1974-11-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Prosper Boulanger.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, I indicated that I would attempt to table today some documents related to Canada's relations with the European Community.

Under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages copies of the following documents: an aide memoire of April 27, 1974 presented to the European community; an illustrative draft of a possible trade agreement presented to the European community; and the presentation of September 26 in New York by a senior Canadian official to the Committee of Political Directors General of the Nine.


FISHERIES
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the commercial fishing season in northern Manitoba opened on November 1, and in view of the fact that fish will be shipped to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation at Transcona the employees of which are now on strike and that this emergency situation is effecting the total collapse of the commercial fishery in Manitoba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway);
That the Minister of State (Fisheries) take immediate and necessary steps to have this strike resolved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent controversy regarding the deportation of Haitian citizens from Canada and the imminent dangers these people now face, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond:
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration be instructed by this House to report to parliament immediately on the progress of the judicial inquiry instituted by the minister a year ago into charges made by Haitian female immigrants about the immoral and despicable practices of certain immigration officials in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion. Once again I have some doubt about the urgency and pressing necessity of the matter, however, there does appear to be some element of that and I try wherever possible to resolve the issue in favour of the proponent of the motion in view of the fact that the motion requires unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43. Under those circumstances, the House having heard the motion, is there unanimous consent that it be debated at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent it cannot be accepted.

November 5, 1974
Forest Industry


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of extremely urgent and pressing necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government take immediate steps to investigate the supply sources of food liners and meat importers, the monopoly control of prices, the prices of feed grains, in short, all aspects of a situation which has nothing to cheer Canadian consumers up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The house has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



INDUSTRY


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity provided under Standing Order 43 to propose a motion in respect to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity on behalf of the lumber industry in Canada.
As a result of economic measures applied by our traditional offshore trading partners in their fight against inflation, and as a result of the very inhospitable climate under which the construction industry must operate in our own country, due to high interest rates and monstrous costs of serviced land, the forest and lumber industry, one of the pillars of our country's economic stability, finds itself without a margin on which to base a viable operation. In view of the massive layoffs this has caused throughout our country, and due to the fact that many plants are shut down totally causing irreparable damage to dozens of small single industries and municipalities throughout Canada, I move, and this is seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West:
That this House instruct the government, and particularly the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to bring immediately before us measures designed to prevent a total collapse of the lumber and forest industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would pose a question to the Minister of Finance who said yesterday he had received an assurance from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that in all cases clothing outlets are reflecting the removal of the sales tax on clothing. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that he is simply conducting a pilot study and thorough monitoring was not started until this week, I should like to ask the minister whether he stands by his statement that he received such an assurance from the minister, or whether perhaps his memory was faulty on that occasion?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my memory is not perfect in every case as the hon. gentleman knows, but what I thought I said yesterday was I have assurance from my colleague that he would be monitoring the area against which the sales tax reductions had been effected to see whether those sales tax reductions had in fact been passed on to the consumer. That is what I thought my undertaking to the hon. gentleman was yesterday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I asked the minister whether he had received the assurance that the minister has in fact been monitoring what has been going on, and that in all cases the prices reflect these tax cuts. I understood the minister yesterday to say he had not received any such assurance and then in reading Hansard today I find he said he had received such assurance. In view of a subsequent statement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I find this difficult to accept. I therefore ask the Minister of Finance whether he in fact had received the assurance from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that yesterday he said he had received.


John Napier Turner: What I said was that I had received assurance from my colleague that the monitoring would be done. I have not yet received the results so I cannot give the hon. gentleman any clarification at the moment concerning whether the sales tax reductions had been passed on to the consumer. That will depend on the report I receive from my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. I do not wish to pursue this at great length,
November 5, 1974

but the minister said he had an assurance which in fact he did not have.


John Napier Turner: That is not what I said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the minister should read the question. Perhaps his trouble is that he does not pay as much attention as he should to what I say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the attitude indicated yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate that it really did not make any difference when the irregularities were discovered, whether now or in several weeks time, meets the requirement laid down by the Minister of Finance in his budget which is that he would see that the consumer receives the benefit of these tax cuts. Has the Minister of Finance any way to assure us that failure to pass on the tax discovered in a few weeks or in a few months time would in fact benefit an anonymous customer who did not get the benefit of the tax cuts.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do want to be assured that the tax cuts are passed on to the Canadian consumer. This is the reason I asked my colleague to monitor those cuts to see what the result is. When those results are presented to him and to me I am sure the House will want to be aware of those results. I again want to say to the hon. gentleman that I do take very seriously what he says and perhaps more seriously than the Canadian people did in the last election.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the serious decision reached by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to study the possibility of Canada having violated the United Nations convention on political refugees, would the minister inform the House of the precise steps taken by his department to ensure that no Haitians who might suffer political retribution if they return to Haiti are in fact sent back.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would not accept the preamble to the question.


Mr. Woolliams:: No one accepts his preamble.


Robert Knight Andras: That is quite correct and probably quite wisely so, Mr. Speaker. The report by the news media of the statement by the Canadian representative of the United Nations High Commissioner is rather vague and a generalization.
I will be meeting with him very shortly. In the meantime I can only repeat what I have already said, that we
Oral Questions
are adhering to the principles of the statement contained in the United Nations protocol regarding refugees.
[DOT] (M20)
Any person who claims refugee status while in this country, whether here illegally or not, has his or her case reviewed on its merit in two ways, the first by reference to an interdepartmental committee on refugees, which includes as an adviser the U.N. commission for refugees' representative, and if that committee decides that the case has merit and the person is in fact a refugee for the reasons contained in the protocol, then that is the end of it and the person is landed. If, however, that committee decides that the case does not have merit under the terms of the protocol, then that person is denied refugee status but he or she then has the opportunity to make an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board which has full jurisdiction to review this case as an independent judicial body.


HAITIANS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF THOSE ORDERED DEPORTED
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the statement quoted in the press is not at all imprecise but very specific-I refer to the statement attributed to Mr. J. B. Lactot, U.N. representative of the refugee commission-and that he is quoted as having said "perhaps some of them should not have been" in reference to those who have been sent back, this sounds precise. In other words, he is making a judgment about those who have been sent back and, as he is quoted, he thinks a number should not have been so dealt with. I should like to ask, in view of the very serious consequences that might befall these people in their own country, whether the minister could undertake an investigation simply of those who have been ordered deported in recent weeks to ensure that none of his officials have made the wrong kind of decision in this regard.


Robert Knight Andras: That decision is not made at the second level by my officials-these are not my officials. The Immigration Appeal Board was set up by this parliament as an independent body with its own jurisdiction and authority to deal with these matters. These appeal cases have been reviewed by the board members who have decided in their wisdom that some of these people are in fact not refugees. I would remind the House also that it was the decision of this parliament that economic hardship is not a criterion for determining refugee status. I would point out that even the person whom the hon. member quoted used the word "perhaps", and so, until I have spoken to the representative, and I am doing that very shortly, I cannot agree with the hon. member that the press report, or his version of the press report is in fact precise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions


HAITIANS-POSSIBILITY SMALL PERCENTAGE GIVEN REFUGEE STATUS
John Edward Broadbent: My last supplementary question is with regard to a statement by one of the minister's own officials who is quoted in the same article as having said that only 20 per cent of those under consideration will probably be given refugee status in Canada. Can the minister inform the House on what the 20 per cent figure was based? Have they reviewed all those who will be sent back or was this an arbitrarily reached figure?


Robert Knight Andras: I will have to examine where the 20 per cent figure came from and also examine the statement, but could quite easily be in reference to those cases which have been examined in the first stage, that is by the interdepartmental committee on refugees which does not have the final say in this matter.


CONSEQUENCES OF DEPORTATION OF HAITIANS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: If the minister would listen, I have something to ask him.

Mr. Speaker, my question is more or less supplementary to that of the leader of the New Democratic Party.
The day before yesterday, as I was listening to a morning CKVL program originating from Montreal, I heard two priests, a Holy Ghost father and an Haitian priest, clearly indicate that some Haitians will be accused and shot without further ado the moment they arrive in their homeland.
Does the department concerned verify the discussions between the Quebec government and the Haitians who have been ordered deported as soon as possible? Has the minister directed his officials to delay the execution of the deportation orders as long as it has not been ascertained, for humanitarian reasons, that the lives of those people will not be endangered?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the situation as described by the hon. member, of the possibility of prosecution upon return to their homes for reasons of political or other activities, is exactly the kind of information and exactly the kind of circumstances that are investigated. At both or either levels of examination, that is the interdepartmental committee and the Immigration Appeal Board, if it is established that the claim on those grounds is valid, they are not deported. With regard to the other part of the question, people who have claimed refugee status, by virtue of the claim alone and no other action on their part, are entitled to be examined in the manner I have already described. Until the result of that examination is known, and a decision taken with regard to the refugee claim, no action is taken on the question of deportation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
There is no doubt that some Haitians have already signed a form indicating that they were coming here for educational purposes and that they would go back to their country later on. If, after doing so, those people are threatened with death or an unfair trial, does the department take into consideration the eventuality of their being ill-treated once there, and will it take appropriate action in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the person seeking refugee status to claim it. As I have indicated already, in every case where that claim is made it is investigated and no deportation is made until the validity or otherwise of the claim is established.


INQUIRY
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arises from the strike at the Transcona Freshwater Fish Processing Plant where negotiations are presently taking place. Would the minister consider issuing an export permit to a collective body of fishermen so they might investigate a market for fish elsewhere?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am unfamiliar with the circumstances of the inquiry but I shall look into the matter and give the information to the hon. member.


EFFECT OF INCREASE IN IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COUNTERACT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the volume of imports of fully manufactured products has increased by 12.4 per cent so far this year over the same period a year ago, thereby displacing one-eighth of Canadian production from the Canadian market, would the minister advise the House what he intends to do to arrest this very serious trend which is materially slowing down Canadian production?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have been taking action on many fronts. I think the hon. member might be interested to know that since 1962 the increase in volume of fully manufactured goods has gone up seven times, whereas our other exports have gone up about or over three times. In other words, our increase in fully manufactured goods has been greater than our export increase in other
November 5, 1974

products. We are not satisfied with that and I doubt whether we will ever be satisfied with our exports of fully manufactured products. Through amendments to the Export Development Act, through effective operation of the autopact, through the operation of the Foreign Investment Review Act and through a variety of programs aimed at supporting Canadian fully manufactured goods, we will maintain the present increase.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have
expressed some discontent about the rather rambling and speechlike nature of the reply. We have to realize, however, that sometimes the nature of the reply is dictated by the nature of the question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, I cannot think of a question more important for the manufacturing industry of Canada than the one I just asked. The minister refused to answer any part of my question. I asked about imports and what he is going to do to stop the displacement of one-eighth of Canadian production in the Canadian market. The minister dealt completely with exports. I point out that, with an attitude like that on the part of the government, it is no wonder that exports are falling and imports increasing?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it important to remind the hon. member that we are a trading nation and we import as well as export. We have a favourable trade balance on merchandise account. Roughly one-half of manufactured goods produced in Canada are exported.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had a supplementary question for the minister. Out of courtesy I allowed him to speak and then rose on a point of order, but Your Honour did not recognize me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member no doubt will realize that in answer to his question the minister indicated that he would review all the circumstances, investigate, obtain information and report at a later time. There is always discretion in the Chair as to whether a supplementary question ought to be allowed. In the circumstances, I have decided that as the minister has undertaken to gather information in response to a question and report back at a later time and as, undoubtedly, the hon. member will want to ask further supplementary questions at that subsequent time when the minister reports to the House, I do not think it is fair to permit the hon. member doing the original questioning to ask supplementary questions both at the present time and at that later time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise on a point of order. It is this: As so often happens, the minister has tried to mislead the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I said he tried. I did not say it was deliberate;
I said he tried.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the government at present had a favourable balance of trade. That is absolutely untrue. At this very moment this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is evident that the hon. member is trying to establish a point of order; perhaps the minister has tried to mislead the House, but I am not sure that either one has really succeeded. I think we ought to get on.


George Harris Hees: If the minister gets up I will really have something to say.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I submit that the hon. member has succeeded in misleading the House in that he misquoted me by saying I had said there was a favourable trade balance. I said we have a favourable balance on merchandise account, and that is true.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister indicate if he is aware that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is now on an official visit to Israel, having accepted passage to that country on a distillery jet owned by Seagrams, Canada's largest manufacturer of alcoholic products. If so, can the Prime Minister indicate why the minister chose to use the distillers' jet?


An hon. Member:: Is it going to get there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but if I were to be flip I might say perhaps it was an attempt to save fuel. I was not aware of this until I learned of it this morning. I was aware, of course, that the minister had been invited to Israel by the Israeli government and that the Israeli ambassador had arranged transportation on this particular aircraft. I take it the hon. member knows of no better way of having a minister accept an invitation than by doing it in a way the inviting government proposes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Minister of National Health and Welfare's much publicized attack on beer advertising made in a speech in this city last September when he asked, "Why should beer be advertised in the broadcast media when liquor advertisements are not allowed," does the Prime Minister believe there is no possible conflict of interest in the minister's accepting this hand-out, bearing in mind that while Seagrams are our biggest distillers, they have no Canadian beer interest, the brewing industry being in fact their biggest competitor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to say there is no conflict of interest. Perhaps, if it will satisfy
1054

November 5, 1974
Oral Questions
the hon. member, I will have the minister invited to Egypt and he can fly in Molson's plane on the next trip.


POSSIBLE REPEAL OR AMENDMENT OF CROWSNEST PASS FREIGHT RATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the minister's answer given in this House on October 29, in response to a question by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to the effect that any changes in the Crowsnest Pass freight rates in the months and years ahead will require legislation in this House, can the minister advise the House whether the government intends during the present session either to repeal or amend the Crowsnest Pass freight rates.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on the part of the government to introduce such legislation in the present session.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman seriously reviewing guidelines on conflict of interest for himself and his fellow ministers, as outlined in the green paper on conflict of interest, and will he now insist that all ministers, together with himself, make full and complete disclosure before the Clerk of this House on both their own and their family's assets and liabilities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, guidelines for ministers were enunciated before the House last year and I do not recall the particular suggestion of the hon. member being made at that time in response to my statement. However, I would remind the hon. member that guidelines have been put forward for members of parliament. They have been suggested to parliament by the government and they are to be examined at leisure by a parliamentary committee. If this examination takes place, the government will be prepared to implement such legislation and it is just possible that if the suggestion of the hon. member has merit, it will be adopted by his colleagues and included in the law, in which case it will apply to ministers.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not feel that conflict of interest is more a House of Commons affair than one for officials of the Privy Council, and does he seriously believe that blind trusts, as outlined in the green paper on conflict of interest, constitute the kind of declaration which will seriously satisfy the people of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer has been given. A House of Commons committee will consider this matter.
I do not think that was a proper question.


SCIENCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of claims of Canadian scientists that the growth rate of National Research Council spending on university research in the past half dozen years has been only a fraction of that applying to similar programs in countries like the United States, Great Britain and France, countries which support their scientists, is the minister, together with his officials, considering a re-evaluation of support for scientific research in Canadian universities.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this particular matter requires reviewing. Indeed, it should be viewed against the perspective of substantial increases in research funds granted in aid of universities and researchers in the late 1960's. At that time it was agreed government policy to devote additional funds which could be made available for research in areas which, on an international comparative basis, we appeared to be lagging. I am thinking of research outside of government and outside of universities, namely, in industry. The thrust of the government in assigning funds in this period has been devoted largely to increasing and improving research in industry; research in aid of education within universities has been held more or less stable. As a consequence, however, of rising prices and the effects of inflation, the sums dedicated to university research should be augmented.


David Orlikow: Bearing in mind the claims of research scientists that the cost of research has risen substantially and that the increases granted in recent years have not, therefore, led to an increase in research activity-on the contrary, there has actually been a decrease-and that this situation has made it particularly difficult to offer opportunities to younger scientists entering the field, would the government undertake to study the actual cost of carrying out research work with a view to ensuring that the level can at least be held somewhat near that of 1968 or 1969?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I rise because I have been attempting to catch your eye in order to address a supplementary to the Prime Minister. I was greatly disturbed by the Prime Minister's flippant answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of whether or not a further supplementary ought to be allowed is entirely within the discretion of the Chair, which is guided by the nature of the subject and the answer or answers given up to that point. While I may never satisfy all hon. members,
November 5, 1974

I have to bear in mind not only the importance of the subject but the desirability of getting round to as many other hon. members as possible. As I say, individual members may never be entirely happy about the way in which this discretion is exercised, but the Chair must decide and it can never, in my view, constitute a question of privilege.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question of privilege is that I put this serious question to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: A question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. According to information given to me Dr. Henry Morgenthaler and the prohibitionists-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: -and the pro-abortionists have had many opportunities to appear on CBC while the Alliance for Life group has been refused the same opportunity. Will the minister assure us that the policy of the CBC is not to promote abortion and will he see to it that a proper balance is re-established by ensuring the Alliance for Life group an opportunity to appear on the network?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am perfectly satisfied that the corporation has no particular bias on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: However, I will make sure that the hon. member's representation is made known to the corporation.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In Calgary, a couple of weeks ago, the Postmaster General indicated that the mail service in that city had improved immensely and that the rating had gone up from a figure of 30 to 80, almost the highest rating possible. In the light of a recent mail test in Calgary which showed that approximately 80 per cent of the first class mail was delivered late and that 6 per cent of the mail was not delivered at all-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Peter Colwell Bawden: -though posted in the "guaranteed mail" boxes, will the minister explain this post office rating and tell us when this disastrous mess will be cleaned up?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: The hon. member conveniently failed to tell us who made the test and how many letters were included? I understand it was a newspaper and I think the conclusions were based on 20 letters mailed in Calgary. I would suggest that the hon. member, who comes from Calgary, should show a little more basic confidence in the ability of the employees in Calgary to do their jobs properly.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Peter Colwell Bawden: My supplementary is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the farce being perpetrated at the expense of the Canadian people by this misleading advertizing in the Post Office, will the minister tell us why he is not prepared to step in and end this dishonesty?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I think the remarks made by the hon. member have been particularly disproved by the Postmaster General, and I do not attach more importance to his second question than to his first one.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to the Fullerton Report which was released to members of the House yesterday and to the press on Friday. Could the Prime Minister tell us when a joint committee of this House and of the Senate will be asked to study the report and whether it will be given a mandate to ensure that the process of consultation between all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, will be followed to the maximum degree, and, particularly, whether there will be consultation with the provinces, the regions and the local municipalities with respect to terms of reference of that committee so that all these interests can be represented during the course of the consideration given to this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: According to my information there must have been a mistake in the preamble to the question. I am informed that copies were distributed to the members yesterday and that the press conference took place later in the afternoon, not earlier, as
zssos-szvi

November 5, 1974
Oral Questions
I believe the question implied. As far as the setting up of the committee is concerned, the House leader did discuss this matter with me yesterday, indicating that such a committee would be set up later this month. He will be discussing its terms of reference with the representatives of the other parties in the usual way.


METHOD OF ARRIVING AT DECISION ON FUTURE STRUCTURE
Walter David Baker: With respect to the opening remarks of the right hon. gentleman may I say it is he who is misinformed as to the date of distribution. Be that as it may, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the report recommends various changes which would have a definite impact on residents of the national capital region affecting, as they do, the power to tax, the power to plan, to educate, the administration of justice, representation by population, the language question and a host of other things, would the minister indicate how the final decision will be taken with regard to the future structure of the national capital?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I appreciate the brief resume of the report given by the hon. member, which is a help indeed since it indicates the breadth of its scope. Obviously, this is a question which the committee will itself take into serious consideration while it is preparing various options for study by members of this House and of the other place.
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to put a question to his parliamentary secretary.
According to Statistics Canada, 41 million eggs were imported from the United States last spring and 2,160,000 more are reported to have entered our country this week. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House why American eggs are being brought out on our market while Canadian eggs are being destroyed in our warehouses?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that a commission has now been appointed to study egg marketing in Canada. I feel it would be very difficult to intervene before the report of that commission has been published.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister and Immigration, following the answers he gave today. My question relates to the deportation of Haitians.
In view of the fact that, according to a Geneva commission, the Duvalier regime is responsible for the death of
30,000	people over a period of 17 years and that a Haitian repressive legislation against communists includes all the people who are opposed to the regime, such as Karl Levesque, a Jesuite priest, and all the officials of the Haitian Christian Community in Montreal, can the minister tell this House on what basis he can ascertain that a Haitian will not be considered as a suspect on his arrival in Port-au-Prince?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this is the subject matter of a very elaborate, fair and just examination procedure which has been set up under Canadian law and which I might say is almost unprecedented throughout the world in its attention to this kind of situation, which deals with the application of an individual for refugee status on the basis either that he will face persecution on grounds similar to those mentioned in the representation of the hon. member, in which case he has a legitimate claim, or that he will suffer only economic hardship, in which case his claim is not valid.
The United Nations protocol quite clearly distinguishes between persecution on the grounds outlined in the protocol, and suffering economic hardship. The communications I have had from the United Nations high commissioner's representative in Geneva clearly indicates agreement that there has to be some mechanism by which you distinguish between persecution as outlined in the protocol and economic difficulty when a person makes an application.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I am sorry to see that the minister does not seem to have understood the full significance of this first question. I will therefore ask a similar one as a supplementary.
In view of the fact that, at the present time, between 850 and 1,500 Haitians are about to get a taste of the government's sense of social justice and humanism, is the minister waiting, before he changes his attitude, for someone to commit suicide in public, as was the case with Turenne Devil on February 14, 1974, in Miami, which induced the American government to stop all deportations to Haiti?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, where it is established that a person is in danger of persecution under the terms of the protocol, the interdepartmental committee on refugees would so determine and that person would be landed and not deported. If, however, that departmental committee does not so decide, the individual in question may still
November 5, 1974

have access to an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. But it has to be clearly understood, I think, that not all people from Haiti, or all people from any other country who come to Canada and claim refugee status, are in fact entitled to do it under the terms of the United Nations protocol to which we are signatories.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister when we might expect the inquiry commission report on Pickering airport which was concluded in June?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having said or anybody having said that we were supposed to get the report in June. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I hope we will have the report in the House before the end of the year.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the minister's assessment, as quoted in the Globe and Mail yesterday, that $10 billion or $12 billion may be needed for capital development projects in the maritimes region, can the minister indicate whether or not DREE has made or is in process of making projections for an appropriate increase in its budget to look after these needs?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I was not speaking of moneys coming from public sources; I was simply talking about the necessary capital accumulation. So far as DREE is concerned, we have increased our budget annually over the last three or four years and hopefully will continue to do so; but the kind of investment that we are speaking of will have to come from sources in the private sector as well.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, a brief supplementary question. In considering the possibility of increasing the budget of DREE, has the minister indicated, has he thought about the contingency that allowance may have to be made for possible application by his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, for funds to keep this nation's armed forces from going down the drain?
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


POSSIBILITY OF COMMENCING NEGOTIATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES IN VIEW OF DECERTIFICATION OF COUNCIL OF POSTAL UNIONS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the difficulties outlined by the hon. member for Calgary South arising from the delicate labour situation in the Post Office following decertification of the Council of Postal Unions by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, an action that automatically terminated their contract and which may delay the commencement of negotiations until late in December, based on his experience in labour negotiations would the minister indicate what action he has taken to determine ways and means of beginning bargaining before new certifications are issued?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if I was flippant and honest I might say that I would burn a candle when I went to mass on Sunday hoping that everybody will stay on the job. The really important thing is that early in December new bargaining agents will be certified by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, at which time hopefully collective agreement negotiations will begin between the employers-in this case, the Treasury Board-and the newly recognized bargaining agent for the postal workers. The important thing is that in the interval the postal workers do not become demoralized by these constant attacks on their efficiency and remain in place until the due process of the law is followed. Hopefully we will then be able to come up with a collective agreement which is both fair to the taxpayer and fair to the workers.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I might comment "how a far little candle throws its beam"; perhaps it will go as far as the President of the Treasury Board. Inasmuch as the Public Service Staff Relations Board issued the decertification, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate to the House when the Finkelman report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so that MP's might have an opportunity to study thoroughly the relationships between government and its employees?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has already established a committee and the Finkelman report will be studied by a joint committee of the House and the Senate very soon. I am surprised the hon. member was not aware of that.

