1973-05-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
I Translation\

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in the two official languages-Mr. Bechard (Bonaventure-Ile de la Madeleine)
fEditor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on February 23 last I tabled a copy of a letter I had sent to the Hon. Jean-Paul L'Allier, the Quebec Minister of Communications, informing him that the government had taken note of an ordinance issued to community-antenna-television operators by the Public Service Board of Quebec which constitutes a clear attempt to super-impose provincial jurisdiction on an area of exclusive federal legislative authority.
The Public Service Board of Quebec has now issued to most of the community-antenna-television operators in the province a form of temporary certificate purporting to authorize them to continue operating pending the issuance of a permanent provincial licence, for which application will have to be made before a date not yet determined.
Federal legislative authority over radio communications and broadcasting, including community-antenna-television undertakings, has been upheld in all the relevant decisions of the courts. In our view, these actions by the Public Service Board of Quebec, with the support of the responsible Quebec minister, are consequently ultra vires and represent an encroachment on federal authority which the government intends to resist by all the means at
its disposal. In practical terms, the issuance of an operating certificate or licence by the Public Service Board of Quebec, or its failure or refusal to issue such a certificate or licence, is irrelevant in so far as the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission is concerned in exercising its authority.

It is particularly disappointing that this unilateral action should have been taken by a single province at a time when the government has put forward its proposals for means of collaborating with the provinces on communications policies and regulatory procedures which will give due effect to legitimate provincial interests. These proposals have been generally welcomed by the governments of the provinces, which are now engaged in preparation for substantive federal-provincial discussions in the fall.
In these circumstances, the government is not prepared to accept unilateral action by any province. The government is, nevertheless, quite willing to enter into discussion with the government of Quebec with a view to determining the most appropriate means for having the constitutional issue involved in this matter settled by the courts, the governments of the other provinces being kept informed of these discussions.
I further wish to give notice that in the event the government of Quebec persists in its intended action, the government will not hesitate to initiate appropriate action on its own behalf including action in the courts, if necessary.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister on behalf of our party for making a copy of his statement available to us in advance of its delivery. In the normal course, the response from our party would be made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley who is unavoidably absent.
My colleagues and I share the minister's concern over the unilateral decision of the province of Quebec with regard to licencing of community antenna stations. But we must express as well our very deep concern that there appears to exist a serious breakdown here that could affect the development of broadcasting policy throughout Canada for some time. We are particularly concerned that this should have occurred so soon after the tabling in the House of the government's green paper on communication policy. We can only conclude that the action of the government of Quebec is a reaction to the green paper, or that the green paper was developed in isolation and that in many respects the policy position established is one that is not based on any coherent understanding of the position of the provincial government on the matter.


Community Antenna Television Conflict
This whole matter raises very serious questions about the future of an integrated broadcasting policy in the country and it raises questions that the minister has not addressed in his statement as to the reaction of the other provinces. I think that one thing is clear: we cannot have chaos in our communication policy in Canada. It will be necessary to work out a policy that can be agreed to by all provinces and the federal government. I think it is a matter to note in the House that the federal government has had five years to work out an agreement on this matter, and obviously on the evidence today it has failed to do so.
It is clear that members of the House and the people of Canada have the right to much more information on this matter. We certainly request the minister to keep us advised of and in close touch with the developments in negotiations with the province of Quebec and with any other province concerned. I would also express the hope that, should the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts make the request, the minister himself will be prepared to go into the matter in some detail before the members of that committee.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we regret that there is this dispute between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec, but I must say that in our view the position stated in the minister's remarks this morning is a correct one so far as the constitutional position is concerned. Indeed, it is in line with the relevant decisions of the courts. However, we are glad to know that the government is making arrangements for discussions with the governments of all the provinces with respect to this matter and, in particular, that even though this dispute has reached a rather warm point the government is prepared to enter into discussions with the government of Quebec in the hope that the matter can be resolved without having to take it to the courts. We wish the government of Canada and the government of Quebec well in their efforts to resolve this dispute.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, for our part, we are somewhat surprised with the statement of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) on the problem that exists with regard to Quebec. That statement, in a few words, means that the federal government says no to what Quebec has asked with regard to a cable TV service.
Contrary to the hon. members who spoke before us, we are far from sure that the federal government is right when Quebec is only asking one thing, the jurisdiction that is properly its own, that is, education.
As for the news release of this morning, and particularly its last paragraph, unfortunately I cannot say I agree with it. Indeed, it says, and I quote:
-the government will not hesitate to initiate appropriate action on its own behalf including action in the courts, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, according to me the end of this statement is extremely overbearing. The federal government wants to deal with a problem over which it is not yet sure to have jurisdiction, namely that of community antennas and education, which is the responsibility of provincial governments. If one is to speak about co-operative federalism, I

do not think threats bordering on blackmail should be delivered.
The federal government declares that it will not hesitate to initiate proper action, including legal action if need be, to justify its position. In my opinion, this is a very arrogant attitude that endangers beforehand those agreements which could be reached by other more normal means.
We regret very much the last section of that statement, and if under other circumstances the same methods were applied and the same arrogance shown towards other provinces, I am sure that there would be an outcry across Canada in order to settle federal provincial relations, for I think the statement made this morning will seriously affect future federal provincial relations.
It is most unfortunate that in such an area as broadcasting which in the first place was of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has assumed those responsibilities because the provinces did not exercise theirs over that matter at the right time. Today the federal government takes over a jurisdiction which was a provincial one in the first place.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we may see from this statement new evidence that the federal government infringes upon the provincial jurisdiction, and that it is a centralizing government at a time when it advocates decentralization.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I believe there will be found to be agreement in the House that we end discussion on the opposition motion that will be before the House today at 15 minutes prior to the adjournment time, 4.45 p.m., in order to begin discussion on the objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Newfoundland within the requirements of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the statute under which this is being done and it so happens, so far as we can decide, that today is the last day on which there can be compliance with that statute by initiating a debate. There is some ambiguity about the statute, which I must say is characteristic of the distinguished hon. gentleman who piloted that bill through the House.


Mr. Bell:: He is in the gallery this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We feel there is a statutory obligation upon the House to commence this debate today, but that it need not be concluded, particularly in view of what was said by the government House leader concerning the intentions of the government. It is not our intention, in light of the progress made in the House, to slow up the House's business by engaging in and concluding a debate which may be found not to be necessary because of the


action of the government. So I submit with great deference that the proposal made by the minister is correct and that the House has an obligation to initiate this debate today to comply with the statute but that it need not be completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we also think it is a good idea for parliament to obey the law.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a point of order.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the strongest exception to any unkind remarks made about the former Liberal member who used to represent the riding of Gander-Twillingate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it should be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who has indicated that he generally approves the increase in the bank rate and has taken the position that this will not have any particular effect on mortgage rates. Is it the minister's view that there is an excessive demand for mortgage money in the country and it is therefore appropriate that mortgage interest rates should increase with a view to discouraging this demand?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making any statement directly relating mortgage rates to the present rate, but it is my understanding that at the present time mortgage funds remain in good supply despite the very buoyant activity in the housing field and the high level of demand for mortgage money.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather from the minister's reply that he is not concerned about the substantial increase in mortgage rates that has already taken place and that is anticipated. However, if my assumption is wrong and the minister is concerned, may I ask if he has any plan in mind to keep mortgage rates at a level or reduce them to a level that will make it possible for the ordinary Canadian to apply for a mortgage loan at the rates that are anticipated?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the legislation introduced by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, goes quite a way toward answering the problem that the hon. gentleman has raised.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Minister of Finance intend to make any proposals to the House or any announcement of policies that will give an assurance to the ordinary Canadian with respect to the level of mortgage rates that it is anticipated may prevail in this country for the balance of the year? In view of the substantial increase that has taken place, in view of the substantial increase that is anticipated, and in view of the already fantastic cost of lots, has the minister any hope to hold out to the ordinary Canadian who wants to have a home?


An hon. Member:: None.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the bill of my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, deals with the problem of land assembly which is one of the high factors in the cost of housing. As for interest rates, I am watching mortgage rates carefully. They are moving between 9 and 914 per cent. There is obviously some long-term relationship between mortgage rates and medium and short-term rates. I explained to the hon. gentleman and the House that the interest rate structure in the country at the moment reflects the extremely strong demand for credit, reflecting the strong expansion in the economy. It also reflects the interest rate structure in the world. In Canada we still have interest rates a point or a point and a half lower than those in the United States despite the historical trend, and lower than the rates in any other industrial country in the world.


SUGGESTED ALLOCATION BY BANKS OF CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY EACH YEAR FOR HOUSING LOANS AT SIX PER CENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the story this morning that interest rates on housing loans may go as high as 93A per cent by the middle of this year, will the minister give consideration to amending the Bank Act to make it mandatory for bankers to set aside a certain amount of money each year for housing loans at about 6 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman takes a look at the figures I think he will see that the chartered banks have entered the mortgage market very strongly, and there are indications as well that the trust and insurance companies are also channelling more funds into the mortgage and housing field.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Six or more members are seeking supplementaries. I suggest that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville be allowed to ask a supplementary and then the hon. member for Calgary North, after that the Chair will move to the next subject.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of stories in the press this morning that funds available for housing are likely to decrease by mid-summer and interest rates will go up to 9% per cent, will the minister undertake to make it mandatory that the banks set aside a certain amount of money for housing at an interest rate no greater than 6 per cent?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Oral Questions


MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES-DISCUSSION BY MINISTER AND BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR OF MEANS TO CONTROL-HOUSING LEGISLATION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Finance, to whom I wish to direct my question, said there was buoyancy in housing. The vacancy rate for all single family units in Canadian metro areas declined to 18.4 per cent from 25.9 per cent last year. If I may continue on the same line of questioning, historically and financially it has been shown that when interest rates increase to over 9 per cent this always stops housing construction in Canada. It is now predicted and likely that the interest rate on mortgages will be 93A per cent on first mortgages and 12 per cent on second mortgages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask his question now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was leading to it and now I will ask it. I wanted to inform the minister because he does not seem to know how serious this matter is. Has the minister had a serious discussion with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and taken any action as a consequence to divert this kind of policy which is leading to high interest rates and bringing to an end the construction of housing units in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a regular weekly meeting with the governor of the Bank of Canada. All these discussions are serious and we have been discussing the housing matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As we spent ten hours in the standing committee piloting the bill on housing through and as the leader of the House yesterday, in announcing the business of the House, left this piece of legislation off the list of priorities-it has no priority at all-would the minister now talk to his colleagues, namely, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and others to get this legislation before the House and get some action?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the list of legislation that the leader of the House announced yesterday was not an exclusive list of legislation to be dealt with.


Mr. Alexander:: It was a list of priorities.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I and the hon. member are hopeful that the legislation that was reported from committee the other day can be passed as quickly as possible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why was it left off the list?


Gerald William Baldwin: Ask Fullerton about it.
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, if I can get the Prime Minister's ear. In view of the announcement yesterday that the former minister of industry, trade and commerce has been appointed to the board of directors of Power Corporation, this following hard on the heels of the announcement last week that he had been appointed to the board of directors of Bombardier Limited, and as there is related to this the fact that between 1968 and 1972, when Mr.Pepin was minister of industry, trade and commerce, subsidiaries of Power Corporations received over $10 million in grants from the government and Bombardier received about $1.4 million, I would ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us when we can expect action, and I hope early action, on his conflict of interest legislation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I really regret the preamble to the question. I hope the hon. member did not intend any innuendo or smear by this preamble. It certainly is unfortunate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is an unfortunate way of phrasing a question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: It is cheap.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the question itself, I will repeat what I said not too many days ago, that the intention of the government is to bring forth that legislation, hopefully quite soon, and to make a statement. The legislation, of course, as I told the Leader of the Opposition, would bear on the problem of Members of Parliament, but we would make a statement on conflict of interest as it applies to other areas which are not the subject of legislation.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize for the way in which the question was put. There was obviously no intent to suggest direct wrongdoing by the former minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: There was intent to draw attention to the fact that unlike the United States, for example, we do not have such legislation in Canada. I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious allegations made last year by a scholar, Dr. Springate, of Harvard University, that millions of dollars in DREE grants simply constituted windfall gains to the corporations and, related to that a serious potential for conflict of interest as indicated by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. The preamble is perhaps a little too long. He should come to the question.


John Edward Broadbent: As the hon. member for Calgary North would say, I am just coming to it. Will the minister table a


list of the grants made to the Bombardier Corporation and all subsidiaries of Power Corporation since 1968 and have these referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for analysis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the type of conflict legislation and policy we are preparing does not cover the future conduct of defeated politicians. If at that time the hon. member wants to introduce legislation to govern the future lives of people who are defeated in elections, he could perhaps move a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I could not hear the hon. member. Is he rising on a question of privilege?


John Edward Broadbent: No, Mr. Speaker. I have a final supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for that purpose and I will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix immediately after.


John Edward Broadbent: As usual, when it is convenient the Prime Minister misses the point of a question. In view of the fact it has been acknowledged by a leading figure in the Liberal party of Canada that 95 corporations contribute most of the funds to the Liberal party for its campaign purposes, will the Prime Minister assure the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the three lengthy preambles he has proposed to the House, one to the original question and again to two supplementaries, are slightly out of order. I appreciate that hon. members have to preface their questions to some extent, but I hope that all hon. members will try to stay away from the practice that seems to be developing of having these long preambles which make questions sound more like speeches. I am not sure whether the hon. member had reached the point of asking the question. I do not want to be unfair. If the hon. member can ask the question without the preamble, he will be recognized for that purpose.


John Edward Broadbent: No preamble, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that amendments to the Elections Act will make it mandatory that the amounts of contributions and names of contributors to all political parties will be made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will see the legislation when it is given first reading. The final phrasing of that aspect of it has not yet been determined. I am getting information on not only the theory but the practice carried out by the NDP governments of three western provinces. This is not as enlightening as the hon. member would seem to hold.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Has he recently met the Quebec Minister of Communications, Mr. L'Allier, before delivering his statement today?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, all the contacts I have had with my counterpart from Quebec have been in the form of correspondence which has been tabled in the House and is available to the hon. member if he cares to look at it.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Considering the importance of this matter and the threats proffered by the minister in his statements this morning, it would be significant if the minister would tell us on what date he met the Quebec Minister of Communications to discuss this problem?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble of this question; the matter is important, but I do not believe I have proffered any threats. On the other hand, Hon. Jean-Paul L'Allier himself had already said that he wanted this matter settled by the courts. Apparently he changed his mind about two days ago, if we are to believe newspaper reports, but I will not allow it to be said that I proffered any threats. As for the exact date of my last meeting with Mr. L'Allier, I could not say precisely to the hon. member or put on the record a date that might not be exact.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
In his statement this morning the minister mentioned letters tabled on February 23. Have there been any other communications since then?


Gérard Pelletier: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, there was some other correspondence tabled after February 23.


COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION-ISSUING OF LICENCES BY QUEBEC-DISCUSSION WITH OTHER PROVINCES
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. Has the minister communicated with the governments of the other provinces concerning the decision of the provice of Quebec to issue what purport to be licences for community antenna television, and can he advise the House whether he has reason to suspect that any other provinces have begun or might begin to issue certificates or licences purporting to authorize such operations?


Gérard Pelletier: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the minister advise the House what he considers to be a reasonable time for the government of Quebec to respond to the position he stated today before the government of Canada might initiate action in the courts, and what specific action the minister intends to take in the interim?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing definite. We explain in the statement itself that we intend to communicate with the Quebec government if they want an order to open up proceedings for an agreement either through negotiation or any other way, and this will be done as soon as possible, I can promise the hon. member.


COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION-ISSUING OF LICENCES BY QUEBEC
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a three-part question to the Minister of Communications. In the minister's statement he indicated that not all cable operators have been issued permits by the province of Quebec. To the best of the minister's knowledge, have these permits been refused to any present operators and, if so, what action has been taken against them by the province of Quebec? Second, can the minister tell the House whether any prospective operators have been issued licences who are not now licenced by the federal government? Third, can the minister indicate to the House whether these licences were just issued today or were they issued over a period of time?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there were several questions and I do not want to get confused. The hon. member's first question, if I understood him well, was whether temporary licences- or what are called by that name by the Public Service Board of Quebec-have been denied to some companies. I do not believe so. I believe that all companies operating community cable systems have received such licences.
As to the second part of the question, whether licences were granted to companies whose applications have already been rejected by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, I think I should also reply that such has not been the case.
Concerning the last question, my reply is that the temporary licences mentioned in my statement bear no dates. We are therefore unable to know exactly when each recipient obtained his temporary licence. However, the operation took place during the past 15 days and it is on the basis of first indications that we tried to find out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize one last supplementary on this question.
[ Translation]
I recognize the hon. member for Shefford and afterwards the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the evident lack of communication between the

two ministers of communications, can the minister tell us whether the end of his statement today suggests that he thus intends to improve co-operative federalism?


