideration, which we preach to the rooftops at election time, so that he can enjoy the exemptions under old age security and have the right to treatment services?
I have no hesitation in congratulating the minister and the government for taking the steps necessary to introduce the amendments raising the war veterans allowance as indicated in the tables at the back of the bill. I give them full marks. But there is no reason whatsoever why we should not stop and think of our commitment to all the veterans of Canada expressed over 50 years ago. Unless we do it now, Mr. Speaker, while we have the opportunity
War Veterans Allowance Act
under Bill C-148, it should ever remain on the conscience of the government that we have failed in this commitment.
For the benefit of the veterans of Canada, we accept without question the amendments offered but we commit ourselves to the following further amendments: First, to repeal the age limit of orphans and increase the age of eligibility to 25 years; second, that we would immediately consult the provinces and provide the funds necessary to eliminate the restriction charging increases in war veterans allowances against veterans' social assistance benefits; third, that we would repeal the clause restricting the eligibility of World War I veterans to those having served 365 days in the United Kingdom; fourth, that we would repeal the clause making it obligatory for war veterans who elected to stay in foreign countries to reside in Canada for 365 days in order to qualify for the war veterans allowance; fifth, that we would raise the allowable casual earnings of war veterans receiving war veterans allowances to $1,200 for the single veteran and $2,000 for the married veteran.
The married veteran cannot take advantage anyway, because he would be 79 years old and cannot work. But let us give the World War II veterans and the Korean veterans the benefit of trying to get a little extra income for the comforts they deserve.
Under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act we must seek out those who, although civilians, served in theatres of war and contributed to the war effort, because they too risked their lives on behalf of their country. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the firefighters, the Newfoundland foresters, the auxiliary service workers, the merchant seamen, the salt water fishermen and all those others who had a part to play in conflicts against the enemy.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, because this bill restricts reference to disability pensioners I should like to mention the joint study report on the basic rate of pension and emphasize the co-operation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The joint study report, authorized by the former minister of veterans affairs and supported by the present minister, which came before the committee was accepted unanimously without even hearing all the witnesses who were supposed to appear. This study was carried out by a joint committee consisting of veterans' organizations and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and was chaired by the chairman of the Pension Commission.
The recommendations contained the following: that the basic rate of pension, after so many years of procrastination, for the single, 100 per cent pensioner be based on the average salary of the five lowest categories in the public service. This would increase the basic rate of pension from the present $3,793 to $4,529. Further, Mr. Speaker, in calculating increases in the wages of these public servants rather than on the cost of living index, so that finally we could establish an equitable consideration for the disabled war veteran. I was authorized, and stated on behalf of my party, that we would accept the recommendations without debate. This was authorized by my leader. The minister is in full agreement with this new formula, Mr. Speaker, and I only hope that the cabinet will produce

March 8, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act
legislation to support these recommendations of the standing committee.
I have tried to be responsible tonight in my remarks to the government on the bill before us. We all know that the minister wants to do what is best for the war veterans of Canada. However, I warn the government that if we do not get the legislation produced following the recommendations of the joint study report, all-out war will be declared by my party.
Finally, in the interest of the war veterans of Canada, which interest is shared by my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we are prepared to pass this stage of the bill, without further debate, at ten o'clock. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention three people who assisted the veterans affairs committee: the chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board, who has over the years displayed the keenest interest in the future of the veterans who fall within the criteria of the War Veterans Allowances Act; the chairman of the Pension Commission, who since the implementation of the Woods committee report has been devoted to the cause of the veteran; and Mr. C. Chatterton, who served on the Woods committee and who since the war has devoted his life to the betterment of conditions for war amputees and all other Canadian veterans.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in spite of what goes on in this House, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has devoted himself to the cause of the pensioner in whatever category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: On behalf of my party I can say that we welcome the amendments under Bill C-148 and support them wholeheartedly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is for me a distinct honour to follow in this debate two such distinguished veterans as the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). Like them, I wish to express my very real pleasure in serving as a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. As the previous speaker indicated earlier, it is not a committee like all the others. Like him, I also want to say that we welcome Bill C-148, which seeks to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and in the process will make certain consequential changes in the administration of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. We are quite happy that it has been possible to reach agreement for this bill to be given second reading not later than ten o'clock this evening so that it can be sent to the committee and put into legislation just as soon as possible.
[DOT] <2020)
Like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, I am aware of the other piece of legislation that we hope will be before the House before long, namely, a bill to amend the Pension Act implementing the recommendations made by the joint study group which considered the basic rate of the pension under that act. As I have already

had occasion to say, I regard that report, which our committee endorsed unanimously and with expedition, as containing some very important recommendations. To begin with, it solves the problem of what the basic rate of the 100 per cent disability pension should be. On the other hand, it proposes a formula for escalating that pension in future years which is the best and most progressive escalation formula that has ever been put on the table of this House of Commons. I hope that when the minister takes this matter to cabinet he will make sure that he gets that escalation formula into the bill along with the formula for determining the basic rate of the pension.
Tonight we are not dealing with the Pension Act-that will come later-but with this bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. I realize that both previous speakers made some reference to what it does. Perhaps I might be permitted, even at the risk of repetition, to indicate briefly the provisions of this amending bill as I see them. First, it raises the amount of the allowance that can be paid to a single veteran under the War Veterans Allowance Act from the present figure of $131 to $151.14. This increase combines two things, the cost of living escalation, in the allowance itself, that came into effect at the beginning of January, plus the amount by which the old age security is being increased, with the result that the total allowance paid to a single veteran is greater than it was previously by the addition of those two amounts.
In addition to raising the maximum allowance that can be paid from $131 to $151.14, and perhaps even more important, it raises the ceiling on the total income that is permissible to a single veteran from $171 to $191.14. Again, the amount of that difference, which is a total of $20.14, is a combination of the cost of living escalation in the war veterans allowance that took place in January, plus the $13.39 by which the old age security pension is being increased. Although it raises the ceiling from $171 to $191.14, I must point out that for single veterans over 65 it really raises the ceiling from $186 to $206.14, by virtue of the fact that the extra $15 that such veterans got in 1972 is not counted for purposes of the ceiling under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
In parallel terms, this bill raises the allowance that can be paid to a married veteran from $217.61, by a total of $39.60, arrived at in the same way, to a total of $257.21. Again, it raises the more important figure, namely, the ceiling on permissible income, from $287.61, again by $39.60, to $327.21. I must point out, however, that if that married veteran and his wife are both over 65, there is another $30 in the picture. The ceiling then goes up from what was a total of $317.61 to a new ceiling of $357.21.
There is something I want to say right away about this in complimentary terms. I am glad that on this occasion the government is not giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The veteran who is under the War Veterans Allowance Act gets the full benefit of the cost of living escalation that took place in January and the full benefit of the increase in old age security. It is not given here and taken off there. In a moment or two I shall be saying there are some things about which I am not satisfied, but I am glad that on at least that point we have not had to do any arguing at all. It is also good to get these
March 8, 1973

higher allowances and ceilings, but I still think they are not high enough.
There are some anomalies that have crept into this picture which I think are unacceptable. I feel very strongly that we must straighten them out. Some have been referred to by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's St. Barbe. I think that he and I and all members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs are agreed that the time has come for us to do a thorough overhaul of the War Veterans Allowance Act, just as in the past few years we did a thorough overhaul of the Pension Act.
One of the anomalies that is most unfortunate arises because the extra $15 to a single veteran, and the extra $30 to a married veteran, if he and his wife are over 65, that were allowed last year above the ceiling were allowed by virtue of an order in council that simply said those OAS-GIS increases did not count. The ceilings were not raised; they were left where they were, but there was a special provision that this extra OAS-GIS money granted in 1972 would not be counted under the ceiling. The result is that we have this strange picture. In the case of a single veteran over 65, his effective ceiling, the one that counts, is $206.14, but the single veteran under 65 has a ceiling on the total income he can have, if he is a war veterans allowance recipient, of $191.14. I think that is quite unfair.
Likewise, if you look at the case of married veteran you find this situation. If the married veteran is over 65 and his wife is also over 65, the effective ceiling for that veteran is $357.21. In the case of the married veteran where one is over 65 and the other is under 65, the effective ceiling is $342.21. To complete the picture, if a married veteran on the war veterans allowance and his wife are both under 65, the ceiling is $327.21.
Now, it did not start out in this way at all. The hon. member referred to the fact that this act came into being in 1930. Yes, it came in in the spring of 1930. I think I can say this, to demonstrate the non-partisan nature of our approach on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs: it was introduced in the spring of 1930 when the government of Mackenzie King was in power, and first came into effect in the fall of 1930, when the government of R.B. Bennett was in power.