November 5, 1974
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


INCREASE IN PRICE OF PERSONAL HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS-SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder whether he would advise the House if he has directed an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to inquire into the evidence of unwarranted price increases in personal and health care products, as promised during the last session?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question. I doubt whether such a promise was made publicly. If the director has reason to believe that the law has been infringed upon, he may ask for an investigation, but such an investigation is always performed in confidence and it is not advisable to make it public before it is completed.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister's predecessor the hon. member for Windsor West made a commitment on July 10, 1973 that he would cause an investigation to be made under the jurisdiction of the Combines Investigation Act, would the minister investigate these unwarranted price increases, which are going up almost as fast as food prices, and also the spread in prices between like products? This practice is hurting people who are finding it difficult even to buy food.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it has been known for a long time that according to practice it is not advisable to make comments before the investigation is deemed to have been completed and I do not think any member of this House would like me to depart from this long established custom.


DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON PIPELINE SECURITY-REQUEST NO DECISION TAKEN ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE UNTIL COMPLETION OF INQUIRY
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian government has begun negotiations with the United States on pipeline security, would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources assure the House that these negotiations deal exclusively with existing Canadian pipelines traversing United States territory and not with the proposed Mackenzie pipeline?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the treaty would cover any pipeline, whether existing or contemplated, crossing the territory of one state carrying oil or natural gas either from overseas or from one part of the other country to another part. The treaty would not be confined to existing

pipelines, but it would be a general treaty dealing with this kind of pipeline arrangement now and in the future.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question was not related to treaties but to current discussions taking place. Can the minister assure this House that no substantive negotiations with the United States on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline will occur until the special inquiry of Mr. Justice Berger is completed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should explain to the hon. gentleman that the negotiations now underway are negotiations leading to a general treaty with regard to protection of pipelines. Having regard to the discussions on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, it is inevitable that in the exchanges we are having about energy relations between Canada and the United States this will be discussed. As the Prime Minister made clear in a statement in December 1973, however, any decisions that may take place in this country will be subject to all appropriate regulatory, and other approvals.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, almost two weeks ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated he would provide the House with a report on all the circumstances regarding the relations of the government of Canada with Mr. Rene Mantha, with particular reference to any application by Mr. Mantha for a full pardon, and Mr. Mantha's employment in Africa by a company under contract to CIDA. I am wondering whether that report is ready for the House? In order that I might slip in my supplementary question, if it is not ready would the Prime Minister give us an undertaking now to include in that report when it comes, or in a supplement to the report, an indication of the specific nature of any intervention on behalf of Mr. Mantha by Mr. Paul Desrochers or any official of the Quebec Federation of Labour, or by any present or former member of the office staff of the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall the question having been answered. Either I was not in the House or perhaps it came while I was in Europe, but I will take note of the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: And the supplementary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the supplementary.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question involves the case of one of the
November 5, 1974

Solicitor General's inmates originally sentenced in 1965 for the sex strangling death of a five year old girl. This prisoner was let out on a pass to participate in a children's play. At large for 20 days this individual murdered again and was given a second life sentence. Again this dangerous inmate was let out on a pass and recently committed armed robbery and forcible seizure. Can the Solicitor General advise whether Roy D. Kully was let out on repeated passes in accordance with some new regulations or is this another case of tragic negligence on the part of the Solicitor General and his officials?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that case but I must advise the House that under the bill that we passed, the capital punishment bill last year, a convicted murderer is not eligible for a temporary absence pass until two years prior to his eligibility date for parole, which would mean at least eight years. I do not know what the facts of this case are but I will investigate. I do not know how he would be out on a pass.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the case just mentioned, and that cited yesterday by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, in which Montreal police are looking for one Arthur Gagne, a murderer also let out on a pass and is now suspected of participating in a double murder over the weekend, bearing in mind such tragic occurrences, will the minister now advise his officials to tighten up or eliminate procedures whereby passes are so frequently given to those serving life sentences for murder?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I must inform the House that measures have been taken over the last few years to tighten up on the temporary absence pass program. This was a very unfortunate incident which happened in Montreal recently and, as the hon. member knows, the man in question, Mr. Gagne, is a suspect in this case and has not yet been either arrested, charged or found guilty. From what I read in the papers the evidence is just fragmentary. Let me say that in addition to that, under the temporary absence program generally last year we had over 60,000 temporary absence passes with a failure rate of approximately one per cent, which is a very high rate of success.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: I am sure the families involved are not interested.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is just unfortunate that there are incidents like this one, but we will continue to improve our program. I am not sure whether the hon. member is suggesting that we should end it altogether. I do not know whether that is Conservative policy.


An hon. Member:: We want to know your policy.
Privilege-Mr. J.-P. Guay CRIMINAL CODE


SUGGESTED CHANGE IN PROVISION TO DEAL WITH THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN TWICE CONVICTED OF MURDER
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, because of the position I have taken for a long time in reference to people who have been convicted of murder getting out on these temporary passes I should like to put a supplementary question either to the Prime Minister, who is now leaving, or the Solicitor General.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not leaving. I am here. I was not leaving, I was just going to talk to another minister.


George Harris Hees: Well, you won't miss anything.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider changing the law so that anyone who is convicted of a second offence of murder and is sentenced to life it will mean life, that he is taken out of our society or, in the alternative, will he bring back capital punishment in respect of those persons who are convicted of murder twice in a row?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I saw several members in the opposition benches applauding that question. I must say I was on my way and did not hear the preamble, but I doubt whether it supported the conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, for several days I have been trying to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ask it at caucus tomorrow.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very important one and has reference to the $500 grant-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege regarding not being recognized, I would be pleased to deal with it. But it is not the subject matter or the importance of the question that is involved, because every day there are several hon. members whose questions, I am sure, are extremely important but they are not recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to repeat that I have tried

November 5, 1974
Privilege-Mr. J.-P. Guay
for several days to ask a question. If a parliamentary secretary is not to be recognized in the House for the purpose of asking a question-and the people of his constituency expect him to rise in the House once in a while and ask questions-I believe, sir, that you ought to tell the House that you will not recognize us.


Mr. Speaker:: Indeed, I welcome this question of privilege for that very purpose. I have, of course, to consider whether some members of the House are eligible to use the time of the question period to pose questions to the ministry. It is obvious, certainly, that members of the ministry ought not to enjoy the privilege of being able to both represent the government in answering questions in the House of Commons and, in turn, to use the time of the question period to ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Similarly, the privilege, of course, of being elevated to the position of parliamentary secretary falls only on those among the government ranks. This extends to those hon. members, not only the recognition, prestige and advantage that comes from their position but the obligation of answering questions, because not only do they occasionally answer questions during the question period, but they do so on a regular basis during the "late show" proceedings at 10 p.m. when they answer for the ministry. I have taken the position, to which I hold, that those who are clothed with the responsibility of answering for the government ought not to use the time of the question period for the privilege of asking questions of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, so that the parliamentary secretary will not feel isolated, may I take the liberty of asking the Acting Prime Minister to treat the parliamentary secretary with a little more respect and answer his questions privately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on the question raised by the parliamentary secretary, I can appreciate the reason for which you have come to this conclusion but I would point out to you-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Why don't you guys just sit down and listen for a change?


Mitchell William Sharp: -that parliamentary secretaries, when they are appointed to these positions, are not aware of this particular disability, and it seems to me that this question does deserve further consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is known as parliamentary reform.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not expect you to act differently from the way you have in the question period, but I would suggest that this question might be considered when we consider the rules of the House.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, to follow the stand taken by my colleague, I wonder whether before making a definitive rule on this question you would-


An hon. Member:: It is definite.


John Napier Turner: -give members on all sides of the House an opportunity to argue this question before you. I have sat in this House for 13 years and the tradition of this House, supported by Speakers before you, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question raised by the parliamentary secretary is of rather fundamental principle and of extreme importance in the conduct of the affairs of the House. I have indicated the reasons for my position, but I would very much appreciate being able to listen to the views of other hon. members who wish to express their opinions, because it is an important matter. I am certainly prepared, if the House wishes, to think about this matter further and receive representations at another time.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: However, at the moment, based on the understanding of the role and the privileges with which a parliamentary secretary is clothed, and therefore his special opportunity of access to the ministry in light of the position to which he has been appointed, I have expressed my own view and I am prepared at some other time to listen to further representations.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope you would hold open this question to allow some of us who have feelings about it-


Walter David Baker: Sit down. You are impertinent.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can see that hon. members on both sides of the House would like to make representations on this point, and I would appreciate being able to hear from them. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: The new C. D. Howe.


John Napier Turner: No. With the greatest respect, Your Honour, I would submit that you have come to a position without understanding the panorama of the views of the House.


An hon. Member:: Are you questioning the Speaker's motives?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Edmonton West, when he was Speaker; the Speaker before that, Honourable Roland Michener, and the Speaker who
November 5, 1974

preceded Your Honour gave the discretion to parliamentary secretaries to rise in this House and put questions to ministers other than their own, because they carried no responsibility for another department.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


John Napier Turner: No. I am speaking on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might remind the honourable member that we are dealing with a question of privilege by the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) at the moment.


John Napier Turner: The views of the honourable member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on this subject are well known. We have argued this question before previous Speakers. I would ask Your Honour to allow the House to debate this point and to give a ruling on a future occasion. Then this whole question could be aired, as it should, because it involves the rights of private members who, despite the fact that they are appointed parliamentary secretaries, have no responsibility in the ministry, do not take that oath and owe responsibility to their ministers alone and to the Prime Minister. Through the traditions of this House they have been allowed to pose questions to other ministers for the past 12 years.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Earlier in today's session Your Honour had occasion to make rulings with regard to supplementary questions. Those rulings made some of us unhappy, but they were rulings by the Chair and we accepted them. If there were freedom in the House to challenge Your Honour on every occasion when an honourable member thinks he has been discriminated against, it would be a very chaotic place indeed.
I am surprised at the attitude of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who should know better and know that from time to time in this House members of the opposition have challenged, at times successfully, the right of parliamentary secretaries to ask questions. Your Honour has put before us your particular position in regard to the discretion which is given to the Chair in respect of certain situations. Your Honour has exercised this discretion in various ways. You have seen fit-in my opinion and in the opinion of many of us in this House, quite properly-to exercise this discretion against the right of parliamentary secretaries to ask questions. There are very good reasons behind this.
I suggest it would be in the best interests of this House if the Minister of Finance and all members of the government would accept that decision, and then later during this or another session there might be a debate on the rules, when the matter could be raised. But Your Honour has made a decision, we have accepted it and the government should accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says, quite properly, that he has been here 13 years. I have been here as long as that.
Privilege-Mr. J.-P. Guay


John Napier Turner: Yes, you have.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the first time since the notorious pipeline debate that I have witnessed- the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) laughs. He has done more to destroy parliament than any other person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I witnessed what took place in 1956 when ministers, not satisfied with the rulings being given, decided to undermine them. I have not forgotten; and it is more than 18 years ago since that that took place. Sir, you have made a ruling. We will not always agree with your rulings, but authority does not permit challenge in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -either directly by vote or indirectly by government representatives endeavouring to bring about an alteration after a ruling had been made. I have been here and seen Mr. Speakers come and go. You have discharged your duties in a way that has done credit to you and to parliament, and I deeply resent the attitude of ministers of the Crown, activated and encouraged by the Prime Minister who should be upholding parliament. The ruling is made, it stands. In no case should Your Honour permit himself to be trammelled by the desires of a government that, not satisfied with its majority, now wants to control Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this question because it is fundamental one. It affects the rights and privileges of a certain select group of people in this House. It seems to me that any ruling which would prohibit a parliamentary secretary from asking questions in this House would demote parliamentary secretaries to second-class status. We have constituents to represent, and I think that all members of the House-including those on the other side-would respect a parliamentary secretary who was trying to perform that function and the duty we have to our constituents, as do other members of the House.
The second point I wish to make is that in reading the rules of procedure of this House I am at a loss to find anything that constitutes prohibition against a parliamentary secretary asking questions.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker has ruled.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I think Mr. Speaker can speak for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Be that as it may, I am anxious, as I have said, to hear the views of those who have expressed a desire to comment on the subject, which is of some importance. I have stated my position, and I would appreciate it if hon. members who wish to contribute would do so, because I am anxious to hear them. I only

November 5, 1974
Privilege-Mr. J.-P. Guay
hope that, respecting the subject matter of the debate today, we will keep interventions as brief as possible.


Norman Augustine Cafik: There is no doubt at all that there is a long-standing tradition in the House according to which parliamentary secretaries have asked questions. I did so on many occasions in the last two years as parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that the right of parliamentary secretaries to ask questions has been successfully challenged in the past. That is not true, to my knowledge. My right to ask questions has been challenged and I have always in the past been given that right by Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope I will be given that right in the future.
I think that it is understandable-this point has been alluded to by previous speakers-that parliamentary secretaries should not ask questions of their own ministers. Clearly, we have some special rights and obligations respecting our ministers. On the other side of the House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er), for whom I have a great deal of respect, has traditionally in the past raised questions regarding whether parliamentary secretaries should answer questions. But I have never yet heard him raise any question as to whether we have the right to ask them.
The point is that the opposition cannot have it both ways. Some members of the opposition do not want us to answer questions, and many of them do not want us to ask them in the first instance. But this is a change of rules in the middle of the tenure of a parliamentary secretary, and I do not think it is fair or reasonable to change the rules when members have accepted these posts with a certain understanding as to their rights and privileges in the House.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give very careful consideration to this question. If it is the rule that we do not have that right, then I will raise a question of privilege based upon that ruling, because I think my rights as a member of parliament could be adversely affected.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as one who is not a parliamentary secretary, although I once was and, for all I know, may be again. I rise as one who would not, even if I could, challenge the ruling of the Chair, but I take it that you have asked members who are interested to express their points of view, and I would like to take a few moments to do that. Parliamentary secretaries do have an opportunity, as do all backbenchers on the government side, through various party means to make their points of view known to ministers. That prerogative has never been used as an argument for taking away from them the right to ask questions of ministers in the House. There is a difference between the position of a parliamentary secretary and that of a minister. Ministers are collectively responsible for the presentation of government policy and programs; they speak with many voices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You're not kidding.


An hon. Member:: From both sides of the mouth.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, they speak with many tongues, if you like; but they express a collective view for which they are responsible. Parliamentary secretaries are not part of the government; they are not part of the collective responsibility of the government; they are not bound by the obligation to speak with a common voice, as are members of the cabinet. Governmental responsibility, in so far as it exists, exists within the confines of the responsibilities of the minister whose parliamentary secretary one is. Outside the bounds of that responsibility the parliamentary secretary does not participate, nor does he have special access to the decision-making process of government.
But parliamentary secretaries have constituents and constituent interests which they should represent. I submit that it would be an extraordinary burden to place upon them to say they could not to be able to ask of ministers, as other members can, questions related to their constituencies or related to the interests of the country. Within the bounds of their departmental activities they do not have that right, but in the whole area of government they, as other members of the House, should have the right to ask for replies or to cross-examine ministers in the effective performance of their duties.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, with great respect I submit that if it were your intention to deny those of us who have been appointed parliamentary secretaries the right to ask questions, I would suggest it would have been a very basic courtesy on your part at least to have apprised us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: -rather than subject us to this public display of division in the House today.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Fairweather:: What a rude woman.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that when this issue has arisen on other occasions it has been my view that, provided they do not ask questions of their own departments, parliamentary secretaries should have at least a measure of right in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me, however, that an issue more important than that has arisen this afternoon. I refer to the authority and the prestige of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I join the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others on this side of the House in protesting the fact that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the
November 5, 1974

Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) publicly chastised Your Honour-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and put you
in the position where you seemed to feel you should listen to debate on a point on which you had already ruled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit, sympathetic though I may be with the other view, and even though I may disagree with your ruling, that the question of your authority is far more important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: For many years in this House, Speakers' rulings could be challenged and we had lengthy debates on them. But this House formally and deliberately changed Standing Order 12, so that it now reads in part:
No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
To say we are having friendly discussion of something that members did not know was going to happen does not get around the fact that what is happening today is that a decision of the Chair is being appealed. I bring to Your Honour's attention, also, the fact that in Beauchesne's fourth edition there are three comments on this point. The first sentence of citation 72-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I very much appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whose reputation as a parliamentarian is so well known. I must say, however, that to put the interpretation on this afternoon's discussion that it represents an appeal or an affront to the Chair would scarcely be a fair interpretation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have outlined the view I have taken this afternoon and the view I propose to take throughout this session in respect of parliamentary secretaries asking questions during the question period. I have taken that position, and it is clear. That is my view. In addition to doing that, I made it very clear that I was interested in hearing representations from hon. members and I invited that kind of discussion. The discussion could scarcely be classified in the context of an appeal or in any way challenging the Chair. I am sure it was not intended that way by hon. members.
I have taken this matter under extremely careful consideration for a long time, not only for the short time I have been in the chair but during the two years I was a parliamentary secretary. It is not a matter I have considered lightly; it is one on which I have taken a clear and definitive decision. Parliamentary secretaries who continue to rise during the question period wonder, I am sure, why they are not recognized. I think it fair to take this opportunity to make my position clear. Having done so, I
Privilege-Mr. J.-P. Guay
think it would probably be better to get on with orders of the day.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since I have already contended that your rulings must be accepted, I have to accept the opinion you have now stated, that what we are engaging in is not an appeal against your ruling. I submit, however, that since this place operates by precedent, this discussion today sets a precedent for future action. Any time a member, especially a cabinet minister, is dissatisfied with your ruling, he can stand and say, "Your Honour, I am not appealing but I want you to listen". I contend that the House Leader or the Minister of Finance cannot in this way criticize what you have done. Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 72(1), gives the answer when it says:
The Speaker's actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion.
There are other sentences in that citation. The final sentence of citation 72(2) is especially important with reference to the Speaker. It reads:
His prestige would be seriously impaired if he allowed himself to argue with members on the soundness of his decisions.
And subsection (3) reads:
If a member wishes to challenge the action or conduct of the Speaker on any matter other than an appeal from his decision-
The argument now is that it is something other than an appeal.
-he must proceed by giving two days' notice of a motion on the subject and by bringing the matter up as a separate question, except, of course, if it be a question of privilege, when it may be taken up as such.
The other brief comment I wish to make is this. In accordance with the law and the arrangement we made, this is to be a day of debate on a matter which is of concern to many members of this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Finance have denied us 40 minutes of debate on that important measure, by their interventions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your interpretation of the procedures that have gone on for the last 20 minutes. I want to say, through you, to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I rose- indeed, the leader of the House rose on even more specific terms-to inquire of Your Honour whether it was a firm ruling and hoping-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs


John Napier Turner: -if it were not a firm ruling, that we could argue the point. Your Honour has stated it is a firm ruling, and we accept it without question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: C. D. Howe.


John Napier Turner: There was no intent to provoke or to challenge the Chair, but merely to seek an opportunity to argue the question if the issue were still open.