MANPOWER
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As a result of the numerous representations made to the minister concerning the possibility of extending local initiatives projects, the minister told us yesterday that he would make a statement this morning. I wonder if he had the opportunity to prepare the answer to which he referred yesterday?
e (1140)


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, a favourable decision has been made and the government has decided that, in addition to projects eligible under the criteria announced on April 27, we will review and consider on their individual merits projects in those areas where unemployment was below the national average in March. This review, I hasten to say, will take special account of high pockets of local unemployment and continued community need and support for the project as well as meeting the general criteria I announced on April 27.
I should emphasize that the review will be very thorough. I do not expect that every project will be extended. I would also say that the length of extensions will be decided on a project to project basis. This is in consideration of the fact that the original objective of the program remains unchanged, that is, job creation. This further extension of the program is a result of representations for the services provided rather than for the jobs themselves. I must emphasize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While welcoming part of the minister's statement, I want to say that we accept that it is a clear abuse of the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In his remarks to the House yesterday the minister implied clearly that a statement would be made. I think what he has just done is a clear abuse of the rules. The hon. gentleman waited until one of the hon. members from Montreal put a question. It was a set-up job. I am not particularly worried about that, but in future I hope the minister will not use this devious way of making a statement. His proper course was to stand up as a man when motions were called and make a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -so that opposition spokesmen, who are just as concerned about this matter as the hon. member who asked the question, could have commented. I am ashamed of the attitude the minister has taken today. I hope that in future when he has a statement to make on a subject of such importance he will have the decency to make it on motions so that other members may have an opportunity to reply.


Robert Knight Andras: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would have been very happy to reply to a question by the hon. member for Hamilton West if he had put one to me. I have no apologies to make for replying to a question by an hon. member on this side, particularly since there has been such strong representation and such strong concern expressed by members from the Montreal area in this party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is no reason for not making a statement on motions.


Robert Knight Andras: I indicated yesterday that I would make the information available, and I have done so. I think my reply to the question put to me was far shorter than the preambles to questions asked by members of the opposition this morning and on many other days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Finally, I will be very glad to take supple-mentaries from the hon. member for Hamilton West if he wishes to put them.


An hon. Member:: If he has any.
[ Translation]


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa.


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I have heard the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and I object strongly to anyone trying to deny the member for Montreal-Bourassa the privilege of at least putting questions to whom he wishes in this House. I do not think that I have ever abused this privilege, Mr. Speaker, since I have been sitting in this House, but I must speak on behalf of the people in my riding. Some legitimate representations have been made. I would like to put a question; I put it in the form that you have decided, Mr. Speaker, and I object strongly to the members of the opposition trying to muzzle their colleagues in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, the point has been made by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Hamilton West and we have heard the response from the minister and the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa. I doubt there is anything to be gained by pursuing the matter further. Both sides of the argument have been expressed very clearly and strongly. I would hope that the Chair would now be allowed to recognize
Oral Questions
members who may wish to ask supplementaries on this matter, or go to another question.


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa wish to ask a supplementary question?


Jacques L. Trudel: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In some regional offices of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, there are differences in the statistics we are given, because even if the level is below average in some areas, there are places where the average is much higher. Will the hon. minister be allowing for differences that might exist within the structures, with regard to unemployment statistics?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The import of what I said earlier is that certain of these projects, within those CMC's where unemployment is below the national average, will be considered on their merits.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Will the minister make a statement on motions on the policy of extending LIP grants throughout the country where useful social projects are being carried out and are threatened with discontinuance?


Robert Knight Andras: If the hon. member will read in Hansard my comments in response to the question put to me earlier, I believe he will find I have covered that situation. Social projects which are now in existence as well as projects in some other categories in areas where unemployment is below the national average across the country will be considered for extension on their merits.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the minister whether he will consider introducing legislation to deal with this matter now that the House has seen the dangers of its being dealt with at the whim of a politically weak government?


Robert Knight Andras: I always give consideration to the hon. member's suggestions.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON AREAS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROJECT EXTENSIONS
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this question. Has his department decided on the areas in Canada that fall within the category of unemployment mentioned? Has it decided on the way in which to dispense this information to the Canadian public? Has it decided whether any more funds are to be supplied for the program? Has it decided whether any special criteria should go into the program to govern applications made for grants? Has the minister decided on a mechanism to be used in making these decisions, or will the approach be a completely subjective one on the part of the people who are watching from the gallery today?


Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all those questions is yes.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. We have to try to make some headway. If the hon. member has a supplementary to ask I will return to him in a moment. Perhaps I might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Brant and then recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


POSSIBLE MERGING OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH AND LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAMS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the report that the government is going to merge the opportunities for youth and local initiatives programs into one program to be known as opportunities for people, can the Prime Minister tell the House what progress has been made so far with regard to that matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of progress has been made in the government with regard to this subject. The hon. member will remember that in the white paper the Minister of National Health and Welfare tabled less than a month ago there was reference to community employment projects. As the statement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration just a moment ago revealed, we are still considering this problem and we hope that before any further LIP projects are initiated we will have some other approach to this problem to set before the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the opportunities for Liberals program?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the merging of the two programs will not result in a cutback in funding of the programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember that LIP projects were essentially designed to meet a serious unemployment problem at the time.


An hon. Member:: We still have it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer given this morning by the minister refers to that fact. Of course, if the unemployment situation does continue to improve as it has, it is quite conceivable that there will be no constitutional basis for the government to involve itself in local programs which are of the nature of social and health services.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON AREAS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROJECT EXTENSIONS
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for his very direct answer to my former question. Will he now indicate to the House the specific areas of the country that will receive funds, the specific amount of money to be provided over

and above the regular allocation, the specific criteria that he has laid down, the procedures for communicating to the areas the change he has announced, the procedures to be followed in making decisions and the structural mechanism? Can he give that information to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not allow the minister to make such a long statement as the one I assume would be required to answer the questions asked by the hon. member. Perhaps the minister might like to indicate whether he proposes to provide this information by way of a statement.


Robert Knight Andras: My intention, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will meet with the approval of all hon. members-the written information is in fact now in the process of being drafted-


Gerald William Baldwin: We know what your intentions are.


Robert Knight Andras: As I indicated, this is a rather lengthy piece of information based on a decision taken yesterday. I will be writing to all hon. members regarding these details and they should be in their hands by Tuesday. All the details to which the hon. member quite legitimately referred will be contained therein.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot just get up in the House, give half a statement on the one hand and indicate he is not willing to give the other half on the other hand but will mail a little piece of paper to all of us which we can read. We will be asking questions on this matter for the next three weeks if he does that. I suggest to the minister that in the interests of the House he should get up and make a statement. This would eliminate two or three hours of questioning over the next four or five weeks.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Having regard to a decision by Mr. Justice Morrow of the Northwest Territories Supreme Court to hear the applica-ton for a caveat by the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, thus resulting in the continuance of a land freeze on 400,000 square miles in the Mackenzie basin until July, could the minister tell the House when his department will begin to negotiate seriously the just land


claims of the Northwest Territories Indians under treaty 11 which has never been fulfilled by the federal government but has been the subject of many briefs and commissions over the years?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indians Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question a number of times.
I met with representatives of the Northwest Territories Indian Association several times two years ago, and told them that I was prepared to sit down with them to consider the problem and to honour the Crown's obligations to the Indians, but they told me that they were not ready to talk. I repeat again today that we are ready at all times to honour our obligations as stated in Treaty No. 11, and to this end we appointed an official a few months ago who will meet periodically with the Indians in question, but, unfortunately, they refused to meet him. I am at their disposal at all times, and it is up to them to let me know if they want to reach a settlement.

Oral Questions STATUS OF WOMEN


GUIDELINES FOR EMPLOYERS TO ENSURE PROPER REPRESENTATION IN JOBS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact it is two and a half years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women presented its report and over a month since the Prime Minister took notice of a similar question, has the government yet established any guidelines for employers to ensure that qualified women are properly represented at all job levels?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister of Labour.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister cannot answer that question, perhaps he can tell us if the government has or intends to establish any precise targets for the reasonable participation of women in senior government positions?


FINANCE
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would give the same answer to that question.


BUSINESS FAILURES IN FIRST QUARTER OF YEAR
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask this question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's repeated assurances that all is well with the economy, and in light of the recent report by Dun and Bradstreet showing an enormous increase in business failures in the first quarter of this year, well over 1,000, has the minister any explanation, comment or announcement of a change of policy in this regard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly told the House that there are various aspects of the economy with which I am not satisfied. I am still not satisfied with the rate of unemployment and I am very disturbed about the increase in prices, as the hon. gentleman knows.


An hon. Member:: How about Trudeau? Are you satisfied with him?


John Napier Turner: If we are to refer to newspaper reports, I am delighted to see the revision in the forecast of the National Conference Board in respect of the growth of the economy from 5.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is really my first question. Does the minister have any explanation for the large number of business failures across the country in the first quarter of this year?


An hon. Member:: It is because of the provincial sales tax.


HOUSING
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that non-profit and co-operative housing groups are anxiously awaiting passage of Bill C-133, is the minister aware of the concern expressed yesterday at a press conference by the Montreal Housing Committee to the effect that Bill C-133 works against non-profit and co-operative housing groups and in favour of big developers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the press report and all I can say is that the Montreal housing committee must be reading a different bill from the one before parliament. Bill C-133 has a particular bias in favour of non-profit and co-operative housing associations and groups, and on the basis of representations which I've received I know the bill has the full support of the co-operative housing movement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, bring it on.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is why the hon. member for Calgary North, for the opposition, and I want to bring the bill on as quickly as possible.


Oral Questions MANPOWER


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PROJECT EXTENSION-REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION FOR CAPE BRETON
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and refers to his statement regarding LIP grants. In view of the fact the present unemployment rate on Cape Breton Island is at the nauseating level of at least 20 per cent and that the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation confirmed this 20 per cent figure last night before the Standing Committee on Regional Development and said it was appalling, will the minister give specific consideration to that particular area in the sense of expediting grants and extensions and providing more personnel so that action will be taken as quickly as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will give all sympathetic consideration to that.
[Transla tion]


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF RECONSIDERING REJECTED PROJECTS
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of his earlier reply relating to the extension of some projects, is the minister suggesting that he can include the acceptance of projects rejected in areas unjustly treated at the time of the first decision? Under those decisions, would it be possible today not only to grant extensions of time but also to review the previous decisions?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my comments would indicate that projects which are in existence now will be considered, provided they fit in with the criteria I announced on April 27 and again this morning.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the crucial shortage of new farm machinery all across Canada, which is forcing the agricultural industry to place more reliance on the herbicides avadex and carbine to control wild oats, would the minister immediately take it upon himself to ascertain the availability of these herbicides to ensure that the supply is adequate for this vital industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we recently sponsored a symposium which was held in Saskatoon on the control of wild oats. We asked the man who had cleaned up his wild oats and the man who had not to be at that symposium to offer suggestions inasmuch as we realized that over $150 million worth of grain production is lost each year because of this noxious weed. We are working with the provincial authorities, who have first and foremost jurisdiction here, to make sure that we do everything we can to control it.


POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF REFINERY AT GROS CACOUNA-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION WITH QUEBEC IN DISCUSSIONS WITH SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the government of Quebec has had meetings with Saudi Arabia, which is interested in participating in a major refinery project proposal for the Gros Cacouna, He Verte and Riviere du Loup region of Quebec, could the minister tell the House whether his department is involved in these bilateral discussions, as it were?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I would have to inquire, Mr. Speaker.


John Paul Harney: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of the Environment-I find it hard to tell from this vantage point whether he is here or not but I gather he is absent-may I direct this question to the Prime Minister. Even considering the fact that a predecessor of the Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, did promise the people of the region of Gros Cacouna a harbour, is his government taking into consideration the fact that the tidal conditions, the weather conditions and the shoaling conditions of the waters there make it an extremely dangerous place to bring in supertankers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation and he must assume that it has been taken into account.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I would like to address it to his parliamentary secretary since the minister is not here today. Have the CBC and the minister reached any decision concerning whether CBC educational films will be made available to Canadian school boards?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this question is certainly

important. I have had the opportunity to discuss it with the minister; I will surely do it again early next week and I intend to answer my hon. friend as quickly and completely as possible.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the universal unrest throughout Canada over the present inadequate, complicated and unjust income tax forms, is the minister planning to review this matter in the hope that a more practical simplified form for the payment of income tax will be introduced next year in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is a question which should be placed on the order paper. I appreciate its importance, but I think it should be placed on the order paper.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to an earlier question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister tell us if he will take into consideration the fact that there are less than two weeks left before the end of the LIP period, and is it possible that funds can be provided to extend those projects that will be given reconsideration beyond that point?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will give some consideration to that in certain cases. We will be advising all projects within a week whether they will be eligible for consideration for extension. This does not mean automatic approval of extensions but whether or not they are going to be eligible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition and then call orders of the day.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE SPECIAL COINS BEFORE SUMMER RECESS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation respecting the coinage proposals associated
War Veterans
with the Olympic games in Montreal before any summer adjournment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We hope that before the end of this month we will be tabling in parliament and giving first reading to legislation which would be of an omnibus character. It would attempt to cover the coinage aspect raised by the Leader of the Opposition and would also contain provisions concerning the special stamp issue and the lottery.


Mr. Hellyer:: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two hon. members seeking supplementaries. I indicated I would recognize the Leader of the Opposition and then call orders of the day because we have gone beyond the period allocated. The hon. member for Hastings rises on a question of privilege.


John Raymond Ellis: It is just a brief question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister was unwilling to answer my question in respect of the status of women, and since he and the Minister of Labour have collaborated, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would take my question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:: That this House urges the government to introduce priority measures to remedy present injustices to war veterans and, in particular, to remove those inequities arising out of basic rates of disability and other pensions, treatment services, allowances, and the Veterans' Land Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my party's motion today is introduced as an appeal to the government in an attempt to emphasize the need to fulfil a commitment made over 50 years ago to a special citizen of our country, the war veteran, a citizen who sadly is becoming less and less recognized at a time when he needs recognition most in his declining years. The motion reads:
That this House urges the government to introduce priority measures to remedy present injustices to war veterans and, in particular, to remove those inequities arising out of basic rates of disability and other pensions, treatment services, allowances, and the Veterans' Land Act.
I am sure everyone will agree that Veterans Affairs is one legislative area that has been non-controversial. In dealing with such legislation over the years, there certainly has been an atmosphere of co-operation regardless of party lines. I believe that, as a group of former soldiers learned in the use of military strategy, we veterans have been wrong in our attempt to have the government of the


War Veterans
day fulfill a commitment to war veterans made over 50 years ago, a commitment that Canada owed as a matter of right. The government deserves all possible support in their efforts to rehabilitate veterans in return for their fulfillment of their patriotic duty to our great country. The fulfillment of this commitment would allow them not only a decent living but an equal opportunity to re-enter society and to live a rich, full life along with other Canadians whose best years were not disturbed during the war.
So what have we done? For over 50 years we have followed the "nibble philosophy" because the original drafters of the veterans charter could not see far enough ahead, through no fault of their own, to design a plan which would deal with future needs of veterans in a changing society. However, no one is blaming these legislators, and over the years many good things have come about. Those who came before us and represented veterans in the House of Commons have served the veterans well and are held in the highest esteem.
Without casting blame on anyone, we must be big enough to admit that we have failed in many areas and now it is almost too late to make amends. However, we can correct the many inequities which exist at present. We have a chance to clear them up once and for all by showing a little human consideration and by stopping to think once in a while of the veteran for whom it is our duty to care.
Recently, we passed a bill to increase war veterans allowances, and we passed it in record time. Members from all parties gave complete support to the amendments to the act. We even threw bouquets across the floor to the minister and his government for bringing in the following amendments. First, we proposed that the bill increase benefits under the act to a maximum allowable of $2,293.68 for the single veteran and $3,926.52 for the married veteran. In addition, the table of allowances gave annual increments to orphans of veterans on an annual basis. Second, we proposed that the amendments allow exemptions to veterans on reaching the age of 65 of $15 if single and $30 if married. Third, we proposed that casual earnings be increased to allow the veteran or his wife to earn increased amounts up to $1,000 for the single veteran and $1,500 for the married veteran.
However, there are still a few inequities in the War Veteran Allowances Act which need revision, and by offering the first point of my party's motion we urge the government to introduce priority measures to remedy the following. First, the removal of the Canadian residence requirement for war veterans living abroad, which would involve the amendment of section 3(1) of the War Veterans Allowances Act. It is possible for a veteran to qualify for an allowance by returning to Canada for one year, and subsequently the benefit is continued even though the recipient may take up permanent residence outside the country. Although the required year's residence may be met without difficulty in border areas, it is more difficult for veterans long distances away to meet these requirements. Benefits first became payable outside of Canada through an amendment back in 1960 to permit the continuation of payment of allowances outside Canada primarily for reasons of health or family ties. As of January 1973 there were only 709 persons receiving allowances

outside Canada. An amendment to the legislation removing the 12 month residence will extend the benefit to Canadian veterans who are unable to return to Canada to qualify.
Second, an amendment must be brought forth which would enable a surviving spouse to receive an allowance for a surviving child who is attending an educational institution, even though that child is 21 years of age. We must increase that age limit to 25 years or to the time when the child ceases to attend an educational institution. Surely, the government could provide these benefits until the age of 25, as is presently the case under the war dead educational assistance act, particularly when the number involved are so small. Surely, we must realize the basic need to extend this age limit to 25 without the need for any dramatic explanation or elaboration.
Third, the requirement for 365 service days should be eliminated and service in the United Kingdom before November 12, 1918, should be accepted as a qualification for world war I veterans.
The average age of world war I recipients of veterans allowance is 78.4 years, and it is unlikely that it would be much lower in the case of those with limited service in the United Kingdom. The removal of the one year clause would not apply to many veterans, and since almost all of them would be receiving OAS benefits, the cost involved would be small. However, it would provide a certain degree of additional comfort to these elderly recipients, and it would provide them with drugs and other assistance to which they are entitled now.
If these three inequities were corrected, we would have a good act fulfilling our commitment to these veterans once and for all. Surely, our consciences should dictate that we make these amendments in the next few months.
The greatest failure that exists in the present legislation has to do with the basic rate of pensions, and this was one of the main reasons for our motion today. The throne speech committed the government to increases in disability pensions as well as war veterans allowances, but here we are four months later having made no progress in this respect. I can only say that the government has callously reneged on its responsibility.
We have before us today a joint study report on the basic rate of pensions. It was conducted on the authority of the previous minister of veterans affairs and with the accord of the present minister, the chairman of the pension committee, a representative of veterans organizations and others. These individuals and groups brought before the standing committee recommendations that were reasonable and that, most important, were unanimously accepted by everyone concerned.
The report was signed by eight responsible and dedicated Canadians, including the representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Canadian Pension Commission and of all veterans organizations. They submitted a report which, in the main recommended the following points. First, the basic rate of pension should be established, on the basis of an average of a composite group of public servants, for the single pensioner at $4,529 a year. This is an increase over the present rate of $3,793. Second, the married rate of pension should be established at the