An hon. Member:: Were you here then, Stan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not here then, but I voted for the first time in the election of that year, and I voted for J.S. Woodsworth in Winnipeg North Centre.
I was speaking about the history of this act, which was first brought in in 1930. That was just three or four years after the old age pension of those days had come into effect. The first war veterans allowance was exactly like the first old age pension, except for the age at which benefits were available. The amount was exactly the same, $20 a month or $240 a year, with a ceiling on total income of $365 a year or about $30 per month. That ceiling applied to both pieces of legislation. The difference was that the veteran could get war veterans allowance at the age of 60, whereas the civilian could not get old age pension until he was 70. But there was no difference
War Veterans Allowance Act
between those veterans who were over or under 65. There was no provision saying that if you were 65 you would get a higher ceiling than if you were under 65.
I am sure no one intended this, but that is the way it has developed because of the anomalies which have crept into the picture. I urge strongly that this be corrected. It could be corrected very simply, by writing into the act new ceilings the equal of the highest effective ceilings that we now have, instead of allowing it to be done by order in council. We should not continue this kind of discrimination.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe referred to veterans who are on welfare programs and are getting money that comes eventually from the Canada Assistance Plan. This, of course, will involve people under 65. Although they get money from public funds in that way, there is a lower ceiling imposed on them when they are under 65 that does not apply to veterans who are over 65. I think this ought to be straightened out. Even though I am arguing that we should review the War Veterans Allowance Act in its entirety, I think this is something which we should try to correct at this time.
Another anomaly that has developed because of this legislation having been built up more or less as a piece of patchwork is this. As it now stands, a single veteran is entitled to a total of $206.14 if he is 65 years of age or over. But he already can get under the new old age security legislation, after it is passed, $170.14. This includes both OAS and GIS. That means that all the War Veterans Allowance Board will pay him is $36; yes, that is all. And if he has a small disability pension, it will cut that amount down. Mr. Speaker, $36 is the possible figure and there are many single veterans who will fit into that pattern. There are many single veterans over 65 who will get the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement, amounting to $170.14, and they will get $36 in war veterans allowance, which will bring their total benefit to $206.14. On the other hand, if you look at the case of the married veteran where both he and his wife are over 65, you will find that the total they can get under the ceiling is $357.21. They will get $324.60 in OAS and GIS, which leaves the total that they can get as war veterans allowance of $32.61.
Let me compare the figures again, in case I have not made them clear. The single veteran over 65 will get $36 from the War Veterans Allowance Board, but the married veteran over 65 will get only $32.61. Not only does the married veteran not get twice as much as the single veteran gets; he gets $3.39 less than the single veteran. As I say, I know how this program has been built up and I know you must take the total picture into consideration, but I suggest that the practice that has developed is unfair. The more veterans find they are, as it were, taken away from special veterans legislation and handled under general pensions legislation or general welfare legislation, the more they feel that they are not being given the rights to which they are entitled as veterans. I urge very strongly that we try to correct that anomaly, preferably when we have the bill in committee but certainly by instituting a complete overhaul of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I now move to the question of the removal of property qualifications which have been included in the act, up to

March 8, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act now, ever since it was passed in 1930. I welcome it most warmly and I congratulate the minister for bringing in this very significant and progressive change. When I think of all the widows over the years who, on becoming widows, sold the house and other assets and had to wait until they had used up the proceeds of that sale until their assets had been reduced to a certain figure, I wish we could make this provision retroactive; but I fear that far too many of them have gone to a place were we cannot send them any money.
The property qualification under the War Veterans Allowance Act was a disgrace and I am delighted that it is being removed. I understand that property and money in the bank will still be considered, in the sense that the interest on that money will count as income for the purposes of the means test in the act. However, at least doing away with the requirement to bring the value of property owned down to a certain figure is a progressive, humane step and I congratulate the minister on bringing in this provision tonight.
Like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, I regret that nothing has yet been done about those Canadian veterans who could qualify under the War Veterans Allowance Act except for the fact that they reside in the United Kingdom or other countries in the world and, therefore, have not met all the requirements that are in this act. I was pleased to hear the deputy minister say in the committee the other day, when we were given a preview of this legislation, that overcoming this problem is not administratively difficult. We tried to put the pressure on the mandarins to solve the problem, and the mandarins suggested that this was a matter of policy and had to go to cabinet. At the moment the mandarins and members of cabinet are within reach of my voice. The chief mandarin of this department is up there in the gallery, listening, and the minister is in the House.
I hope this problem will not be passed back and forth much longer. It is administratively possible to correct this situation, said the deputy minister but he contended it was a matter of policy. I hope that this difficulty will be solved. I think it really is incredible that Canadian veterans who choose to remain in the United Kingdom are not able to get the benefit of this legislation.
One of the changes that was made a couple of years ago was the one that denies to the widow of a war veterans allowance recipient the full married rate for one year. This is something which ought to be looked at again. I think we ought to reinstate the original provision. I hope I have said enough to indicate that in my view, and in the view of the hon. member who spoke just before me, although there is nothing in this bill that is not good and although we welcome everything in it, what is wrong is that it is not good enough. We think that the anomalies to which I have referred should be straightened out and the act should be reviewed and greatly improved.
Both the previous speaker and I referred to this act as having come into being in 1930. I mentioned that it was first drafted just three or four years after the first old age pension bill was passed by parliament. I remind hon. members again of the similarities between the two pieces of legislation. They are almost identical except for the fact that the veteran could get his benefits at age 60 and the

civilian had to wait until he was 70. The other difference was that the old age pension was administered by the Department of Finance, and that kept the amount low enough, whereas the war veterans allowance was administered by the then department of pensions and national health. Otherwise, these laws were the same.
We have moved a long way in the field of pensions, a long way from the concept of a means test as it was applied to the old age pension of the late 1920s and early 1930s. I think we should get away from that concept completely as far as the War Veterans Allowance Act is concerned. In a decade when we are talking of new methods of income maintenance, when we are talking of a guaranteed income, I think the time has come to consider the veterans who served this country as the group for whom the concept of a guaranteed annual income should begin. I should like to see the War Veterans Allowance Act, an act that has served its purpose well during the last 40 years or more, turned into a guaranteed annual income for all veterans who reach a certain age, or all veterans of any age who need it because of poor health or other reasons and who cannot qualify for a pension under the Pension Act.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe referred to those veterans of the First World War of very advanced age now. When I hear of cases of veterans who are now 70 or 80 years of age still having difficulty trying to establish their claims-the new legislation permits veterans to reopen their cases now-it seems to me it would be much simpler to establish a category such that all veterans 75 years of age or over would receive a certain allowance on a guaranteed basis without any questions asked. But then let us bring that age down, yes to 50, for veterans of more recent wars, and guarantee to all of them the standard of living they deserve.
I have had a lot to say over the years that has been critical of the shortcomings in veterans legislation. I remember that when I first came here one of the things lacking in the War Veterans Allowance Act was any provision for widows. During World War II we finally got them covered, first of all by an item in the estimates, then after a while by order in council under the War Measures Act, and finally, some time after the end of World War II, we got the widows covered under the War Veterans Allowance Act itself.
It has been a good piece of legislation and we have made it better over the years. Many Canadian veterans have benefited under the War Veterans Allowance Act. But we are no longer in the 1920s or 1930s. We are no longer in the means test or welfare age; we are in an age where we talk of rights. If any persons in this country have a sacred right, it is the veterans who have served us, and their survivors. I think we should move as quickly as we can to transform the War Veterans Allowance Act into a guaranteed income act for all the veterans of this country.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the other speakers who took part in the debate on this bill concerning the condition of veterans.
March 8, 1973