An hon. Member:: Better get the "blues," John.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to review the terminal date of March 31, 1975, now specified in the Veterans' Land Act, and to report thereon to the House within the time limit set out in chapter 3 of the Statutes of 1974.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
During the debate, I tried several times to be recognized in order to express my opinion on this important matter.
This discussion does not surprise me, because since the beginning of this session, especially, we have often heard-please note, Mr. Speaker, that I particularly wish to express my view on the matter raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I want to make it clear that I am entitled as much as anybody else to speak in this House.
Mr. Speaker, we have noted, especially since the beginning of this session, the behaviour of parliamentary secretaries who try more and more to ask questions during that period traditionally allotted to the members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard Laprise: It is so true, Mr. Speaker, that on several occasions, some government members have asked Social Crediters to put questions to the ministers, so that they could make statements which the opposition members would not have to answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 28, 1974, this House had before it what was then known as Bill C-17, which is now chapter 3 of the Statutes of 1974, the effect of which was to extend for one year the period under which grants could be sought under the Veterans' Land Act. In closing his brief speech on second reading of that bill, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) said, as recorded at page 948 of Hansard:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this extension will provide many veterans with the opportunity to take advantage of a program which was designed for them.
I draw attention to this final sentence of the minister's speech:
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.
That statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs sets out clearly the whole purpose of the debate which will take place today and, possibly, tomorrow. The purpose of this debate is to persuade the minister to stand by that statement, namely, that the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act are a right which veterans have earned. Perhaps, to be more precise, the purpose of this debate is to persuade the government to back the minister on what I believe is his belief, namely, that the provisions of the Veterans' land Act should be continued.
This is an unusual debate. It does not often happen that there is a debate on the floor of the House because an act of parliament provides that such debate shall take place. I would not contend that this is the first time in history it has happened, for-

November 5, 1974


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I point out that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) is in the chamber with a recorder. I think it should be removed from the chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the point is well taken. I am sure the hon. member will accede to our practice, which is against objects such as that being introduced in this chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that our redistribution legislation provides that there are times when we must debate certain matters in this House. That statute requires us to do so. Indeed, there are other statutes which provide for a similar kind of debate. But this could well be the first time debate has actually arisen as a result of the written request of the required number of members.
The amendment under which we are operating today, which was written into the Veterans' Land Act amending bill of last session, provides that if at any time after September 30, 1974, 20 or more members request that the cut-off provisions of the Veterans' Land Act be reviewed, the House shall have the right to debate a motion, asking the Minister of Veterans Affairs to review the cut-off date of March 31, 1975, which is now in that legislation. Accordingly, there was presented to Mr. Speaker on October 17 a motion in line with that provision in the act, signed by 25 members of this House. Those 25 members happen to be members of the three opposition parties. I took the responsibility for getting signatures and I sought the signatures of a number of Liberal members, but for one reason or another they did not wish to put their names on the document. I hope that in the debate today Liberal members will participate as well as members of opposition parties and will indicate to the minister their strong desire that the Veterans' Land Act shall not die on March 31, 1975.
Let me go back to another bit of recent history. There is a long history behind the Veterans' Land Act and I suspect that my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), who seconded this motion, will recite some of the earlier history and some of the promises made in years gone by. But I should like to remind hon. members of the House of a few things that happened within the last year. In the latter part of 1973 it became obvious that many veterans were disturbed because the Veterans' Land Act would expire on March 31, 1974. Many questions were asked of the Minister of Veterans Affairs in the House of Commons. His answers always reflected his genuine sympathy for the veterans of Canada: There is no gainsaying that. Still, his answer as to whether the Veterans' Land Act would be extended beyond March 31, 1974 was always "No".
A year ago this week, on Friday, November 9, 1973, we had one of those rare occasions when a motion presented under Standing Order 43 was allowed: there was unanimous consent for it. It was a motion of mine, again seconded by my hon. friend who is seconding my motion today, the distinguished and gallant member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. The motion, as recorded at page 7693 of Hansard for November 9, 1973, reads as follows:
Veterans Affairs
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 smallholdings, 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.
Hansard then records:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
I recollect that that "Hear, hear'' was expressed in generous applause. Motions under Standing Order 43 are usually denied. The Speaker made sure of its acceptance before he put it: he asked twice if there was unanimous consent. There was no opposition. Then Hansard records the following:


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is unanimous consent. Therefore I will put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
That was the action of the House of Commons on Friday, November 9, 1973, at which time we said unanimously to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that we wanted the Veterans' Land Act to be continued and, in particular, that we wanted consideration to be given to veterans making application for loans under the act even though the main purpose was to meet their housing requirements.
In the weeks that followed, we earnestly hoped that favourable action would be taken in response to this unanimous request by the House of Commons, but the questions which were put to the minister from time to time did not elicit a hopeful response. On January 11, 1974, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe sought to put a motion under Standing Order 26. Permission was denied. He then put a question to the minister asking whether the view of the House expressed on November 9 would be acted upon. The minister's reply, while courteous and sympathetic was, nevertheless, quite clear-the Veterans' Land Act would not be continued beyond March 31, 1974.
Members who were in the last parliament will remember vividly-I certainly do-developments in the month of March. On Tuesday, March 12, my hon. friend from Newfoundland moved a non-confidence motion on this issue. That motion really put things into a tizzy around here. The motion said things with which practically every member of the House agreed. At the same time, it raised the question whether there would be an election over the issue-whether the government would be defeated, in which event the Veterans' Land Act would not, in any case, be extended beyond March 31, 1974. We in this party made it clear that we agreed with the words used in the motion, and that if the government refused to do anything about the issue we would vote in such a way as to bring the government down; but that if the government were prepared to bring in the necessary legislation to extend the Veterans' Land Act, we would vote in such a way as to keep the government here so that extension could be implemented. During the course of the debate on March 12,
[Stage Direction]
November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
the minister stated his position. It is to be found at pages 434 and 435 of Hansard. He said this:
The motion before the House today asks that the government consider the possibility of extending the March 31 deadline for qualified veterans to apply under the Veterans' Land Act. In case there should be any doubt left in somebody's mind, I wish to emphasize at the outset that I am quite prepared to give such an undertaking right now.
Later, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said, again:
If, after looking at all the evidence, I can conclude that the deadline should be extended, then I would be prepared to so recommend.
Again, on page 435, the minister had this to say:
Since this motion has been brought forward, I am certainly glad to listen to the discussions today. In the light of these discussions, I will be happy to consider the whole matter again and to make a recommendation to the government.
That was the story. There had been months of refusal on the part of the government. I think I am justified in saying "the government" rather than "the minister" because some of us are aware of the conflict the hon. gentleman has with other members of the cabinet. But for months we met with a refusal to extend the act beyond March 31, 1974. We thought our unanimous motion of November 9, 1973, had done the trick. But it hadn't. However, the motion the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe put down on March 12 did result in a firm promise by the minister that the matter would be considered.
That was on March 12, and the deadline was March 31, so things had to move quickly. Sure enough, on Tuesday, March 26, 1974, as noted at page 856, the Minister of Veterans Affairs rose and made a statement on motions to the effect that he was giving consideration to the whole matter of extending the act and that the necessary bill would be brought in right away. It was. On Thursday, March 28, 1974, we gave that bill second reading, consideration in committee of the whole, and third reading; and we passed it and sent it to the other place.
I regard all of this as one of the highlights of the minority parliament, one of the major accomplishments of the Twenty-ninth Parliament of Canada; the fact that we got the government to change its position with respect to this one feature of the Veterans' Land Act, namely, that it was to expire on March 31, 1974. The bill which this House passed on Thursday, March 28, 1974, extended the life of that legislation by one year, so that it now expires on March 31, 1975.
I refer again to the fact that when we were in committee of the whole on that bill, Bill C-17 of last session, now chapter 3 of the Statutes of Canada of 1974, I moved an amendment which would permit the matter to be raised again after September 30, 1974. That proposal was not only passed by the House but the minister himself, speaking in the debate on the amendment, said he and the government welcomed it. The only conclusion I can draw is that he welcomed the possibility that in the fall of 1974 the discussion would again come forward. I trust he still does. In any event, the motion was carried unanimously, it was written into the law of the land, and it is on the basis of that provision in the law that today's debate is taking place.
The only thing the House can do in this debate, formally and officially, is to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to

review the question of the cut-off date, now March 31, 1975, and report back to this chamber on the result of his review within 15 sitting days after this motion is passed by the House. In a few moments I want to refer to some of the other things I believe the minister should consider as well. But that is what the motion asks for, since by law that is all we can ask for at this time. I plead as strongly as I can that the House pass this motion. Passing it will not extend the Veteran's Land Act; it will not make any other change. But it will say to the minister that we want this matter reconsidered.
Last time we went through this, Mr. Speaker, the government was in a minority position. When the parties in opposition made their position clear, they carried some weight. The government wanted to be in a majority position so that it could do the things it wants to do. Well, it is in that position now, and I submit it has all the authority it needs to take action on the Veterans' Land Act. I hope members of the House, in all parties, will express the same views that they expressed last year, namely that this matter should be reviewed and the act extended.
Certainly, I would feel that if the motion were opposed, that if members on the government side were to do the unthinkable and vote against the motion, it would put in doubt the motives of a year ago when a minority government went along with what we were seeking. The more I sit and listen to the minister in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the more I am satisfied that his sympathies with the veterans are genuine and that he is fighting for them in his department and in the cabinet. I think we owe to this minister the support of the House of Commons, and we can give it to him today or tomorrow, whenever this debate comes to a conclusion, by voting unanimously for this motion.
Now, sir, I have said that so far as the actual motion is concerned, all it can do is request the minister to review the March 31, 1975, cut-off date. I want to ask that he look at other things as well, and I suspect that most of those who will take part in this debate will do the same thing. I think he should take another look at the provision that set October 31, 1968, as the last date by which one could get a qualification certificate to get a grant under the Veterans's Land Act. I feel very strongly that this provision should be reviewed.
I believe the amount of money available as a loan under the Veterans' Land Act, which is fixed at a maximum of $18,000-less 20 per cent which the veteran must have, so it is really only $15,400-is unrealistic and unreasonable in light of today's costs. I also think the whole question of the size of lot that has to be obtained should be reviewed. In saying these thing I am admitting, indeed asserting, as all of us do, that times have changed and that although the Veterans' Land Act originally had in mind those veterans who wanted to go on smallholdings and do a bit of farming, raise a few carrots and potatoes if you will, what most of the veterans are wanting now is a piece of land on which to build a home and retire. I do not think it is an argument against extension of the rights under the Veterans' Land Act to say that is all the veterans now want. As we said in our motion of November 9, 1973, "it is the view
November 5, 1974
[Stage Direction]
of this House that entitlement to a piece of this land ought to be the right of any veteran". So I hope the minister will look at these other provisions to which I have referred, as well as the cut-off date.
If the Minister of Veterans Affairs has an alternative, if he is going to come in with a veterans' housing program that is equal to what we are asking for under the Veterans' Land Act or even better, then I will applaud him to the skies. In fact, I dared to hope that the 15 days' notice that we had to give of this motion and this debate might even have given him time to upstage this debate, and I wondered day after day whether he was going to stand up on motions and announce a veterans' housing program. If he gets up today and makes this announcement, the debate will not take two days; it will end almost momentarily. But if he is not prepared to do that, this House, as I say, will have to continue to debate the motion and the debate may become a struggle on the part of some of us to persuade all members of the House to back the minister, even if it is backing him against his cabinet colleagues, by voting unanimously for the motion and asking the minister to undertake the review that is asked for in the motion.
When the question of the Veterans' Land Act comes up, there are those who argue that its purposes have changed, that the veterans knew the law regarding the October 31 date, and so on. But there are veterans who feel that these arguments do not hold water at all. I should like once more to quote a few sentences from a letter written to the minister on January 28 of this year by Mr. E. F. Heesaker, dominion president of the Canadian Corps Association. The letter had to do with the extending of the March 31, 1974, deadline, but Your Honour and others will see immediately that it refers to the question on a long-run basis. These are some of the sentences in Mr. Heesaker's letter:
We would like to point out here that there were many veterans who were not aware of the Veterans' Land Act or the university training program until after they had used up all their re-establishment credits. And, of course, they had to refund their re-establishment credits before they could become eligible for Veterans' Land Act benefits. So they were not trying to take advantage of two forms of rehabilitation, they were merely changing one for the other after they had learned of the existence of the Veterans' Land Act.
That, of course, is in response to a statement that on occasion the minister has made, to the effect that some of these veterans were trying to get more benefits than they were supposed to obtain. Later in his letter Mr. Heesaker has this to say:
You say that you are satisfied that the vast majority of veterans who hold Veterans' Land Act qualification certificates simply took the precaution of obtaining such a certificate before the deadline of October 31, 1968.
Then, says Mr. Heesaker:
This is just like the precaution they took in 1914, and again in 1939, to ensure that no enemy soldiers set foot on Canadian soil, except as a prisoner of war. However, they were not so cautious with their own personal safety.
There are just two more sentences in Mr. Heesaker's letter to the minister that I wish to read; they express the view of most of us in this House:
In view of the above facts, we believe that a veteran should be eligible for benefits under the Veterans' Land Act until the day he dies. He offered his life in a time of crisis and this is little enough to give him in return.
Veterans Affairs
I have already said that getting the deadline extended from March 31, 1974, to March 31, 1975, was an accomplishment of the twenty-ninth parliament. There should be no deadline at all on any veteran's right to assistance from this country to enable him to get a piece of land on which to have a home, even if it is only for the purpose of having a home in which to retire. If that is going to be realized, then we must do something about the October 31, 1968, cut-off date for obtaining qualification certificates. We also must do something about the amount of the loan, as well as about the size of the lot it is permissible to obtain under the Veterans' Land Act.
In my view, this is a very important issue. I am proud of the fact that this unusual procedure of our having a debate because a statute of parliament says we can have it happens to be on this subject, a matter of concern for the veterans of this land. I think it is significant that we are having this debate on the days just before Remembrance Day when most members of the House are wearing Remembrance Day poppies. I hope we will, in the course of this debate and by our decision on the motion, take a stand for the rights of our veterans that will support the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his battle inside the cabinet in attempting to do what these veterans are seeking. On their behalf, we seek either an extension of the Veterans' Land Act or a veterans' housing policy that will give those who served Canada the rights they have earned, the rights they really deserve.
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, since I have been here, when we have had questions on veterans affairs I have had the privilege of speaking before my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am pleased to follow him now, and I commend him for his keen knowledge of the rules which brought about this debate on the motion we are considering today and shall be tomorrow. I am pleased to follow him because he allowed me to collaborate with him in seconding the motion he filed a few days ago. I am also pleased that the proposal has reached this stage-this was brought about and alluded to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-as a result of a non-confidence motion I introduced on behalf of my party on March 12 during the last session, a motion which had the effect of extending the expiry date of the Veterans' Land Act for one year. I know I am going to be repetitive, as I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I think we must perhaps, during this one last opportunity we will have, repeat and repeat the need to correct a wrong.
The motion today is a very simple one which merely asks that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) review the terminal date and report back to the House within 15 days of the date the motion is approved by the House, with or without amendment. There should be no problem in having this motion accepted. I appeal to all members of the House, particularly those opposite, to support the motion. Having had the opportunity of reflecting on the events which have followed since last March, if I could have the opportunity again, my motion would then have read "that the government should repeal section 31 of

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
the act"-that section which set the deadline of October 31, 1968, as the termination date for veterans who wish to qualify, and March 31, 1974, as the deadline for applications for those who were qualified and which through Bill C-17 was extended to March 31, 1975.
As it would have turned out, acceptance of that motion would have opened up the fact indefinitely and would not have necessitated this debate today, about which I am sure the government is not happy in any case. Little did I realize at the time just how much effect that motion could have had on the parliament of the day. Strategically, if it had been passed it would have defeated the government earlier and no doubt the historical events which have followed might have been different.
My main purpose, however, in having the motion presented was that I was sure the expiration of the deadline for the Veterans' Land Act was wrong, and I was confident it would have been supported by every member who sat here at that time. I am just as sure at this very moment that it would be wrong to phase out the act by March 31, 1975, and I will be just as sure when that time comes that it will be wrong, unless of course we can find a means of having the act further extended. It is not only wrong but, as I have said many times before, approval by this parliament for setting the deadline in 1965 was wrong, because by so doing the veteran citizen of Canada was denied a right. We broke a faith which had been given to veterans, and reneged on a commitment made to veterans by the government of the day and parliament. So it is with the greatest respect to those who sit here today, and who sat in the parliament in 1965, that I say we have all voted on many things that may be found to be wrong when time passes.
The government opposite uses the excuse, time and time again, that this parliament accepted the decision to set these deadlines, but there have been many laws passed by this parliament over the years that have been amended time and time again to meet changing conditions. We need go no further, in giving examples of changes in legislation, than the Veterans' Land Act itself. It was passed in 1942 with an original ceiling of $4,800. This was progressively increased to $40,000 for full-time farmers and $18,000 for small family farmers, commercial fishermen and smallholders. The repayment period has been extended from time to time to the present 30 years.
Even after 1959, when a time limit of 15 years was set after September 30, 1947, or after the veteran was discharged from the armed forces, the new Bill C-80 in 1962 was introduced to extend the date to October 31, 1968. Then in 1965, by Bill C-128, the additional section was introduced establishing the terminal dates I mentioned previously. Nor do we need go any further than the present Bill C-4 to amend the war veterans' allowances and civilian war pensions. This measure has been amended at least half a dozen times since I have been here, which indicates that the government realizes the need for change as a result of inflation and as a result of representation from veterans' groups and members of this House.
The bill which we passed for second reading is an excellent one and the government has been commended for it. Furthermore, Canada can be proud of it. So why is there a big hang-up in admitting that parliament was

wrong in setting the terminal dates in 1965? Is it a crime to admit that you were wrong? Just think of the commendation the government would receive across the country if it were to extend and improve the measure as we are suggesting. Before I wander too far afield I should like to get back to this motion. I think it is important to point out a very significant feature; that is, that regardless of what happens, members of parliament in opposition can effect changes in the direction of government legislation if they feel it is in the best interests of the people they represent.
In the last year we were able to force, through our rules and procedures, an extension of one year to the Veterans' Land Act. The amendment subsequently introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave us the opportunity to demand this debate, and the government, even in its majority position, and inasmuch as it did not want it, had to accept it. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, you are to be commended for your decision to allow the debate. At least this gives us some hope for our democratic process. Perhaps after some sincere thought on the part of the government we will succeed in correcting a grave error, made some nine years ago, by bringing in amendments to the present bill to improve the inequities which exist, or by bringing in a new bill in respect of housing to meet the needs of our veterans.
The acceptance of this motion will not hurt anyone, let alone the government. All we are asking is that the minister review the bill and the expiry date. This will give him an opportunity to consult with veterans' organizations and, hopefully, he will agree that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, where we can call witnesses to get their views and thoughts on the subject. Although 15 days does not give much time for review, I am sure the minister has given enough consideration to the many questions we have asked him over the past couple of years. As a result, in reply to the majority of questions I have asked his only answer has been that he has the matter under consideration.
If I might digress for a moment, down in the maritime provinces, in Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, there are so many MacDonalds with the same first name that they have to give them nicknames to distinguish one from another. In view of the number of times the minister has said that my questions were under consideration, I think they should call him Dan "consideration" MacDonald. I think the minister has received enough representations in the past month and has done enough considering himself to make a decision now. But in case this is not so, let me give him some of the representations that have been made to me. In my responsibility for veterans affairs on behalf of my party, I published an article in most of the newspapers in Canada. Although much of it might be repetitive, I use my prerogative to record the article in Hansard because it places in context how we feel about the government's direction to phase out the act. I quote from the article as it appeared in the Ottawa Citizen:
The government's recent decision to phase out the Veterans' Land Act by March, 1975, can only be regarded as a serious breach of a commitment made many years ago to Canada's veterans.
November 5, 1974

In 1917 before Vimy Ridge, Sir Robert Borden, then prime minister of Canada, assured Canadian troops:
'The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of your people at home, and it will always be our endeavor to so guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned men its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire, and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.'
But how easily we, as Canadians, forget. Our changing society has brought us to a point where, now, our veterans are treated with somewhat less than the consideration they deserve. And while we take our affluence for granted, we also fail, in our complacency, to realize just why we have become a great nation.
Canada has been involved in three wars-and in each, men volunteered, served and died to protect this country. We remember these men on November 11 each year. But we are failing, in the process, to give just consideration to the thousands of men who served and who returned. We choose, instead, to treat these men apathetically.
It might be more convenient for the government to phase out the Veterans' Land Act. But its elimination will destroy a principle of justice and commitment that will only serve to dilute those things we hold dear as Canadians.
Phasing out the Veterans' Land Act is a breach of faith that will deny a great majority of the 140,000 certified veterans their right to compensation for services to this country.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs says it will cost $50 million to continue to administer the act. The figure is ambiguous because he is us*ng it to reflect loans which come back to the government at the rate of $26 million per year.
The Veterans' Land Administration, comprising approximately 400 to 500 public servants, will be employed to administer the act until at least 1980 and probably many years beyond that. In contrast to the minister's statements, administrative costs are approximately $7 million a year. Continuation of the act will likely require another $1 million a year.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that many veterans are failing to take advantage of the act, but he has chosen to camouflage the real reason why. The fact is that under the present regulations, a veteran must purchase a one-half acre lot, in some cases less 20 per cent, but can borrow only $15,400 to meet the cost.
Today's skyrocketing housing and land costs prohibit most eligible veterans from meeting these requirements, and therefore, from taking advantage of the act. And, as a further injustice, the Veterans' Land Act has not been altered to meet inflationary demands even though improvements have been made, in this regard, to the National Housing Act and special housing programs for minority groups are improved from time to time.
The government also uses the argument that in 1965 parliament amended section 31 to restrict certification and qualification. But the government fails to perceive that parliament's passage of the amendment might have been wrong-which it was, in my opinion.
If justice is going to be served, the Veterans' Land Act must be preserved with the following amendments:
Repeal of section 31 of the VLA which set deadlines of October 31, 1968, and March 31, 1975, for certification and borrowing.
An increased mortgage loan ceiling from $18,000 to $35,000.
A reduced lot requirement from one-half acre to that size commensurate with the requirements of the municipality in which the veteran decides to purchase.
A revised downpayment from the present $2,600 to 5 per cent of the loan, as available under some present National Housing Act requirements. Freedom for the veteran to choose the type of housing best suited to his needs, such as, perhaps, a mobile home, or a condominium at a locale of his choice.
Authorization of a survey in all parts of Canada to determine the standard of housing of those veterans on fixed incomes.
Veterans Affairs
Introduction of a program to provide rehabilitation grants, with forgiveness factors, to allow veterans to bring their homes to a reasonable standard of comfort.
Since I had this article published my priorities have changed, because I find across the country that many veterans of fixed incomes such as the War Veterans Allowance, disability pensions, and so on, who are living in their own homes cannot afford, at today's cost, to fix up their homes in order to make them reasonably comfortable. I want to thank the newspapers which published that article, even the Vancouver Sun which called me Jack Smith. I might say the response was overwhelming, and it pleases me that even at this late date our news media recognize the importance of some 900,000 veterans besides the additional million or so widows and children. Sometimes I become frustrated over the lack of attention shown by the press to veterans affairs in the House and in the committee proceedings. An exception to this is the Canadian Press, which I thank sincerely.
Let me give the minister and his government some food for thought. I shall quote from some of the representations I have received and which, in many cases, he has received as a result of this message. I shall skip the first representation because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to it. That was the representation from the Canadian Corps Association. There is another organization which presented a representation, the Federation of British Canadian Veterans of Canada. I shall not read the preamble. That association states:
1.	The Veterans' Land Act should be extended indefinitely.
2.	The Limits of Veterans' Land Act mortgages should be increased to 90 (ninety) per cent of the full property value.
3.	That the qualifications date for the Veterans' Land Act should be reopened for an indefinite period.
4.	The benefits of this act should be made available to all members of the permanent force, domiciled in Canada prior to enlistment.
That representation is dated October 21, 1974. All of us who say that this act has outlived its usefulness, and that no one is interested in it, should think again. Another representation from the Royal Canadian Legion states that at the twenty-fifth dominion convention held in St. John's, Newfoundland, June 2 to June 6 this year, the following resolution was passed:
Therefore be it resolved that legislation be enacted-(1) to provide for the reopening of the October 31, 1968, deadline for one year, to enable those who missed the earlier deadline to qualify-
They refer to the establishment of the act and also to the fact that it should cover those qualifying veterans who are still serving in the armed forces, and that they should be granted one year after discharge in which to make settlement arrangements. They refer to extending the deadline to December 31, 1978. In their representation, they also ask that loans under part III of the act be increased and that the statutory ceiling on the Veterans' Land Act fund imposed under section 6(4) of the act be removed or substantially increased. They say that their resolution was sponsored by branches in all ten provinces, which indicates the great interest within the Royal Canadian Legion in this important matter. That refers to 410,000 legionaires. Let me refer now to a few individual letters. I have before me a letter which reads:
I would like to draw to your attention the fact that among those now to be denied the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act are the serving
1070