single rate plus 25 per cent. Third, the additional pension for children should be established at 13 per cent for one child, 22.5 per cent for two children, and for each additional child an additional 7.5 per cent. Rates should also be established for the widow of the veteran, the dependant parent, and dependant children. Furthermore, a recommendation was included in the report that pensions should be adjusted annually on a fixed date in accordance with changes in the average wage rates for the selected public service group, rather than on the basis of adjustments in the cost of living.
These recommendations were made after three months of study by a responsible group and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. They were accepted unanimously by all parties. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that the deputy minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the chairman of the Pension Commission, who was also chairman of the group, and the representative of all veterans organizations gave their signatures of approval. Remember also, Mr. Speaker, that the recommendations were referred to the Standing Committee and, without debate, accepted in record time after only token comments supporting the report by government and opposition parties. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) himself attended the meetings of the committee and supported the recommendations without question.
However, where do we stand today? We find ourselves in a dilemma. The legislation promised in the throne speech has not yet been produced. Why is that? Because the Liberal party hierarchy, the cabinet, will not accept the recommendation which proposes the new formula based on annual increases in accordance with the average wage rather than on the increases in the cost of living. This is the dilemma. They will not support the recommendations of the minister, of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs representing all parties, of the Chairman of the Pension Commission who is charged with the responsibility of dealing with the applications of thousands of veterans who submit claims, nor of the veterans' organizations of Canada, representing over 900,000 veterans.
Reports from the inner circle indicate that the strongest opponent to these recommendations is the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), a former top ranking officer in the Canadian army who led thousands of veterans during the Second World War. He, of all people, is opposing the justified increases to his comrades who followed him during that war, and if I were not a responsible member of parliament I would say something I know I should not say.
My party's motion therefore is justified in requesting priority measures to remedy this injustice. I plead with the minister, with the house leader and with the President of the Treasury Board that, if any legislation is ready for introduction to this House, it had better include all the recommendations of the joint study report or it will not be acceptable. Further, if after indicating, as the government did, that it will produce legislation before the summer recess, and this legislation does not include those recommendations, then I say to members of the government that
War Veterans
they will not be fulfilling their commitment to the veterans of Canada.
Moving to another important phase of responsibility relating to disability pensions, it is the responsibility of the Pension Commission and of the Pensions Review Board to deal with new applications for pensions arising out of the Woods Committee report and recommendations. While we have been willing to accept the reasons given for delays, it is now time to take the necessary action to deal with these recommendations on a higher priority than presently exists. In spite of corrective action being taken by the addition of members to the Pension Commission, and in spite of the determined efforts of the Commission, the government must extend every effort to increase the capability of the Commission because too many veterans are dying while awaiting for its decisions. This, again, is a priority measure which must be introduced to remedy present injustices to veterans, as well as the injustices caused by the delays in respect of the treatment of prisoners of war. It is a shame that only now, at this late date, is a study being conducted into the condition of former European prisoners of war.
Another serious inequity has to do with the Veterans Land Act. The present legislation is completely out-dated, and rather than providing the relief necessary in the present period of inflation, veterans are stultified in their efforts to build a home because of the failure of the government to provide for rising costs in the act. Part II of the act provides that any qualified veteran who is approved for a loan under the National Housing Act may receive financial and other assistance to build his own home, on any lot acceptable for a single family dwelling. The amount that may be advanced is $18,000 or the amount of the NHA loan, whichever is the lesser.
The act provides also that a veteran must acquire a lot of one half acre, but in certain cases this can be reduced by 20 per cent. My question to the minister is this: how can anyone build a home for $18,000 at present costs, or how can any veteran acquire a lot of one half acre, less 20 per cent, at present costs before he even starts to build a home? This also brings into focus the terminal date for initial applications for assistance which is set at March 31, 1974. There are some 125,000 veterans with qualification certificates and, according to the annual report of the department, it is expected that only 5 per cent will take advantage of the VLA.
The reason for this is that the loan ceiling is too low in view of present day inflation. Further, the size of building lots required is unrealistic, and the down payment is entirely too high. The government must immediately review the act with a view to (1) raising the ceiling to an acceptable level which, in view of today's inflationary costs, might be $25,000 or $30,000; (2) reducing the size of the lot to that of a normal building lot; (3) changing the down payments to at least today's level, and in line with the National Housing Act; (4) extending the termination date of March, 1974 to a period commensurate with the needs of present Canadian Forces personnel when retiring; and (5) giving consideration to inserting a rehabilitation program into the act to allow veterans to repair their present homes, in the case of need, along the lines stipulated in the National Housing Act. I know that it is the


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members appear to be under the impression that the Veterans Charter is a monolithic affair that has been left virtually unchanged for a generation or more and is now hopelessly out of date. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The government has been keeping the Veterans Charter under continuous review, and a great number of changes have been made from year to year as the need has presented itself. I might add also that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has played a very active part in making sure at all times that veterans' problems are fully aired and sympathetically considered, and I am glad to express the government's thanks to the committee for its helpful contributions.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Affairs budget had been rising from year to year, and I would expect that it would continue to do so for some years to come. The departmental expenditure budget has risen almost continuously from $396 million in 1966-67 to $480 million in the current year. Over the years there has been a slight reduction in total staff because of hospital transfers, but the authorized total still stands at 10,455 man years. I propose at this time to review some of the more important changes that have been made in the Veterans Charter during the past few years. First, I will deal with the area of disability pensions.
Since 1944, hardly a single year has passed without new legislation to up-date some aspect of the Pension Act. Then, between 1968 and 1970, the entire act was reviewed in great detail by the Woods Committee which presented no less than 146 proposed changes. The ensuing legislation, which received Royal Assent on March 30, 1971, just two years ago, represented the consummation of the most thorough review of the pension legislation in 50 years.
These main amendments had many far reaching effects, but I should at least mention the introduction of the exceptional incapacity allowance, the broadening of the

benefit of the doubt rule, the special arrangements made for Hong Kong prisoners of war, the establishment of the independent Bureau of Pension Advocates and the Pension Review Board. Just last year, as one of the measures, parliament enacted legislation to provide for the first time that the rates of pension would be adjusted in January of every year to reflect upward changes in the consumer price index. Pursuant to this legislation, pension rates were raised by 3.6 per cent last year, and again by 4.5 per cent in January of this year. There will be another adjustment next January, and in every future year. This legislation ties disability pensions to the cost of living, so that they retain their real value from year to year. I need hardly add that the whole matter of the basic rate of pensions is at present under very active consideration by the government. I have already informed the House that I hope in the very near future to be in a position to make an announcement on this subject.
So much for pensions. Let me turn next to War Veterans Allowance, the so-called "burnt-out pension". There have been no less than four increases in WVA rates in the last two years. As in the case of pensions, the WVA Act was amended last year to provide that rates would be escalated each year as indicated by rises in the cost of living, and they were accordingly increased by 3.6 per cent last year and by a further 4.5 per cent in January, 1973. Just a month and a half ago a further large increase took effect, as was mentioned by the hon. member who spoke previously, in the same amounts as the increases under the Old Age Security Act. At the same time the act was amended to remove the "personal property" qualification, so that applicants would no longer be required to liquidate their assets before becoming eligible for War Veterans Allowance. In other words, the long standing "needs test" has been replaced by a modified "income test". We have also been conducting a large advertising campaign in veterans publications, in weekend supplements, in the farm press and on the radio, to make certain that veterans were fully informed on these changes.
With reference to our hospital transfer negotiations, I should like to take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding. Our purpose in seeking to transfer veterans' hospitals to local and regional authorities is not to get rid of the hospitals or to reduce our responsibility. Quite the contrary, our aim is to ensure that veterans continue to receive the best possible hospital care. If these institutions were to continue indefinitely as veterans hospitals, the average age of the patients would rise continuously and the hospitals would become geriatric institutions. On this basis, we would gradually lose our ability to attract and retain the best doctors, nurses and paramedical staff, and then the quality of the care of veterans would inevitably suffer. The only alternative is to blend the hospitals into the communities in which they stand, so that they may continue as active treatment hospitals for both veterans and others. Of course, in any transfer agreement the government ensures that a sufficient number of priority -beds remain available to meet the needs of the veterans, and the government insists that the present hospital staff is taken over by the new authority without reduction in salary. I need hardly add that, following transfer, the


government continues to pay the treatment costs of entitled veterans.
Now, I should like to say a word about the Veterans Land Act. In recent weeks I have received a certain number of letters urging that the statute be amended to continue this program beyond the terminal dates specified in the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe that these requests, understandable though they are, have been based on misapprehensions regarding the aims of this program. The act was not designed as a program of urban housing, nor as a part of a retirement program for persons reaching the end of their productive careers. It was designed to provide financial assistance for the purchase of agricultural land to be used on a full time or part time farming basis by veterans. The purpose was to help them pick up the threads of civilian life following active service. Realizing that not all veterans would wish to use the Veterans Land Act, parliament enacted two other measures, re-establishment credits and postwar university training. I might note here, Mr. Speaker, that most of the letters I received from people wanting to construct under the Veterans Land Act illustrate three things that were available to all veterans. One was to establish them in part time or full time farming; another was to rehabilitate them through university training, and another one was money. In many many cases, we found upon investigation that one or other of these benefits had been received by practically all the veterans who wrote to me. A veteran could use only one of the three measures.
Recognizing that the act was intended as a measure of rehabilitation assistance in the period after wartime active service, as distinct from retirement from postwar occupations or careers, in 1965, eight years ago, parliament established the March 31, 1974 deadline for the purpose of phasing out Veterans Land Act lending operations in an orderly manner. By that date, almost 30 years will have elapsed since the end of the World War II, and 20 years in the case of the Korean conflict.
In the time at my disposal, I cannot of course cover all aspects of departmental operations. I should like, however, to say something about remembrance. First, let me say that each year during the past ten years the government has conducted ceremonies to commemorate the deeds and sacrifices of Canada's veterans, and in each year these ceremonies have been held in Canada and in the places where they fell. Last year my predecessor attended ceremonies in France to commemorate the landings at Dieppe. Within a few weeks I am taking a small delegation to Normandy, where as guests of the government of France we shall be marking the anniversary of the D-Day landings. Later this year, I hope to inspect a number of the cemeteries and memorials in Europe that are maintained at Canadian expense to commemorate the contributions by the thousands of Canadians ip two world conflicts.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that the government keeps the Veterans Charter under constant review, and I believe what I have said will amply confirm the point. I can also assure the House that we shall continue to keep all these measures under review. The government fully recognizes
War Veterans
its responsibility to its veterans and to their loved ones. We have been fulfilling that responsibility and will continue to do so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to refer to some of the points brought out by the hon. member who moved the motion. With regard to the overseas veterans, as I have said in the Veterans Affairs Committee, this has been and is presently under review. As far as additional money for the children to age 25, that is in the same situation.
I want to make reference to the Pension Commission, also referred to by the hon. gentleman who proposed the resolution. We realize that there is a lot of concern on the part of veterans, veterans associations and people across the country that applications are not being processed as rapidly as many of us would desire. However, the House knows that we have added quite a number of people to the Pension Commission and it takes time to train them to deal with this situation and to understand the legislation. We have appointed people who are capable of assessing medical information and bringing the cases concerned to the attention of individuals looking after the pension matter. We are doing our utmost here. According to the last report I have had, pension applications are now being approved a little faster than we are receiving them. Many of those veterans, I have to say with respect, are and have been in receipt of pensions, possibly for a quarter of a century or more. It sounds bad to hear that so many are behind. At the same time, that does not mean that the veterans are starving. In many cases, we have a priority list. We bring urgent pension cases to the top of the list when they are brought to our attention.
It seems to us, in the department, that we have begun to cope with this situation in a much better way than in the past, and we are certainly going to get on top of it. I can say that the Pension Commission is very conscious of this, as is the pension chairman. I have the highest regard for him and know he is dedicated. Many members on the other side of the House, as well as on my side, know that many of these files are extremely thick. Sometimes, when there is no medical evidence to support an application, you have to look for people all over the country who served with the applicant. That is a very difficult job.


Jack Marshall: Why not give them the benefit of the doubt?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Why not give them the benefit of the doubt? That is right. I think, with that, I will end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for the motion he has presented to the House today. I also commend him on the speech he made on introducing his motion. Those of us in all parties in this House who are concerned about the welfare of our veterans welcome the opportunity presented to us today to discuss a number of matters that are of deep concern. Those last few words indicate that there are quite a number of issues relating to veterans that will be discussed. However, I agree with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe that the

War Veterans
main purpose in bringing forward this motion today, the main thrust of the speeches that will be made, I trust, by members on both sides of the House, is that we want no more delay on the part of the government in bringing forward the bill to amend the Pension Act, the purpose of which is to increase the basic amount of the war disability pension.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe pointed out, as all hon. members are aware, that this legislation has been promised since the day the present session began. Early in January, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) indicated that the report of the special joint study group on the basic rate of the war disability pension would be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. That was done within a few days of the making of that promise. That committee took only an hour or two to make its report back to the House, unanimously supporting the recommendation in that report. The minister was present at the meeting and it was clear that he shared the view of all on the committee that it was an excellent report and should be implemented at the earliest possible date.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), when making his budget speech on February 19, indicated that the government was only waiting for the report from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs before acting. That report came down just a few days after the budget speech.
When we asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs questions prior to the Easter recess about the introduction of the bill to raise the basic rate of the war disability pension, he expressed the hope that he would be able to do it before Easter. Well, Easter is a movable feast, but it did not move quite that far. It has come and gone, and we are still without the legislation. Yesterday, in response to yet another question of mine, the minister said that he hoped to bring the bill in, if I may use his exact words, "before very long". When I asked him whether "before very long" means this month, he replied:
Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that I am hopeful that it certainly means this month.


Jack Marshall: The House leader said it would be brought in before the recess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here we are, on May 18; the minister has 13 days left in which to do this. I am glad to see the President of the Treasury (Mr. Drury) sitting here and listening to the debate, because he will realize how keen the House is to have this piece of legislation introduced.
As has already been pointed out, the recommendation of the joint study group, which was supported by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, calls for the basic rate of the war disability pension to be tied to the average rate of pay of five selected categories in the public service. That, indeed, is an attempt to fulfil a promise that has been around more than 50 years. I certainly join with all those who, over the years, have spoken on this matter, but I now say that we hope there will not be another arbitrary figure picked by the government and put in the legislation. This time we want what the joint study group has recommended, namely, that the basic rate of the war

disability pension be tied to the average annual income of five selected categories in the public service.


