1974-03-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table a copy of a report prepared by General M. R. Dare, concerning the control of crises.


AIR CANADA
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. It arises from the fact that women who work for Air Canada are faced by a "male only" policy which prevents them from becoming pursers, even though in some circumstances they may be called upon to perform as acting pursers with none of the better pay, status and working conditions attached to the position of purser. In view of this unjustifiable discrimination I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather):
That this House direct the Minister of Labour, who has responsibility for the status of women, to introduce immediately the legislation creating a Federal Commission on Human Rights and Interests which was promised in the Speech from the Throne as the means of protecting women from discrimination.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is presented to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that it will soon be sowing time and in view of the shortage and skyrocketing price of artificial fertilizers in eastern Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government seriously consider asking the Canadian Transport Commission and the potash and artificial fertilizer producers to take action in order that eastern farmers can obtain sufficient supplies of this necessary product to maintain their farming production.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. According to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


HOUSING
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to consider immediately an urgent matter.
In view of the fact that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and the high mortgage interest rates underlie the prohibitive costs of construction, especially for people earning less than $10,000 a year, or about 30 per cent of the population, it is urgent that this government introduce legislation to eradicate once and for all poverty, unemployment and inflation. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House take immediate action to remove the 11 per cent sales tax and reduce the interest rate to 3 per cent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 12, 1974
Public Bills


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


COMBINES
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of very urgent necessity.
Considering the cost of living increase and the control exercised by some individuals on several sectors of the market, and considering also that control appears as a real spreading monopoly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Rondeau):
That the matter be immediately deferred to this House in order to prevent, through specific regulations, monopolies from altering the play of free competition and contributing to destroy Canadian private enterprise within a relatively short time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Speaker:: On today's order paper some 163 bills in the names of private members are standing for introduction and first reading at this sitting. The House will recall that for several years it has been the practice to introduce and give first reading in a group to all such bills by unanimous consent. I assume that today the House will be willing to follow what may be termed as the usual practice in regard to these bills.
In a preliminary way, it must be said that there is some concern in the mind of the Chair concerning a number of the bills standing for introduction. By way of example, the very first bill standing for consideration by the House is one in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West. This bill came forward last year in the very same terms as it appears today for consideration of the House. At that time it was ruled out of order after considerable procedural consideration by hon. members. I mention this bill because it is No. 1 on the order paper and the hon. member

for Hamilton West may wish to give the matter some thought in the meantime. I considered that in fairness to him this should be mentioned. It may be that any further comments in that regard or with regard to other bills should be deferred until the occasion upon which these bills are first taken up during private members' hour.
In addition, it might be said that some difficulty has arisen in recent years with regard to the grouping of private members' bills with government bills. In order to facilitate the filing and reference to each class of bill it is proposed in future to begin the numbering of private members' bills at C-101. The traditional pro forma bill will continue to bear the number C-l. Government bills will then begin at C-2 and continue for the first 100 numbers. It is thought that all government bills to be introduced in this session can be accommodated within that range of numbers.
May I ask, then, whether there is unanimous consent that all public bills listed on today's order paper in the names of private members for introduction be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading, ordered to be printed and to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House subject, of course, to subsequent examination as to regularity of each bill. Is the procedure to which I have referred agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-101, to amend the National Housing Act (municipal water and soil pollution projects)-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-102, to provide for the establishment of Rural Airport Development Advisory Committees-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-103, respecting the guarantee of supply of parts for motor vehicles and farm implements imported into Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another-Mr. Nesdoly.
Bill C-104, to amend the Canada Labour Code-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-105, to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of absence)-Mr. Stackhouse.
Bill C-106, to establish the Office of Ombudsman-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-107, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain).
Bill C-108, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (housewives' contributions and benefits)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-109, to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-110, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (natural born Canadian citizen)-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill C-lll, to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list)-Mr. Fleming.
March 12, 1974
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-112, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-113, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-114, to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-115, respecting the control of lobbying-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-116, respecting National Youth Appreciation Week-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-117, to amend the Criminal Records Act-Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-118, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-119, respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-120, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Leggatt.
Bill C-121, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-122, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada)-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-123, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Stevens.
Bill C-124, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Andre.
Bill C-125, to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Hales.
Bill C-126, to amend the Fisheries Act-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-127, to amend the National Housing Act-Mr. Carter.
Bill C-128, to amend the Canada Pension Plan-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-129, respecting trafficking in exotic pets-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-130, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-131, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (minimum residence requirement-Mr. Prud'homme.
Bill C-132, respecting National Hire the Handicapped Week-Mr. Atkey.
Bill C-133, to amend the Canada Elections Act (form of ballot)-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-134, to provide for the protection of domestic animals while in transit-Mr. O'Sullivan.
Bill C-135, respecting increased representation for the Northwest Territories-Mr. Firth.
Bill C-136, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (coasting trade)-Mr. Neale (Vancouver East).
Bill C-137, to amend the Railway Act (deviations, changes and removal)-Mr. Knight.
Bill C-138, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-139, to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act-Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).
Public Bills
Bill C-140, to establish the National Noise Control Code-Mr. Grier.
Bill C-141, respecting the importation of dangerous animals-Mr. Stackhouse.
Bill C-142, to amend the National Housing Act-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-143, respecting noise in factories-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-144, to designate Major's Hill Park-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-145, to amend the Canada Elections Act (a form of absentee balloting)-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-146, respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-147, to amend the Canada Labour (age or sex discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-148, to amend the Canada Pension Plan-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-149, respecting the labelling of hazardous household products-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-150, to provide for the establishment of the Alas-ka-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-151, to establish the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-152, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-153, respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-154, to amend the Income Tax Act (section 239)- Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-155, respecting the continental shelf-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-156, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls)-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-157, respecting Indian Lands in the Province of British Columbia-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-158, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-159, respecting the international airport at Ottawa-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-160, to amend the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-161, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-162, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-163, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-164, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Mather.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1974
Public Bills
Bill C-165, to amend the Canada Labour Code-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-166, to amend the Canada Labour Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-167, to amend the Criminal Code (harassing telephone communications)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-168, to amend the Financial Administration Act (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-169, to establish a universal emergency telephone number-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-170, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Neale (Vancouver East).
Bill C-171, to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-172, to amend the Narcotic Control Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-173, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (equal residence requirements accorded alien spouses of Canadians)-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway).
Bill C-174, respecting a proposed association between Canada and the Caribbean Turks and Caicos Islands-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-175, to amend the Department of Justice Act (annual report)-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-176, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-177, respecting a passport issued to a woman who is married-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway).
Bill C-178, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-179, to amend the Immigration Act-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-180, to amend the National Transportation Act- Mr. Knight.
Bill C-181, to amend the Bank Act (regulation of excess of loan interest rate over rate of interest on debts payable by bank)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-182, to amend the Canada Elections Act (form of ballot)-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-183, to amend the Textile Labelling Act (prohibitions and labels)-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway).
Bill C-184, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-185, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-186, to amend the Criminal Code (tire safety) - Mr. Mather.
Bill C-187, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act- Mr. Thomas (Moncton).
Bill C-188, to provide for the establishment of the Alas-ka-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)-Mr. Oberle.

Bill C-189, respecting the protection of records of Canadian business concerns-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-190, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Douglas.
Bill C-191, to regulate Trade and Commerce-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-192, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-193, to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-194, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act- Mr. Howard.
Bill C-195, to amend the Combines Investigation Act- Mr. Howard.
Bill C-196, respecting disclosure of credit rating records-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-197, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-198, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-199, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Yukon and Northwest Territories Senate representation)-Mr. Nielsen.
Bill C-200, to amend the Inquiries Act (publication of reports)-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-201, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-202, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Olaussen.
Bill C-203, respecting the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-204, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-205, to amend the Narcotic Control Act-Mr. Poulin.
Bill C-206, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (farm tractors)-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-207, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-208, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Stackhouse.
Bill C-209, to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-210, respecting packaged perishable food-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-211, respecting confidential information contained in data banks-Mr. Knight.
Bill C-212, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Blenkarn.
Bill C-213, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (seat belts)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-214, to amend the Bank of Canada Act-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).
Bill C-215, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-216, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Mather.
March 12, 1974
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-217, respecting the sale of firecrackers to minors-Mr. Stackhouse.
Bill C-218, respecting excavations in Indian and Inuit burial grounds-Mr. Harney.
Bill C-219, to amend the Criminal Code (obliteration of motor vehicle serial numbers)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-220, to amend the Identification of Criminals Act-Mr. Blais.
Bill C-221, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Jarvis.
Bill C-222, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (rules)-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-223, to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights-Mr. Stevens.
Bill C-224, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-225, to amend the Veterans' Land Act-Mr. Marshall.
Bill C-226, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-227, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-228, to provide for the prohibition of the killing of polar bears in Canada-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-229, to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-230, to amend the Supreme Court Act (private citizen's reference)-Mr. Morgan.
Bill C-231, to provide for a national plebiscite on the removal of the abortion provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-232, to amend the Department of the Environment Act (fisheries)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-233, respecting boating safety-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-234, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (age discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-235, to restrain the use of tobacco-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-236, to amend the Department of Manpower and Immigration Act (handicapped persons)-Mr. Atkey.
Bill C-237, to amend the National Energy Board Act- Mr. Andre.
Bill C-238, representing the presence of the flags of Canada in both Houses of Parliament-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-239, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-240, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kings way).
Bill C-241, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Nelson.
Bill C-242, to provide for a national emblem for Canada-Mr. Darling.
Bill C-243, to amend the Canada Elections Act (proxy voting)-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).
Export Development Act
Bill C-244, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)- Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway).
Bill C-245, to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):
Bill C-246, to provide for a national plebiscite on the abolition of capital punishment-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-247, to establish a Newfoundland Crossing Authority-Mr. Marshall.
Bill C-248, respecting relief to non-smokers in transit- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-249, to amend the Indian Act (voting age)-Mr. Foster.
Bill C-250, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. Nesdoly.
Bill C-251, to amend the Criminal Code (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage container)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-252, to amend the Criminal Code (penalty for cattle rustling)-Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo).
Bill C-253, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-254, to amend the Harbour Commissions Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-255, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-256, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Cafik.
Bill C-257, to amend the Small Loans Act-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-258, respecting the right of the public to information concerning the public business-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-259, to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-260, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Ellis.
Bill C-261, to amend the Criminal Records Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-262, to establish the National Urban Transportation Authority-Mr. Stevens.
Bill C-263, to amend the Indian Act-Mrs. Morin.

Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, to amend the Export Development Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1974

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister fo Consumer and Corporate Affairs but perhaps he will be here a little later. In the meantime I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the statement by the Prime Minister last week that the present position of the government is that funds that the oil producing provinces may receive from the federal export tax are not subject to equalization. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in these circumstances, he has any explanation for his assertion at the time the export tax or charge was debated in the House that these funds were subject to equalization and that, in fact, for the months of October, November, December and January some $25 million would have to be found by the federal government to equalize the portion of the export tax received by the producing provinces?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: My statement has to be taken in context, on the assumption that if equalization were due as a share of export tax revenues, then, of course, it would be paid. I have been advised by counsel that a share of revenues under the export tax is not subject to equalization under the statute and regulations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must say the minister disappoints me. May I remind him that the statement he made in the House was not subject to any such qualification but was stated as the position of the government. May I ask the minister, without going beyond the bonds of decorum, why he said to me in the course of discussions relating to the charge for the months of February and March, and in seeking unanimous consent, that these payments would be subject to equalization?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain any further than I already have. I have been advised that, under the law and regulations as they now stand, any sharing or division under the Export Tax Act is not subject to equalization.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Minister of Finance then agree that the statements he made in the course of debate in the House as to the position of the government and the statements he made to me in the course of seeking unanimous consent for the change required to enable the House to deal with the export charge in the manner in which he wanted were without foundation?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be in his place this afternoon, but in his absence may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It arises from the statement made yesterday by the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board to the effect that retail beef sellers have not responded to the drop in wholesale costs by lowering prices. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the government currently has before it consideration of any steps to rectify this situation?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take note of this question for the minister.


Terrence Wyly Grier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I had addressed the question to the Prime Minister. May I have another run at the Prime Minister and ask him whether the government now has before it consideration of any plans to empower itself or any ministry of the government to intervene in order to roll back prices in appropriate circumstances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for missing the first question. I was checking about the presence of the minister. It appears that he has gone to Winnipeg where he is meeting with his provincial counterparts and is also addressing the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. Very properly, the acting minister did take notice of the question on his behalf.
As to the second question, the answer is yes. The government is considering various ways in which it will be able to ensure that the process spelled out several months ago by myself will take place-in other words, what we do when the Food Prices Review Board has made a recommendation, has met with the industry, has found they are faulty and that they have refused to redress the situation, and it is then up to the government to act. I believe the hon. member is asking: Have we any plans along these lines? The answer is yes.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in asking my final supplementary question may I parenthetically urge the government to urge itself and the Food Prices Review Board to accelerate the process to which the Prime Minister has referred. May I now ask him how soon the House may expect an announcement by the government as to the specific steps?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY-POSSIBLE NATIONALIZATION OF BRINCO-CONSEQUENCES RESPECTING DISTRIBUTION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
March 12, 1974

Could he tell us if the government intends to enter into negotiations with the Newfoundland government to discuss the effects on distribution of energy which would follow from the nationalization of Brinco Corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of such a plan, Mr. Speaker, and I do not understand either the importance of this question. I do not see how the distribution of energy could be affected if the Brinco Corporation or Shawinigan Corporation were to be publicly owned or not.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. In view of the fact that prices for all staple foods such as meat, potatoes, sugar, flour and edible oils are increasing at a rate more rapid than the increase in the price of bread, is the government contemplating taking the same action with regard to those staples as it took in connection with bread?
Right Hon. P, E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, we would take any specific action in the way we did with bread by making an announcement in the House, and the House will be made aware of that action at the time we take it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East will be recognized for a supplementary question. We are still on the first subject matter, and after the hon. member's supplementary the Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the government House leader. I should like to ask whether it is his intention to carry out the recommendation of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices brought in on the final day of the last session and concurred in by the House, calling for the setting up of a standing committee on consumer affairs, so that these reports by the Food Prices Review Board can at least be referred to an appropriate committee of the House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am in sympathy with the objective of that committee in desiring a method of continuous review of these reports. I am concerned, however, about the increasing burden we are placing on the committee system by the creation of special committees. I should like to consider further whether it would be possible to achieve this objective within the present committee structure.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, the committee did not recommend a special committee; it recommended, and the House concurred, the setting up of a standing committee. My question to the minister is, does he propose to carry out that recommendation of the House and set up a standing committee on consumer affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the modification suggested by my hon. friend serves to buttress my dilemma in respect of adding another standing committee to the committee structure which presently prevails and which is regarded on all sides as placing a very heavy burden on members. I should like to examine whether this objective can be achieved without creating an additional committee.


AUTHORITY FOR ACTION BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE TO PREVENT ENTRY OF WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE INTO CANADA
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a football fan, sometimes designated as a nationalist, I should like to ask the minister under what statute or order in council he claims to act in endeavouring to prevent a World Football League team being established in Canada? He has never made that clear yet, and I should like to know the basis.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is called the British North
America Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to note the emphasis on "British". I would now ask the minister under what portion of that act he is pretending to act, and is his threat against this organization bluff or bludgeon, or both?


An hon. Member:: You are the expert.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I intend to meet this afternoon with representatives of the interested parties.


An hon. Member:: Bring in the bill.


Marc Lalonde: I am trying to convince them that it is in their own interests as well as the interests of Canada that they should abandon their plan. If they do not, I am sure parliament will have the opportunity to make up its mind, and I am sure that members of the Official Opposition will have an opportunity to decide where they stand on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I again ask the minister to tell me, without any fatuous bluff answer, what section
414

March 12, 1974
Oral Questions
do you rely on or whether or not what you are endeavouring to do is plain bluff and bludgeon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume that question is being directed to the Chair.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the name of the act once more is the British North America Act. The section is section 91.


John George Diefenbaker: What subsection?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this discussion revolves around seeking or giving legal opinions, but I do not think we are going to resolve the situation or the difficulty. We will go to the next questioner, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The right hon. gentleman, I understand, rises on a point of order or question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply point out this fact, that the minister is playing with the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John George Diefenbaker: -in giving an answer such as that. He knows it is bluff on his part and he is afraid to give the subsection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman rose on a point of order. I am not sure that it was a point of order. The minister now rises on a point of order. I am not sure whether it will be a point of order, but I guess we will have to hear him.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order; it is a point of privilege. I reject the accusation that I am playing with the House on this question. I was asked quite clearly twice by the right hon. member under what section I thought the federal government or parliament could act and I said section 91. I suggest that the right hon. member go and read the section and find out for himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. After these points of order and questions of privilege the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-DIVISION OF THROUGHPUT BETWEEN MACKENZIE DELTA AND PRUDHOE BAY GAS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that an executive of Canadian Arctic Gas Studies Limited has announced they will be making an application for the construction of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline within a

few days, and in view of the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have already committed the government to this project, can the minister tell the House what share of the throughput of 4.5 billion cubic feet per day will be gas from the Mackenzie Delta and what part will be gas from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might remind the hon. member that the commitment of the government is to the line subject to the usual regulatory approval and protection of the interests of the native people. With regard to the share or nature of the project we will, of course, only know this in any detail once an application is filed with the National Energy Board.


POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-PERCENTAGE OF THROUGHPUT FOR CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CONSUMERS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the government has committed itself to a project without knowing how much Canadian gas and how much American gas will go through that pipeline. May I ask the minister now whether he is aware of the fact that 70 to 75 per cent of the gas for the first five or ten years will be Canadian gas, and can he tell the House what percentage of the throughput of that gas will be for Canadian consumers and what part will be for American consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member again that the application, of course, is subject to the full jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. On the remaining question, he seems to know more about the application than I do. I will have to wait until it is officially made to the board.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary after which I will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.
e (1430)


POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-INQUIRY AS TO FINANCIAL COMMITMENT BY GOVERNMENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the National Energy Board's tragic advice to the government on gas reserves in 1970 I thought the minister would have familiarized himself with some of the conditions with respect to this gas pipeline. May I ask the minister now whether the Canadian government has been approached at any time to make any financial commitment to the construction of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, either by way of equity capital or by way of loan capital and, if so, what commitment is the government contemplating at this time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada as such has not been approached. There are two emanations of the government of Canada which on their own
March 12, 1974

decision have participated in this study group, namely, Canadian National Railways and the Canada Development Corporation, but financial assistance directly from the government has not been sought for the project.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the negotiations going on at present with the government of Saskatchewan about a lower price for oil for Canadians in return for the location of industries in western Canada, has the federal government proposed use of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to establish water storage in the Souris River so that a petrochemical complex could be started in southern Saskatchewan based on the coal, oil and gas fields in that area?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be in a position to answer the question. In general terms, the matter to which the hon. member has referred has been discussed with the Saskatchewan government. At the present moment the Saskatchewan government, I believe it is fair to say, is interested in getting additional information. We have agreed and undertaken with them to support various studies. That is as far as that particular project has gone although, of course, in terms of the Qu'Appelle area the hon. member may know that we did in fact sign an agreement a few weeks ago for some considerable improvements in that particular region.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I
wonder if I might put the question to the Prime Minister again. My question is really on the matter of the negotiations on a national price for oil across Canada which is part of the negotiations with the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Has this particular proposal been brought into the discussions as a quid pro quo that the Canadian government is willing to offer Saskatchewan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the minister's answer cleared that up. If the hon. member wants to know if in a particular conversation I had with Premier Blakeney this week this subject was raised, the answer might be different from what it would be if the question were whether this question was generally current between the two levels of government, and the answer to that has been given by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to ask the hon. members for their co-operation. If we have two or three supple-mentaries on every question, we will not have many more questions before running out of time. I will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain on a supplementary and then will see the hon. member for Central Nova.
Oral Questions


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, again I should like to ask a question very specifically of the Prime Minister. I know that discussions are going on between the two governments and have been on for nearly a year. I am asking the Prime Minister: has this particular project been raised with the government of Saskatchewan as part of the negotiations with a view to getting the Saskatchewan government to accept a lower price for oil in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would disclaim that that approach has been used at all. I think the federal government made its position quite clear some months ago, namely, that we did not accept the quid pro quo approach, and we undertook long before the energy crisis, certainly when DREE was founded and then again at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, to do various things to help the balanced growth of the western part of Canada, particularly the prairie provinces. Therefore we do not tie this project to any particular agreement on gas and oil. We hope that they will stand independently one of the other, that in the one case it will be the federal government trying to achieve the balanced economic development of various parts of the country and in the other case it will be two oil producing provinces understanding that it is in the national interest that they undergo some restraint in their price in order to help the general Canadian economy.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can he advise us whether, in view of the present work to rule policy of the Canadian Airline Employees Association, which is resulting in a considerable drop in airline passenger traffic, he intends to take any further initiatives to resolve some of the issues troubling the members of CALEA?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of a rotating strike, I understand they occurred yesterday but did not occur today. Furthermore, the hon. member might be pleased to know that the parties are meeting with the mediator tomorrow morning in Vancouver. We are hopeful that this dispute may be resolved.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I was aware of those particulars but I should like to ask the minister one brief supplementary. Has the minister received a request that he not intervene at this time in the present dispute between our national air carrier and members of CALEA?


