1974-03-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in less than seven months, soaring international oil prices-that shock wave from the Persian Gulf-has spread its tide of extreme economic disruption to all continents and the majority of nations. Even in Canada, with important oil resources of its own, these world changes have threatened our economy. They have, in fact, created a major challenge in our experience as a nation.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to report to the House the details of a national agreement to meet this challenge. An agreement reached yesterday which underlines the good will and national feeling that exist in all provinces and regions-which stands as a tribute to the vitality of our Canadian community. As I have said, yesterday was a great day for federalism.
The House will recall that when the world changes first became evident last fall, the federal government stepped in to freeze the price of Western crude oil and to assure that sufficient amounts of it would be available in Eastern Canada in case of reductions in imports. At the same time, the government's oil export tax ensured that the international price received for export crude did not become a windfall gain to the oil companies.
It was apparent, however, that Canadian oil resources were limited. It was apparent that if we wished to assure the huge investments necessary for adequate future supplies, somewhat higher domestic prices would be essential; that the oil-producing provinces-mainly Alberta and Saskatchewan-must be assured a fair return. And notwithstanding this, that at a time of worldwide inflation, Canadian consumers in every province must be carefully protected from any unwarranted price increases.
Despite the strongly held and differing views of all concerned, despite the endless complexities on almost every aspect of the problems involved, federal-provincial consultations took place through the fall-and led to the conference on energy held in Ottawa during January. That conference reached the key agreement that no further change would take place in crude oil prices for the interim period, which as you know, will end on Monday next.
I had said in my statement of December 6 that crude oil should become available at the same basic price across
Canada, subject, of course, to the addition of transportation costs.
On that crucial principle of a "single Canadian price" we have been able to build the agreement reached yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The broader foundation of that agreement has been what I can only describe as a remarkable spirit of cooperation, of understanding and patience, for which I pay tribute to the spirit and generosity of our ten premiers.
It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, to be living in a country where everyone shows a deep concern for the legitimate interests of all the people and of all parts of the country and, I should add, to have a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has worked so hard to reconcile these interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is also good to have the House in such a happy mood following yesterday's conference. I am sure this will set the tone of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and of the leaders of the other parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: After the comedy part presented by you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The gentleman over there talking about comedy will have to wait until his leader speaks.
We have all searched hard for solutions which would meet the reasonable aspirations of the producing provinces as well as the immediate and longer term energy needs of all Canadians. At our meeting yesterday the first ministers agreed, because the trend of world oil prices cannot be predicted with any accuracy, it was not possible to settle at this time on any permanent pricing arrangement for Canada. We recognized, however, that a period of stability in Canadian prices was absolutely essential and we all accepted the arrangements to come into effect on April 1. Those arrangements are as follows:
First, the pricing and other arrangements I will now outline will last for a period of 15 months, beginning on April 1 and therefore going to the end of June next year.
Second, the price level. When domestic oil prices were frozen last September 4, the average price of crude was $4 at Edmonton. Of course there are many different qualities and places of production for crude oil in western Canada,
934

March 28, 1974
National Oil Policy
and that is why I talk of averages. The September 4 average price level will be taken as a base: the amount of $2.50 will be added to give a new average price in Canada for domestically-produced oil of $6.50 apart from transportation costs. These increases are substantial. But Canadian prices will remain far below international levels, and below the average level in the United States. The $6.50 will go entirely to the provinces, to divide with the companies as they see fit subject, of course, to our federal right to use the federal corporation tax responsibly.
Third, the federal government will continue to collect an oil export charge. First call on the resulting revenues will be for a "consumer cushion"-to bring down the price of imported oil from its international level of about $10.50 to the new Canadian level of $6.50.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Fourth, the effect of new provincial oil revenues on federal equalization payments to the provinces.


Mr. Korchinski:: Check it as between Toronto and Ottawa in the meantime.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I did not understand that, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: Check it as between Toronto and Ottawa. Do that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member may have an idea, Mr. Speaker. I think he should speak about it in his caucus and perhaps we will end up having some opinions on energy from the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wagner:: Try some humility.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House may wish to note that Saskatchewan intends to place most of its added oil revenues in a capital fund for energy development; Alberta proposes to handle a high proportion of its added revenues in the same manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We always have.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: While the revenues taken into those capital funds would not be subject to equalization, the federal government will, of course, pay equalization respecting any oil revenues that go into general funds. We calculate our added equalization payments will likely be something over $100 million for the year.
These, then, are the principal features of the first ministers agreement, on which we now seek the views and the assent of parliament. The government will introduce required legislation forthwith concerning, among other things, first, the Canadian price at which crude oil will move interprovincially, second, the export charge and, third, the "consumer cushion" on imported oil.
The national oil agreement I have just described would surely not have been possible without the good will and

deep commitment to Canada of the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hence I think I could appropriately conclude this statement by noting the federal government's active commitment to these oil-producing provinces: to assuring they obtain a just and reasonable price for their depleting conventional oil resources; to assisting them on a national basis to develop unconventional new oil sources such as the Alberta oil sands; and to helping them ensure alternative economic development so that future growth can be sustained and diversified in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A fundamental belief of our government, made clear since 1968, is that balanced economic growth in every region is essential to Canadian unity, and essential to the well-being of every Canadian. And this is a paramount aspect of our over-riding duty amidst a troubled world oil situation: that is, our duty to equalize for all Canadians both the benefits and burdens of world change; to manage the national economy in a way that betters the lot of each Canadian, by narrowing the divisions among all Canadians. Such is the direction of yesterday's national oil agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on three more or less related elements involved in this situation. One element, and one I have always held to be the most important, is the matter of the federal government and the provincial governments coming together, in a spirit of co-operation and good will, to determine how their relationships should be balanced in the interests of all Canadians. It has always been fundamental to any ongoing policy determinations related to price, security of supply, conservation, the environment, or the development of new supplies, to all these areas and more, that a basis for intergovernmental relationships should be sought and should be achieved. In the agreement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has announced this basis seems to have been achieved.
I must also say I have always believed that you cannot really make an omelet without cracking some eggs. But I have to say again, and I hope this is the last time I have to say it, that the process of coming together was made much more difficult by the succession of unilateral federal actions which date back to last fall. I think there should be a lesson in this for all governments, present and future, that to go it alone, to proceed in a tone of confrontation, is akin to speeding up a deadend street. At some point you have to turn around. It takes longer to get out of that deadend street when you have sped up it too fast and have gone down it too far. If we are now back on the main road, as I hope we are, the entire country has reason to feel relieved, and I am sure all parties in this House will applaud.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They did not.
March 28, 1974


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is one element in this development, a coming together to set a framework for federal-provincial relationships.
The second element to be settled was the matter of prices, and the Prime Minister has described to us today what has been done. The price level and the duration of the price at that level are temporary, as he has described them. They comprise a stage in the ongoing process, and I believe that is the proper way to have proceeded.
However, it is not clear whether the other parts of the package are temporary as well or whether in fact they comprise an approach, a strategy or a policy that will carry on regardless of what new price level and duration may be negotiated at a future time. I would hope this could be clarified somewhat by the Prime Minister. I think this is a very significant point.
The revenue arrangements have made provision for the financing of the one price across the country, and have made provision for equalization payments amounting to $100 million or more. They do not provide money for the federal government to use in terms of new development. If they involve an agreement in principle with the provinces for the use of these moneys through capital funds, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has described, through these capital pools, if the provinces are to provide the major investment incentives for future development of petroleum resources in their provinces and if they are to assume this role on a long-term basis, then this in fact seems to represent a new strategy and a significant step in the evolving of a policy. If, on the other hand, it is simply intended to place them in a position to put some funds aside for this purpose in the short term, in that case we would be suspicious that the government has perhaps found a temporary way out for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who has been in a state of some confusion and concern about this matter as it relates to equalization payments. I hope we will get further clarification on this aspect from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) or the Minister of Finance-or possibly the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer).
The third element I wish to mention relates to the importance of this coming together or keeping together of the federal government and the provinces with regard to the further development of future supplies of petroleum. This matter is, of course, of the utmost importance. I want to stress the importance of constant consultation and constant participation in getting this job done, at least within the boundaries of the provinces. I emphasize the importance of participation and the importance of co-operation rather than the ministers talking off the tops of their heads about the rate at which provincial resources should be developed, and doing so without consultation.
With regard to the development of the tar sands, for example, which the Prime Minister touched on, the Minister of Supply and Services says that no policy has been affirmed by the government and so he is free to say whatever he likes, as long as the Prime Minister likes what he says. Some time ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in Washington, I believe, seemingly without any consultation in advance with the government of Alberta, that the pace of the development of
National Oil Policy
the tar sands would be moderate because this was in the best interests of Canadians. Obviously the minister believes this is the policy and he labours under the impression that it is his responsibility to propagate it at home and abroad. With no consultation, of course, the Minister of Supply and Services has taken off again and renewed his particular pitch. The Prime Minister apparently does not flinch from this. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, a person whose qualities of restraint are legend, has suffered all of this with the utmost dignity.


An hon. Member:: When do you get to the oil agreement?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps he believes that he who thumps last will last to thump again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it is imperative that the lesson of the coming together in connection with pricing must also be applied to development. Considering what we have heard from different ministers in recent months, it is necessary to emphasize that this area of policy, so far as the federal government is concerned, remains palpably untidy. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) would say, it constitutes a mess.
I want to make it very clear, in fairness to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that I do not lay the responsibility for the absurdities we have witnessed with regard to the rate of development of the tar sands at his doorstep. I think the Prime Minister must accept some responsibility in this area and do something about it. In short, sir, let us heed the lesson which was illustrated yesterday by the coming together in connection with prices and make certain that in the interests of the country we apply this lesson also with regard to the development of our natural resources, particularly the tar sands.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in his statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to the fact that the government last fall froze the price of oil and introduced the export tax, following, you will remember, demands made by my colleagues and myself for those policies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) regretted the fact that the federal government took action along those lines. I am convinced that if the federal government had not acted last fall, the agreement reached yesterday might well not have been possible; certainly it would have been too late after prices had gone up.
It goes without saying that an agreement reached by the 11 governments of Canada is a desirable way of arriving at a policy. It serves our federal system better than unilateral action either by the federal or any provincial government.
2739&-604

March 28, 1974
National Oil Policy
I emphasize that I regret that the price has gone as high as $6.50 per barrel. It would have been much better for Canadians if the price had been lower and the producing provinces had received part of the export tax, because their revenues would have been the same and the Canadian consumer would not have to pay more. I cannot say what first minister was of one view and what first minister was of another, but simple arithmetic tells me that a price of $5 for a barrel of oil and a portion of the export tax would have produced as much for Saskatchewan as it will get for the $6.50, and perhaps a few cents more. I must therefore conclude that it is the other producing province which insisted on the higher price.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: Who writes your speeches?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, simple arithmetic-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -and my knowledge that the Premier of Saskatchewan is a very logical person led me to that conclusion.
When we speak about petroleum prices we are not merely talking about an increase in the price of gasoline or heating oil. We are speaking about an increase in the cost of production to the farmer and to the fisherman, and about increased costs of production to other industries that use oil. We face, as a result of the increase of $2.50 a barrel, an increase of more than one per cent, direct and immediate, in the cost of living for the people of Canada. Therefore I would have preferred a substantially lower price, coupled with the producing provinces receiving part of the export tax revenues since they are not now getting a penny of them. What is happening is that consumers west of the Ottawa line are really paying for the subsidization east of the Ottawa line, which of course we support without any reservation. One oil policy for Canada is an objective which every Canadian ought to support.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But you don't want to approve it.


David Lewis: My second point is that this increase in price will be an additional bonanza for the profits of the multinational oil corporations which already are making immense profits. Again I must point out that this is not true of corporations operating in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: If hon. members to my right in the Conservative Party did not feel so guilty, they would not be making all this noise, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, since the hon. member has mentioned the companies in Saskatchewan, if he would permit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert seeks the floor, I assume for a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: No, to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: If not, the hon. member for York South has the floor.


David Lewis: I said that these additional profits would not apply to multinational corporations in Saskatchewan. The legislature of Saskatchewan has already passed an act which takes all revenues above $3.38 per barrel into the public treasury. Every penny of the additional price in Saskatchewan will go into the public treasury for the use of the government and the people of Saskatchewan. But that is not the case in Alberta. Undoubtedly, a very large proportion of the additional price will go into the pockets of the multinational corporations to add to their already enormous profits. In our opinion there is not the slightest justification for adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the profits of multinational corporations already making immense gains out of the resources of Alberta and of the people of Canada. I say that this fact makes more urgent than ever reform of our tax system to eliminate all concessions to the multinational corporations and to tax much more of their profits than we now do.
The next point I want to make is that we now have in Canada a two-price system for both oil and wheat produced in the western provinces. I believe the time has come for us to look seriously at the possibility of a two-price system for steel, lumber and similar basic commodities which enter into the cost of production and the cost of living of all Canadians so that we can do something effective. Although we cannot remove inflationary pressures, we could do something effective about them.
The last point I want to make is this. When the Prime Minister had finished the last paragraph of his statement, I said not very loudly, "Amen". He emphasized that even since 1968 the government has been committed to removing regional disparities in Canada and to dealing with such problems as transportation and other matters which cause eastern, northern and western Canadians to suffer from the concentration of economic activity in central Canada. I say to the right hon. gentleman that as far as words are concerned he is right. His government has been committed in words to the removal of these disparities. But, almost exactly six years later, the steps in the direction of removing the disparities have been small, almost invisible. The time has come to replace words with legislation and action that will improve the life of people in the Atlantic provinces and in northern and in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, as a Canadian I am glad the first ministers were able to reach, if not an agreement, at least a consensus which all of them were prepared to accept. I judge from the press conference of the Prime Minister yesterday that is a more accurate statement, that they were ready to accept this even though it was not in all cases acceptable. I regret,
March 28, 1974

however, that the agreement could not have been one along the lines I have suggested.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we must welcome the agreement concluded between the federal and provincial governments.
Now, an analysis of that agreement shows that it is necessary to make some reservations. We are wondering how can anyone fully justify the policy of an entirely artificial increase based exclusively on incidents which happened abroad. We can hardly admit it. If our country can produce a useful commodity essential to Canadian consumers, our first concern should be to enable our citizens to take advantage of our natural resources which are not costly. Therefore, we accept the principle of that purely artificial increase, but with many reservations.
There are other parts of the agreement about which it is important to mention a few facts. It is said that the price is set for all of Canada. I agree with that, but this does not take the transportation issue into consideration. However, since there are no details on how the government will organize transportation or subsidize it if need be, the price in some areas of Canada could depend totally upon transportation, about which we have insufficient data.
Moreover, this agreement, which basically seems to solve a problem, will benefit only the oil companies or the provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta, if they wish. It remains that the Canadian consumer seems to have been forgotten, since throughout this whole energy pseudo-crisis, because it was a pseudo-crisis, the multinational companies were allowed to make windfall profits to such a point that we may wonder if we would not find in Canada scandals like those that happened in Italy, for instance, if we looked for them.
Mr. Speaker, if there is need to settle the basic price problem it is also imperative to think about a solution to the one regarding retail prices to consumers. It concerns everybody, fuel oil as well as gas consumers. Nothing has been done in that connection and we, at least in my constituency, can stop at a service station and buy regular gas at 57 cents. Twenty miles farther it can cost 70 cents and some place else 77 cents. Now, this is the consumption level, at the level therefore where the Canadian citizen is hardest hit. There is nothing definite to that effect in the agreement.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government should, in consulting provinces, undertake a thorough investigation on this so as to be able to make it clear that at first price increases were completely unaccountable. We had rather concrete evidence of it when the government, becoming a little jittery, decided to buy fuel oil abroad at an excessive price, but did not know where to store it because warehouses were full. Mr. Speaker, this oil was paid at a very low price for that time. However, companies immediately increased the retail price, thus making huge profits.
In short, basic prices should be controlled and attempts made to set up a uniform price. Consideration should also be given to setting up, not controls maybe, but consumption standards.
It has been said that the export tax will limit consumption, although nobody knows quite how. If we want to
Naval Ranks
bring the price of imported oil, which generally sells for $10.50 at the present time, down to the proposed level of $6.50, how are we going to share the $4 difference? Will it be refunded to consumers or returned to the provincial government? We must be very careful, especially in the province of Quebec, for this province is very much interested. We are all aware that the Quebec government is past master in accepting federal funds and using them as it sees fit.
The $4 difference might not even be passed on to consumers. We should need more detailed information to be in a better position to judge this agreement; nevertheless, we hope that it will benefit the whole of Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that an order will be issued today within the Department of National Defence to amplify service regulations governing the use of naval ranks. Naval ranks are listed in column two of Section 21 of the National Defence Act and include all naval ranks from ordinary seaman to admiral.
Under the new order, all personnel will use and be referred to by their naval rank if they are in the naval operations branch, and employed in Maritime Command, in a ship or other vessel, or in a ship repair unit.
Provision is also made in the regulations for personnel to continue to use naval ranks upon leaving the naval operations branch if they wish to do so.
In addition, all personnel in the naval reserves as well as all sea cadet instructors will use naval ranks. Finally, Mr. Speaker, all officers and other ranks who were serving as members of the Royal Canadian Navy prior to unification of February 1, 1968, may elect to use their appropriate naval rank regardless of where they are now serving.
I would like to emphasize that it is our intention to achieve all possible advantages from unification, but I believe, as I have stated at other times, that it is important for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to identify themselves with the traditions and accomplishments of individual units of the service.
This order on the use of naval ranks will take effect today, March 28, 1974. It honours the commitment made to members of the Royal Canadian Navy at the time the three services were unified into the Canadian Armed Forces.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this announcement on the part of the minister. It is, as he has suggested, consistent with the commitment made at the time the unification bill was approved by parliament. It will clarify the circumstances in which naval ranks may appropriately be used, and this clarification will, I am sure, be well received by armed forces personnel.

March 28, 1974
Naval Ranks
If the minister will now reverse his decision with respect to a replacement for the Centurion tank so that in that case too he will be consistent with earlier plans, he will earn enthusiastic applause from this side of the House.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure, as a serving officer in the naval reserve, that the new guidelines on conflict of interest do not disqualify me from speaking on this subject, but I am going to anyway.
First of all, the announcement that the government will be honouring the commitment it made to the Royal Canadian Navy at the time of unification is welcome. There are two important reasons for so doing. The first is the very practical reason that fleet units of the Canadian Armed Forces operate with naval elements of other countries where traditional ranks are used, and this kind of arrangement will avoid confusion. It is also very difficult to explain to someone not within the services how important something as symbolic as a rank can be to a person who is in the forces, but I assure hon. members that this is an extremely important consideration with respect to morale in any forces unit. For those two reasons especially I welcome the minister's announcement.
It is interesting to note that the last major occasion upon which a general was in command of a fleet involved the Spanish Armada. I do not know whether you can tie the results of that naval engagement to the fact that a general was commanding the Spanish fleet, but it is something worthy of consideration.
I hope that this evidence that the minister is devoting some consideration to the naval forces of this country will result in his continuing his consideration and re-examining his decision to cut back, in effect, on the amount of equipment made available to maritime command for the carrying out of its duties. It seems to me that the decision to red Vice equipment, such as the number of Trackers by 50 per cent, is ridiculous at a time when Canada's maritime interests are expanding. I refer to our interest in the management of our ocean resources, both mineral and living, and our interest in controlling pollution of the sea lanes. With this kind of consideration going on in Canada and the expanded interest in maritime matters, this is certainly not the time to be cutting back on equipment at the disposal of maritime command of the Canadian Armed Forces. I hope the minister will reconsider that part of his decision relating to the modernization and re-equipping of the Canadian Armed Forces.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has just made a very important statement though brief.
As for the Canadian troops, they are proud, and rightly so, of their ranks. The efforts they make, the risks they take, and especially their devotion to duty has won them respect throughout the world. To my mind, the decision just reached by the minister, which goes into effect today, is very important for our troops and will no doubt please them.