Mr. Peters:: They are not those of deputy ministers, either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. I trust that remark is on the record. We are talking about five groups down near the bottom of the ladder.
The report pointed out that war disability pensions are not subject to income tax and that, therefore, in arriving at a figure a certain adjustment has to be made in what would be the gross average pay of those working in those five groups. For 1972, this worked out to the figure of $4,529 per year. There have been pay adjustments since then, so that for 1973 the figure would be a little higher. The amount of $4,529 represents an increase of 19.4 per cent over the amount now being paid as the 100 per cent basic rate. I would hope that, considering the increases which have taken place in wage rates this year, the figure might be somewhat higher still.
The important thing about this recommendation is not just the suggested figure, which is roughly 20 per cent higher than that in the present legislation. The important thing about it is that it recommends that that basic rate be tied to those rates of pay I have mentioned, so that in future years the basic rate will go up, as those rates of pay go up. This is well covered on pages 20 and 21 of the report of the joint study group which was signed by the nine persons to whom my hon. friend referred a few moments ago. May I point out, as well, that it is no longer good enough just to give veterans an increase equal only to the rise in the cost of living. Rather, they should be given increases that are related to the rising standard of living. The joint study group points out that the best way to do that is to tie the basic rate of the war disability pension to the average of the rates mentioned in the public service.
I liked the approach of the minister this morning in making it clear to us that the government has not forgotten these things. I liked his confirmation of his statement to me of yesterday that the bill is to be brought in soon. Yesterday he said that that "means this month", the month of May. I must say to him, however, that I am concerned, indeed, disturbed, that he stands up this late in the game and boasts about the clause in the Pension Act that provides for the basic rate to be escalated according to the rise in the cost of living. He should not still be boasting about that. The report of the joint study group, which included the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, as well as Mr. Solomon, and three or four others, said that that is not good enough. I suspect that is the reason for the delay. I suspect this bothers the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). He does not mind giving an increase, but he is worried about this formula that would provide automatic increases in future years in accordance with the rise in the rates of pay of these selected groups. That is the whole issue. It is not just an issue because this study group recommended it. It has been an issue for more than half a century that the basic disability pension should be tied to certain levels of income and not just be a figure that the government can hand out from time to time by amending the act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge


the minister to insist that his bill implement in full the recommendation of the joint study group.
I hope that as a result of today's debate, which is being listened to by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the President of the Treasury Board, the bill will be brought in soon and that it will have in it the formula recommended in the report of the joint study group. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe said that if this is not done, the bill will not be acceptable. We will find that out if we have to go through the sorry situation of the bill not being satisfactory when it goes to committee and the veterans organizations appear before that committee. My suspicion is that if the bill just contains an arbitrary figure without accepting the recommended formula, the veterans organizations will appear before us with some pretty strong representations. All of that can be avoided and the 50 year promise can be kept, if the government will bring in the bill recommended by the joint study group and strongly endorsed by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. That is the main purpose of the motion before us today. I hope it will be the main purpose and main thrust of the debate.
All of us who will take the floor today are concerned about a number of other matters, and we shall have a few words to say about some of those matters. In particular, my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), will have a good deal to say about the Veterans Land Act and what needs to be done with regard to it. There are a few other matters on which I think a comment or two should be made.
With regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act, we welcomed at the time and we are still glad that increases were made in the basic rate of the war veterans allowance. But like other members, I am receiving letters from veterans who are wondering why they did not get the increase. They thought there was an increase. Those over 65 years of age are glad that the ceiling was raised. This permits them to get the full amount of the old age security and guaranteed supplement increase. However, there is no increase for them in their war veterans allowances. The minister covered that very nicely in the letter he sent to veterans with their April cheques. He referred to the changes that had been made and then wrote this interesting sentence:
At the same time, Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement combined payments were increased by the same amounts; which means that those of you who are aged 65 and over will find their increases in those cheques, instead of in their WVA/CWA payments,-
The rest of the sentence states that those payments would not be decreased. That is a nice euphemistic public service way of saying you will not be getting an increase in your war veterans allowance. It is true that those under 65 who are not at the ceiling will get an adjustment because of the higher rates. However, I feel it would have been appropriate to raise the ceiling on the permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act, not just by the amount of the increase in the old age security and guaranteed supplement adjustment, but by an additional amount so that those receiving the war veterans allowance would have an actual increase in that allowance as well as
War Veterans
the increase in the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. I hope that something will yet be done about this. When we get the bill to amend the Pension Act back before the committee, perhaps we can have further discussion about this as well.
I support those who argue strenuously that the time has come to permit a veteran who has service in the United Kingdom prior to November 12, 1918, to be included for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act. The number of those still around is dwindling. The number of years they will live to enjoy, if that is the proper word, these sums of money cannot be great. I hope this change can yet be made.
I agree with those who, when the minister was speaking, protested that all he could say about those who live outside of Canada, in the United Kingdom for example, and cannot draw the allowance unless they have the 12 months back in Canada, was that this is under review. After all these years, that is hardly good enough.
I hope the minister will take a further look at these various matters that relate to the war veterans allowance. In earlier speeches, I had something to say about the different ceilings that apply, depending on whether one is under or over 65 and whether he is single or married. All of this could be avoided if we just established a new higher set of ceilings for veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I see that it is almost one o'clock. I will try to complete my remarks now so that others may speak this afternoon. I leave to my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming, a discussion of the Veterans Land Act. The veterans who write to me know all about the rationale of the act. But I support their contention that because they fought for this land, surely they are entitled to purchase a little bit of it. The argument that it is only for those who make their living in agriculture does not stand up any longer.
With regard to the review of cases of veterans of World War I and World War II, I strongly urge that there be much more liberal interpretations by the Canadian Pension Commission of the benefit of the doubt clause.
In conclusion, may I say that veterans, especially those of World War I, should not have to face any more questions. There should be a level of income guaranteed to them. As far as I am concerned, the age of eligibility for this guaranteed income should be lowered. The place to start is by saying to our veterans, you have earned an income and it should be guaranteed to you. I hope the idea of a guaranteed income for veterans will be considered. But I end, Mr. Speaker, where I started. I hope the result of this debate today will lead to what I believe is its main purpose, that it will support the minister in his efforts to get his bill to amend the Pension Act through the cabinet with which he is associated and into this House not later than the end of next week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized at two o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until then.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
3926


War Veterans AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, speaking of veterans, often leads us to think of Canadian history and particularly that of the last thirty years, during which our armed forces have served in the Second World War and the Korean War.
This House must show the greatest concern for these men who have risked their lives in the defence of our country, to enable freedom to survive.
Particularly during the Second World War, even though grudgingly at times, Canadian troops helped to overthrow the Nazi regime, to prevent it from spreading, and carried out great military exploits which should be born in mind when we talk of these problems. The House must show constant concern for veterans, and also continue to shoulder its responsibilities to them.
In our every day life, we come across people who, for lack of work or luck, live in poverty or have other problems. But when veterans are in difficulties, we must recognize that we are somewhat to blame for it.
I therefore hope that the Progressive Conservatives did not introduce this motion on an allotted day in order to make political capital out of the veterans, or just as a way of attracting attention to themselves.
I mentioned the Second World War and the Korean War; we must also remember the peace missions throughout the world in which Canada has given a good account of herself. She has built a good reputation for herself throughout the world.
Therefore, it is a very important duty to look after the interests of those persons and to assume our responsibilities towards them.
Recently, I received a phone call from the wife of a veteran who asked me to help her to obtain for her husband the pension he was entitled to. he was a man who became disabled as a result of his military service, who suffered from gout and who seemed to have been forgotten by the departmental authorities.
Therefore, I lost no time in helping him and in submitting the required representations for that person to obtain justice. It is a fact that those persons are unfairly treated and, as I said earlier, our first responsibility is to ensure that those injustices no longer exist. For instance, I feel that the basic pension rate is unfair. At present, those persons are not treated as they ought to be. They are not treated with the respect which should come before everything, according to the policy drawn up here.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the government to take all necessary steps, in order that those war veterans know better days, that at last they enjoy the social justice that this government has often held out to us.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to give my support to the motion of my colleague the hon. member for

Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), or perhaps I should say St. Humble-St. George's-St. Barbe. This motion calls upon the government to get on with the job of implementing measures which have the support of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and of this House. These measures are intended to alleviate the serious and pressing need of those who rallied to the call when Canada threw its resources together behind the massive effort to free a large part of the world from tyranny. Many of those who did answer the call lie in foreign cemeteries, many of those who returned are still in hospitals or confined to wheelchairs or trying to get along on pensions and allowances.
I should like to point out to the House that the motion moved by my colleague cannot be construed as criticism of the manner in which the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is administering his portfolio.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Not too many bouquets now.


Duncan M. Beattie: I cannot think of any previous minister of veterans affairs at any time in my memory who has been better suited to the task than the present minister. By temperament and by first hand knowledge of the problems facing veterans, on a day to day basis, the minister is exceptionally well qualified to run that department. Those of us who sit with the minister in committee know that he has the interest of the veterans at heart. He served with distinction in World War II. As most of us on the veterans affairs committee are veterans, Mr. Speaker, I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that our committee is the only committee of this House that consistently functions above partisan politics.
Many thousands of veterans across our country are now looking to those who served alongside them, wondering whether or not we will now rally to their cause. If we do not, then there is nowhere else that they can turn. Where else can they go for help if we in parliament turn our backs on them, or even if we decide what we think is reasonable and just for them, and then let the proposals lie on a shelf and gather dust. Obviously this is not good enough. Those of us on the committee, and the many interested and concerned officials of the veterans organizations have spent hundreds of hours studying, debating and revising proposals and recommendations concerning what we should be providing in the way of benefits, pensions, medical care and the other aspects of a total veterans benefit package.
The package has been assembled and approved. I think that we now have a right to ask the present government: what is holding up the implementation of that veterans benefits package? When I have asked that question in the past I have not been able to get an answer. I will continue to ask the question, but my colleagues and I are running out of patience. We want an answer. I cannot help thinking that the answer is available to the government and needs only to be given to this House and to the veterans who are waiting. The main reason I was so anxious to speak on this motion is that I am deeply concerned about the attitude that appears to exist in the Department of Veterans Affairs in respect of the veterans affairs hospital in London, Ontario. The hospital is the Westminster Hos-


pital, and I do not like to think of what is going to happen to this hospital if the government's announced plans are carried out.
To begin with, I must say that I am not in agreement with the policy in the past few years whereby the Department of Veterans Affairs has gradually gone out of the business of providing and maintaining hospitals for veterans' domiciliary care. There has been a tendency to transfer veterans hospitals to provinces and municipalities for operation, reducing the capacity of these hospitals to deal with bedridden veterans. Provinces and municipalities are not, and have never been, in the business of caring for veterans. This is a responsibility of the federal government, and if I had been in parliament when this policy was first introduced, the department would have had a tough time with me. I would have fought it then, and I am quite prepared to fight it now, right down to the wire.
For some time now the federal government has been discussing with the province, and with the city of London, various schemes for the transfer of Westminster Hospital to the province or to the city. Dr. K. S. Ritchie, assistant deputy minister (hospitals) of the Department of Veterans Affairs said in an interview with the London Free Press last month that the real interest of the DVA was to see the Westminster Hospital become part of the community health facility in order that the future care of veterans will be safeguarded. This is a strange statement of principle. On the one hand, the assistant deputy minister expresses concern over the future welfare of veterans who require hospital treatment and care. At the same time, he says that this can best be assured by having the DVA turn the hospital over to another jurisdiction, jurisdiction incidentally that does not have any responsibilities for veterans care.
In addition to the buildings on the site, Westminster Hospital also has a vast parkland area comprising about 342 acres of prime land. In the past, this parkland has been available to veterans who were able to leave their beds and walk around the grounds, or sit and read or whatever they wanted to do, in a tranquil setting. It may well be that there are people in the DVA who feel this is too good for disabled veterans, men and women who have nothing else but this to look forward to for the rest of their lives. I cannot accept a policy that seeks to transfer responsibility for veterans care to any agency or jurisdiction other than that department in which the responsibility has been vested. That agency is the DVA, and I will insist on a better explanation from them as to why they are not disposed to retain that responsibility.
If some change is called for in the administration of Westminster Hospital, and if some new disposition is necessary, then I have a proposal of my own to make. This hospital was built and has been maintained through the years as a veterans facility. It should remain a veterans facility. My proposal is that it should be declared a national monument to those who have served our country, both to those who did not return, and to those who did return but who are destined to spend the remainder of their lives in the care of the veterans administration.
War Veterans
The grounds around the hospital should be preserved intact to serve the veterans who are domiciled in the hospital and also to serve the people in the community. We have other national monuments across our country that are less deserving of the distinction. I can think of no better way to preserve the memory of, and to do honour to, those of our men and women who have served their country in several wars. I will answer the cranks who would say that such a monument would honour war itself by saying to them that if they had served they would know that those who hate war the most are those who have served in one. I venture to say there are people who would fight my proposal with every means at their disposal. That beautiful land which surrounds Westminster must have some councillors and developers in London drooling and dreaming. I daresay that there are people who cannot wait for the Department of Veterans Affairs to divest itself of the hospital so that they may begin their politicking, scheming and manoeuvring.
I can see high rises, town houses and possibly a shopping centre rising almost overnight on those beautiful grounds. Some people might say at this point that the present council in London would preserve the ground and buildings intact, and that they would do their utmost to prevent it falling into the hands of developers. However, councils change and I doubt very seriously that anyone would suggest that the best way to preserve it as it is would be to have the Department of Veterans Affairs turn it over to someone else. I do not have any more faith in the province in this respect than I would have in any other political jurisdiction. The province does not have responsibility for the care of veterans. I do not believe it would be very long before the provincial government would decide that this area is too prime and too expensive to maintain, and would take steps to enhance the utility and the income potential of this facility.
There is only one way the future of Westminster can be assured as a veterans facility. That is by making it a monument as well as a continuing institution to provide domicilary care for veterans. The designation of Westminster as a national monument would not preclude or prevent its use in other ways. In fact, if it were established as a continuing facility under the patronage of the federal government many additional programs could be developed for the hospital. For instance, there is no reason that portions of the hospital not required for veterans could not be utilized for other patients. London needs additional beds for children's care. This might be the answer to the problem for some time to come. A hospital such as Westminster would be ideally suited to the new role of a medical teaching facility in both pure and applied research as well as the training of doctors who want to upgrade their proficiency in specialized areas of medicine. In fact, if it could be established now that Westminster would continue in perpetuity as a medical facility with the primary function of ensuring domiciliary care for veterans, any number of additional uses might be made of these facilities through the years.
There is a possibility that we will be able to avoid becoming involved in any future wars. This is the fervent hope of all responsible people. In that event there will
26314-31}


War Veterans
come a time when there will not be any need for veterans hospitals as such. However, that time has not arrived, and we have a solemn responsibility to maintain sufficient facilities for the care of our veterans. We cannot slough off that responsibility to anyone else, however well-meaning they might be.
There are some other aspects of veterans care and benefits on which I planned to speak, but I felt I had to make my point with regard to veterans hospitals in general and Westminster hospital in particular. I should like to mention I am a bit disturbed about the apparent lack of real interest on the part of the government in extending the deadline on such an important program as the Veterans Land Act. This act has been a Godsend to the many thousands of returned veterans. Many members have spoken on this subject, but there is one area on which I should like to touch. There are approximately 200 to 300 persons who would qualify under the Veterans' Land Act who are still in the armed forces. When these people leave the armed forces, they must state the area in which they would like to build. If they have not done so by March 31, 1974 they will have to designate a province in which within seven or eight years they might wish to build. I would like to say that the department should extend the program just for that reason alone.
There is another area which is of great concern to me. I have risen twice in this House to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have immediate citizenship granted to war veterans who are honourably discharged from the armed forces. I did not receive such unanimous consent, and I can only assume the reason I did not receive it is that the same people who did not give the consent are the people who are holding up the passage of this bill. There is no reason in the world that we cannot grant at least citizenship to men who fought in the armed forces of this country, not necessarily on request but by right.
On a final note, I would urge the cabinet or whoever is holding up implementation of the benefit package we have approved to turn it loose and let it carry through to Royal Assent. It does not do anybody any good so long as it stays on the shelf. If our troops had discharged their responsibility in combat as loosely and as cavalierly as we seem to be regarding this latest benefit legislation, I shudder to think who would be running our country today. We certainly would not be.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly on the subject of veterans affairs. I am concerned lest our veterans suffer from the political competition that is a normal way of life in this House. As the proposer of the motion admits, committee discussion of veterans business is mostly non-partisan. I should like our House discussion also to be kept on the same plane. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested the motive behind the motion which is before the House. I agree with him, but I also suggest that this member's motivation in applying pressure to the minister and to the government in this manner is to drive in the thin edge of the wedge leading to future promotion of his socialistic theories.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not mind being accused of driving

in the thin edge of the wedge, but I should like to be identified as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I offer my sincere apology to the hon. member. I do not believe that such an objective should be a consideration in this debate. As the vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have been pleased to see the unanimity of the members representing all parties in safeguarding and promoting the interests of our veterans. I believe we will achieve our joint objective by emphasizing the very special needs and rights of our veterans and their families.
There is one other point I should like to make which is of somewhat local character. It concerns the veterans hospitals in the province of Quebec and the program to transfer these hospitals, along with other veterans hospitals, to provincial jurisdiction in the future. I wish to make the point that the responsibility for the care of our veterans is 100 per cent a federal responsibility and in this respect, until we are sure that these rights and the wishes of our veterans will be looked after to the degree to which we, the federal representatives, want to see them looked after, we should not pursue such a transfer. Also, we must respect the rights of the veterans to have a very strong voice in this decision to transfer their hospitals to another jurisdiction. While there are a number of statutes and regulations contained in what we refer to as the Veterans Charter, I would like to deal at this time with the War Veterans Allowance Act and Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
The War Veterans Allowance Act is that part of the Veterans Charter designed to ensure that those whose wartime service meets the requirements of the act shall, in spite of advanced age or incapacity, be assured of an income. This is attained by providing an allowance on a modified income test basis which ensures that the income of a veteran, his widow or orphans, does not fall below the amounts set out in the schedule of the act. We are deeply conscious of the debt we owe to those men and women who risked their lives in the interests of preserving Canada's freedom. This government has been alert to the needs of this important group of Canadian citizens and has taken a number of steps to assure them of a better standard of living.
On March 21, 1972 the regulations were amended to remove the four months restriction on casual employment. The result of this action was that the length of the employment ceased to be a factor and the dollar value of the earnings became the only yardstick to be applied. On May 15, 1972, we exempted the cost of living increases in the old age security and guaranteed income supplement monthly payments amounting to $15 for single recipients and $30 for married recipients. By doing this, the government ensures that those recipients aged 65 and over would receive an OAS/GIS increase and not have their allowances reduced by a like amount.
On May 19, 1972, we amended the War Veterans Allowance Act 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. As a result of this, war veterans allowance