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
veterans. As of last year there were some 2,700 eligible and qualified veterans still serving in the Canadian forces.
It is not generally known that, until very recently, we were denied the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act. The Minister of Veterans Affairs required certification that we would serve to retirement in the location where application was made. The Minister of National Defence could not give any such guarantee and as a result the serving veterans could not build a home. Now many serving veterans are posted abroad to Europe or on peacekeeping duties or are serving far from their intended place of retirement. The firm opinion of the serving veteran is that there has been a deliberate breach of faith by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Recent casualties to Canadian forces members in Cyprus and Syria should serve to remind everyone of the nature of our commitment. No government should, in my opinion, be so unwise and shortsighted as to breach its commitments to those who served in war.
I have here a letter from the Canadian Fighter Pilots Association which reads in part as follows:
As a veteran of more than five years in the RCAF during World War II, I have maintained my qualifications to settle under the VLA. Now, as I reach my halcyon years, the need for financial assistance is just as real as it was in 1945.
It is apparent that this present profligate government is cheeseparing. VLA loans are not a give away program-such as LIP-but an investment of money with protected collateral.
Then he makes a reference to a nearby airport which will cost $1.5 billion. He goes on to say:
Yes, Mr. Marshall, I would like to be involved and offer you support.
This is indicated in every letter, all of them dated within the last month. I have here a letter that was sent to the Ottawa Citizen, which reads:
I am a serving veteran, registered and eligible for VLA consideration. I am presently serving at Canadian Forces Base Edmonton (Namao). Because of my present posting I am unable to take advantage of the VLA act to purchase a home in my chosen place of retirement-
I think the article should be sent to every Main-Brace Club, Canadian Legion and Air Force Association across Canada.
Then he says that he is grateful for the efforts made. I am quoting these letters, Madam Speaker, because they tell the facts better than we can. If we told the facts, nobody would believe us. I have here another one which reads:
There must be many veterans like myself who, of necessity, have lived in urban areas since the war ended and have not been able, for one reason or another, to use the benefits provided by the act but who look forward to retiring to a small town area. If the act is cancelled, those dreams go up in smoke.
That veteran speaks about the changes that he wants in the act, and says that he referred his proposals to his member of parliament who sits on the other side and is aware of them. Here I have just one paragraph of a letter from someone in Saint-John, New Brunswick. He writes as follows:
As a certificate-holding veteran I have been most frustrated in trying to build a home under the VLA. At this point I own a lot of 18,000 square feet on which I had hoped to build but there is such a difference in the cost of construction and in the allowable ceiling that I am unable to take advantage of the plan.
The cost of construction in this region is very high and I cannot see building the house I want and require for less than $50,000-which is over and above the cost of the lot already paid for-which, incidentally, cost $7,000.
The lot cost $7,000 so how can he build a home with $15,400 after he had paid $7,000 for the lot? I have many

more letters, which I am picking at random, all supporting that stand and all asking the government to prolong the act, to increase the loan ceiling and to overcome the many inequities. The minister indicated in committee that he had an interdepartmental committee working on a new housing program for veterans. This committee must be progressing and I hope the minister will introduce its report before these two days are over. I had hoped he would have done it yesterday, because the government wants to use the time today and tomorrow for other legislation.
The other thing at which I am surprised is the secrecy involved here. We have always gone along with bills which benefit veterans. We in the veterans committee are known for non-partisanship. Last year I put forward a motion for the production of papers, asking for a copy of all material resulting from the first meeting of the VLA senior management team convened by the director general of Veterans Land Administration in Ottawa which took place from March 26 to March 29, 1973. I asked for, first, operational plans in the periods before and after the 31 March, 1974, deadline for new loan applications, and second, further implementation of management by objectives as the VLA style of management. So somebody must have been considering it over a long period, and for some reason or other the documentation was considered secret or classified and I was denied it. So I put the notice of motion on the order paper again this year and I hope that we will see it tabled.
The Veterans Land Administration consists of 400 to 500 dedicated experts in the housing area who are veterans. They are doing yeoman work, not only in handling accounts for veterans but also in giving advice and service to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and many other departments. They will continue their services until 1980. So why phase out this act when so much can be done? Under part II of the act, a veteran does not have to be qualified and he can build on a city-size lot. But how can he do it if he can only borrow $18,000 and has to make a downpayment of $2,600? Let us not lose these people; let us continue to serve our veterans, who number 20,000. They are settled and happy and are allowed to improve their homes by having their loans increased periodically. Why should we deny them that?
I could refer to many hundreds of letters and phone calls which I have received, directly regarding the feelings of many more veterans than I thought were concerned. I am confirmed in my thinking that there are enough veterans across this country who demand a change in the government's intention to phase out the act. Many of my letters are copies of those submitted to the minister and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and copies of many of those sent to me have been sent to other members of parliament, some of them sitting on the other side. If we believe in the democratic system, if we believe that our government and the members of this House are truly representative of the people, then we can do nothing less than support this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I say to the government opposite that if they have an ounce of Canadianism in their souls, if they
November 5, 1974

have any sense of consideration for our comrades and their colleagues on our side who want to support this motion-those who receive letters every day from their veteran constituents-and if they have any consideration for their colleagues who want to support this motion but probably will be commanded not to, they must support the motion. It will not hurt anyone, but, on the contrary, will help Canadians.
If the motion does come to a vote, the government should allow it to be a free vote in order to give all hon. members the opportunity to vote as they feel they should and not as they are commanded to; because if not, it will always remain on their conscience that they failed the veterans of Canada who fought for their country, not only those who lived and returned but those who remained in graves in other countries after fighting on behalf of Canada, and did not return.


Eudore Allard: Madam Speaker, I listened with pleasure to the two previous speakers and studied with interest the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for extending the delay allowed in October 1973 to veterans' applications for land purchases. As the period was normally supposed to end on March 31, 1975, I think, Madam Speaker, that it would be advisable to cancel that deadline, or at least to extend it for another 5 years. This additional delay would allow veterans who, for different reasons, were not able to avail themselves of certain advantages provided by the legislation, to benefit from a further delay.
I often wondered why the government wanted so much to end this program in March 1975. All things considered, none of the veterans, to my knowledge, imposed conditions for his presence on the battlefields or for the length of wars in which he so courageously fought and sacrificed the prime of his life. In wartime, our governments are prepared to grant anything for the defence of our freedoms. Unfortunately, when the trouble is over, the same governments forget, or seem to, all the sacrifices that were demanded of our brave soldiers. Once back in their country, the soldiers must keep on fighting, this time against those they so valiantly defended.
Madam Speaker, those are the reasons why I ask that the legislation remain in force for at least another five years and I gladly support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks I should like to refer to an assertion by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that veterans who served in the war and are now serving overseas were denied the privilege of being entertained by VLA. I should like to inform the House that this is not a true statement. My department sent people to foreign lands to make presentations to the veterans who were serving with our forces overseas: they were very well received. Many veterans thus had the opportunity to establish a home in the area they desired. I also wish to thank those serving
Veterans Affairs
overseas for that opportunity. I should like that to be known by this House.
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by stating that the review requested by the motion which is before the House has already been carried out. I stated in the House on October 7 last that the whole question of the Veterans' Land Act was under careful study by the government. I think it appropriate that I outline a number of the factors which were of principal importance and relevance to this study. Some hon. members may not be aware of the fact that the Veterans' Land Act was enacted as a rehabilitation measure to assist veterans to engage in farming on a full or part-time basis following their discharge from active service in World War II. This is clear from the following sections of the preamble to the act;
Whereas many men now serving in the active forces of Canada have recorded their desire to settle on land or engage in farming when hostilities cease, and it is desirable that suitably qualified veterans be encouraged to seek rehabilitation in the agricultural industry;
And whereas part-time farming coupled with other employment is an increasingly important aspect of rural and semi-rural life in Canada;
And whereas it is in the public interest as a measure of rehabilitation to assist in acquiring the ownership of farm homes by qualified veterans;
And whereas it is the purpose of the dominion government to provide a measure of financial assistance to veterans on their performance of prescribed settlement conditions in order to promote their engaging in agricultural pursuits either as a full-time occupation or as a part-time occupation coupled with some other employment.
The original purpose of the act has been amply fulfilled. By March 31 next, 30 years will have elapsed since the end of World War II. After such a lengthy period of time, it is difficult to contend that there is any continuing need for the act to assist veterans to rehabilitate themselves for a career in civilian life. In this connection, I would remind hon. members that the act was one of three alternative rehabilitation plans. The university training plan was concluded in the mid-fifties. The re-establishment credit program terminated on October 31, 1968. The periods in which these two other alternative measures were available were considered to be adequate and appropriate. It seems evident that parliament had the same opinion about the Veterans' Land Act when it gave unanimous approval in 1965 to the establishment of a terminal date for phasing out new settlement in an orderly manner over a span of nine years. By next March, that period will have extended to ten years and, as I stated earlier, 30 years since the end of World War II. Any veteran seriously interested in settling on the land has had ample time to do so.
[Editors note: See page 1089 for section of speech omitted at this point]
Earlier in my remarks I referred to the agricultural orientation of the Veterans' Land Act. It was on the basis of that concept, and on the experience of the Soldier Settlement Act, that the benefit provisions and other terms of the Veterans' Land Act were premised. With respect to land settlement in the post-World War II years, there is no question that the original concepts and provisions were sound and invaluable to the successful establishment of the many thousands of veterans who elected to seek rehabilitation in civilian life under the VLA program. However, with the technological socioeconomic and other
28305-68'/2

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
changes that have occurred in the past decade or more, I do not believe those concepts and legislative provisions are relevant today-particularly when the principal, if not the only, desire of veterans is to use the act as a means of acquiring a retirement home, mainly in urban areas.
It is really unnecessary for me to point out that such use is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the legislation, as well as being irrational in relation to the premises on which the financial provisions of the act were developed. In all the circumstances, Madam Speaker, and after the most serious further study of this matter, I wish to state that it is not the intention of the government to introduce admendments to extend the lending deadlines which are contained in the Veterans' Land Act.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I expressed the view a moment ago that an urban housing program for veterans who have reached or are approaching retirement from post-war careers is inconsistent with an agriculturally-oriented rehabilitation program which was designed to assist veterans following their discharge from wartime active service. This is not to say that many low or modest income veterans do not have needs in respect of housing. On the contrary, it is realized that many do and that their requirements or preferences are varied in nature. It is in recognition of that awareness, and of the greater relevancy of the provisions of the National Housing Act to those needs, that a study has been undertaken to examine whether special arrangements should be made to assist such veterans. Because discussions are still in process, I am not in a position to comment further at this time. I am hopeful, however, that it will be possible for me to do so in the not too distant future.


Mr. Forrestall:: Why don't you extend it until the study is completed?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) - Immigration-The consequences of expulsion from Canada of Haitians-The attitude of the minister; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) - The Canadian economy-Maritime provinces-Alleged gloomy economic forecast by Public Works Department- Participation by Department of Regional Economic Expansion; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Urban affairs-Land assembly-Request for measures to assist municipalities retain green spaces.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to review the terminal date of March 31, 1975, now specified in the Veterans' Land Act, and to report thereon to the House within the time limit set out in chapter 3 of the Statutes of 1974.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for their excellent presentations and for the hard work they have done on behalf of Canada's war veterans in the past several years. I do not intend to speak at great length.
I am sure the legitimacy of my views will be demonstrated by the large number of hon. members who share them. First, I would like to say that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this issue and grateful to my colleagues who have reopened this debate, for they appreciate the necessity for changes in the current legislation. And changes there must be, not only to the terminal date of March 31, 1975, but also to a number of other limitations in the bill. One change by itself would be useless.
First of all, if the intent of the act is to assist veterans in settling and building a house in Canada today, then the land size requirements and the limits on loans are ridiculous. The Canadian who can buy half an acre of land and erect an inhabitable dwelling on it for $18,000 would be unique, and awfully lucky, in view of the tremendous rise in building materials' and all other costs in the last six years under this government, a government that is apparently set against an increase in the loan ceiling for our veterans. Past members of the Canadian armed forces, even if trained in the area of real estate to the degree the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) envisages for present members of the forces, would find this an impossible task.
There is evidence of this fact in the 5 per cent over-all decrease in new house construction in the last fiscal year, compared to the previous year, and the 25 per cent reduction in Ontario. Suitable land cannot be found. The lot requirement of half an acre must be lowered to a reasonable size in relation to today's needs and land prices.
When one considers the unprecedented inflation rate prevalent since the last loan limit increase, I do not think there can be a case argued against raising this limit substantially. In order to stay in step with today's costs, I believe a ceiling of $30,000 is much more reasonable than the present limit and is, in fact, very necessary.
One of the main reasons for there being such a large number of veterans who have not applied for loans under the Veterans' Land Act is the simple fact that the terms were much too limiting for many of them to take advan-
November 5, 1974

tage of the loan offer. Suitable land in favourable areas was just not available, hence the fact that 150,000 veterans who are certified eligible for loans have not yet applied. In order for these people to receive the benefits of this program, the application deadline of March 31, 1975, should be extended or lifted.
There is one further deadline that bears scrutiny. I am sure all the hon. members know the one to which I refer, which is the October, 1968, deadline for certification of eligibility. There are a number of reasons for this to be repeated, such as the number of misunderstandings that resulted from there being two deadlines in the legislation, and the lack of effective communication of the real meaning of this deadline to the veterans. All hon. members are well aware of the large number of veterans who have been denied benefits as a result of genuine, honest mistakes. A huge volume of mail has been received to that effect by all of us. These people are another group who cannot be arbitrarily denied benefits, because, if each case could be tried on its own merits, each would certainly be judged deserving of those benefits. If this revision were made in conjunction with those aims already stated, I believe a far greater number of veterans of Canada's wars would be able to receive genuine and well deserved benefit from the Veterans' Land Act.
When considering these changes, I think it is very necessary to remember that we owe the existence of this institution, and a great many others in this great land of ours, to the actions and heroics of these people. Had these veterans been stingy in deciding what they would give up in defence of their country, we might not be here today with the right of decision that we now enjoy. All members of the House should support this motion, I submit.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, at first glance the motion before the House might be considered routine. On inspecting it closely, however, one finds that it involves veterans. It seems to have become common practice since early 1973 for the opposition to divide the House on party lines on matters relating to veterans. I served on the veterans affairs committee in the last parliament, and I serve on it in this parliament. I have so served since 1968. I can say sincerely that the committee has been almost completely non-partisan and has rarely divided. Usually, all members have worked together and discussed a matter until consensus has been reached. That is why I feel so uncomfortable about today's debate. In the last two years we have witnessed a partisan approach to the problems of veterans. Fewer members of this House are veterans as compared with the last two parliaments, when I believe about 25 per cent of the members were veterans.


An hon. Member:: Are you a veteran?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: An hon. member asks if I am a veteran. Let me refer him to the little red book, the Parliamentary Guide, and he will see whether or not I am a veteran. I have always been concerned about the welfare of veterans, and always will be. For that reason I support the minister in his endeavours.
Although fewer members now are veterans, we must not forget that the number of veteran members serving at
Veterans Affairs
present is considerably lower than the number serving in the first parliament after 1945. Nevertheless, the veterans affairs committee of the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth parliaments was perhaps one of the busiest committees of the House of Commons. Naturally, all committees worked harder because the rules were changed and estimates of various departments were considered in committee, not in committee of the whole.


Mr. Alexander:: But you are a navy man, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Even so, the veterans affairs committee did a tremendous job. There was a tremendous spirit of co-operation among the parties and veterans' associations. That, essentially, was the spirit in which the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs worked, the committee on which many members of the opposition have been most active. As I said, the committee worked in a non-partisan way. Its efforts were bent to providing better pensions, better health services, better welfare services and more special assistance to veterans, rather than to partisan activities.
The idea of reviewing the terminal date of VLA is not new. It was extended in 1959 to 1962. In 1962 it was extended to 1968, and in 1965 it was extended from 1968 to 1974. In 1974 it was extended to 1975. I raise these points in order to reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) who was concerned about the Veterans' Land Act and suggested that the government is not doing as much as it might. I would remind hon. members that the Conservatives were in power in 1962, and if they had been as concerned then as they say they are today, they could have extended the act beyond 1968- to 1978 or 1980. There was no reason they could not have done so; they had the strongest government of any, with more than 200 members to support them. Now they are in opposition, they sing a different song.
The article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 13 was a good one. The author referred to this issue as a political sacred cow. I think he is right, and I believe hon. members on the other side are using it as such. This article should be read by anyone who has not yet done so. A lot of credit is given to the minister for the stand he has taken. Once again, members are being called upon to consider this act. We are proud of our Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) who has extended this legislation to March 31, 1975. He has always turned an understanding ear when requests have been made to him, regardless of political affiliation. He has always been most co-operative in trying to understand the veteran's point of view, because he himself is a veteran. We are proud of his wartime career. We are proud of his career as a farmer in his native province of Prince Edward Island. We are proud of his career as Minister of Agriculture in that province, and of the work he has done in this parliament for every one of its members and for every veteran in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A year ago, the standing committee recommended that benefits to veterans who are incapacitated to the extent of 100 per cent be increased by