Besides asking on their behalf for an increase in their pensions, we want to pay tribute today to those who fought for the greatest principles of civilization. It was to uphold all those great principles that our veterans fought. They are now fighting to obtain the right to live in a community whose wealth exceed the needs, even if those needs have not yet been fulfilled.
What we are asking is that this government increase the veterans pensions like the old age pension. Since we have raised pensions for a certain category of people, we must also raise those of veterans. Otherwise, it would be unfair, the administration would not be sound and we would ignore one class of citizens that should have priority because these people have dedicated themselves, suffered ill treatments and done some work that the others have not done.
But if we intend to increase these pensions, this country must be able to do so and we must analyze all sectors of society to find out whether it is truly possible.
We must also know what effect a pension increase can have on the population. Is it good to ir crease pensions? Is it good to increase this or that? Are we really in a position to do it? Will that restore the economic balance or make it worse?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to develop this subject because I think that all those increases are throwing the economy further out of kilter. I strongly believe that they are not the right solutions. I say right now that we are not against higher pensions for senior citizens or veterans because they have a right to those increases just as well as others. However I also say that those increases are not normal, because we only consider higher pensions without thinking about replenishing the source so that it does not run dry. We draw from that source as if it were endless, without caring about the necessary repairs to that source on which the population feeds itself.
So, if we want the population to go on living and progressing, the feeding sources must be abundant. We must work on them, dig through them and modify them until we find plenty of water to provide everything we need for the population. The only way we find at present is to increase pensions.
Industrialized countries have known a strong economic growth in 1972. As soon as confidence returned after the national economic crisis of August 1971, growth accelerated everywhere, in Europe, in Japan and in North America. In large industrialized countries, the rate of production almost doubled as compared with the previous year. In 1972, the gross national product went up from 10.5 to 11 per cent, per capita personal income increased by almost 10.5 per cent, while the standard of living of Canadians rose by only 5.5 per cent.
As shown in per capita consumer expenditures, national revenue increases, interest rates have gone up alarmingly and the income of financial institutions has reached unprecedented levels.
But middle businessmen's incomes have substantially decreased. The income of ordinary businessmen is reduced to almost nothing because the government must
War Veterans Allowance Act
grant pensions since some people live in shameful and abject poverty.
Mr. Speaker, we are still facing two major issues: unemployment and rising prices. We must unhappily admit that the level of unemployment is too high and that we must take steps to solve these problems. We must give stronger momentum to the economic growth and reduce unemployment. To correct this situation, we suggest boosting pensions in order to decrease unemployment.
I am still wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether we are really going in the right direction to reach our objective, namely to lower the level of unemployment by increasing pensions, while at the same time coping with the rise in the cost of living and prices. That was the casue of the economic unrest in 1972.
The increase in consumer prices specially affected food prices, which have spiraled. I shall not go into a long description of the reasons for increases. The present economic system is the direct cause of loss of purchasing power. Therefore, higher veterans allowances and pensions of other citizens are being called for.
As a result of pressure from the opposition, the government has decided to give priority to increasing veterans allowances' and old age pensions. Veterans' allowances will be upped to $151 a month for single beneficiaries or persons living alone and $257 for married couples. These increases, according to the minister's statement, would cost $9 million in 1973-74.
As for the veterans, the committee will say in its report what it recommends as an increase for their disability pensions. The committee is working on that problem and it is on those objectives that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) based his remarks a while ago proposing adjustments to give justice to all and provide a better balance between the incomes of married and single people.
In fact, veterans suffer like all others from the disastrous increases in the cost of living. Therefore, they are as entitled to increases in their pensions as others.
We still think that all those increases further unbalance our economy. Those monies could help reduce the cost of living by way of a compensated discount. Instead of raising pensions of all types, it would have been wiser to reduce the cost of living. Then all taxpayers would have benefited from it. The economy would have been stimulated in a general way and that would have allowed us to boost the purchasing power of people, to create jobs, to neutralize the economy and to do away with inflation while at the same time providing more tax relief for taxpayers.
We then come to realize that the economic balance can be restored and stabilized only by raising those pensions of all types. So we are for any logical increase, but we would like to have the most logical and practical system so as to be in a position to allow Canadians to live decently in their country which is not lacking in resources or production.
Nobody in this country worries about where he will find goods he needs. But all Canadians are concerned about tomorrow, they wonder where they will find the scraps of paper that they need to meet their needs. They do not

March 8, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act worry about the production because they know that it exists. They know that it is done automatically; they know where to find it and how to get it.
But there is only one way to have money: it is to borrow it and to pay interest. The governments are doing the same thing and it is impossible for them to further increase pensions because the cost of living goes up and the situation of all citizens, young and old, gets more and more difficult. They find themselves in a rather precarious position because the cost of living is rising. We must reduce the cost of living to allow the citizens to have a logical and reasonable life in their own country; but when the cost of living goes up because of increases in all kinds of pensions, the economy gets more and more unbalanced.
Mr. Speaker, all things must first go through the mind. One has to know that. If there is a table, it is because a man conceived that table and then made it according to his own idea, with the materials and tools available to him.
To do a thing well, Mr. Speaker, you must first think of it and I believe that all the increases that are granting now have not been given enough thought, have been planned to build a viable economy according to basic principles and real facts.
Mr. Speaker, to do something well you should first give some thought and then try to do it as well as you imagine it. A painter is seldom completely satisfied with his work. Why? Precisely because the painting does not give a true picture of what he sees in his mind. This is an example, but we also know, Mr. Speaker, that the clearer a picture in the mind, the easier it becomes to realize, to produce and to materialize.
It is not for nothing that it is said, Mr. Speaker, that ideas rule the world; nothing can become visible before it has been thought of first.
So, before existing in reality, man was first conceived in God's spirit as well as his way of living on earth, according to nature which comprises material, cultural and spiritual elements. If, in the devine spirit, man was created to live in society, this man, in order to live well in society must first of all have in his own mind the vision of a beautiful, well-ordered, dignified, efficient and progressive life in society if he wants to live for each individual and for mankind.
That is the meaning of a real mind; the clearer our conception of society and of mankind, the more beautiful and fruitful will be life in society for all whose life is within themselves, within the family and within society. Both the aged and veterans are a part of this society.
Such is the environment of man's life on earth, in any country, including Canada in 1973.
The past helps us to understand Canada's present situation, with its inflation, unemployment, and monetary, economic and political poverty. The political orientation of a government that has been elected by the people of a country is expressed in financial terms.
If one's mind is really well developed, it becomes an easy matter to foresee how to bring about an economic