and civilian war allowances recipients will no longer have to wait and hope for an increase, wondering when it will happen and how much it will be. They now know that if the cost of living goes up, so will their allowances and income ceilings.
On November 9, 1972 the regulations were amended so that the value of a home in excess of $10,000 would no longer cause a reduction in the allowance paid each month. This was a great help to people whose homes had escalated in value. Before the regulations were changed, they did suffer a loss of income because of the increased values in real estate.
On January 13, 1973 the amount of casual earnings permitted in any allowance year was increased from $800 to $1,000 for single recipients, and from $1,200 to $1,500 for married recipients. This is one of the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act and Civilian War Allowances Act which help to make them outstanding pieces of legislation of which we should all be proud. While unfortunately all recipients are not able to avail themselves of this exemption, it is beneficial for those who can. The result of this change is that, in the absence of any other income, a single recipient can have a monthly allowance of $151.14 and earn $1,480 a year, for a total of $3,293.68 a year. Married recipients can have a monthly allowance of $257.21 and earn $2,340 a year for a total income of $5,426.52.
The War Veterans Allowance Act and Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act are two very important parts of the Veterans Charter. Bill C-148, as all hon. members know, increased the rates in the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Allowances Act by $20.14 for single recipients and $39.60 for married recipients. The War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and allowances Act rates have been increased by $30.14 a month or 24.8 per cent for single recipients and $56.21 a month or 27.8 per cent for married recipients since December 31, 1971. The rates for orphans have similarly been increased by more than 24 per cent during the same period.
Like all hon. members, I was pleased to see the rates and ceilings increased twice this year, once on January 1 and again on April 1. I was especially pleased, however, at the amendment to the act which removed for all time the restriction on personal property which, prior to April 1 of this year, was limited to $1,250 for single recipients and $2,500 for those who are married. As a result of the removal of the personal property limitations, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which were previously geared to a means test, are now geared to a modified income test.
There can be no doubt that the previous restriction caused a great deal of frustration and sadness on the part of many applicants and recipients. I have had letters from widows whose husbands had been receiving the war veterans allowance or civilian war allowances during their lifetime. The veteran died and left his wife $5,000 in insurance. No matter how old or crippled she was, until she reduced her insurance money to the permissible limit through ordinary maintenance, she was automatically ineligible for an allowance. In other cases, a recipient might receive a small inheritance and because the amount of personal property was then more than was allowed, that
War Veterans
recipient would lose his allowance and possibly be faced with a recoverable overpayment. This particular amendment is a milestone in veterans legislation and will be beneficial to hundreds of recipients and applicants. I understand that last year alone 1,375 recipients had their allowance cancelled because their personal property increased over the legal amount. In many cases the excess was small, but the result was the same.
I am sure that all hon. members will agree that it is right that we should be constantly on the alert for ways to improve the legislation which affects our veterans and their dependants. I believe that the government has demonstrated that awareness and its willingness to take the legislative action necessary to bring about the desired improvements. These improvements, together with the abolition of the restriction on personal property holdings effective April 1, 1973, are concrete evidence of this government's determination to honour our debt to those who served Canada in her hour of need.
In conclusion, I want to add a word of praise of what our Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has been attempting to do in his short term in this House. I advise hon. members that he is giving his weekend to the veterans, as he has done with so many weekends. He leaves by plane after this debate is concluded this afternoon to attend the Quebec legion convention at Ste Anne de Bellevue. He will be visiting Ste Anne de Bellevue veterans hospital tomorrow morning, and then he will fly out again to repeat the same process in Ontario. I feel that while veterans affairs are in the good hands of our present minister our veterans need have no fear that they will not be given a fair deal in the legislation which all members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs are anxious to see before the House.


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the first in need of our consideration are the last to be served in this session of parliament. Most of those on a government pension have had an increase established for them in this session of parliament, except the disabled war veterans. A parliamentary committee representing all parties has agreed on the need, and has agreed on the extent of what the increase should be. All parties are agreed on the necessity to make the increase as soon as possible.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) indicated that legislation for the increase was to be brought to the House before the Easter recess. There is now an indication from the same minister that the legislation will be brought to the House before the end of May. There was also an indication from the House leader of the Liberal party that, hopefully, it would be brought to the House before the summer recess. Therefore, the hold up must be in the cabinet. It is easy in opposition to criticize; it is easy in opposition to say what should be done; it is easy in opposition to promise everything, because in opposition one doesn't have the responsibility for acting.


An hon. Member:: Which side are you on?


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: On the side of the DVA, as I hope you are. In opposition one is unhindered by the final responsibility, by the final formula. When one does not have the responsi-


War Veterans
bility, some of the complexities and complications are unknown. A government cannot immediately and always live up to its good intentions. But granted all that, Mr. Speaker, the government should move, because it must move to save the dignity and the peace of mind of those now on inadequate pensions.
Those who have given more than most are getting less than most. More than any, we are subjecting them to the torture of the government's indecision. The disabled, most of whom are denied a life of activity, have more time to think, have more time to be concerned, have more time to be dismayed. No matter what the complexities and the complications of coming through with a formula, the necessity of action now is so great that the government should make it a priority item.
The House has been spending more time in sympathy with the murderers of our society than with those in society who sacrificed to make our society safe for all. Let us get our priorities straight, and with the urgency of an emergency measure let the government act no later than next week to bring in the legislation, to bring justice to our disabled war veterans, to end the uncertainty and the real anguish as they wait from day to day. We cannot solve all the problems of the world or all the problems of the nation, but the government does have the wherewithal to serve the modest needs of the disabled war veteran.
Let the government have the determination. Let not grandiose plans for the future blind us to the practical needs of today. It is not that the disabled war veterans situation is going to result in measures which will cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars. There are not that many survivors of our wars. We, in Canada, have not been directly involved in a major war since Korea. We do not have the problem of a continuing number of disability cases. We have a situation where we are in debt to a small group of men, in debt for a very long time, and the need now is for immediate action in establishing the new basic rate for those on the war disability pension.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak briefly on behalf of the veterans with respect to the motion that is before us today. I would like to bring to the attention of the House that, from time to time since last autumn, mention has been made of a possible increase in pensions paid under the Pension Act to veterans who suffered a disability related to military service, and to dependents in the event of their death.
I think it is important to note that the veterans are not just asking for an increase in pension rates. Rather, they seek a base rate of pension tied to one or more groups in the private or public sector. Hon. members will recall that the recommendations contained in the joint report by representatives of the veterans' organizations and officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Pension Commission, were endorsed by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs some time ago. Those of us who were on that committee will recall that five categories in the public service were selected as representative of unskilled labour, a level acceptable to the veterans' spokesmen. Veterans tell me that the principle of finding a firm base for the rate of pension is at this point in time even more important than an increase in dollars. I understand that
[Mr. Arrol.l
the matter is now under close study by the cabinet, and the House leader has stated that we can expect a bill before the House before the end of June.


Jack Marshall: Where do you get your information?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I have a pipeline.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My pipeline says before the end of May.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I also would like that. I did not say that the legislation will not arrive in May. I said it certainly would come before the end of June, and if by chance the House leader brings it in within the next few days I will be most happy. I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) feels the same way as we do. I am sure that the minister wants to accelerate introduction of the legislation and have it approved as soon as possible. The vice-chairman of the standing committee has expressed his feelings about the minister. What he said was worth while hearing. I know he meant it. I, too, know the dedication which the minister has brought to his job ever since taking over the department. He deserves to be complimented. It is not every minister who will do the work that he does every weekend. It shows his concern for the veterans.
The veterans' organizations also asked for a standard formula, fixing the ratio on a firm percentage basis, to cover the additional pension paid to a veteran on behalf of his wife and child or children. Similarly, it was felt that the same basis should be provided for setting the rate of pension paid to a widow. Historically, an increase in disability pension was announced from time to time, but the percentage increase varied as did the ratio of additional pensions paid for dependants. There would seem to be some merit in the proposals put forward for many years by the veterans groups who have held that an increase in the basic rate when implemented should be measured against some point of reference.
This matter has now been successively before a study group, the standing committee and the government for almost a year, and has obviously been carefully analysed by all concerned. I share the hope of other hon. members that further information on this subject will soon be forthcoming.
Over the past year, most hon. members will have received letters from war veterans or their dependants seeking assistance in urging the Canadian Pension Commission to act on pension applications. I must confess I was shocked to learn only recently that as of April 24 last year the commission was faced with a backlog of 8,975 applications for a basic award, and I understand this does not include many ancillary benefits, including pensions for wives and children.
I have done a bit of research and was referred to a national magazine called The Fragment, put out by the War Amps of Canada. This magazine contains an article dealing with delays by the Pension Commission in granting pension awards, and points out all is not black or white. I will repeat that, Mr. Speaker: it points out that all


is not black or white. For example, one must realize it is now 28 years since the end of World War II and while there have been other brush-fire wars, the bulk of the claims outstanding relate to the 1939-1945 conflict. Most of the so-called routine claims from World War II have long since been granted; it is the difficult claims that require a great deal of research. In many cases, there is no intermediate medical report between 1945 and the death of a veteran in 1973. The widow may feel that her husband's fatal heart attack related to his arduous service in a battle area and submit a claim. One can readily understand the correspondence required by the commission, the bureau of pensions advocates, if involved in the case, and frequently a veterans' organization, in seeking records of medical treatment since 1945 and in seeking witnesses who may be able to support the widow's claim that her husband's health was not good over the many years since service.
I think it is of interest to note that since the amendments of March 30, 1971, a widow may claim an award in respect of a condition for which her husband neglected to claim during his lifetime. One need hardly mention the difficulties involved in this exercise, especially since the veteran is now out of the picture and there may be only meagre evidence, if any, in support of the claim.
Many of the claims advanced recently are not new. Hon. members are aware that the amendments to the Pension Act of March 1971 provided for an open door policy to all. This means that in addition to the many new measures introduced, any veteran whose claim to pension since 1918 was not granted is afforded an opportunity of starting over again. It will be readily apparent that a claim that has been aggressively prosecuted on a number of occasions over the past 35 years, has collected many volumes, and all this data again be reviewed if the claim is to receive the attention it deserves.
One must ask, then, what steps are now being taken to deal with the backlog? I find there has been a marked increase in the staff of the commission since April, 1971- indeed the total staff figure now stands at 359, an increase of 14 per cent over the past two years. In addition, hon. members will recall a bill was before the House last July to authorize an increase in the size of the commission to 24 members. Immediate steps led to the appointment of seven new members and, although I am advised a lengthy training period is essential, the new members will play a decisive role in reducing the backlog. In this regard, the chairman of the commission has recently stated he feels the corner has been turned, and since January of this year output is increasing and the number of claims pending has been reduced on successive months. He has cautioned, however, there will likely be surges from time to time, thus requiring constant review of methods to speed up the adjudication process.
To sum up, I am satisfied the officials of the commission are doing their best, but at the moment it is not quite good enough. Hon. members will, I am sure, join me when I suggest no concerned person in the Pension Commission can rest easy until every veteran's claim has received the attention it deserves.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of members of this House the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who
War Veterans
for many years has participated on the Veterans Affairs Committee and in fact has always spoken about the various pension boards and commissions, who has dedicated almost all his life to the benefit of people who should rightly receive pensions, who sits opposite me but whom I have always recognized for the work he has done-that hon. gentleman will be 65 years young on June 18. I feel I should bring this to the attention of the House. At that time he will be eligible for the $100 a month pension through what he often refers to as the OAP, old age pension. All members of the House I am sure will want to wish him many more years of active life, health and happiness in doing what he is doing for the benefit of all Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Probably the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising on a point of order which is well deserved and I shall listen to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that I want to thank the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) for telling the House that I am 65 so that hon. members will not think I am 75.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, the hon. member for St. Boniface really did not raise a question that should be dealt with by the Chair, except in a very congratulatory way, and I join with the hon. member for St. Boniface and I think every other member of the House in anticipating something that will happen in a few days time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to add that the normal retirement age of the .average Canadian is probably not going to affect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Therefore, it is only going to be another day in a long and illustrious career of fighting for pensioners. However, I do appreciate the words of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) in relation to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I believe that, in relation to this subject, that appreciation should be extended to most members with whom I have had the opportunity of sitting for 15 years. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who was vice-chairman of that committee, a fact of which I was not aware, started out by saying how terrible it was to raise this question. He condemned the hon. member for bringing it forward, and other hon. members for having endorsed the hon. member's position. He went on to say how wonderful the government has been to our veterans in paying the veterans allowances, not understanding that these only apply to people who are totally disabled and below the age of 60. If they are over 60, they have to pass a means test. That legislation does not apply to them if they are over 65, as those veterans are to get benefits from increased old age pensions and other old age assistance.
Therefore, his remarks were not in keeping with what has been happening for a long time in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The members of that commit-


War Veterans
tee are anxious, on behalf of all veterans in this country, to see the best possible type of veterans charter and legislation adopted. I think the minister would be the first to agree that in thus raising this issue the House is putting its weight behind the proposition that in this country there is general acceptance of the idea that the basic rate for disability pensions should be calculated by taking the average of wages paid for five junior categories in the civil service. This is a change in concept, and members of the opposition consider this so important that they wish to add their support to any application the minister might make to cabinet for such a substantial change.
When I first was a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I believe 15 or 16 years ago, the base rate mentioned was to be tied to the rate paid to sweepers, cleaners and similar categories in the civil service. This decision was made by a committee following the First World War on the ground that such categories ranked lowest in the federal civil service. It was felt that if a veteran was totally disabled he ought to get as much as if he were digging ditches or sweeping floors for the federal government. Everybody agreed. The only disagreement was over how one was to establish that concept. In the meantime, the sweeper has departed; the job of ditch-digger in the civil service has disappeared. Those categories were referred to but have not existed for some time. Therefore, the government has arbitrarily set a level of benefits from time to time that has not met a criterion that the veterans themselves believe to be fair and reasonable.
Certainly that was the opinion of the special joint study group that looked into this matter. The amount that group decided on is not large. It took into consideration payments such as income tax that would normally be made by civil servants in the course of their employment. The figure arrived at is, in my opinion, reasonable and will be applicable not only this year and next year but for as long as veterans depend on this type of pension. That, of course, will be for as long as there are surviving veterans from the Second World War and the Korean war.
I think the criterion arrived at is almost ideal. The determination of the basic rate will not be tied to the wages paid to a single category in the civil service. It will be tied to the average wage paid to five categories. It seems to me that so long as we stick to five categories, any one of which may fluctuate up or down but all five of which will be taken on average, we shall be dealing with this problem in a fair and reasonable way. I am surprised that the vice-chairman of the veterans affairs committee did not understand that the committee was totally in favour of that proposition and endorsed it almost without debate. This raises the question of whether we should do these things without debate. We thought everybody understood this position. We were of the opinion that everybody taking part in the debate today would not criticize the government but would support the proposition that the government should take this course of action. Perhaps, for the benefit of newer members, there should be more explanation of the subject. I think, nevertheless, that we would all come to exactly the same position as we now espouse.
The member who moved this motion today did not do so to embarrass the government. He did not move it as a

non-confidence motion. His purpose in moving it was totally different. His purpose was to enable us in opposition parties to lend support, publicly, to the minister and to the committee so that the government and other members may have the benefit of opinions expressed in the committee and a decision on this question can be taken as soon as possible. He wanted to bring this matter to the attention of ministers and others who must make the final decision on matters affecting veterans. He did not move his motion for the purpose of getting any advantage from it, or for criticizing the government.
I want to raise a second point touched on by most speakers, that is, concerning the difficulty we are experiencing with a limited number of veterans who are reaching retirement age or are considering retirement and who want to move from the area in which they may have worked for a number of years to an area in which they can retire. These veterans wish to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act provisions which will allow them to buy a piece of land and build a small house-and under the terms of the VLA it will be a very small house in most areas! At any rate, they will be able to build a small house.
For the sake of those members who, like the vice-chairman of the committee, may not understand exactly what we have been talking about, let me explain that after the war three forms of help outside of the normal veterans' assistance were given to veterans. They were given reestablishment allowances which were not exceedingly large. I think the amount was usually under $1,000, depending on the number of months of service. Second, they were given the benefit of the university and retraining program. In many cases these benefits were extensive. I took advantage of that particular program.
The third form of help was given under the Veterans Land Act. Many farmers were re-established under the Veterans Land Act, others were established on smaller pieces of land under the smallholding provisions of the VLA. These holdings varied from two acres to approximately half an acre. Concessions were made to those holding even half an acre if the veteran was 50 per cent disabled. Also, that small piece of land could be fairly close to another piece on which he might build. In other words, the land did not all need to be in one block but all the pieces had to be reasonably close to one another.
It was decided in 1964-and I think it is safe to say the committee really did not put up much of a fuss-that 1974 was to be the cut-off date for building under the Veterans Land Act provisions. Most of us were thinking in terms of farmers and of the age of veterans. We were also thinking, when making that decision, that the final cut-off date was ten years away. Those ten years have gone awfully fast and we are rapidly approaching 1974, the final cut-off date for building. Many veterans really do not consider the smallholding provisions until they are about to retire. I have received a considerable number of letters from veterans in the past two or three weeks. These people are much better informed about the March, 1974, cut-off date than they are about the fact that they should have a certificate of qualification issued before October, 1968, in order to qualify under the Veterans Land Act.