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
relating them to a standard of living directly linked with minimum federal civil service wages. Some hon. members considered it would be very difficult for the minister to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet to accept this proposition, one which was first put forward in 1918 or 1919. The veterans' organizations had made representations on this subject for many, many years. However, the minister was able to bring forward this legislation in 1973.
We are proud of the way in which the minister has kept the budget of his department in line with the requirements of the men and women who are its responsibility. I note that in 1972 the budget provided for $432 million, and that for 1974-75 the estimate is $597 million-an increase of $165 million for the 200,000 people in this country who receive pension benefits at some level. Taking into account the minister's distinguished war record, I am sure most members of the House are willing to accept the hon. gentleman's word, coming as it does from one who is a veteran himself.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am entering into this debate at a late stage because I feel I should be at least on record as favouring the position taken by the mover and seconder of this motion. The question of the future of the Veterans' Land Act has been debated over and over again in the past two years, and it should now be clear to the government that its decision to terminate this important program was an unfortunate one.
My hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has pointed out many times that to terminate the VLA would be to break faith with veterans who were told in all sincerity that their sacrifices in war would not be forgotten. There simply is no justification for ending this program. One reason which, in itself, is sufficient ground for its continuation is that there are still veterans who, for a variety of reasons, have not taken advantage of the act. All of us know the main reason why many thousands of veterans, qualified under the legislation, have not made application for loans. In the period immediately following World War II a man could buy a pretty nice home for $18,000, the limit placed on VLA advances. At that time, half-acre lots were plentiful in most parts of the country. A veteran could purchase an existing home, or build one himself, and still stay within the loan limit. There were homes on the market in almost every area, and building costs were within the reach of those who preferred to build.
All those conditions have changed. In the past few years, building costs have skyrocketed and at the same time it has been increasingly difficult for veterans to acquire existing homes. Moreover, it is no longer practical for anyone, veteran or otherwise, to expect to find a building lot anywhere near the half-acre size required by the VLA regulations. In fact, it is just about impossible to find a lot of that size in many areas of the country; and if he did find one, the average person simply could not afford to buy it. In any case, if money were spent on such a lot, there would be none left with which to build a house.
My hon. friends have already pointed out that the National Housing Act has been brought up to date from time to time; that it is now possible to get NHA loans of up to $30,000, or even more if one plans to buy a multiple dwelling. Under NHA, a purchaser can get by with a lower

down payment than a veteran buying a home under VLA; and there are other directions in which the veteran is not getting a fair shake under this, his own program. The whole VLA program should be overhauled. It should reflect today's conditions in the housing market; it should also reflect the differing conditions which exist in various parts of the country. For instance, while it may still be possible to find a building lot large enough to qualify under VLA in some of the smaller communities, it would be ridiculous to expect to find such a lot in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or any other city or large town. It is like saying to a veteran that he will just have to move to an area where such building lots are available, even if it means uprooting his family, giving up his job and leaving the area in which he has decided he wants to live. None of that makes any sense, but that is exactly what we are expected to accept as valid reasons why the VLA program should be phased out.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), a very capable gentleman who I believe is trying to do a good job in his ministry, must surely realize that veterans have not been treated fairly with respect to the VLA program. While the minister cites the low percentage of eligible veterans who have taken advantage of the program in recent years, he does not tell us that the main reason is that the VLA terms of reference are so restrictive that they are not relevant to today's housing market. The lot size required is out of line with the established building lot sizes in most communities today, and the ceiling on loans of $18,000-I believe a veteran receives only $15,400 of that amount-does not cover more than half the cost of dwellings on the market in most parts of the country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, instead of rushing to put an end to this program, we should bring it into line with today's requirements and conditions, and then we would see whether or not these qualified veterans would come forward in large numbers to take advantage of it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) concerning partisanship in veterans affairs. It has always appeared to me that veterans' legislation was based a great deal on non-partisanship, partly because as the minister indicated, in 1945 there was a large number of veterans. While the number of veterans since that time has decreased, it is safe to say that the members who have participated in this debate are well aware of fathers, brothers or relatives who served in wartime, and they well know the contribution made by veterans on behalf of this nation. Thus we have always treated veterans' legislation differently from any other.
The reason this discussion is taking place today does not have to do with whether or not the Conservatives decided that there would be a cut-off date, or whether the date was extended by a previous parliament. It goes back to a decision made in the last parliament. The last paliament was a minority parliament, and it was very easy for all members to be magnanimous in their treatment of veterans. I would point out to one of the previous speakers that part of this magnanimity arose from the fact that a com-
November 5, 1974

mission sat for many months studying this problem and made certain recommendations that no Liberal government, at least in my experience, would have accepted, and I presume no Conservative government would either.
I therefore congratulate this Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for accepting many of these recommendations, which have made the last years of many veterans much better. I think the reason these changes were made was that it was very easy for each party to put partisanship aside, and together make a decision that was fully in keeping with the needs and aspirations of our veterans, and indeed in keeping with our responsibility to them.
This has been a bad day for the veteran, Mr. Speaker. It has been a bad day for two reasons. First, I attended a meeting of the veterans affairs committee and heard the minister tell the veterans that he was not interested, or rather, to be fair, not that he was not interested, but that he did not believe it would be possible for him to extend the provisions of the act to those veterans who were not able to return to Canada after the first world war and stay for one year.
These people are now over 72 years of age. If you were 16 in 1918 you are 72 now, so we really are not talking about very many people. The minister said he did not think he could anticipate acceptance by his colleagues of an extension of the legislation to benefit those veterans who did not return to Canada for the specified 365 days. There are also several other minor amendments which the minister did not think he would be able to sell to his colleagues, and I suggest this may be because we now have a majority parliament, not a minority parliament.
I did not necessarily expect the minister to extend the date of this legislation, but I did think he would say to us that, although the legislation had to die, he was going to substitute a different type of legislation that would extend an advantage to a veteran and enable him to buy a retirement home with a grant of more liberal amount and, with a much smaller land requirement. But this was not the case.
The minister today sounded more like ministers of governments that I have heard over the years. This Minister of Veterans Affairs-and I say sincerely-has shown a rather unique willingness to examine propositions that have been put before him. Perhaps sometimes he has been slightly naive regarding the implications of such proposals when looked at in a positive w'ay. But in saying today that the time had come to eliminate this kind of legislation, that if veterans are going to re-establish themselves they would have done so a long time ago, he reminded me very much of another minister of veterans affairs who spent a considerable time telling us that veterans' hospitals need no longer exist because there were not enough people to operate those hospitals, and that we should start giving them away so as to get better treatment for our veterans.
Most of the veterans I have talked to who have visited these institutions, which have been taken over by universities and other agencies, have not found that to be the case. The veterans' hospital was a unique institution. Quite often it was run by people who had served in the services, people who were dedicated to veterans' organizations, and who provided the type of service to veterans
Veterans Affairs
that may have been somewhat lacking in normal hospitals. This care improved their morale and gave them a better environment during the last years of their existence. I do not think the change we made in the hospital structure for veterans was advantageous.
If the minister is saying that those veterans who have not taken advantage of the Veterans' Land Act and smallholdings legislation should now come under the National Housing Act, I think he is being unfair if he is suggesting that this is to their advantage. Changes could have been made to VLA and probably would have been made. There really was no point in retaining the four-tenths of an acre stipulation, and perhaps we should have adopted the normal size acre in Parry Sound or New Liskeard, or wherever it might be. The lot might be 33 feet wide by 100 feet long, or 50 feet wide by 150 feet long, all depending on the practice of the community in which it is located. In any event, some fluidity should be adopted in that regard with relation to the vicinity or the community in which a person lived. This might not be of any advantage to veterans living outside organized communities, but perhaps that is what we should have done.
One fact that is not generally known to members of this House who have not been concerned with veterans over a period of time is that when veterans' legislation was established the money was put into a number of veterans' funds for use under the land act, and by various agencies regarding re-establishment credits and other things. In each case when those funds were returned they were not returned to the agency that provided the money but to the treasury. That means that a great deal of money goes to the treasury in this way.
Had we originally established a revolving fund under veterans' legislation the minister would now be looking after a sizeable account, and perhaps more consideration would be given to the reinvestment of that money for the benefit of veterans. Because this money goes back into the general account of the nation the amount does not appear to be very large. The return on VLA loans is very large but the output would be relatively small, and perhaps we should do something about the interest rate.
In the legislation we are considering there was another consideration not followed in respect of the National Housing Act. I refer to the restriction placed on veterans because of the advantage they were receiving over those who had to deal on the general commercial market. That restriction was that a veteran had to live in the house built under the Veterans' Land Act for a period, I believe, of at least 10 years before being entitled to full benefits.
Perhaps the government should have followed this practice in respect of national housing, and retained title in all properties for a 10-year period. This would have prevented speculation by individuals who built housing under government legislation. I agree that there might have to be some trade-off because of conditions of mobility which exist in respect of the majority of young people today resulting from job changes, transfers and the like. We would have to provide some flexibility in respect of that 10 year period to cover these changes in jobs, moves and transfers.

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
If we had some such restriction in respect of national housing it would not be possible for young couples to build a home and profit by the sale of that house in the first six months, perhaps the result of a breakup in their marriage.
I suggest this has been the case, and many of these people have been able to double their original investment in a short period of time.
That is a situation which has not existed in respect of veterans' legislation, probably evidenced by the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is still one of the largest landowners in this country, holding more deeds to property than any other government agency. He probably has not considered the number of properties that require his signature to be transferred, but I imagine the number would be much greater than the number for which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) is responsible, even though he in effect owns or controls all the land in the right of Canada.
Controls of that nature restrict profiteering on land, and I am sure the specific control under the veterans' administration has prevented speculative purchasing by many young people. We could benefit from the extension of that type of legislation to the national housing field, with the result that benefits would be provided young people except for speculative purposes through quick sales.
I am not suggesting that all CMHC loans be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs, but loans under veterans' legislation have been administered very well over the years. This type of control has created stability for the individual buying property, and for the communities in which veterans live. In my home town most of the houses built under the small holdings legislation are still occupied by the people who built them, and I think this is true in a large percentage of the cases throughout the country.
I do not believe that members of this House are different from members in past years. I think the difference which now is becoming apparent is a partisan difference resulting from the majority position of the government. The amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), was not considered last year to be partisan. The motion was supported unanimously.
This year the motion accepted unanimously by a previous parliament seems to have become a partisan thing. Apparently the minister will not agree to look at this piece of legislation extending the period of time. I think that by the one-year extension we probably made it possible for an additional 5,000 veterans to take advantage of the act.
Having regard to the original deadlines, surely anyone can admit that he was wrong. I was one of the individuals here in 1965.1 was a member of the committee at the time, and heard officials of the department say there was no real advantage in continuing this legislation beyond the deadline as all the people were covered. The officials of the department have said from time to time they have not been busy servicing these loans as the number of applications has been dropping off. At that time we accepted their word and set the deadline for three years from then. During that time nothing really came to light which changed our opinion.
[Mr. Peters.}
However, when the 1974 deadline came in view everyone agreed unanimously that we should have another look at it. As a result we unanimously extended the deadline by one year. I suggest that the fact we have a majority government may be the reason for the partisanship feeling we have today. I certainly hope that is not the reason this legislation is not being changed.
In closing, I would say that as far as I am concerned I am pleased to listen to any suggestions the minister has in terms of changing the legislation. Over the years we have decided that the cost involved was too great to cover all small holdings, and we have found that in the case of many of the people involved it has been too difficult to look after the required amount of land. If I remember correctly the original stipulation was two acres, but we have reduced that. It was reduced two or three times. It now has been reduced to the point where a piece of property may be contiguous to another piece of property and thereby make up the required four-tenths of an acre. Over the years we have come to realize that what we are talking about now is perhaps a retirement home rather than re-establishment property for veterans. We realize that many people who are retiring do not wish to become involved in agriculture but wish to have a small retirement residence. This may be a first home. It may be a long distance from where the person conducted his business.
Perhaps this is a benefit we can give to some veteran who has not been able to obtain a home in some other way. He might wish to leave the locality in which he worked before retirement and move to another community where life is a little slower, and where he may find living expenses to be more within his means.
I suggest it is unfair to those who have not taken advantage of the provisions of this legislation for the government to turn down the request for extension. One of my colleagues just a few minutes ago mentioned that he is a veteran. He said that he knew of this piece of legislation, but that until he came here and heard the discussion several years ago he did not know there was a cut-off date. He had never heard about that. I think that sometimes inside this building we believe everything we have said here has been passed on to everyone in the country. That really is not the case. There are people who did not know the cut-off date was 1968.
If the minister wishes to continue in the jovial, genial and generous manner he displayed in respect of veterans and during the last minority parliament with regard to the Woods Commission Report and the changes that were made in respect of veterans legislation, I would like to see him say that he is in favour of eliminating the 1968 qualifying date, and also the other date.
If this were the case I do not think the minister would be overly generous. We would not be giving these people very much. We would merely be providing them with what they need in respect, of housing. At this period of their lives they probably are in a position to augment that to some degree. It will come back to us. We will hold the mortgages on those properties in any event.
Particularly in this month, Mr. Speaker, when people should be thinking of the evils of war and the penalties
November 5, 1974

people must pay for war, I do not believe average citizens throughout Canada would feel the minister was abusing their tax dollars if he would reverse the decision that obviously he has taken. If the minister were to make the decision to extend this legislation I am sure the many veterans in this country who would have 5, 10 or 15 years in their own homes would beatify the ministry of this particular minister.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, this contribution on my part in the debate on the Veterans' Land Act, is the fourth or fifth one. I have no objection to my doing so or to the hon. members opposite doing so whenever it will be necessary in the House and wherever we are given the opportunity to protect the interests of those who fought with us during the dark years from 1939 to 1945 and later on the Korean battlefields.
Every time we do so, we like on either side to say and to repeat that it is without partisanship. I must admit I am doing so today in a partisan spirit, a spirit I feel for my former comrades in arms, especially at this time of the year, in November, where 37 or 38 years ago conditions were not as good, as easy, as peaceful as they are now in the world. Considering the community of interest that all veterans feel for their former comrades in arms, the handicapped or the disabled ones as well as those who never came back, we must earnestly try to find for the former a solution to the various problems they are faced with.
The problem facing us today is precisely a legislation passed in 1942 by the Canadian government in favour of those veterans, that is an act providing for their reestablishment on farms. It was extended and the first time we extended it with a time limit, it was in 1962 and it was not the liberals but a conservative government, which set a time limit to the renewal of the benefits granted under the legislation. I wonder whether my progressive-conservative colleagues can approve of that 1962 policy to limit the benefit period under that legislation and what prompted them to do so. Did they think that the veterans' needs would change some day? As for me, I trust those who set a limit to the benefits at that time. They thought that some day, a limit would have to be set to the benefit period and that an alternative would have to be found. As a matter of fact, if we look at the preamble of the act that I quoted in my speech on March 12, 1974, I said and I quote:
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;
Mr. Speaker, already in the act the matter of required qualifications was raised without reference being made to competence; at that time however farming was a lot easier than it is today, because it is now an industrialized and mechanized operation, which is not easy for everyone to enter successfully.
The preamble of the act stated that a veteran, or a person wanting to enter that very honourable field, had to meet certain qualification criteria. I quote:
Veterans Affairs
Whereas part-time farming coupled with other employment is an increasingly important aspect of the rural and semi-rural life in Canada;
During the years 1942-43 it was still possible for a healthy person to actually have two jobs, work eight to ten hours a day in an industry, a store or any other business, and also farm on a part-time basis. The veteran coming back home and raising a family is a lot more captive at home than when one reaches my age, for example.
It was already possible for a veteran to farm while at the same time having another job. However, the problem is quite different today in the month of March 1974 and the month of November of 1973 when one considers that, on the average, veterans are 59 or 60 years old. That is not the age when a person considers going into a new career, particularly farming, because when one considers today all the complications imposed on someone who has the training to enter that industry, one sees that the act concerning the establishment of veterans contains a very wise provision respecting a "prerequisite" in addition to competence. Later, in 1962, the government set certain limits. Admittedly, it was already recognized that there could perhaps be other solutions to the problem, and such an alternative is precisely what I want to talk about-the Farm Credit Corporation.
When the Farm Credit Corporation was established in 1959 by the Farm Credit Act, it is said that this corporation was created to replace the Canadian Farm Loan Corporation. Its major objective is to grant long term mortgage loans under favourable terms and conditions liable to help Canadian farmers establish family farms on a profit-making basis and to promote the development of a healthy and competitive agricultural industry.
It also administers the Farm Credit Act which provides for loans to groups or syndicates. If you examine the Corporation's annual report for 1972-73, Mr. Speaker, you will soon notice that the spirit prevailing when the Veterans' Land Act was passed is no more. The situation has changed a lot since then. The average loan granted by the Farm Credit Corporation in 1970-72 amounted to $35,173 compared to $28,430 for the previous year. Within one year, the average loan rose by approximately $7,000 and an additional 1,200 loans were granted.
What I want to bring to the attention of this House concerning the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Speaker, is mainly the spirit of the Act which provides that the person to whom a loan is granted must have appropriate training. This is not an undertaking that beckons when one is 60 years old.
And the proof that this is not an undertaking upon which one embarks when one is 60 years old is that when you consider the average age of those who asked for or were granted loans in 1971-72, only 5.4 per cent of the borrowers were over 54 years old. And of those who asked for or were granted a loan, the great majority, 75 per cent, were 35 or younger.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the age of those who are presently taking farms over to turn them into a profitable operation which will bring success to them and their family.
As a matter of fact, this is not a business venture that a 55 year old veteran who has worked for the Post Office or
1078

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
another department or for a private concern can success-fully"take over and manage. We have but to think of those who were brought up on farms who have devoted their lives to farming, who are now having problems making ends meet and feel they must resort to radical actions judged very severely by Canadians to demonstrate the problems they are faced with.
If the people that were trained for it and lived on a farm experience difficulties, imagine what hardships a middle-aged veteran will have to face.
Mr. Speaker, I did convince my colleagues that the veterans problem is that they did not avail themselves of the other benefits, namely the loan for starting in business or for university education. The minister would do a bad turn to the 80,000 veterans holding a certificate if he embarked them on a venture with exceedingly low chances of success.
Mr. Speaker, that is something I would not be a party to.
Those members who were here in 1973 will recall the efforts by the government and the minister of Veterans Affairs to promote the redemption of certificates by veterans, whether or not they had availed themselves of the statutory benefits. They will also remember campaigns aimed at Canadian Legion sections across the country, and advertisements in veterans publications, calling for the veterans to avail themselves of the benefits provided by the act.
At that time, some came forward for redemption of their right. Since 1968, Mr. Speaker, twenty thousand have availed themselves of their rights.
I wish those holding certificates could use them rather than feeling, as I and other colleagues do, that the time for applications under the act is over.
Since farming and rural settlement come to a much larger degree under the responsibility of another department, I wonder whether the Department of Veterans Affairs would not overextend itself if it went once more into a venture for which much expertise already exists in another department.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether insistence could not be made to bear upon the minister, in order that the very important problem of veteran settlement be reviewed, without developing an act that would restrict very dangerously the veterans' chances of success.
I listened this afternoon to remarks by my hon. colleagues opposite, as I did in March last or November 1973. I heard nothing in the way of a solution comparable to the one I just mentioned, that is considering the possibility that another department or agency might find the key to the problem, that is the continuance of benefits provided by the act.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in the debate on the Veterans' Land Act. I believe that in my constituency in Victoria, B.C. there are probably more veterans than any other constituency, at least on a percentage basis.
Along with my colleagues, I was rather shocked at the remarks of the hon. member for St Boniface (Mr. Guay)

who said, at the start of his address, that the Veterans Committee has always been a non partisan committee on a non partisan subject, and then proceeded to be quite partisan himself.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am sure that he regrets it, as we all do. I have been privileged to serve on some committees of the House that are nonpartisan, and it has always been a pleasure.
The minister made some comments that left me somewhat puzzled. I understood him to say in his speech this afternoon that there are some veterans overseas who might be qualified, and that his representatives had talked to some of them who had not seen fit to take up their options to purchase land under the Veterans' Land Act. I am somewhat skeptical of the likelihood of anybody wishing to buy land that he had not seen, and that in fact is in another country.
With regard to the remarks about the article in the Globe and Mail-and I have not had time to get it from the library since the hon. member from St. Boniface brought it up-let me point out that, so far as I recall, it pointed out that perhaps the VLA should be wound up because there were not enough veterans taking advantage of it. Surely that is not a reason for closing up VLA. That is a reason for looking at it again and deciding why they are not taking advantage of their options.
When you have on record between 125,000 and 150,000 veterans who qualified to purchase land under the Veterans Land Act and who ask for the certificate, and then you find that nobody is buying the land, I do not think you can say this means they do not want it. The truth is that it is financially impossible for them to buy the land.
I believe this Veterans' Land Act followed the Soldier Settlement Act of World War I, and until a few years ago the government supplied a mortgage of $15,400 and the veteran paid $2,600, making $18,000. The veteran could buy an $18,000 home provided it was on .4 acres of land, but a dwindling number of veterans have been taking advantage of this. Anybody who could buy a piece of property with a house on it anywhere in this country today for $18,000 must have an uncommon ability.
At the conclusion of his remarks the minister pointed out that the government is aware of the need for low and modest income homes. He said:
It is in recognition of that awareness, and of the greater relevancy of the provisions of the National Housing Act to those needs, that a study has been undertaken to examine whether special arrangements should be made to assist such veterans.
Because discussions are still in progress, I am not in a position to comment further at this time. I am hopeful, however, that it will be possible for me to do so in the not too distant future.
This is asking the House to cancel VLA in exchange for a promise about which the minister is not prepared to speak. It would have been much better if the minister had transformed his cloudy promise into legislation, and brought the legislation here as a quid pro quo for the Veterans' Land Act. In dealing with governments a bird in the hand is worth much more than a promise. It is the
November 5, 1974

government which has permitted VLA to become unworkable. The government says nobody wants land because people are not applying for it. That is like saying people in Bangladesh are starving to death because they are not buying food. It is impossible for veterans to buy land and build a home now under the Veterans Land Act. It is sheer chicanery for the government to say the act is not needed any more because veterans are not taking advantage of it.
I should like to say a few words on how the act could still be used, Mr. Speaker. Many veterans, and I was one, stayed in the service after World War II. Because they were posted from one part of the country to another they did not buy a home but planned to do so when they retired. They are at that age now, and I am sure some of them are among the 125,000 to 150,000 certified veterans who have not taken up the option to buy land. Upon retirement they found they had a "Catch 22" bill-if they could find a property and put a building on it they could have a low term mortgage. Of course they were much too late.
The minister, and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), raised the question of veterans' hospitals and I should like to comment on something that was brought to my attention recently. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Timiskaming. The transfer of veterans' hospitals to civilians and civilian organizations has not gone well. In Victoria the coronary care unit of the veterans' hospital was closed, and now any veteran who has a heart attack in that hospital has to be taken to the nearby civilian hospital by ambulance. They are closing down the outpatient department and this leaves many patients, particularly the aging ones, in a terrible position. They consider the veterans' hospital doctor to be their family doctor; now they are turned away and told to go to a doctor of their choice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs convinced veterans' associations that the change was inevitable and they might as well relax and enjoy it. They also convinced the staff that they would be better off if the province took over the hospital. The only people they did not talk to or consider were the hospital patients. I believe this transfer to be a tremendous disservice and I want to put my objection on the record, Mr. Speaker. It is a mistake and it should be rectified.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, may I take a moment of the time of the House to say what a pleasure it is~to have you in the chair. Your presence reminds me of a cavalry general who had done nothing in a battle. When asked what he had done, he replied that he had lent colour
Veterans Affairs
and dash to what otherwise would have been a vulgar brawl. I feel the same way about your presence here.
At six o'clock I had been speaking on the veterans' hospital in Victoria, and I have a few more comments on that topic before I yield the floor to others who wish to participate in this debate.
The decision to turn the hospital in Victoria over to the province was announced some six months ago. As to when the decision was made, only the minister knows, but it was made some considerable time before discussions began, I believe.
I am not in favour of hospitals having empty beds. I have no complaints about any efforts made to make fuller use of scarce medical facilities. However, I object to the fact that the treatment of veterans in the Victoria and Vancouver Island area is not of the same standard it was before the changes. Elderly veterans, who for years were accorded out-patient status at the Victoria hospital, are no longer able to get medicine at the familiar dispensary. They are no longer able to see their usual doctor who knew them personally and their problems. They feel insecure in the strangeness of the new rules and regulations. If they need minor surgery they can no longer be sure of admission to the operating theatre at the "Vets", particularly on Saturdays when the operating room is allotted exclusively to abortions. It is a sad commentary on oui social values that this should happen.
In closing, Madam Speaker, let me return to the Veterans' Land Act. I remind the minister that many options are open to the government. I do not know what structures the government may have placed on the minister; certainly many options are open to the government, if only it will take them. Let the government rid itself of the idea that it can absolve itself of responsibility for veterans under the Veterans' Land Act by talking of the days when the act was used to settle soldiers on land.
Let us be honest. The provisions of the act were designed to provide shelter for veterans. The government should readjust its thinking and allow veterans to acquire modern shelter in modern times. Let it consider extending the terms of the Veterans' Land Act to cover the purchase of condominiums, the purchase of house trailers and of strata titles. The mortgage restriction should be changed. Instead of the $18,000 ceiling, the ceiling ought to be up to 85 per cent of the value of the holding. In other words, the government should cancel the existing ceiling governing the amount of money available for a mortgage. It should lessen the requirement for land. Really, you will not provide shelter for veterans if you insist on them holding .4 of an acre, or half an acre. The spirit and principle of the law are defeated by a technicality. In addition, the government should cancel immediately the 1968 and 1975 dates regarding the closing of certification to do with the purchase of land.
I submit that the minister should initiate, in consultation with veterans' organizations, a study to enable amending legislation to be drafted which will satisfy the real, present day needs of veterans.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion to review the termination date, March 31, 1975, for applica-
2 8305-69Vi

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
tions under the Veterans' Land Act as at present specified in that act. Many members debating this issue are, like me, veterans of World War II, the war which we believed would be the last major conflict. Perhaps that is a slim hope.
During the past few years, particularly the last year, motions have been introduced to disregard or extend the deadline for applications under the Veterans' Land Act. Such motions are understandable, as they ask the government to give continued benefits to men and women who responded to their country's need in time of war. Such motions were considered carefully last year and turned down. However, the minister agreed to reconsider the matter. Finally, the official opposition brought in a motion of non-confidence. No one needs to tell me that that motion was not used as a political lever in an attempt to bring about the collapse of the government.
The minister had taken pains to make sure that every veteran who really wanted to, could avail himself of the provisions of the act. He was supported by the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations in his decision. The official opposition said it had no wish to unseat the government; it moved its motion out of a desire to help veterans. Madam Speaker, I think they were speaking with tongue in cheek.
Also, the then NDP leader protested that the question of political advantage did not enter the minds of his party. He hoped the veterans would realize that the Progressive Conservatives were ready to play politics with the welfare of the veterans.