balance on a national scale between the family and business incomes that make up the economic life of Canada in 1973.
How, Mr. Speaker, are we to rid ourselves of poverty, unemployment and inflation, and enable every individual to lead a happy personal family and social life, when our monetary, political and economic machinery is such as it is?
The existing political and economic machinery is not in tune with the facts. Our political economic is leading us on a suicide course. The people is committing suicide because of a poor economy that fails to take account of its realities.
Mr. Speaker, instead of guiding Canada, the governments have become tax collectors, and the largest portion of those taxes, the most sacred portion, which should go to helping the citizens of Canada, the old people, but which escapes any discussion, is precisely that which goes for interest charges on the public debt. Because of that, the public lives in want and the governments in bondage, all that is needed to bring wellbeing to every country, every home exists. That is why finance does not reflect economic realities.
The financial system wreaks injustice upon the old, the veterans, children and families. Those who advocate it, those who accept it are party to injustice, to social disorder and anarchy; they are responsible for taxes and surtaxes, responsible for public debts and therefore responsible for unnecessary fears and deprivations. They are party to the injustice from which a large number of Canadians suffer.
The tax system is the consequence of a financial system based on injustice. Our financial system is based on our banking system. The banks control our financial system. They issue the money we call credit, basing themselves on the real wealth. In this case, the wealth of the country belongs to the country, to all its citizens. There is individual and collective wealth.
Bankers are people like any other people. They are making themselves the bookkeepers of the country's money and now they claim they own that money. They appropriate credit and cancel it when they so decide. TTiey are the absolute owners of the flow of money as they take over the creating and the cancellation of money.
Mr. Speaker, we want the people and the veterans in particular to have as much money as possible. We want them all to be happy and I think we all agree on this. However, in our present economic situation we cannot afford this, because the higher the pensions for the benefit of the individual the more we are creating problems for the people as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to vote for this bill, but we have known for a long time there is no solution to these problems nor to politically inspired increases and social or economic increases. There are no practical solutions that would allow families, individuals, veterans to live according to their income or the national production increases. Every time production goes up a certain percentage, pensions are increased by a very small percentage. This means an accumulation of production leading to capitalization. In fact, there is too much capitalization in
March 8, 1973

our present economy to bring about reasonable changes which are needed by the people.
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) rises on a point of order.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is some agreement to have this bill passed by ten o'clock. If there be such agreement, perhaps that may be made an order of the House. The second point is that I think there is also agreement to limit the length of speeches until ten o'clock to perhaps ten minutes each. That might also be made an order of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might draw certain difficulties to the attention of hon. members. I have six names before me. If I indicated those names we might ascertain whether, indeed, these are the only prospective speakers in the debate. On the one hand I have the name of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and on the other hand the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Those are the six names which I have. If these are to be the only speakers for the remainder of the debate, I think eight and a half minutes would be the proper time limit. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are a party to this agreement. However, I raise just one point. If the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) should arrive, he might like three or four minutes. Perhaps the Chair would keep that in mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, when Your Honour sees the hon. member for Timiskaming you might also bear in mind that you do not see the clock.
[DOT] <2110)


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this bill, we will agree to the suggestion that has just been made. Hon. members appear, from what we have heard this evening, to agree to referring this bill to committee as quickly as possible. I therefore give our agreement as requested.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the House understands what has been agreed. There are six, possibly seven, speakers, and in view of the time available perhaps the Chair could give each one eight minutes. We will start with the hon. member for Labelle.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the agreement we just reached proves the unanimity of everyone here. This bill has the acceptance of everyone
War Veterans Allowance Act
and we are all very anxious to vote on it. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, for a few reasons, mainly for reasons of solidarity and to obtain justice for our former comrades who served in the armed forces with so many of us in the House during the dark days in Europe.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to endorse the comments of my colleagues the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when they recalled the participation of our fellow citizens to that conflict which lasted almost five years and in which such a great number of our fellow citizens bravely fought.
The hon. member for Humbert-St. George's-St. Barbe also recalled, the participation or contribution of the members of the armed forces to the national unity in Canada. I agree with him wholeheartedly when he recalls the strength of that feeling of solidarity, the polarization of a cause accepted by all young Canadians many of whom had left an interesting career, either as businessmen or as professionals, either higher studies or a wife and a family.
So, for all these former comrades in the armed forces, Mr. Speaker, I think that we are all anxious to see to it that that legislation is enacted as soon as possible. [English]
I think that at this time it is appropriate that we should review briefly the origins of the War Veterans Allowance Act and restate the principles upon which it is based. I did some research on my own into this aspect of the legislation and I would like to share some of my findings with the House.
Many people are of the view that the War Veterans Allowance Act is the product of the depression years between World War I and World War II. This is not so, although the benefits proved to be of great assistance during those years. As a matter of fact, the problem of the burnt out veteran was under study in the early 1920s, several years before the depression. The problem had been recognized as early as 1922, and in 1928 and again in 1930 it was studied in detail by the special committee of parliament on pensions and returned soldiers' problems. When appearing before that committee on April 9, 1930, a spokesman for the minister of the then department of pensions and national health stated:
There are certain individuals at the present time, under the present pension act, who come to the department for assistance and help. These men are what have been called burnt out men; men of low pensions, and men who are no longer employable. If they went up for pension examination, the things from which they are suffering are of an intangible character; they are simply unable to work, and that before their time ...
It is something similar to what we see in using machinery. I might take as an example the locomotive that is geared up to drag a train along at 50 miles an hour, ordinary time, and some day the train is late and has to go 60 miles an hour to make up its time. When the end of that trip is reached, the coalbox is empty and the engine blowing off in all directions, while the engineer and fireman are worn out. It is that extra ten miles that has caused it.. .
We take the soldier who was overseas, and who was in the war front, he went under a driving that is much greater than probably most of us can conceive or realize-mental stress, and physical stress-and the mental stress was a considerable one . ..

March 8, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act
We felt it was a pressure that others do not undergo. It was a wonder to us how the men in the front line stood what they did and for so long, so that this is advanced as a reason why consideration should be given to those men along this particular line ...
We know that they have the greatest difficulty in finding employment.
It is also interesting to note that when the original War Veterans Allowance Act was introduced in 1930, Bill-19, its preamble expressed the problem in these words:
Whereas there are a great number of veterans in Canada who are not in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Pension Act...
And it is found that many pensioners and non-pensioners are, in fact, unemployable by reason of intangible results of their war service, apart from any consideration of pensionable disability; and it is desirable to provide assistance, or additional assistance, for these veterans in recognition of their service.
That expresses, I believe, quite clearly the reason for war veterans allowance. It was to make provision for men who were prematurely aged because of their war service. Because these conditions also apply to the veterans of other conflicts in which Canada has been involved, the benefits of the act have been extended from time to time so that veterans of the Northwest Field Force, the South African war, World War II and the Korean operation are now eligible. Coverage has also been extended to include the widows and orphans of such veterans.
There has been definite progress in this legislation through the years and no less than 15 changes have taken place since its inception in 1930. The original rate was $20 for a single veteran and $40 for a married veteran. Bill C-148 will once again update this important piece of legislation. It will provide for monthly payments, to those who qualify, of $151.14 for single veterans and $257.21 for married veterans. It will also remove the restrictions on personal property which have existed at various levels since the act was first passed.
This bill not only provides for the largest single increase in war veterans allowances in recent years, but also changes the character of the legislation and makes it a modified income-tested program. The men and women who will benefit from this bill are deserving of these changes. Many times we have said that they were the finest. I am proud to have been associated with this bill.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of Bill C-148, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am also proud to associate myself with those who have presented the bill and those who have worked so diligently and with such great compassion in preparing the studies and statistics required so that their thoughts could be translated into legislation. I believe we should also pay tribute to those persons who originated the study and to those who gave those conducting it the terms of reference necessary to prepare the supporting details for this bill.
Previous supporters of this bill have set down the changes and have commented on the increases in benefits that will accrue to the war veterans as the result of its passage. They have also pointed out some of the weaknesses that need looking into. I feel that they have been adequately covered and I do not intend to repeat those details. I just want to say a few words about veterans in general. War is a terrible act. The effects of war and the