I am asking that we extend this provision and eliminate the qualification date. Under the smallholdings section a veteran was able to obtain up to $18,000 under the Veterans Land Act for acquiring land and building a home. Of this amount $6,000 was at 3.5 per cent interest. Therein lies the advantage of the smallholding legislation. The remaining provision and advantages are involved in the repayment program. If the repayment was completed there were other built-in advantages amounting to about $1,500. In my opinion, there is no justification in cutting off the Veterans Land Act as far as it affects smallholdings. I do not want to see a farmer saddled with an operation from which he has to make a living and make payments at an advanced age, but the letters I receive with regard to smallholdings indicate a number of problems.
One of my colleagues showed me a letter the other day which he received from a person who has lived in Yellowknife since the war. That city is quite northerly and I presume this man does not want to stay there for the rest of his life. He has some savings and now wants to take advantage of the smallholding section of the Veterans Land Act and move to British Columbia. He said he did not know about the qualifying date, and I believe him. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of the Veterans Land Act. He also said he has not been able to take advantage of other sections. But if the record is checked I think it will probably be found that he did receive credits which will now have to be repaid. After 30 years, a person's memory sometimes tends to be faulty. This is not an insurmountable obstacle. That money could be repaid in order to take advantage of the qualification provisions.
I received a letter from one of my constituents who had received a re-establishment credit in 1954 of $270. After repaying his re-establishment credit he qualified under the smallholding section. He looked around for a suitable property but was unable to find one. When he notified the department that he was unable to find a suitable property he was refunded his re-establishment credit. He lost his certificate of qualification because he drew his re-establishment credit for the second time. Obviously, this man has qualified. Even though the qualification was withdrawn, I suggest that he is still qualified regardless of the fact that he gave up his certificate.
If the members of this House really believe the veteran has the right to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act, they will do three things to make it worth while. First, they will have to convince the minister and his officials that it is necessary to wipe out the qualifying date, at least with regard to smallholdings. I am sure that would be difficult for the minister to do. When I asked the minister if he would settle for ministerial discretion he said, "In no way." I do not blame him. If we are going to do this, I do not see why we should load all our problems on the minister and he should have to make the decisions. I think it should just be withdrawn.
Second, in order to be fair to someone living in an urban community I think the $18,000 restriction should be changed. It is unreasonable. In the Toronto Star the other day a lot for a house was advertised at $18,000. The lot was on the edge of a ravine which had not been filled. I am not sure whether the ravine would have to be filled before
War Veterans
building, but after paying $18,000 for the lot there would not be much left for the tent he would have to put on it. A much more reasonable qualification would be $25,000, considering the change in land value in urban areas.
Third, if we are going to make this change we should also change that which is bothering the minister and his department, namely, the administration section in the Veterans Land Act. This smallholding section, including the terms and regulations, should be turned over to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Farm Credit Corporation for administration. There is really no justification for duplicating the administrative costs. The amount being spent on the Veterans Land Act program is not being increased but the per unit administrative costs are rising quite steeply. Despite what the vice-chairman of the committee says, we should make these kinds of suggestions. If they have the support of all members of this House, particularly in a minority government situation, they should receive consideration, because we are not necessarily dealing with a costly item.
The minister and the committee should give serious consideration to eliminating the qualification date of October, 1968, as well as eliminating the commencement of construction date of March, 1974, which is rapidly approaching. All veterans should have an equal right in making their own decision. This qualifying date eliminates that right for those who were not in a position to take advantage of this program ten years ago but are in that position today. If they are now in such a position we should make these advantages available to them.
In view of the service these veterans gave to our country they should be entitled to a 3!/2 per cent interest rate on the first $6,000. The balance would be at CMHC rates. If administration is the costly item, it should be taken over by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If we do this we will be making a contribution to the welfare of the veterans of our country.
I hope the minister conveys to the cabinet and Treasury Board the support he has received from the opposition by using one of their opposition days for the veterans of Canada. I hope the minister can convince the cabinet that the proposal, particularly with regard to war veterans pensions, is reasonable, just and supported by all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to be able to contribute to this debate. I was pleased to be a member of the veterans affairs committee. Most of us have only one thought, and that is to make a unanimous decision about the proper treatment of veterans as far as pensions are concerned. At present there seems to be one little snag, but I believe this will be overcome shortly.
All hon. members have been concerned about the availability of medical treatment for veterans. There are still about 900,000 veterans in Canada. In all quarters of the House, arrangements for their medical care are held to be of first importance. The amount of time devoted to treatment of members of the armed services by the Department
3934


War Veterans
of Veterans Affairs amounts to 10,455 man-years annually. However, only about 20 per cent of the expenditures of the department are used for this purpose. It should be pointed out, also, that some of this expenditure is recoverable through provincial insurance plans.
After the First World War treatment services and hospitals were set up. Some treatment was, of course, carried out in civilian hospitals and by private doctors. At the present time, diagnostic and other treatment is available to recipients of war veterans allowances. I think most of those benefiting from these services have been fairly generously treated; at least, that has been the case in my experience and I believe most hon. members share this view.
However, the department also looks after current members of the armed forces, members of the RCMP and others in the public service, so the department has to administer about 5,000 beds in eight veterans hospitals in addition to 364 beds in three veterans homes. There is also some contracting-out of veterans care to university centres, especially in cases where hospitals have been turned over to the community. I saw some of this work in Sunny-brook hospital. It became fairly obvious that, taking account of the diminishing number of chronically ill or wounded, people who had succumbed to the advances of age or to their wounds, the treatment of veterans became concentrated on those with acute illnesses and that to carry on highly organized and beautifully equipped hospitals for veterans, when their numbers did not fill those hospitals, was both uneconomic and undesirable.
Moreover, we think very strongly that veterans should be given the very best treatment available; they need a high quality of care such as is available in community general hospitals and university teaching hospitals. For this reason there has been a change of emphasis in the type of treatment carried out. Since 1968 there has been a reduction of 12 per cent in the use made of hospital services on a patient-day basis.
As hon. members have pointed out, we have been very lucky, or blessed, because we have had no new wars to contend with. The number of veterans requiring chronic patient care is decreasing all the time, and we ought now to move in the direction of providing the required service to an increasing extent by reserving beds in community general hospitals. What worries most hon. members who are interested in the welfare of veterans is the feeling that some of the old, well-known hospitals have been graded down by being turned into community hospitals. I have mentioned Sunnybrook hospital. There is the hospital in Ste. Foy, Quebec, and there is the Lancaster hospital in Saint John, New Brunswick. These three institutions have been transferred. I do not think the problems mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) are insoluble. Since one of my hon. friends may well be speaking about that aspect of the question, I shall not mention it further.
The implementation of hospital and medical care insurance plans by provincial governments is having an effect upon the occupancy rate of veterans hospitals, and we shall have to accept the situation. A high proportion of veterans are now insured under provincial plans so the cost of their medical treatment is recoverable from the
[Mr. Railton.l
province. Again, now that veterans are insured, many of them choose to enter hospitals near their own homes. This results in more vacant beds being left in the veterans hospitals.
In many instances the provinces realize that they already have a major responsibility for the operation of veterans hospitals. Increasing emphasis on regional health planning has encouraged the provinces to reassess the unused assets represented by facilities in veterans hospitals. Throughout negotiations the department has not neglected its responsibilities to veterans. It has intensified programs for the modernization of equipment and accommodation, ensuring adequate treatment and facilities for veterans and assisting in the retention of essential professional services.
Negotiations for the transfer of Deer Lodge hospital, Winnipeg, are nearing completion and they have recently been initiated for Westminster hospital, London. It is also understood that discussions with the provinces appear favourable toward the initiation of negotiations for the transfer of Camp Hill hospital, Halifax; Queen Mary veterans hospital, Montreal; Ste Anne's hospital, Ste Anne de Bellevue; Rideau veterans home, Ottawa; Colonel Belcher hospital, Calgary; Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver; and Veterans hospital, Victoria. Although it is evident that the transfer of veterans hospitals may not be completed by the original target year of 1973-74, there is promise that it may not be delayed too long after next year.
I thank hon. members for allowing me to speak today. I want to add my felicitations to those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in respect of the minister, for his superb handling of his ministry.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this motion because I believe this parliament should do everything possible to speed benefits for war veterans as unanimously recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I am sure representations have been made in the past year regarding the basic rate of pensions and the inequities of the system, particularly with the inflationary trend. I am sure persons making those representations on behalf of veterans have been told that a joint study group has prepared a report and that we must await the report before we can recommend to cabinet any changes in the present system.
The report has been submitted to and unanimously accepted by the standing committee of this House, and I am sure the speed at which the matter was passed through the committee must have established a record. There was not one dissenting vote. Everyone who spoke said he did not want to hold up the recommendations a moment longer than necessary. We did not even hear all the witnesses who planned to plead the case for war veterans. Newspapers, veterans' organizations and veterans' magazines all praised those who contributed to the study.
Many of us will recall reading newspaper headlines at the time the report went through, some of which were "Pension plan moves quickly", "Basic pension rate recommendations favoured", "Break for veterans", "New regula-


tions for the burnt-out pensioner", "Ottawa moves to raise pension of war veterans". Then came the one that caused some of us to raise our eyebrows, "New veterans pension plan encounters hurdles in cabinet". We were a little bit disturbed on reading that.
The minister is regarded highly by all members of the standing committee. We applauded his statement on the introduction of the joint study report and I am sure we all felt it would be a simple "a-b-c" matter when dealt with by the cabinet, but apparently this was not the case. I thought this year we had made a breakthrough, but with the delay in cabinet I expect we will be told that the recommendations will be changed or shelved. I am very disturbed about that prospect. Emotions run high when this sort of thing happens, especially when we think of the millions of dollars we pour into useless LIP programs; how some of the industry, trade and commerce people toss off a few million dollars to an industry group and say it was a calculated risk or that we are gaining experience in this field.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is pushing for more social increases; and one remembers that time in the past year when we paid out $1.5 billion in unemployment insurance benefits because of poor economic planning and forecasting. Yet now we find the government holding back on increases in veterans pensions. What group of people deserves more consideration than our war veterans? We will, with great fanfare, give millions of dollars in grants to emerging nations and rush to the aid of victims of national disasters in other countries and justify our gifts on humanitarian grounds, but what group in society needs more help than our war veterans?
I was somewhat embarrassed a few weeks ago when I participated in a celebration in memory of the battle of the Atlantic. It was a ceremony to commemorate those who died in that battle during World War II, involving the placing of wreaths by various veterans' groups, the municipality and the province of Ontario on the Cenotaph. It was discovered that the person representing the Department of National Defence had no wreath. I was contacted and I ordered a wreath comparable to those of the province and the municipality. I was later informed by the department that this was not an allowable expense. It is not the dollar amount which bothers me, as that is not important as far as I am concerned; it is the principle involved. I find it incredible that this government would not pay for a wreath to commemorate those who gave their lives in defence of their country.
The minister made reference to the aims and purposes of the Veterans Land Act. Like other members who have spoken, I have had many persons from veterans' organizations, legions and clubs speak to me about this act. We all recognize the original intent, but times and conditions have changed and the desires of those for whom the legislation was framed have changed. We all know that when the first national housing bill was introduced it did not cover all the conditions we find in the legislation today. If the desire of those eligible for VLA smallholdings is to have retirement acreage or a smallholding on which to spend the last years of their lives, then so be it. Let us change the act to bring that about. But let us not cut if off
War Veterans
and give as an excuse the fact that the act was not designed as a retirement plan for veterans.
All this motion does is urge the government to bring in measures to remedy certain injustices in veterans pensions. There are 900,000 veterans still alive in Canada, of which about 78,000 receive war veterans allowances, 130,000 receive disability pensions and 30,000 widows and orphans get pensions. There are about 5,000 veterans in DVA hospitals, and about 60,000 benefiting from the Veterans Land Act program.
We urge the government to act on the joint study report passed unanimously by the standing committee, and to allow those receiving veterans benefits to live in dignity and be removed forever from the need to beg for increased allowances. We urge this government to act humanely and with compassion, and to introduce in the House the necessary legislation to enact the recommendations of the joint study group in respect of the basic rate of pensions.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments about the Veterans Land Act and in so doing I think it appropriate to commence by referring to the title of the act and several pertinent sections of the preamble, the Veterans Land Act is entitled "An act to assist war veterans to settle upon the land". The preamble reads in part as follows:
Whereas many men now serving in the active forces of Canada have recorded their desire to settle on land or engage in farming when hostilities cease, and it is desirable that suitably qualified veterans be encouraged to seek rehabilitation in the agricultural industry;
And whereas part-time farming coupled with other employment is an increasingly important aspect of rural and semi-rural life in Canada,
And whereas it is in the public interest as a measure of rehabilitation to assist in acquiring the ownership of farm homes by qualified veterans .. .
And whereas the great majority of prospective veteran settlers have limited financial assets and the lack of such assets has proved to be the main obstacle to the fulfillment of settlement contracts and to the acquirement of farm home ownership;
And whereas it is the purpose of the Dominion Government to provide a measure of financial assistance to veterans on their performance of prescribed settlement conditions in order to promote their engaging in agricultural pursuits either as a full-time occupation or as a part-time occupation coupled with some other employment;-
I believe both the title of the act and those parts of the preamble to which I have referred make crystal clear what the intent, nature and purposes were conceived and understood to be when parliament, on behalf of a grateful country, enacted this rehabilitation measure more than a quarter of a century ago. It was not, of course, the only rehabilitation measure enacted. It was recognized that many veterans would not be interested or find it practical to settle on the land either as full or part-time farmers.
For such veterans, alternative benefits to those of the Veterans Land Act were provided. Here I refer to the university training allowances of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act and to re-establishment credits provided under the War Service Grants Act. Each veteran had the option
3936


War Veterans
of deciding which of these alternative benefits best suited his particular rehabilitation needs or desires.
With the benefit of hindsight, one might contend that an additional rehabilitation measure should have been enacted in 1946 to offer veterans special financial and other arrangements with respect to urban housing. In fact, because such provisions were not enacted I believe there has been intermittent pressure over the years to try to make the part-time farming provisions of the Veterans Land Act into housing legislation, a field of course that is and has been covered by the National Housing Act.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the purpose of the Veterans Land Act clearly was to encourage and assist veterans at the end of hostilities and on their return to civilian life to settle on the land as full or part-time farmers. I believe this purpose essentially has been achieved and with a degree of success beyond all expectations. Dealing solely with the category of full-time farming settlement, I understand almost 32,000 veterans have been established on either commercial or family farm units. Public funds advanced to these veterans, including the ten-year conditional grant benefit of up to $2,320, exceed $347 million. Well over 50 per cent of this number have already repaid their contracts and acquired title to their properties.
It would be unreasonable to expect, of course, that every veteran would succeed. When you consider, however, that less than 200 of these 32,000-just over one half of one per cent-have had their contracts with the director rescinded after consideration by and with the consent of provincial advisory boards, I think it is self-evident that the legislation was well conceived, has been well administered and has achieved the rehabilitation purpose envisaged.
I observed earlier that the Veterans Land Act was enacted more than a quarter of a century ago. Today the average age of veterans of World War II is approaching 56 or 57. This is not the time of life to undertake settlement on the land as a full-time farmer, a fact which is borne out both by the limited number of new farm establishments which are being made under the act and by the number of veterans who are repaying the director and acquiring title. In the calendar year 1972, less than 100 veterans were settled on farms, compared with 11,398 in the fiscal year 1946-47, and close to 700 terminated their contracts.
Undoubtedly, having regard to the basic purpose of the Veterans Land Act and the extended period which had already elapsed since the end of World War II, in 1965 parliament approved terminal dates for loan applications with the object of phasing out VLA lending operations in an orderly manner. Taking all circumstances into consideration, I find that I share the opinion expressed by the minister in his statement to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on March 6 last, when he said it appeared that the deadlines approved by parliament in 1965 were reasonable then and remain so.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few further comments to make about the Veterans Land Act and, in particular, about the provisions of the act which were designed to assist veterans of World War II, and later those of the Korean special force, to pick up the threads of civilian life following wartime active service by engaging in farming on a parttime basis coupled with off-farm employment. It is my

understanding that the concept behind the part-time farming or smallholding provisions of the act evolved in part from the economic and employment difficulties of the thirties when many Canadian families found it possible to overcome, or substantially abate those difficulties by supplementing their meagre or irregular income by what they could produce from the land. Even without the environmental benefits available in rural or semi-rural locations, which are today being recognized by an increasing number of citizens, I believe the concept was sound and reflective of the sense of independence and pride still inherent in the majority of the Canadian people.
Undoubtedly, because economic and employment circumstances for the most part in the 28 years which have elapsed since World War II have not demanded the same degree of agricultural utilization of land by those engaged principally in off-farm employment, there has been a growing tendency to look upon the smallholding provisions of the act primarily as a medium to obtain housing accommodation, in urban areas if at all possible, on favourable financial terms.
Urban housing involves, of course, a field of legislation for which the provisions of the National Housing Act have been particularly designed and are fully applicable. Hence, any further departure from the agriculture use concept of the smallholding sections of the Veterans Land Act would bring them into conflict with and duplicate the provisions of the National Housing Act. The inadvisability of permitting this to happen was, in fact, recognized almost 20 years ago. In 1954, following favourable consideration by government of a proposal made by the Royal Canadian Legion, part II of the Veterans Land Act was enacted to provide financial and other assistance to a veteran who was not interested in, or was unable to settle under, the smallholding provisions of the act but who wished to build his own house on a city size lot. More than 4,300 veterans have obtained building loans under part II.
Since the inception of VLA operations 30 years ago, approximately 90,000 veterans have obtained financial assistance under the small-holding provisions of the act, totalling over $826 million. New house construction was involved in more than one-third of these establishments, including 2,673 homes which were built by the director in 1945-46 to help overcome the housing shortage being encountered by veterans on their return from overseas. As with veterans settled as full-time farmers, those established as small-holders have been equally successful in fulfilling the obligations of their agreements of sale with the director. Almost 30,000 have repaid their loans and acquired title to their properties, and some 6,000 have arranged sales to other veterans. Only 150 contracts have had to be rescinded after consideration by and with the consent of provincial advisory boards.
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, the parttime farming provisions of the Veterans Land Act were designed to assist in the rehabilitation of veterans following their wartime active service. Some 28 years have elasped since the end of World War II, and almost 20 in the case of the Korean conflict. It is difficult, therefore, to conceive a continuing need for the act as a post-war rehabilitation measure. In fact, of the representations I have received recently for an extension of the new estab-


lishment loan deadline of March 31, 1974, almost invariably the desire has been indicated of wanting to use the provisions of the act following retirement from post-war occupations or careers.
The benefits of the Veterans Land Act were alternative to university training and re-establishment credit. The university training program was concluded some 20 years ago. The final date for the use of re-establishment credits was October 31, 1968, which corresponded to the deadline for obtaining a VLA certificate of qualification. We are now approaching the terminal date for new settlement loan applications approved by parliament in 1965, and by next March more than 140,000 veterans will have obtained assistance, under the various sections of the act, of more than $1.1 billion. The Veterans Land Act has been an outstanding success.
In closing, I say to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) that one of the largest land developers in the city of London is the national president of the Progressive Conservative party. At present he is working on a housing project almost at the back door of Westminster hospital. The hon. member can rest assured that so far as I am concerned he will never get his hands on this beautiful piece of property. I believe this property would make a beautiful city park for the benefit of all Canadians and veterans.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, does the hon. member rise on a point of order?