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the fact that the inshore lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia have seen the price that they receive for their lobsters drop from $2.70 per pound a year ago to $1.65 a pound today and their catch is 30 per cent lower than it was a year ago, all of which is the direct result of fishing pressures by two large companies, aided and abetted by the federal Department of the Environment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the practice relating to the proposing of Standing Order 43 motions, namely, that there should be no argument advanced, only a brief statement of the facts, if even that is required. The hon. member should indicate as quickly as possible the terms of his motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I had coincidentally reached that point, but I thought it necessary to enlighten the government about the situation in the hope they would agree to the motion.


An hon. Member:: Order!


Frank Howard: And some Conservatives as well. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be asked immediately to commence a review of the lobster fishery in Nova Scotia.
I will leave out the rest of the motion since it has implications with regard to lack of action on the part of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of Canada's spiralling inflation rate, which is among the highest in the western world and is in large measure caused by excessive government spending, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
March 28, 1974

That this House instruct the government to issue directives to all departments requiring that they reduce their budgets for the next fiscal year by 10 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


VETERANS LAND ACT
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-17, to amend the Veterans Land Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions through the usual channels and an agreement has been reached which, as I understand it, is that we will take second reading of this bill as the first item under orders of the day. Speeches will be limited to one speaker for each party, and the bill will then be sent to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which would meet this evening to give consideration to the bill.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, we agree to that disposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we agree to the time for second reading, but beyond that we will decide.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fact that the discussions that took place related only to the time of second reading and to one speaker per party at that stage. As to anything else, such as the possibility of changing the committee situation, this was to be left for later discussion. So at this point, without binding the future, I think all that the four parties have agreed to is that we take second reading today, and that the debate on second reading be limited to one speaker per party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the comment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is the understanding of the Chair that the question on second reading of this bill will be put this afternoon at the time of calling of orders of the day and that there will be an order of the House limiting the contributions of hon.
Oral Questions
members to one speaker from each party. Is that agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who has just stepped out behind the curtains. Perhaps in his absence I could direct it-


An hon. Member:: He is coming back now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by the time I put my question the minister will be in his seat. I should like to ask whether he is now in a position to release the report on the investigation into charges raised by the Food Prices Review Board about egg marketing in Canada which were released on January 10? My question is prompted by the request from the Canadian egg producers for import controls on United States eggs.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the report has not been submitted to me yet so I am in no position to make it public.


EGGS-REQUEST FOR CONTROLS ON IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the request by certain Canadian egg producers for import controls on U.S. eggs coming into Canada, and in view of the specific recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board which called for an immediate reduction in the price of eggs to make it more realistic in relation to the cost of production, and also called for a system of price stabilization, I should like to ask the minister, after he has had time to consult with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whether he is now in a position to enlighten the House and the country, especially having regard to the chaos that exists in the egg industry and the high prices to consumers in this country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that there has been a decrease in the price of eggs since the Food Prices Review Board report was submitted. I am sure he could get a copy of the brief submitted to me the other day by CEMA, which shows that they are producing eggs at a loss in Canada and are therefore asking for some kind of a program that will stabilize the industry and take the chaos out of it which I am sure the hon. member recognizes is there at the present time.

March 28, 1974
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the minister now respond to that part of my question in respect of the request by Canadian egg producers for import controls on U.S. eggs presently coming into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we just received the brief from them one day this week and we have had short discussions. Several ministers have copies of the submission and are studying it and will be in the next few days- the next week.


OIL-REQUEST THAT PRICES OF PRODUCTS REFINED FROM FEEDSTOCKS NOW ON HAND NOT BE INCREASED
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is my understanding that the refineries usually have about 45 days' supply or more of feedstocks for their refineries. I should, therefore, like to ask the minister whether he has been in consultation with the companies to make sure that the price freeze which has existed until now so far as the products coming out of the refineries are concerned will be maintained for the next 45 days so that refineries will not increase the price on stock which they had bought at the frozen $4 price?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a telex will be going out to the industry today, which I will be glad to lay on the table later, asking the various companies to restrain the price of refined products related to the feedstock costs alone for a further period of 45 days, that is, until May 15, so oil on hand inventories at the lower price can be worked through the system with the price increase coming after that on future products.


David Lewis: I would gather from the minister's answer that he has not yet discussed this with the companies. Can he give the House any indication whether he expects that the request in his telex will be carried out by the companies concerned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should say that I discussed the question with a number of major companies last week, indicating the government's intention with regard to inventories. I cannot, of course, be certain with regard to the industry until the request is formally communicated, but I have an expectation that it will be carried out.


OIL-SUGGESTED USE OF EXPORT TAX REVENUE TO AID EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question either for the minister or the right hon. Prime Minister. When the export tax was first introduced one of the objectives for which the revenues from the export tax were to be used was to assist in the development of new energy sources and resources in Canada. In view of the fact that the export tax about which the Prime Minister is now talking is to be used

almost entirely for the purpose of subsidizing the eastern part of Canada east of the Ottawa line, may I ask one or the other of the two gentlemen whether it is the government's intention to set aside adequate funds to assist the provinces, where further oil may be found, in exploration and development, such as the tar sands, so there will be some Canadian ownership of the future development of these new sources of petroleum?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, our view would be that in view of the very substantial amounts by way of capital that the two producing provinces will be accruing from that portion of the increase they choose to take by way of royalties, it seems to us that no additional federal funds should be required for this purpose. We will, of course, in due course be bringing forward to the House the proposal with regard to a national petroleum corporation under federal jurisdiction which would be funded with federal funds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members seeking to ask supplementary questions on this subject. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to proceed with the first round of questions and then I will see the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members on supplementary questions.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the hog producers in eastern Canada, and more specifically in Quebec, are no longer making any profits on their production because of lower sales prices and increases in the cost of feed grains, more specifically from $94.93 in January 1973 to $152.20 in 1974, will the government take immediate steps to protect those producers adequately?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have received some representations from different hog producer organizations, but I am not prepared at this time to say what we intend to do.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since the minister received representations in that regard, can he say whether he will announce his decision very soon so that we can advise the concerned producers who tell us their distress and ask us for positive action?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the same answer still holds. I am not prepared to say what action we are going to take or whether there will be a statement made.
March 28, 1974


OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF TAR SANDS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising from an answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources just a few minutes ago to the hon. member for York South in which he indicated that the government would be leaving it to the provinces to use their capital funds to encourage exploitation of their petroleum resources, which represents some change in policy. Do I take it from the minister's statement that it is not the intention of the government of Canada to participate with the provinces in the development of the tar sands except through such enterprises as the national petroleum corporation if it is set up?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will, of course, be participating with the producing governments in relation to that portion of the export tax from its inception to the end of January, 1974, and we have for this purpose indicated that a fund of $40 million will be available for research into the oil sands. Further federal funds for participation either in the oil sands or other petroleum endeavours would be under the aegis of the national petroleum corporation. I should also say by way of parenthesis that further proposals with regard to the uranium field would be handled by Eldorado Nuclear Limited.


ELECTRICITY-SUGGESTED NEED FOR FORMULA TO EQUALIZE COST IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AND NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With regard to some of the eastern provinces-I am thinking particularly of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia-and the increased cost of thermal generated electricity and the real problem there is in trying to maintain an equitable price for electricity in the provinces, I wonder whether any formula of assistance will be worked out whereby there could be some equalization of this important cost both in terms of industry as well as consumer utilization?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not as
part of any discussion we had yesterday, which was purely on matters concerning all provinces. I would be fair to add, however, that I have had representations not only in the course of yesterday but previously. Indeed, I believe the representations the member refers to were made in January by the premier of Prince Edward Island. These things have been considered by the government, and discussed with the premier, and I am sure there will be further discussion. I would merely add that there is a desire on the part of consumers and, indeed, the provinces in many parts of the country to have greater subsidies for various purposes. The Leader of the New Democratic Party a moment ago suggested a form of subsidy to producing provinces out of the export tax. I just want to make
Oral Questions
the point to all hon. members opposite that funds are not unlimited.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island is 100 per cent dependent on thermal plants for generating electricity and has already experienced a 40 per cent increase in electricity costs in the last half dozen months and expects a further increase shortly, would the Prime Minister say whether serious consideration is being given to an equalization of the cost of electricity as well as the hoped for construction of a submarine cable which would allow Prince Edward Island to become part of the hydroelectric and perhaps of the nuclear-generated electricity system that is to come on stream within the maritimes or the Atlantic region.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that both these subjects have been raised by the premier of Prince Edward Island. Very forceful representations have been made to myself by him and I am sure to other ministers equally. The hon. member may not understand that there are other provinces in the maritimes which have similar requests, and there are provinces in other parts of Canada which are also asking for subsidies. For that reason, I am not able to make any commitment at this time along the lines the hon. member is talking about. I told Premier Campbell we would be in further discussion with his office, and indeed, even today I asked that such discussions be pursued.


OIL-USE OF EXPORT TAX REVENUE IN DEVELOPMENT OF TAR SANDS-PARTICIPATION BY PROPOSED NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for York South. In view of the fact that the $2.50 increase in the price of oil to be received by the producing provinces will do little more than compensate them for the fact that they are losing 50 per cent of the export tax revenue and therefore they will not have any more funds than they had before, may I ask the minister, in view of the fact that originally 50 per cent of the export tax was set aside for development, whether the government is committing or earmarking any amount of money for development of the Athabasca oil sands and heavy oil in northern Saskatchewan to be spent through the national petroleum board or in any other way? Is there any amount set aside-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply, after which I will see the hon. member for Vegreville.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member is asking the same question as that just raised by the Leader of the Opposition. My previous answer was, of course, that there is the federal share of the export tax at the early stage of its operation. There is the intention there to put $40 million into oil sands research in co-opera-

March 28, 1974
Oral Questions
tion with the province, and there is in addition the expectation that the national petroleum corporation when authorized by parliament will apply funds in the same way. If the hon. member is asking for funds above and beyond that and above and beyond the rather substantial funds going to the provincial treasuries because of the $2.50 increase, the answer is we do not have in contemplation seeking additional funds from the general revenue beyond those I just mentioned.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. May I welcome the minister back to the House. I hope he has fully recovered from the flu bug which has plagued him in recent times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Given the fact that the president of the Canadian Transport Commission today stated that the minister and the cabinet do have final authority over the actions of the Canadian Transport Commission in matters dealing with transportation in Canada, which statement is in direct conflict with that of the minister, may I ask the minister if at the earliest possible date he will make a statement on motions clarifying these conflicting views so that the people of Canada will be able to judge clearly just who is responsible for the mess in transportation in Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the circumstances I think we are probably both right. This means that the CTC has the final decision over many things and we have also. I have never accused the CTC, as such, of being responsible for the troubles we have in the field of transportation. I think Mr. Benson is right and I am right, too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer in which he indicated he may be right and the commission may be right, and his reference to exceptional circumstances dealt with by the minister, can the minister explain to the House just what those exceptional cases are, upon which the minister and the cabinet have power to overrule the CTC?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope the minister would not attempt to do this unless we return to motions.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO MENTION TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS IN THRONE SPEECH
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister in respect of the mess in transportation. Was any consideration given, either at the instigation of the Minister of Transport or others, to include in the throne speech of a few days ago

mention of the matter of the mess in transportation and what the government intended to do about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the member would have had the presence of mind to ask this question during the throne speech debate which lasted eight days.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary, after which the Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister how we were to know there was a mess in transportation when the former minister was going around saying everything was great?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have assumed it would take us several years to clean up the mess left by the hon. member for Trinity.


INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF STUDY ON MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might be allowed to ask the Prime Minister, under the circumstances, what disposition was made of the study which was under way at the time I left the department to determine how western grain, for example, could move expeditiously and cheaply to ports so that it would be available for our overseas customers, and what action the government has taken since then based on that report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a large quantity of studies on the matter and they have all been made public. I think there are so many of them that they could hardly be contained in terminal 2 for which the hon. member is responsible.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Trinity for a supplementary, but it seems to me this is a rather unproductive exchange.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My supplementary is simply this: when the government, with its special kind of genius, has managed to fowl up nearly everything in the country in five years, why could they not have taken some action in the field of transportation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OIL-POSITION OF PREMIER OF SASKATCHEWAN ON NEW PRICE FOR CANADIAN CRUDE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the meeting yesterday of the several heads of governments across the country was a secret one, or whether information concerning what took place will be available? I ask that in view of the fact the hon. member for York South
March 28, 1974

made the allegation that the $6.50 per barrel that was decided upon was apparently the result of making the premier of Saskatchewan putty in the hands of the premier of Alberta. I wanted to ask the hon. member for York South a question but he knew what the question was and therefore he refused to do the usual thing, accept it. Can the Prime Minister clarify the situation with respect to the premier of Saskatchewan and tell us whether or not he agreed wholeheartedly to the $6.50? Otherwise, we will hear about it politically from the hon. member for York South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is familiar with the code of honour that prevails during these meetings, the essence of which is that each member should be allowed to speak for himself and give his point of view, which of course I did and which I understand the premier of Saskatchewan has done publicly in the press, and which certainly is a contradiction of what the leader of the NDP said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of either the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister, and I gave notice of it this morning. My question arises out of an investigation by the RCMP of alleged subversive activity by several newspaper writers or reporters, namely, Mr. Bob Parkins, Mr. Bill Boei, Mr. Bob Bragg and Mr. Warren Caragata, some of them employed by the Calgary Herald. Would the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General make a statement and also assure us that freedom of speech and civil rights will be protected in the case of these newspaper reporters?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a long tradition in the House, and in consideration of the public interest, that we never reply in the affirmative or the negative to a question whether a police investigation is under way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this question to the Solicitor General. I do not think there is any question that an investigation has taken place, from the information I have and which the minister has, but in light of the situation will he assure the House that the civil rights of these reporters and freedom of the press in this country will be protected from this kind of investigation?


William Warren Allmand: This government and this party have always supported freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: I might say that one of the reporters who was mentioned in the article in the Calgary Herald had not even heard of any investigation against him until he read about it in the Calgary Herald.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would think, in light of the number of articles that have appeared and the amount of information that is now available on this subject, that the minister would want to assure the House and the country that the civil rights of these reporters will be protected other than by the kind of investigation which the minister knows is going on.


William Warren Allmand: I can give that assurance to the extent of my responsibility. I might say that at the federal level we do what we can to protect the civil rights of all persons, but there is a certain responsibility at the provincial level as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: We have no intention of interfering with the civil rights of any individuals, whether they be reporters or otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, who was here a moment ago. Perhaps I can put the question anyway and receive a response from someone else.
With respect to the decision made in 1970 by the department to encourage the development of two large companies in offshore lobster fishing, which had very injurious effects upon inshore lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia, and the commitment at that time by the Minister of Fisheries and, I understand, by the Prime Minister-that may not be accurate but if it is the Prime Minister might be able to reply-to examine and study the effects of this new mechanism and new procedure in fishing for lobster on inshore fishermen, was a study undertaken and completed by the end of 1971, as it was supposed to have been and, if so, what were the results of that study and what has been done to preserve the position of inshore fishermen?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in the name of the Minister of Fisheries, I cannot give details on whether or not there will be an investigation, but I will see to it that the hon. member gets an answer as soon as possible.

March 28, 1974
Oral Questions


ATHABASCA TAR SANDS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES EXPLAIN HIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. I wonder if the minister would be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for the purpose of informing the committee of his plans for the development of the tar sands and, if not, why not?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I said in Calgary. I think my speech did not leave anything out. If the hon. member would like to have a copy of my speech, I will gladly send him one.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie. The hon. member for Regina East has a supplementary question. Perhaps he should be recognized first.


James Balfour: In light of the minister's comment that the public and members of parliament seem to have a closed mind on the subject of the development of the tar sands, would the minister appear before an open committee of members of the House of Commons for the purpose of explaining his plan for the development of this project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts about this line of questioning. Perhaps we might give the hon. member for Mackenzie an opportunity to ask his question.


SUPPLY OF DOCTORS IN RURAL AREAS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister leave football alone for a while and indicate what plans he may have for supplying some of the outlying rural areas with doctors as well as retaining those who are there, since he has already given some indication that there are too many doctors in the country?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first that it is hon. members on the other side who seem to be much more concerned about football than we on this side. It is they who seem to be spending much more time wondering what is coming or not coming than we are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: As to the specific question asked by the hon. member, I am appearing this afternoon before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, as I have been on several occasions over the last few weeks. We have already discussed this particular

point and will continue discussing it this afternoon. I only hope the hon. member will take the trouble to attend. If he does, he will get a very elaborate answer to his question.


Stanley James Korchinski: I thank the minister for his invitation but I wonder whether he would inform the country and the House whether he has a specific policy. All he has given us is a lot of talk.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member will be pleased to read in the report of the standing committee, if he does not wish to attend, what the stand of the government is on this matter. He will then find that we have a very good and a very specific policy indeed in this respect.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General, and may I say that there has been a little bit of difficulty in delivering it. Arising from the study released by the Letter Carriers' Union which reveals that over 80 per cent of business offices in high rise buildings prefer mail delivery by letter carrier rather than the pick-up service being introduced by the Postmaster General, without consultation, will the minister now meet with the letter carriers on this matter with a view to maintaining the best possible service to the Canadian public?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I refute the words said by the hon. member, and I want to assure him that there was consultation, that there is consultation now, and that I had many opportunities to speak with the union's president. I spoke to him just this morning. The hon. member can be assured that negotiations are going on in this regard. Thus, when he says that there is no consultation, he is completely wrong.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact the minister has given his assurance of meaningful consultations on this important issue, and the fact that the letter carriers in their release have stressed the importance of high quality of service, will the minister delay further implementation of this program until these consultations have been completed?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if a decision has to be taken on this matter, I will announce it soon in the House.
March 28, 1974



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat supplementary to the one directed by the hon. member for Calgary North to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the names of at least five or six individuals who are newspaper reporters have been leaked in respect of an RCMP investigation dealing with security, and in view of the minister's answer to the other hon. member, will he inform the House why that information concerning these individuals was leaked to the press and the general public, and what kind of action he will be taking to ensure that they will be defended against misleading statements affecting their civil liberties?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we do not know how the story originated that appeared in the paper in Calgary. We are checking that out. But, as I said in reply to the earlier question, there is a long tradition in this House neither to confirm nor deny when a police investigation is under way because it would be counter-productive to do so.


William George Knight: In view of the fact this issue is becoming very crucial for these five individuals, affecting their life style and their employment in a particular industry, will the minister make a statement on motions assuring that these individuals' civil rights will be protected, and explaining how this story was leaked to the press?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, if their rights have been interfered with so far, that they have been interfered with by the publication of the story in the Calgary paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: We are going to try to find out how that story came about, and I hope to be ready to answer further questions on this matter. I will be appearing before the justice committee this afternoon on my estimates and I will try to provide further information. We have no intention of interfering with the civil liberties of these people.


William George Knight: You have already.


William Warren Allmand: No, we have not and, as I say, I cannot give any further information on the subject at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO EXISTENCE OF FILES ON CERTAIN NEWSPAPER REPORTERS ALLEGEDLY BEING INVESTIGATED BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the kind of answer we are getting on this subject in order to cover up, would the minister now either confirm or deny that files are kept on members of the press in the same way as there are files on members of parliament and other
Oral Questions
people? Is there a file on these people in reference to the matter I raised this afternoon?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there could be files on certain members of the press if they have been involved in criminal offences or subversive activities. Again, there is a long standing tradition in this House, which has been followed by the hon. member's party as well as by this party, not to reveal whether there are files on individuals. In the same way, there has been a longstanding tradition not to confirm or deny when an investigation is under way. If we were to confirm that there was an investigation under way against certain individuals it would alert those individuals to the fact that the police were doing that, and consequently this would be counter-productive.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Now that both the Minister of Health for Ontario and the president-elect of the Canadian Medical Association have accused the minister of passing the buck on abortion, and have called upon him to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code that would remove the ambiguity surrounding the present law, is the minister prepared to introduce an amendment to the law that will clearly specify the terms under which abortion can take place?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the law which parliament did pass clearly put a certain responsibility on hospital committees to determine when abortions might be performed. I think I very accurately stated the view of parliament in indicating that this responsibility should be carried out. It was parliament's hope in passing that law that only a medical judgment, responsibly made, could intervene to say when an abortion might indeed be legal. Therefore I deny completely that this is any passing of the buck. It is a passing of a responsibility which parliament itself imposed on the hospital committees in 1969.