John Carr Munro: I have not checked as to telegrams in the last hour or two, but I do not recall having been asked not to intervene. However, this does not seem pertinent at the moment in view of the willingness of the parties to meet the mediator tomorrow morning.
27398-27J

March 12, 1974
Oral Questions


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs being absent, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the evident impotency of the Food Prices Review Board and the incapacity of Chairwoman Plump-tre for explaining the reason for this board to exist, could the right hon. Prime Minister indicate whether the government intends to amend the mandate of this board to increase its effectiveness?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I find both the preamble and the question extremely strange, considering that hardly a few days have elapsed since the House strongly urged the government to give effect to a recommendation the board chaired by Mrs. Plumptre had made in connection with the price of bread. I do not think that hon. members may one day ask the government to give effect to the recommendations of a board and complain the next that it is not doing its duty.


INDUSTRY
Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The latest report of the President of the United States to Congress on the auto pact, just released, for the second successive year shows a widening of the price differential between cars purchased in Canada and those purchased in the United States. What steps is the minister now prepared to take to narrow this gap other than those taken last year which were obviously unsuccessful?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, my information and the advice I have received is contrary to that which the President of the United States has received. My information is that the price gap has narrowed.


Mr. O'Connor:: For the purpose of my questions we might rely on this report and the minister can dispute it at his will. The report also continues to refer to the Canadian safeguards as being of a transitional nature despite the minister's representation last year that this was not the case. Has the minister made any representations to his counterparts in Washington to correct this inaccuracy?


Alastair William Gillespie: I would hope that at some time in the near future we will have an opportunity again to discuss with the American authorities potential improvements in the automobile pact. As I have said on previous occasions, if we do, such improvements will be based on protecting

present Canadian jobs and equally participating in the growth of the industry in North America.


MANPOWER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I ask the minister whether he or his officials have met with representatives of the provinces and informed them that in the coming year his department proposes to cut purchases of manpower training places in community colleges and vocational institutes by just under 10 per cent? If this is a fact, what are the reasons for the adoption of this policy?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the information with regard to the manpower training budget and the allocations to the provinces has been given to the various provinces. The fact of the matter is that there is a reduction in the number of manpower training days because, while an increased dollar budget is available, the cost of manpower training has escalated. Educational costs went up far more than the original provincial forecasts, which placed a squeeze on the actual number of training days that can be purchased from the said colleges.


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the minister whether implementation of the policy he is pursuing now will not mean either that the provinces will have to pick up much more than the 50 per cent of the cost they have been bearing up until now or cut back on the number of teachers and the number of students they have been educating and had proposed to educate during the coming year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to a degree one or the other will result based on the fact that in some cases the provinces themselves forecast increased costs amounting to about 7 per cent or 8 per cent and finally came up with increased costs amounting to as much as 18 per cent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to our distinguished maestro, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following his announcement today that Canada is to open an embassy in Saudi Arabia at an early date, can he indicate when that country plans to establish a mission in Ottawa, and can he say when this country will open an embassy in another important oil producing country, Iraq, which has had a mission here for many months?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As the hon. gentleman has said, Mr. Speaker, in
March 12, 1974

furtherance of the announcement I made in the House some months ago we have now agreed with the government of Saudi Arabia to open an embassy in Jedda, and we hope this will be under way in the fall of this year.
We are now discussing with the Iraqui government the establishment of a mission in Bagdad. I am not quite sure when that one will be opened, but the plans are under way. Of course, we would welcome the establishment of a permanent mission here in Ottawa by both of these countries. We have Iraqui representatives here now and we are very happy to have them with us. If Saudi Arabia would like to open a mission here we would be very pleased to have them too.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the report referred to by the hon. member for Halton, which indicates that retail prices of automobiles in Canada are increasing while they are decreasing in the United States, and in view of the fact that capital investment in the automotive industry in Canada declined more than 11 per cent and it appears that we will have a sizeable deficit on the auto pact in the fiscal year 1973-74, what action does the minister intend to initiate in his department to offset or overcome this condition?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already made clear to the presidents of the automobile companies, to the presidents of the parents in the United States as well as to the Canadian presidents, that we are concerned about the level of investment and, further, that we would expect that level of investment to come up in Canada so that it would balance the production and share of the market that we have in North America.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD- PUBLICATION OF REASONS GIVEN BY COMPANIES-POSITION OF FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Eudore Allard: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize perseverance is a beautiful virtue.
In view of the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Will he tell the House if the reasons given by the companies to justify a higher increase in the price of bread than that suggested by the Plumptre Board have been made public? If so, has the board studied and accepted them?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to follow the sequence of events, the companies had announced an increase in the cost of bread, and the Plumptre Board considered it unjustifiable. The minister then made suggestions to the companies. They accepted, as a result of those suggestions, not to decree the planned increase. I believe a meeting is to be held at the end of the month, around March 25, with the legal counsels of the bakeries, and we will then know the answer of the Plumptre Board.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister assure the House that all environmental impact studies will be released for public investigation?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: No, I
cannot, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Paul Masniuk: Will the minister guarantee this approach by making a statement on motions in the House that the release to the public of all environmental impact studies is government policy?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be making a statement to the House on this subject in a few days time.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF STUDIES OF IMPACT OF JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the urgency in making public environmental impact studies with regard to the James Bay project, studies for which the federal and provincial governments have allocated $10 million, will the minister assure the House that he is not blocking publication of these studies and that they will be made public forthwith?


John (Jack) Davis: I am
glad to give the House that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION DEALING WITH TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact grain transportation in certain parts of the country has deteriorated to a frightening degree, has the government any plans or is it making plans to bring forth emergency legislation to deal with grain movement in order to ensure that Canada may achieve the maximum possible exports?

March 12, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that the minister did make an announcement this morning regarding an increase in boxcars being brought into service to the number of 2,400. We hope this will help to alleviate the serious problem.


MOVEMENT OF GRAIN-IDLE BOXCARS-PROVISION OF CARS BY RAILWAYS IN LIGHT OF CROWSNEST FREIGHT RATES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is he aware of the fact that as of March 7 some 65 boxcars were sitting idle just north of Nanton, Alberta, and have been sitting idle there for six months, and is he prepared to investigate this situation as well as the numerous other sidings on which a large number of boxcars are sitting idle and unused?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a long list of cases of cars being idle during the course of the winter months, and we are investigating each of these cases. Of course, in a general way I have indicated to the House that the railways did suffer some serious problems because of the worse than usual snow conditions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know that you and hon. members opposite appreciate that it snows in the prairies every year, but most of them who visited home in the last few months will know that it snowed a good deal more this winter than it does in an average winter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should bring to the attention of hon. members that we have only a few minutes remaining before the end of the question period and I appeal to them to limit the number of supplementaries. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville and then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, because this is a very important subject. I would like to ask the minister one further supplementary. Can he tell the House whether, from his discussions or meetings with the railways with respect to the whole matter of grain transportation, he has been able to determine if it is a fact that the railways are deliberately attempting to undermine and weaken the Crowsnest freight rates by not providing sufficient boxcars to meet the demands of the prairie grain producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to determine whether there is any such intent. The railways have indicated an intention to get back to the levels of their own commitments, and we will be urging them to improve upon this in order to catch up on the shipments that we would have liked to have sooner. In addition, we have created an emergency committee to deal with possible short-term steps that can be taken by the railways, by the elevator companies and by everyone involved in the movement of grain in order to get better use out of whatever equipment can be committed by the railways to the movement of grain, because it is in the interests of everyone to

see maximum movement between now and the end of the crop year.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of the fact that last week the Minister of Agriculture told the House he would very quickly give an answer to the House with regard to the situation existing in the beef industry, which is very critical and requires immediate attention. Will the government be able to tell the House within the next very few days of a program to save the beef industry from the very bad situation that now exists with regard to feeding cattle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, first, that the minister is in Lethbridge presently meeting with the industry leaders.


An hon. Member:: With the Liberal Party, you mean.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree that many of them are Liberals, as the hon. member opposite has suggested. He will repeat to them the assurance he has given the House previously, which is that the government would act in this regard.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As the representatives of the Canadian cattlemen are here in Ottawa, would it be possible for the Minister of Agriculture to come back to Ottawa and talk to them instead of to the Liberals in Lethbridge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it is within the duties of the minister to do both, but there are so many Liberals in Alberta that he cannot bring them all back to Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPORTION OF EXPORT TAX PAYABLE TO OIL PRODUCING PROVINCES-APPLICATION OF EQUALIZATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister is deliberately trying to destroy confidence in the government. My question is for the Minister of Finance. It is a very serious question. I ask the Minister of Finance whether he denies that he represented to the House and to me personally, when the export tax and export charge bills were before the House, that the funds received by the producing provinces from the export tax were subject to equalization and that he said those things for the purpose
March 12, 1974

of getting the legislation through the House and of getting my consent to unanimous agreement?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. My statement, if properly construed, would indicate that if equalization were due it would have amounted to $25 million and would have been a deductible charge from the export tax. But the advice I have received is that there is no equalization due on any division of the export tax.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister is laughing. I think this is a serious question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am laughing at you, not at the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I regard this as a serious matter, if the minister made the statement. I make no pretense that, so far as I am concerned, this goes to the credibility of the Minister of Finance. I ask him once again, sir, and if he wants to say to me that he made a mistake, I will accept that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask him again whether he denies that he said in the House and represented to me that these funds received by the oil producing provinces were subject to equalization.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that was not the context in which I put the matter. I am advised that the act as it stands and the regulations as they stand do not nor did they provide for the payment of equalization.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question with respect to the business of the House. Since tomorrow is to be the first day, hopefully, for government business, I wonder if the acting government House leader can inform us what will be the business for tomorrow and perhaps for Thursday and Friday as well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe, as indicated previously, that it is planned to have an allotted day on Friday.
Veterans Land Act Extension



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:: That this House regrets that the government has not extended the March 31, 1974 deadline under the Veterans Land Act and calls upon the government to consider taking immediate steps to extend this deadline.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of my party, to move this motion today, even though I know that the vital question of the day is the uncontrollable increase in the cost of living which is affecting most Canadians. I am pleased to be given this opportunity because, sir, we have almost reached the deadline; in 19 days the government intends to phase out the Veterans Land Act.
You are well aware, Mr. Speaker, of the number of times that I, along with other members of my party and of other opposition parties, have tried by every means at my disposal to convince the government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to reconsider the phasing out of the act. May I mention that several colleagues in my party and in the other parties have collaborated on this issue. I have collaborated on a number of occasions with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in bringing motions before the House for just this purpose. My most recent attempt was made on January 11, just before the House recessed, when I moved a motion for the adjournment of the House, since I felt that this situation was an emergency one at that time.
In your reply, sir, you acknowledged the number of times on which I had brought up the issue and indicated that there would be other occasions in the new session when I could direct attention to the issue. You mentioned that several allotted days were set aside for such purposes. I have taken advantage of the present allotted day to raise this issue once more. You are well aware, too, of the number of ambiguous answers given by the minister, who did nothing more than leave the door open by stating that the matter was under review.
In his speech to the House last Thursday the minister literally slammed the door shut on any hopes that remained in the minds of veterans still qualified that anything would be done, when he stated, as recorded at page 305 of Hansard:
On January 11 last, as reported at page 9281 of Hansard,-
The minister was referring to the question I had asked.
-I stated that if I had sufficient information to make me think the deadline date should be changed I would so recommend to the government. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have carefully considered all relevant representations and data, including that determined by the Royal Canadian Legion in the survey it conducted last December. I am unable to conclude that such a recommendation would be warranted or appropriate.
However, what he was really saying was that he has disregarded the many thousands of replies to questionnaires sent out by the Legion, I think the total is around

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
8,000, and the many resolutions submitted to him by national veterans' organizations on behalf of thousands of veterans, plus the countless letters he has received from individual veterans. I am surprised that this did not justify the extension of the legislation. If this is the basis for his decision, all I can say is that judging from the letters my party receives every day, there must be two national veterans organizations, one which writes to him and one which writes to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: These veterans organizations represent the majority of some 900,000 veterans still living in Canada. I cannot accept the suggestion that the decision was based on what the veterans want or on the advice they offered. I believe it must be based on some other factors. Our motion today reads very simply, and I quote:
This House regrets that the government has not extended the March 31, 1974 deadline under the Veterans Land Act and calls upon the government to consider taking immediate steps to extend this deadline.
I am sure many members of the House might wonder why my party, on its first allotted opposition day, has raised as a national concern one section of the veterans charter when such a matter might be relegated to a very low priority. I hope that my remarks will provide the answer to that question.
First, I feel it might be worthwhile to review the act. It was enacted in 1942 and consists of three parts. Under Part I, financial assistance, grants and loans may be provided to qualified veterans who desire to settle on land as fulltime or part-time farmers or as commercial fishermen.
Part II provides that any qualified veteran who is approved for a loan under the National Housing Act may receive financial and other assistance to build his own home, provided he assumes his own construction contract with a maximum ceiling of $18,000.
Part III makes available additional fully repayable loans to full-time and part-time farmers and fishermen at the time they are established under Part I of the act, and to those previously established under Part I and still have a subsisting contract with the director. At the same time, low cost group life insurance is available to assist in the repayment of a veteran's remaining VLA debt in case of death.
Under Part I, financial assistance may be approved up to $40,000 or 75 per cent of the security value of the land, whichever is the lesser amount, for basic herd livestock and farm equipment. One advantage is that under this part of the act, the first $6,000 is available at only 3Vi per cent and the remainder at the current rate which is presently 7 per cent. Under certain conditions there are other stipulations of varying degrees, including conditional grants. Similar conditions prevail for commercial fishermen with varying grants and/or loans depending on the circumstances.
Under Part II of the act, loans are available up to $18,000, repayable at the going NHA rate of interest. This section of the act was introduced to assist veterans of World War II and Korea to become homeowners, particularly those who because of the nature and location of their

employment could not be established on two or three acres of land as part-time farmers under the act and whose income was insufficient to meet payments on the cost of a home built by a regular contractor under the National Housing Act.
Under the regulations, it is required that a veteran applying for a loan under Part II must hold a parcel of land of one half acre. However, when a parcel of land does not contain this minimum and no other land is available to make up one half acre, this requirement is reduced by 20 per cent with the exception that those veterans who are in receipt of a 50 per cent disability pension may be exempted from this minimum acreage requirement.
Over the years amendments to the legislation were introduced, both with regard to the amount of the loan ceiling and the deadline dates for certification. For example, in 1965 the loan ceiling under Part II was raised from $12,000 to $18,000. This remains today, almost 10 years later. It must be pointed out also that deadline dates for certification were extended as a result of changing conditions. It was established in 1962 that deadlines would be introduced. October 31, 1968 was established as the deadline date for certification with March 31, 1974 as the date for applications for loans.
Today, there are over 100,000 veterans certified who cannot apply because of the restrictions of loan ceilings and lot requirements. Many of these veterans are still serving and are not ready to locate at a predetermined location. The minister keeps repeating, and his department reports predict, that a small percentage of the some
140.000	became certified in October, 1968 in case they may want to apply before the March, 1974 deadline. Nothing could be more far-fetched, Mr. Speaker. As everyone knows, the real reason is that with today's housing costs, it is impossible to build a home and provide a lot of over
17.000	square feet for $18,000. They actually do not get a loan of $18,000 since the down payment required is $2,600.
Purely and simply, governments past and present, even with their good intentions, failed to predict what changing conditions have brought about. I am sure the minister and some of his colleagues will use the argument that when the deadline was established, there was unanimous consent in the House and that it occurred during the time of the Progressive Conservative government. However, there were earlier deadlines established by other governments, and they were changed to meet increases in costs over the years or for other reasons. There have been countless amendments over the years to help cope with changing conditions, regardless of which party happened to form the government of the day, or who made the decision to impose deadlines. Therefore, why do they not admit that it is only fair and reasonable to extend the deadline, something which they have the power to do?
The main point I want to bring out is that the motion goes beyond the material advantages that would accrue to the veteran as his right. It is not wholly because the government has failed to increase the amount of the loan and amend the lot requirements. It is not merely because of the other factors I have mentioned. It goes beyond that. There is a principle involved here, not only an important principle but one which indicates a breaking of faith by the government of Canada which, in the name of every
March 12, 1974

citizen of Canada, made a commitment to the veterans of World Wars I and II and Korea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: That commitment was made when the Prime Ministers of the day stated clearly and emphatically that no veteran, whether he remained where wars were fought or returned, would ever have cause to say that Canada broke faith with those who died, those who remained or those who returned.
Our motion today goes beyond the mere denial of the veteran's right under the Veterans Land Act. It brings into focus how easily we forget and points out the lack of recognition of what our country is all about. I am the first to admit that, in spite of the criticism by the opposition, myself included, as a country we are the envy of other nations of the world insofar as prosperity and freedom are concerned. How did we reach this state of affluence? We reached this status because we built a base of greatness through the initiative and dedication of the people who make up our citizenry. We also reached our status through the suffering of people who came to Canada because of the opportunities that existed.
We are made up of people of every race, and from all parts of the world, who were willing to participate in the building of a nation. They helped build Canada through sweat, toil and suffering. They were willing to suffer. When they were called upon during wars, they offered their lives to defend their country and to join with their neighbours to ensure peace in the world.
The minister also mentioned in his speech that this year would mark two important events for the veterans of this country. First, this coming June will be the 30th anniversary of the landing of the allied troups in northern France which resulted in the liberation of Europe and the end of World War II. He said the government, and rightly so, will take a very active part in the ceremonies. I am sure that all members feel the minister will be a worthy representative of our government and our country. Perhaps I can suggest he would be wise to include in his address an extract from the booklet entitled "Veneration for Valour, an assessment of the veterans charter and its impact on Canadian veterans and on Canada as a whole". I should like to read from this booklet. In it, we find these words:
How have we dealt with those who served and came back? They offered their lives as citizens of the Canadian nation, and they gave much. How have we dealt with the widows and orphans of those who did not come back? How did they expect to be repaid? The answer, in their name, was given by the Canadian Legion at its founding convention 46 years ago. Through all of those years the work of the Legion has involved, in the words of Senator Arthur Laing, Minister of Veterans' Affairs, "the awakening of the peoples' indebtedness, a sense of compassion for those who have suffered, and a veneration for valour." Its twin objectives, as defined by its first president, were "the welfare of Canada and the proper care of all who served their country in time of war.
It is well to note the priorities in those objectives. The welfare of Canada came first, the care of the veterans second. Yet both were linked together. They remained in the same order, and they remained linked, at the close of the second World War. There could never be a sound nation, a national at peace with itself, without adequate recognition of its veterans' claims. It must be just, but it must be feasible within the limits of our national resources. And what did that demand?
Veterans Land Act Extension
It demanded first, without thought of any limits, the generous care of the disabled; and that was always given. It was recognized in the years following the first World War as demanding a measure of help to all returning men. By the end of the Second World War, in a changing nation and a changing world, it had assumed a new dimension. Rehabilitation, both as a national obligation and as sound national policy, had come to mean helping the veteran to establish himself in civil life in a situation at least as good as he would have occupied if he had not gone to war. It was a large objective, pursued through a quarter century and still being pursued. Both in money and human efforts the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs represents one of our greatest national projects. It is a successful project, and a living force in the nation. In keeping faith with our veterans we have not only served them; we have joined with them in the building of a better country.
This may sound emotional, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps, when we stop to consider what is going on around us, we should get emotional more often.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: In this same booklet, Mr. Speaker, a reference is often made to the Veterans Land Act, in particular to land settlement and home construction. The performance statistics show a large measure of success. Some 32,000 veterans have been settled on farms and
85,000	on small holdings. More than 36,000 have been assisted to build houses. The booklet goes on to say that these figures are of little help in themselves as a means of measurement, and that the work is not yet complete. More homes have yet to be built; more farms are being enlarged. So, I ask the minister this question; Why, when only a year and a half ago there was so much more to be done, should this work suddenly become unnecessary?
Let us turn for a few moments to the way in which the act has been administered, and look at a few of the statistics which the government uses so readily. Investment of public funds stands at present at $535 million. Total revenue received from veterans during the year prior to the publication of the report amounted to $69 million-$43 million representing new payment of principal, and $26 million representing interest payments. During that year some 2,100 loans were negotiated. House construction starts increased in Quebec and the Maritimes, remained steady in British Columbia and the Prairies but declined in Ontario, due mainly to rising costs and the difficulty of finding suitable land. The cost of new construction, alterations, additions and repairs amounted to nearly $80 million. Under the small holdings provision, the most popular form of assistance, some 3,000 veterans were established.
A staff of 536 is employed in the VLA administration. The annual report states that work production increased to 103.5 per cent relative to an index base of 100 for the year 1969-70. The administration, in addition to its other work, provides an appraisal service to other departments, particularly the Department of National Revenue, and in the year referred to completed almost 23,000 reports for that department's data bank. I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) has heard about that? So, here we find a competent administration working above the acceptable performance level, working for other departments, maintaining an acceptable business record. Yet the government has announced its intention of phasing it out.
27398-^28