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of a number of members who would like to offer comments on the motion, I wonder if we could obtain the unanimous consent of the House to limit further speeches to ten minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The Chair must have the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the time limit and confine my remarks to ten minutes. I am interested in speaking on the motion in order to try to do something about the long delay of the government in introducing legislation the effect of which would be to implement the report of the joint study group on the basic rate of disability pension for veterans.
In the report of the joint study group there is a recommendation for not only a monetary increase for veterans but the introduction of a new and important principle. Veterans pensions are to be based on the standard of living; they will no longer be based on the cost of living. There is a very important difference here, because the rate of increase in the standard of living is twice that of the increase in the cost of living. If the cost of living goes up by 3 per cent, it follows that the standard of living goes up by 6 per cent. Therefore, this recommendation will be of definite benefit to our veterans in receipt of disability pensions.
War Veterans
I should like to repeat something that has been mentioned before, because I do not think it can be repeated too often and also to convince the government of our unanimity on the principle of an increase in basic pensions. In addition, I wish to give support to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in his battle with his cabinet colleagues to bring this legislation forward. Let me point out again that every member of the parliamentary standing committee agreed within an hour to send this report back to the House and recommend that it be implemented. Certainly all veterans' organizations agreed, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs himself is in total agreement with it. Finally, it was the work of a group composed of representatives of veterans' organizations, members of the Pension Commission and members of our Department of Veterans Affairs.
What is the reason for the delay, then? It must lie in the cabinet itself. It has refused to accept the report of the committee to which I have referred and it has refused to accept the report of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Surely among all members of the House he, better than anybody else, understands veterans because he is a veteran and he was seriously wounded in the defence of his country. He is a double amputee. Here is a man who above all men should be listened to when he makes a recommendation to the cabinet for some action.
It is difficult to understand why the minister's colleagues are so callous in their attitude toward those men and women who dropped their civilian status, left their work on farms, in fishing, in forestry, in the factory and in the office to take part in the war. These are the men and women who gave their lives so that freedom and democracy should not perish on this earth. Why, then, does it .take so long for a group of men to make up their minds to move on this vital issue?
Let us not quibble over a few paltry thousand, maybe million dollars. I think it is apparent to everybody, as I said before, that it is not the minister who is giving us trouble but, rather, the Treasury Board. Perhaps we could pin it right back on the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) himself, because I think he feels that if he takes this action it will be precedent-setting and other pensioners will then raise a hue and cry to have their pensions based on the standard of living. Surely the group of people with whom we are dealing is a very special group. Every member of the House and every Canadian knows what we owe these people. This benefit is only the just dues of a group of people who have earned it.
We hope very sincerely that the effect of this debate will strengthen the hand of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and will result in immediate action. I wonder sometimes if he should not carry some of his old hand-grenades into the cabinet meeting, pull the pin and say to his colleagues, "Look here, boys; it is time we settled this matter and brought the legislation forward". We hope that the debate today will have the effect of a hand-grenade under the seats of the people who are so tardy in taking this action.
I want to turn my attention for a brief minute or two to the Veterans Land Act which has been mentioned today. By and large, everybody agrees that it has been fairly administered except on one point. It seems to me that it is totally unrealistic, in today's situation with regard to


War Veterans
housing, that it should be required of a veteran that he own one-tenth of an acre before being eligible under the act for a grant to build a house. To purchase a lot of this size would require an astronomical sum of money. Nobody can afford to buy land of the size required in a residential area. Also, land suitable for the building of a house is too scarce; it is just not available. In addition, the municipal building by-laws would not permit the sale of this size of lot in a subdivision where a veteran would wish to build a house.
The veteran's increasing age makes it necessary that he locate his house, not out in the country somewhere where one could perhaps purchase a tenth of an acre on a farm but in a city, town or village where facilities, goods and services which he requires in his declining years are readily available. We raised this matter at one time in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs when the director in charge of the Veterans Land Act was present. He said it would not be fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. I submit that we are in a totally different ball game today from the time this act was first set up and these conditions laid down. I think it would be difficult for anyone to remember the conditions which existed at the time this legislation was brought into effect.
In conclusion, I have a final few words with regard to the cut-off date of March 31, 1974, when the veteran should take up his option to take advantage of the provisions of the Veterans Land Act and build his own house. If the government is adamant in sticking to this deadline, which it says it is, then I think this date should be given the widest possible publicity as it approaches, let no veteran say that he did not know it was coming. We can make it known through the veterans' magazines and through letters to veterans, if we know their address; and I know this is a problem because the department does not know the current addresses of many veterans.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I have used more than my allotted time. I know others want to speak on this motion, but I think we cannot stress too strongly the need for cabinet action to bring forth legislation to give effect to this very important principle of standard of living escalation for veterans disability pensions.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I think it bodes well for the veterans of this country that so many hon. members wish to participate in this all-important debate that we must limit ourselves to ten minutes in order to allow all hon. members to have their say. The veterans should be cheered by this show of interest demonstrated by members on both sides of the House.
With all the splendid improvements in veterans legislation over the past few years one might expect to see a certain amount of complacency set in with respect to veterans affairs. But not so, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that this is not the case, due in large measure to the man who now holds the portfolio of Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who has seen to it that that portfolio will remain a lively one, introducing legislation with beneficial changes for our veterans. Not to be forgotten is the fact that all the government's legislation introduced for the benefit of veterans is available for their use.
[Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand).l
It seems to me that in a debate on a motion such as this it would be very easy for a member of the government or a supporter of the government to say that we have done so much and to pat ourselves on the back. But I do not think this should be the role of a government member. I also think that the Minister of Veterans Affairs put his case very well today and it does not need any supplementary argument from me.
In the previous parliament I had the honour of serving as a member, as vice-chairman and as chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. This has been one of the highlights of my short parliamentary career thus far, and it may be the reason why I am still receiving letters from veterans all across Canada. One of the things disturbing them is the long delay in rulings upon applications for disability pensions. Today I was very pleased to hear of the changes that have been made to reduce these delays, one of them being a 14 per cent increase in the size of the staff. This should help cut down the delays and should cut into the backlog of cases that must be heard. I was also interested to hear the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) indicate that the backlog of cases does not comprise simple cases, that most cases need a lot of research and a lot of work. Fortunately, we now have the personnel to do that sort of job.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, welcome the idea of the department moving out of the hospital field and the action already taken in that regard. As veterans get older there will be less tendency for physicians to take up work in veterans hospitals, because there they will be treating similar ailments; they will be dealing only with the geriatric type of disease. Because our veterans are entitled to the best care we should get them into the best hospitals. But, Mr. Speaker, that is going only part of the way. There is no suggestion of reducing the amount of money by having them cared for in other hospitals, and I suggest that the department has an obligation to follow up these transfers, to keep an eye on veterans and to see if they are properly treated and given the particular attention they deserve. I would also like to see the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs perform a grand jury role and visit hospitals on an annual basis, talking to the veterans in them in order to make sure that they are getting the care and the attention they have earned.
I welcome the action taken by the minister so far as European prisoners of war are concerned. I have had great interest in the POW situation over the past five years. I know that former ministers made provision for a study of the files of veterans who had been prisoners of war to see if there was a common ailment running through them. Unfortunately, the files do not show many things that are bothering veterans. Many people have had nervous breakdowns and these are not shown in the records. That is why I welcome the study being conducted now by Dr. Hermann. He, too, is studying the files and meeting with veterans groups. I note that he has sent out a questionnaire. In my local newspaper I inserted a plea that veterans not be apathetic about that questionnaire. I pleaded with them to fill out the forms so that Dr. Hermann will be in a position to make a comprehensive report for the consideration of the department.


One other matter I would like to deal with is the pension paid to widows. At present there is a 48 per cent cut-off. If a veteran had 48 per cent disability, then his widow on his death would draw the widow's pension; but if he had disability beneath that level, she could not draw the pension. I believe consideration should be given to paying the widow a proportionate share of the pension. If her husband had 30 per cent disability, why not pay her 30/48"" of the full pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where were you when we needed you?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have been fighting for this for five years. My mother fell into that category, so I know something about it. With respect to the Veterans Land Act, having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Turner), I think his point is well taken so far as the Veterans Land Act is concerned. But I agree with the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) that we should be looking into the question of a new act. We have been receiving requests from veterans about the kind of assistance available under the act and I believe the department should circulate a questionnaire to find out how many veterans would be interested in taking advantage of a new Veterans Land Act. In that way we could discover positive recommendations for legislation.
I also think the time has arrived for passage of the basic rate legislation. This point has been made by others more eloquent than I am. I know that the minister is doing all he can to bring the matter to a head, and I do not think it is being delayed at the cabinet level. Mr. Speaker, I had many other things to say, probably of a more critical nature, but I see that my time has expired.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of saving time and allowing others to contribute to this debate, and to provide the minister with that additional strength which we all want him to have to take this matter to cabinet, I will not use a number of introductory remarks that I had ready. There are two areas of interest to which I will be turning my attention, but before doing so I want to remind all of us about something we owe our veterans.
There are many things we owe the veterans of this country, but let none of us forget that a great deal of the prestige enjoyed by Canada in world affairs today is due to the commitment of thousands of Canadians in uniform in the various theatres of war in which Canada shared the burden of horror and the glory of victory. Our stance at the United Nations, in NATO and on the world scene at large is in no small measure due to the selfless service our veterans gave to their fellow countrymen and to mankind. This is the background against which we should be considering these matters today.
There are in my riding many classes of veterans. There are some with longstanding claims to benefits of one kind or another. None wants to be a mendicant, yet unfortunately many of these veterans are obliged to adopt tactics that no self-respecting citizens, especially our veterans, should be forced to take. Our veterans should not be put in that position. They are proud men and they have reason to be proud.
War Veterans
My remarks this afternoon are confined to two particular sections-veterans hospitals and pensions to servicemen who retired early because of the age-rank formula at a time when salaries were well below the national average.
In respect of the veterans hospitals and the facilities offered to veterans there, I speak particularly about the veterans hospital in Victoria which serves many of my constituents. Reports are circulating in the area and it came to my ears earlier this week that negotiations between the federal government and the province of British Columbia relating to takeover of that hospital have been concluded or are nearing conclusion. I hope these reports are incorrect, because I would remind the minister that about three weeks ago he wrote a letter to me indicating that nothing that could be described as negotiations were in sight at that time, although conversations on the matter had been under way for some time. It would cause me considerable discomfort and worry to learn that he can say one thing to me in writing and yet sanction the continuance of negotiations to take over that hospital.
Whether we are at the conversation or the negotiation stage, I am wondering what action the minister is taking to reassure those who have an undeniable claim on the services of that hospital that they will continue to enjoy their earned rights. It is indeed my view that more should be done to provide this reassurance. Many of my constituents are worried and asked me for reassurance, and I give it on the strength of the letters I receive from the minister. However, not being in the government I cannot give them that assurance with the same effect as the minister can. i therefore urge that the minister speak specifically to this matter and reassure these people. It is all the more necessary, I submit, in view of correspondence that I have in my office and the rumours that none the less continue to circulate. I merely bring this to the attention of the minister so that the matter can be corrected.
My other concern, and the concern of a very large number of my constituents and of many ex-servicemen across the country, is with the pensions they receive because they retired in that period of our development, in the late forties, fifties and sixties, when their salaries, the base on which the pensions are calculated, were abnormally depressed below the wage and salary levels in effect across Canada. Meanwhile, those who remained in the service saw their salaries increase, so that when their time comes to retire they will have a base that will provide what might be called a livable pension, at least much more livable than those whose base in some instances was as low as $4,000 and few higher than $12,000, as compared with the $10,000, $12,000 and $25,000-range bases that exist today.
An escalation formula seems to be necessary, therefore, and it has been adopted in certain limited circumstances. Something much more energetic must be done in this area to take into account two significant developments: first, the salary increases that have occurred since these servicemen had to retire and, second, the inflationary forces that are attacking veterans pensions and pensions for all Canadians-all pensions, from whatever war. Something must be done to prevent these pensions withering away under the searing wind of inflation.


War Veterans
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope others will cover those aspects of this question which I should have liked to deal with. I am sure this debate will provide the minister with the ammunition he needs to convince cabinet that much more must be done, and done urgently.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for the presentation of his motion this afternoon. We have had already some discussion of veterans affairs during this session of parliament, but I think that now we can isolate, in the debate on this resolution, those points which are still outstanding.
We have some converts, or spokesmen on the government side for these particular points. I must say, however, that I was somewhat disappointed in the minister's reply. I know that nothing has been mentioned about the European theatre of war prisoners, but that the matter is in hand and I am glad to see that progress has been made. I am anxiously awaiting progress reports. I have yet to meet a prisoner of war who has been contacted, and I am wondering just how the choice is made.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Were you?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, but I am a living symbol of all the bad things that came out of it. Regardless of that, I am just wondering how extensive the sampling will be. I have heard some rather odd rumours about the surveys that are being made. Some of the questions may be considered to be rather prying regarding the present level of income, the present value of property occupied, etc. I do not want to compare them with veterans who were not prisoners of war and civilians to see what the position is, but there may be an argument for that. However, I should like to see the package before I agree to it.
I am glad that the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), the former chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, has voiced support for the changes to benefit the widow of a veteran pensioner whose entitlement was less than 48 per cent. We urged this as far back as 1963. The cost of giving a portion of a deceased veteran's pension to his widow is minimal.
Starting four or five years ago one could see the attitude of cabinet toward veterans affairs. They did come through with some things, but reluctantly, and that was only after hard pressure. Perhaps this is just because of the composition of cabinet, because the age group is different. I hope the younger members of this House are not infected with the idea that I have heard some young people express today-"They have had their war and it is a matter of history. We do not need the parades and ceremonies; let's forget about it. They have written about it in books and it is all there." This is the rather callous, unheeding attitude of those who fail to recognize that if it had not been for the sacrifices of those men and women, the young persons of today would not have the opportunity of moving about and enjoying life as they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The same thing applies in many, many countries. So I say a great debt is

owed to a person who is totally disabled today. One has merely to go through the veterans hospitals to see what the results have been.
One matter on which I must criticize the minister is in regard to the veteran who is residing overseas and who has not come back to qualify under the 12-month residence clause. The minister has said that matter is under review. I would say this question has come under active pressure, certainly from me, for six years and I am sick to the teeth of hearing the same blessed reasons. These are administrative matters. Frankly, considering the limited number of people in the United Kingdom who might be subject to this benefit-there are about 700-the difficulty, with a little bit of good will and the elimination of some of the tunnel vision that seems to exist at certain levels of the department, could be overcome. I could show the minister letters and replies, not from the previous minister but from the minister before that who was not even interested in this subject.
Let me make my last point. I must berate the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, for giving this House the same sort of answer with regard to the Veterans Land Act that has been contained in correspondence from 1971 on. Young veterans who have been in the forces and are now retiring have been kept in the forces because they were wired in, so to speak, under a pension scheme. The minister must know the effect of that wiring in. After so many years in the service, the serviceman pretty well has to stay in until his time has expired; otherwise he would lose too much under the servicemen's pension provisions. That veteran is now coming out. His contributions and sacrifices were as great as those of any veteran who got out of the service at the end of the war and availed himself of the veterans charter. He was in a position to avail himself of it; he took a claim check on it. The only trouble is that the government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) are saying, "That claim check has now been discounted; it is worth only one-tenth of what it was worth." Entitlement is proportionate to relevant service.
Of course, we are not going to set up an agricultural rehabilitation program, any more than we would set up the homestead program that we set up after World War I. After World War II we did not ask the men to homestead as we had done after World War I. We are dealing with another generation now, and housing is the question that these people must face. The provisions of the Veterans Land Act are adequate; but, today just walk around any city and see how much these men would have to pay.
The department insists on half an acre, with some modifications. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Veterans Land Act is no longer that of turning veterans into farmers or part-time farmers. We are asking veterans to find an equity of $10,000, $15,000 or $18,000 simply because the government refuses to increase the ceiling on advances that can be made under the Veterans Land Act. Veterans are told, and I have correspondence to this effect, that they can go to CMHC.