ABORTION-SUGGESTED WITHHOLDING OF MEDICARE FUNDS TO CORRECT ABUSES

Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of statements published in last night's Toronto Star, made by doctors at Toronto area hospitals, including one doctor who had been a member of a hospital abortion committee, that rubberstamping of abortion requests takes place routinely, is the minister considering withholding money being provided under medicare to finance what are clearly non-therapeutic abortions, a practice that is contrary to the spirit and, according to the Minister of Justice, contrary to the letter of the present law passed by parliament?

March 28, 1974
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will recognize that the method of financing hospital insurance and medical care in this country would not allow me to use such a bludgeon against provincial governments or hospitals in particular.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. Possibly he and I can communicate somewhat. In view of the fact that applications dating back to June, 1973, have been made to improve cable television reception in Manitoba by locating antennae in southeastern Manitoba and then utilizing microwave signals to improve reception, in Winnipeg, and in view of the fact that two hearings of the CRTC have already been held without the CRTC either accepting or rejecting an application, would the minister indicate when a decision on this application can be expected so that already existing television cable reception can be improved in Manitoba?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I do not make the decisions for the CRTC, and neither do I make up their schedule. Surely they are making all possible efforts to get the best reception for Manitoba. There is a decision pending, but unless the hon. member gives me a few days to inquire I cannot tell him when the decision will be issued.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the fact that CRTC hearings are scheduled for Winnipeg on May 14, and in view of the fact that no application can be heard without the CRTC calling for applications from interested parties and that so far the CRTC has not done this, would the minister undertake to impress upon the CRTC that it should ask for applications to extend cable television reception in Manitoba in order that applications may be made on behalf of areas where cable television reception, even at best, practically is nonexistent or does not exist at all?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's supplementary is more in the form of a representation, and he has to assume that it has been noted.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does the minister intend to do away with inquiries, in abolishing the guaranteed income supplement for all

needy older persons and is he considering some legislative amendment so that each pensioner would receive the same pension, thus removing some injustices?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have surely no intention of abolishing the guaranteed income supplement and of making monthly payments of $110 to all older persons. I will not therefore consider any such proposal.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Does the minister intend to amend the Old Age Security Act so that married couples will be entitled to maximum pension and supplement, just like married couples that separate to obtain those benefits?


Marc Lalonde: Most plans in force throughout the world provide for married couples benefits which are slightly inferior to double those of single persons for the simple reason that their cost of living is less than double that of the single person. Once again, I do not foresee any such amendment in the near future.



IMMIGRATION


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has Quebec communicated to the federal government, officially or unofficially, its orientation and policy for immigration, and are there discussions or negotiations on the matter between Quebec and Ottawa?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have been presented with the views of the government of Quebec through my counterpart, Mr. Bienvenue, on two occasions. They are not conclusive nor is the Quebec government seeking, in my opinion, immediate answers. They are, in my opinion, part of the ongoing process of examining immigration policies, but we will be responding to the minister in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe. Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period.

Perhaps the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe could ask his supplementary, and then I shall recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Claude Wagner: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he prepared to give the provinces, particularly Quebec which filed a request, the right to take part in the selection and recruiting of immigrants?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this involves the degree to which that right is exercised. There are already co-opera-
March 28, 1974

tive arrangements with regard to these problems. We agree with Quebec and with the province of Ontario as to the participation of their representatives abroad, but in connection with the ultimate selection or rejection, that would have to be the subject of ongoing discussions and consultation.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Science and Technology. In a recent announcement the minister indicated that a study of the Gulf of St. Lawrence would be included in the larger oceanographic studies that are being done. I wonder if she could now indicate, in view of the interest of the northern part of Newfoundland, if the terms of reference indicate a study of a crossing between Labrador and Newfoundland with a view to bringing electrical power across through a tunnel or causeway?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I did not announce such a project because it is under review at the present time in the interdepartmental committee on oceans.
The project to which the hon. member referred to is a study of a rather fundamental nature. It would not deal with the practical matter he is interested in, namely the feasibility of laying an underwater cable under in the area he mentioned. However, this general review could be used as a reference in case it would be desirable to lay an underwater cable.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the answer just received, and in view of the consultation that is taking place on an inter-ministerial basis on such subjects as the Quebec-Labrador highway, the development of the Lower Churchill and the need for installing a cable between Labrador and Newfoundland, are any discussions taking place that go beyond just laying a cable on the bottom of the sea and take into consideration the construction of a vehicular tunnel or some kind of crossing?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Newfoundland some weeks ago submitted to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and to me copies of a feasibility study with regard to the transmitting of
Oral Questions
power across the Strait of Belle Isle to Newfoundland. It was a very complex and technical document. It is my recollection that it contemplates a cable system rather than a tunnel but I would have to get some expert and technical advice before answering in detail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair indicated a moment ago that we have reached the end of the question period but I gather that the hon. Leader of the Opposition would like to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps by consent he should be recognized, after which the Chair will call orders of the day.



ATHABASCA TAR SANDS-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO CONTROL OF RATE OF DEVELOPMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is not a supplementary but it is short and directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has indicated that the tar sands cannot be developed at the rate that some quarters in the United States have indicated they would like. Is it the position of the government of Canada and of the minister that the federal government intends to regulate the rate at which the tar sands in Alberta could be developed under the auspices of the government of Alberta?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir. My purpose in saying so was not to create false expectations on the part of the United States that there would be a fast rate of development. We have, on a number of occasions in meetings with the Alberta government, emphasized again the development of this resource for the purpose of the Canadian market. They have given undertakings that in due course they would have full scale consultation on the oil sands. I think it is fair to say, because of other questions, we have not dealt with this but we look forward to having an early response from the government of Alberta on this question so that we can formulate our own expectations about oil sands development so that we can be sure, in turn, of adequate supplies of oil for Canadians.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. In the last three weeks I have risen on eight days during the question period, to put a question to the Solicitor General, of which I have given him notice. I would appreciate it if you would consider giving recognition to this corner tomorrow. Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day:

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of Bill C -17, to amend the Veterans Land Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed with the second reading of Bill C-17 I think Your Honour would find that the proposal the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) was trying to make about an hour ago would now be agreed to by all parties, namely, that after second reading this bill be referred to a committee of the whole rather than to the Standing Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that Bill C-17, to amend the Veterans Land Act be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my statement to the House last Tuesday, this measure to extend the new settlement operations of the Veterans Land Act for one year to March 31, 1975, is the result of the further consideration which, on March 12, I undertook to give to representations for an extension of the deadline. I have carefully studied all the relevant data and have come to the conclusion that a one-year extension would certainly be in the best interest of veterans.
As I mentioned in my remarks of March 12, this government and this Minister of Veterans Affairs will take second place to nobody in their interest in matters pertaining to veterans. We have always lived up to our commitments to veterans and we fully intend to continue doing so.
I should like to remind hon. members that the original purpose of the Veterans Land Act was to assist in the rehabilitation of veterans in the postwar period, following wartime active service, and to do so by helping them to settle on the land in rural or semi-rural areas as full or part-time farmers.
The intent of the legislation in these respects was clearly spelled out in the preamble to the act, and I think it is relevant to quote the following parts of the preamble:
'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-'
[Mr. Speaker.)
In relation to the purpose of assisting to rehabilitate veterans in civilian life, hon. members know that every veteran has had at least 20 years to make his application, and most have had as long as 30 years. The other two alternative rehabilitation plans were concluded quite some time ago. I think it is clear that the orientation of the Veterans Land Act was directed principally to those veterans interested in agricultural utilization of farm land in rural and semi-rural areas. The financial provisions of the act were founded on this type of settlement, and I think we should not lose sight of those basic factors when we discuss the act.
When we look at some of the facts, we realize that in the eight fiscal years up to March, 1973, after the lending deadlines and revised loan ceilings were established in 1965, approximately 32,700 veterans were settled under the provisions of the act. In the majority of those eight years, the annual number of new establishments has been less than 5,000. In the current fiscal year, however, and more particularly in the last six months, there has been a significant increase in the number of loan applications. It is expected that the number of veterans who will have been settled this year will approximate 5,500-and there are a further 1,400 loan applications on hand awaiting appraisal.
It is in the light of this data as to comparative settlement activity and the increased interest which veterans have shown in the current fiscal year-due undoubtedly to recognition by them of the scheduled lending deadline- that I reached the conclusion an extension of one year would be appropriate. In our analysis of the facts, it became evident that some well-intentioned veterans would have been deprived of a right which they had so gallantly earned if the March '74 deadline had been final. It seems to me that when there is a reasonable doubt, we should not hesitate to decide in favour of the veterans. We must not forget that some years ago they did not hesitate when the survival of freedom was in doubt.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this extension will provide many veterans with the opportunity to take advantage of a program which was designed for them. It should be made quite clear that we are not doing this as a favour to veterans but simply as a right which they have earned.


Mr. Paproski:: It's about time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Who said that?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I did.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, since this bill is now before us it need not take too long to pass it because it does what the minister, a couple of days ago in his statement on motions, said it would do, that is, extend the expiry date of March 31, 1974 to March 31, 1975. Since time is of the essence, and since we are willing to co-operate, we propose to expedite passage of the bill through all stages before the week is out. To that end, we have agreed to give it second reading today and, together with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others, I should like to see this bill considered in Committee of the Whole and passed through all stages today, if possible.
March 28, 1974

The bill introduced today, Mr. Speaker, as I expressed to the House when replying to the statement on motions by the minister, is a narrow concession. It is given to us, I suppose, so that the government can say that it has complied with the motion we introduced on March 12. To me, however, this concession tells another story. The minister in his speech indicated that this extension was given as of right, that the government had reviewed all relevant factors and has extended the legislation for one more year. But that is not what he said when replying to our motion on March 12. Then, he said the extension was not warranted. That tells me that this concession is given, not because the extension is what thousands of veteran citizens have been demanding individually and through their organizations, not because the government wants to serve veterans, as is its duty, but because by granting it the government is fulfilling its selfish aim to govern, regardless of circumstances. What bothers me, and I say this seriously, is that this type of thing is allowed to go on in the hallowed halls of parliament.
I suppose we have proved one thing, that there is still some hope left for the parliamentary process. Using rules and procedures laid down by those who came long before us and, as a result of representations from a large segment of Canadian citizens, parliament brought about changes in legislation passed by previous governments, brought them about because of changing conditions, and for the benefit of those who made the representations. To set right the far out versions of those who profess to know what efforts have been made in changing what are considered to be inequities in the veterans land charter, let me put on record the motion under Standing Order 58 which I moved on behalf of my party on May 18, 1973. It will be worth while looking at some of the representations which were made in the House, for the benefit of the supposed experts who saw this in a different light. 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.
Since then, periodically and continuously, I have asked questions, brought in motions, either individually or in collaboration with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others of my party, in conformity with the rules and Standing Orders. My questions and motions had to do with action regarding the inequities in the Veterans Land Act. They are too numerous to repeat at this time. It is worth while mentioning that my party took every opportunity under the rules to bring up this matter. Since the minister kept evading the issue, and since we realized the extent of the emergency, we brought in a motion on January 11, just before the last recess, to adjourn the House.
On January 111 said-and I shall read those words into the record, even though Your Honour made a ruling that day concerning my motion-as follows:
I ask leave to adjourn the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the proposed phasing out of the Veterans Land Act by March 31, 1974, which will result in denying to over 100,000 veterans benefits available to them under the act, instead of increasing the maximum loan ceiling and reducing the lot requirements.
Veterans Land Act
If you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, I will read into the record part of your ruling. Your Honour said:
The subject proposed for discussion must be a new one in the nature of an emergency.
I thank Your Honour for the advice. I continue:
In this particular instance it is relevant to note that the problem has been raised on a number of occasions over a long period of time by a number of members ...
In particular, may I refer to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who has been an outstanding member of the Veterans Affairs Committee and is a former minister of veterans affairs. He, I and others have brought up this matter periodically. I continue:
The Standing Order also requires the Chair to take into account the possibility that the matter might be discussed on other occasions, or that there may be other opportunities for debate. As hon. members know, all of the seven days in the current supply period, which expires on March 31, are available now or would be available during March after a possible adjournment or prorogation. In addition, I think it is reasonable for the Chair to assume that other and additional opportunities for debate will be available in the month of March or before.
In view of the circumstances, the Chair has to rule that the proposed debate cannot take place today under the terms of Standing Order 26.
That was on January 11. I just want to emphasize that those who take the opportunity to twist the facts should follow what is going on before making far out proclamations. The first opportunity I had to make further representation was on March 12.
The other point I wish to make is to relate our efforts to our responsibility as members of parliament. The Progressive Conservative party has no exclusive channels of communication with veterans or veterans organizations. Every last member of this House of Commons knows that the vast majority of veterans want this date extended. They have received representations to this effect.
Every last veteran in this House knows that, while the extension of the March 1974 deadline fulfills part of the wishes of the veterans, the October 1968 deadline should be repealed. What is most important is that the loan ceilings must be raised, and the minimum lot requirements reduced, to allow the many thousands of veterans to take advantage of the deadline. This, every member also knows. The minister certainly knows because he is receiving many more letters than I, and I am receiving many. However, he was willing to agree to this narrow concession to his cabinet colleagues. I was going to call them the dirty dozen, but there must be more than that who make the decisions in cabinet.
When the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last Wednesday, he indicated he was considering these factors. I wish to quote from the committee report. I asked, and I quote:
I want to ask the Minister, in his consideration of the extension of the March 1974 deadline, since it is consistent that the 1968 deadline be repealed, is consideration being given by his department to recommend through him to the government that this 1968 deadline be repealed?
Mb. MacDonald (Cardigan): We have considered this, Mr. Chairman.


Jack Marshall: With regard to the mortgage loan requirements, the maximum is $18,000, which everybody knows is not capable today of providing them with a lot and building a house. Is there any consideration being given to increasing the maximum loan ceiling?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: This has also been under consideration.

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act


Jack Marshall: Is there any consideration being given to reducing the lot requirements?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: That is also under consideration.
The minister also told the committee that the whole matter was to be discussed the next day in cabinet. We all know the result. There was not one breath of concern or commitment to their responsibility, not one ounce of recognition of their colleagues, just a forelorn dedication to stay in power at all cost. This is a government without leadership or compassion and which disregards the needs of the people.
Watch what will happen when we pass this bill. Watch the next issue of The Carrillon which is produced by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I can see the headline now: Government agrees to extend Veterans Land Act deadline because of its concern for veterans. The people of Canada, will be told that, after considering all the factors, the minister did not mean it when he said an extension was not warranted and this is being done because of the government's sincere concern. The ridiculous thing about this whole matter is that the exercise does not accomplish anything other than deny the veteran something he wants, something for which he would commend the government, namely, an act that is consistent with Canada's housing policy. The continuance of this measure fills a needed service, that of looking after the housing needs of a wide segment of our population.
The staff administering the act will be in existence for many years to come. They are under-staffed and overworked because of the backlog of applications. Most important, they are frustrated because they have to give an explanation to veterans who do not have the difference between the $15,400 the act grants them and the cost of a lot or small holding, yet they get the blame. The annual report indicates the staff has been reduced from 535 to 494. The reason given is the phase-out. However, the real reason is that the staff is frustrated and discouraged because the restrictions on loan ceiling and lot requirements prevent them from helping the veterans.
In a newspaper the other day, the minister was quoted as saying he estimated that only 10,000 of the over 100,000 eligible would apply under the new extension and it would cost the government $50 million. Nothing could be further from the truth. He said the same thing last year, that only 10,000 would apply. We have reached the deadline and the minister says there will be another 10,000 applicants.
I do not blame the minister, but if his government were sincere, it would extend the deadline, increase the loan ceiling and many more veterans would be served. Where did the minister get the cost figure of $50 million? The annual report shows an administration cost of $11 million per year. It is reducing each year and $26 million is being collected each year in interest. Probably the $50 million he referred to is being charged against the $100 million demonstration program which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) announced the other day. They can spend that amount, but they cannot lay out $50 million for housing for veterans. They want to cut that back.
There is no earthly reason for phasing out this act until every last veteran has been served. This should be the course of action for this government. They can do this

because the administrative staff, to some degree, will be required for the next 25 years. However, I suppose we should be thankful for this small concession which will serve a good number of veterans. I am pleased that there is still some hope for the parliamentary process. The will of those we serve can be imposed upon the government even in spite of the greatest objections. I just want to repeat that after second reading, we agree to going into committee of the whole. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated agreement to this procedure on a point of order. I am sure that can be done without introducing any amendments.
In conclusion, I wish to commend the minister on the job he is doing. I realize the difficulty in convincing the cabinet on the recommendations he places before them. I am sure if we could listen to what is said, we would hear the minister putting a good case for the veterans. Unfortunately, he is not with the right government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: We are pleased to get this small concession. We will support anything which will get this bill through as quickly as possible. We want it passed before Friday. I do not want to say what I feel in my heart might happen if it goes beyond Friday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the minister concluded his speech this afternoon in which he called for the House to support this bill extending the deadline with respect to the Veterans' Land Act until March 31, 1975, he said this:
It should be made quite clear that we are not doing this as a favour to veterans but simply as a right which they have earned.
I am sure that all of us in this House appreciate the minister's putting it that way, and we underline and emphasize it just as strongly as we can. However, I am also sure the minister will not be surprised if some of us in all parties in this House feel that the right that the veterans have earned so far as the Veterans' Land Act is concerned includes more than that which is being granted in this bill.
Like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), I say on behalf of this party that we do not want there to be any hiatus, any break at all. We want to see this legislation passed before tomorrow so that the March 31 deadline will be extended for one year. At the same time we regret that this bill, so simple and so narrow, fails to deal with a number of other issues that desperately require consideration so far as the Veterans' Land Act is concerned. Many of us have a great deal of correspondence with veterans, much of it regarding the Veterans' Land Act. My own has increased tremendously in the last few days. Much of it is with veterans who will not be covered by this change.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: No, they are not covered; many are still in the services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Many of them are still in the services and will not be able to seek a small holding until some time after March 31, 1975. Many of
March 28, 1974

them are veterans who did not obtain a qualification certificate prior to October 31, 1968. Their not doing so stems from a number of reasons. As a matter of fact, some of them-I think it is a particular shame that they are being denied this benefit-did not apply for a qualification certificate because they knew at that time that there was a March 31, 1974, deadline in the legislation, and so they thought there was no point in their applying for a qualification certificate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was no pressure on housing then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As my hon. friend from Edmonton West says, the pressure on housing was not as great then as it is now. There are also many cases of veterans who understandably did not get the word that they had to get a certificate before October 31, 1968. I even have some cases of veterans who had written letters years before, which letters were not regarded as formal applications, and they are not now permitted to come under the provisions of this act.
There have been other instances. For example, there are a number of widows who have written to me. The ones I have in mind are widows who are themselves veterans and would normally have the rights of veterans, but somehow or other equality does not seem to exist in this area. Many widows who themselves are veterans are unable to take advantage of this legislation for one reason or another. It seems to me that that sort of thing ought to be cleared up.
As I said the other day when the minister announced that this legislation would come in, perhaps one of the main advantages of it is that it gives us another year in which to fight for these other improvements that are so important. If the granting of loans were to end as of this Sunday, our chances in the next few months of getting the act overhauled would not be very good. But since the Veterans' Land Act will still be an active piece of legislation for another year, perhaps in that year our efforts might be to some avail.
As the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has pointed out on a number of occasions, this legislation also ought to be amended in regard to the amount of money available by way of a loan. After all, costs have soared, particularly the cost of land and the cost of building homes. In view of this, the grant available by way of loan under the Veterans' Land Act should be increased. Likewise the minimum size of lot requirement should be lowered. As the minister knows, this is a matter about which many veterans feel very strongly.
This leads me to the point that almost every time we make our pitch about the Veterans' Land Act the minister says that we have forgotten its original purpose, that we are trying to twist the purpose from its being legislation simply enabling people to go on land as farmers, small or what-have-you, to legislation that will enable veterans to secure land on which to establish a home for retirement. I accept that criticism, Mr. Speaker; the minister is perfectly right. Indeed, that is the very change that we are trying to make.
In support of my position I suggest a couple of points for consideration. Firstly, a few decades have gone by since most of these veterans served overseas. When they came
Veterans Land Act
back, getting a small holding for some do-it-yourself agriculture was something in which they were interested. They are now 25 or 30 or more years older, and do-it-yourself agriculture-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is out of date now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is out of date now, says my "parliamentary secretary" from Edmonton West, who is giving me a great deal of help with this speech, and I appreciate it. The problem of these veterans today is the problem of finding a place to live during their years of retirement.
I remind the minister that this House of Commons expressed itself on this point unanimously on November 9, 1973. That was the day that I asked leave of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion which my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe seconded. These were the words of that motion, as reported at page 7693 of Hansard:
That this House requests that the Minister of Veterans Affairs give urgent consideration to the amending of the Veterans' Land Act regulations to permit veterans to acquire small holdings, even if the main purpose of most of the older veterans now applying for loans under the Veterans' Land Act is to meet their housing requirements, it being the view of this House that entitlement to a piece of this land ought to be the right of any veteran.
I plead guilty, Mr. Speaker, and most of the hon. members of this House will have to plead guilty, to the charge that we are trying to get the government to adapt the Veterans' Land Act to the needs of veterans today. What they need today is not just the opportunity to raise a few carrots. What they need today is an opportunity to get themselves homes in which they can live the latter years of their lives. I plead very strongly that this kind of an adjustment in the Department of Veterans Affairs toward the Veterans' Land Act ought to be made, and I urge again that the view expressed unanimously by this House ought to be taken into consideration.
I believe that between the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and myself we have spelled out the other things we ought to be doing at this time. We regret that the bill was drawn so narrowly that even the amendments we have in mind would probably be out of order if we tried to move them.
Certainly it is our view first that instead of an extension for only one year the extension ought to make it possible for any veteran who qualifies under the Veterans' Land Act to take advantage of that qualification as long as he lives and, in the second place, we think the amount of money available under the act should be increased and that the minimum lot requirements should be lowered.
I have already referred to the cases of widows who themselves are veterans and who are being denied the rights available to other veterans, and I also stress very strongly the point, and I think there will be others pressing this when we get into the Committee of the Whole on the bill, that the failure at this time to do anything about the cutoff date of October 31, 1968, works a real hardship and a real case of discrimination against many veterans. I