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
How many amendments have we seen brought down in the past few years to the housing legislation for which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Basford) is responsible? How much money is being poured into this area? Certainly, everyone would agree that further vast amounts of funds must be provided for housing because of the housing crisis. But is there any reason or justification for phasing out legislation which is serving the veteran at no unreasonable cost to the public, particularly since doing so would have the effect of throwing thousands of veterans into the mainstream of the demand for housing which today is so acute?
The minister told us in his speech that he would be attending the biennial convention of the Royal Canadian Legion. Again, I say he will be a worthy representative. I am sure he will make reference to the increases effected in war veterans' allowances, civilian war allowances and in disability pensions. And so he should. I shall be proud, as will all members who played some small part in passing legislation to effect these increases. I am sure the minister will mention the fact that Canada's veterans charter compares with the best in the world, if, indeed, it is not the best. So he should, Mr. Speaker, and once again my colleagues and I will be proud to be associated with him.
But will it be fair to tell the 2,500 veterans who will gather from across the country at the Dominion command convention that after reviewing all the factors he was unable to conclude that the extension of the March, 1974, deadline was warranted or appropriate? I say it will not. I hope he will be able to sell them something along these lines-that the government, realizing the commitments made by past governments over the years are in the name of every Canadian citizen, has decided to continue to keep faith with its Canadian veterans and not only to extend the March, 1974 deadline but, as well, to extend the October deadline. Further, that it has decided to increase the maximum ceiling and reduce the lot requirement in line with today's needs, and that it will undertake to ensure that no veteran would be denied the right to acquire a home, or a small holding or to improve his home under the terms of the act as long as he lives.
As I said in my opening remarks, I have attempted over the past many months, with the support of my party, by questions in the House and in committee meetings, by way of motions, a private members' bill and other means, to persuade the government to reconsider its decision to phase out the act. I have attempted to do so in a responsible manner. Nevertheless, I understand there are rumblings going around that there are ulterior motives behind the motion we are putting forward today. All I can say is that I am sorry for those who think that way.
With only 19 days left before the phasing out of the legislation, the motion before us is a last effort of mine to appeal to the government to take steps to extend this deadline. It is a known fact that on matters concerning the veterans of Canada the members of this House have always stood together. This attitude has been exemplified from time to time on many occasions, particularly at meetings of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I am sure that all hon. members, some 50 of whom are veterans, appreciate the emergency which exists. I am sure, too, that all members of the House will support this motion, and, in

doing so, indicate that as representatives of every citizen in Canada we are fulfilling our commitments to the veterans of this country to whom we owe so much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in my first words I wish to commend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for presenting this motion to the House today. I also wish to commend him most warmly on the clear and responsible manner in which he presented the case asking the government to reconsider the question of the deadline on the Veterans Land Act and to continue that legislation beyond the end of this month.
It has been my privilege-and I thank my hon. friend for having referred to it-to collaborate with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) on a number of matters relating to veterans affairs. I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge once again that he did me the honour of seconding the motion that I presented to this House on November 9, 1973, under Standing Order 43. That motion called for a reconsideration of the whole question of the Veterans Land Act. I shall refer to its terms in a few minutes, but I wish to emphasize the fact that unanimous consent was given to the making of that motion and that the House supported it unanimously.
That is perhaps one of the reasons, along with the others that he stated, for the tone in which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe spoke this afternoon. He spoke not just for himself and for the members of his party, and I hope that I speak not just for myself and for the members of my party. I believe we are speaking for members in all parts of this House, and I am able to say that not just because of a personal judgment of what all hon. members think, but because there was unanimous approval of the motion that was made on November 9, 1973.
I realize that in a speech that he made last week the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) seemed to say that he had given this matter all the consideration that he could, and that he was not able to bring himself to continue the legislation. However, I join with my hon. friend, and with others who will speak after me, in making the strongest appeal I can to the minister. My appeal is that when he speaks in this debate today, as I trust he will, he will be the big man that all of us know him to be and will be prepared to say that, despite what he said last week, in view of the desire of the House he is now prepared to do what this motion asks, namely to reconsider the phasing out of the Veterans Land Act. I hope I can be pardoned for saying that if the hon. minister is already a hero, he will be a hero again today if he accepts and reflects the thinking of this entire House by stating that the time has come to make it clear that the Veterans Land Act will be continued beyond the end of this month.
If there were time I would recite events other than the motion of November 9. Questions were asked by my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and myself on November 21, 1973, which resulted in a late show on
March 12, 1974

Tuesday, December 4, 1973. There were motions and questions in January when we were back here for the end of the session. There were motions on Friday, March 1. The matter has been discussed at length at meetings of the veterans affairs committee.
Even though this question may be one of the lesser issues in the field of veterans affairs, it is before us now because of the deadline of March 31. It is also before us because of the feeling in all parts of the House that it is an issue on which the government should now respond to the will of the House, even though this means changing a position that the minister was very close to taking when he spoke in the debate on the address last Thursday night.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is my plea. I deeply appreciate the manner in which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe made his plea. He was speaking the absolute truth when he referred to the way in which we get along in the veterans affairs committee and the way in which we deal with veterans affairs in this House. The last thing that we want today is partisan conflict, especially when we are all agreed.
I do not know when the minister will speak. If he wants to sit and listen to the debate before he answers, then that is fine with all of us. But I do hope he knows that in the hearts of all of us in this House we want a clear, unequivocal, good faith assurance today that this matter will be reconsidered.
Thanks to the speech of my hon. friend who preceded me, there are details about the legislation with which I do not need to take part of my 20 minutes to deal. However, I should like to make a few brief comments, and to support my comments by reading extracts from a letter, in regard to some of the arguments that the minister has been putting up when he has been resisting our wish that the Veterans Land Act be continued.
One of his arguments has been that the purpose of the Veterans Land Act has become confused in the minds of veterans in recent years. The minister has pointed out that originally the act was to assist veterans to get settled on a small holding of land on which they would do a certain amount of do-it-yourself agriculture. The minister says that what is happening now is that veterans are trying to get grants under the Veterans Land Act for the purpose of erecting a house for their retirement years.
The other night when the minister made that comment in his speech I interjected-and it is the obvious interjection-"What's wrong with that?" I remind the minister that the motion which was passed unanimously by this House and accepted by him, by all members of the cabinet and by members of all parties on November 9 dealt with that very question. These were the words of the motion, as recorded at page 7693 of Hansard:
That this House requests that the Minister of Veterans Affairs give urgent consideration to the amending of the Veterans Land Act regulations to permit veterans to acquire small holdings, even if the main purpose of most of the older veterans now applying for loans under the Veterans Land Act is to meet their housing requirements, it being the view of this House that entitlement to a piece of this land ought to be the right of any veteran.
At the risk of repeating myself over and over again, that motion was passed unanimously by this House on Friday, November 9. The entire cabinet concurred in it. Surely, the
Veterans Land Act Extension
cabinet is not going to go back on what it agreed to do at that time, namely reconsider the whole matter, and to include in that reconsideration the justification that veterans have in seeking grants under the Veterans Land Act, even if housing is the main or the only purpose they have.
I remind hon. members, and I remind the government, that with housing costs as they are today some assistance is necessary. I ask hon. members, what group can this parliament more justifiably assist in the matter of housing than our older veterans? Really, Mr. Speaker, there is no answer to this plea: the government cannot say no. The government really has to come through today and agree to the request in this motion, which is that it reconsider the deadline placed on the Veterans Land Act.
Another argument the minister has used has been the assertion that some veterans were trying to get more than one of the various post-war benefits which were available to them. If I had the time I should like to develop that point myself, but I think the easiest way to deal with it is to read a part of a paragraph from a letter written to the minister on January 28, 1974, by Mr. E. V. Heesaker, Dominion President of the Canadian Corps Association. This was a letter in which a strong, and I think very effective appeal, was made to the minister to wash out the March 31 deadline.
Mr. Heesaker in his letter referred to the comments made by the minister in reply to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) on November 6, 1973 about this effort to get extra benefits, and he said:
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 Veterans Land Act.
I think the argument the minister is trying to make in that connection just does not stand up, and even if it did stand up, as I shall suggest by a sentence from Mr. Hee-saker's letter a little later on, I suggest our duty to those who served is such that we should not quibble over this sort of thing. Therefore, the plea today for the Veterans Land Act to be continued is one that should be met.
As I have already said, and as my friend who preceded me said, there are many issues affecting veterans in respect of which we want improvements, and we will keep up the battle for them. I agree with my friend that we have done pretty well in the last couple of years, but this happens to be an issue which is crucial as March 31 is only 19 days away.
Another argument the minister uses at times, and really it startled me that he would use it at all, is that it would be unfair to former veterans who did not get this benefit to give it now to today's veterans under different terms. That would be like saying we should not be paying old age security pensions of over $100 a month today at age 65 because that is unfair to our parents and grandparents who back in the thirties got only $20 a month at age 70.


An hon. Member:: And what about disability pensions?
27398-28J

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend from Edmonton refers to increases in disability pensions. What about the veterans who have died over the years since World Wars I and II on disability pensions at much lower rates? Is it unfair to them that we now pay better disability pensions to those who are alive today? Really, I think that argument is one that the minister would like to reconsider. What we are concerned about are the veterans who are alive today, and if those who have died before them whether on the field of battle or since the war, could speak they would say they would like to see their comrades get the best of what is coming. This is a different society with more affluence and greater costs, and I suggest it is completely unfair to judge what is done for veterans today by what was done for veterans in days gone by.
Another argument the minister has used is that many of the hundred thousand to whom the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe referred, who got their certificates of qualification before the cutoff date in 1968, were just taking the precaution of getting their authority in case they wanted to use it. The minister says we should not now take those people seriously because they really did not mean it, but just wanted to be sure in case.
In answer to that I should like to read again a paragraph from the letter that Mr. Heesaker wrote the minister on January 28. He said, addressing himself to the minister:
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. 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.
I suggest that is not the kind of argument that should be made in this debate, that many of these veterans were only taking a precaution. The fact of the matter is that times have changed, problems in gettting housing have become very serious, and in my view we should treat seriously the fact that many of these veterans who have these qualification certificates would like to be able to get themselves located on a piece of land for a home, even if they are not able to do so before March 31. As a matter of fact, I like the sentence in the concluding paragraph of Mr. Heesaker's letter in which he states:
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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what we said in the motion we passed in this House on November 9, 1973, that it is the view of this House that entitlement to a piece of this land ought to be the right of every veteran.
I have quoted two or three times from that letter from Mr. Eugene Heesaker to the minister speaking on behalf of the Canadian Corps Association, and expressing the view of many veterans and veterans' organizations. It is interesting, of course, to know what the minister said in his letter of reply to Mr. Heesaker dated February 18. The letter expresses appreciation for the points made and con-

tains some arguments in respect of the points set out by Mr. Heesaker, but when Mr. Heesaker sent some of the rest of us copies of that letter he suggested there was some hope in the last paragraph of the letter over the signature of the minister. That paragraph reads:
I appreciated receiving your letter and having the views of your Association. You may be assured that I will keep them in mind as this matter receives further consideration.
I know the minister can say he wrote that on February 18, 1974, and 10 or 12 days later made a speech in which he said he had concluded this consideration and saw no basis on which he could agree to continuing the Veterans Land Act beyond March 31. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe said he slammed the door shut. Perhaps that is not too strong, but at least he did not lock it. He shut the door on the hope that something could be done, but he did not lock it. What we are trying to do is open that door, and I plead with the minister to give serious consideration to this motion. I am about to sit down, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House will give the hon. member its unanimous consent to his continuing. That is why I interrupt the hon. member at this moment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the suggestion, but it is not necessary. I have about concluded my remarks. I feel this is one of the most important days we have had in this session of this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the two of
us who have already spoken have indicated, there are other issues affecting veterans and we will be dealing with them when the time comes. However, March 31 is very close and this issue, even if the number of veterans affected is not great, should be resolved today. I remind the minister, as I remind the House, that even the veterans who themselves may not be involved in the desire for a VLA grant are concerned about the well-being of their fellow veterans, and I therefore suggest that all veterans of Canada have their eyes on this House today. They will be glad to know that members in all parties want the Veterans Land Act extended, and its provisions improved as well, although that is not in the motion today. We will be counting on the minister, and I am hopeful that he will not disappoint us, to agree to the request in the motion by telling this House before the day is over that he and his government will reconsider the matter of extending the Veterans Land Act.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), calling upon the government to extend the deadline under the Veterans' Land Act.
March 12, 1974

I share the interest of all previous speakers in this matter, for I am one of those who served our country during World War II, a war which was believed to be the very last of all major conflicts.
On a number of occasions, and especially during the past few months, similar motions were introduced calling upon the government to disregard the deadline which had been unanimously agreed upon in 1968 and to extend the benefits of this act later than March 31, 1974. On November 6, 1973, a similar motion was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and another on December 4, 1973, by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. These two motions, Mr. Speaker, were received with many reservations. I remember the debate that followed the motion, the kind that can be termed a "motherhood" motion. It is very difficult to object to the government paying increased benefits to those Canadians, who are first-class citizens because they took the responsibility in the difficult years of 1939 to 1945 of enrolling, going into training and defending their country.
Mr. Speaker, before developing further my ideas on this motion, I would like to return to the spirit of the act adopted in 1942. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read from the preamble or interpretation of the act. I quote:
In this Act
"veteran" means a person who at any time during the war declared by His Majesty on the 10th day of September 1939 against the German Reich and subsequently against other powers, has been therein engaged on active service in a naval, army or air force of Canada, or of any of His Majesty's forces if at the time of his enlistment he was ordinarily domiciled or resident in Canada,
It can be immediately gathered from this preamble, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the act was to favour those young Canadians who answered the call to arms and decided voluntarily, after being called, to go defend their country. The government of Canada has therefore taken very definite obligations towards them.

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I should like to read some of the notes in the preamble to the act entitled "An act to assist war veterans to settle upon the land".:
Whereas many men now serving in the active forces of Canada have recorded their desire to settle on land or engage in farming when hostilities cease, and it is desirable that suitably qualified veterans be encouraged to seek rehabilitation in the agricultural industry;
And whereas part-time farming coupled with other employment is an increasingly important aspect of rural and semi-rural life in Canada;
And whereas it is in the public interest as a measure of rehabilitation to assist in acquiring the ownership of farm homes by qualified veterans .. .
And whereas the great majority of prospective veteran settlers have limited financial assets and the lack of such assets has proved to be the main obstacle to the fulfilment of settlement contracts and to the acquirement of farm home ownership;
And whereas it is the purpose of the Dominion Government to provide a measure of financial assistance to veterans on their performance of prescribed settlement conditions in order to promote their engaging in agricultural pursuits either as a full-time occupation or as a part-time occupation coupled with some other employment:
Mr. Speaker, I believe the title of the act and the preamble clearly set out the purpose and intent of the legislation drafted by the framers of the legislation and
Veterans Land Act Extension
adopted by Parliament over 30 years ago. The reason I go back to the spirit of the law in 1942 is simple. During those days, of course, we had to create some incentive for, or some interest on the part of, young Canadians to join the service, to abandon careers, leave their families or wives or leave their studies in order to enter the service of their country not knowing whether they would come back or not knowing in what condition they would come back. Of course, the Canadian government took upon itself the task of preparing a program so that the experience of going over and fighting for their country would not deprive young Canadians, of whom I was one, of a career or business to which to come back. If there were no career or business to which to come back or studies to pursue, then if they wished to settle on a farm they could do so with the assistance of the government.

Mr. Speaker, this makes me wonder whether we are not somewhat stretching the spirit of the law. If, for instance, the benefits were increased or, for instance, the government, on the recommendation of the minister, were to recommend that in fact extension of the application of the act be studied seriously, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether as a veteran who made his option some 27 or 28 years ago, I would not feel that I was being cheated in some of my rights because at that time I was not told that in 1974, following the representations of some veterans, the government or Parliament would consider extending the benefits of the act.
I wonder if my decision would have been the same in 1945, had I then known that, much later, I could change my mind. In any event, we must not forget that 100,000 veterans have already taken advantage of the act. Out of these, 48,500 who are still committed live on these tracts of land and are repaying their loans.
Of these 100,000 no fewer than 40,000 have already bene-fitted from the grant or benefits and finished paying their debt. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what attitude, and I urge my colleagues to think very seriously about this, those who have already made their decision could have. I wonder whether they will not have the very justified feeling of having been denied their rights by accepting benefits which could have been much more interesting had they waited like a few thousands have done.
This is a most indeterminate number considering that today as many as 48,500 are still committed concerning their land, and considering also the age of these veterans. I consider myself as one of the younger veterans, and yet I celebrated my 50th birthday in September 1973.
So, my information is that the present average age of veterans, as described in the original act of 1942, would be 55.
I believe that when I reach 55 I shall probably have behind me a good many of my productive years, and it is not at that age that I shall consider settling down on a farm.
Perhaps you are right. Some of my colleagues say with a smile that I have many more years to go. They are very kind to smile in the expectation that I shall still be here for a few years. It is probably the military service that kept me so young, Mr. Speaker, Nevertheless 55 is not an

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
age to think of going into farming or building a house, because one must not forget that this act was originally meant to help the veteran contribute to the building of his house. At the same time, he was committed to farming some of the time.
In any case he had a commitment. I recall reading this commitment and considering it very seriously. However, I was reviewing that act, Mr. Speaker, at an age when one enters a new career, that is at 24, 25 or 28 years. When I refer to the average age of veterans as being 55, it means that most of them are over 55. I wonder if they are taken in consideration when one asks that the benefits of the legislation be extended beyond March 31, 1974. Those citizens have already had 30 years to consider settling on a piece of land or an adequately large lot to make a living.
I do not know whether I was overly eager to select my profession when I decided not to settle on a farm after my release from the armed forces. Mr. Speaker, I know that many veterans 55 years of age or over are seriously considering farming. However, to draw some allowances under the Veterans' Land Act, veterans must undertake to pay a 25- or a 30-year mortgage. Therefore, if the average age of most veterans is 55 it means that a significant number of them are 60 or over. Is it possible to spend still 25 or 30 years on some land and build a home that late in life?
I have serious reservations about the motion introduced. However, I am keeping an open mind on the possibility of extending the application of the Veterans Land Act.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if the debate-


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I interrupt the hon. member? As a veteran who is not qualified, I am very interested in the hon. member's remarks. For my edification would he say if he is going to vote for the motion or against it?