Jack Marshall: We will remember that.


Samuel Victor Railton: Personally I would have had a difficult time supporting the government if the minister had not reconsidered this matter. Why do I say this? When I was a certain age-it is close to the average of World War II veterans-I, myself, had taken out a VLA loan to help me buy some land and a house on the shores of Lake Erie. Indeed, at the time this matter was last discussed in the previous parliament, I did not wish to prevent any veteran from doing exactly what I had done. But my soul searching ended when the minister promised to reconsider the termination date for applications. So we, on all sides of the House, were able to vote for the motion with a clear conscience.
Since then I have had many inquiries from friends and constituents who are World War II veterans. I find that no one is very likely to be injured by closing off applications at the end of March, 1975. This gives me a personal freedom in not supporting the motion.
When one reads the preamble to the original act there can, I think, be no doubt that the government of the day wished to favour those young Canadians who flocked to the colours voluntarily and defended their country so gloriously. It can be seen from the preamble that the government wished not only to reward returning veterans after the second world war but also to create some incentive which would encourage young people to leave their jobs and join the forces.

At this stage we know there are some 100,000 veterans who have bought property with the help of VLA. Almost half of these, about 48,500, are still living on those properties and are repaying their loans. Another 40,000 of those still on their land have finished paying their debts.
When one considers that although the average age of those returning from the war was 24 and that the average age of veterans is now between 55 and 60, we realize that these citizens have thus had 30 years to consider land purchase under the Veterans' Land Act. In my many years of practice in Welland since the war, I find that a great many of the veterans there are 60 years of age or more. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether there are more than a very few veterans who will even consider using the VLA to assist them in buying a home. Though it is true the cost of land and housing is very high today, and a grant would certainly be of some help, other borrowing possibilities would need to be open to the average veteran.
The mover and seconder of the motion before us are well known for their compassion toward veterans. Indeed, I believe that any speaker in this debate must be described in the same way, as being compassionate. However, when I got over my personal hurdle last year and satisfied myself that the act was no longer needed for its original purpose I found myself against extending the expiry date, being satisfied that none of our honoured veterans is likely to be hurt if the date now set for expiry remains unaltered.
I have listened carefully to the speeches of hon. members opposite and can find no new point in them. The present extension was made in a minority parliament and there were, therefore, some special considerations which had to be taken into account. These no longer apply. Needless expense should be eliminated in these times of inflation and of a national situation which is so serious, and so the act should be allowed to expire. This would still permit some new commitments to be made in favour of eligible veterans in the next few months.
We belong to a group composed of only a very few countries which operate a Department of Veterans Affairs. Our departmental budget this year is around $600 million. This is evidence of our deep concern for Canadian veterans, even if nothing else is mentioned. In addition, we have today reported Bill C-4 to increase war veterans allowances in a very generous manner. It is possible that some method for the preferential treatment of veterans seeking to build or purchase homes can be worked out. I would support a new act to allow war pensioners and recipients of WVA to be helped in this manner.
Indeed it would be very nice if all veterans could qualify for some help under the National Housing Act. I do not know how this can be worked out; it would be up to the minister and the cabinet. In the meantime I should like to congratulate the minister on his compassion and also on his wisdom in the handling of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Madam Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I participate in this debate. May I begin by congratulating the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the contributions they have made to this debate, as well as on

November 5, 1974

their past interest and concern in all matters affecting war veterans.
I want, also, to join with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) in his condemnation of the opening remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), and to take issue with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) for implying that partisan politics are involved in this debate. Since my election in 1972 I have been impressed by the non-partisan approach which has been demonstrated by all parties in matters which affect veterans. It is precisely this attitude which has prompted me to speak on the motion before us, believing this to be a forum in which reasonable attitudes and approaches will be recognized.
I might add that I join with the hon. member for St. Boniface in his congratulations of the minister who is recognized as one of our great heroes and outstanding Canadians. I know he is concerned about the welfare of veterans. Indeed, he has demonstrated this concern and compassion during his tenure in office. I am certain the minister will be understanding of and sympathetic to reasonable arguments which are presented in this chamber, and I am equally confident that his compassion and generosity will prompt him to see justice is served and that he will reconsider the statement he made this afternoon.
I think it is important to note and record in Hansard that members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to our veterans, emphasizing the contributions they have made to Canadian society. Again, I am hopeful that before this debate is over our action will demonstrate unity in protecting the rights of veterans with respect to this most important issue.
Despite the minister's statement this afternoon I still remain confident that at the conclusion of the debate he will recognize the importance of this legislation to thousands of veterans that he will also recognize the sincerity of the speeches made by those who represent the views of countless Legion members and veterans across Canada, and acknowledge that there is still widespread support for the continuation of the legislation. It is also my hope that the minister will not only extend the expiry date of the act but provide a vehicle for meaningful amendments which will correct existing injustices.
Personally I have not had the privilege of serving in the armed forces, but I have had the opportunity in my constituency of Lambton-Kent of having a warm relationship with the Canadian Legion, particularly in my home town of Wallaceburg where I was installed as an honorary member of their branch. I am proud of their traditions and the innumerable contributions they have made to the community.
Whether by accident or design, it is particularly fitting that this debate is taking place just prior to Remembrance Day. It is important to recall the purpose and meaning of that day when we pay tribute to those who made the supreme sacrifice in the name of freedom, when we extend our sympathy to the families and friends whose loss of loved ones has left permanent scars, and when we remember with pride the members of the Legion for the sacri-
Veterans Affairs
fices they made, the traditions they hold and, above all, their loyalty to our country.
As parliamentarians, our words, acts and deeds must transcend this important day, and it is our responsibility in this chamber to translate not only our gratitude but that of the Canadian people into tangible results defending the rights of our veterans. I would say to the minister, indeed to all members in the House, that a generous response on the part of the government to this important matter would have significantly more value and meaning than all the words spoken by hon. members on Remembrance Day.
During the debate on the Veterans' Land Act on March 28, 1974, and again in his statement today, the minister- and I say this with all respect-attempted to defend his position by developing in some detail the original intent of the legislation. As reported at page 948 of Hansard for March 28, 1974, the minister said:
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-"
I emphasize the word "homes".
"-by qualified veterans-".
This in fact is the crux of the debate in this chamber today, and resolution of this problem is essential if additional, meaningful amendments are to be forthcoming and, may I add, should be forthcoming.
I will admit that the minister is accurate in a legal sense in presenting this view, and I am certain that all members are well aware of the original intention of the bill. Approximately 30 years have passed since the introduction of the legislation, and social and economic pressures have diluted the original concept with its emphasis on a home in a rural or semi-rural setting. However, I must emphasize that the desire and need for the establishment of a home are as relevant today as they were 30 years ago.
Who was able to predict with accuracy the rush to urbanization? Who sensed the great threat to our rich agricultural lands and the necessity for planning to preserve this valuable resource? Who predicted the unrealistic cost of lots and homes, and the unrealistic legislation that presently exists to meet these needs?
The principle of homes for our veterans is as valid today as when the legislation was first introduced. Indeed the problem is more critical today in that large numbers of veterans are experiencing difficulties in finding a place to live during their retirement.

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
I would respectfully suggest that if legislation were being drafted today, as I am certain it would following a similar armed conflict, the preamble would once again emphasize the importance of a home as in the original legislation, but the details would be equated with the social and economic forces existing at the present time.
I realize that the minister indicated in his speech this afternoon that there would be a study to determine whether such a program should be introduced. I have great respect for the minister and I know he is sincere in the comments that he has made, but we have not seen the proposed legislation, and unfortunately we are dealing with the Liberal government and not the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Every member in this chamber has had representations from Legion branches and veterans asking for an indefinite extension of the date. Indeed, in the minister's speech on March 28 he indicated that very need, and I quote from the same page of Hansard:
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.
I should add that this occurred at a time when the present qualifications are out of date in terms of current social and economic changes. I think it is significant to note that in the summer issue of "The Fragment" there is a full page ad on page 39 under the caption "Veteran's Land Act Extended to March 31, 1975 for Qualified Veterans". I commend the minister for this action but wish to underscore that such action implies the minister recognizes a large number of veterans are interested in participating in the program, and that the minister knows the terminal date of March 31, 1975, will not fulfil the veterans' needs. I say in all sincerity to the minister that his conscience cannot be sublimated by such an ad, and the ad is no substitution for action.
In the same summer issue of "The Fragment" there is an editorial entitled "Veterans' Land Act" which very concisely and succinctly summarizes the views of veterans and Legion branches across Canada. I should like to put them on the record of this House because they are important and express the situation much better than I could:
It seems obvious, from the reaction to the scheduled March 31st, 1974 deadline for application under the Veterans' Land Act, that this legislation can continue to serve a useful purpose for a number of years.
It is our contention that the issues have been unnecessarily complicated by figures and various data reports. We do not wish to oversimplify, but facts seem to speak for themselves:
(1)	There are still many world war II veterans who wish to take advantage of this legislation.
(2)	Should they wish to do so, they are required to repay their re-establishment credits.
(3)	The cost to the taxpayer with regard to the Veterans' Land Act is negligible, particularly inasmuch as the mortgage rates for loans under part 3 of the act fluctuate with mortgage rates generally.
(4)	Many of the veterans who now, or in the future, may wish to make use of the Veterans' Land Act could not do so in the years immediately following their discharge from the service, as they were attempting to rehabilitate themselves and were not in a financial position to purchase a home. If such persons are willing now to repay their re-establishment credit, it seems logical that they should not be deprived of the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act.

(5)	Provisions under the act should be up-dated, in accordance with today's economy. It is to be noted that the government had no compunction about increasing the interest rates of loans under Part III when interest rates generally had escalated. It seems most appropriate that the government should also increase the loan ceiling in keeping with the upward revision in the cost of land and houses.
(6)	The government should recognize also that the increased age of the world war II veteran population generally precludes individuals from the operation of a "small holding" which was the original basis of the requirement for one-half acre of land for a VLA mortgage. Also, the cost of land has increased to the point where the purchase of one-half acre would be prohibitive in most cases. Therefore the government should reduce the acreage requirement so that a VLA mortgage could be obtained by veterans wishing to build on municipal lots.
We are appreciative of the fact that the government has extended the deadline for a period of one year. It would seem appropriate now that:
(1)	All Deadlines be removed from the act.
(2)	The loan ceiling be removed on the amount available under VLA and this be made equivalent to the National Housing Act administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(3)	The one-half acre requirement be removed, so that a veteran could use the act for the purchase of municipal property.
In concluding, I should like to quote from the latter part of the minister's speech on March 28, 1974, at that time he stated:
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 or freedom was in doubt.
The minister went on to say:
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.
I know the minister was sincere in making those comments earlier this year and I have no doubt that he holds those same views today. I place little credence in prophets and clairvoyants, but on this occasion I would implore the minister to use his good offices to ensure the fulfilment of those words.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, judging from what the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has said, he would hold out some hope that veterans will receive some special consideration from the ministry of housing when he transfers his responsibilities to that department. It seems to me that what we should be doing, rather than transferring the kind of benefits we have traditionally offered veterans to a department whose record of success is meagre, to say the least, is transferring the responsibilities of that department to the Department of Veterans Affairs so that everyone in our population could appreciate or receive some of the benefits veterans have received.
In a few days across this country memorial services will be held to honour those who died in two world wars. The greatest tribute we can pay the dead, instead of paying lip service on that occasion, if we really want to honour the dead of our wars, would be by seeing to it that the benefits the veterans have received are extended to every member of our society. That would be a fine and lasting tribute, the kind of thing those men might have felt worthy of dying for, Madam Speaker. If the legislation we were able to implement on their behalf were extended to every member
November 5, 1974

of society, that would be a great source of pride to every veteran in this country.
I am suggesting that we are going the wrong way. Instead of carrying on something which should be extended to all members of society we are now taking it away from the veterans, without enhancing society by doing so.
If we consider all veterans' legislation in this country I think most of us can take pride in the fact that our country behaved the way it did, in that veterans received reasonable treatment from their government. We can also take pride in the fact that many of the ideas which originated in respect of veterans' legislation, contained in the principle of assisting the veterans, have been incorporated in various sections of other legislation. For example, veterans receive hospitalization and medical care as a result of their service in the war. That coverage has been extended to all members of society. The question then arises, if assistance in other areas is the human thing to do in respect of veterans why should it not be applied to all members of society? I am sure that veterans would applaud that move.
Having regard to the field of housing, if programs in this area should be extended then why should any person be required to put a down payment on a home in this society? Is the credit of the average man so bad that we cannot trust him with a loan without a down payment? Let us consider what is happening because of this principle. If we do not move in that direction we get involved in all kinds of subsidies that probably cost a great deal more than a program which would simply permit people to obtain mortgage loans without a down payment.
In my opinion the cost of subsidization over the years is greater than a program which would simply allow people in our society to obtain mortgage loans. This would be of assistance to those people in our society who would work to pay off that mortgage, with the result that both the individual and the government would benefit.
The system we have in our society is not as good as it might be, and I have in mind various assistance and support programs. Under the veterans' legislation an individual who came out of the armed forces had the right to decide what he wanted to do with his credits. Such an individual could take a university course, he could apply his credits toward a small business loan in order to go into business for himself or become a farmer, or he could use those credits to buy a car or anything of that kind.
What are we doing under our present system? People should have credits in our society. If an individual has been lucky enough to have a nervous system which permitted him to get through high school he is able to use similar credits to go on to university. Another individual may not want to go to university, for one reason or another, but under our system he is entitled to nothing. That individual does not have access to credits in the way veterans did in past years. If such an individual wants to start a small business he does not receive that assistance. Of course we do have such things such as farm loans and small business loans, but for all practical purposes these are not available to the average individual. There is a tokenism there, but in fact the assistance is not available to that kind of person who applies.
Veterans Affairs
We could benefit enormously if we took the principles of the veterans' programs and applied them to society generally. That is the direction in which we should be moving rather than dismantling a valuable program by turning it over to an agency whose track record has not been good. I have no confidence in the suggestion that the housing ministry is really going to do anything worthwhile for veterans. The benefits which have been extended to veterans over the years should be continued and enlarged for other members of our society, perhaps specifically for the benefit of the sons and daughters of veterans.
What we tend to overlook in our society is that there are many other people who might have offered their services, in fact many who did, but actually did not serve in the armed forces. Many of these people were at certain age levels that did not permit them to serve. In fact the government directed many of them to stay on the farm or work in industry rather than go into the armed forces. Many others were prevented from serving overseas or even in the armed forces because of poor health. Those people were no less patriotic than others who served in uniform. Let us take the merchant navy as an example. Many members of that group served at far greater risk than others in uniform.
I think a compelling argument can be made that all people in society who suffer because of a war, and not just those who put on a uniform, are entitled to the kind of benefits that were made available to the service men. I might give an example of the kind of man of whom I speak. Perhaps he will not thank me for pointing this out.
There probably has been no greater defender of the veterans' rights than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). No man has spoken more eloquently and feelingly about the problems of the veterans, or with more continuity and consistency than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. One would have thought that at the very least he was a general leading troops on the front lines when he talked about the war and his feelings in that regard. This is the kind of thing to which I refer. One did not need to be in a uniform to show one's patriotism and devotion to the country, although it is true that those in uniform have a special claim on our thanks.
I hope the minister will pay some attention to the representations he has received from many members in this House. It is not a question of merely letting something drag out. It is not a question of letting a program peter out; nor should we become involved in the argument that there are not too many veterans applying. What is far more important is the principle that has been established which, I think, in some ways is in our legislation for veterans and not for other people. That principle should be maintained and strengthened. It should be applied to all members of our society rather than letting it go into oblivion at this stage.


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, on this very memorable day I feel it is a privilege to be allowed to participate in this debate. I feel very comfortable tonight speaking in this House under this great canopy covered with Irish linen. I might say I am especially proud as a

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
naval veteran to support the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I proudly remember two very fine army people, my father and my brother, who did so much for their country.
I am left a little confused by the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), who, while praising the servicemen suggested that similar rights should be granted to the general public. These are privileges that only servicemen earn. I am a little confused by the mixing of apples and grapes in the same barrel.
In considering the representations of last March to extend the statutory deadline of March 31, 1975 for qualified veterans to submit loan applications under the Veterans' Land Act, it is essential to look at the matter having in mind the purpose of the act and its alternative relationship to other rehabilitation measures.
As indicated in previous statements which have been made, both in the House and before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Veterans' Land Act was not designed as a program of urban housing, nor as a part of a retirement program for persons reaching the end of their productive careers. Its basic purpose was to provide loans for the purchase of agricultural land, to be used on a full or part-time farming basis by veterans who were interested in this form of rehabilitation program on their return to civilian life following wartime active force service.
It was recognized that many veterans would neither wish nor find it practical to settle under the Veterans' Land Act. Two other programs were enacted: university training under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, and reestablishment credits under the War Service Grants Act. The benefits under these three programs were alternative one to the other. Each veteran had the right to choose which plan he considered would best serve his needs and desires. The Department of Veterans Affairs' university training program was concluded in the 1950's, and October 31, 1968, was the final date for veterans to use re-establishment credit benefits.
As has been mentioned previously in the House, virtually every veteran who has written about VLA has used either of the other two alternative benefits. Having regard to the basic purpose of the Veterans' Land Act and its alternative relationship to the other two measures, in 1965 parliament established deadlines to phase out VLA lending operations in a reasonable and orderly manner.
By next March more than 30 years will have elapsed since the end of world war II, and 20 years in the case of the Korean conflict. This is a rather fantastic length of time for this particular arrangement to continue. In the context of a rehabilitation measure to assist veterans to pick up the threads of civilian life following wartime active service, this has been a worthwhile program.
Reference has been made from time to time to the fact that some 125,000 veterans such as myself who hold VLA certificates have not applied for VLA benefits. I might suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that this has relation to the dreamer-and aren't we all dreamers-who imagined that he might have a little market garden some day, that he might also test the greenness of his thumb, and that he might even go to the growing of the grape. The words of

St. Patrick who said, "-a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" would only prove to him that he would not be able to utilize completely the VLA certificate to its fullest advantage.


An hon. Member:: That was St. Paul who said that, not St. Patrick.


Patrick Joseph Flynn: Thank you very much. I was waiting for someone to correct me. Everybody is not in the throes of euphoria; they are wide awake. It is possible that the vast majority of these veterans simply took the precaution of obtaining such a certificate by the deadline of October 31, 1968.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs received some representations that March 31, 1974, was premature for qualified veterans still serving in the armed forces to apply. At that time the minister brought into the House legislation which extended the deadline to March 31, 1975.
In summary, I believe the terminal dates established by parliament more than eight years ago for the orderly phasing out of VLA lending operations were reasonable and realistic at that time. By next March approximately
140,000	veterans will have been settled, involving an investment of public funds of more than $1!4 billion. Those are impressive totals, and I suggest that they reflect the great popularity of this rehabilitation measure for Canadian veterans.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, it is my intention to be brief in my remarks, and I hope that I will not be repetitious. First, I wish to say that I support completely the point of view advanced by a number of members on this side of the House on this important issue. I believe that the crux of the matter is that governments have responsibilities. I do not speak here of any particular government but rather of the institution of government.
Surely a government should follow a code of conduct, the same as a good citizen. If we take as an example the responsibility of government in administering justice we find that there is one view on this subject. It is generally accepted, especially following our tradition of British justice, that justice for the individual is all important, and that the matter of cost, inconveniences or anything of that sort, is secondary.
For example, if a bank is robbed every effort is made to apprehend the criminal and to bring him to justice. Large amounts of public funds are used to ensure that the accused is not condemned unjustly, and that justice prevails. But for some curious reason although that view is generally accepted with regard to the administration of justice, an entirely different set of values comes to play in relation to the justice of administration. Here the view that seems to prevail is similar to what is said of a corporation: no soul to be saved and no body to be whipped, therefore no need for moral compunction. Governments are somewhat similar. However, they have a responsibility, and this is only one example. All too often, when we consider the justice of administration, we find that a kind of bureacratic syndrome sets it.
November 5, 1974

There are people who tend to say that since not many veterans are involved, it does not matter about them. In other words, it is all right to be unjust to a few. My view is that it is not all right to be unjust even to one person. All too frequently people suffering from this bureaucratic syndrome treat other people as statistics. We have heard it quoted ad nauseam that there are not very many qualified veterans who are applying any more, and also that the war in which they took part happened a long time ago, the war which qualified them for benefits under the act. "So there are two factors in our favour," the bureaucrat says, "one is that it happened a long time ago and the memory of it is receding." A whole new generation has grown up that does not know what we are talking about. No doubt they look on us who take part in this debate as a bunch of old crocks talking about ancient history.
The second view of the bureaucrat is that only a few veterans are applying, so it does not matter how unjust one is to just a few, to their way of thinking. This is the statistical approach to what is right and wrong.
Mb. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): The old numbers game.
Mb. MacLean: I do not think that that is valid, and I do not think the minister thinks that way either.