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
can see the technical problems involved in re-opening the act on a wholesale basis, but I am sure a way could be found to cope with the cases of many veterans who have a very justifiable grievance in not now being allowed a qualification certificate. These are the points we think ought to be covered.
We regret that the procedures of the House, and the fact that we have a Governor General's recommendation that is so narrow, will deny us the opportunity of moving the kind of amendment we would like to move, but I trust the minister realizes that we are giving him notice today that during the year of grace now granted we will be pressing for these things.
Perhaps at this time I might indicate that when we do get into the Committee of the Whole I have an amendment I shall be seeking to move, and in spite of all that we have said about amendments that would be out of order because they involve the expenditure of money, I believe this amendment is one that will be in order. It is lengthy and the language is legalistic and convoluted so I will not read it now, but I should like to indicate its purpose.
The purpose of my amendment is something like the purpose of a section of Chapter 29 of the statutes of last year, which was Bill C-192, which amended the Income Tax Act and provided certain tax reductions to corporations. Just the mention of that makes some of my friends think I am going to digress and talk about corporate tax rip-offs, but I will not do that at this time.
The fact is that in that act there is a provision under which 60 members, by signing a motion, can get a debate on a certain proposal, and the amendment I am going to present in the Committee of the Whole would add to this a clause under which if 20 members, anytime after September 30 this year, that is six months from now, were to present a motion calling for the terminal date to be reviewed it would be possible to have a debate on that motion and, if it were carried, the minister would be required to undertake such a review and report thereon to the House.
I should like to have drawn that motion in such a way that 20 members could sign such a motion and, if the House passed it, the extension beyond March 31, 1975, would be automatic. I realize I could not get away with that because it would involve the expenditure of money, but the amendment the way I have drawn it will have the effect of guaranteeing, sometime after six months have gone by, a debate on this issue, thus giving the House a chance to say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that we want a further extension to be considered.
As I say, I have that amendment drawn and ready. Since it does not involve directly the expenditure of money, and since it is within the ambit of this bill, I believe this amendment will be in order and I dare to hope that all parties in the House will accept it.
Let no veteran be misled into thinking that the passing of my amendment in itself guarantees a further extension beyond a year from now, but the passing of my amendment will guarantee the raising of this matter in the House sometime after September 30, 1974, and it will guarantee a debate and, if I know the mood of the House,

it will guarantee that the motion will carry and the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be required four or five months before the end of the period, not just on the eve of it, to reconsider the whole matter.
As I say, I shall move that amendment when we get into the Committee of the Whole. I believe the House will approve it and give its guarantee that there will be further debate on this issue this fall. In the meantime, as all of us will say during the debate today, we are not satisfied with this measure as it does not go far enough, but at least it lets a number of veterans in during the coming year and it keeps the legislation alive enabling us to fight another day for what, as the minister said, are rights under the Veterans Land Act which we believe veterans have earned.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the debates that have taken place lately were really very interesting since they have enabled us to see that the opposition can force a government to act.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) introduced today a bill to amend the Veterans' Land Act, following pressures exerted by the opposition parties. Those pressures could have become serious for the government but until now they have been beneficial to them.
I was listening a while ago to the hon. member for Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who confessed the mistake they made when they asked for an extension of one year or more in the deadline concerning that legislation as they failed to require that extension to be beneficial first to the veterans. A few minutes ago, they almost accused themselves of that omission.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to extend for one year the deadline of this legislation, but its modes of application remain the same. The maximum loan that may be granted to a veteran to enable him to buy a small holding of half an acre and a house is still $18,000.
Mr. Speaker, very important changes took place since that legislation was passed. At the beginning, it was believed that many veterans would settle down on the land and become full time farmers. At the end of the war, in 1945 or 1946, it was still a usual thing to take up a career in agriculture, but since that time, we know at what pace farmers have left their farms. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that veterans are not more interested in becoming farmers than those who abandoned the land.
It has been noted that it was also possible to purchase a piece of land and become what is called a part time farmer. So the idea is to provide shelter for the veteran and his family. In my opinion, such was the objection of that legislation. We realize today, especially during the past few months and weeks, how quickly the cost of construction materials is increasing.
Recently, while visiting home builders, I was told that the price of some materials such as plastic pipes, for example, had doubled. Last week, the price of nails went up from 6 to 7 cents a pound and copper pipes and tubes are also very expensive. If the price of gold had not increased so quickly, it would perhaps be easier to have
March 28, 1974

gold pipes. It has becomme as costly to use copper nowadays.
In such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to buy a lot and build a house for $18,000. Now, one thing or the other, the veteran must either deny himself the advantages of that legislation or do the utmost to find a second mortgage to make up the difference in order to get a satisfactory house which he urgently needs for himself and his family.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been much more important to introduce an amendment raising the ceiling of loans granted to veterans than to present one extending the expiry date of the legislation. If the time during which a veteran may avail himself of that act is extended even by another 12 months and the ceiling of the loan is not increased this act will remain almost inoperative for veterans.
In urban areas it is of course impossible to consider finding half acre or 17,424 square foot lots. So one must turn to rural areas, to towns, because it is almost unthinkable to find a lot of that size elsewhere. One must of course go to a rural area.
To develop a lot in a rural area costs more than in urban areas because in urban areas the development is done collectively whereas in rural areas the veteran or the owner himself must set up the facilities for his house, that is find sources of drinkable water that cost quite a lot and build sewers.
Mr. Speaker, even in rural areas building a house, buying a lot and setting up the required facilities has become an absolutely unthinkable project. A while ago I listened carefully to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say by what feat of strength he would bring this government to increase the loan ceiling.
Mr. Speaker, when hon. members must make such pirouettes to be able to meet the needs of their constituents or veterans I think things have gone quite far. The minister is wise enough to convince this government not to wait for the steps announced earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He will show leadership by introducing the necessary amendments to the Veterans' Land Act to increase the loan ceiling for veterans so they may own a house and a piece of land.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I give my support and that of my party, so that we might proceed with all stages of this bill, that is second reading, study in committee of the House and even third reading, that it might be passed at the latest tomorrow.
We trust that, in the course of those discussions, the minister will allow himself to be convinced of introducing the amendments required to meet fully the needs of the veterans.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. The discussion is on clause one.
On Clause 1-Terminal dates for sale advance, loan or grant.
Veterans Land Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to traverse the very valid arguments put forward by hon. members on this side of the House and by the representative of the Social Credit Party. I do want to consider now, however, one or two matters within the legislation itself. First of all, may I say I think the minister has erred, perhaps on the side of caution, or has been directed to err on the side of caution in that the bill specifies that merely the period for receiving applications shall be extended one year. If such applications are accepted, they are still faced with the restrictions on the disbursements as applicable in section 31 (3)(b) of the act.
I would have thought the minister would have moved to give these people the same sort of extension for disbursement, the same privileges. It may be that I am under a misapprehension in this connection and, if so, I am quite willing to be corrected by the minister. However, I do want to make the particular point that I think the extension of the period for receiving the application should be accompanied by extension of the period at which the last disbursements can be made, as provided for under the act. At present, we know that under section 31(3) there are deadlines on the disbursements. The section reads:
Where an agreement to make an advance, loan or grant has been entered into by the Director for the purpose of financing construction of a building or other improvement on land, no such advance, loan or grant shall be paid to or on behalf of the veteran unless, in the opinion of the Director, the construction or improvement has been commenced.
(a)	in the case of an advance, loan or grant an application for which could not be accepted after the 31st day of March 1974-
Which is now the 31st day of March 1975.
-on or before the 31st day of March 1975,-
Which is now the 31st day of March 1976 since there has been an extension. But why has there not been an extension in the case of an advance loan or grant, an application for which could not be accepted after the 31st day of March 1977, on or before the 31st day of March, 1978? Why was there not a change made in that particular regard? The minister may be able to supply me with an answer. I would have thought that a parallel change should have been made in that clause.
The second point I would like to make, and this is one to which reference was made both by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and here I will alter my resolve not to traverse their arguments-is to deal with the argument that I seem to be receiving ad nauseum from the minister and his predecessors with regard to changes in the Veterans Land Act. I am on record, so far as my correspondence is concerned for three or four years, in regard to this particular point.
The point I wish to make is that this is not housing legislation; it is not legislation to provide housing for veterans who are now retiring but the legislation was for veterans on their retirement from the armed services or their release from the armed services and for their rehabilitation. Will the minister not agree with me that a member of the armed forces who has continued to this day in the armed forces and has not got a permanent home, has been subject to moves as his superiors saw fit, as he was during the war, and is now retiring from the armed ser-

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
vices, has to be rehabilitated with regard to housing in the same way that I was when I got out of the armed services, albeit in 1945-46? His requirement for permanent housing, his entitlement to it, and that is the entitlement of a veteran, is fundamental to the undertaking given by this country to veterans under the veterans charter. That undertaking has not varied one iota and the veteran is entitled to housing for his rehabilitation.
I am not using the word "rehabilitation", in the pejorative sense, as though the veteran had been in a condition that was less than desirable in the sense of a man who has been undergoing punishment and is now being restored to civilian status. It is used in the sense of a veteran who is retiring from the defence forces and is to be habilitated. Surely, his need today is as great as it was from 1945 to 1950. Why was this done from 1945 to 1950? Because there was such a dearth of housing, such a demand for housing, and it was known that the veteran did not have too much cash, so could not meet the market prices of that day.
I invite the minister to cast his mind back to those days because he and I were going through pretty well the same sort of problems, I believe. Certainly, during that period I had this problem. I elected for another option that was open to me, not with regard to housing. Today, we see the veteran who wants to establish himself in civilian life with his family, and what has he got? Certainly not the so-called marginal come-potter-in-the-garden type of agricultural activity that might be carried on in what is known as the Veterans Land Act holding. Beside that, where can he get those lots today, where can they be found?
Since the advances under the Veterans Land Act have to come under some of the same regulations as under CMHC, and there are some very specific stipulations as to such utilities as water and sewers, one cannot go, as we did after world war II, to establish on these strip or ribbon developments in semi-rural areas. So, the veteran today is faced with fantastically escalated land prices. If we say that he has to take the minimum acreage specified under the act, less, in some specific cases, a percentage thereof, he must be almost a millionaire to be able to afford land at that value. I suggest to the minister that that land in an urban context is greater in value than the maximum mortgage allowed under the act. But leaving that aside, let the minister see if he can find a house which would meet all the other requirements.
There are some cases that I have seen where, on a real bargain purchase, the veteran would have been required to put in as cash equity more than he receives under the mortgage. It was a $35,000 property. I ask the minister to find out just what can be purchased for $35,000 today, with an effective maximum mortgage of $15,400 under the act. This means that close to $20,000 in financing has to be arranged elsewhere, usually in cash, because if the director of the VLA Act knows a veteran is going to secure a second mortgage that is usually the end of his application. Changes like this must be made. I know that my colleague would have wished to put forward an amendment, about which he will speak later, stipulating that all these matters be brought under review at a later date within the period of this extension.

I have had an opportunity to examine the amendment announced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and am quite satisfied with it. I wholeheartedly endorse the nature of the amendment, and hope that the bill will receive passage today. I would not want it to go to committee where it could be held up until some time next week, causing further problems.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the original attempt by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, which resulted in this bill, did not embrace the changes that have been outlined by hon. members in other parts of the House. I firmly believe that there has been a major change in the thinking of veterans, of members of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and of the general public in regard to this legislation since the time it was introduced in 1967. At that time we were all of the opinion that the VLA Act, as we knew it, would be phased out, and that this would not be opposed by veterans and their organizations. As a matter of fact it was not opposed by a former minister of veterans affairs who spoke just prior to me. Neither was it opposed by most of the rest of us who were on the standing committee.
As you may remember, Mr. Chairman, in those days changes were being made in the VLA Act which resulted in that act being used to test a system of rural financing that later developed into the Farm Credit Corporation. Up until that time we had the Farm Loan Board, a disgraceful organization, which became completely discredited in the farming community. When the Veterans Land Act was extended to provide assistance to veterans in becoming established farmers, its provisions were so much superior to our other farm legislation that it became the criterion against which all other legislation was measured. I am certain that in so far as its small holdings provisions are concerned it is a model that should be adopted for our national housing legislation.
The main criterion was that the veteran could be established on a piece of land that met his requirements, and in such a way that permanency was guaranteed. In return for permanency, the veteran was given a number of advantages. If we extended that principle to CMHC, the only people who would build houses with the assistance of government money would be those who actually wanted to live in them. Instead, CMHC has lent money all over the country to speculators, to building contractors, and to all sorts of people not interested in occupying the houses themselves. It has lent money to people interested in building houses solely for speculation and for resale.
Somewhat the same system existed in farm land mortgages before the Veterans Land Act came into being, and as a result of the experience gained with it we took most of the officials connected with VLA and put them into the Farm Credit Corporation which became patterned on the VLA. But we did not do this with CMHC. We should have learned our lesson. It is for this reason that I think the country in general should support the extension of the small holdings legislation, and that the provisions of that legislation should also be applied to housing in general, so that the person building a house in return for tenure of
March 28, 1974

occupancy can benefit from a reduced interest rate. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Robert Jardine McCleave: In order to permit the House to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in accordance with an agreement reached earlier today, may I advise the House, pursuant to Standing Order 40, that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)- Manpower-Opportunities for Youth Projects-Nature of consultation of priorities-Reason for discontinuance of constituency advisory groups; the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly)-Grain-Feed Grain-Policy respecting marketing; the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton)-Grain-Responsibility for allocation of railway cars-Declaration of certain branch lines as inoperative because of snow conditions.
Earlier today it was suggested that the House would revert to motions at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I express thanks to the House for its courtesy in permitting me to revert to motions to lay on the Table of the House a copy of a telex I have sent today to the oil companies with respect to restraint in their prices until May 15.


WAYS AND MEANS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I also, in accordance with section (1) of Standing Order 60, table notice of ways and means. Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 60,
Rural Airport Development Advisory Committee may I request you to designate an order of the day for consideration tomorrow of this notice of ways and means.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being after five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notice of motions (papers), private bills and public bills. As there are no motions for papers the House will proceed to private bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland) moved: that Bill C-264 respecting the Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church of America, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and standing orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Samuel Victor Railton: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Frank Howard: that Bill C-102, respecting the establishment of Rural Airport Development Advisory Committees, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the action just taken with respect to the preceding bill probably should apply to this one as well, and if the House would extend that generosity I would be glad to sit down. However, I think that probably would not be the case.
A policy has existed within the Department of Transport for a long period of time to make grants in aid of airport development to municipalities which have airports or airstrips. The standard amount of annual allocation for a number of years has been $2 million, except for 1972 when it was increased to $3 million for that year only. Because the then minister of transport had his eye on an election in 1972 we thought that the extra million was to be applied in areas where it might do the most political good, but the amount has been cut back to $2 million and has remained there. At any given time the department has probably 60 or 70 applications for $2 million, but the