Mr. Chretien:: You will see tonight.


Mr. Hees:: You guys haven't made up your minds yet.


Maurice Dupras: I fail to see a point of order in the hon. member's remark. I do not want to prejudge your decision, Mr. Speaker, but I fail to see a point of order in the hon. member's presentation. If the hon. member is here long enough today he will find out which way I will vote. Now, with your permission, I would like to pursue my ideas on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, before taking a decision, I shall wait for the new ideas which may be voiced during the following debate and which will authorize Parliament to consider seriously the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.
I have listened carefully to the previous speeches, Mr. Speaker, but none contained challenging thoughts which could stir hon. members. In my opinion, nothing at this time authorizes or prepares me to agree to such an extension and to consider it seriously. The following speeches might bring in new suggestions. In any case, my brothers in arms-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Dupras: With your permission, I will pursue this and then the hon. member can speak afterwards. [Translation]
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I have quite regular contacts with my brothers in arms, since I had the honour of presiding the Veterans Affairs Committee in 1973. I have received a great many comments on benefits, laws, measures which the government has approved in recent years on behalf of veterans.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief look at what the government has done about the increase in pensions paid to veterans and their families.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the few countries that still have a Veterans Affairs Department; in fact, in all the main western countries, very few governments have a secretariat, department or ministry of veterans affairs.
Our department is strong, Mr. Speaker. Its budget this year nearly tops $600 million. This very simple fact shows clearly and eloquently the deep concern of the government for veterans affairs.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that I welcome any action aimed at improving the life conditions of my former brothers in arms. But I would like to see the members for Ottawa, among others, to speak up and present valuable arguments to convince me and my colleagues of the need to maintain these measures concerning veterans affairs.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in this debate on the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative party.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the act referred to in this motion did not meet the legitimate aspirations of our brave soldiers. Naturally, an ill-conceived act is an obvious reason for nobody wanting to take advantage of it, to the point where Canadian veterans did little or nothing to avail themselves of the act. According to my calculations about 1 per cent of veterans saw fit to do so.
It is also obvious in these times, Mr. Speaker, that an amount of $18,000 is absolutely ridiculous when one considers that, because of taxes on building materials, prohibitive interest rates and inflation, the cost of construction nowadays is clearly too high to provide those brave soldiers with a decent house where they could spend the rest of their lives.
From a practical point of view, the act should be more comprehensive for those brave citizens most of whom gave up the nicer days of their youth and their dearest hopes in the madness of the last two wars.
Yet they had been given high hopes and promised a nice future upon their return. Unfortunately, faced with all sorts of obstacles, rebuffs and misunderstandings, they soon lost their illusions.
Judging from the speeches made by other members it seems there was an oversight in the act to provide those veterans with second mortgages while allowing them to build larger houses to accommodate a tenant in order to help them meet their obligations.

Furthermore, it seems the size of allocated lots was often out of proportion with the bylaws of municipalities or cities where they wanted to settle.
Of course it is quite difficult to draw practical conclusions from this motion since it does not bring anything new and simply perpetuates a situation which is absurd since the provision of the act is ineffective. The best evidence is that hardly one per cent of our veterans have taken advantage of this right.
Our government should certainly act in a more humanitarian way for all those brave citizens who are at grips with hardships resulting from the fact that they wanted to defend our freedoms. We suggest that the application of this legislation should be extended and the act amended to give more discretion and freedom to those concerned with veterans so as to satisfy their claims in the best and quickest way.
Let us not forget that the last amendments to the Veterans Land Act were made over thirty years ago. I believe that in 30 years, an individual or even a government is entitled to change his or its views to meet the requirements of the moment. It is obvious that thirty years ago, the veterans' needs were not the same as today. I think that this government should amend the act, maintain it and extend its application so as to do justice to all these brave soldiers who, as I said earlier, sacrificed their youth to defend our freedoms. We all know that nowadays, like most of our fellow citizens, they have difficulties finding a suitable shelter.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments and ask whether it would be possible to preserve the present act and to amend it not so as to spoil our veterans, but in such a way as to be more human towards their claims and to understand that these people have made many sacrifices. Most of them lost their lives on battlefields. I think that at the same time we should have a special thought for veterans' widows and children who often suffer from our lack of gratitude and appreciation.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I hope that every one of us will do his utmost to ensure that the amendment we shall bring to the act will satisfy all Canadian veterans.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate to present the views of the 11 Legion branches, and army, navy and air force units in my area. The motion is a short, direct one, simply calling for the extension of the March 31 deadline for the Veterans Land Act.
When beginning these remarks I would like to look back to 1917 when the then Prime Minister of Canada addressed the Canadian forces on the eve of the great battle of Vimy Ridge, during which Canada became a nation and her troops were recognized throughout the world. It was Sir Robert Borden, speaking to the troops on that occasion, who said:
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and your courage is brought to the notice of your people at home.
Veterans Land Act Extension He ended by saying:
We will do these things so that no man will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.
I believe those words, used in that situation, had the impact of a solemn obligation and sacred promise, not only to the veterans of world war I but to those of world war II and of the Korean war. Veterans throughout Canada, and indeed members of this House, are perturbed that the government seems bent on cutting back and ultimately phasing out the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is starting with the Veterans Land Act, and the cutoff date which is being debated today is one of the biggest steps towards the ultimate elimination of the work that act is able to do for the veterans of Canada. As I say, we are disturbed about this and so are the veterans.
The basic argument today is on whether or not to extend that deadline, and from it flows two things. If it is extended, then an extension can be sought of the ceiling with respect to grants given to veterans to build houses or buy property, to make that ceiling more realistic at the present time. The second factor related to this extension governs the lot size stipulated in the act, which is presently half an acre and which, under special conditions, can be reduced by 20 per cent. This could be modified so that veterans could take advantage of the VLA act to purchase city lots.
These two factors are the main reasons that many veterans have not come forward to take up contracts, even if they have been certified as being able to do so. When the minister says that very few veterans have come forward to take advantage of this program it is because of the discouragements and roadblocks that these two factors represent. The failure of the 150,000 veterans who established eligibility to take out loans is the direct result of these two major difficulties.
Pertaining to this date of March 31, 1974, we must remember there was the decision made first establishing a termination date of October 31, 1968 for qualifying for these loans. This date would also have to be altered if we can persuade the government to change the March 31 date. As envisaged, all lending under the VLA act will cease on March 31, 1977. I mention the lot size requirement and the ceiling because these, fundamentally, are tied in with the extension of this deadline.
That veterans are concerned about this issue is shown by correspondence which has come across the desks of all members of parliament. I will read one extract from one letter sent by a veteran who lives in Simcoe, Ontario. Mr. Wilfred Lauzon said in his letter:
I am a pensioned veteran, drawing a disability pension and also a holder of a VLA contract. I am interested to see the deadline extended beyond the date of March 31/74 ...
He said that he would like to see the loan ceiling raised as well. He then said that he had talked to other veterans who are interested in seeing the deadline extended, and that they had filled out the questionnaire which was referred to earlier this afternoon by the mover of the motion in his opening remarks. I commend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
for his speech and for the compelling arguments he raised for extending the deadline.
I think the minister and the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs have argued on various occasions that we are merely making house lots available to veterans. When the Veterans Land Act was first passed it was meant to provide small holdings for veterans. This was to enable them to become part-time farmers. Some of them, no doubt, became full-time farmers. As I say, that may have been the original intent of the act. Conditions today are materially different from those existing at the time the act was first passed and when men first obtained benefits under it. We are now in a totally different ball game. I do not see any earthly reason why the Veterans Land Act cannot become a vehicle for providing a means of easing the housing shortage which is being felt across this country.
I could say more, but I do not want to repeat what has been said. I will conclude by telling the House why we, on my side, have moved the motion and why we think all members of the House will support it. First, if the deadline is not extended, 100,000 veterans will be denied their rights under the Veterans Land Act. I am speaking of those men who have been certified as eligible for benefits. Second, the act can become an important vehicle for fighting the acute housing shortage in this country. Third, the motion gives an opportunity to all members who so wish to participate in this debate and present arguments which may further convince the minister of the necessity of doing what we propose. Fourth, and equally important, by means of this motion we will strengthen the hand of the minister. Basically, I feel that if the minister alone had the power, he would decide in favour of doing what we ask. I know he has to persuade the other members of the cabinet that this is a good idea. I hope, as a result of our debate today and the arguments which have been and will be advanced, his hand will be strengthened when he is dealing with the other members of the cabinet, so that the government will see there is widespread support for the motion we are now proposing.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I suspect that they are as good as if the government had spoken. I suspect that it will only be a matter of hours before the minister tells the House that he agrees with the motion introduced by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I cannot bring myself to believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have gone that far out on a limb in expressing his own opinions and risking the defeat of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be too sure.


Claude Wagner: It is with considerable pride that I participate in this debate. I begin by congratulating the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe for the motion which he introduced earlier.

This motion is put before the House at the right time because it is aimed at getting justice for those who served

their country. Personally I have not had the privilege of serving in the armed forces; this is why 1 try to compensate by serving in politics, although it is perhaps not comparable. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I often have the opportunity, in my constituency and particularly in Saint-Hyacinthe and Ottoburn Park, to meet members of the Canadian Legion and appreciate what they do in the community and their activities.
I am proud to pay tribute to them in this debate and to underline to what extent their contribution is necessary to the progress of Canadian society.
I take part in the debate at this moment because the most elementary fairness requires the extension of the deadline under the act, in order to enable those who fall under its jurisdiction to defend their rights.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of gratitude from the Canadian people and particularly from parliamentarians towards veterans. We must remember-and not only on Remembrance Day when with much noise and pomp we pay tribute to those who gave their lives and made tremendous sacrifices to protect their country. This memory must be externalized, manifested, translated in to acts and gestures which have significantly more value and meaning than the words that can be said in front of a memorial each year in November.
I recall that I was deeply moved last year when listening in this House to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe on the 29th anniversary of D Day. We were then paying tribute to our soldiers who took part in the allied landing in Normandy. Veterans remember the events that took place on French beaches 29 years ago and they remember their brothers in arms who fell at their sides, those who were not fortunate enough to come back to Canada and reap the benefits offered by as prosperous and promising a country as ours.
It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that we should have to recall that 29 years ago that crusade was being undertaken in the name of national unity and that nowadays national unity is still the main objective, an issue from one end of this country to another, the objective we are trying to achieve through our speeches as well as our legislative measures. But alas, we do not realize that this country has grown up and that we owe it to thousands of our young fellow citizens, including a good many-and I am privileged to sit next to them-who are members in this House. As volunteers in 1939 and 1945 they went to fight for their country to protect Canada and the free world against other nations' voracity and thirst for power. They fought together irrespective of race, religion, colour or origin. They fought together as Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, we can keep on building a still more splendid country if we take the trouble to look back on the past and draw our inspiration from that spirit of comradeship created among our veterans through the suffering they shared on battle fields, a comradeship that will stay at the bottom of their heart for the rest of their life. We must think of that today. We must remember those fellow citizens of ours who lie in a foreign land because they performed their duty.
March 12, 1974

We must remember those veterans who came back after carrying out their duties, crippled or disabled, and who defend upon help. We must not forget our responsibilities to those veterans who have fought for our freedom to govern and build a proud, prosperous and peace-loving Canada where Canadians can hopefully live in a climate of unity.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is more than a spirit of remembrance or a feeling of gratitude which compels me to take part in this debate. It is also a sense of justice towards our veterans who are entitled to proper living conditions and accommodations and, like any other Canadian, to the benefits provided for them in the legislation.
I am aware that the department concerned tried to explain why such a large number of veterans did not ask for these benefits, indicating that they had merely asked for eligibility certificate before October 1968, in case they should want to apply for a loan later.
Mr. Speaker, there may very well be some cases of that type but judging by the number of letters and complaints addressed to us, and I know that all members could say the same, the Veterans Land Act is still behind the times and not in keeping with the present conditions, in spite of numerous amendments made over the years.
Let us go quickly into the matter a little deeper without any claim to expertise on my part for the reasons that 1 gave from the outset. For instance, under the provisions of Part II of the Veterans Land Act, veterans may borrow up to $18,000.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that it is impossible to build a house for $18,000. One can hardly have a basement built for this amount. If the act had been amended so as to keep up with inflationary costs, thousands of veterans would be now taking advantage of their rights.
But there is an even more serious limitation and it is that related to the lot, namely the requirement for half an acre. In some cases, this figure can be reduced by 20 per cent. As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, when planning to build a house-veterans are not alone in this situation; it is the same for all Canadians-the price of lots is so high today that it is impossible for a man to provide a house for his family.
In this area, the government has unfortunately been unable to adjust to the situation, and this at the expense of veterans. As concerns the deadline of October 1, 1968, for housing, it is difficult for me to understand the uncompromising attitude of the department in stating that every veteran had the opportunity to apply before that date. The minister is well aware that many veterans did not know about the deadline for reasons beyond their control and now have their rights denied under this charge. This is true even though the minister pretends that everyone was aware of the situation. If there ever was a time when it became imperative to put off the deadline for housing entitlement, it is right now when the housing shortage has never been so critical in Canada. Despite all its improvements the National Housing Act today cannot meet the needs of low-income people. Under the Veterans Land Act we are in a position to cope with the needs of thousands of Canadian veterans to whom the government has made a pledge years ago when the prime minister of the day
Veterans Land Act Extension
stated in 1917-a long time ago, Mr. Speaker-that no Canadian would ever say that the government was not honouring its obligation towards the veterans who had served their country.
Today, we may wonder whether the government is not repudiating the undertaking pledged in 1917? Is it being ignored? If they want to, the government can remove the deadline, for there are still a few days left until March 31.
In the light of all the speeches delivered in this House and the fact that hon. members have expressed their unanimous wish that it be done, the government would be justified in removing this deadline by means of a piece of legislation that could be introduced within a few days. The loan ceiling could be raised and the requirements relating to land could be watered down. The government could also remove all restrictions with regard to deadlines.
I am sure this position is appreciated by the minister for whom we have the greatest respect since we consider him as one of our great heroes, one of the most distinguished citizens of Canada. I am sure he will understand why we so earnestly want valiant veterans like him to be able today to count on the generosity and the sense of justice of the government toward them.
Mr. Speaker, mine is a very modest voice you have just heard. I trust the minister will hear our plea, and the government act towards the veterans as they did for the government, in a spirit of utmost generosity.


Mr. Bechard:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Claude Wagner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, in his peroration, wondered a while ago whether this government, by respecting the March 31, 1974 limit, was going to go back on the promises made by the Canadian government in 1917.
Here is my question: Does he consider that the Progressive Conservative government of 1958 to 1963 was reneging on the commitments of the Canadian government when, in 1959, it set, for the first time, the time limit to September 30, 1962?


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, that question coming from the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine does not surprise me. As for me, in my speech, I tried to avoid petty politics because I consider the subject too important to all Canadians for anyone to discuss it with a narrow-minded and biased attitude-


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally with considerable trepidation that I enter this debate. There are many in the House who had the honour to serve their country in the armed forces during the war. There are others of us who were of too tender an age to be eligible for service, and who have enjoyed the luxury of being defended by those gallant troops without ever having to don uniforms ourselves.

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
I suppose it can be said, quite rightly, that only those who endured that struggle can understand the nature and extent of the sacrifice entailed by those who left their families and their homes, those who answered the call to combat in the service of their country, particularly in a war which initially was not of our own making but rather, a summons to defend our allies, which probably makes the sacrifice even more acute.
It is with this mind that I take part in the debate. While I defer to those who actually saw service, I have always been extremely conscious of the fact that I was able to grow up free of fear and danger because of the tremendous sacrifice made by those who did answer the call. To them, I, and members of my family, owe a debt of gratitude which we can never repay, and which no government can repay, notwithstanding whatever generosity we may show to these veterans.
I trust hon. members will bear this in mind when I say the reason I enter into this debate is that I believe the use of the motion before us, presented and worded as it is, on an opposition day, after we have just concluded eight days of debate on the Speech from the Throne, during which the opposition had any number of opportunities to discuss whatever subject it wanted to discuss-indeed, the minister was a participant in that debate, and the question could have been raised at that time-


An hon. Member:: You are wasting time.


James Alexander Jerome: Bearing in mind, too, that the estimates of the department will be before the standing committee later this week and next week, at which time all members would have an opportunity to appear-


Mr. Alexander:: You are wasting time.


James Alexander Jerome: In answer to the catcalls from across the way, I say the reason you should listen with a little shame to what I have to say is obvious. The use of a motion worded in this way does nothing more than justify the worst fears and the worst criticisms expressed by members of the public who come to watch the proceedings of this House. It turns this chamber into nothing more than a playground for political games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is sufficiently aware of the rules to know he is not allowed to make comments of that kind particularly in the light of the fact that he, together with members of his party on November 9, 1973, voted unanimously against a motion of this kind. That is why we were compelled to take the action we have taken today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Alexander Jerome: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) knows perfectly well why he raised that point of order. It was in response to the fact that we have struck a sensitive nerve. It is as simple as that. The motion before us amounts to a motion of non-confidence in the government. This afternoon the House has to consider whether the country ought to be deprived of a parliament, whether the government should fall and an election be held to

constitute a new parliament. What are the terms of the motion which would bring all this about? They are that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) ought to give consideration to extending the March 31 deadline.
There is not a member opposite who seriously believes that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has not, in fact, been giving active consideration to this question every day, and that he will not continue to do so. Is it seriously pretended that the effect of this motion, if passed, would be that the minister would begin to consider this question? Is it being advanced, in short, as a serious motion?


An hon. Member:: Get to the point!


James Alexander Jerome: My point is that there can be only one purpose for such a motion as this. Not long ago, a motion was put forward by the New Democrats under Standing Order 43 asking the minister to consider extending this deadline. The wording of that motion was almost identical to that of the motion now before us. The House knows that it is the habit of the government to refuse such motions, not on the ground of their merits or demerits but because of a procedural difficulty. If they were accepted the business arranged for the House would have to be set aside.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Nonsense!


James Alexander Jerome: For that reason, motions under Standing Order 43 are usually turned down by this side of the House. It is only the most exceptional motion which receives unanimous consent. And this was one of them. Yet notwithstanding all this, the official opposition has put forward the motion that consideration should be given by the minister to the question of this deadline. What is the real reason behind it? Is it concern for the veterans, a genuine concern for their well-being? Not for one moment. The real reason is to try to trap the New Democrats on the basis of the motion put forward earlier by that party so that the opposition can go to the electorate in an attempt to take office, something they have been trying to do ever since they got here. They will never succeed in doing it by this kind of cheap political sham.


Mr. Nielsen:: How are you going to vote?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the reason that-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West is rising on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here and becoming impatient as the minutes have passed. I thought that this was a very important and serious debate concerning the veterans of this country, but if my memory serves me correctly the hon. member has not mentioned the veterans at all. All he is attempting to do is to chastise the opposition for doing what they have every right to do on an opposition day.
I hope that the hon. member, for whom I have a great deal of respect, will discontinue his senseless, partisan remarks and get down to the meat of the motion, which is calling for an extension of the March 31 deadline. I
March 12, 1974

respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member, for whom, as I have said, I have a great deal of respect, has not addressed himself to this motion in any respect at all. If we are to have some sort of order in this chamber I think it is high time, with respect, that Your Honour intervened and put the hon. member back on the right path.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a point that is properly raised by way of debate but not properly raised by way of a point of order. There will be ample opportunity for some kind of response to be made, if response is felt to be necessary, to his remarks. The hon. member for Sudbury has been speaking within the rules of order. The hon. member for Sudbury has the floor.


James Alexander Jerome: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Get down to something relevant.