Walter David Baker: He is blushing.


John Angus MacLean: I hope that the minister will be able to resist this bureaucratic approach. These people think that since there are only a few involved, it is inconvenient for the bureaucracy to have a set up that is shrinking. Bureaucracy must per se expand because one cannot build an empire with an establishment that is contracting. Therefore this is against the philosophy of the bureaucratic mind. They say, "It is inconvenient, so let us brush it under the rug, and perhaps next year, or some other time, we will justify it by saying that we will grant similar benefits under some other department of government." That is not good enough so far as I am concerned.
The fact of the matter is that the reason given that veterans are disqualified from these benefits simply because they did not establish their qualification in time is not a valid one. The reason they were late is not germane. Some of them perhaps are continuing to serve in the permanent forces and did not know where they would want to live permanently after they had completed their service. There could be one hundred reasons. That is not the point.
The point is that under the terms of the act there are still a few veterans who are just as qualified for these benefits as was the first veteran who applied when the act first came into force. It is the responsibility of all of us, and of the government in particular, to ensure that the contract with the veterans is kept, not only for the bulk of them, not only for the ones who applied early, but for everyone down to the last veteran who qualifies for this benefit, even if it is 50 years later. Time should not be a deciding factor in this. Therefore I hope that the minister will see fit to cut out this time limit entirely.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, may I first of all associate myself with some considerable pleasure with the remarks so ably presented on this reso-
Veterans Affairs
lution by the hon. member fpr Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Humber-St. Georg3's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).
At the risk of repeating some of the argument in support of the resolution let me relate this important issue to some of the complaints and needs of veterans and their families in my constituency of Medicine Hat. I know that the minister and his staff feel that after nearly 30 years there should no longer be a necessity for a further extension of VLA after March, 1975, and the earlier qualification deadline in 1968. In this regard I appreciate the remarks that the minister made in response to my comments and questions at the recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs when we discussed the estimates of that department.
I want to say to the minister that there are still veterans in my constituency who do have reasons for not having become properly qualified back in 1968, and I admit that some of the reasons seem to be obscure. I can only say that those few should still be allowed to qualify, and they have earned that right as genuine war veterans. Perhaps the only reason I can suggest is that I know most of them personally.
The fact that they want to use this last VLA opportunity for a retirement home should not be held against them, or used as a reason for hastening the end of what has been a fine program for veterans. I know about this, Madam Speaker, because it has been my privilege to have had a VLA contract which was a substantial help to me over the years. That is why I suggest that the few remaining veterans of whom I speak should be entitled to have their records examined so that they can qualify. There are relatively few veterans left ,vho could qualify under the 1968 terms, and perhaps a solution would be for them to be considered on an individual and personal basis by the minister himself.
In his speech today the minister threw out the suggestion that he may be bringing in a separate housing policy for veterans in lieu of the soon to be phased out VLA program. Until such a suggestion becomes official policy it seems only common sense and decent justice to insist that the present VLA policy and the extension of the 1968 qualification date be continued over an indefinite period.
If a special housing policy is pursued for veterans I sincerely hope and trust that the current almost complete lack of mortgage money is recognized and accounted for in such a proposed policy.
I should like to give one specific example from my constituency of a need for some form of VLA continued assistance. The veteran concerned is in the commercial trucking industry and wishes to erect a suitable building for his trucks-both as a shelter and as a shop-to be located on a small acreage. This, to me, is a perfectly legitimate use of his rights as a veteran, but I believe at the moment he is not being considered.
In the Medicine Hat constituency there are seven Royal Canadian Legion branches. These are located in the various areas and include Bow Island, Redcliff, Taber, Vaux-hall, Foremost and Raymond, and my own in Medicine Hat, No. 17 Robertson Memorial Branch. In addition, the

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
Empress Legion branch is only the width of the Saskatchewan River outside my constituency.
I am looking forward to next Monday, Madam Speaker, when I will march with considerable pride with my fellow veterans in our Remembrance Day parade. I would be less than truthful and sincere tonight, and on Monday, if I did not participate in this debate and report to this House that I have discussed these matters with all these legion branches and that their response has been that which I have indicated.
This House, in all sincerity, can do nothing less than support to the fullest the approach and philosophy suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce):: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) as well as to the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that I know the veterans of this country appreciate their concern and the opinions they have voiced many times in this House. They appreciate the non-partisan way in which veterans' problems have been brought before the House of Commons and the committee, and the attention they have received from members of all parties.
One thing I have noticed throughout this afternoon and this evening, Madam Speaker, is that hon. members who have spoken about the Veterans' Land Act and the amendment all have the responsibility of speaking for vetei'ans. They have realized the devotion to duty and the work of the veterans in this country. I think we are all attempting in our own ways to reach the right solution. In this particular case, while I agree that many things are wrong with the legislation before us, I disagree with the means by which the opposition parties attempt to resolve the problem.
This is an act which I feel has served the veterans of Canada very well for the past 30 years, but which now has become time worn and, in many instances, has outlived its usefulness. I therefore support the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs that the act be phased out with the final application date for loans to be March, 1975.
As I said in my initial address to the House, on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the men and women of the Bruce-Grey area have been among the first to serve the needs of Canada as a nation in time of war. Also I believe many have taken advantage of the moneys and grants available under the Veterans' Land Act, and now many with whom I have talked feel that something more comprehensive and more up to date should take its place.
I think in many ways we as members and as citizens of this country put off things that should be done. I read an article in the Globe and Mail which said that over the past 15 years successive governments have tried to close the books on the VLA because it had served its original resettlement function, and is being used now for a quite different and unintended purpose, to assist world war II veterans to acquire farms and homes for their retirement years. I do not think that is why the act was originally introduced, and I do not think an act that is amended over

and over again can successfully serve the same purpose at a later date.
We need a new act, something different. By continuing to introduce motions to amend the act we eliminate the possibility of getting a new act, one that would serve the veterans of today as well as those of the first and second world wars.
I did not hear many of the members who spoke this afternoon discuss what would happen to the young people who have gone into the services in the past two or three years. I believe their entitlement has ended, so we must come up with something for them when they come out of the service. It seems that in talking of world war I, world war II and the Korean war we somehow implied that the men and women now in the forces are not as good as their predecessors because they do not have a war in which to serve. We must look at these young men and women as the reason why we do not have a war. In many instances their work has prevented a war.
One aspect that we must think about, even though the closing date on loans under the Veterans' Land Act is March 31, of next year, is that these loans are for up to 30 years, which means that the administrative program of the Veterans' Land Act will have to continue well into the twenty-first century. To illustrate further, as many hon. members know, lending under the Soldier Settlement Act of World War I ceased back in 1924, only six or seven years after the end of hostilities in 1918. I believe that there is still one outstanding account under that act.
While we know that the Veterans' Land Act took into account the lessons learned in the administration of its predecessor, changes in the national economy and the circumstances of individual veterans and their families ensure that public servants will be required to manage the current VLA loans until they are paid up, after the year 2000.
One of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that I would like to give in explaining my stand on the act is that, first of all, part of the act states that veterans can borrow up to $18,000. I am sure that all hon. members who are in the House at this time realize that the incredible sum of $18,000 in this day and age will not even buy a garage in most instances, and certainly not even complete the basement or any semblance of an adequate house at this point in time. Therefore, it certainly seems to me that, bearing in mind this limitation, a much newer and better approach can be made.
While the argument can and will be put forth that housing is the main concern now for the VLA, I submit that the act was directed mainly to allow returning veterans the opportunity of establishing themselves in the field of agriculture, should they desire to do so. I am very happy to say that many veterans in the particular area that I represent certainly took advantage of this opportunity, and have become respected and well thought of farmers and citizens of the community.
Anyone who has had associations with the farm market in recent years and months would find the amount of $18,000 not only insufficient but ridiculous to the point of being outright offensive.

I would also like to comment on the lot restrictions contained in the act. Half an acre is required if one is to qualify. This, in some instances, I understand can be reduced by about 20 per cent. Madam Speaker, we must face the fact that they just do not make lots of half an acre any more, and if a veteran were lucky enough to find one, $18,000 would be completely consumed in the purchase of the lot. He would not really be much further ahead in obtaining the home he seeks. For a veteran even to think of moving into the agricultural field with that minimum amount of assistance would mean, I am afraid, his being laughed right out of the community.
As the minister has said before and as, I too believe, we must look at the matter in complete perspective. First of all the Veteran's Land Act was not designed, even in the beginning, to be a program of urban housing, nor as a part of a retirement program for persons reaching the end of their careers. The basic purpose was to provide loans for the purchase of agricultural land, to be used either on a full or on a part-time farming basis by veterans who were interested in that form of rehabilitation program on their return to civilian life, following wartime active service duties.
Another important aspect which I feel we are failing to grasp is that the Veterans' Land Act was part of a triumvirate, or three-pronged attack on veterans' problems at that time. Now that the two other phases have been curtailed for some years, it is the only remaining program. This, I believe, should be dissolved and a better, more up-to-date approach found to the problems of providing adequate housing, if we want to be specific, for our veterans. The two others, of course, were the university training program under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act and the reestablishment of credits under the War Measures Grants Act. The benefits of all three programs were alternative one to the other.
That meant that each veteran had the right to choose whichever plan he considered would best serve his needs and desires. The university training program was concluded in the 1950s, and October 31, 1968, was the final date for veterans to re-establish credit benefits. With this in mind I made it a point in the past few days to contact many Legion branches in my area. A member of the opposition talked about seven Legion branches in his area. In my area we have 17.


An hon. Member:: Send a copy of your speech to all of them.


Crawford Douglas: I intend to, if you will send your branches copies of your speech. I was able to contact 14 of 17 branches in the Bruce-Grey area. Without exception the members told me that, as far as they are concerned, the Veterans' Land Act should be phased out and a new plan, which will fit the needs of veterans, brought in.
An bon. Member: Where is it?


Crawford Douglas: I think, if you will give us a little more than 15 days, the minister will come up with an idea.


An hon. Member:: Which minister?
Veterans Affairs


Crawford Douglas: Why, the very capable Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: How about that!
Mb. Douglas (Bruce): I concluded, from talking to Legion members in my area, that something better than the present VLA act is needed if we are to give the veterans of this country what they so richly deserve.
I would also agree that most of the veterans today who have credits under the Veterans' Land Act are in the position of considering retirement property and housing benefits. I am led to believe that a study is currently under way involving officials of Central Mortgage and Housing and the Department of Veterans Affairs to see if they can establish a much better program to replace the act, one with a new housing assistance program that would fit more aptly the current needs of such veterans who have been holding their Veterans' Land Act credits for the purchase of retirement property and retirement venture capital. We must look at this area seriously. This has been under discussion in one form or another for the past nine years, since the orderly phasing out of Veterans' Land Act lending operation was first proposed.
As of March this year, more than $1.25 billion of public funds had been allotted to veterans under the Veterans' Land Act, and over 140,000 veterans have taken advantage of the program. This is an indication that the initial concept of the legislation has now been fulfilled; and just as people who have served their country and their society well are given an honourable discharge and allowed to retire with dignity, so I believe the Veterans' Land Act can now be given just such an honourable discharge and allowed to retire with dignity, only to make way for more comprehensive and better legislation, made possible through the co-operation of both the Department of Veterans Affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This should be legislation which will provide our veterans, who wish to use it, with reasonable and proper retirement housing or retirement property, so that they can complete their time among us in a dignified and honourable manner, a manner fitting to the great debt that we owe them for their sacrifice and courage in our country's most desperate hour of need.
I for one would certainly back any proposal which gives the veterans a better deal in housing, in opportunity, in medical care, and in the care of their families and dependants. I believe that much more can be done to provide assistance for many veterans who now are reaching retirement age. I want to see their pensions improved; I want to see some of the fringe benefits made available to them that they so richly deserve.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must at this time go against the proposal that the Veterans' Land Act be continued in its present form, or for that matter in any form. I submit that the act should be allowed to expire on March 31, 1975, and that a much better and more varied program should be introduced by the Department of Veterans Affairs, one which will provide the veterans of Canada with the land, housing and retirement benefits they so richly deserve and have earned.

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, while I intend to be relatively brief tonight I must begin by saying it is a privilege to have the opportunity of speaking on behalf of veterans in this, my first intervention in debate in the thirtieth Parliament of Canada.
I am sure everyone appreciates what has been done for veterans in Canada. We have heard many references to the Veterans Charter-how changes have been made through the years in order to bring the charter more up to date. I do not think anyone in this chamber would take the position that nothing has been done for the veterans.
I feel there has consistently been a measure of co-operation and non-partisanship when dealing with veterans affairs. I had the opportunity and the privilege of serving on the Veterans Affairs Committee a few years ago, and I certainly found this to be true at that time. Nevertheless, I believe there are still in our midst veterans who are suffering certain injustices. I realize that a discussion of these matters would be outside the ambit of the present debate but I look forward to dealing with them on a future occasion.
I think we owe a debt of thanks to my hon. friend from Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We know that, thanks to their efforts, we have this opportunity of making our views on this matter known to the government. Had it not been for the continued prodding of these two hon. gentlemen, along with others, I do not think the VLA would have survived the date of March 31, 1974.
May I hasten to say that I believe the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has the interests of Canadian veterans at heart, and if he had his way I am sure he would take the same stand as that taken by the two hon. gentlemen I have mentioned, along with other members on this side of the House. Unfortunately for him, for us, and possibly for the veterans of Canada, the minister has about 28 individuals in the cabinet to contend with, and I fear there are many occasions on which he has not been able to convince them that certain steps should be taken to meet the needs of veterans at the present time.
Why the government feels as it does is difficult to say. A great deal of money can obviously be found for things that are of less consequence than the measure before us, and it would seem to me that the idea of restricting expenditure is now being applied in an area to which in no circumstances should it be applied.
I remember the debate which took place in this House on March 28, 1974, when the minister introduced the bill to extend the VLA to March 31, 1975. My hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe said then, as reported at page 950 of Hansard:
If the government were really sincere it would extend the deadline, increase the loan ceiling, and many more veterans would be served.
Later he stated:
There is no earthly reason for phasing out this act until every last veteran has been served.
That is our position today, too. The program should continue until all who wish to do so have been given every

possible opportunity to participate. My hon. friend went on to remark that unfortunately the minister was not with the right government. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that those were the days of minority government when the cabinet was a little more responsive to the desires of the minister than it probably is at the present time. Now with the threat of parliamentary defeat removed it seems the government is prepared to dig in its heels and adopt the adamant position the minister has indicated, though such a position was possibly taken without his full agreement.
My hon. friend from Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) made a request, and I should like to support that request. He asked that before the close of this debate the minister should take the floor and state that, in response to the pleas which have been made, he is prepared to go ahead and review the situation. A number of matters have been brought to his attention with regard to the act, and I shall not enlarge upon them. I shall simply mention the suggestions which have been made in order to reinforce the argument in favour of the motion before us.
We have been seeking (1) an indefinite extension of the legislation, (2) an increase in the ceiling on loans, (3) a decrease in the size requirement applicable to lots purchased under the act and (4) the elimination of the certificate of entitlement to qualify for benefits. These are improvements for which some of us on this side have been pressing. Again, recognizing the minister's position and his heroic service to the nation in addition to his understanding of veterans' problems, I would like to feel that these are proposals which he himself would wish to see carried out on behalf of those who served their country in time of need.
I believe it is reasonable to seek the indefinite extension of the act. Some have argued that the original intention was not to provide housing for veterans, and perhaps that is true. However, I ask the question: was the original intent of old age pension legislation that of providing income security? I do not think it was. The original intention was that the pension should be an additional benefit to supplement whatever income senior citizens had been able to provide for themselves for their retirement. However, it has now evolved over the years into an income security scheme that is the sole income for many individuals in our society.
So we ask the question: why cannot the Veterans' Land Act not become the major source of housing for veterans, rather than trying to devise a whole new program of housing for veterans, which I venture to say we will not see anyway? Why not use the mechanism that is already available? It would seem to me that this would be the sensible way to proceed, but unfortunately the government sometimes does not seem to operate in a sensible manner.
So we ask tonight: do we follow the example in the story that I remember reading when I was a boy at school- which is a few years ago now-of the dog that was crossing a little narrow bridge over a stream? This dog had a big bone in its mouth. He looked down and saw the reflection and it looked better than reality, so he dropped

the bone, made a grab for the shadow, and lost the whole thing.
We are being asked to support a proposition tonight that we are going to have something better in the future for our veterans. We are not sure what it is, but we are asked to vote out of existence a plan that has some reality to it in the hope that something else will materialize and become reality in the future.
I also think the certificate of eligibility is a somewhat ludicrous requirement. As my colleagues have been emphasizing today, a certificate should be available to veterans as long as there are veterans who require the benefit of the provisions in this measure. I believe these men and women have proven themselves in times past. I believe they have satisfied the nation of their service. What more should we want our veterans to prove than the record that they have established?
Without belabouring the point any further I hope the minister will let the House know what he thinks of the proposals that have been advanced by members on this side. I trust that he will reconsider his announcement of the phasing out of this legislation and agree to the indefinite prolongation of this plan, which we believe will continue to be of great importance and assistance to the veterans of this nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising for the purpose of asking a question, or on a point of order?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the House would permit me, I should like to say something for information purposes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is aware of the fact that he has already spoken, and in speaking twice he would close the debate unless he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker; it is not the minister's motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is right, I stand corrected. But the minister has spoken, and to speak again he would need the unanimous consent of the House, even though it might be to give the House information. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Might I explain, Mr. Speaker. I was using notes when I spoke, and when I got my blues and checked them I saw I had inadvertently picked up the wrong page and omitted from my remarks a page of notes that I sent around to the various House leaders. It is important to my statement in general, and if the House would allow me to add three paragraphs I would appreciate it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: For the information of Hansard the insertion comes right after the sentence which reads: "Any veteran seriously interested in settling on the land has had ample time to do so." I then omitted the following: "It is a fact, of course, that the average age
Veterans Affairs
today of world war II veterans is approaching 60, and most men of that age are not interested in getting into farming but, rather, getting out. This is evident not only by the limited number who have settled under the full-time farming provisions of the act in recent years but by the number who have paid up their loans and terminated their contracts.
"In commenting on the extensive period that the Veterans' Land Act has been in operation, I think it is appropriate to refer to the Soldier Settlement Act, its predecessor for veterans of world war I. Settlement under that program, which involved the establishment of 37,000 veterans, was terminated in 1924. By next March, the Veterans' Land Act will have been in effect more than five times as long. More than 140,000 veterans will have been settled under its various provisions involving advances of public funds of over $1.25 billion.
"Apart from the comparative details I have just provided, I think it appropriate to make at least passing reference to the recent major changes to the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I would point out, as well, that the estimates for veterans affairs this fiscal year is almost $600 million, the second highest in the history of the department. As I stated in the House on October 7 last, the record of this government in the field of veterans' legislation has been outstanding and is self-evident rebuttal of the statement made recently that our veterans are treated with something less than the consideration they deserve."
I want to convey to my fellow members my deep appreciation for their permission.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have on our statute books for veterans has been good and progressive legislation, and I do not think that this is the time to stop its operation. I should just like to make a few points about the question under debate this evening.
This country, including each and every citizen, owes a moral debt to all veterans and servicemen generally, and I emphasize the word "all". At the present time, wherever our servicemen are serving they are serving under undue stress and severe hardship. The debt that we owe our veterans has not been paid and probably never will be paid. To those who have lived to return from service and to continue as citizens of this country, we owe not only a moral debt but a great material debt.
I urge that instead of abolishing the Veterans' Land Act or reducing the present policy under the act, the policy should be extended in time and made available to all veterans. The structures respecting lot sizes should be based on municipally and or provincially approved lots. Like many veterans who are members of the House, I too will be sharing fellowship and comradeship on Monday next.
I cannot agree and I will not agree that this legislation is worn out. If the government intends to present other legislation in lieu of it, then the responsibility is upon the government to introduce that legislation forthwith. The entire House should be privy to the intentions of the government. We cannot erase veterans' legislation unless we are certain that servicemen will never go to battle