Jack Marshall: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are told to take their chances there. So in cases of that kind, what is the worth of the veterans charter? Our veterans are told it is not worth the paper it is written on. Borrowing ceilings are limited. These loans are not going to cost the government or the taxpayer more money, because mortgages are taken out. These moneys that are advanced to the veteran are repayable. The terms may be a little easier than those he would get from CMHC or a conventional mortgage company, but that was the very purpose of the scheme at the beginning. So why take the advantage away from him in this case?
I urge these considerations on the minister. I have correspondence on these subjects, some acknowledged, some not acknowledged. I have letters that repeat, frankly, the same out of date arguments as were put forward by the hon. member for London East in justification of the present attitude regarding the Veterans Land Act. In so many words they say, "The veterans program was determined by this government to be a running down program." I should like to see any minister of veterans affairs walk into a Canadian Legion hall tonight and say that the veterans program is a running down program. I wonder how long he would last.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I exceeded my time.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that we are running short of time, I shall be brief. I welcome this opportunity to take part, as a new member, in my first debate on veterans affairs. I say this with considerable, feeling as my father was a veteran of the First World War and as, in a modest way, I served with the armed forces of my country some years ago
I represent a riding in which there are a great many veterans and veterans' dependents, many of whom were in my constituency before I was elected. I have heard from them about some things which, under the present law, did not seem in their view to be right and I want to bring these to the attention of the minister and the House. In particular I wish to mention a matter that was brought to my attention by a lady of my riding, Mrs. Rodgers, whose husband, Archibald Graham Rodgers, was a soldier in the Canadian army and died recently. He was a veteran of the Second World War and served with the Royal Canadian Artillery, being wounded in action and mentioned in dispatches. As a result, he was awarded a pension of less than 48 per cent. As a consequence of his death, the pension has now lapsed and his widow and children are not able to benefit from it. His widow, Mrs. Rodgers, has said to me that this should be brought to the attention of hon. members of this House, and I agree with her.
It seems to me that there is an inconsistency in a pension system which is geared to help the veteran and his family but which, just when the family has the greatest need for money, takes it away. The second thing Mrs. Rodgers brought to my attention was that the entitlement to the option under the Veterans Land Act, an option
War Veterans
which expires in March, 1974, expires if the veteran dies before that time. Again, I think she is right in saying that this does not make sense, inasmuch as the benefit which this country properly gave to its veterans will not go to the loved ones, to the family of the veteran, in case of death.
It is not always that members mention individual cases in the House. In the case of this widow and her now deceased veteran husband I thought it proper that the House hear that the sacrifices he made and the principles for which he fought have been mentioned by the widow to her Member of Parliament. Therefore I have had the privilege of bringing this matter to the attention of the House and am grateful for the consideration and attention I have received.
May I mention something else, Mr. Speaker. Reports from British Columbia indicate that the recent raises in veterans pensions have not been reflected in any increase in that province. I am sure the minister is aware of this and I hope he will give the matter consideration. Lastly, let me repeat a verse that was contained in a book about soldiering and the armed forces that someone gave me many years ago. The verse is part of an old sonnet which has come down, from hundreds of years ago. It goes like this:
God and the soldier we alike adore,
In times of danger, not before.
The danger gone, all things requited,
God is forgotten, the soldier slighted.
I think there is great truth in that old verse. However, I know that all members are united in their determination not to allow this to happen to our soldiers. Posterity will not say that that is an attitude of which we are guilty.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with virtually all members who have spoken in this debate this afternoon to urge the government to take action now to increase the veterans war disability pension. As a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force and now a member of the Legion in my constituency, I have had of course direct contact with men and women who are concerned about the veterans' increase.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has since assuming this portfolio done a great job for the veterans of Canada. I join the debate simply to ask him to extend the good work he has done to include this one category that so far has been excluded from significant improvement. On behalf of the government, the minister has promised an increase in the war disability pension but it has not yet been brought forward. We have not yet received a clear indication of the time when that change will be made. I suspect the minister is having a little trouble with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), and perhaps with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in getting the needed financial resources to implement what I know he desires.
If the efforts of members of all parties can lead to a change in the attitude of the government, surely the debate this afternoon-which is a rare expression of virtu-


War Veterans
al unanimity on an issue-should provide additional support for the Minister in cabinet. I do not want to take the time of the House to repeat the points made by many others. This is an important area of concern. Major improvement is needed. The minister has indicated he wants to take action. The time for action is now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members who have spoken in this debate have indicated their strongest support for immediate action to bring into line the disability pension. Customarily, when there has been reform of the veterans charter the reform has not proceeded on a piecemeal basis but right across the board.
One of the reasons this great concern has been expressed in this debate is that we have proceeded to increase the war veterans allowance and there has been delay in a similar increase in the disability pension. I hope that as a result of this resolution now before the House-and indeed this is the main purpose of it-the minister's hand will be strengthened and he will be able to convince the government that this matter requires the utmost priority.
The term "utmost priority" is quite frequently used with regard to governmental expenditures. One of the criticisms of the present administration is that it has its priorities upside down; it is dealing with shadow issues rather than substance issues. The group of veterans in this country who were faced with the ultimate priority, the survival of the thin fabric of democracy, should have the first consideration.
I want to make one other observation in this brief presentation, that is, to point out that the issues have been clearly laid down by veterans' organizations in this country. No one has to be uncertain as to where the priorities lie. I pay tribute to them. I hope their petitions, pleas, presentations and briefs will be reinforced by what has taken place here today.
There is one particular veterans' group I wish to mention at this time. That is the Polish Combatants Association which is meeting in Ottawa this weekend. It is the fifteenth conference of that association. They are honouring one of the outstanding veterans of World War II, General S. Kopanski. A lunch was sponsored today by the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz) which was attended by General Kopanski. General Kopanski and his Polish comrades were the first to meet the onslaught of the totalitarian system. He is known as the hero of Tobruk. Had the supermen not been stopped at Tobruk in 1941, the history of civilization would have been changed. The Polish soldiers under the leadership of General Kopanski played a large role in that victory.
I mention these gentlemen because in their comments at the luncheon today they expressed gratitude to a former minister of veterans affairs from the Maritimes, the late Colonel Alf Brooks who during his term of office in this important portfolio undertook a major review of the veterans charter. It was as a result of that review that the members of the Polish Association Combatants, the SPK, now resident in Canada were given full benefits under the Canadian veterans charter. Colonel Brooks is typical of

the many members of this House who have held the veterans affairs portfolio. I think the present incumbent would give the same emphasis and consideration that was given by the hon. gentleman to whom I have referred. Today is the twenty-ninth anniversary of the victory at Monte Cassino. In view of the convention taking place in Ottawa this weekend, it is interesting to note that the Canadian and Polish soldiers fought side by side in order to achieve that crucial victory.
There is one main consideration. Equalization of the pension rates at this time should have been considered simultaneously with the increase in the war veterans allowance. There is one other point I would like to raise. The benefit of the doubt clause for these veterans, who in many cases made the supreme sacrifice and engaged in the ultimate priority, is still not being adequately applied to veterans in their pension applications. I remind the minister, too, that the current backlog of pension applications is causing unnecessary hardship to these men to whom we owe so much.
All members of this House have indicated that they will give immediate consideration to the necessary legislation. I trust that as a result of this debate the minister will be able to get action through the cabinet.


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


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity given me to comment on the National Veterans Association and specifically on their representations.
The War Veterans Act has been amended so often that veterans indeed like many other citizens, enjoy greater advantages, but there are still major inequities to be corrected. We request amendment of the act in order that those who have been left out may benefit more by it. In fact, in such associations, certains classes or individuals are always neglected.
We are pleased about the pension increase. We are aware that the budget provided for pension increases for veterans as well as for certain other groups. The budget provided for a number of increases, such as for old age security and disability pensions.
The claims of national veterans organizations are based on a calculation of adjusted incomes, and not just on a means test. These adjustments, Mr. Speaker, are a considerable help to those whose income is limited at a time when the cost of living is rising.
Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of the pension increase, but with certain reservations. We are aware that we will not solve the basic problems by continually raising pensions. We must see to the foundation of our economy. The more we raise pensions, the more we raise the cost of services.
We are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the correct solution does not involve throwing the economy off balance. The economy needs basic rebalancing, and I wish to point this out to my fellow members because we are elected to rectify the deficiencies that exist in our society. By raising pensions of all kinds we get into a visious circle. It puts up


the cost of living, and the more that increases, the more the economy is thrown off balance.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to stabilize our economy once again, we will have to use means other than those we have used until now. We will have to modify our structures because a succession of increases will lead inevitably to economic suicide.
Mr. Speaker, the more we raise pensions, the closer we get to an increasingly centralizing state and the use of progressively less revealing and less honest means for the citizens, because as they get higher pensions they lose part of their freedom. And so, Mr. Speaker, we are fighting to protect our freedom.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to point it out before closing, that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to a special order given this day, the debate on the motion before the House is now deemed to be terminated.
Pursuant to special order made earlier this day, it being 4.45 p.m. the debate on the motion now before the House is deemed to have expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of objection relating to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Newfoundland.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: On April 18, 1973, notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, (Chapter E-2, R.S.C. 1970), consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Newfoundland, laid before this House by Mr. Speaker on Thursday, April 5, 1973, on the grounds set forth hereafter:
1.	Throughout Newfoundland the commission failed to give special emphasis to geographical considerations, the sparsity, density and relative rate of growth of the population, and ignored or overlooked the special problems of communication and transportation when they divided the said province into six new electoral districts.
2.	The commission failed to give special consideration and special appreciation to accessibility of one region to another region in many of the rural electoral districts when determining the boundaries of the same.
3.	The commission failed to pay proper attention to the physical, social or economic cohesion of many of the new electoral districts created and appeared to ignore and did ignore the question of unity or community of interests thereby rendering
Electoral Boundaries
adequate representation of the people in Parliament a virtually impossible task.
4.	The commission failed to take into consideration that the boundaries of the majority of electoral districts of Newfoundland as they existed prior to redistribution were in accordance with the spirit of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada.
5.	The inconvenience to any Member of Parliament attempting to maintain contact with constituents spread over some electoral districts would be considerable. The expense of travel in attempting to maintain such contact might well be considered exorbitant.
6.	And such other objections that the undersigned Members may consider applicable in order to carry out the spirit and terms and conditions of the act in question.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. In accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act we have to commence this debate today. The objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission are set out in the letter which was filed with Your Honour on April 13 and read into the record a few moments ago by Your Honour.
We object to the report of the commission because it fails to take into account all the arguments which we have set out in the letter which will appear in today's record. More particularly, we base our objection on the fact that the province of Newfoundland under the report now before the House will lose a seat and will be placed in the anomalous position of having fewer seats in parliament today than was the case 23 years ago when Newfoundland became a province of Canada and had a population one-third less than it has today.
We should also be placed in the anomalous position of having four seats fewer than the province of New Brunswick, which has virtually the same population but which is protected by the provisions of the House of Commons Act by virtue of which that province has ten seats in the other place. We, of course, have six seats in the other place; consequently, we feel the province will be underrepresented if this report goes through.
I urge upon the government that it take every step possible to ensure that Newfoundland shall continue to receive adequate representation in this House. We feel that if the report now before the House is adopted, the province will not, and indeed cannot be adequately represented because of the fact that we shall lose a seat, and because the six seats which are to be set up under the report of the commission do not take into account community of interest and all the difficulties which would be encountered by those who would be called upon to represent the province within the proposed new boundaries. Their task would be made more difficult, if not impossible.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my first objection really does not lie within the terms of reference of the commission because I do not think its terms of reference were to deal with the question of six seats as such. The first point I wish to make is that Newfoundland cannot be adequately represented by six seats. We are a big province. Labrador alone is over 112,000 square miles in extent. We need more seats. I urge the government to consider the arguments put forward and to increase the number of seats beyond six, possibly to seven or even eight.


Electoral Boundaries
What concerns me more every day is the question of representation, the quality of representation we can give as Members of Parliament if we have constituencies such as Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador or Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. I am picking out the two which are largest in geographical area and which are among the most difficult to travel around. While I am quite prepared to serve one of those constituencies, and will do so to the very best of my ability-I am speaking about the people from Grand Falls to Nain-there is a limit to what any one person can do.
If we are to represent our constituencies properly, we need either a redistribution of boundaries or extra help as Members of Parliament, particularly today when large corporations and governments have such control over people's lives. Far be it from me as a new Member of Parliament to presume to tell other hon. members what the duties of an MP should be, but it seems to me that emphasis ought to be placed on the role of an MP as an ombudsman. It is all very well to get up and make speeches in the House of Commons, but I see an increasing need for a buffer between the individual and corporations or government departments whose activities increasingly affect his life and over which he has so little control.
From this point of view, I think our difficulties will be seriously increased by the boundaries which have been drawn. These boundaries do not take into account the changes that have taken place in Newfoundland since 1949. I do not want to be political about these changes; I simply want to say that the boundaries were drawn up when Newfoundland was a collection of bays. It is no longer a collection of bays; it is now a province with highways and access roads. We have improved transportation and communications; Newfoundland is not the same now as it was in 1949. The redistribution that has taken place does not recognize or take into account that fact, and the boundary lines bear no relation to changes that have gone on in the province.
Let me give an example. The line drawn down the northern peninsula of Newfoundland makes no sense whatever. I am sure my colleague for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) would agree that the problems are the same on his side of the peninsula as they are on mine. It would seem to me that this type of matter was not recognized when these lines were drawn with respect to redistribution, so I think there are excellent arguments for redrawing the lines.
The final point I want to make is this, and I have made it before. I represent the unique area of Labrador. It has much more in common, really, with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon than it does with the island of Newfoundland, but it is legally a part of the province as determined by the 1927 boundary agreement and the decision of the British Privy Council. It has unique geographic, economic and cultural problems. These problems are difficult and require attention. They are just now coming to full flower. If we are to really make that part of the province an integral part, we must solve the transportation and communication problems in that area.

As I said before, I speak for the people of Newfoundland because I am sure they want to see Labrador become an integral part of the province. If we are to move in this direction we must do justice to these people. I would therefore recommend to the commission that when it redraws these boundaries it considers establishing a seat for the district of Labrador alone, for the reasons I have enunciated.
In conclusion, I must say I do not agree that we should cut down the number of seats to six. We need more representation, and I urge the government to increase the number. Secondly, I suggest the boundary lines bear no resemblance to actual reality in the province and require major readjustment.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in the couple of minutes I have at my disposal I want to support the objections raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I appeared before the commission when it sat in the city of Corner Brook in my riding of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, and I was astounded when the chairman of the commission told me that when I had another 112,000 square miles added to my district I would still have the easiest district in Newfoundland to cover. I do not know what was wrong with that judge.
The legislation which authorizes redistribution works directly against the purposes for which hon. members are here in parliament. Everyone knows how vast the workload of Members of Parliament has become. People are looking to members for advice and assistance, and at the same time we have a duty to visit our ridings. This whole procedure, to my mind, is not smart and does not make sense. I support the objections and hope, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated some time ago, that changes will be made to the British North America Act which will make representation by population or by geographic area more relevant to the age in which we live.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to have so much time at my disposal because I honestly thought the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) would continue for the next couple of minutes. I just want to second the motion, if you will, which has been proposed today and commend my three colleagues on the arguments that have been presented. Those arguments are fundamental. The people of Newfoundland are against the whole concept as it has been perpetrated in the last couple of years and has come to the forefront today. The people are very concerned.
I speak today not as a Member of Parliament concerned about political interests but, rather, on behalf of the people who have widespread concern about what is happening in the province. They feel there is something radically wrong when a decision is made in 1973 to reduce representation from seven seats to six seats, particularly in view of what has happened to our population. Newfoundland has over 200,000 more people today than it had in 1949.
Those who recommended these redistribution changes must have had some principle in mind that is not well known, because their recommendations are against all


common sense and good reason. We were not allowed to present to the commission our arguments against this proposal. I, personally, filed my intention to present such arguments to that noteworthy judge-perhaps that is a bad choice of words-


An hon. Member:: "Noteworthy."


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, perhaps I have said "noteworthy." My intention to present these objections to the proposed number of seats was overruled and I was not allowed to do so. That is one of the reasons we are making these objections today. There is no need to repeat all the objections, but I want to make one final point before we call it five o'clock, in the hope we can proceed later with the debate.
Something has been happening in Canada in the past half a century with which we as Members of Parliament must take issue today. We are using Newfoundland today as the basis for this particular debate, but this has been taking place across Canada in the last half century. I refer to the urban drift. Most great leaders in our country are unable to cope with the problems facing our urban society. We are now seeing the signs and signals of what could in a decade very well turn into a drift away from rural areas. People are placing a great deal more emphasis on material things and the quality of life than they did half a century ago.
It is incumbent upon legislators, whether on a national or provincial basis, to discourage the population movement to urban centres in Canada. Consequently, the government of this country has a responsibility to maintain the number of seats in rural parts of Canada rather than allow them to decrease, thereby diminishing the power and strength exerted by rural Canada. In view of these events now unfolding, I think we will find that the people in western Canada have a great deal in common with those of us who live in the eastern rural parts of this country. If the trend continues we will not have the same power in confederation which has been traditionally ours.
With regard to the United States, I read recently that the agricultural society in that country has been protected by the constitution and as a result the government cannot
Electoral Boundaries
ignore that sector as a political force. We are rapidly reaching the point that if we are not careful, or if we overlook the rural parts of Canada and allow a diminishing of political power in those areas, representation there will have no part in the decision-making in this country. This is what is of importance.
The hon. member for St. John's East referred to the confederation of states. We all know what effect this has on civilization. Many people in this country have great concern about the decision-making process. We now have only seven Members of Parliament. In the entire Atlantic provinces we have only 32 members at the present time, just a few more than the city of Toronto. Consequently politicians, being what they are, frequently favour areas with the largest political representation and make decisions on that basis. Very often this is not to the advantage of the country as a whole.
In conclusion, we think amendments must be made to rectify the situation. In this country today there are many points of dissension; not all of them are in Quebec or in the Atlantic provinces. Many of these dissensions are the result of lack of reasonableness on the part of our central government and its system and work to the disadvantage of various regions of the country.
Before calling it five o'clock, I should like, on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons, not just those from Newfoundland, to appeal to the government to do something to rectify these decisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is in a quandary at this time as to whether hon. members wish the Chair to put the question or call it five o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Adjourn the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Defer the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Pursuant to section 3 of Standing Order 2, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 22, at 2. p.m.
At 5.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 22, 1973