James Alexander Jerome: The relevance relates to the comment that brought the hon. member to his feet. He knew very well that he was not raising a point of order but a point of debate. He will have his chance to get into the debate, as will his colleagues. The politics of this matter are more than relevant, I think, because it has been a very rare occasion, as I understand it, in the history of the House when veterans affairs-as a matter of fact, I am informed there is almost no precedent for this-has been used in the political way it has been used today. I think that that is a valid comment and that it should be made.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon is rising on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what I think the hon. member is doing is casting personal reflections on the characters of members of this House who are veterans, and this includes myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Neither I nor any other veteran on this side of the House is going to listen to that kind of canard. The veterans on this side feel the hon. member is making a personal reflection on their own characters and they categorically deny the insinuations of the hon. member, who is the first hon. member in this debate to have injected this kind of disgusting flavour to the debate.


James Alexander Jerome: I do not care if I am the first speaker to inject this note into the debate, Mr. Speaker. The facts are right in front of me and I cannot ignore them. I think we should know what the facts are if we are going to hear all these comments.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, you did not rule on the question of privilege that I raised. The hon. member has compounded the error of his ways by asserting that we veteran members on this side are associated with political motivation in the bringing of this motion. I submit that that is a personal reflection on veterans on this side of the House and I would ask you, sir, to direct the hon. member
Veterans Land Act Extension
to desist. It is most undesirable to inject this kind of attitude into this debate, and it should not be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair realizes that the subject of the debate this afternoon is going to be one that will generate some considerable heat, but there will be opportunities for members on all sides to express their points of view. I think it has been the accepted practice in the House that a member can, in a general way, try to determine why certain motions, certain legislation, certain spending programs, all of the items that we as parliamentarians consider in this chamber, are being presented to us. I appreciate there is considerable emotion in the debate, but, as I say, there will be an opportunity for each side to have its say in the matter.
When the hon. member for Sudbury has completed his remarks, his point of view may be met with equally strong vigour by some other member. I cannot find that the hon. member has raised a question of privilege or that I should make any direction to the hon. member for Sudbury.


James Alexander Jerome: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your ruling. It is true that we sit in this chamber as elected members of the House without regard for our personal backgrounds, our race, religion, creed, colour or otherwise. We are all equal members of the House and entitled to comment. I have specifically tried to set out the fact that I recognize that a debt of gratitude is due those who did don uniform-I am one of those who did not-for enabling us to raise our families in peace in this country through the service they rendered.
The nature of the legislation relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and specifically the Veterans Land Act, the re-establishment program, the program of educational credits extended to veterans and so on, is well known and understood, I believe, by all Canadians. When men are in the trenches we cannot compensate them with dollars and cents or with paying them an hourly wage, so the least we can do for them is to offer them some programs when they come home that will enable them to become re-established in society. Many thousands of veterans took advantage of the re-establishment programs, the educational retraining program and many other programs. In addition, they also took advantage of the benefits conferred under the Veterans Land Act, which recognized that we owed it to the veterans, as a prior right, to assist them with our tax dollars to establish a homestead.
Even the veterans pensions are based on a different premise from other pension legislation. Veterans pensions are quite different from any other kind of social welfare legislation that we have, and are in repayment of a debt of gratitude that we can never adequately repay. I think the nature and background of that legislation is very well and very widely understood. Bearing that in mind, I think we must accept the fact that the intent of the legislation which in 1968 put a deadline on the Veterans Land Act, legislation which was fully debated in this House at the time, was legislation that was also well understood. Some 25 years had elapsed since the end of the war, and most of the veterans who were to take advantage of the legislation had probably opted for it by that time. It seemed that in the interests of fiscal orderliness, to say the least, the time

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
had come when we should look to a date when the books could be closed.
As I say, this proposal was put forward in the House in 1968 and was widely debated. There was no opposition in principle at that time to the concept that the books should be brought to a close in a reasonable and orderly way so that the country could understand just what the outstanding obligation was, and what were its dimensions. Thus, the program was entered into and veterans were invited to enrol and to qualify themselves for a certificate entitling them to any benefits that were outstanding. The program was well advertised and information about it was widely distributed in the press and through the radio. There was a high level of understanding throughout the country in 1968 of this deadline date. Any veterans organization today would be able to verify that. The veterans were made very well aware of the importance of that qualifying date, and it was advertised far enough in advance. Again, I suggest that the spirit of that legislation was not challenged.
What then is the nature of the problem today? The nature of the problem is that in spite of understanding the nature of veterans benefit legislation and recognizing its merits, and also recognizing the wisdom of endeavouring at one point in our history to close the books on the benefits to World War II veterans, we have arrived at a stage today where, perhaps in isolated instances, there may be hardships to veterans. I speak with some personal knowledge of that because I can tell you there are a number of veterans in Sudbury, whom I represent, who found themselves in 1968 living in company houses owned by the International Nickel Company or Falconbridge Nickel Mines. They knew that as long as they worked for these companies they could continue to rent these houses at very reasonable rates, but never for one moment did they visualize that these houses would be offered to them for sale or, if the houses were offered for sale, that the Veterans Land Act would be of any benefit to them. Perhaps this was because the houses are very small on very small lots and would never have qualified under the program in any case.
However, both situations have changed. Therefore, there are a number of veterans about whom I have been making representations to the minister, and about whom I intend to continue to make representations, who have found themselves in a difficult position. Knowing in 1968, and I think this is the key, that a deadline had been set beyond which the provisions of the legislation would not be applicable, they did not apply for their certificates of qualification because they could not visualize these circumstances which have changed so drastically in the intervening five years. If these veterans, some 70 or 80 of them in Sudbury, could not visualize these changed circumstances in that rather short period of time, then is it not perfectly understandable that the drafters of this legislation could not envisage these changed circumstances?
Is it not, therefore, understandable that a law which was properly conceived, debated and enacted containing a deadline which was properly advertised and under which every veteran was given a proper opportunity to qualify,

may yet, despite every precaution, cause some veterans to regret today the fact they did not apply for certificates of qualification? There are others, of course, who did apply who find themselves in a position where they cannot make application by March 31 for a specific piece of property, which is what the deadline requires.
We are dealing with a small number of people and, indeed, a different kind of situation from that of the hardship which might exist under a piece of social legislation. If there is any hardship at all to the veteran and any way to counteract it to help those veterans who served this country, by somehow extending the provisions of this act or simply through straightforward generosity under a new piece of legislation, I am sure every member on both sides of this House would want to see to it that this is done.
I know the minister, whose record of service during the war is almost legend, which I think can be challenged by no one either inside or outside this House, is one who is keenly aware of the situation. Be that as it may, the circumstances surrounding the introduction of this legislation in 1968, which imposes this March 31 deadline, made it good legislation. The reason I entered this debate was to say that if circumstances come to light which indicate that a single veteran has been aggrieved, even though that may be the result of his own actions, we have to recognize that we can never adequately repay him. If there is any way that the Cabinet can be persuaded at any time to somehow extend to that veteran some kind of a privilege, whether by new legislation or by interpretation of the old legislation, that is something we must always do.
Be that as it may, we do have to proceed in an orderly way to keep the books in respect of the extended dimensions of these applications so that we can run this department in an orderly way. I am about to conclude now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, and I have given him extra time because of certain interventions, but his time really has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent I must recognize another hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I was quite amazed when listening to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), who has just resumed his place, at the vehement manner in which he attacked the very straightforward and simple resolution before the House this afternoon. As I understand it, the purpose of this motion is to guarantee the rights to at least 100,000 veterans in Canada who will be denied them unless prompt and emergent action is taken to extend the deadline under the Veterans Land Act, which is to be phased out on March 31, just some two weeks away.
This motion has been put forward, as demonstrated by other speakers this afternoon, because there was a unanimous agreement in the House to a motion under Standing Order 43 that the government take action to this effect. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. March 12, 1974

Knowles) praised the official opposition for bringing this motion before the House this afternoon. Therefore, I find it incomprehensible that the hon. member for Sudbury should impute political motives.
Surely it is not playing politics to express a desire on the part of members, particularly those who are veterans, that veterans' rights should be extended as expressed by a unanimous decision last November. That was not only the will of parliament, I am sure it was and is the will of the people of Canada. I say that because during my experience in the House of Commons the veterans charter is one piece of legislation that has received unanimous support from all sides of the House. I do not think it is stretching the imagination too far to suggest that the veterans' charter is regarded almost with the same sanctity as the Magna Carta in another context.
It has been my experience with successive governments that they have not only honoured the letter of the law as it was laid down under the veterans' charter, but have gone out of their way to make certain that the charter should also embrace the spirit of the law. Therefore, it is passing strange to me that we should find it necessary as members of parliament to force this government for the first time into action in this regard.
The purpose of the motion this afternoon is to force the government into action in respect of extending this legislation. In my experience, which now covers several governments since 1951, this is the first time that pressure of this kind has been necessary to get government action. I know that hon. members will stand in their places and praise the contributions of the men who served in World War II and during the Korean conflict which has added so much to the greatness of this nation. Some government spokesmen have already indicated the improvements which have been made to the veterans charter by this present administration, but I should point out that those improvements were again made under pressure.
Hitherto governments have always automatically reviewed the veterans charter in order to bring it up to date and meet changing circumstances. I think the main point behind this motion this afternoon is to indicate to the government that we feel the time has come to make a further change in the Veterans Land Act so as to bring it into line with the drastic change which has taken place, for example, in the housing situation in this country. Who could have anticipated five years ago that the cost of housing would be such that it would be prohibitive not only for veterans but for almost every other category of Canadian to have suitable housing over their heads? This is why pressure has been brought to bear in this country and in the Parliament of Canada to get the government to recognize that this change has occurred. It would appear there is unanimous support for this motion at least on this side of the House. I am hopeful that there will be the same unanimity on the government side of the House before this debate is concluded.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) suggested that the amendment was unnecessary because veterans are getting older. We are already age 55 and above. I was surprised that the minister in his speech in the House on
Veterans Land Act Extension
March 7 took somewhat the same line when he emphasized that the need for the rehabilitation of our veteran population has now passed. I suggest this is the sort of attitude that has downgraded the benefit of doubt clause which is one of the basic rights of veterans of Canada.
In addition to discussion on the matter of extending the VLA deadline beyond March 31 of this year from time to time we hear the suggestion mentioned in this House that there is a backlog of pension applications amounting to 9,000 or 10,000. This is because the government does not give the benefit of doubt automatically to the veteran. This benefit of doubt has been one of the major rights and privileges of the veterans of Canada.
I suggest too, that to say that the need for continuing the rehabilitation program for veterans has now passed is flying in the face of the spirit of the War Veterans Allowance Act, known as the "burnt out pension". This was not contained in the original veterans charter. It came into being because it was recognized that the veterans of Canada who had served in the front line trenches and had suffered the hardships of front-line service as a result of premature aging were suffering from disabilities which were not obvious in terms of specific injury incurred in service.
This legislation was brought in to ensure that no veteran who had served his country with distinction would be denied the sustenance of life. This is the reason Parliament enacted the War Veterans Allowance Act. I suggest the same spirit is being extended under the motion we are debating here this afternoon. I do not doubt that the minister is in support of this measure. I am waiting anxiously to hear him speak in this debate. He was half-way to his feet a short time ago. I do not know why he has hesitated to take the floor. I wish he had spoken before the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) introduced the political overtones into the debate this afternoon. I am hoping that the minister who is a distinguished veteran will speak on behalf of the government this afternoon and indicate that this also is the viewpoint of the government. This is the only interpretation we can get from the unanimous vote of last November under Standing Order 43. Obviously the minister is having difficulty persuading his colleagues on this point. There are not too many of them in the House this afternoon which indicates there is not a profound interest in that fundamental right of the veterans in this regard.
I say to the minister that when one looks at the cost of a program of this kind and places it alongside the astronomical expenditures contained in the budget of the government one sees that this is indeed a small expenditure. Why should the program be phased out now? There is a housing shortage. There is inflation and there are rising costs. Rather than phasing out this program I would suggest to the government and the minister that they should be going through the procedure that has always been the practice of government of amending the Veterans Land Act in order to bring it in line with the present economic and financial circumstances which prevail in Canada. Basic to this and because the deadline is imminent should be the renewal of the 1968 and 1974 deadlines. We might even introduce a measure, because of the present crisis in housing, to provide for the rehabilitation of existing veter-

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
ans' homes to make sure that the veterans are adequately housed in the face of exorbitantly rising costs. Obviously there should be an increased ceiling because there has been no change in that regard in almost a decade.
The regulations in respect of a lot should be made compatible with the regulations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Instead of moving in to restrict the rights of the veterans in this regard the government and the minister should be making the changes some of which I have suggested this afternoon. What is happening in respect of some 150,000 veterans who have not taken advantage of the Veterans Land Act? They are forced into panic buying under coercion as a result of the deadline. This is one of the points that is made in the letters I receive. The suggestion is made that the veterans will become involved in binding financial obligations which rather than being of assistance will result in a financial albatross around their necks because they are being panicked into making a decision because of the deadline that is being imposed. The "old sweats" are reaching retirement age. The hon. member for Labelle pointed this out. Why should they be denied the right to have a home in their declining years? This was one of the purposes of the Veterans Land Act. While they may not return to the farm and become full-time farmers or perhaps even farmers occupying a small farm holding, I am sure hon. members will agree that the need for housing has increased manifold because of the housing crisis which is all too obvious today.
One hon. member directed a question to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) concerning changes made in 1959 by another government. That was in line with the necessity to streamline the legislation because it was realized that the demand in respect of the VLA provisions concerning farming and small farm holdings was lessening as the veteran population became older. But at the time those amendments were made, it was recognized that there was a need for housing facilities and accommodation and for lots that would make it possible for the veterans to be adequately housed in their declining years. There was a unanimous vote under Standing Order 43. Parliament has expressed its will. The people of Canada will express their will in no uncertain terms on this matter unless the government is inclined to accept the motion that is before the House today.
[DOT] (mo)


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to participate in this debate I must say I welcome the opportunity and I want to state at the start that I feel for, and understand the needs of, veterans as well as anyone in the House or outside of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I certainly do not intend to turn a deaf ear to the veterans, neither do I intend to take second place to anyone in looking after the needs of veterans. I have spent my last year as minister and a portion of the previous one with veterans, dealing with them. I think this House and this country are well aware of some of the many measures that were implemented and put in place in that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: One of the many things I have done was to visit the war graves of our dead in Europe and to contact many of their loved ones, the survivors in this country. This brought back vividly to me the sufferings and the trials that those veterans of ours, ladies and gentlemen, did suffer a good number of years ago.
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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is that just to consider it?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: For many months now, together with the officials of my department, I have studied very closely the possible implications of such an extension. I can assure you that, although, as I stated in the House last week, I carefully considered all relevant representations and data including that provided by the Royal Canadian Legion, nevertheless I wish to further emphasize that I am quite prepared to take another look at this whole question in light of the plea made today. If, after looking at all the evidence, I can conclude that the deadline should be extended, then I would be prepared to so recommend.
In my remarks in the House last week, I pointed out many of the advantages that the VLA program had provided to veterans since the end of world war II. I do not think it is necessary for me today to repeat those facts and those arguments. Many of them have been reiterated already.
However, I wish to point out to all hon. members that since becoming Minister of Veterans Affairs over a year ago, I have made it quite clear to all veterans across this country that I was their representative in the federal government and that I intended to speak on their behalf and in their best interest. I certainly intend to continue to live up to that commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Those of us who came back after world war II, and who needed some help to get re-established in civilian life, were quite fortunate in obtaining such assistance from the Canadian government. It has been made abundantly clear on many occasions that the federal government does intend to live up to the commitment it made to those who went overseas to fight in the defence of freedom. As Minister of Veterans Affairs, and as a veteran, I wish to assure hon. members as well as my comrades across this country that this government intends to continue to live up to its commitments to all veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 12, 1974


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: There is one further point I should like to make. Although the motion now under consideration refers only to the Veterans Land Act, it could be read as suggesting that the government's concern for veterans is lessening. If any hon members read any such implication into the motion, let me assure them that it is wide of the mark. In my speech in the House last Thursday I mentioned that Bill C-148, passed last March, authorized a 25 per cent increase in war veterans allowance rates and ceilings for single recipients and a 28 per cent increase for the married recipients. In addition, Bill C-202, passed last June, provided an increase of 24 per cent in basic rates under the Pension Act. Let me also remind honorable members that the recently tabled estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 1974-75 amounts to $597 million as compared with $480 million in the main estimates for the current year. This indicates clearly that the government's commitment to veterans is not reducing but is growing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as a predecessor of the minister in the important post of veterans affairs, albeit it was a very short period for me 12 years ago, I want to say first of all that no side of this House can claim a monopoly on concern for servicemen. All I will say at the start is that today there are far less ex-servicemen in this House than there were, say, 10 years ago. The calendar took care of that. However, I make nothing of that, with the exception-and I am sure I am joined here by the minister-that there are members in the House who, when this legislation was brought into effect, were but a gleam in their father's eye, while others as very young members of veterans families were housed or taken care of under the Veterans Land Act in its early years. To that extent I think they have the same sort of obligation and concern about the whole subject. I regret that we have had to take the step of using an opposition day provided for by the rules under which there is to be a vote because of the urgency of the March 31 next deadline.
There are 14 working days left before the expiry of this deadline which says that veterans, qualified by notice in 1968, must complete their applications. That is to say, in many instances they must have title to the land in their hands before they can complete their applications. Unfortunately, I have heard reports from some of them that they are finding an extraordinary working-to-rule in some VLA offices with regard to this matter. I hope those reports are wrong, because I think this House would severely castigate any officials of VLA who in any way dragged their feet in order to have this deadline pass and applications thus disqualified.
Veterans Land Act Extension
As I say, I hope those reports are wrong, but I have heard them. They are in the minds of many veterans. I have had telephone call about these reports.


An hon. Member:: How many, Marcel?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have had at least half a dozen call me, and that was in the last few weeks. I have done my best to allay their fears because that has not been my experience with VLA officials. I know a lot of them, and I believe they would be the last ones to do that. But somehow this impression has gotten out. There is this difficulty.
The minister says that he promises to consider the matter. Gracious me, Mr. Speaker, I could send him a letter every day, repeating the letters I have sent him over the past year and a half on this subject, and he would still be considering it. That would not do a damned thing for a veteran who was otherwise qualified. I regret I must say to the minister that I think his words this afternoon were empty in so far as they were directed to the purpose of this motion. This motion says-


Mr. Lewis:: It asks for consideration. Read the motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This House regrets that the government has not extended ... and calls upon the government... to take immediate steps-
I mean:
-to consider taking immediate steps-


David Lewis: To consider taking immediate steps!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right, but the minister has not given that undertaking. This was not in keeping with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Railton:: The minister has considered it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister regrets, too, that the extension has not been given.


Samuel Victor Railton: Read his speech again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If you want consideration I will put on the record a letter written to me by the minister on January 17, in which he puts this aside again.


Samuel Victor Railton: This is March 12.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And no action.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is this the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus, I ask the hon. and gallant member for Welland (Mr. Railton)?


Samuel Victor Railton: I saw a great light. It's too bad you couldn't see it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is remarkable. We are now going to get a conversion. I am not going to be satisfied with the minister on April 1 when he may be able to stand up here and say, "April fool. I have considered it, and I do not wish to extend the deadline."

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I would just like to ask the member a question. He is quoting letters I wrote before I made my statement in the House. I say to him: Sir, if you with your experience in the House cannot quote something better than "April fool" then I suggest you had better smarten up.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I really appreciate the minister's point of order. Here is his letter of January 17, addressed to me:
I refer to your letter to me of December 4, 1973, in which you requested that further consideration be given to extending the March 31, 1974 deadline for veterans to apply for establishment under the Veterans Land Act.
Similar representations were made by Mr. Jack Marshall, M.P., in the House on November 6 and December 4, 1973. I assure you my reply on each occasion reflected the conclusion reached after giving careful consideration to the matter-and I believe there is little to add to my remarks reported, respectively, at pages 7605 and 8423 of Hansard.
I think it is inevitable that, with respect to any terminal date, there will always be some who will find it inconvenient or impractical. We are dealing here, however, with a land settlement program which, like the other two measures that were alternative to it, was intended to assist in the rehabilitation of veterans following the completion of wartime active service rather than on retirement from post-war occupations or careers.
By March 31 next almost thirty years will have elapsed since the end of World War II. Relating this period to the intent and purpose of the act, and having regard for the arrangements that have been in effect for a number of years to facilitate the establishment of veterans still serving in the forces, I cannot help but feel that all veterans interested in land settlement assistance have had ample time in which to apply.
I appreciate your interest in this matter and regret that I am not convinced the deadlines established by Parliament nine years ago for phasing out VLA lending operations in a reasonable manner warrant alteration today.
That was less than two months ago. I have other letters from the minister's predecessor which are to the same effect, and which indicate that there has been a hardened attitude in the department, indicating that there will not be any budging on this point.
I have heard similar undertakings regarding further consideration with respect to non-resident war veterans and the war veterans allowance. The government was going to give consideration to them, serious and favourable consideration, year after year. Where are those men today? They are in the same position they were in three and four years ago. That is how much flexibility there is with respect to this matter. It hurts me to say this.