after effects of war are equally terrible. Some people involved in the world wars and in the Korean war were able to find their way back into the mainstream of life. Some took a long time to rehabilitate, and some can never be rehabilitated. It is for the latter group that we are passing this legislation.
I am a war veteran and I am proud of whatever contribution I may have made. I was one of the lucky ones who were able to pick up the threads of life and continue on. But I left many friends in Europe, in the Middle East and in the Far East, young people full of hope and purpose who gave of themselves that others might live a full life. Some of my comrades and friends came home broken of body or mind, or both, and some came home with clouds in their minds because of suffering they had endured in prison camps or from grievous field wounds. They had left home light of spirit and with a purpose. Many did not not understand the full implications of war, but they readily accepted their responsibility and gave unselfishly of themselves in a just cause. I wish that today we could recapture some of that purpose. I wish we could catch the spirit and comradeship of those years, because then we could move mountains and overcome any obstacle in our path.
Each year when we have our Remembrance Day ceremonies I catch a glimpse of that spirit. I see the veterans line up to parade to the cenotaph. For a few fleeting moments their backs straighten, their heads take on a more jaunty angle and their eyes have that clarity of purpose reserved only for those persons who have seen war and who have returned. They remember because they can never forget. To many of them the war was a beginning, and unfortunately to some it was an end. But it is for those persons who fall between those two points that we bring forth Bill C-148 to help them in the later years of their lives. I hope the minister will be able to convince the cabinet to present a bill that will put into motion a legislative function that will ensure that they keep pace with a reasonable standard of living. I think all the members on the veterans affairs committee hope that this will happen. For many veterans this bill will be a new lease on life. It will allow them again to have some dignity and purpose. It will show them that we remember.
From all walks of life and from all professions, veterans left their homes and families to accept a challenge to the principles they had grown to accept as commonplace. Men and women undertook challenges that under normal circumstances perhaps would have frightened them. But they had that spirit and purpose which are so elusive today and are so needed.
I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud to associate myself with Bill C-148, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am proud to associate myself with hon. members on all sides of the House who support this bill. I am proud to join hon. members who preceded me in lauding the efforts of those who drafted this bill and who did the preceding studies. I wish the bill God speed so that the recipients of war veterans allowance may receive the benefits contained in the bill at the earliest possible moment.
March 8, 1973


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-148, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, is one which I am very pleased to see before the House today. As a member who was fortunate enough to train here in Ottawa early in the war, I had in those days as a confrere the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Those were in the days when we were on the same side.
When the War Veterans Allowance Act was first introduced, Canadian veterans, and British veterans domiciled in Canada at the date of their enlistment, with service in an actual theatre of war and disability pensioners were eligible for the allowance. Since then the act has been broadened to include widows of such veterans, orphans, dual service veterans and veterans who served during World War I in the United Kingdom for 365 days prior to the armistice. The act was also amended to include veterans of British Commonwealth and allied forces who were not domiciled in Canada at the date of their enlistment but had resided in Canada for ten years at the time of their application.
In order to receive the allowance outside of Canada, a person must have been a recipient at the time of his departure and must have resided in Canada for the 12 months immediately preceding the day he left Canada. The number of war veterans allowance recipients on March 31, 1972, was a little more than 75,000, of whom some 38,000 were from World War I and some 35,000 from World War II. The expenditure for the year amounted to some $73 million. It is interesting to note that five years ago there were over 86,000 recipients and the total expenditure was over $101 million. The administration of the War Veterans Allowance Act is the responsibility of the War Veterans Allowance Board. This board is a quasijudicial body, independent as far as its decisions are concerned, and acts as a court of appeal for applicants and recipients who are aggrieved by any decision of a district authority.
I appreciate the great value to war veterans allowance and to civilian war allowance recipients of the increases in the rates by $20.14 for single persons and $39.60 for those who are married. I realize that this will give over 100,000 Canadians increased purchasing power and therefore a justly deserved improvement in their standard of living. However, I would like to dwell briefly on the other main aspect of Bill C-148, the abolition of the personal property restriction. I realize that on November 9, 1972, the regulation imposing an assessment as income when the value of the recipient's home exceeded $10,000 was rescinded. This was a welcome step. However, the problem of personal property still remained. I am sure that many members of the House have received letters from constituents who have lamented the fact that they had slightly more in the way of personal property than the $1,250 single, or $2,5C0 if married, permitted by the act.
Some of these people knew that they could never again increase their personal property holdings, yet they realized they could not qualify for the allowance until they had expended their small surplus. Bill C-148, I am glad to say, will remove that problem. When this bill is passed, the value of personal property will no longer be a bar to eligibility. The tests for eligibility will be service and income.
War Veterans Allowance Act
I firmly believe that the citizens of Canada expect us to recognize with justice the sacrifices made for our freedom by this particular group of Canadians for whom the war veterans allowance was designed. I further believe that they will welcome this action on the part of the government and of parliament as a clear indication that it is our intention to continue to improve the legislation that affects this important segment of the Canadian public.
The record of the government in the field of veterans legislation is one with which I am honoured to be associated. I am proud of the record of Canada's serving men and women in two world wars and the Korean conflict, and I am proud of the measures that this government has taken and is taking to provide just recognition of their service and contribution to the cause of freedom.
The minister has dealt in detail with the other changes which have been made in the War Veterans Allowance Act and regulations. This bill is in keeping with the government's policy of improving veterans legislation so as to provide greater benefits to those who qualify. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to stress that in my opinion the changes which have taken place in the act and regulations in recent months, and the changes proposed in this bill, are important not only because they will increase the number of dollars in the pockets of the recipients, but also because they show a definite trend toward an increased recognition of the right of privacy of the individual. We will no longer be asking an applicant or recipient, "How much is your home worth?" We will no longer be asking him, "How much money do you have in the bank?" We will only be asking him to declare his income, and that, in my opinion, is a very reasonable request when the object of the legislation is to ensure that his income does not fall below the amounts provided by the act.
I sincerely believe that many of the recipients and many of those who will apply in the future will be happy to know that this step has been taken in order to respect their dignity and personal privacy. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains sound proposals and I heartily endorse it.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-148 has certain application to veterans of World War I who are the beneficiaries of increases in the payments under the act, and also with regard to the value of their holdings. For many years we have felt uncomfortable about the limitations imposed upon them and their spouses in regard to whatever property they may have accumulated during their lifetime. On the other hand, the casual benefits will be of little help because they are now of an age when it is rare that they are earning an income or have additional income that would be caught by the act. With regard to World War II veterans, however, these features are more important to them than they are to the first group. The World War II group will benefit by an increase in the payment which is commensurate with the increase in the old age security and the adjustment in the cost of living formula.
There is one thing that I have been hammering at. I would not draw attention to any individuals in this House within the sound of my voice, but they will know what I mean and it will be seen by anyone who cares to read the
25789-51 h