March 28, 1974
Rural Airport Development Advisory Committee
amount does not go very far when spread over the multiplicity of municipally operated airports in Canada. As a matter of policy, the department tends to deal with this money in grant form on the basis of an individual airport or airstrip run by the municipality. It has no concept of policy in regional matters, or area or distribution of airport and airstrips that are linked because of the economics or the methods of communication and transport between those communities.
Since the first decision was made to establish such a grant system for municipally operated airports to get them over a hurdle in providing a modicum of facility of air transport to smaller communities, the whole area of transport has changed tremendously. There is a great deal of mobility and an increase in the number of aircraft serving smaller communities for a whole range of purposes, some of them economic such as flights into mining and prospecting areas, lumber areas, railway and road development areas, recreational flights for hunting, fishing and guiding, sight seeing and transport or social community purposes.
In my own province air transportation is common from one community to another, and most people do not think of using any other means of transport than aircraft which carry five or six passengers. Departmental policy has not kept pace with the change in air transport activity in rural areas and thinly populated areas. It is as if we were still relying on the horse and sled rather than on aircraft for transportation between communities. In the development that has taken place there has not been any great demonstration of friendliness by the Department of Transport toward air transportation. Most people think that the facilities available from the Department of Transport are a kind of accidental happening, and we in northern British Columbia do not feel that we get the type of consideration and friendliness from the department that we should.
The bill that I have drafted is not as complete as it would be if it had been introduced by the government. We all know the restrictions of the law and the rules of the House which say that a private member cannot introduce a bill which seeks to spend public funds, so within the bill there is no mechanism to pay expense allowances or to spend public money. To that extent it is not as full as it might have been as a government bill, but the essence is there and the feeling of what I think is needed is there.
The bill seeks to establish a Rural Airport Development Advisory Committee to which would be appointed members from municipalities and regional districts within which the committee is established. It is very loosely worded because, depending on the desire of the people, different things will be required. The purpose and intent of the advisory committee is to advise the minister, as is set out in clause 5 of the bill, on all aspects of airports that are or need to be established within the region for which the committee is established, including:
(a)	improvements, maintenance, or extensions of runways,
(b)	the location of new airports,
(c)	the need for financial support for airports, and ...
The committee may advise on such things as navigational aids, terminal building facilities and the like, and other facilities which are companion to an airport itself. The

committee would have these powers in order that it, as the representative of the region concerned, shall have some input into the decision making process. In this way it might exercise influence before grants are made, as decisions with respect to grants are made on criteria which I have not had a chance to discover. In those cases, the decision is made probably by regional departmental officials of the Department of Transport, or the air section of it. They do not have enough money to operate with, but that is another story. Their decision is not made primarily on the basis of the needs of the community or area.
This bill is designed to counterbalance that lack. It will enable regions, communities and areas to choose people who are to sit on the committee and who can say to the Minister of Transport or his delegated officials, "Look, this is the way it is here; these are the needs, these are the requirements, and here are our recommendations." The committee can look ahead, and say that, in view of economic development that is likely to take place in a certain area or community in several years, we need to develop transport facilities for carrying people and goods in and out. It can say, "Here is a development plan for an airport." Such plans can be integrated with other federal plans.
To be more specific, in northern B.C. we have a vast number of rural airports, airstrips, many of them in farmers' fields. Once I landed at a facility provided by a fellow who ran a small farm. He erected some pilons or beacons; they were not mechanical or electrical, merely enough to guide the pilot and enable him to land in the farmer's field. We landed in the stubble. That was the airstrip available to us. There are many such airstrips in northern B.C. Generally, they are little more than gravel strips, small, short airstrips, and not the traditional level concrete or asphalt runways which most Canadians associate with airports, such as in Montreal or Vancouver. The airfield at Kamloops is a masterpiece of airport development compared with some of our airstrips in northern British Columbia.
These small, minimum facility type of airstrips are not satisfactory, as only a limited number of aircraft types can use them. For instance, an aircraft like the Convair, which can carry between 40 and 50 passengers and a considerable amount of freight, either with or without passengers, cannot use these primitive airstrips. The Convair, to a country boy like myself who is used to travelling in the Norseman, appears to be a pretty big and sophisticated aircraft. Department of Transport restrictions prevent aircraft of the Convair type from landing on these gravel strips, even though the use of that aircraft type would be justified in certain communities which need to move people and freight in and out of the area.
In the eastern portion of the riding of Skeena three communities, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and Burns Lake thought that it would be advantageous if they could establish an air carrier service between that region and Vancouver. A service like that would allow the people of that community to fly directly to Vancouver without making a long trip by road or using, in some cases, jets operated by CP Air or PWA. On May 18 last year these three municipalities combined together and presented a trimunicipal brief to the minister. They talked about region-
March 28, 1974

al needs of the Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and Burns Lake area and said that the three communities of the region should be served by an air carrier who would connect the people of the region with Vancouver and other areas. They requested assistance under the municipal grants program, on the basis that one air field would serve three communities, because, although each community faced different problems, the over-all situation was the same.
That application-that is what it was-was rejected. I discovered, after phoning the regional air people in Vancouver today, that it was rejected because the department could not conceive of a grant for one airstrip to serve three communities. The wider concept of an airstrip to serve communities which want to co-operate was beyond the grasp of the department. They said, "No, sir, this is an abortive attempt, and out it goes. We are not going to accept it". The three municipalities which wanted to do something together for the region found themselves back, as the saying goes, on square one. They had to start all over again.
The area of which I am speaking encompasses in the neighbourhood of 25,000 square miles of British Columbia. The three municipalities concerned had wanted to put their heads together. They came up with the figure of $625,000 for building one airport. They felt that if the suggestion had been heeded, the opportunity for communicating directly with other communities, particularly Vancouver, would have been enhanced. It would have been easier to move goods and people in and out, particularly to Vancouver.
Let me take a few more moments, if they are available, to me, Mr. Speaker, to convince hon. members, many of whom I am sure do not need convincing, why it will be desirable to send this bill to committee, where it can be examined at greater leisure than is possible at this time. Fort St. James was simply interested in seeing that the economic needs of the people who live in and around the area year in and year out are met. For example, the request made in connection with the airport simply involved the removal of stumps, not from the runway but from the proposed extension; the grading of the proposed extension; the putting of gravel on the 5,000 foot by 150 foot wide runway; the installation of non-directional beacons, as well as weather and radio facilities. In addition the request was made for the completion of terminal facilities and for hard surfacing the 5,000 foot by 150 foot runway.
I wish to deal with the completion of terminal facilities for the benefit of those people who have only had the experience when travelling by aircraft of walking through air conditioned or heated terminals and companionways into a DC-8 or something of that nature. They will not fully appreciate the prospect of standing in zero weather with the wind blowing and no radio facilities to help you determine if and when the plane will arrive. I found from experience that standing in cold weather has quite an effect on the functioning of the kidneys. Many places in northern British Columbia do not have full terminal facilities and it is necessary to cope with this problem. All these communities are asking for are the normal, everyday
Rural Airport Development Advisory Committee facilities that are available everywhere except in small airports operated in conjunction with municipalities.
Vanderhoof is a distinct case in point. That municipality has been maintaining a military establishment for the past 28 years. The airport was developed during World War II. I do not know whether it was the Department of National Defence or the Department of Transport which prevailed upon the village of Vanderhoof to take over that airport. The runway is 5,600 feet. It needs hard surfacing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: I wish to thank hon. members. My timing was not as accurate as it should have been. I have mentioned the needs of Vanderhoof. Burns Lake has similar needs, but of a slightly different nature. You can put them all together and the package is the same. These communities are disadvantaged by the department's policy of making grants to municipalities. I hope my bill will be used as a mechanism to expand that concept and enlarge the vision of the department and this government regarding rural areas.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on trying to introduce legislation to upgrade and enhance the aviation facilities of Canada, particularly in his own area in British Columbia. I must say he shows a great deal of knowledge of the air transport needs of that province and a great deal of knowledge about the needs of remote communities which would be fulfilled by the adoption of this very idea.
Although I said he is to be congratulated, I do not think this House should be worried about his good intentions. In my opinion, the bill is somewhat redundant. I believe we have adequate legislation and planning mechanisms to cover the concerns expressed in Bill C-102. There does not seem to be any need to unduly delay the urgent business of this House with this type of legislation.
The National Community Airports Assistance Program introduced by the government in 1971 is already paying handsome dividends. The budget for this program has been increased 100 per cent from a budget of $1 million to $2 million annually. The numerous airports which have received assistance through this dispensation have reaped dividends in many respects. For some communities, upgraded air facilities have acted as a boon to business and the tourist industry. For others, a new or resurfaced runway has encouraged settlement of a remote area and promoted social and economic exchanges with other settlements. In this fashion Canada overcomes the vastness of its geography and its peculiar demographic characteristics by uniting our remote or sparsely populated regions with our growing urban areas.
The criteria for assistance have been determined on two levels. Under the assistance policy program, airports are grouped into two categories, national and community. This distinction properly reflects the responsibility for
958

March 28, 1974
Rural Airport Development Advisory Committee
their operation and development. Airports in the national category are classified as primary, secondary, Arctic or satellite airports. Community airports are classified as feeder, local industrial, intermediate local, small local or remote, depending upon their traffic index which is determined by a formula involving a whole panoply of factors which I will not elaborate upon at this time.
I wish to digress for a moment and speak about my district airport. It is called the Niagara District Airport. It is situated half way between St. Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake. It has triangular landing strips. The main strip is 5,000 feet in length. In addition, there is some hanger space. It is now operated by a private firm which keeps its planes there. There is a new control tower. If I am not mistaken, it is being considered by the Department of Transport for an instrument landing system. To make the proper use of this airport, the commission administering it wishes to have an additional 1,000 feet added to the runway. This would make the runway 6,000 feet long. Nowadays many types of jet planes require a runway of at least 5,000 to 6,000 feet in view of their rapid landing speeds of around 150 knots. In bad weather or with severe winds it is a little difficult to set a plane down with less than this length of runway.
The main reason for this local airport wanting the extra
1.000	feet is that just across the Niagara River lies Niagara Falls, New York, the centre of a large air charter business. A great many people from as far west as London, Ontario, from all over the Niagara peninsula, Brantford, Kitchener, Toronto and Hamilton are attracted to that city to take a charter flight, particularly to Florida or the Bahamas. The request of the Niagara Falls airport commission has already been forwarded to the Department of Transport, and I have endorsed it, as have two hon. members opposite whose ridings are in the neighbouring area. With the extra
1.000	feet of runway, charter flights using, say, 737s and that kind of aircraft could start at Toronto or Windsor and touch down at the Niagara district airport near St. Catharines to pick up people from the area; in other words, round off a beautiful flight. There is a great deal of business there for air charter companies.
Later, the commission hopes to take advantage of the interurban STOL program that is developing. It has not yet commenced to any extent in this country; I do not think the service between Ottawa and Montreal is yet in operation, but it is something for the future. In other words, there is a very great need in many communities such as those referred to by the hon. member for Skeena. They are forward-looking communities with airports and have a lot going for them. Eventually they will need a great deal of assistance.
The annual increase in the amount of money for this purpose from $1 to $2 million will make it possible to help a great number of airports deserving assistance, which previously was not the case. In the long run it will benefit municipalities and the aviation industry. I think the application made by the Niagara Falls airport commission outlines this very well.
The implementation of this policy of assistance has encouraged municipalities to continue the operation of

national, secondary airports. It has also encouraged greater participation of others in the financing of airports. This has been in keeping with the government's objective that the cost of such facilities should be borne, to the greatest extent practicable, by the users and other direct beneficiaries of the facilities. The support that the government has received in response to its program of assistance for municipal airports has been most encouraging.
I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-102 could possibly enhance the program within the specific context of the program as presently applied. A bill with such wide terms of reference would serve only to confuse priority planning which is already underway and would relegate to limbo, in my opinion, many worth-while and urgent requirements. While there can be no question that the transportation challenges that face us in Canada are very severe and require energy and imagination, there is no point in replacing existing structures indiscriminately until we have established our long-term objectives. Only then can we determine accurately the types of management mechanisms and legislative frameworks with which we can successfully and comfortably operate our sensitively balanced transportation system. It is very important to realize that these matters are under study, and how fast we develop various areas really depends upon traffic requirements. In the past we have impulsively leapt at short-term solutions and hoped that they would serve as long-term blessings; but much to our chagrin the one-day wonders turned into multi-year blunders. I am not here to dwell on the nightmares of the past. After all, the resiliency with which Canada has fought back from adversity with renewed vigour has made us the envy of industrialized nations. We have had outstanding achievements in many fields, not the least of which is transportation.
The question of airports has always been a sensitive though vital area of concern in Canada. Our dependence upon aviation may be greater, at least on a per capita basis, than that of any other country. There can be no doubt that, notwithstanding the prophets of doom and the exponents of the status quo, aviation planning in Canada has been remarkably responsive to our economic needs and has ensured that disparate points of view and life styles have not been entrenched due to isolation. Lines of communication and channels of commerce have remained open, due largely to the efficiency of our aviation planning, and have bound this nation together when skeptics felt that such efforts were futile, or at least unpromising-something like the national dream. One has only to look back to the days when Dorval and Malton airports were attached as being located too far from Montreal and Toronto, their respective city cores. However, today these same wailers are complaining about airport infringement on the seams of urban expansion.
It is an irony of our times that we cannot satisfy people even when presented with only two possible choices. The hue and cry over Mirabel and Pickering in our two largest cities will one day be replaced by another brand of criticism-hindsight bemoaning too little instead of too much. It would appear that many communities do not plan or foresee the aviation vacuum caused by relentless economic expansion and its concomitant transfusion of people from rural to urban communities.
March 28, 1974

Coupled with a healthy immigration figure and natural propagation-we still have some of that in Canada-Canada's transportation needs become all the more pressing. The sudden emergence of industrial or mining-oriented settlements at the source of natural mineral discoveries compels us to act quickly and decisively to accommodate manifold needs that can only be fulfilled by transportation. By the same token, we have smaller, more established communities anxiously waiting-I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that there are plenty of them-to attain levels of economic growth that can only be reached by the provision of greatly improved transportation facilities.
I hasten to add that, although myopia has characterized much community transportation planning in the past, it is no longer prevalent. In fact, one of the main factors contributing to the success of our community airports assistance program has been the initiative shown by the municipalities which have requested aid. Their enterprise has been all the more commendable because of the manner in which they have harnessed support from a broad spectrum of local interest groups. I would again refer hon. members to my example of the Niagara Falls airport commission: they are very anxious to do this for their community. This type of positive reaction adds impetus to assistance programs of this kind. Without the co-operation and enthusiasm of the public, transportation planning and development would operate in a calamitous cocoon of ineptitude which would negate all our past successes.
We are very fortunate in Canada to have been able to promote and foster economic growth in transportation networks without upsetting our traditional approach of giving private enterprise as much rein and scope for initiative as possible. Programs such as the one under discussion today are thriving, not only because of this blend in purpose between various levels of government but because of the collaboration and valuable contributions of our private sector.
Finally, I will reiterate the thrust of my remarks today as follows. Our aviation planning does not suffer from the miasma of some other areas of government concern. We would do well to devote our legislative expertise to far more serious problem which face us as a nation.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat would he permit a question?


Samuel Victor Railton: Certainly.


Frank Howard: The hon. gentleman made reference to an allocation of funds that has been increased from $1 million to $2 million. Would the hon. member mind telling me what he is referring to that was so increased, and when it was increased, because the contribution to assist the establishment of or to improve local airports and related facilities-which is what we are talking about-has remained static at $2 million for a long time, except in 1972 when it was $3 million. I am wondering if we are talking about different things.
Rural Airport Development Advisory Committee


Samuel Victor Railton: I think the budget for 1974 contains reference to the national community airports assistance program.


Frank Howard: Which has nothing to do with the bill under discussion.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to compliment the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for his sincere interest in Canadian aviation. He went to great lengths to outline some of the problems in British Columbia and we who realize the vastness of that province and some of its transportation difficulties appreciate his point of view.
In my region of eastern Ontario we have made considerable strides in the field of aviation. In my own community the local municipalities co-operated in the purchase of what is today the Pembroke and area airport. Each municipality that contributed money toward the purchase of that airport has the right each year to appoint people to the Pembroke and area airport commission. I think this bears a very close relationship to what the hon. member was suggesting.
The Pembroke and area airport commission has been very effective in bringing forth views on the needs and requirements of air transportation and passenger service throughout our local region of eastern Ontario.
As I listened to the hon. member for Skeena list various communities in British Columbia, I could not help thinking that in eastern Ontario-Ottawa, of course, being the central point-we have considerable input in air services to all parts of Canada and throughout the world. We also have aviation facilities at Carp and Arnprior. There is a sod airstrip near the town of Renfrew and we have the Pembroke and area airport which, incidentally, has a daily flight from the region to the city of Toronto.


Mr. Baker:: Run by an enterprising Conservative.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In reply to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the man who started that airline was more successful in running it than he was in running against me in the election campaign of 1968, and I say that with all humility, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes, and your humility stands out.


Walter David Baker: That is characteristic.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Pern-Air has been a very successful and useful transportation facility in our area. I was going to say that it replaced one that was not so successful. In that operation the company was operating a flight from Montreal to Ottawa, to Pembroke, Peterborough and Toronto, but the Montreal to Pembroke run proved to be a financial loss and as a result the company backed out of it. The new airline at the Pembroke and area airport is operating successfully and last year carried 10,000 passengers. Hon. members can understand that it is a very useful feeder line to other airlines operating from the city of Toronto, and at the same time it provides fast transportation ser-

March 28, 1974
Rural Airport Development Advisory Committee
vice over the approximately 260 miles from that region of eastern Ontario to Toronto.
The world famous inventor Alexander Graham Bell cabled the London Times as follows:
First flight of a flying machine in Canada occurred here today when Mr. Douglas Meurdy, native of Baddeck, Nova Scotia, flew a distance of about one-half mile at an elevation of about thirty feet above the ice of Baddeck Bay in an aeroplane of his own design named the Silver Dart.
Since that time Canadians have been interested in aviation. That cable was sent on February 23, 1909, and since then Canada has not only been a pioneer in the development of aviation; it has been a pioneer in the use of aviation. The upcoming STOL service which will operate between Montreal and Ottawa is a good illustration of our progress in both these areas. Incidentally, I am told that the STOL service will get under way early this June.
I should like to make one comment about the Silver Dart. The arena to which I take my son on Saturday mornings to play hockey, located on the Canadian forces base at Petawawa, is called the Silver Dart arena because shortly after the flight about which I spoke the Silver Dart was shipped to Petawawa. My father-in-law, who was working on the Canadian forces base at the time, transported the various parts of the Silver Dart from the railway station to the base and a flight of the airplane took place there. Anyone driving through Petawawa today will see a cairn on the right-hand side of Highway 17, just past the gate to the base, which outlines the history and activities of the Silver Dart.
So we in Renfrew county feel we have considerable relationship with the people of Nova Scotia where the first flight of the Silver Dart took place.
As I mentioned at the outset, the hon. member's bill is a good indication of his sincere interest in aviation. Unfortunately, the problems outlined in this bill have been superseded in many areas by changing attitudes. For example, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has said on a number of occasions that he sometimes felt there were only two kinds of people, those who want airports and those who do not want airports. Perhaps there is a third group, those persons who do not care one way or the other. I should like to speak more about this later.
This government has demonstrated in many areas that it recognizes the aviation needs of the country, ranging from the upgrading of international aviation facilities to the development of community and remote airports. For example, back in December, 1971, the government enunciated a new policy for national and community airports. At that time all members of this House were given a copy of a fact sheet so they could bring to the attention of interested municipalities and groups within their constituencies information on this revised program. I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that many members from both sides of the House have taken advantage of this program which has been increased from $1 million to $2 million annually, as mentioned by the previous speaker.
With regard to the aviation facilities we already have and those we are developing, I am sure all members agree that safety is of paramount importance and must be given top priority. As aviation traffic increases, more and more

navigational systems are required, and the standards for aircraft operation and maintenance must be increased if we are to maintain the enviable aviation safety record which Canada has. For example, the government issued strict new standards for the operation of small commercial aircraft which came into effect on January 1 of this year. Last year the government embarked upon a program of well in excess of $70 million designed to upgrade air navigation facilities not only in the more densely populated regions of our country but throughout the north.
The development of new aviation facilities and the expansion of existing facilities, obviously requires public participation. Where land is required for the expansion of existing facilities or for the development of new facilities, only in a few instances have local levels of government had the foresight to take into consideration the future aviation needs of their communities. For example, in 1948 comments in the Montreal newspapers lambasted the government for locating Dorval so far from downtown Montreal. It was not too many years later that the pendulum swung the other way and we were equally lambasted in the Montreal region for locating the airport so close to the areas of population. This important point, was also brought out by the previous speaker. The airport did not expand: the people and their needs expanded.
Because we have learned this lesson, our plans call for the protection of large tracts of land on the periphery of new aviation facilities so that the land is developed in a manner acceptable for airport operations and the needs of surrounding communities. When it was obvious that Dorval could not be expanded and that new aviation facilities were required for the Montreal-centred region, everyone wanted the airport to be located in their area- north, south, east or west. On the other hand, when it became equally obvious that new aviation facilities were required for the Toronto-centred region, no one wanted the airport, no matter where it was to be located.
As there is more input into centres of larger population across the country from isolated regions, more feeder lines come into major airports. This will continue to put greater and greater emphasis on the needs of urban airports. We cannot therefore, speak about the development of regional and community airports across Canada unless in the same context we take into consideration the effect this will have on the major airports in large, urban areas.
In Calgary, the city fathers had the foresight to protect the land surrounding the airport so that when it became necessary to expand aviation facilities there, as the government is now doing, they would be compatible with surrounding communities. And this is the case in Calgary. At Vancouver, however, we have a major airport facility that has been in existence for more than 40 years and, while obvious expansion is necessary, it has raised the concern of many people. This is why, as at Pickering, we are carrying out active programs to involve the public in the decision-making process.
With regard to the public being involved in the development of aviation facilities and aviation regulations, public involvement is not new to the Ministry of Transport. When new aviation regulations are being developed, everyone from the private aircraft operator to the com-
March 28, 1974

mercial airlines is invited to participate in the development of new aviation programs and policies.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-15, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1974, and Bill C-16, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31 March, 1975.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, March 28, 1974
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., Q.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, March 28, 1974, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by Major Vandelac, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-15, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31 March, 1974- Chapter 1.
Bill C-16, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975-Chapter 2.
Veterans Land Act