November 5, 1974
Veterans Affairs
again. We must retain our veterans' legislation just in case we have not seen the last of world war. If the act is not amended to extend the time and widen its provisions we will certainly be taking a step backward instead of a step forward.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, as many other members in this House, I must say that it is an honour for me to rise in this debate on the motion introduced by our distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When one addresses this House on veterans' affairs, there is no doubt that it is a very moving subject, and there is no doubt either that we can often let ourselves be carried away by our emotions and forget the facts.
It is not because a few of us here are veterans that we have necessarily reached the peak of perfection in terms of veterans legislation. One thing is sure, when one is both a veteran and a member of parliament, one is first of all proud to be able to say that we now have a minister who is probably, in addition to his qualifications as a minister, one of our greatest, most deserving and most dedicated veterans of World War II. We owe him special tribute, particularly for the work he has done and the dedication he has shown since his appointment to this high office.
We have only to listen to you to realize that you all have at heart the interest and the well-being of veterans of World War I and II. None of us wishes anything else than the good of our veterans and certainly I am one of those. It is a most moving subject which we could discuss for several hours.
As those who talked before me, on November 11, Remembrance Day, I too will attend the parade, as I have done every year and not only since I have been elected to Parliament. I have done so for a long time, as a member of the Canadian Legion, as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I will do my duty as a member of parliament, just as anybody else, and especially as a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
That does not mean that when there is a decision to be made, only feelings are taken into account until the last minute and that we cannot be a little more realistic at a given time.
I listened to many members talking most sincerely as did the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). No hon. member in this House has any doubt about his sincerity and dedication towards the veterans of Canada. None of us entertain any doubt about the other members who talked tonight.
Now, I am chairman, and I am proud of it, of the standing committee of Veterans Affairs. I am trifling a little saying that I will now speak French because when I chair the committee I speak English so that I will get done more quickly. I know that I could also speak French and so feel more at ease. But I use English to better co-operate.
Today, we succeeded in tackling Bill C-4. It must not be forgotten that the third report of the standing committee has been tabled in the House at two o'clock, this afternoon, and all the committee members certainly deserve con-

gratulations for their achievement. It will be always possible to improve the Veterans Affairs Department Act and especially the Veterans Land Act. I am quite ready to agree that there are pros and cons and that pros are 100 per cent commendable. The arguments against, at this time, the arguments of those who want to retain the present legislation and that the deadline be extended to March 1975 find much less support. That is for sure! But I know that some members opposite have said that the minister might not exert the influence he should in the cabinet. I do not entirely agree with that.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) does not look like a man who is ready to give up or to answer the veterans' problem with a flat refusal in the last remaining days. I am not disclosing any secret since I am not in the confidence of the cabinet or the minister. Apparently, the minister as any good veteran has a trump card hidden somewhere which will enable us once the legislation is phased out to carry on our work through a new formula and a new procedure which will perhaps assist a great number of veterans who have not yet taken advantage of that legislation.
I would like to quote statistics like all the others. I suppose that in such a debate we are likely to repeat ourselves. In the first place, we cannot refer to no other legislation than this one. Even what I have to say would compel me to quote some documents, some figures and some dates. I should honestly admit that it has been said already three or four times by some government members. I have never heard any member opposite say so. Nevertheless, one aspect of these figures strikes me. A previous speaker said that the laws have been amended and upgraded from the year following the war. Then a date came where we witnessed something extraordinary. In 1959, Parliament approved the cut-off date of September 30, 1962. I remind my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), of this fact.
In 1959, the cut-off date of September 30, 1962 was approved. If we recall, this government was not in power at that time. The opposition members are trying to tell us what to do. It seems to me that at that time, they had every opportunity to do what they are asking for today, under more difficult conditions. At that time, the issue was the eligibility to benefits under the Veterans Land Act. In 1962, we were not yet in power, let us not forget it, this cut-off date was extended to October 30, 1968.
We were then on the Opposition side of the House and we agreed with the government's proposals. The Act was amended to this effect in 1967 and 1968. The new cut-off date received a great deal of publicity. We will recall the many debates on this subject, the publicity made in new-papers as well as in all information sent to the Canadian Legion.
In view of the rehabilitation factor of the post-war years, people said that Parliament had approved the new cut-off date in 1965 in order to eliminate in a fair and methodical manner the loans granted under the Veterans' Land Act. It is on March 31, 1974, that the cut-off date was set to enable the veterans to get a loan for the purchase of
November 5, 1974

a property. As everyone knows now, it has been repeated many times today, the cut-off date has been extended to March 30, 1975, providing that the construction work on a house or the improvements referred to in the loan request begin before March 31, 1976. I must say quite candidly that we repeat ourselves. I heard it all this afternoon. Any veteran by virtue of a sales agreement entered into with a director can ask for supplementary financial assistance, apparently up to a maximum provided for by the Act until March 31, 1978.
If such a loan application includes an amount for the construction of a home or other renovations, construction work must begin before March 31, 1979. It is believed that these new arrangements made possible under these provisions of the Act will be particularly useful to qualified veterans who are still in active service and who are not thinking of retiring before four or five years. If time allows it, I can give still more statistics. When the limit is set at March 31, 1975, that means that World War II will have been over for 30 years and, the Korean War, for 20 years.
It is quite difficult if this is analyzed in an objective manner with all sentimentalism put aside, to claim that veterans did not have enough time to ask for re-establishment funds provided for them after the war and active service. There are some, like me, who took advantage of the other advantages that were at our disposal. Some attended university, others used their funds to set up a business.
We must stick to this part of the Act; we all have been helped to date, those of us who wanted to be, and taking into account the agricultural emphasis in the Act at the time, there has always been a requirement concerning the minimum age required for part-time farming or for small acreages. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) talked about that this afternoon. Here again, I could go into lengthy discussions, but it was so well said by the hon. member. The limit was brought down from three to two acres. Today a final agreement has been reached allowing veterans to build a house on approximately 17,000 square foot lots. Until now, the veterans have got what they have been willing to ask for. To reduce or still to remove the acreage requirement has now given this new idea to some of our veterans. And why not take advantage of the legislation at the age of 55 and buy a house for one's retirement as a pensioner on a small piece of land in the suburbs, away from the urban centres? One could then take fully advantage of this act which allows one to build a house on a small piece of land at a price that is still debatable, because it is not easy nowadays to build under the existing legislation with a loan of about $18,000. Everybody knows that this figure is higher today because in our area, namely Pointe-aux-Trembles, in the eastern part of the island of Montreal, where lots are probably the cheapest right now, it is still possible to build a house for approximately $23,000 or $24,000. This is much more than the amount of $18,000 allowed under the act.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to let other members speak before ten o'clock. I had much more to say, but I humbly admit that I would probably be covering the same ground, since my colleagues as well as opposition members have spoken before me.
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say in conclusion that I listened with interest to the speeches of hon. members from both sides of the House. I am convinced that we are all sharing here the same concern about our veterans. I hope also that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is probably keeping his trump cards well hidden, will be able some fine day to bring in some legislation on which the opposition for once will fully agree with us, since we already recognize that we must keep on helping our veterans.
I have complete faith in the government, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and especially in his efficiency and his gumption.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first occasion on which I have risen to speak as the clock reaches ten o'clock. I do not share the confidence in the government that was so eloquently spoken of by the speaker immediately preceding me. As we approach the solemn ceremonies of November 11-


Prosper Boulanger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since I was busy giving part of my speech to the messenger, I did not hear with what part of my speech the hon. member did not agree. Did the hon. member specify? I would like to know.


Mr. Munro (Esquimedt-Saanich):: If I may, Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I am not as confident as the hon. member who spoke before me. He expressed his confidence in the government. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Claude Wagner: Madam Speaker, according to departmental figures, the Immigration Appeal Board is presently reviewing the cases of 828 Haitians who have applied for the landed immigrant status.
I understand that this Board has rejected up to now some 90 per cent of the appeals for those who came in after November of 1972.
As Canadian citizens and as citizens of the world, we cannot and we will not wait until we witness the massive deportation of some 900 to 1500 Haitians before we get

November 5, 1974
Adjournment Debate
moving and force the government into action, when we know how repressive is the regime they have in Haiti.
The Minister who still claims that he has no evidence that the deportees will be ill-treated once they are back in their country, cannot ignore the fact that the regime of Jean-Claude Duvalier indulges in the most dreadful whims in order to stay in power. The Minister cannot ignore completely the reports, available at any time, of those people, Canadians or Haitians, who lived there as missionaries or in other qualities, and who say they fear the worst for the repatriated.
I wish that the Minister could and would at least answer the following question:
Does he not think that the Haitians asking for political asylum in Canada have, by doing so, disapproved the Duvalier dictatorship and therefore can he not imagine the sad lot awaiting these Haitians as soon as they are back in their native country?
I ask the responsible minister the question of a Canadian reporter, and I quote:
Mr. Minister, what does a Haitian forced to come back to his country after having been refused the statute of political refugee abroad look like at the Port-au-Prince airport in front of Duvalier protean militia?
The department tells us that only 28 Haitian immigrants formally applied for the status of political refugee in Canada. This is a legalistic approach of the matter. Don't we realize that many Haitians living in Canada, afraid anyway to be deported, do not dare to apply formally for such a status?
For goodness' sake why does the minister not set aside his legalistic attitude in this matter and avail himself, which would be every bit as legal, of that other provision of the act which gives the Immigration Appeal Board the discretionary power to make special concessions in the case of applicants when compassionate or humanitarian considerations warrant it.
If, to convince himself of the existence, if fact, of humanitarian considerations, the minister is not satisfied with the contents of the letters of Father Paul Dejean, head of the Montreal Haitian Christian Community office, if, as I say, the minister doubts the word of those innumerable persons or organizations who have written to him recently, he should at least discuss the whole subject with his former employees who worked over there or, to be more specific, with Mr. Mackenzie Wood, who was recently recalled home after having acted in Haiti as Canadian charge d'affaires.
One way or the other the minister will surely be convinced that my concern is highly humanitarian in the case I am pleading here. The minister may hesitate to intervene, for fear of jeopardizing the success of the Canadian mission headed by Mrs. Michele Mant, now in Haiti since November 2nd last and due to return here on November 17th. That mission expects to reap the fruits of the recent visit to Haiti of the president of CIDA, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, and of our 4 million-dollar aid program.
If such is the case, and I have every reason to believe it is, why did the minister not use his influence with his colleague from External Affairs to delay the departure of that mission?

In any event, I ask the minister, in view of the probable success of that mission, and especially of the fact that Canadians in general, and more particularly the press, have only started a week ago to be interested in this record, to grant another extension in this matter.I appeal to him to change his decision. It is a matter concerning the social justice and humanism of this government, the Parliament, and all our country.
In closing my remarks, I would like to ask the whole cabinet, starting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to meditate this sentence of the president of CIDA, taken from the brochure "Man First" of this agency, and which reads as follows:
"An effective co-operation in the development of third world nations would give priority to the status of man in society and would center his activities on the will to meet human needs and aspirations adequately... because, finally, the value of assistance or co-operation must be measured in terms of the degree of happiness of the men who live in a society."


Robert Knight Andras: Madam Speaker, I think all members of this House and most Canadians would have great sympathy for the plight of any people, and particularly of the Haitians to whom the hon. member has been referring. I want to reiterate, however, that any one in Canada, from Haiti or anywhere else in the world, who feels that he has grounds for fear of prosecution or persecution on returning to his own country need not feel that he is without recourse to the law. Any such person would have immediate access, by the declaration that he or she considers himself or herself to be a refugee, to an administrative and legal process which, as already stated, comprises a review of the situation he is claiming, by a refugee committee and, if necessary, an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board.
No well-founded claim of refugee status will be ignored. By the same token, Madam Speaker, we simply cannot make a mass declaration. Indeed, not all Haitians in Montreal who came to Canada and are now in Canada illegally are in fact making claim to refugee status, and not all those who make claims, in the cases I have personally examined, are entitled to that status. Those who are entitled are being granted refugee status.
The bulk of the cases to which the hon. member referred are before the Immigration Appeal Board. That body has separate and autonomous jurisdiction to deal with those matters based on refugee status as defined under the protocol of the United Nations which I described earlier. Beyond that the board has authority in most cases for those people who came prior to August, 1973, to deal with the matter of deportation on humanitarian grounds over and above refugee status. The process of law is taking place; it is compassionate, and it provides for compassionate decisions.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-MARITIME PROVINCES- ALLEGED GLOOMY ECONOMIC FORECAST BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT-PARTICIPATION BY DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of
November 5, 1974

Public Works (Mr. Drury) on October 28-which happens to be my birthday-concerned a story carried in the Montreal Gazette via the Financial Times. The story, under the byline of Clair Balfour, said that a special study was undertaken for the federal Department of Public Works. The story indicated that the study done for the federal Department of Public Works concluded that there was a good decade ahead for all regions of Canada but the Atlantic one.
The main predictions for the next decade as regards the Atlantic region were, first, that the Atlantic provinces will have slow population growth; second, that above normal underemployment that has constituted the normal historical pattern will still remain a major problem.
That is not saying much for DREE policies, is it?
Annual unemployment in the Atlantic region averaged 9.6 per cent during the 12 months ended last September. This, it must be understood, is not an accurate measure of the underuse of human beings as refined by labour force participation rates and discouraged workers dropping out of the labour force altogether, during the recurring downturn of the economy.
This underutilization of human labour becomes absolutely critical when the government overuses national fiscal restraint and tight money policies as it did in 1969 and 1970-the effects of which in the Atlantic provinces, and on heavy unemployment areas within it like Cape Breton, become absolutely critical in terms of human suffering and economic waste.
I have already noted in a speech to the House on October 15 that this general type of federal policy contradicts its regional policy and the effects of it, to repeat, are disastrous for the Atlantic region.
I plead with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) not to use that strategy again in his upcoming budget and, instead of bringing in a tight money policy, to increase the narrowly defined money supply by at least 8 per cent and make any fiscal cutbacks necessary to relate to provinces with low unemployment or, if you will, full employment levels.
The study done by the federal Public Works Department is supposed to have concluded that unless off-shore oil or natural gas is found, the Atlantic provinces seem likely to be again by-passed during the decade ending in 1985. Again, alluding to the speech of October 15 on the importance of offshore oil or natural gas to the development of the Atlantic economy, I said, as recorded at page 438 of Hansard:
Let them-
Meaning the politicians:
-not give the people exaggerated impressions to the effect that income and employment prospects from off-shore oil exploration will make that much difference to the region.
The study done by the Department of Public Works seems to fall into this trap. I ask the department to read "The Impact on the Regional Economy of Eastern Canada Resulting from the Potential Development of Off-shore Oil and Gas", the study done for the Department of Regional
Adjournment Debate
Economic Expansion and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in April, 1972.
The Public Works Department study is said to predict that the Maritime coal industry will be revived. In that connection let me assert again that a major steel complex envisaged for the Cape Breton area is a much greater prospect for doing more for income and employment in the Atlantic area than off-shore oil developments. This will take advantage of our changing comparative advantage in geographical location, which is tied to the ongoing changes in the world's transportation technology and the growing importance of deep water superports.
Everyone, Madam Speaker, should realize that there are many obstacles to overcome and trade-offs to be made if the giant steel complex is to become a reality. Recently the Minister of Finance of the Nova Scotia government was quoted as saying in New York that in this connection the Cape Breton coal mines, now owned and controlled by the federal government through Devco, may be turned over to the proposed consortium of steel buyers who would have an important interest in the steel development.
I want to emphasize this evening, with all the authority that I can muster; that such a move would be absolutely abhorrent to myself and others who have seen the results of private enterprise in the Cape Breton coal fields in the past. Indeed, I would argue that even with the likel'hood of economic viability for the Cape Breton coal industry in the near future, the federal government must make sure that funds are available to Devco to create preventive health facilities against the ravages of silicosis, as well as to correct the poor housing conditions that are the ongoing result of a private enterprise company town's past legacy to that area. It should be obvious to anybody who knows of the desperate and continuing economic insecurity in that area that Devco must play a large role in helping to diversify that historic section of Canada. I again ask the minister to table that study.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), a highly respected member of the thirtieth parliament, I wish to inform him that the study to which he referred concerning the regional economy of eastern Canada has not been carried out.
I have been asked to make a statement concerning an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette on Friday, October 25. This article reported, in effect, that a study carried out by the department indicated that although the economic situation looked rosy for most of Canada for the next 10 years or so, this would not likely be the situation with respect to the Maritimes, barring some major development such as the discovery of large oil or gas deposits off the east coast.
First of all, let me state that the press report is fundamentally wrong inasmuch as no study of this nature has been completed by the department. It is true that a study is being carried out, but it is one very narrowly focused on the specific question of likely long term requirements for federal office accommodation generally across Canada, and geographically. One of the techniques the department has utilized in preparing for this study is that of sampling

Adjournment Debate
a broad range of opinions on likely developments, on a geographic distribution basis which would influence the demand for federal office accommodation.
The article in the Gazette merely refers to a summary of these opinions, and I repeat that they are just that- opinions. While they are possibly of some usefulness to the department as input into the continuous studies necessary for good forward planning, they are being cross-referenced with many other sources of information and will play only a minor role in the final picture which the department arrives at for long term planning purposes.
I would add that this is the first use the department has made of this particular sampling technique. As a tentative conclusion, I may say the technique appears to contain a fatal flaw in that most people, when asked their opinion as to the future, tend simply to project the present into the future. This defeats the whole purpose of seeking informed opinion on the likelihood of major changes over the long term and their probable impact. I might say, too, that once the study has been completed it will be used for internal federal accommodation planning purposes only.
In answer to the supplemental question, "Was the Department of Regional Economic Expansion consulted in the carrying out of this study?", I repeat that the study has not yet been completed; DREE will be consulted at length as the study progresses.


URBAN AFFAIRS-LAND ASSEMBLY-REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO ASSIST MUNICIPALITIES RETAIN GREEN SPACES
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see in his place the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. De Bane), my colleague and friend. I trust he will be able to give me a better answer than I received from his minister on October 7. I am not holding my breath, because time is going by and I am allowed only seven minutes.
The subject I wish to raise tonight relates to the question I addressed to the minister on October 7. I asked him specifically whether there was any government program to assist municipalities which were trying to retain green space which was privately owned and which would otherwise be lost to development. The minister failed to answer that question, but I think it can be taken from the transcript in Hansard at page 164 that, in fact, there was no such program. When I mentioned a specific problem in the City of Vancouver in the riding of Vancouver South, that of the Langara lands, the minister said:
My ministry is working on that plan very closely with officials of the city so that the specific case referred to will come within the overall plan.
The minister is not here tonight. I have great respect for the hon. gentleman, but when he gave that answer he obviously did not know what he was talking about. The lands in question are lands owned by the CPR as part of the land grant made many years ago. They have been used basically as a golf course until now. Vancouver has been able to purchase some of this land, and there are about 100 acres left.
Vancouver has purchased from the Canadian Pacific development company the remaining acreage at a cost of

$400 million, and the city authorities do not have the money to pay for it. As a consequence they propose to take 20 acres, incredibly valuable recreational land in the centre of the city, and subdivide it to pay for the remainder. Plans have been drawn up by a citizens' committee in the area in the hope of saving this land, and it seems to me the committee has a far more perceptive understanding of the value of this land than either the federal government or the other levels of government involved.
The result of their efforts was that the provincial government has been prepared to pick up two parcels of land, one for the adjacent Glengarry College for a campus, and another for a green space out of its green space fund, which leaves the city to pick up the remaining seven acres for $1.5 million. In effect this plan would give the whole of this acreage to the city of Vancouver for a cost to the city of $1.5 million.
During the recent election campaign the Conservative party was able to make a commitment that if we succeeded in the election we would immediately sit down with the citizens' committee, the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia, and enter into a shared cost program to pick up this remaining land, so that together with the province we would save this vital piece of green space in the city of Vancouver.
It is interesting to note that in the 1972 federal campaign the Liberal party had no trouble at all committing $30 million of their money-I do not know where they got it from, but I have no objection to their spending it-to acquire waterfront land for the city of Toronto for parks. I am completely in accord with this decision, but I cannot understand why such decisions are made on an ad hoc basis and always in the middle of an election.
At the same time I would point out that when the city of Vancouver was trying to re-acquire the Department of National Defence lands at Jericho during that same election, the Liberal party failed somehow to recognize the significance of this, and of course it was a matter of some concern to the city citizens of Vancouver to find $30 million spent in Toronto with nothing appropriated for green space in the city of Vancouver.
So my questions to my hon. friend tonight are specific. First, is the government prepared to come before this House and present to it any sort of plan whereby municipalities which are short of funds can be given federal assistance to preserve these green spaces which are already alienated and in private hands?
My second point is simply that during the election campaign the Liberal candidate and his workers in the riding of Vancouver South were very much in favour of saving this green space, and intimated that they would find federal help to save this green space for the city of Vancouver if the Liberals were returned to office. As you well know, Madam Speaker, they were returned to office.
My last question is this: if the citizens' committee, which as I said before is showing more thought and perception about the problem than anybody else so far, comes directly to the federal government and asks whether the federal government will sit down and discuss with them some means whereby a financial formula can be put to-

gether to assist them in saving this land, will the federal government find some means of assisting the city of Vancouver in what, when you get right down to it, is a last ditch fight for one of the few remaining green spaces in the third biggest city in Canada?


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I was most impressed with the strong representations of the hon. member for Vancouver South. I hope that during the period that I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs I will have occasion to go to Vancouver and see the situation about which the hon. member spoke so eloquently.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Go tonight.


Pierre De Bané: I thank the hon. member for the invitation, and I hope I will be able to go there as soon as possible.
With regard to meeting with the citizens' group, the federal government is the government of all Canadians and we can meet with any citizens' group. But in municipal matters very delicate questions are involved, and primarily I think we should deal with provincial governments as well as with municipal governments. That is not to say that we should not also meet with citizens' groups.
I can assure the hon. member that the federal government is in full agreement with him that there is a need for open spaces in any new development. But one must bear in mind that overall control of land use is a provincial responsibility. Indeed, it is the usual practice of the prov-
Adjournment Debate
inces to require that a percentage of land for development be set aside for park use.

During the tri-level conference held last autumn, the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), when suggesting guidelines for the land assembly program implemented by a province or a municipality under the terms of the National Housing Act, recommended that the profits from the leasing or the sale of the land be ploughed back into the project. Thus, land reserved for green spaces and other facilities, including the development of land for recreational purposes, as well as community-oriented buildings, could be provided under this program to the extent allowed by the profits from the sale of the land.
Moreover, under the terms of the new community program, the government is authorized not only to acquire the land, but also to include land for public spaces within or around a new community, or to use such land to separate it from an existing community.

Having spoken briefly on the means to ensure that green spaces will be provided in future land development financed under the NHA, I must now restate our concern for the older cores of cities. It is possible, since last year's amendments to the National Housing Act, for municipalities to undertake neighbourhood improvement programs to redesign and rehabilitate older core areas, and to provide open spaces and community facilities in them if this is the wish of the residents of the neighbourhoods when establishing priorities for the use of the available federal funds.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.


END OF VOLUME I