March 8, 1973
War Veterans Allowance Act proceedings of the veterans affairs committee in years past. It is what I consider the irrational, unrealistic and totally inequitable limitation on the payment of war veterans allowance to people who do not have the 365 days residence in Canada required for qualification.
At the committee meetings last June we had very serious discussions with the minister's officials and a study was promised. That was progress, because in the past the minister's predecessors had rejected my representations out of hand. Those conditions have not changed, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the minister that this is one area in which I thoroughly support my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) namely, the war veterans allowance should be paid to Canadian veterans who now live in Great Britain and Europe and have not qualified, by reason of the requirement of residence in Canada, since the end of hostilities.
We are told that there are administrative difficulties to bar the payments. I commend to the minister the representations put forward by the veterans' association in the United Kingdom. Year by year they have bombarded the ministry with their pleas. I know the people who administer the war veterans act in the United Kingdom, and there is not one word of truth or fact in the claim that there are administrative difficulties with regard to the men who do not have 365 days residence in Canada. The administration would be the same, and the number is small.
Mr. Speaker, we have veterans of World War I and World War II living in the United Kingdom under the conditions which are a downright shame. They are Canadians, and we maintain them over there in a condition of proud but undeniable poverty because of the inflexible attitude of the government on this rule. I for one who was a member of the Canadian armed forces during World War II absolutely refuse to accept this as a continuing condition and I hope that hon. members of this House will join with me in that crusade. This is not something that we must accept, any more than we can accept the conditions of prisoners of war.
If the minister and the government have seen fit to increase the ceiling with regard to the value of property under the War Veterans Allowance Act, what logical or equitable reason is there for maintaining an unrealistic ceiling under the Veterans Land Act? The action on property evaluations, mortgage ceilings and all the other matters were steps in the right direction. The minister was a good soldier during the war, but I must tell him that when you put one foot forward, you follow it with another and you go forward and make progress.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for this step forward with Bill C-148 and I urge, with all the sincerity that I as one of the veterans in this House can possibly bring forward, that they listen to the pleas of my colleagues on this side and members on the other side for justice for our veterans. Let us do them justice in today's circumstances, and not within the limits of the late 1940s and the 1950s with artificial ceilings which are totally unrealistic and unjust.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. [English.]
Mr. Speaker, this bill continues the fine tradition of this House in recognizing that Canada owes a special debt to the men and women who served our cause in time of war. These are the men who, because of their belief in our way of life, for $1.10 a day withstood the murderous gas attack at Saint Julian when troops of other countries could not stand, who took Vimy Ridge after other nations soldiers had failed, who fought gallantly at Beaumont-Hamel, Passchendaele, Cambrai and many other places.
These are the men who, paid $1.30 a day, landed in Sicily, defeated the enemy at Ortona, broke the Hitler line, assaulted the beaches of Dieppe, advanced the farthest of any allied troops on D-Day in 1944, liberated Holland and fought their way into the enemy heartland. They are the men who rolled and tossed in the destroyers and frigates of the North Atlantic convoys, and who faced the rigours of the aid to Russia sea route; others held steady in the flak of the bomber runs and maintained air umbrellas over the fighting troops.
The recipients of civilian war allowances include many of the merchant seamen who braved the cold, bleak, dangerous seas of the Murmansk run to deliver supplies to the Russians, or travelled on the Atlantic convoys taking supplies to beleaguered Britain. Their pay was small, their living conditions rigorous, and many were torpedoed and suffered hours in the chill Atlantic waters.
Bill C-148 will provide for an improved standard of living by increasing the rates and ceilings by $20.14 for single persons and $39.60 for those who are married. This will mean that the new monthly rates will be $151.14 single, $257.21 married, and the new annual income ceilings will be $2,293.68 single and $3,926.52 married. In addition, those who are in receipt of old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement will continue to benefit by an additional $15 a month single, and $30 married, by way of the exemption of those amounts of old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement.
Clause 2, which removes the limitations on personal property, is also of great importance because it will relieve many recipients of the disappointment and frustration experienced when from some source a small amount of personal property is acquired and as a result their allowance has to be cancelled and often an overpayment established. This clause will add to the peace of mind of many of the more than 78,000 recipients, and will also pave the way for others who are just over the personal property limitation to apply and qualify for the war veterans allowance or civilian war allowance.
This legislation is definitely in keeping with the attitude demonstrated by this government in earlier measures introduced and referred to by the minister which have improved the lot of war veterans allowance and civilian war allowance recipients. This government's pride in the accomplishment of Canada's servicemen and women is reflected in the measures by which we have provided for them. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Veterans

March 8, 1973

Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for his ability, efficiency and a job well done, benefiting our veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate on Bill C-148 and the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. I join the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) in congratulating the minister on presenting this bill. This is the first bill he has presented to the House, although he appeared before the standing committee with regard to the study of basic rates which was carried out last year by the veterans' association and officials of the department. I must say that the minister acquitted himself very well before the committee. I am happy to join other hon. members in congratulating the minister in presenting his first bill to the House.
This bill will increase benefits allowed under the War Veterans Allowance Act as well as the ceiling on earnings of recipients. One important aspect of the bill is that it removes the limit on personal assets which a recipient may have at the time of making application. I understand this is called a modified income-tested program.
Last week we debated the Old Age Security Act and guaranteed income supplement bill. It is fitting that this is being followed by amendments increasing allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Perhaps it is a tribute to the minister that he assumed his responsibilities at the time amendments were being brought forward to the Old Age Security Act with compatible increases being brought in at the same time to the war veterans allowance legislation. This bill is important to some 76,000 Canadians who are recipients of the war veterans allowance.
I wish to speak for a moment about the committee's study of basic rates, because I feel sure that in the not too distant future there will be pressure for the principle that was adopted by the committee to apply this to the War Veterans Allowance Act and other old age pension legislation. The principle is that we not only increase pensions annually by the amount of the cost of living, but by the increase in the standard of living. When the committee adopted the recommendations of this basic study report and recommended them to the House for acceptance, it was a very significant, almost revolutionary step because it has important implications for our whole old age security system.
Last year we tied the old age pension and veterans benefits to the cost of living index and the increases that take place there. In the past several years these have been in the order of 3 per cent or 4 per cent. I believe in 1972 it was 3.6 per cent and in 1973 it will be 4.5 per cent. This is not nearly keeping pace with the average increase in earning of Canadians, which is often in the realm of 6, 7 or 8 per cent. When we tie the benefits of the old age pension to the standard of living rather than the cost of living, there is a significant difference. It means that every so many years we do not have to go back and increase the basic amount in order to catch up with what has been lost due to the difference between the cost of living increase and the standard of living increase.
War Veterans Allowance Act
Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-148. Perhaps by some standards it is a modest increase, but to the recipients of these benefits it is very important and significant.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in support of this bill. As usually happens when veterans affairs legislation is before the House, there is complete unanimity of opinion. I echo the sentiments expressed by other members of my party, indeed, by members of all parties, in support of the bill now before the House.
I wish to pay special tribute to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) on this, his first bill. It may not be customary for members of the opposition to pay tributes to the government, but on this occasion they are justly earned. I know that veterans throughout this country respect the new minister, not only because he is a veteran but also he is a veteran who has suffered, being a double amputee. That is a handicap which better enables him to judge the condition in which many veterans across this land find themselves.
Although it is impossible to turn back progress, if one can call it that, or change certain aspects of veterans legislation, I wish to protest the fact that the war veterans allowance is now to be mixed up with the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement. Many veterans consider the war veterans allowance as a burned out pension, if one may call it that. They fell that this pension is given to them because of the service they rendered to their country.
Many members of the House have paid tribute to our veterans. It seems to me that we are doing them a dishonour, if one may call it that, by mixing up payments under the war veterans allowance with payments under other social programs. As I have said, veterans feel that the allowance is theirs as of right because they served their country in time of need. Also, the pension and supplement are subject to income tax, whereas the war veterans allowance is exempt from such tax.
The big thing we must remember is the pride which veterans feel for having served their country. They feel that that service was recognized by the payment of what they call the burned out pension and what we call the war veterans allowance. I suppose there is no way to change this part of the legislation, but I think the Department of Veterans Affairs ought to take cognizance of what I have said. If it is possible on a future occasion to again give the veteran his just dues in the form of veterans allowance rather than in the form of pension, I think we should do so.
Apart from the increased benefits under this legislation, which are important, one of the most important parts of it is that which removes the restriction regarding the amount of property that a veteran may own before he is eligible for the full war veterans allowance. This new provision will certainly remove some of the roadblocks which have prevented veterans from receiving the full allowance. It is high time that this change was made. Veterans have protested to me, and I am sure to other hon. members, about the restriction on the amount they