An hon. Member:: You are bleeding.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member says I am bleeding. When we are talking about veterans affairs let us consider what the veteran did. I am no professional veteran, Mr. Speaker, but some people seem to have forgotten, if they ever knew, that there is an undertaking, and it is not a terminal undertaking.
There is no terminal undertaking about the rehabilitation of a veteran, whether it be five years or ten years. The 22 year old veteran parachuter in Korea-where is he today? He still has years of service left in Canada's armed forces. Is it the thought that those men should have gotten out of the forces? My God, if those veterans of World War

II and Korea had gotten out of the armed forces we would perhaps have a bare 30,000 men today, and I am not sure that that might not meet the approval of some hon. members opposite.
The fact remains that those men have as much entitlement as I have, or had. They have as much entitlement as any other man who was qualified fully for entitlement. They did not put any terminal date on service to their country. They did not put a terminal date on their exposure to danger on behalf of their country. Why should we? Why should this be done for administrative and tidying-up reasons? We are told that this is a phasing-out program. It did not change ceilings on mortgages. We are completely unrealistic today in asking a veteran in an urban community to buy half an acre of land. What silly, damn-fool nonsense is that? Land values being what they are, most veterans cannot even begin to make the down payment on land today.
Incidentally, there are close to 100,000 men who were qualified in 1968. Their applications have to be approved or not as of March 31, 1974, and they may not qualify. There can be no mortgage disbursements beyond 1977, but there are scores and scores of veterans who will not come out of the service until 1976 or 1977. Who among us will tell a man who was 22 or 23 when he was in Korea, "I am sorry, but Canada's undertaking to you has been statute-barred. We have barred, by the statute of limitations, your entitlement which was unrestricted as declared because you served your country. We are now going to impose this statute of limitations"? All I can say to such a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is "Shame". There is not one administrative argument that is valid, even if only a dozen men have entitlement.
I know what government administration is involved. I have been around here for a long time. But, Mr. Speaker, consider the rights of these men. Should we in the first instance have told them, "You are subject to limited gratitude, with a time expiry, and even though you have served your country with continuous service we are going to deprive you of those rights"? There is no way I can accept that and there is no way the great majority of Canadians will accept it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was eloquent in outlining the undertaking. Other hon. members have read it into the record. The Canadian Corps, the Royal Canadian Legion, countless letters that members receive, as well as veterans who have made personal representations, all say that this deadline should be extended. I would have hoped that we could go much further. Certainly, I intend to go much further. I do not intend to desist from asking that mortgage ceilings be raised. That will not cost the government one jot or tittle. I will ask that the maximum with regard to land values be changed and that all the restrictions which apply at present be looked at, so we can give to those men who have entitlement benefits which are in proportion to those they received originally.
We know that part of the VLA was designed to provide housing for servicemen when housing was very tough to get. In many instances it was non-existent after the war.
March 12, 1974

Where is it today? As far as many of them are concerned, it is non-existent. Physically it may be there, but financially it is not. Is this to be Marie Antoinette's cake which they are to eat instead of bread? That shows, I think, what is wrong and why this program has to be updated. It may cost us a few dollars. Certainly the increase in mortgages and the restrictions with regard to the increase will need to be dealt with so that a mortgage is within reach of the veteran. The veteran is going to repay this money: it will not cost the Crown anything. There is not one iota of gain in this so far as the veteran is concerned. So why do we not go ahead and let the veteran who wants to, and who may be able to, avail himself of what is his entitlement and right?
Today there are sergeants, sergeant-majors, captains and majors who started out as troopers or aircraftsmen. Quite a few of them have worked their way up and been promoted. They have given their lives to the service of their country. Many of them saw war service which entitles them to benefits under the Veterans Land Act. Are they to be deprived merely because somebody says, "But it is 30 years since the end of the war"? What have these men been doing in the interval? Have they been on a free ride? Not very likely. And what about service wives and families who are posted every three years and live in PMQ's, or on the economy as it is euphemistically called. They have had hard, tough lives and have never been able to say, "This is my home." Now we are turning around and telling many of them, "You cannot now have a home." That is the effect of the government's action, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister reads my speech.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I will read it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think I have argued sufficiently as to why this change should not be effected. The minister is a veteran and I think he recognizes that what we have said is right. What we must do is convince his fellow cabinet members. There is where some of the difficulties lie. They do not understand the problem as the minister does.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member thanks me for reminding him that his time has expired. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) made me wonder whether he had read with care the motion put forward earlier today and debated so cogently by spokesmen of his party. The motion reads:
This House regrets that the government has not extended the March 31, 1974, deadline under the Veterans Land Act and calls upon the government to consider taking immediate steps to extend this deadline.
The minister-I think this must be said in all candour- has changed his mind. On Thursday in this House, when speaking in the throne speech debate, he indicated that
Veterans Land Act Extension
having given the matter some consideration he had reached the conclusion that the course of action requested by members of all parties should not be followed. I stress that members of all parties put forward these views, because some partisan speeches have just been made. I am thinking of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the hon. member for Edmonton West, who indulged in what I regard under the circumstances as unnecessary, partisan rhetoric.
In any case, last week the minister concluded that he could not grant the extension which many members in all parties desired. He has come forward today and has candidly said he has listened to the voices from both sides of the House who have urged that the government reconsider its position. He made an unequivocal commitment today that the government will make such a reconsideration. One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy is to be able to achieve the kind of situation we have achieved today, namely, if the members of the House of Commons exercise through their voting power, behind which lies reason, a change or shift in government direction, that is what parliamentary democracy is supposed to be all about.
I say quite frankly that my party has been able to support the present government on a number of specific decisions precisely because they have been prepared to move from one position one day to another position some time later.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I hear the Conservative members to my right laughing at that. I take this seriously; I do not think it is a laughing matter. If they or, indeed, my party were in a minority government position I would hope we would have just as responsible a government.
Instead of chastising the minister as the hon. member for Edmonton West has just done, for doing what the mover of the motion, his party and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in whose words the original motion was put last November and duplicated today, have urged we should make the gesture of saying the government has seen some wisdom. In other debates not long ago the Conservative Party said the government was adopting many of their party's policies. They should be pleased with this kind of shift, rather than condemning the government.
Some members of my party are in veterans' organizations; some are not. Basically, that is irrelevant. The important question is whether we have a commitment to do justice to the men and women who served in our armed services. Many members of my party, as well as members of other parties, have made representations to the minister to not only extend the Veterans Land Act for a limited period of time but to extend it indefinitely. I will speak very briefly on that subject. What was good for men and women who risked their lives in battle in order to preserve the integrity of our nation should be offered to them for the rest of their lives. They should receive the benefits provided by this legislation. There is no principle for setting a terminal date on this legislation.

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If it was deserved for serving in action or for risking their lives-if indeed it was given for that reason-it is not something the government of Canada should withdraw after so many years. Indeed, it is something that should remain with the veterans all their lives.
My second point is that there is need for improvement in the legislation. After the minister has further considered this matter I urge there will be a positive decision. I hope the legislation will not simply be extended in its present form but will be improved along the lines suggested by the Canadian Corps Association, the Legion, a number of other bodies and members of this House.
I wish to make a suggestion that has not yet been made in this debate. Any provision in the act for World War II veterans should apply to members of peacekeeping forces in the Middle East or Cyprus. In fact, it should apply to all members of the Canadian armed services in the recent past or indefinite future as long as they are prepared to risk their lives for the preservation of our country or for what it stands.
In conclusion, I welcome the minister's commitment to the House that the cabinet will give serious consideration to this extension. I hope the consideration will take place soon, that the decision reached will be a positive one and that the veterans of this country will get their just dues.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate and to speak after the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) whom I understood to say-and he can correct me if I am wrong-that he will oppose this motion. I take it from his statement that he will vote against the motion. If I am wrong in that assumption, he can correct me. I am glad that he is satisfied with what the minister said. In his satisfaction he showed that easy acceptance of government positions which this party has not been prepared to accept from time to time. I accept the minister personally. From reading between the lines of what he has said here and elsewhere, I believe he would genuinely like to be able to accept our motion.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) would genuinely like to be able to come into this House and say that his cabinet colleagues have authorized him to categorically indicate they will in fact bring forward a bill to remove the repugnant section in the act and the deadline. However, he has not been able to do that. He has not given any unequivocal, categorical assurance, although he easily satisfied my friend from Oshawa-Whitby. I think the record will bear that out.
What is this motion? It is not couched in the loudly condemnatory terms it would have been possible for us to use. It is not, as suggested by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), a motion dealing with the political aspects of this very serious problem. It was said by our spokesman in this House today, as we said earlier, that we regret the government has not taken the action urged upon them by this party and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to remove this deadline. That is the position we take. We said, "Do it." We regret they have not done it.

This is probably the last opportunity that will be available to extend this deadline for the benefit of the veterans of Canada. What is there political in that? If we did not make a motion of this kind we would be derelict in our duty, because that is why we are here. I am a veteran. I have no conflict of interest because I did not qualify prior to 1968, and I have no intention of doing so. However, as a veteran I understand the feelings of other veterans.
Having said that about the motion, what has been the situation? Various motions have been put forward by my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and others. On November 9, 1973, one of my hon. friends put forward a motion as the latest of a series of attempts to focus attention upon this situation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also sought to persuade the government to act, and the House unanimously accepted the motion. That was as far as we could go on that occasion.
My hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) produced a letter dated January 17 of this year in which the minister indicated he was unable to accede to the request contained in that motion unanimously approved by the House. On January 11, just before the recess, the minister said he would review the position, but obviously between January 11 and January 17 the minister had taken an irrevocable decision.
If anything more was needed to convince us that this was the position of the government, a position which the minister was unfortunately compelled to put forward, I would refer to the minister's speech of March 7. I was not in the House at the t,me he made it, but I read that speech with interest. The minister built it up in careful, logical steps, reason by reason. He ended by saying he was convinced he could not accede to the request made by veterans organizations and by this House to extend the deadline. That is a clear and final expression of the minister's position. How else, then, could we act than by bringing forward the motion we have put down today, couched in terms which I consider to be mild and temperate?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says he appreciates the view taken in the motion and would like very much to support it. Obviously, he will not do so. I refer to this matter because on May 4, 1970, the hon. member moved a motion calling upon the government "to give consideration to an immediate and substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension and of veterans' pensions and allowances, and this House also urges that still further steps be taken to improve the quality of life of all our older and retired people". A procedural argument arose. I am sure that Your Honour, with the advice of your assistants, with the careful attention to detail which you always pay, has examined this matter and is not unfamiliar with the relevant citations. In the course of that debate the hon. member said:
1 quite deliberately avoided using the words "this House condemns the government" for such and such a thing because I know that there have been over the years a number of non-confidence motions, particularly in the days when there were supply motions which the opposition sought to amend, which expressed views which the government was prepared to accept; and when the government accepted those views,
March 12, 1974

saying it had no objection to the motion that had been presented, the non-confidence motion lost its non-confidence character.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was aware of this motion, aware of its significance, and in the circumstances under which this motion was drafted we did have that consideration, as well as other considerations, in mind. Now, if the minister has the authority to take a decision to abolish this deadline, let him stand up and vote for the motion; let him persuade his colleagues to vote for the motion.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let the members of the NDP, sitting down there in despair and confusion-they have already held half a dozen caucuses to decide how they are going to vote-stand up and be counted in favour of the motion. Not one member of the Hydra-headed monster composed of those two parties has had the intestinal fortitude to say, "We approve of and shall support the motion." I suggest this is an illustration of the political dishonesty and deceit exhibited in the peculiar antics of the government party and their allies cowering over there to my left.
If the dragon of politics was introduced into this motion, it was introduced by the hon. member for Sudbury, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Ours was a non-political motion motivated by a wish to assist the veterans who stand to lose benefits in just a few days. Today is March 12: there are 19 more days left, of which I believe 14 are sitting days, including six or seven opposition days. I did not get authority from my party to say this, but I believe my hon. friends would bear with me if I said we are prepared to give up one or two of the opposition days allocated to us if the minister will stand and say he is prepared to bring forward a Veterans Land Act giving effect to the motion which my hon. friend has put before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Big deal.


Gerald William Baldwin: If members of the NDP can accept the policy which the minister was unfortunately compelled to put forward against his better judgment, there is not much hope for this House.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, when the clock interrupted me at six o'clock I was engaged in the very fascinating pastime of inquiring why hon. friends to my left were so easily satisfied with the statement made by the minister today. Let me go into it a little more fully. What did the minister say? He said that the government would consider the possibility of extending the March 31 deadline. That is not good enough for us, Mr. Speaker. It is not good enough
Veterans Land Act Extension
for me and it is not good enough for the veterans of Canada.
The minister also said: "I am quite prepared to take another look at this whole question in the light of the pleas made today, after looking at all the evidence". That is not good enough for me either, Mr. Speaker. Also, it is not good enough for my party or for the veterans of Canada, even though it may be good enough for hon. friends to my left, who since this parliament started have parked their once great principles outside their offices and, politically speaking, have indulged in the business of political expediency ad nauseam. It may be good enough for them, but it is not good enough for us.
What else did the minister say? I think this was his concluding sentence, and it is what we must take to be the limits of his undertaking: "I will be happy to consider the whole matter again and to make a recommendation to the government". What kind of recommendation, Mr. Speaker? What is the minister going to do?
The motion we have put before the House today, couched in the words it is, is not the kind of motion that perhaps we would have liked to move. There are limitations of wording. But when you put together what we have said in our motion, we are saying that we regret the government has not indicated that it is prepared to extend the deadline and we want the government to take immediate steps to extend it-not tomorrow or the day after, but immediately. This means but one thing. It means that the minister, or if not this minister some other responsible minister, must give us an undertaking today that legislation will be brought forward to deal with the matter.
This undertaking must be given unequivocally and categorically. Legislation must be introduced by the government. I cannot do it as a private member and neither can the members of my party. Only a member of the cabinet can introduce legislation to extend the deadline, and we want the government to give an undertaking to this effect. If we do not get it, we are not satisfied.
The minister's remarks today have to be read in light of what he said just five days ago. When he spoke five days ago he was speaking calmly, with a prepared speech, following meditation and consideration on this issue that had extended over a period of months. He was not at that time under the pressure he is today, and neither was the government. What the minister said last Thursday was the careful, reasoned, calculated statement of a man representing the government. Let me refer to just one passage in the minister's statement of March 7 which appears at pages 304 and 305 of Hansard:
Almost nine years have elapsed since that deadline was established. The terminal date has been well publicized. I am of the opinion, therefore, that veterans sincerely interested in obtaining VLA benefits for the purposes contemplated by the act have had ample time in which to do so. Virtually every veteran who obtained a VLA certificate of qualification by the deadline of October 31, 1968, had already utilized the benefits alternative to those of the Veterans Land Act.
Finally the minister said:
On January 11 last, as reported at page 9182 of Hansard, I stated that if I had sufficient information to make me think the deadline date should be changed I would so recommend to the government. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have carefully considered all relevant representations and data, including that determined by the Royal Canadian Legion in the survey it conducted last December. I am

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
unable to conclude that such a recommendation would be warranted or appropriate.
That is the cold, calculated, careful and deliberate statement of the spokesman for the government, stacked up against those weaseling words that the minister used today. I apologize for using those words about the minister because I know if he had the opportunity on his own he would not, on behalf of the government, had used the weaseling, limiting words that were used today and which can give no hope to this House or to the veterans of Canada that this deadline will be extended.
We cannot accept that, and we must press ahead with a vote on this motion unless the government indicates it intends to do something about this matter. I do not think it will, because the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) insisted on writing those words for the minister after the intercourse-I use that word in the best sense-between the two sides. There was a heavy movement which took place between the government and the NDP. Both sides knew what was going to be said, and those words were used to take my friends to the left off the hook. They think they are off the hook, but when this is all over they will be hanging suspended for all the world to see.
If there is any sense of political morality and decency left in this House, somebody on the government side will stand up before this debate is ended and give a clear, categorical assurance to the people of Canada that legislation will be introduced to extend this deadline. That is all that needs to be done, and that will be accepted. If the government will not do that, then I issue the challenge to my friends who sit over there so complacently to vote with us and force the government to accept this motion. Apparently they have no regard at all for the veterans. Perhaps I should clarify that by saying they have no regard for our veterans unless they indicate before this debate ends that they are prepared to vote with us to compel the government to accept the motion.
There are limits to what private members or the opposition can do. Day after day, session after session the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and other members of this party who have been our spokesmen for veterans affairs, as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and members of the Creditiste party, have brought forward motions similar and akin to this one asking that something be done. This was not only done by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, although he has been assiduous in this matter, but by other members. However, the government has steadfastly rejected our motions and refused to give us this right, so we had no alternative but to bring forward our motion couched in these terms to find out precisely what the government is going to do. At a quarter to ten this House, its members, the people of Canada and especially the veterans will know where the government and the NDP stand on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that

what the veterans of Canada will know after what is happening here today is that the Conservative Party is ready to play politics with their welfare. That is what the veterans of Canada will know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The hon. member says to the New Democrats that if we cared for the veterans we would vote with the Conservatives tonight to defeat the government. That, of course, would mean that all this hypocritical stuff they are talking about would really come to pass, because March 31 would be gone and that would be the end of the Veterans Land Act. And where would the help for the veterans be then?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Innuendo.


David Lewis: Imagine making the suggestion that if we really cared for the veterans of Canada we would vote tonight to bring down this parliament so that nothing could be done in time to extend the Veterans Land Act! Do they call that being friends of the veterans? As a matter of fact, the hon. member said-I took down his words-that if the New Democrats really cared for the veterans they would vote with them to compel the government to do what they ask of them. What an incredible sentence that is. What government would be here on March 31, if we voted with the Tories on a non-confidence motion and defeated the government?


An hon. Member:: You are really backing off now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members know that the rules are very clear in that only one hon. member can have the floor and he is the only one to address the House. Perhaps we could have some order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are quite right, but the hon. member for whom I have the greatest respect, has no right to misconstrue my remarks. I am entitled, under the rules, to make the comment I did make, and he should not misconstrue my words. I suggested that if they would indicate their intention to vote for our motion, there is no doubt that the government would change its mind and do something about this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the more the hon. member explains the inexplicable, the more he gets his foot in his mouth. What guarantee has he or anyone that if we vote to bring this parliament down, anyone will be able to do anything afterward? Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member, for whose integrity until this evening I have had great respect-he may have changed my mind to some extent tonight-to read the motion his party has moved. What are they asking for in this motion which states that
March 12, 1974

"this House regrets that the government has not extended the March 31, 1974, deadline under the Veterans Land Act"? What does the motion say after that? It calls for the government "to consider taking immediate steps to extend this deadline." The motion does not say "we are calling upon the government to take immediate steps." It does not say that at all. Had it said that, the situation might have been different for the government tonight. What the opposition is doing by this motion is asking the government to consider taking immediate steps, rather than to take those steps.
What was the purpose of this motion? As I listened to the very moving and excellent speech of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) I understood that the purpose he had in mind was to persuade the government to accept the suggestion that it consider taking steps. That is what his speech was all about, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in his speech made an appeal to the minister to accept the suggestion in the motion, to consider taking steps to extend the deadline.


Erik Nielsen: Why don't you amend the motion?