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the House that before we rise for the six o'clock adjournment we resume in committee of the whole. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore leave the chair for the House to resume in committee of the whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-17-Mr. Boulanger in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.14 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 1-Terminal dates for sale, advance, loan or grant.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the supper break I was pointing out that much of the good legislation that applies to the Farm Credit Corporation is the result of the excellent work that was done for veterans legislation in the area of agriculture. Prior to that, the legislation for farm credit was so bad and the Farm Loan Board had got into so much trouble that the ideas behind the Veterans Land Act were applied to new legislation for the Farm Credit Corporation. I was also pointing out that there was a lesson in the VLA and the small holding legislation that could be applied to the housing situation. There are a number of features in the legislation that would have done a great deal not only for veterans but for all Canadians. While there are some advantages for veterans, one of the major clauses provides that veterans must make Canada their full-time residence and they must be residents for a period of ten years. This of course, applies to other things as well.
One of the sad things about the legislation before us is that it probably covers the least that could be done. I know that is not what the minister intends and I am sure it is not what the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe intended. I think it is safe to say that it is not what any member of this House wants for veterans under the VLA. If the bill included three major things it would probably receive quick passage tonight.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, dates should be totally removed from the bill. As I pointed out before, I was one

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
of those who agreed to establishing the dates. We agreed simply because very few people were taking advantage of the legislation at that time. That was for two reasons. One was that we seemed to have reached a lull because of the age of the veterans and they were re-established in some form, and also we were not aware that at retirement the veterans might be engaged in a totally different vocation.
The second reason was that as veterans changed from one job to another, sometimes coming out of the armed forces at a late date, they would want to settle somewhere and probably buy a house. We did not know that, Mr. Chairman, and therefore we made the mistake of putting in a closing date. Secondly, we did not know then that houses in Canada would be almost impossible to buy at this time. This suggests that perhaps we should raise the ceiling from $18,000 to between $25,000 and $30,000.
In this connection, I do not think we ought to be overly generous with the veteran; we should not increase his benefits under the legislation but should, instead, do three other things. I suggest that the veteran should not be required to obtain .4 of an acre. Instead, I suggest that we should accept a parcel of land which is ordinarily accepted as a municipal lot. I suggest that because, in Ontario as in other provinces, we are stopping strip development; in other words, we are not encouraging the development of smallholdings. We are stopping people going to the countryside and buying a few acres of land, and we are stopping them in two ways. First, of course, people cannot afford to buy two or three acres in the country: that is a luxury most people cannot afford.
Second, it is difficult in most municipalities, especially in Ontario, to obtain permits for sewerage and water for smallholdings. Municipalities want to draw some distinction between smallholdings and agricultural land. Municipal bylaws in Ontario make it mandatory in almost every instance for a person wanting to buy a smallholding to buy good serviced land on the edge of a municipality. In order not to be unfair to veterans but to make sure that veterans will not obtain an undue advantage from any increased amounts the government may lend them, I suggest that part I of the act should remain the same, but that under part III the contributions of the government should be increased from $10,000 to $14,000 and that the contributions of the veteran should be $1 for every $6 of government money, instead of the present $1 for every $5. This would mean the veteran's total contribution would remain at $2,600.
I know that many veterans did not know of the cut-off date. Many did not care about the cut-off date because they were not interested, and many were not in a position to concern themselves about the cut-off date because their future, at the time they contemplated such date, was unstable. It is unfortunate that this piece of legislation was introduced into the House in the way in which it was. It is unfortunate that we are not able to move amendments which would provide three basic things which all members recognize as being fundamental. I am talking, of course, of the removal of the qualifying date, the removal of the March 31 deadline, the removal of the ceiling and, lastly, removal of the provision respecting reduction in the size of property. These things we cannot do in the commit-

tee, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate, as I say, that the bill was introduced in its present form. Any suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to put it in a different form would have been ruled out of order.
Further, if the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, the member who brought this subject before the House, had made suggestions similar to those I have just made, he too would have been ruled out of order. If that is the way democracy works, if the rules prevent members from making the kinds of changes they want to make, it is obvious that democracy is stagnant and the system must be changed. For that reason I urge the minister when he closes this debate to indicate that he intends to refer the subject matter of this bill to committee. The veterans affairs committee is fairly representative of all parties in the House and it has always been reasonably non-political. It should determine what proposals ought to be brought forward to bring this legislation up to date and make it apply more to today's conditions.
Further, I would urge that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs take a good look at some of the provisions of this legislation and see how they relate to those which governed the old Canada loan board. I ask him to see what this veterans legislation will do in the field of housing. If veterans could apply this legislation to the buying of houses we might see less speculation in this area. Possibly in that case people would not be talking about having to pay $40,000 for a house.
It seems to me that the rules of the House will thwart members in their desire to do something further for veterans unless the minister, on behalf of the government, is prepared soon-certainly within the next few months-to refer the subject matter of this bill to committee. I know he has been deeply involved in this subject for a number of months. I know he is fully familiar with all the arguments being raised and I have reason to believe that he is sympathetic to most of them. I therefore hope that the bill will pass this evening, that we will not only give a small extension to the few veterans who were qualified and left over from 1968, but that we will open up this field so that this legislation will be available indefinitely for all veterans who can qualify under the normal conditions set out in the VLA.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Chairman, I think I made all the points I wanted to make on second reading. I was interested in hearing the points raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming. He could not have put them better. He indicated that it is unfortunate this legislation was introduced in the manner in which it was. He mentioned what needs to be done if we are to remove the remaining inequities in the act. He indicated that all members of the House would support the government if it would agree to take steps of that type. By doing that we could produce a bill of which we could be proud.
I wish, without taking too much of the time of the committee, to propose an amendment. I therefore move: That the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
All matters within the meaning of "application for a sale, advance, loan or grant under part I, II or III" and of "veteran who has not a subsisting contract," as mentioned and referred to in this act and in the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General in
March 28, 1974

relation thereto, are hereby referred to the Standing Committee on
Veterans Affairs for examination, inquiry and report.
This would give the committee an opportunity to investigate all factors, including the need for an increase in the loan ceiling, the need for a review of the minimum lot requirements and the October, 1968, deadline which is now hurting many veterans. They would be able to call as withnesses members of various veterans' organizations and eventually come up with a plan before the new deadline so that we can have an act of which we will be proud.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity to look at this amendment. I must confess, however, that I find some procedural difficulty with it. I point out that the amendment does not seem relative to the bill. It proposes to send the subject matter of parts of the bill, which are not amended, to a standing committee for examination and report. This is not the right stage for this proceeding, if indeed such a motion can be moved. It strikes me that the right time to move a motion for reference of a subject matter to committee is during consideration of the bill.
If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be part of the permanent law. That strikes me as being somewhat of an anomaly. I simply argue that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe is out of order at this time because it is not relevant to the bill. If it can be said to be in any way within the scope of the bill before us, it is certainly not relevant to what we are presently discussing.
The Chairman.: Are there any further contributions to be made on the point of order that has arisen as to the admissibility of the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe? If not, the chair will proceed to make a ruling.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a procedural point. I think it should be noted that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave notice that he would introduce an amendment asking that the minister review the matter and report thereon to the House not later than the end of the fifteenth sitting day next after the day of the motion, with or without amendments as approved by the House. I am sure all members would agree to this amendment because it goes a little along the way that we want. My motion asks for consideration of the points to which 264 people evidently agree. This was referred to by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I am sure other members who contribute will agree. I offer that comment for Your Honour's careful and due consideration.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West on a point of order.


Mr. Rose:: I do not wish to speak on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council for the arguments they
Veterans Land Act
have made on the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.
I would have to say that the course being suggested by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe is an unusual one in that he seeks to enshrine in legislation a reference to a standing committee of this House. To the best of my knowledge, and according to the advice of the Chair's advisers, there are no circumstances where such a clause or one similar has been successfully presented in committee.
I also draw the rule of relevancy to the attention of the hon. member, that we are proceeding, in effect, in this committee on the reference that has been made to us through second reading of this particular measure. It cannot be said that the proposal of the hon. member is really relevant to that to which the House has given its approval. It might be relevant at another stage, perhaps as a reasoned amendment on second reading or at a further stage of our proceedings, but I cannot find that it is relevant now.
I also have to make the point that this committee does not and should not have the power to refer a matter to any other committee of the House, because we have to regard ourselves and all other committees as equivalent and not possessing superior power. For these reasons I rule that the proposed amendment is out of order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks because, as one hon. member observed, nearly every member of parliament has in his constituency veterans who served their country in a distinguished way over the years. We are therefore entitled to speak on behalf of their interest. I, like a number of other members, regret that the Governor General's recommendation is rather narrow. With the best will in the world, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe introduced an amendment a moment ago to expand the terms of reference. Your Honour, however, ruled that the amendents' thrust to broaden the Scope of Bill C-17 to better serve the needs of the veteran in today's changed world was out of order. I regret that.
I am extremely pleased that the minister is here with us tonight. The representations made on behalf of veterans by various members of parliament, I am certain will be listened to with a great deal of interest and respect by the minister who is a veteran and a man of distinguished service.
One thing we should recognize is that this bill merely seeks to extend the present legislation. That has caused a great deal of frustration for hon. members who feel that in order to meet the needs of veterans in today's changing conditions, much more than a mere extension is needed. There should be greater response on the part of the government than grudges by extending the present legislation. VLA has been extremely helpful over the years, but because we are living a generation or more removed from the original articulation in the form of legislation, VLa no longer serves increased and altered needs as well as it did when it was first passed by this House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has drawn our attention to the fact that the legislation was perhaps drawn with the romantic myth of a continuing rural

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
Canada and the idea of establishing veterans on farms or smallholdings where planting a few carrots was uppermost in the minds of our legislative predecessors. There were certain lot size limitations introduced which are out of date. The roughly half-acre lot size that was considered suitable in earlier years is no longer appropriate to the situation today. Many veterans cannot be or are not interested in smallholdings today, yet there continues a desperate need for shelter at a price a veteran can afford. In my riding and in other small towns around me, a suburban or rural lot can cost up to $18,000; that is a single 65 by 120-foot lot. The maximum loan under the present veterans' loan legislation is $18,000 per lot. In terms of today's needs and prices, $18,000 is insufficient in assisting veterans to acquire housing.
The maximum mortgage will scarcely buy a lot. We all know that this country has now reached the stage where but 20 per cent of the people earn sufficient money to be eligible for an NHA or a CMHC loan. This is simply because over the years CMHC, aside from helping developers with multiple housing deals, has been preoccupied primarily with providing for the housing of the middle-class or upper middle income groups rather than Canada's economically disadvantaged.
Many of our veterans are extremely needy and shelter is beyond their means. We all recall the statement made in the ill-fated task force report on housing known as the Hellyer report. The task force report observed that there were no farmers left around our large cities; there were only speculators in overalls. Most people in Canada live near or around large urban centres and cannot buy a lot for under $12,000, and most of the lots run as high as $20,000. So, as I say, the loan limitation of $18,000 must be raised to meet today's land prices.
I know, without having it pointed out to me, that my preceding remarks may not be to the point, but I think they reflect the fact that many MPs share my misgivings and frustrations with being allowed tonight to deal only with the mere extension of present legislation. We seek in addition, by way of amendments, to widen the scope of the legislation.
In addition to the suggestion that smaller parcels of land be considered by VLA, I should like to make another proposal. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has observed, perhaps the veteran who is 25 or 30 years beyond his army days might not be interested any longer in digging potatoes, planting carrots and that sort of thing, and now his family has grown up a smaller lot might suit his needs more admirably. I suggest that not only should we consider smaller sized lots, which incidentally are not so ravenous for scarce, developed land as are half-acre parcels, but a fact to be considered is that more and more people, especially older people, wish to live in apartments. Many of these apartments are not rental units but condo-minia which can be purchased. These condominia hold strata titles which are secured by a mortgage.
This new sort of property tenure has developed rapidly over the past five years. When I first came to Ottawa I owned one myself, and I sold it at a moderate profit when I no longer needed it. So I suggest to the minister that if

there is to be any change in the thrust of VLA legislation, then in addition to smaller sized lots, provision for the older veteran to invest in a condominium apartment so that he is not constantly living in fear of the rent gouger would be an extremely sensible innovation and in keeping with today's trends.
May I make a couple of further points. Some of the veterans who need this legislation most in order to acquire homes for their families cannot take advantage of it because they are on war veterans allowance or on welfare. I submit to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that he might look at the many veterans who are disadvantaged, not because they did not serve us well or because they are spendthrifts, but because they are sick, unemployed and on war veterans allowance. If any group needs help, it seems to me it should be those less affluent or the economically deprived veterans, those on welfare and war veterans allowance. I therefore urge the minister to look at this particular group of people and see how best he can assist them.
The final point I should like to make while I have the floor is that veterans legislation continues to be chauvinistic favouring the male veteran over his spouse; I am sorry, but I see I have offended the parliamentary secretary. I did not mean to shock him, but if I did that is the way the ball bounces. The title to property is held for the benefit of the veteran. We have all heard of Murdoch and the other cases and the Supreme Court's ruling in favour of the male.
Under our veterans legislation, a veteran, be he male or female, is solely entitled to the benefits of property and to the protection of the director, whether or not he or she has fulfilled his or her obligations to make payments over the years. A number of examples have come to me over the years as a member of parliament where veterans in whose name property exists, by courtesy of the director, have not been making the payments. On the contrary, the spouse has been working, has kept the home and family together and made the payments. The male spouse leaves the home for a variety of reasons and while away from the home sells it out from under his wife and family. The provision for joint tenancy in VLA holdings would overcome this problem.
These are examples of situations we should look into when we come to consider updating and broadening the legislation, in addition to extending the time limit, however welcome that is. I should like to thank the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for their efforts, as well as the minister, all of whom I know have fought for this extension, and to say that veterans are grateful. But the extension is only part of the picture, Mr. Chairman; there are a lot of other things we should do.
In closing, I should like to echo the statement of the hon. member for Timiskaming. As valuable as this veterans legislation is, why make it so exclusive? Why do we not have this kind of housing legislation for all Canadians who are economically disadvantaged, providing an interest rate of 3 Vi per cent on the first $6,000 and 7 Vi per cent thereafter? Our party has been calling for 6 per cent interest rates for housing for some time now. If we do have a shelter problem, and everybody knows we have,
March 28, 1974

one of the best models that I can think of to assist most Canadians is this very legislation.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to say a few words on the bill before us. I agree with the NDP members when they say that the current legislation does not render justice to the veterans.
We all know that the veterans have done much for their country although other citizens are doing the same without those advantages. But this bill should afford a few more advantages to the veterans.
A law must be just and made for everyone. I think the current law does not quite render justice to the veterans. Many members of the armed forces are still young and some day will be back in their country as many of them are still serving in Europe; they are not fighting there but they are maintaining peace. They will be considered as veterans when they come back and they will surely need housing. The law stipulates that for a veteran to be entitled to those payments or advantages, he must have half an acre of land to build a house and then he will be lent $18,000.
The interest rate is reasonable although rather high. As stated earlier by an NDP member, those interest rates should be available to all Canadians who want to build a house. We are now dealing with the veterans and I think we cannot argue about those interest rates because they are realistic and rather fair. However, the minister should amend his bill so as to increase the $18,000 because today it is almost impossible with $18,000 to buy half an acre of land in urban areas as most of them cost much more than $18,000 and no money will be left for the veteran to build his house.
Mr. Chairman, the law should be flexible enough to allow veterans to purchase existing properties in the cities providing they have a normal-size lot.
The veterans should have this right. Not all the veterans are prepared to move and settle outside urban centres so that they may receive half an acre of land on which to build a house. They have no municipal services, no sewers, and so on. They have to arrange for these services themselves.
Mr. Chairman, we note that the bill contains standards which do not quite meet the requirements of the veterans. I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will introduce an amendment that we shall support, 1 think. I find it unfortunate that the amendment introduced a while ago by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) was rejected, because it certainly made a lot of sense.
We do not blame the Chair for deciding so. We cannot go back on that but, to my mind, the bill should be amended to do justice to the veterans and grant them benefits this one does not provide.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, does not meet the needs of the veterans. In this regard, I ask the minister to study and check again the contents of the bill; I ask him to reorganize it in such a way that we can come back to this subject. The new bill he will introduce will contain reasonable
Veterans Land Act
amendments designed to allow the veterans to benefit to a greater extent from the bounties of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when I had the floor during the debate on second reading I indicated that in the committee of the whole I should like to propose an amendment, and I rise now for the purpose of moving that amendment.
As just about every speaker today has said, there is a desire in all parts of the House to improve this legislation. We would all like to move amendments to reopen the right to apply for qualification certificates which was washed out on October 31, 1968, we would all like to move amendments to raise the amount of money that can be loaned under the act, and we would all like to be moving amendments to lower the minimum lot size requirements. Unfortunately, all these proposals involve the expenditure of money. Somehow or other the Governor General did not produce a recommendation wide enough to include such amendments. One of these days we must have a talk with the Governor General.


Jack Marshall: You and I and Dan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, and if the three of us could just have lunch with him we might put some ideas in his head. In any event, I feel satisfied that the amendment I wish to move is in order, and although it does not guarantee that there will be an extension of the act beyond March 31, 1975, it does guarantee that this matter will be debated again in the fall of 1974. With that kind of a guarantee I would hope the minister and his deputy, to whom I bow, the director of the Veterans Land Act administration and others as well will study this matter very carefully. As I say, if my amendment is passed it will give notice to all concerned that this issue is not dying with the passing of this bill tonight, extending the deadline as it does for one year.
My amendment, copies of which I have already passed around to hon. members and others who are interested, is in fact based on the language of a part of last session's Bill C-192 which is now chapter 29 of the statutes of 1973. Bill C-192 was a bill providing for reductions in corporate income taxation, and the Minister of Finance arranged for the inclusion in that statute of a section which makes it possible after March 31, 1974, for 60 members to sign a motion and have that motion debated in the House under certain conditions. As I say, I have drawn my amendment using, where appropriate, the precise language of the section to which I have referred, found on pages 5 and 6 of Bill C-192, or chapter 29 of the statutes of last session.
The purpose of my amendment is to make it possible any time after September 30 of this year-in other words, after six months have gone by-for 20 members to sign a motion and submit it to Mr. Speaker asking that the Minister of Veterans Affairs review the cut-off date set out in this bill. If my motion carries, the presenting of such a motion signed by 20 members would result in its having to be debated in the House within 15 sitting days after the filing of the motion. If the motion were passed, the Minister of Veterans Affairs would then be required to