March 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
can earn. Granted, the ceiling has been raised. That is good and I do not quarrel with it. I ask, would we lose too much if we removed the ceiling altogether on veterans' earnings? Surely a veteran is making a contribution to society by the work he does, and we are doing him a great disservice by placing any ceiling on the amount he may earn and reducing his war veterans allowance accordingly.
Those are just a few of my thoughts, Mr. Speaker. Let me return to the war veterans allowance, or to the burned out pension as the veteran calls it. He has a certain pride in having served his country. I submit the allowance should be paid to him without any strings attached and without any liability for income tax. I will certainly support this bill, as will members on all sides of the House. I think the haste with which the bill was dealt with by the study group is evidence of the interest in it. We are ready to pass it almost immediately.
When this bill goes to committee I am sure we shall witness the same speedy consideration that the report of the study group received. I look forward to seeing the bill in committee very shortly so that we may work on it, bring it back to the House for final approval and make available to veterans benefits which will accrue from April 1.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I remind the House that if the minister takes the floor at this time it will be to close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to all hon. members who have spoken on the bill and was extremely pleased to hear them support its measures. Regarding the suggestions made, especially by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I look forward to exploring these matters further when the bill goes before the committee. I thank hon. members for their kind words and sincerely hope that this bill will be before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs at the first opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available to me this evening I hope the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) will be in a position to clear up the confusion on questionable features surrounding the new regulations that were announced in January concerning advance booking charter regulations. For some time now a number of hon. members have been asking the minister questions in the House about the many areas of confusion and uncertainty surrounding the new regulations. I hope that after almost two months of concern, there will be some clarification of the regulations.
I know that the minister's powers are limited. The National Transportation Act limits the powers of the minister to alter decisions of the Canadian Transport Commission. However, the minister has responsibility for dealing with matters of transportation policy that affect our nation. Surely he is in a position to wield a great deal of influence in policy matters and in the bringing in of regulations that are prescribed by the Canadian Transport Commission within the ambit of the National Transportation Act. I say this in view of the many regulations which affect detrimentally many members of the travelling public. I believe it is fair to say that the regulations prescribed by the Canadian Transport Commission do not reflect the wishes of the travelling public nor the wishes of the retail travel trade.
In my opinion, without doubt the new regulations are making air charter travel more difficult. The new regulations are making air charter travel more confusing and more expensive. Above all, the new charter regulations do not provide the necessary protection against the so-called "bucket shop operator" or the undesirable operator who has plagued the charter industry in the past few years. Furthermore, it will place an increased burden on prospective charter passengers and also create undue hardship on the legitimate charter organizations who are dedicated to providing air charter travel to the many Canadians who are desirous of obtaining economic holiday travel.
I believe it is fair to say that these regulations are weighted very heavily in favour of the profitablity of the scheduled air services in this country at the expense of the travelling public. A look at the policy of price fixing, which in my opinion is monopolistic, reveals that foreign carriers are not allowed to file a tariff of fares that is below the fares filed by a Canadian carrier. As a result, undoubtedly air fares will be forced up to a much higher level.
The 90-day pre-booking requirement with a 25 per cent, non-refundable deposit places a very severe economic burden on those who are contemplating such holiday travel. In the event that a person has to change his holiday plans at the last minute, he has to surrender the 25 per cent deposit that he places on his trip. I seriously believe that this requirement should be altered and that there should be a 45 or 60-day pre-booking period. This has
March 8, 1973

been the suggestion made by a pioneer of the air charter industry in Canada, namely, Max Ward. I also believe that a great deal more flexibility should be given to the substitution of passengers using, say, a 30-day or perhaps 15-day period.
The whole matter of marketing the new ABC's has created a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. There has been delay in publishing the regulations. There has been delay in interpretation, which has created mass chaos in the air charter industry. We now have subsidiaries of airlines that are retailing the air charter bookings. We have Intervac, which is associated with Ward-Air, and Econair, associated with Air Canada, and so on. There is no question in my mind that these firms are operating at arm's length with the air lines.
I reiterate that the rules contained in the new regulations do not prevent the illegitimate operator from taking advantage of the public. I submit that the regulations should be tightened up. I believe they can be tightened up through meaningful discussion and consultation with the retail travel trade and with those engaged in the travel business. I must say that the whole approach to the formulation of these regulations was conducted on a unilateral basis. I believe the Canadian Transport Commission, in its wisdom, should have consulted to a much greater degree those involved in the travel business. Above all, we must know who is authorized and who is not authorized to organize a charter.
As reported at page 1758 of Hansard for February 28, the minister indicated that under section 43:37 of the regulations, permission may be authorized to depart from any of the provisions of the regulations, and I believe that this is welcome. Surely there is ample justification for this. Following a number of representations by interested travel groups, and indeed by myself, the minister recognized that there were indeed some very severe shortcomings and failings in the regulations.
I would urge the parliamentary secretary to consult his minister and members of the Canadian Transport Commission, persuading them to take due consideration of some of the further shortcomings I have enunciated this evening and, if necessary, scrap the regulations now prescribed because I believe they are unworkable. I think consideration should also be given to the fact that it is about time we recognized that the Canadian Transport Commission should concern itself more with the welfare of the travelling public than with the airlines and the railways to the degree it has in the past.
We are all aware of the lessons of the rail passenger service as a result of the protective shield provided by the Canadian Transport Commission. I urge that we do not allow that commission to shield the operations of the Airlines in the way it has shielded the operations of rail passenger services.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that I will be pleased to bring his representations of this evening to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). To my knowledge, no new regulations have yet been finalized. I should like to direct the hon. mem-
Adjoumment Debate
ber's attention-no doubt he is aware of this-to an answer given by the minister to a question posed by the hon. member which is to be found in Hansard for January 25, at page 636. He said:
Mr. Speaker, it is generally known that new regulations have been enacted regarding advance booking charters and published on January 8. I feel it is somewhat premature to draw conclusions on the implementation of the new policy because when preparing these regulations we consulted the Transport Commission and other authorities involved. As and when we become aware that the risks pointed out by the hon. member can really materialize, we shall certainly review the regulations.
I should also like to refer the hon. member to an answer by the minister in reply to a question posed by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) which appears at page 1758 of Hansard for February 28. The minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission informs me that the relevant regulations authorize the commission to remove or waive some restrictions in certain individual cases.
Now the Canadian Transport Commission has decided to waive certain delays for all travel towards eastern Europe, which means that no ethnic groups will meet with the problems they faced so far.


CANADIAN CULTURE-MULTICULTURALISM-REQUEST FOR GRANT TO SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCIAL LIBRARY TO BUY BOOKS IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 6, I asked a question of the minister responsible for multiculturalism regarding library grants to the provincial library of Saskatchewan. The question was taken as notice by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). I was disappointed that the minister responsible did not answer. However, I should like to outline in a little more detail the problem we have in this regard.
This problem has been brought to my attention by a number of letters from my own province. The provincial library in Saskatchewan has been carrying the operations of the public library system in that province and has from time to time provided multicultural services. In Saskatchewan we have small libraries and a regional library system which are financed largely by provincial government grants and also by local taxation.
Originally the service was adequate for the limited use to which it was put by a few borrowers. Gradually over the years the borrowers from that library have demanded improved library service in the many languages of the Saskatchewan pioneers. With increased attention to the question of bilingualism and multiculturalism in Canada, this will become more important to the people of Saskatchewan as time goes on. I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the reports of the 1971 census regarding the mother tongue of the population of Saskatchewan showed that 208,000 people, from a total population of 926,000, spoke neither English nor French as their first language. A total of 31,000 people in Saskatchewan spoke French as their first language. The breakdown by ethnic origin is still available only from the 1961 census. At that