David Lewis: When the minister did exactly that by saying three times in his speech that he was quite prepared to consider taking steps to extend the deadline, the Tories were not satisfied because they were not interested in that. I am not talking about the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and others of his colleagues who are as concerned about this matter as he is, but obviously some members of the Tory party were not really concerned with getting a commitment from the government to do something about the Veterans Land Act. They are concerned with nothing else than bringing down this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to conversations back and forth between the Liberals and the NDP. Let me tell him through you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself discussed with members of the government the necessity for the government to make a definite commitment to accept the substance of this motion. I make no apology for having done that. I feel that in doing so this party has again served the necessary purpose of making this parliament work in favour of the interests of Canadians at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The hon. member for Peace River read from the speech the minister made last Thursday and then said, quite rightly, that it was a calculated and carefully prepared statement-and so it was. That, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, makes the minister's commitment that much more important. If he made last Thursday, as he did, a carefully prepared statement in which he concluded that the deadline should not be extended, and then rises on the floor of this House and as an honourable and gallant veteran himself says it is his intention to reconsider this matter and it will be considered in light of the discussions, pleas and speeches made in this House-that is what the
Veterans Land Act Extension
minister said-then I suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that unless he is going to call the minister a liar, what the minister said today has real force precisely because he made the prepared statement last Thursday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Furthermore, I say to the minister that precisely because he told us last Thursday he had reached one conclusion against the purpose of this motion, we in the New Democratic Party accept his commitment today as meaning not merely consideration but taking action after consideration has been given to the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I know he did not say that, but that points up the stupidity of those who drafted this motion, because they did not make it necessary for him to say that. I therefore emphasize to the minister that if he was not playing games today-and I simply do not believe he is capable of that kind of game-and if he was sincere about it, as I am certain he is, and if he made that statement after consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of the government, I accept his sincerity and believe the government is sincere, and that this reconsideration will result in an announcement to this House by March 31 and that action will be taken along the lines the motion requests.


Gerald William Baldwin: What will you do if he doesn't?


David Lewis: Just wait and see. Don't be in such a rush. The Conservatives are always in a rush to put someone in a corner, and every time they do it they get themselves in one. Don't continue that game. The game that is being played here has become obvious. It seems to me that for years the issue of veterans affairs has been a non-partisan issue in parliament. For years members of all parties worked together as best they could to arrive at conclusions for the benefit of the veterans of Canada. I think it is regrettable, indeed I think it is shameful that certain members of this House are determined to make the veterans a partisan issue in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Conservatives had been as sincere as the hon. member who moved this motion, and as sincere as the minister when he made that statement, they would not have forced this House to a vote. They would instead have said to the minister that they would hold him to his word, because his statement of today must mean something different from the statement he made last Thursday when he said he could not extend the deadline. They should have said that to the minister and given him a chance in the next couple of weeks to come up with what is implied in his undertaking. But they are not ready to do that. They are not ready to serve that kind of decent, constructive, objective purpose; they are not interested in that.

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
I wish to pay a warm tribute to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe for the way in which this motion was introduced, in a totally non-partisan manner. He explained what he wanted, which I am sure is what other members here want. I also wish to pay tribute to my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the non-partisan way in which he approached this matter. Both the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked for an undertaking by the government that it would consider taking immediate steps to extend the Veterans Land Act. They made that appeal to the minister, who responded. This is a credit to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and a discredit to the hon. member for Peace River.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it is a pity that this subject is put in the context in which the Tories are now determined to put it; but also, as I have said on many occasions since January 4, 1973, we do not intend to play this kind of game. We believe that the action of the minister today is an unequivocal undertaking to reconsider his position in respect of the Veterans Land Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


David Lewis: Ask him, for heaven's sake. Let the hon. member for Peace River stop being a silly ass. You asked the minister to give an undertaking that he would reconsider. When he gives the undertaking, you say it is not enough. He has given what you asked for, but you say it is not enough. What kind of logic is that?
I say, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened today in respect of the government's response to the motion moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe again underlines the value to Canadians, to veterans, of making the people who have been elected do something for the benefit of Canadians instead of chasing non-confidence motions as gladly as the Tories chase them. We have no intention of streaking naked with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I imagine the hon. member for Peace River would make a very good sight streaking across this hall, but I do not want to compete with him in that. All I say, Mr. Speaker, is that today has shown once again the value of the policies that have been pursued by my colleagues and myself. If there was sincerity of action in this chamber, then we say to the minister that he made a commitment and that commitment must be implemented by March 31. We say to him that we expect from him a statement by that date that something like that will be done, and do not intend to force this House into a divisive vote.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the entire debate this afternoon on what we put forward as a very serious matter affecting a great many veterans in this country. We heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speak in favour of the veterans and this motion which he has moved many times before, and just now we heard the speech of the hon. member for York South (Mr. 
Lewis). Instead of taking the political course of criticizing the Conservative Party, the hon. member for York South should have asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to give us a commitment that he would introduce an amendment to extend the deadline of this legislation.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has made no commitment. Last Thursday, as mentioned by the hon. member for York South, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said emphatically-and it has been mentioned many times today in the House-that there would be no extension. Yet the hon. member for York South stands in his place and tries to criticize the Conservative Party. If he is sincere in his allegations, why did he not bring in an amendment to correct our motion which he says is not right? No, he just wants to play politics and keep the government in power. This matter is serious. I would call the performance we have seen "courtroom politics." I know there have been agreements and that bargains have been made, and that is why we heard the speech just made by the leader of the NDP.
Many things have concerned me for a good many years with respect to veterans who have applied for benefits under the Veterans Land Act. These veterans are probably working in the cities and in large metropolitan centres. Under the rules and regulations of the Veterans Land Act they have found it impossible to buy a house or to find a location of their choice on which to build a house, not through any fault of their own but because they are making their livelihood in the large cities of Canada. But today many of our veterans have reached the age when they can retire. I have letters here telling me that some of them have picked out locations in which to build a house in smaller communities. But what happens? One of these letters reads as follows:
I am writing you as our duly elected member of the federal government to find your views on the possibility of an extension of time from the deadline of March 31, 1974, to extend the Veterans Land Act closing date. Many veterans of the war have, for a variety of reasons, to this date not taken advantage of this form of gratuity for their service. In my own case I have not as yet taken this up. Now I wish to do this.
I have my letter of qualification from the DVA but as this must be exercised by March 31, 1974, this leaves me with a problem. I have no doubt there will be many veterans in a similar position. With the escalation of real estate prices it is almost impossible to acquire the added moneys beyond the maximum $18,000.
This veteran says in closing:
I would appreciate hearing your views and intentions in this matter. I do not know if the closure or extension would require an act of parliament or would, like the old soldier, just quietly pass away-
This is something that is happening to far too many of our veterans today: we are forgetting about them and they are expected to just pass away. I have another letter from a chap who applied. He is qualified and has submitted the deed to VLA, but he cannot build the house in the very nice location of his choice because at present there are no sewers servicing the property. However, within two years there will be such services to this area. This is what we are denying our veterans by closing out on March 31, and that is why I beg the minister, who is a sane and reasonable man, to extend this deadline.
March 12, 1974

If the minister had today given the House his word that the deadline would be extended, not that he would take the matter up, I am sure a different course would have been taken in the House today. This is a serious matter. My friends to the left are trying to make us believe that we are just playing politics. That is not so. With very few days left, the veterans are duly concerned. And why should they not be concerned? For far too long we have neglected our veterans who have offered their lives so that we may have the freedom which we enjoy in this great country of ours. They did not ask us, "What will you give us when we join?" They did not ask us, "What have you to offer us?" They served hoping that they would come back with their lives. They were ready to lay down their lives in order to give us a better way of life in a free world.
All they asked was to be fortunate enough to come back; and they had faith in us to grant them some consideration for their services. They did not barter with us. They went, they offered their services and some of them lost their lives. The least we can do is to give them some consideration in return. I want to emphasize again that many thousands of veterans are planning their retirement and are begging for an extension of the Veterans Land Act. I hope an extension will come about.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be asked to speak again on a motion put forward by the able veterans affairs critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I spoke on a motion moved by the hon. member on May 18 of last year. That was also a motion to urge this House to meet a solemn obligation to those of our citizens who fought in Canada's wars.
I doubt that there is a member of this House who does not go back to his riding from time to time and tell veterans groups that their parliament recognizes their sacrifices and that we accept the obligation and responsibility to them that has been passed down to us by previous parliaments. Yet we seem to be continually debating in this House whether we will in fact honour the pledges that have been passed to us and which we ourselves have made.
It seems to me at times that this government approaches legislation dealing with veterans as though it were something to be got over with as quickly as possible and at the least cost to the public treasury as possible. I have heard statisticians remark that veterans of World War I will all be dead by such and such a time, and that veterans of other wars will all be dead by a certain time. Then they go about working out cost estimates of the various programs that we have set up to look after veterans. These are not statistics or mortality tables with which we are dealing. These are brave men and women who answered the call when we were being pushed to the wall. These are people, Canadians, human beings. These are people who hate war because they know how horrible war is. These are people who knew when they left home that they might never return. It sometimes appears to me there are people who wish they could just forget that these people did come back; who wish we could just forget about them until we need them again. That is the feeling I get when I hear members of parliament debating dollars and cents when they should be debating how soon they can pass a bill to
Veterans Land Act Extension
erase some of the wrongs we have committed against veterans and their families through our omissions and our procrastinations.
Statistics and actuarial tables aside, we are thinking and talking about veterans who are alive, veterans who have aspirations and problems and dreams that are no different from those of other people. Those of past generations who gave their lives in our wars are honoured in many ways- with statues, parks, buildings, scholarships, and on memorial days. This is fitting, and in this respect I believe we are living up to our solemn responsibilities. I believe that the vast majority of people honestly and sincerely acknowledge their debt to those who died in order that we might live. However, we owe the same debt of gratitude and thanks to the living veterans and the monuments we erect to those veterans must be living monuments. The Veterans Land Act is just such a living monument and it must be kept alive.
There was no intention, on the part of the parliament that passed the act back in 1942 that it should be terminated before the end of its useful life. It was passed as veterans' legislation and it has the same validity and purpose today as it had in the year it was enacted. No one would suggest that we should phase out veterans pensions, veterans hospitals-at least I hope not-or war veterans allowance simply because some statistician can produce a time when he says all veterans will have passed from the scene. Why, then, should anyone single out the VLA and suggest that it should be given an expiry date?
A previous parliament passed an act that would extend to veterans the right to borrow money from their government to purchase land and a home. They were not told that they had to sit down, there and then, and decide where they would like to build a home or when they would be able to start. A later parliament, or perhaps I should say a later government, decided that this right granted to veterans must have some strings attached to it. Veterans were told to make up their minds by a certain date, or forget it. We have been told during the past few days, and in fact we were told in this House and in committee meetings last year, that the veterans had been given ample warning that VLA was going to be terminated and that any veterans who wanted to qualify had sufficient time to get in under the wire.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, it has been ably stated by many of my colleagues, on all sides of the House, that there is no compelling reason why an expiry date should have been imposed and no good reason why that expiry date should be allowed to stand. It is for us today in this House to decide whether or not that expiry date should be expunged from the record. We are not bound by any past government or any past parliament in this matter. Experience has shown us that the expiry date is unpopular with those for whom VLA was established, and if it is unpopular with the veterans then we must reinstate this very important legislation.
I could talk at length about the positions that have been taken by my colleagues in today's debate. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer in particular to some remarks made by the very able veterans affairs critic for the New

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
Democratic Party, himself a veteran, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). During the debate of last May on a motion moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, the hon. member for Timiskaming proposed a solution that was excellent at that time, and I believe it would be as acceptable today not only to his party but to mine as well.
The hon. member for Timiskaming outlined a three-part proposal that would extend the Veterans Land Act provisions and would also raise the ceiling on loans from $18,000 to $25,000. The increase in loan ceiling would erase part of the effect of inflation on land prices and in my opinion is an excellent proposal. On the hon. member's first point I quote from Hansard for May 18, 1973:
First, we will have to convince the minister and his officials that it is necessary to wipe out the qualifying date, at least with regard to smallholdings.
The "we" to whom he referred were the members of this House. The second point dealt with the raising of the loan ceiling, while his third point dealt with the alleged problem of administering the smallholdings provisions in the Veterans Land Act. He proposed that if this indeed was a problem for the Department of Veterans Affairs, then it could and should be turned over to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for administration.
While I accept the hon. member's proposals as going a long way toward solving this problem, if it is a problem, I cannot accept the argument that the high cost of administering the program is a valid excuse for allowing the government to squirm out of the responsibility for continuing VLA beyond the present expiry date. Every program that we have in operation at the present time has its own administrative problems and administrative costs. But the programs go on and we continue to establish new ones.
The reasons for continuing the VLA program are obvious, and there are many of them. First of all, as I and many of my colleagues have said, the VLA program was designed for veterans, and as long as there are veterans who want to take advantage of the program then the Veterans Land Act should be available to them.
Another good reason is that before the arbitrary deadline to qualify for a VLA entitlement certificate passed on October 31, 1968, 150,000 veterans had been issued certificates. Of that number only about 25,000 have actually received the benefit of the program. This means that 125,000 certificate holders have yet to decide where they want to build and when they would like to start. Obviously, there are some certificate holders who will not take advantage of the program no matter how long they have to make up their minds. I think the minister also alluded to this fact. And it is likely that quite a number of those to whom certificates were issued are not living today. However, Mr. Speaker, this is not a criterion for deciding whether to retain the VLA program or to allow it to die 20 days from now. As long as there are any veterans at all who have not taken advantage of the program, it must be retained for them.
In addition to the veterans of past wars who returned to civilian life there are many, perhaps several hundred, who are still serving in the armed forces. Right now they must be wondering if we are really going to extend something to them with one hand and take it away from them with

the other. Some of these people will not be out of the forces for another five or six years. They may be presently serving in Egypt, Cyprus or Germany. How can they be expected to know at this point where they will decide to settle a few years from now or when they will be ready to start building?
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) made some interesting remarks during the debate this afternoon. I would like to refer to two of them. First of all he said that the government of Canada in 1942 was forced to provide some sort of incentive to Canadians to volunteer for service, and that one of the incentives was the Veterans Land Act. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, then I cannot think of a more solemn pledge for a parliament to pass along to all succeeding parliaments. If we are to take the hon. member's remarks on faith, then the government of that time said that anyone who would volunteer to risk life and limb in the service of his or her country would be rewarded by, among other things, the right to settle or resettle under the provisions of the Veterans Land Act. Could the hon. member deny that this is a pledge that has not been completely fulfilled? And could the hon. member deny that this pledge has been passed to us and must be passed along to succeeding parliaments so long as there is one living veteran?
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I must accept the version which says Canada was able to maintain the largest volunteer force overseas of any country engaged in World War II and that it was able to do this without incentives and without conscription. Further, the hon. member for Labelle suggested that those veterans who have already taken advantage of VLA could be angered by any move on our part to increase the ceiling on loans from $18,000 to $25,000. I doubt that, for a couple of reasons. In the first place, the original ceiling was $12,000 and it was raised to $18,000 for the same reason we are proposing to raise it to $25,000.
Further, the homes that were built ten years ago at a cost of $18,000 are now worth $36,000 or more, and there is no way in which those who build now are going to realize such a dramatic gain in equity over that period. Another reason is that the veterans organizations themselves are pushing hardest for the extension of VLA and for the increase in loan ceiling. Many of those who are pressing the issue are veterans who have not taken advantage of VLA.
I would like to end my remarks by referring to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I said in my speech in May, 1973, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was admirably suited, by experience and temperament, to the task he has undertaken. He has shown compassion and understanding as well as objectivity in his approach to veterans problems. However, Mr. Speaker, I have detected a change in the minister during the past few months.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Smart fellow.


Duncan M. Beattie: It is not a change for the better, in my opinion. It is a change I have detected especially since last month. In February the minister gave
March 12, 1974

every indication that he viewed with some favour the representations of veterans groups urging the extension of the Veterans Land Act. The minister has since been accused of raising false hopes in the minds of veterans. I cannot believe, or at least I do not want to believe that the minister would build up the hopes of veterans groups on a premise that he knew to be false.
Did the minister really believe that his cabinet colleagues would support him in a bid to extend or remove the deadline on VLA applications? I want to believe he was sincere, but today he made some statements which seem puzzling. For instance, the minister said he would be prepared to take another look at the Veterans Land Act question. He would take another look at what? That he never intended to push for extension? Also, he said he would be happy to reconsider; that is, to reconsider if he considers it to be warranted. Again, he poses the question as to what would or might be warranted. Did he mean the extension of the deadline, or did he mean the Veterans Land Act itself? After all, Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Land Act is the expression of the will of parliament-of several parliaments. I hope the minister does not mean that he will consider at some later date whether he feels the Veterans Land Act to be warranted. I cannot help feeling that the Canadian people will have the last word on that matter.
By not extending the deadline of the Veterans Land Act the Liberal government appears to have conspired to get us to use up one of our opposition days, Mr. Speaker.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: What a laugh!


Duncan M. Beattie: If that was their game, they have succeeded.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Why don't you quit playing games?


Duncan M. Beattie: I cannot think of a better way to use up an opposition day than drawing attention to Canada's veterans and the need to preserve and update vital veterans programs. We make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of what the leader of the NDP says, this has not been a partisan debate.
In conclusion I want to take members back to a Remembrance Day ceremony of past years and to a short poem recited by a legionnaire which goes like this:
No doubt he cherished his life,
Not unlike you and I,
But if we take for granted The reason that he died,
We don't deserve our freedom,
Because we've never learned It was our peace and liberty,
These brave soldiers earned
My hon. friends, if we fail to build a better world for our returning veterans, the hero in that poem died in vain.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, at first blush the motion before the House today might appear to be a routine opposition day motion, as it calls on the government to consider taking immediate steps to extend
Veterans Land Act Extension
the deadline for the phasing out of the Veterans Land Act beyond March 31 this year. On looking more closely we find that it is a motion of non-confidence against the government, moved under section 58(4) (a) of our rules of procedure. So it is a motion on which the House will divide, something which is most unusual. Why do I say that? In the six years I have been a member of parliament, this is the first time the House has divided on party lines on a matter relating to veterans who served this country so gallantly in war and so capably in the building of the country since the war.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), when he spoke, almost seemed to excuse himself and his party as, half humorously, he called on members on our side of the House to support a motion which he knows is a motion of non-confidence. I suggest that if any member on this side wanted to join the PC party, he would do it directly and not by supporting a "bassackwards" motion like the one now before the House. The theory of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) was interesting. He suggested that there was a government conspiracy for the government to use up or waste an opposition day. That is a strange theory, as the opposition party chose and moved the motion which is now before us.
I served on the veterans affairs committee during sessions of the last parliament and from time to time in the first session of the present parliament. I can say sincerely that it has been a non-partisan committee which has rarely divided. Usually, all members worked together and discussed a matter until consensus was arrived at. That is why I feel so uncomfortable about this debate, because for the first time in several years we are seeing a partisan approach to the problems of veterans.
There are fewer veterans who are members of the House now as compared with the last Parliament when I believe about 25 per cent of our members were veterans. Of course, the percentage of veteran members at present is considerably lower than it was in the first parliament after 1945. Nevertheless, the veterans affairs committee of the twenty-eighth parliament was perhaps one of the busiest committees of the House of Commons. Naturally, all committees worked more because the rules were changed and the estimates of various departments were considered in committee and not in committee of the whole. Even so, the veterans affairs committee did a tremendous job in that parliament. It studied the Woods committee report and made recommendations to the government which resulted in Bill C-203 coming forward. It was the most complete overhaul of pension legislation affecting veterans to be introduced in the last 50 years.
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 in which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has been a most active member. 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 activity.
The bill I have mentioned was a milestone in pension legislation. It provided for the Pension Review Board to be
446

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
separate and independent from the Canadian Pension Commission, for the establishment of the independent bureau of pension advocates, for the exceptional incapacity allowance, for a stronger benefit of the doubt clause and for special benefits for Hong Kong prisoners of war.
The idea of extending the VLA deadline 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. This afternoon the minister said he would give serious consideration to extending this deadline beyond the March 31 limit established back in 1965. We are proud of our Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: We are proud of his career in wartime; we are proud of his career as a farmer in his native province of Prince Edward Island; we are proud of his record as minister of agriculture in that province and the work he has done in this parliament.
A year ago the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended that benefits to veterans on a 100 per cent incapacity allowance be increased by relating them to the standard of living which would be directly related to the minimum federal civil service wages. Some members considered it would be very difficult for the minister to persuade his cabinet colleagues to adopt this principle which had first been proposed in 1918 or 1919. Veterans organizations had made representations on this for many years. It was the present Minister of Veterans Affairs who was able to bring forward this legislation last spring and have it adopted in order that the veterans of this country would receive a pension related to the minimum wage rates of the federal civil service.
We are proud of the way the minister has kept the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs in line with what these men and women require. I note that in 1972 the departmental budget was $432 million. In his speech today the minister announced that in the 1974-75 estimates it will be $597 million, an increase of $165 million for the some 200,000 in this country who receive some level of pension benefits.
Unlike the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who spoke this afternoon suggesting they were not able to accept the assurances of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am willing to accept the word of the minister that he intends to review this matter and place recommendations before cabinet. Taking into account the minister's distinguished war record, I am sure most members of this House are willing to accept the minister's word.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour to take part in this debate and to endorse the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I would in fact go further and offer him my congratulations and the thanks of many, many people in the constituency I represent for having brought this urgent and important matter before the House of Commons today.