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
review the matter and report thereon to the House not later than another 15 sitting days. My amendment also provides that the debate on such a motion for review would be limited to two days and would thus come to a vote at the end of that time.
As you will see, Mr. Chairman-and I am mixing a few procedural comments in with the substance-my amendment does not involve the expenditure of money, neither does it go outside the ambit of Bill C-17. It is not an amendment to the statute behind Bill C-17. It calls for a device under which the March 31, 1975, date in this bill can be reviewed. Now, having given all that explanation of what my amendment does, perhaps I had better read the English copy although I have it in perfect French as well. I move:
That section 1 of Bill C-17 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 25 on page 1, the following subsection:
(3) Where, at any time after September 30, 1974, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not fewer than twenty members of the House, is filed with Mr. Speaker to the effect that the terminal date of the thirty-first day of March, 1975, as specified in this act, shall be reviewed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the rules of the House, take up and consider the motion, and if the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House, the Minister of Veterans Affairs shall review the matter and report thereon to the House not later than the end of the fifteenth sitting day next after the day the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House. All questions in connection with any motion taken up and considered by the House of Commons pursuant to this subsection shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than the end of the first sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered.
Mr. Chairman, I take responsibility for the wording although I must in my defence say that the long and convoluted phrases are copied from the language used by the Minister of Finance in the last session in Bill C-192. In case everyone does not have a copy, I have sufficient copies here and I can send them around. They are en anglais et en frangais.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, that is the amendment. I hope it will be received by the Chair as being within the rules of the House. Not only have the three opposition parties already indicated their support, but I dare to hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs who is interested in matters relating to the Veterans Land Act will indicate not only that he accepts this but that he does so with pleasure and delight. In fact, I see on his face that he does.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, this motion strikes me as being of Maniwaki procedural origination. It is very cunningly drawn by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as is his habit. He has had the very good sense to draw it from a bill introduced in the House by the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said the Minister of Finance had arranged for the inclusion of this particular amendment in the bill. I would go further than that and point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance not only made arrangements for those words, or words similar to them, to appear in the bill

but that they also appeared in the ways and means motion which was accepted by the House on June 6, 1973. They can be found as well in the first reading copy of the bill which I have here dated June 6, 1973.
I do not intend to read what the notice of ways and means motion said. It basically contained what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said it did. It was clause 16 of that motion. I think it is very important to recognize the fact that that procedure dealt with a taxation bill and was included in the notice of ways and means. In the bill itself it appeared in clause 1, subclause (3). I want to make the point that in this particular case the original idea appeared in the notice of ways and means and then was incorporated in the bill at first reading. I have spent the dinner hour doing research on this and I took it upon myself to look at Erskine May's eighteenth edition at page 508, where it reads:
(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter (d) or beyond the scope of the bill (e), or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter (f) or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration (g).
Then in subsection (5) at page 509 May states:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible (n).
He goes on to give the following example which I think is relevant at this time:
The scope of the Parliamentary Elections (No. 2) Bill, 1880, being restricted to the repeal of a section in a statute, an amendment which proposed the continuance and extension of that section was ruled out of order. The chairman stated that, though the committee had full power to amend, even to the extent of nullifying the provisions of a bill, they could not insert a clause reversing the principle which the bill, as read a second time, sought to affirm.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, C-17, seeks to affirm that there shall be an extension for one year of the application of various parts of the Veterans Land Act-for one year and one year only. That point is clear, precise and exact. That is the only thing the bill seeks to do.
I would submit that the proposal which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has presented before the House in his carefully drawn amendment exceeds that principle and seeks to add something to it. It certainly adds to the principle we have examined at second reading. Further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take you to page 510 of May's eighteenth edition where the author points out the following in item (10):
Amendments to a bill proposing that an address or a resolution of one House of Parliament should effect the repeal of the bill (f), or that the provisions of a bill should be subject to a referendum (g), have been ruled out of order as proposing changes in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has drawn his amendment from an income tax bill. The only other procedural example we have is when we dealt with the energy allocation bill last year and the House of Commons accepted a clause, which can be found in Votes and Proceedings for January 9, 1974, which provided a procedure in the case of the governor in council undertaking to do certain things. A review procedure was to be instituted as a condition to power granted to the governor in council. Observe that we were dealing here in that particular
March 28, 1974

example with a bill that is of regulatory origin; that is, it sought to regulate the petroleum industry.
Now we are dealing with a bill which has a royal recommendation and seeks to extend the expenditure of money for a certain purpose for one year. I would suggest that a careful examination of the precedents we have before us today would show that an attempt to apply those precedents to Bill C-17 would be like trying to mix apples and oranges and come up with peanuts. I would argue that you cannot take an example from an income tax act or a regulatory bill and apply it to a bill with a royal recommendation.
The last point I would make is stated in May's eighteenth edition at page 511, which is that an amendment is outside the scope of the bill if it seeks to amend the provisions of the act proposed to be continued or to make permanent such act or to include in the bill a statute which has already ceased to have effect. What is important in this case is the first part. It is quite clear that what the hon. member is proposing to do by way of his amendment is to extend far beyond the scope of the bill the extensions that are available, in a way which I think goes against the main principle of the bill.
It seems to me the key point in this is that we have had two examples, one which is an income tax bill and the other which is a regulatory bill. We now have a third bill before us in respect of which the hon. member seeks to take an example from an income tax act and apply it to another type. I submit the distinctions are deep and wide and that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill for the reasons I have stated. I would argue that the authorities I have quoted are clear on that point and that Your Honour should declare the motion out of order.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the parliamentary secretary a question before he resumes his seat? I gather his argument is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is trying to enlarge the scope of this bill and that therefore he is out of order. In light of the fact that he is the parliamentary secretary to the President of Privy Council, and because obviously no one in this House wants to disagree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is trying to do, has he any advice to offer the committee that will assist in doing just that, namely, extending the bill to satisfy the needs of the veterans in this country?


John Mercer Reid: One argument which I could have used, but did not, is that there are other avenues available to hon. members. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the use of a resolution on this topic on an opposition day caused the government to change its position, which has resulted in the bringing forward of this bill. I would also point out to him that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs are still properly before the veterans affairs committee. I have been trying to make the argument from a procedural point of view that the hon. member's amendment violates our traditional rules and procedure. He is trying to do something which he is not permitted to do under the rules; he is trying to add something to a bill which is narrowly drawn, and he is attempting to impose conditions on what has been narrowly
Veterans Land Act
drawn. In my submission, Mr. Chairman, he cannot do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council, my almost-neighbour since he represents the first riding east of the Manitoba border, said that he spent the dinner hour doing research. He might as well have eaten!


Jack Marshall: He spoke to the House leader. He had herring for supper.


John Mercer Reid: It's good for the brain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the first points he tried to make-he did not come down on it very heavily, but he tried to make it-was that when the Minister of Finance brought in a bill with a provision in it for review of a portion thereof by the House of Commons at the request of 60 members, that was included in the royal recommendation. That is quite right, because what the Minister of Finance was making possible was a procedure that could result in a change in tax-in other words, it could have a dollars and cents effect. That being the case, it had to be covered by the terms of the royal recommendation.
I point out that the procedure I am suggesting in my amendment does not involve the expenditure of money at all. In fact, it could not by itself involve such an expenditure. Therefore, there was no need for this procedure to be included in the royal recommendation.
As he went a little further in his argument, the parliamentary secretary trotted out May's eighteenth edition. I have a copy here as well.


Mr. Stackhouse:: I thought you wrote it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May was produced long before I was thought of. I was interested in the parliamentary secretary's use of the example at the middle of page 509 when he read part of the paragraph which is as follows:
The scope of the parliamentary elections (No. 2) Bill, 1880, being restricted to the repeal of a section of a statute, and amendment which proposed the continuance and extension of that section was ruled out of order.
That was the case of an amendment that tried to reverse the very thing that the bill was all about. I find it difficult to comprehend how that has any connection with this measure. At the moment, the Veterans Land Act provision that we are concerned about expires on March 31, 1974. The bill before us extends that date to March 31, 1975. By no stretch of the imagination am I trying to reverse that or to alter it in any way. My amendment does not touch that element of the bill, namely, the extension of the date to March 31, 1975. I suggest, therefore, that those portions of May at pages 508, 509 and 510 that the parliamentary secretary quoted have no relevance to this amendment.
As he reached the end of his argument, the parliamentary secretary seemed to gain confidence. He tried to argue that by my amendment I am trying to make a change in the original act. I wish I could. If I knew of any way to move such an amendment, I would do so. There would

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
probably be three or four such amendments if we could do it. But if my amendment carries and becomes part of the law, it would not by itself produce any change in the original act; and even if the device proposed in my amendment is pursued, that would not by itself produce a change in the original act.
All the amendment does is to provide a means and a guarantee that this House of Commons, if 20 members so wish, will discuss a motion, some time after September 30,
1974,	asking the Minister of Veterans Affairs to review the cut-off date that will be enacted by this bill.
My amendment does not go behind this bill at all. It does not deal with the other matters in the Veterans Land Act that need revision. I have no doubt that in the two-day debate that takes place next fall there will be reference to those other matters, but so far as the amendment is concerned it does not seek to amend the Veterans Land Act itself. It does not seek to go behind the amending bill to the main bill. It simply provides an opportunity for a two-day debate in the fall, and in that respect it is patterned after what this House did by way of a precedent last year when we provided for a debate under the Income Tax Act with respect to corporate tax reductions.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that none of the arguments advanced by the hon. member opposite touched this proposal at all. I submit that the amendment is neatly based on the precedent of the Minister of Finance, that it does not involve the expenditure of money, that it does not negate what the bill proposes, that it does not seek to go beyond the bill to amend the act, and that all it does is to make sure that there will be a two-day debate this fall on the question of the cut-off date. I believe that the amendment is in order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If hon. members have completed their submissions, the Chair is prepared to make a ruling. First,
I	would like to thank those who took part in the discussion on the point of order. I would refer members of the committee to the explanatory note which accompanies Bill C-17, as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to extend from March 31, 1974, to March 31,
1975,	the final date for acceptance by the Director, the Veterans Land Act, of applications for sales, advances, loans and grants under parts I,
II	and III-
The recommendation accompanying the bill, which is to be found on page 3 of today's notice paper, reads:
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons a measure to amend the Veterans Land Act to extend from March 31, 1974, to March 31, 1975, the final date for acceptance by the Director, the Veterans Land Act, of applications for sales, advances, loans and grants-
The question that the Chair must determine is whether the amendment presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is relevant to the principle that was determined on second reading, that is, whether his amendment is within the scope of the bill as determined by the House on second reading. I think, from the two quotations I have given, first from the explanatory note and secondly from the recommendation, that what we agreed to in principle was an extension of a particular section of the Veterans Land Act for one year. The amendment suggest-

ed does not extend the extension. It does provide a method of review by the minister. It does not order the minister to extend the deadline again. It does not tell him to take any specific action which would involve the expenditure of moneys, and indeed it could not, because if it did it would be clearly out of order on that particular ground.
If the minister were to follow the direction in the amendment and decide to extend the act further, he would have to come to parliament, armed as he is today with the royal recommendation, and nobody can take that particular right away from him.
I have to find that the amendment as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is relevant. It is within the scope of what was determined by the House earlier today upon second reading. However, perhaps in the interests of parliamentary grammar I will make the following changes in the first three lines of the hon. member's amendment:
That clause 1 of Bill C-17 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 25 on page 1, the following subclause-
This is simply a parliamentary nicety, using the word "clause" instead of "section." Apart from that, I find that the amendment is clearly in order.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at great length. I do not intend to try to decipher some of the convolutions of the argument about the legality of the amendments. I would like to say a few words about the Veterans Land Act. It is a pleasure to speak on this legislation. I am thankful for the opportunity and I suppose all hon. members are thankful for it because we very nearly did not get it. This bill will give us all an opportunity to regroup our forces.
I have some doubt about the amendment that has just been accepted by the Chair in that it will cause the question of the extension of the VLA to be brought back to this House for debate if 20 members so signify their intention. I am no longer certain that this House is the best place to debate the matter. I think that our record over the last few months on this subject indicates the House is not able to express the wishes of the majority of its members.
I have yet to hear a voice raised in this House wishing the act to die on March 31, and yet it came within a few NDP votes of so doing. It seems to me a negation of democracy when the rank and file of the official opposition, of the other opposition parties, and particularly the rank and file of the government party-those who have nothing between themselves and the voters but their own records-were very much in favour of extending the act, yet someone on the government side did not want it extended.
I respect the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The impression I have formed of him is that he has the interests of veterans at heart. I believe that he left the veterans affairs committee several times to take ideas and proposals that were favourable to veterans to the cabinet, and was turned down. It is probably the least well kept secret of this House and of the government that he has had a very difficult time during the last three or four months, and only through being saved by a Conservative resolution was he able at the last minute to extend the act. I am glad
March 28, 1974

this is now on record of Hansard in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, who only a few minutes ago said that a resolution on an opposition day caused the government to change its mind. That was a Conservative resolution, Mr. Chairman.
This has been an unhappy affair from start to finish, where members of parliament have been placed in the position of voting against their conscience or of staying mute when they wished to speak, particularly those in the Liberal Party. I hope that whatever comes out of this can be settled in the standing committee composed of members who are interested in veterans affairs, who perhaps can present a united front to the government to show that not only must we have an extension of the act but we must have a better act.
This act was first written, I believe, back in 1919 to look after World War I veterans and to help them settle on the western plains. The amounts were geared to settlement on farms and extra sums of money were given for equipping farms. But times have changed and we are now in a position where the VLA is largely used to provide homes for veterans. This is the way it should be. There is such a small percentage of the population now living on farms, and the act has been changed to deal with veterans living in urban centres.
But some restrictions have been left in the bill. In 1965 the amount of money was increased, but land restrictions were left that make it almost impossible for a veteran to find accommodation through the VLA. Nothing in this bill is going to change that. In 1965 it was considered that $18,000 was needed to settle a veteran in a home. He needed $2,600 cash and could get a very reasonable mortgage for $15,400. That $15,400 represented 85 per cent of the value of the property that was envisaged for the veteran. That is what I think should be incorporated in the new act, Mr. Chairman; the mortgage portion should be around 85 per cent of the total cost of the holding. If we had such a ruling, then veterans could buy homes costing $40,000 or $50,000-and that is what an average home costs in certain urban centres, not excluding the one I represent.
Mr. Chairman, I find no difficulty in supporting the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party. Really, it is stolen from the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe who proposed the same thing the other day. However, our party has had many ideas stolen in the last year and a half, as the Minister of Supply and Services said, that our role in this House is to sit and do the thinking. Indeed, somebody has to do the thinking. We can support the New Democratic Party's amendment and thank them too, because imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West had a good suggestion about condominiums. Many veterans are getting to the age when they are not eager to mow a half-acre lawn. Indeed, they do not have the money to buy a half acre and they will not get it under the VLA. Condominiums that sell in the $20,000 range could be an answer, but I suggest to the minister that he investigate the legal ramifications of this type of purchase. This is an area where the fine print should be scrutinized. I hope that this
Veterans Land Act
government, perhaps through the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, will investigate the matter and then perhaps veterans could buy condominiums. Certainly, if the amount available for mortgages is not raised, something like this may be the answer.
I should like to mention a particular group of people who have not been included in this legislation. I refer to the Korean veterans, particularly those who are still serving. The Korean war took place in the early fifties, and many of the young men who volunteered served in just as tough a war as any other. When they came home, some continued to serve. Most of them have been posted all over the country and have had no opportunity to pick up the acreage and comply with the regulations. Now they are getting near the end of their service and have had no opportunity to become certified-I wish they would change that word-as eligible for Veterans Land Act mortgages.
I am glad that we have had this opportunity to examine the bill. I hope that in the months ahead those of us who want the veterans to get a better break will be able to get together and the next time we discuss the subject it will be a bill that will cancel the October, 1968, date for applications. I see no reason why this bill should stop while there is a demand or need for this money. It should continue until the supply of veterans dries up, not until the government gets tired. I hope the October, 1968, deadline and the March, 1975, deadline will be done away with, that the amounts available will be realistic and that the act will be extended to cover condominiums and strata type homes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, after listening to this discussion tonight I think the veterans who are members of the House of Commons will have to conclude that we are fighting a rearguard action. The bill before us provides the bare minimum of concessions from a government that is really not interested in the welfare of veterans but is more concerned with its own survival.
It is a bill, Mr. Chairman, that gives the very minimum consideration to the needs of the veterans, needs that were demonstrated and made crystal clear in the discussion that took place in this chamber on March 12. As hon. members have been saying during the course of this committee's discussion, what has been said has fallen upon deaf ears. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear, and this is the situation we are faced with tonight. I am sure my friends in the NDP now regret that they did not seize fate by the forelock when they had the opportunity on March 12. If they had supported the motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe then, I am sure the government would have had to swallow itself and vote for a new amendment. In that case, we would not be faced with this niggardly token presentation this evening.
I do not suppose there is much that extended discussion and debate can do to resolve the dilemma in which we find ourselves tonight. I want to take the opportunity to remind the minister of some facts; I am sure I do not have to remind him as he is a distinguished veteran, but obviously there is need to bring the message home to his colleagues. They do not seem very concerned with the fact that the veterans of Canada occupy a very special position in the concern of the government of Canada, the parlia-

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
ment of Canada and also in the affections of the people of Canada. The veterans of Canada make up a group which has earned special concessions. We would not be sitting here tonight, Canada would not have survived as a nation, if they had not been willing to make the supreme sacrifice in defence of their country, in defence of a way of life they thought was worthy of the ultimate sacrifice.
I make this point because this is the first time I have seen any government take a niggardly attitude to the veterans' charter. I have been a member of this House for a number of years and have seen many ministers of veterans affairs. The government is niggardly, not only in its present attitude to the extension of benefits to veterans under the Veterans Land Act but we face the same problems with veterans pensions. There is an enormous backlog of pension applications. Such applications require a year or more to process. Meanwhile, veterans are getting older and their problems are intensifying. Veterans' cases which come to my attention show that the veteran is becoming increasingly unhappy and dissatisfied with the service he is getting from the government. I know this because more individual veteran's cases are coming to my attention now than have come to my attention at any time during my service in the House of Commons. I am sure other members will bear witness to the same situation in their dealings with the problems of their constituents.
The need for extending the Veterans Land Act and all its benefits in their various manifestations has been demonstrated both in the debate today and in the earlier debate in a way that is crystal clear. There is a housing crisis in Canada. The cost of a lot, a mortgage and all the other things which are involved in putting a roof over one's head is prohibitive. It is much greater than anyone could have anticipated as recently as five years ago. It is obvious that the amendment placed before us this evening in the form of Bill C-17 will not begin to meet this problem.
I will not recite in detail what needs to be done. Obviously, the ceiling is inadequate. The size of holdings should be changed to make them compatible with the regulations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Many veterans did not qualify for benefits because of the cut-off date in 1968; they did not benefit because of a chain of circumstances, including the inordinate rise in the cost of living in Canada which no one could anticipate. Many veterans will suffer by being cut off from their benefits, and this will happen in the declining years of their lives.
Unfortunately, because of the disastrous limitations of the bill veterans will be forced into panic buying, panic action which will confound their problems rather than ameliorate them. There is one slight ray of hope. I wish to devote a few minutes to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I know that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe would like to present a similar motion, so there is no difficulty from the Conservative side of the House. I think the minister himself will be persuaded that in the circumstances, in light of the criticism which has been directed against him because he is responsible for administering the Department of Veterans Affairs, he ought to support the amendment. The amendment provides an option for

the government in the dilemma in which it finds itself: it will give an opportunity to members of parliament, at a specified time in the future, to deal with the limitations encompassed in the actions of the government.
I trust that the minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to think along such lines, although it is obvious that he does not enjoy enthusiastic support in his endeavours on behalf of veterans. I hope he can persuade his colleagues to go this far, to at least keep the option open so that we can discuss the limitations of the government's proposals at a future time. I would go even further and say that in light of the government's attitude on this matter and many others, it is hardly likely that after the next election it will be charged with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of veterans. Making sure that veterans get their just desserts, which are being denied by this administration, would be made much easier if the government kept open the option which is provided by the amendment now before parliament.
My final point, Mr. Chairman-not to belabour the point-is that I hope the minister and his colleagues will support the amendment so that at least they can make some semblance of saving face in this situation.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to some very worth-while suggestions. I should like to answer all the questions asked, but first may I deal with those raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. He asked about the extension. My answer to him is that the extension from March 31, 1974, to March 31, 1975, applies to new establishment loan applications. The deadline for disbursing new loans is extended to March 31, 1976. As far as the extension from the March 31, 1977, deadline is concerned, the deadline relates to additional loan applications from veterans already settled or who will be settled by March 31, 1975. There seems no need to extend the deadline for veterans already established.
I wish to refer to a few other matters. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe elaborated quite freely on the disservice being afforded veterans because they are forgotten by the veterans' charter. I would not like to have that impression left in this House or in the country, because our veterans have some of the best legislation in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I shall not take up too much time, but I want to mention a few of our achievements in the past year. The disability pension was increased last year by 24 per cent. In the past fiscal year this government gave, upon request, an additional $54 million. We were very happy to do that. The war veterans allowance was also increased in midstream. This amounted to another $17 million. I may be off by a few million dollars here or there because I am quoting from memory. Travelling allowances were also increased. To say that our veterans are forgotten and our charter does not recognize them any more is a very unreliable statement. The lodging allowance was increased for veterans who find it necessary to go from their area to be examined by doctors or specialists of one kind or another.
March 28, 1974

I work very closely with the veterans' organizations of this country. The additional $50 million that I said it would cost was also questioned very vigorously. That is a true statement. It may not be true to the exact dollar, but it will take approximately an additional $50 million to do this. And as long as I am Minister of Veterans Affairs, my door is open to any veteran in this country at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It does not have to be eight o'clock or nine o'clock; it can be any hour of the day or night, in any part of this country. The veterans' organizations will tell the veterans that. We increased the number of pension commissioners by seven.