March 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
time, 550,000 out of 925,000 people were of non-British origin, and of these 60,000 were French.
For several years the provincial library has been buying books in the languages of the major ethnic groups. The budget for this program has always been extremely limited, and since the French language is placed in this group the collection is still extremely small. The original method of circulation was by sending blocks of 15 books in a language to the public library in the small towns of Saskatchewan. As the regional library system has been rapidly developing, the number of libraries has also greatly increased. People in charge of the various libraries have tried to increase the number of selections of books for an individual by increasing the number of blocks in a branch library. There has been an increase in the budget but it is not great enough to serve the people properly. So far, in this library books are available in the following languages: French, German, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Dutch, Czech and Slovak. There are still some demands which have not even been attempted to be met, for example, in the Swedish, Icelandic, Chinese and Italian languages, and so on.
They have also a fairly adequate collection of all types of material concerning the native Indians and the dialects of Saskatchewan. Last year, when an amount of $1 million was available through the Department of the Secretary of State, an attempt was made to obtain a grant to purchase more books for this library. This attempt was met with a roundabout "No". Members of the public service attempted to explain the impossibility of the federal government making a grant to a provincial government agency.
I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Saskatchewan co-operated wholeheartedly- and we agree with this-with the bilingual program. Many schools in my native province have started teaching French from grade one up. Of course, this program has been given an incentive through the grants obtained from the provincial government which originally come from the federal government. So there was no problem in obtaining grants for expanding bilingualism in the province of Saskatchewan. In the same way, the people of my province feel there should be no problem in obtaining a federal grant for a government agency in Saskatchewan to expand multiculturalism in that province, and indeed perhaps in any part of Canada.
Saskatchewan at present is also considering the use of the Cree and Chipewayen languages, in the northern areas of the province, in the school system. They are experimenting with many exciting ideas on multiculturalism. I feel that the answer I received on Tuesday was not adequate enough and I would like a more detailed statement from the minister or the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the question raised by the hon. member I can say that no official request was made by the Saskatchewan public library. An oral inquiry was made by them, and it was replied to by the regional office of the Department of the Secretary of State. On March 5 last, the Minister of State (Mr. Faulkner) who is in charge of multiculturalism received a written inquiry about funding under the multicultural program, from the

library consultant in the Saskatchewan provincial library. The matter is now under study by officers of the department. In addition, I can say that the national library has a special program to supply third language books to libraries. The Department of the Secretary of State will be looking further into the matter.

I would like to congratulate my hon. friend the member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) for the very interesting information he has given me on the progress of bilingualism and multiculturalism in Saskatchewan. As a member from Quebec, I am extremely happy about that; I encourage him to go on in that direction and I can assure him that, as a French-speaking Canadian, I will always gladly co-operate with him in order that the formula which we have adopted concerning bilingualism and multiculturalism be complied with in co-operation with all citizens, whatsoever their ethnic origin.


AIRPORTS-VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL-PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, looking back over the last several months of debate which has taken place in the House concerning the proposed runway at Vancouver airport, I find we have a situation which I am certain has caused a great deal of anguish to members on this side of the House and also, I suspect, to some members on the government side.
Despite the fact that no adequate environmental studies have been made with respect to the possible or potential environmental damage caused by this new runway, the government has seen fit to proceed with the expropriation of the last of the homes in the affected area. As I said on another occasion in the House, in fact on several occasions, this is not the right way to make our decisions; this is not good environmental decision-making. If the truth were to be stated, I am probably supported by most members of the House when I say that the environmental impact must come at the front end of decision-making.
In answer to some questions raised in the House, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) said on February 15 this year, with respect to this new runway, as recorded at page 1335 of Hansard:
When we come to the expansion of the airport which will begin, say, in 18 months' time, we will need prior to that date a published environmental impact statement. I hope it can be prepared within 12 months; that is the deadline the task force is working to. It must gather all the information available to date. After the publication of that information we must hold hearings.
But it is curious that when this matter was raised on January 31 of this year, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said, as recorded at page 829 of Hansard:
We have consulted all specialized government services on the consequences of noise and temperature on the environment. The Department of the Environment is supposed to collate all those reports. I shall be happy to send one to my hon. friend.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that if the Minister of Transport was right on January 31, 1973, then the
March 8, 1973

Minister of the Environment did not need to make the statement that he made on February 15, 1973. And if you look through Hansard at the confusing replies coming from the government side, the only conclusion you can come to is that no environmental study was done and the government at the present time does not know what the environmental impact will be. But the Minister of the Environment has committed us to a 12-month deadline by which this study will be completed. To corroborate this, Mr. Speaker, on March 2, 1973, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) made a statement in the House of Commons, in the course of which he said:
-the Minister of the Environment will conduct a thorough study during the next 12 months into the effects of a new runway on the environment.
I draw to the attention of all hon. members and excerpt from a brief from the Vancouver Citizens' Committee for Noise Control, dated February 27, 1973. I quote only one short part of it. This refers to the amount of land fill that will take place at the mouth of the Fraser River in order to build the runway. It reads:
Fisheries studies just being made public disclose that a significant number of young Chinook salmon fingerlings spend up to six months in the shallows of Sturgeon Bank after coming down the Fraser River and before journeying further in their life cycle; obviously, the salmon fishery would be seriously affected by the land fill on Sturgeon Bank proposed in the expansion.
That is just one matter which has to be studied before we really know whether we should go ahead with this runway. As a consequence of that and of other matters which have been raised and debated in this House, I ask these questions: Can these studies in fact be prepared in 12 months? We have found out recently in the Squamish area, in the province of British Columbia, that in fact salmon migrating downstream do spend time in the mouths of rivers. This seems to be something we did not know before. I do not know how many other things in connection with the fishery run in the Fraser River we should know before we build the runway.
What assurance do we have that if proper studies are not done, the airport expansion will not be undertaken until the studies are completed? Under what legislation will this study promised by the minister be done, if any legislation does exist, and will there be public hearings? Will there be an opportunity for the public to take part, are we going to be faced with the situation where we have an entirely ad hoc response by the government as a result of the political pressures brought to bear here in the House of Commons during the past month or two?
I know that I speak for many people in this House when I say that we want answers to these questions. We want these promised hearings and studies to take place under proper circumstances, with the maximum of public input, and not rushed to meet the construction deadline, so that
Adjournment Debate
we will have sufficient information to know whether the construction should proceed at all.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) I should like to quote the three ministers who said that if, after reviewing the hearing officer's report, the federal government decided to proceed with a second new parallel runway for the Vancouver international airport, no construction would take place until a full 12-month environmental study had been completed and was made public. This release was made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand).
I should like to add that the Minister of Transport has stated that following a review of the hearing officer's report concerning the intended expropriation of land required for the expansion of Vancouver international airport, the federal government has decided that it will proceed to complete the acquisition of the necessary land on Sea Island.
The Minister of Transport stated that Vancouver international airport is the springboard for Canada and the Pacific rim countries, and as such is an essential facility in Canada's air transportation network. The Minister of Transport expressed his deep concern about the property owners involved and the feelings they expressed. The minister stated that the rights of property owners to full and fair compensation could best be provided under the terms of the expropriation act.
The hon. minister also stated that the government would ensure that the expansion of the airport facilities would not be undertaken without full consideration of the impact on the urban and natural environment, and the studies involved would be made public and freely discussed. Further, to ensure that federal plans are coordinated with the activities of other levels of government and that public concerns are taken fully into account, the minister announced that the topic of airport expansion, if other levels of government agree, would be placed on the agenda, on a continuing basis, of the greater Vancouver tri-level committee.
The proposed tri-level committee group for greater Vancouver will bring together political leaders and officials of the federal government, the province and the greater Vancouver regional district. Regular meetings would be held to discuss a wide range of urban issues involving consultation and co-ordination among the governments. In addition to airport expansion, other issues which could be placed on the tri-level agenda include urban growth patterns-which includes the question raised this evening- and the whole question of transportation patterns and facilities for the lower mainland and connections with Vancouver Island.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.
2057

Friday. March 9, 1973