I was equally impressed with the remarks of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the eloquent and passionate manner in which he pleaded with the minister and all in this House to agree to an extension of the deadline of March 31, 1974, when the government proposes to phase out the Veterans Land Act. These speeches dealt with the issue in a non-partisan and compassionate way; compassionate because at stake are the future plans of many thousands of Canadians who served in World War II and the Korean war.
The government's proposal to phase out the Veterans Land Act at the end of this month has met with a strong variety of responses from members on all sides of the House-from strong objection to at least serious reservation. Regardless of some of the heated remarks made earlier today, I hope that when this motion is voted on we will be united as a parliament in seeing that humane treatment is accorded to that large body of men and women throughout this country who genuinely deserve our consideration.
The constituency of Kingston and the Islands has a long history of military involvement. For over 300 years it has continued as a base for armed forces operations. Today its inhabitants include many who are still actively serving in the forces as well as many hundreds of former service personnel who have retired. Among the latter group are numerous individuals who have submitted applications so that they can qualify for loans under the VLA. The fact that they have not taken advantage of their applications is due largely to the inflexible terms of the act, terms which indeed prohibit them from purchasing their own homes.
The $18,000 limit for a lot and a house is a ludicrous figure in this day and age. The $18,000 would hardly pay for the lot, let alone the home, and the one-half acre stipulation has its own restrictions. For those wishing to locate on farmland in the country the acreage is inadequate. For those wishing to purchase land in a suburban area of the constituency the one-half acre lot is too large. These are factors within the Veterans Land Act that could be significantly modified if the government were to accept the motion presented by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. Extension of the deadline should allow sufficient time for consideration to be given to modifying the act in terms of contemporary values.
For the men and women still serving in our armed forces, men and women who served throughout World War II and the Korean War, the phasing-out of the Veterans Land Act is particularly reprehensible. It is true they could have taken their discharge at the termination of hostilities; taken advantage of the benefits offered to them at that time under the Veterans Land Act and gone on to other and perhaps more lucrative careers. Instead, they chose to stay and serve, serve in our Canadian armed forces, make it a career, bring to it the high respect and renown it has maintained down through the years. The government's reward to them is to deny them the benefits they had been led to expect were theirs.
For men and women still serving in the forces and with some years still to go before retirement it is well nigh impossible to say what particular lot or piece of land they may wish to purchase. In fact, many have not yet determined where they will reside upon retirement from the
March 12, 1974

forces. How can they take advantage of the loans available under the Veterans Land Act before the March 31 deadline, when they are in no position to even consider the purchase of a lot or the construction of a home? Their present endeavours are directed to the contribution they are making in the active forces of our country, not in thinking about retirement. Of necessity, they have become used to a life of mobility and change and many of them would find it impossible at the present time to decide where they will reside when they have retired. But surely the government's contribution to their retirement should not be to refuse them the benefits that have been accruing to them, just because they chose to continue serving their country. One of my constituents has written as follows:
I have served in the armed forces continuously since World War II and can continue to serve in my present rank until February, 1976-if promoted, until February, 1978. Due to frequent service postings I have had neither the time nor the opportunity to exercise my entitlement to build under VLA. In fact, with the possibility of one or two more postings I have not even selected a possible geographic location.
It would appear that those of us who elected to continue serving are being penalized, first, by the increase in interest rates a few years ago, and, secondly, by a closure date which will prevent many of us from taking advantage of our entitlement.
It is interesting to note that he uses the word "closure". This is a word that the government certainly knows something about.
It is a well known fact that the morale of the armed forces is not at an all-time high. There have been frustrations, disappointments and setbacks for many of those who chose the military as a career. The marvel is that they maintain their present high standards despite these frustrations. But I know, having talked to many of them both in my constituency and elsewhere, that the phasing-out of the Veterans Land Act, the denial of justice to these people, would be a blow to their morale that is uncalled for, unjustified and unnecessary.
Earlier today my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe said this question goes beyond the materialistic; that there is a principle involved, the principle that we should not break faith with those to whom a commitment was made in the name of the government of Canada and the people of Canada. I deplore a situation in which any of us might stand accused of having broken faith needlessly and over such a small matter when viewed in terms of dollars and cents. For the number of people who can ultimately take advantage of the VLA is not large in terms of our over-all population, and the funding required is minimal in terms of our over-all budget.
A debate such as this calls into consideration many of the old-fashioned virtues such as trust, faith, civility- virtues often overlooked in this day and age, but virtues which can and must be applied in the case of Canada's veterans if we in this House are to merit the term "responsible representatives". Every day I receive letters of appeal from those whose future security is jeopardized by the manner in which the government has vacillated in regard to this act.
Today the minister said he is prepared to consider an extension. For my part, I am willing to accept his word as given in good faith-that he and his colleagues will give
Veterans Land Act Extension
earnest consideration to the positive, humane aspects of extending the deadline while rejecting their present negative, discriminatory approach. Having given his word, having raised the expectations of thousands of veterans and servicemen, having given them cause to believe that their case is a just one and that they can hope for some action within the next 19 days, let him come forward with legislation to extend the deadline within those 19 days. Let him not dash the hopes of veterans by peremptorily announcing on March 31 that his promise to consider an extension has not led to the results they desire, that his words were hollow rhetoric.
If this is his intention, if this is the government's way of getting off what they consider to be a sticky wicket, better the minister should stand here this evening and tell the House, the veterans organizations and the nation the truth as to his intentions, for he is dealing with people who, above all else, do not deserve to be misled. I urge the minister and those associated with him to give an unequivocal guarantee to the House that the March 31 deadline will be extended.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who told us with some pride that the constituency she has the honour to represent has a distinguished military history. If I were in her place, I would say exactly the same thing. I might remind hon. members, though, that all of us should have great pride in the constituencies we represent because I am sure that in times of trouble, in times of war, all Canadians have enlisted and done their duty for king and country.
Having said this, may I suggest the hon. lady should remember, again with pride, that a great deal has been done for veterans not only in the constituency she so proudly represents but in constituencies right across Canada, because nowhere in the world have veterans been treated so kindly as in this great country of ours. I speak not only of the present government but of previous governments. I speak as a veteran of six years' service, as one who served in all the active theatres in the last war. I listened with tears in my eyes as opposition speakers suggested that nothing had been done for the veterans of Canada. The fact is that more has been done for Canadian veterans, including the veterans of Kingston and the Islands, than anywhere else in the world, bar none.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: When we consider the motion put forward by the opposition today we should not think in terms of the Veterans Land Act alone. If the minister had not said he might change his mind, a deadline would, it is true, he applied to the legislation on March 31. We should think of other things. For example, there just happened to come into my hands tonight a number of figures as to monthly rates of disability pensions paid to veterans under the Pension Act. I do not say these veterans are getting too much, by any means. As a matter of fact, over the years, along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and many others in this House, I have striven to secure increases for veterans because I believe pensions should increase with the cost of living. But con-
27398- 29J

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
sider this. Today a married pensioner with one child receives $541 a month absolutely tax free. And it should be tax free. The fact is, he or she is getting this rate in this Canada of ours. This increase was given by this House of Commons, and all members of the House should be proud of the fact that we have looked after our veterans better than any other country in the world.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that our veterans also have other benefits, such as war veterans allowance for which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has fought so valiantly over the years, as have the rest of us though perhaps not quite so eloquently as he. Nevertheless, legislation unequalled anywhere in the world has benefited our veterans in Canada. As a matter of fact, the wealthiest country of the world, the United States, has no legislation that equals or can even be closely compared with our war veterans allowance. As I myself have said on many an occasion, only two countries of the world have a minister of veterans affairs. One of them is France. The other is not the United States, the wealthiest country in the world, or England, or Germany, or Japan; it is Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This is why I am pleased to be a member of this House of Commons, and I say to my hon. friends in the Tory opposition that they should be proud of it too. They should be proud for three or four reasons, one of which is that the legislation that has given Canadian veterans the highest pension in the world was passed to a large extent by their own votes.
As far as I can remember, during the few years I have been here veterans pensions, legislation concerning the Veterans Land Act, and so on, have been discussed and have passed through this chamber by unanimous vote. In all sincerity I suggest that the motion put before the House today by my hon. friends on the opposition benches is, as far as I am concerned, politics at its very lowest. They are trying to take advantage of the veterans of Canada who have fought and died for this country. They are trying to overturn the government because they have been unable to do so in any other way, and they are now trying to hang this on the necks of our veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The other day I heard the remark that the bigger they are, the nicer they are. As far as this opposition motion is concerned, I say to my Conservative friends, "Sit down, Shorty". I am sure it is not one that they will be proud of in years to come.
I cannot be critical of the Veterans Land Act, because I happen to be one of those veterans who was successful in obtaining a block of land under the Veterans Land Act. Fortunately, I received my piece of land in the year 1946, at a time when many people had a similar opportunity. Many others have had this opportunity over the past 29 years and have taken advantage of it, and for that they deserve our admiration.
On the other hand, they should remember that this opportunity was given to them not just by the Liberal

Party but also by the Conservative Party who are condemning this provision today. It was also granted to them by our New Democratic friends, and indeed by our Creditiste friends. It was agreed to unanimously by this House and it is one of the pieces of legislation that I am very proud of indeed.
If I were going to be critical of the Veterans Land Act, I would suggest to my Conservative friends who have moved this motion that perhaps they should change the "V" to a "C". This legislation has proved to be a most successful housing project and has greatly assisted many veterans who live in this great country of ours. If it has been successful for our veterans, perhaps it could be successful for all Canadians. Perhaps we should change the wording of the Veterans Land Act to the "Canada land act" and give all Canadians the opportunity that our veterans have had over the years. I think this would help the housing situation in which we find ourselves today. If my Conservative friends would put forward such a suggestion, I would be the first to support it.
However, the Conservatives are hanging this motion on changing the deadline from March 31 to some time in the future. When we think that the Conservative Party is challenging Canada, that there could be an election tomorrow or even in two years as a result of this motion, then I say my Conservative friends are playing with Canadians. They are not playing with us, because we regard ourselves as at least semi-professionals; they are playing with Canadian citizens from Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are other subjects that are more appropriate. As a member of the government party I can think of some myself, as a matter of fact. Quite frankly, if hon. members opposite are looking for an opposition motion, let them come and have a chat with me and I will give them one that is far better than the one they moved this afternoon.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Your time is up.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My time may be up, but let me tell my hon. friend that he is not going to have a chance to speak tonight. I will take the advice of my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) because my time is up.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I always give you good advice, Ross.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: But before I sit down, let me remind the House that the veterans legislation that we have in Canada, including the Veterans Land Act, is the finest veterans legislation in the world. All Canadians should be proud of that fact, more particularly those Canadians should who sit in this chamber, not simply the Liberals, members of the New Democratic Party or the Creditistes, but even the Conservatives who today have condemned it to the best of their ability.


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion moved by my colleague for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) because of my sincere concern for the position of many veterans in respect of the deadline, that this government insists will be kept, regarding their right to acquire a home under part
March 12, 1974

II of the Veterans Land Act, a provision that has already been fully explained in previous speeches today.
I am a little surprised at the speech just completed by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). I had always considered him to be a reasonably fair member. However, I think history will prove who is playing politics in this House today. I do not think anyone on this side of the House has been criticizing the legislation we have already passed for our veterans. Certainly we agree that our veterans have a lot of good legislation. What we are criticizing is the fact that veterans in Canada today are concerned about what is going to happen and they are confused by the government's inaction at the present time.
As the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe stated, this motion is being presented as a last-ditch plea to this government, in the very limited number of days left before the end of the month, to reconsider its very negative stand in regard to extending the deadline on this important provision. It is not a cheap political ploy, as some hon. members have frantically tried to make out today. To me, the main thrust of this motion originated from a commitment made many years ago by the then prime minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, who in a speech in 1917 had this to say:
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 endeavour 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.
That was a pretty strong statement from the prime minister of the day, and some 50 years since that date similar statements have been uttered. However, never before, as now in 1974, due to the rapid rate of inflation as it effects our veterans of all wars, is there such a need for change in all acts referring to veterans, and there is a particular need to change this particular part of the Veterans Land Act which we are debating.
While it is true there have been many improvements over the years as conditions have changed, it is also true that there are many thousands of veterans who, possibly through their own ingenuity and good fortune, need not be concerned for the future and their own well-being. Nevertheless, thay are sincerely concerned about the well-being of their fellow comrades who are not so fortunate but who, in the minds of members of our party, still deserve full consideration. Members of this party are anxious to ensure that no veteran will be denied the right to acquire a home under part II of the Veterans Land Act because of the restrictions presently imposed, which include of course the October, 1968, deadline for certification, the March, 1974, deadline for application, the phasing-out of the act, the restricted lot requirements, land costs in urban centres and the financial ceilings which inhibit loan applications.
Like many of my colleagues, I have received numerous letters from veterans who through no fault of their own somehow missed the deadline of October, 1968, for certification. Just because of their oversight, it is difficult for me
Veterans Land Act Extension
to understand the position the department is taking in stating that everyone had an opportunity to apply before that date. Surely the minister recognizes the fact that many veterans were not knowledgeable of the deadline and are now being denied their rights under the charter.
Even though the minister has stated that we have no right to deviate from the legislation as it now stands, it has to be admitted that there have been many hundreds of amendments brought forth in the last 50 years, along with many new pieces of legislation, because of increasing costs and lot requirements as land values and availability have changed from time to time.
The veterans are not asking for the extension of just another give-away program, which is so prevalent within the government of today. They are asking for the right to continue to borrow money at a reasonable rate of interest, with the opportunity to pay it back. It has been mentioned by several previous speakers that the $18,000 ceiling should be raised, and I most heartily agree. A figure of $30,000 has been mentioned and that appears to me to be within reasonable limits, depending on just how fast the inflationary spiral we find ourselves in today keeps going up.
Another area which is closely related to the concerns expressed in this debate which I should like to refer to briefly is the right of the spouse of a veteran who qualifies under the Veterans Land Act to have the same rights and privileges as the marriage partner in respect of title to property. I have had this point brought to my attention, as I am sure have many other members. In essence, the wife of a veteran who has a VLA mortgage does not have any legal claim to the property until such time as there is an estate. In this day and age of the so-called free society, if the husband chooses to simply take off and not honour his mortgage obligations the wife could then find herself in a very financially embarrassing situation.
As a working wife and mother, such a marriage partner could have contributed as much money to the home as her husband. But even if she did not work outside the home, her contribution as a wife and mother would still be sizeable in meeting the mortgage obligations over the years. To me, this is a very important area that I feel is supplementary to this motion which is so clearly emphasized here today.
As I understand the act, any time a veteran becomes separated or divorced, the wife cannot claim any right to the property until the mortgage is paid off. But by that time the family may be grown up and the wife may not need too much help. If the husband becomes ill, mentally or otherwise, or is incompetent for any reason, the public trustee takes over the administration of the property to which the wife, as I have said before, may have contributed a sizeable effort in keeping the mortgage payments up to date.
Although departmental administrators of the legislation in most cases act in good faith, their answers to some of the questions raised by veterans and their wives do not give those Canadians the confidence I feel they deserve in order that their remaining days be as free of frustration as possible. One such departmental answer is this: The arrangement as it now stands has not created any undue hardship so long as the family relationship remains

March 12, 1974
Veterans Land Act Extension
normal, because when the veteran's debt is paid off, the title is conveyed to the veteran and upon its registration the wife's dower rights are attached. If requested, the director will convey title to a husband and wife as tenants in common, or joint tenants. If the veteran dies, the wife takes over the agreement with the director and may enjoy all the benefits that would otherwise accrue to the husband.
That is all true, but the one reference in that statement which is the key to the concern I have tried to outline is the part which says that as long as a family relationship remains normal, that is the case. As we look around today we see many family relationships that are not necessarily normal, and this is where the concern of the spouse arises. I feel it is a legitimate concern. The director will convey the title to the husband and wife as tenants in common, or joint tenancy, if it is drawn up that way to begin with; and that is fine. However, when a marriage begins to break down and either the wife or the husband can foresee a possible separation, there is no way in which it would be possible for the spouse to get a legal agreement for joint tenancy.
This is just one more reason that we as parliamentarians must continually analyze acts such as the one in question today in order that they are kept current with the living standards and conditions we find ourselves in from time to time. I doubt if there is a member in this House who does not have a current file on his desk expressing concerns of some kind by veterans in his riding. It makes our hearts bleed that when veterans eventually turn to their members for at least an explanation of the situation in which they find themselves, we in many cases are helpless to do anything. Consequently, I fail to see how our motion today can possibly be defeated when it would give us the opportunity, as members, to at least try to support a situation that to me makes common sense.
The leader of the socialists to our left today accused our party of being very hypocritical and claimed he could have voted for the motion had it not contained the word "consider". Let me read the motion as follows:
This House regrets that the government has not extended the March 31, 1974, deadline under the Veterans Land Act and calls upon the government to consider taking immediate steps to extend this deadline.
The leader of the socialists said he could vote for it without that reference to "consider". If he and members of the party to which he belongs were as sincere in their interest for veterans as they make out, and as he so frantically tried to suggest this afternoon, why did not that member, or a member on the government side, stand up and move an amendment leaving out that word? They could then have voted for the motion and, as somebody suggested, saved face.
I have a great deal of respect for the minister. As a matter of fact, I have become acquainted with him as a result of living next door in our apartment house; but if the minister and his government were as sincere as they claim they are in their regard for the veteran, why could they not vote for this motion? This would make the veterans happy and there would not be this so-called hypocrisy, political ploy or game that we are supposed to be playing on this side of the House.

The hon. member for Bruce said that we are playing politics. As I said before, history will prove who is playing politics and it will be shown that it is the government and its coalition cohorts. I am sure the media will understand what is going on here today. I am also sure our some 140,000 veterans will soon understand who is playing politics. The record will be set straight.
I have tried to outline in a very humble way my sincere opinion as a backbencher. Several other backbenchers over here I am sure look at this matter in the same way. I think what the leader of the socialists to my left recorded in Hansard tonight is a disgrace.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe what has become very clear in the course of the day is that the official opposition is using the cause of the veterans as a battering-ram in order to obtain their political objective. Hon. members opposite know perfectly well that today traditionally is a day when the opposition moves a motion of non-confidence. They also know that almost invariably in the last 25 years the government has been obliged to vote against motions put in these particular circumstances. Only three times in the last 25 years has it been possible for a government-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to adopt a motion put on an opposition day. It has happened only when the motion has been put in a constructive way.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion I rise on a point of privilege. Under Standing Order 11 I wish to indicate that I am unable to vote because of a conflict of interest. The indication of the government that it agrees to extend the deadline may result in a considerable windfall to me because I have qualified. I have a certificate. I have no intention of taking action on it before March 31, but if the deadline is extended I may do so; therefore I request permission not to vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
March 12, 1974


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10:14 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 13, 1974