Jack Marshall: Not according to the letters I am getting.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I think you write them yourself. I must also say that all aspects-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is your fault that-


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Didn't you have the floor before?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The minister has the floor. He has the right to express himself as does any other member who wishes to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I want to say that as far as reviews are concerned, all aspects of our department are under constant review. We welcome the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Another question was posed this evening by a couple of members; I will not mention their constituencies. There has been a lot of talk about veterans in the armed services who were denied the privilege of becoming established under the Veterans Land Act. I want to inform this House that our department sent people to Lahr, Germany, to consult with veterans in the armed forces. Many of them took the opportunity of establishing themselves under this process. When I met them in England and France, they thanked me and my department for sending people over to give them the opportunity to become established.
These people know when they are going to build and when they are going to retire. This program has been available to them.
I see, Mr. Chairman, that the time is going by quite rapidly. We will be very glad to receive and support this motion.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Veterans Land Act


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, one thing that has impressed many members in this debate and what came before it is the reluctance with which the government has accepted the principle of this bill. It brought in this legislation only after concerted pressure from the opposition. It accepted the amendment only after it was submitted by the opposition, supported by the opposition and when the government saw clearly it would be defeated if the amendment went to a vote. The government brought before the House what was really a specious point of order in an attempt to have the amendment ruled out of order. I suggest we ought to be mindful of the reluctant spirit with which the government addressed itself to this matter.
In his remarks the minister recited some of the achievements of his party, his government and his department for the veterans. He was right in what he said. The point I would make is why, then, be out of character now, if you can help the veterans? Why not, in the same spirit, be open-hearted and open-handed now with regard to these ex-servicemen who are seeking to meet their accommodation needs? One reason many have not been able to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act is simply unavailability of credit and lack of capital. They have hopes for the future, hopes of being able to borrow enough money and to acquire land on which they can build a home for their retirement years.
I wonder just what great good accrues to the people of Canada and the government of Canada by having the deadlines of 1974 and 1975. Why should we impose this limitation upon the commitment of the government and the nation to our veterans? They did not have a time limit on their service: they signed up for the duration. Why should the public not now honour the same kind of open-ended commitment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: We have unanimously accepted the possibility of 20 members of parliament opening up this question in one year's time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six months.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Yes, opening up the new deadline in six months. I hope whichever party is in power in six months-


An hon. Member:: Not you.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Maybe. The hon. member was wrong a few minutes ago, and he may also be wrong in the near future. One thing we do hope is that six months or a year from now there will be in office a government that is prepared to honour the public's commitment to the veterans of this country. The government has been forced into this extension and it is clear to the whole country that the

March 28, 1974
Veterans Land Act
legislation which this parliament is about to adopt is strictly because of the pressures put upon the government by the opposition.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate on third reading may I say I hope very few members of the House feel the same way as the previous speaker. It is a fact that this legislation has been handled very badly, and this because of the lack of initiative that has been taken and because the committee was not seized of the matter during the period when the committee had very important legislation before it arising out of the Woods commission report. Although this is no excuse, I think it would be unfair to members of parliament if the political discussion that has taken place is again introduced when further legislation is presented.
I am pleased that the minister, no doubt reluctantly- not because of personal reluctance but obviously because the decision had been made, minority government being what it is-has made this change to the legislation. However, I do not wish to echo the observation that the change has come about as a result of political expediency.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: What else?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says, "What else?". That may be a good question but I think the fact is that this extension was brought about because of-


Charles Humbert Thomas: Political expediency.


William Arnold Peters: -manipulation and manoeuvering, and a lot of effort on the part of a number of hon. members. I do not consider the work done by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and a number of other members to have been motivated entirely by politics, but rather by the expediency of a situation that presented itself.
To ensure that this does not happen again and that veterans' legislation is not changed in this way from now on, I strongly urge the minister to give full consideration to how far the government can go in making the required changes to the act, and that he do it through the normal legislative process, namely, by introducing the changes, referring them to the committee and hearing representations from the various veterans' organizations. These changes should be dealt with before the legislation enters the political arena where 20 members or so discuss it in a partisan way. That has not been the practice in my experience over the years. It was not the way changes were brought about in the veterans' charter.
I hope we do not start projecting changes of this kind into the political arena. It seems to me that if this is the case, then in the end the veterans will be poorly done by. Rather, we should in full conscience, after discussion and deliberation, make such changes in the normal way. I have not consulted the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I hope that his amendment to the bill today does not have to be used, though I am sure it will be. The only way that it will not be used is if the government comes forward with an acceptable proposition which it

puts before the veterans affairs committee and that proposition receives the sort of discussion it should receive in that committee.
There are other matters I could deal with, Mr. Speaker. Personnally, I do not want to see legislation relating to prisoners of war brought before the House in the manner of this piece of legislation. But with a minority government this can happen, and if it does I am sure the legislation will pass. However, this is not the way we have operated in this House in matters relating to veterans affairs, and I strongly hope it will not become the way in which we make changes in this field.
I hope the minister will seriously consider just how far he can go, and will weigh the merit of the various proposals put forward by hon. members during this debate. I trust he will refer these and several other subjects that he knows are important to veterans' organizations in the country to the standing committee, where they can be deliberated free from pressures that are applied in the political arena.
As a veteran, may I say I am proud of the legislation we have developed over the years. But it is never so good that it cannot be made better. I suggest that members of parliament who wish to do as much as possible on behalf of the nation to repay the veterans for the service they have given should make generous and effective provision for our veterans, and in a non-partisan way, as has been our custom. To bring this about we will have to depend on the minister bringing forth legislation that will eliminate some of the immediate problems veterans in Canada today are beginning to face.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could I have confirmation of the business for tomorrow, since we have made such excellent progress tonight?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, we will be taking the competition bill tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And if we
finish it?


John Mercer Reid: If we finish it, we will have a choice between the CNR financing bill and the parks bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
March 28, 1974

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question I am raising again this evening is the original question raised on March 4 with respect to the notice given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to members of parliament on February 28 concerning the letter that had been circulated indicating both the nature of the selection process for Opportunities for Youth grants and the initial allocation of funds.
Hon. members may recall that on March 4 I raised with the minister the problem of the abandonment of the previous principle of constituency advisory groups. The minister indicated to me at that time that they were being abandoned for two reasons, which he indicated. First, he said there was some question about the time involved in terms of processing in order to approve these projects and notify the fortunate recipients, and the other question was a matter of the amount of money. In a later answer to me the minister said in the House that there was also a problem in respect of the selection of Opportunities for Youth groups, which would take place in what are known as 33 labour market areas rather than within precise constituency boundaries.
I must say at the outset that I find the minister's logic and argument fallacious and illusory. If he is talking about time to process these grants, I do not know for the life of me why there should be less time available this year than there was in any preceding year when this principle was adopted. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the deadline of March 15, and more than a month to file before the projects would finally be approved and the individuals notified, is more than sufficient time for individual constituency advisory groups to meet. We have known for the past few days, for instance, the list of projects which have been submitted from the Egmont constituency. Tomorrow evening I plan to meet with a publicly-appointed representative group of citizens from the Egmont area who will advise me and, hopefully, the minister as to the projects they think merit funding, and some priority in respect of these projects. That does not seem to involve an inordinate amount of time and I think the minister's excuse that there is no time is really no excuse at all.
Secondly, the minister said there is the problem of distribution into the market areas. Since there is no further explanation of what this means, and since I assume that projects are being listed and sent to members item by item on a continuing basis, this is simply some kind of bureaucratic gobbledygook which has no real impact on the problem. Thirdly, when the minister suggested there is not much money being used, I am reminded of the minister's predecessor from the same riding who is reported to have said, and who will go down in history having had this attributed to him, "What's a million?" This minister is apparently prepared to say, "What's $25 million or $30 million?" It is still a great deal of money in this country and I think the government has the responsibility to be accountable to the public in this House.
Adjournment Debate
There is an additional aspect to this matter. I think there is necessity for an effective accounting to the young people themselves. The young people who take the time and the trouble to submit projects have a right to know that they are selected on some other basis than the smile of lady fortune, the turn of a wheel or by some official who has the most peripheral kind of information and awareness about a constituency, with the result that decisions are not made on the basis of sound, rational judgment or comparison.
In addition to that, if that is not sufficient, we have had the ridiculous situation that in a great many areas there has been no project officer either to advise or to assist young people or, in later stages, to assist in processing or judging these projects. It is true that there is no project officer in a number of cases where there was none during the submission period of this program, but the thing that strikes me as a piece of irony is the response to my criticism about the lack of project officers-and Prince Edward Island must stand out as the classic case. The very day the minister announced the new Opportunities for Youth program, the number of project officers in Prince Edward Island, and I believe New Brunswick, ceased to exist, or at least the last ones had served their time and that was the end.
From the end of January until March 15, when the deadline closed for submissions, there were no project officers in Prince Edward Island. I think this can be verified quite easily. I do not think there were any in New Brunswick, and there was only a limited or skeleton staff operating from the regional office at Halifax. I do not have the facts and figures as to the rest of the country, but I presume the same situation pertained. And this is the situation which the minister says is rational and fair for the young people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I think the administration of OFY has gone full circle to the first year of its innovation. There is no excuse for this. It must seem to some people that this is an example of irresponsibility, I think the department is deliberately trying to torpedo this operation and make it so ineffectual and so insufficient that one would not consider funding it in successive years. I think this is a great loss to the young people who have submitted these programs over the years and who this year have submitted many worth-while proposals. I hope the minister will begin to take seriously a program which has been taken seriously by many young people in this country.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as my minister has stated in the House, members of parliament will not be put in the position of having to decide the priority of projects. The government agrees with the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) that that would be most improper. On the other hand, hon. members will be consulted in the assessment of project applications. We will also consult with the provinces and with local agencies, community groups, civic officials and persons of expertise in the fields which might be of interest to this year's OFY program. In the last analysis, however, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) is the only person who decides the approval or rejection of any project application.
974

March 28, 1974
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member for Egmont has spoken of a reversal of policy in the decision-making process for OFY. There is no reversal of policy. In previous years, when that program was the responsibility of another department, the funds were not allocated on a constituency basis. They will not be this year either. As my minister stated in his letter to hon. members on February 28, "the allocation of funds for the Opportunities for Youth program will be made on the basis of the 33 labour market areas in Canada, which in most cases cover several constituencies."
Since the funds for OFY are not allocated on a constituency basis, it would be difficult to form constituency advisory groups. However, in the consultation process, when we ask the advice of hon. members we would hope that their views would reflect their own consultation with local agencies, community groups and civic officials. I want to reiterate that consultation will take place widely and that we depend on it for the success of the program. We appreciate the constant interest of the hon. member and the interest we hope all hon. members will show as projects are being considered.
With particular reference to Prince Edward Island, there was one project officer in Charlottetown until the end of January. Another has since been hired. In the meantime, a fully briefed secretary, experienced in the OFY program, was in charge of the office. She was able to personally assist almost all who requested her advice. In the rare cases where she was unable to help, she either contacted the regional office herself or encouraged the applicant to call Halifax collect where help and advice were given. Information on the program was sent to schools, libraries, Canada Manpower centres and student manpower centres at universities. Thus, I am able to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that prospective applicants in Prince Edward Island received no less aid than their counterparts in other provinces.
In view of the alarmist statements the hon. member has made about the program, it would seem to me that perhaps it is the hon. member himself who is trying to torpedo it.


GRAIN-FEED GRAIN-POLICY RESPECTING MARKETING
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on March 21 I asked the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, in view of the fact of the government's intention to throw domestic western farm feed grains totally on the open market, whether the government intended to modify its policy in light of the expressed request of the majority of farm organizations that the Canadian Wheat Board remain the sole marketing agency for western feed grains. The minister answered that a great many organizations expressed views on both sides of this question. However, I am convinced that the majority of western Canadian farmers want to retain the marketing authority of the Canadian Wheat Board with perhaps the single exception of the Palliser Wheat Growers.
It is clear that if the federal government adopts an open market policy position on feed grain, it will lend itself not only to an open market but to contracting and vertical integration. It is the last step in the process which members of the Canadian Feed Manufacturing Association have been working toward since 1960 when the then min-

ister of agriculture ordered the release of feed mills in western Canada from the control of the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of delivery quotas and therefore price.
One can expect all grain companies to become buyers and sellers of feed grains on a straight line contractual basis with different contracts covering different phases over the complete cycle of production to the consumer. The effect of this will be to bypass the so-called open market. Therefore, an open market is not the real target. Contracting and vertical integration is the real objective of the federal government's policy-the grain trade, feed manufacturers, integrators and the vested interests who understand and support those objectives. If the basis of these assumptions is correct, clearly the emerging process will have profound effects upon future production, the basis upon which production takes place and where it takes place in Canada.
As the integration process evolves, grain producers producing under contract will be integrated, livestock producers producing under a feed contract will be integrated, and livestock production will be integrated with the processor and retailer to complete the cycle. Those who in the short run function in the agricultural market economy will in the long run become part of the industrial planning system or perish.
For those farmers who are now producing grain and livestock or poultry on their own farms, it means as the industrial planning system extends its control over all sectors of production that those farmers will be forced to join the planning sector, subsidize the planning sector or lose money in production. It makes little difference how they are affected; they will become completely dominated by the planning sector or go bankrupt. In the long run they will be eliminated, for the planning sector, being dominant, will determine the allocation of resources within the system and therefore the location and nature of production.
Therefore, I urge that in the best interest of western and eastern farmers, the Canadian Wheat Board remain or become the sole marketing agency for western feed grains domestically, both intra-and interprovincially, and that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board become the sole purchasing and selling agency for feed grains domestically beyond the Canadian Wheat Board's designated area at points of transfer, Thunder Bay and Vancouver. This policy should include guaranteed minimum prices, a permanent storage program under Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction, improved price monitoring information systems, freight rate equality in livestock and grain, and farmer consultation.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board had a plebiscite on rapeseed marketing and on acreage payments on two-price wheat. Why not a plebiscite for all feed grain growers to determine their wishes, or is the minister not calling one because he knows what the results will be? Is he not calling one because he knows that the Conservative Party is fully behind him on this issue?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised this evening enables me to repeat the answer already given by the minister and to add further comments: I quote
The fact is that a good number of organizations have expressed themselves on both sides of the feed grains questions, which is specifically the reason for the period of discussion we initiated with our announcement on August 3. It was significant that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture expressly avoided arriving at a conclusion on the issue because of the known division among farm organizations on the subject. It is our continued objective to ensure that there be equitable pricing and movement of feed grains across the country on a one market basis.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question refers to the so-called plebiscite or poll being conducted in Manitoba in connection with the domestic marketing of feed grains. Responsible people in the grain industry, including producers, recognize this so-called poll for what it really is, a patently obvious political ploy of little significant consequence. It makes no contribution to the solution of the difficult problems in the domestic marketing of feed grain.
The government has received a host of suggestions on the proposals put forward August 3, from farmers and farm organizations right across the country. Each of these is receiving close scrutiny in an effort to arrive at the best possible solution. Very few of the suggestions have at this stage been rejected. All alternatives are being looked at. We expect soon to complete this very thorough period of consultation and to come forward with our final proposals which we believe will be the best possible in the very difficult circumstances which apply to the domestic production and use of feed grains within Canada.

I thank the hon. member who dealt so efficiently and wisely with this question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


GRAIN-RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLOCATION OF RAILWAY CARS-DECLARATION OF CERTAIN BRANCH LINES AS INOPERATIVE BECAUSE OF SNOW CONDITIONS
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I put to the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board when I asked him on March 26 who was responsible for ordering grain trains into the snow-blocked areas of the prairies. On a subject with which I am familiar, I listened to the minister's long, convoluted answer and I was absolutely mystified. Then I waited until I had an opportunity to read his reply. I really think that the producers in western Canada deserve a better shake than the tricky answer given by him.
The transportation snarl-up started last fall. It was the same old story. The Canadian Wheat Board told the railways that certain areas would be short of grain and that it required all lines to be kept open all winter. The facts are that the Canadian Wheat Board has been ordering trains into the snow-blocked areas with the result that we have had some 16,000 cars tied up. The railways have been
Adjournment Debate
required to plow over a quarter million miles of track and we have ended up dissipating our whole transportation effort, moving snow rather than wheat and grain.
Grain accounts for over 50 per cent of the total railway traffic in western Canada. In effect, we have been hungup on an old principle out there which holds that all parts of the prairies, all producers, all delivery points must have the same delivery opportunities every week of the year. This has resulted in the dissipation of our entire effort. We should have sent the trains into areas that were accessible, taken the grain out of them during the winter and levelled up the quotas when spring arrived.
Some ten days ago the railways took a very definite stand. They took some 20 subdivisions out of operation. Why it took them so long to do that, I can only guess. It is interesting to read the railways' statement, made yesterday in Winnipeg, as quoted in the Globe and Mail. Of course, the railways have been the favourite whipping-boy of the grain trade over the years. The new stance of the railways is as follows:
CP rail will start running four special grain trains from the prairies to Vancouver in an effort to accelerate Canada's export shipments, according to F. S. Burbidge, CP president.
This rail movement will be the second largest in the company's history, being exceeded only by the grain volume carried during the 1971-72 crop year.
The article ends with this significant paragraph:
Mr. Burbidge said the success of CP's plans depends not only on the weather, but also on obtaining the fullest co-operation from grain producers, elevator operators and the Wheat Board.
I wish the minister well, because I know the problems he will encounter in trying to get action from those segments of the industry. I think this is a wise decision. The railways are going to haul from selected lines. This will require trucking the grain to those lines, and I know the minister is very well acquainted with some of the problems involved. There are segments of our grain industry which would like to see the trucking experiment fail. Right now they are trucking to the interior terminals and this is costing the producer some 12V4 cents per bushel just to deliver to the terminals. It costs 5.7 cents at the elevator and another 6.9 cents per bushel to haul it within a 30-mile radius.
I see nothing wrong with allowing producers to haul directly to those terminals, thus bypassing the additional 1214 cents charge. I think some incentive must be offered to producers to induce them to transport their grain to those open lines, however. I suggest to the Minister that he consider paying a 10-cent or 12-cent per bushel subsidy to encourage grain onto these main lines.
I should like to say a few words about the target figures set by the Canadian Wheat Board and the railways. The figures offered by the railway people and the Wheat Board do not agree. Today in committee Canadian Transport Commission officials appeared and they were not able to help. I suggest that the target figures set by the Canadian Wheat Board are not credible. At the end of the last crop year, when all the grain that was required to be moved had been moved, we were still some 30,000 boxcars short of

March 28, 1974
Adjournment Debate
the Canadian Wheat Board target. I would ask the minister to examine the targets being set by the Wheat Board.
Mr. Speaker, my final point is that the morale of the people operating the railways must be at rock bottom level now when they hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) say what a mess the system is in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the problems raised by grain transport in western Canada have been existing for several months, as you all know, and were on the verge of causing a major crisis.
After the settlement of the national railway crisis last year, the railway companies have neglected to make available in the Prairies enough cars to relieve the congestion. [English]
By the time the railways agreed to a realistic number of grain cars, severe winter conditions settled in on the prairies, compounding the problems. The federal government set up an emergency committee some time ago in an effort to get all segments of the industry working together
in co-operation to move the maximum amount of grain. Following the work of this committee, all parts of the industry, including the railways, have now agreed to join action on several points. For now and for perhaps some weeks a number of branch rail lines which have been seriously affected by heavy snow and are all but inoperable will be closed to allow the full resources of the transportation system to move as much grain as possible on the main lines. The railways and the grain handling companies will co-operate in assembling unit trains. In addition, a special committee chaired by the Canadian Wheat Board is being struck to consider changes to give farmers at closed delivery points additional ways to get grain to lines that are accessible.

The government is aware of its responsibilities in this field and is firmly determined to keep on fulfilling them, but we hope to get the co-operation of the hon. member and his party, as it is in the interest of a great many Canadians. I shall read my hon. friend's statement again and if it contains acceptable suggestions, you may be sure that we will not fail to take them into consideration.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

Friday, March 29, 1974