1974-11-06

$3 CANADA HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 23 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House ol Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
28543-\'A
Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
tnaman/roitoaheS vb it aoitonuol ol ab aoieivjC cnoiJaubnx! aab uu*:u3 aoiiivifl inemtj.'iJyveCI £ Qnicioii *j0ou;H noitoienoxT
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 6, 1974


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that a commercial product extensively advertised on national television under the trade name "Krazy Glue" has proven dangerous to children and adults alike, as expressed by members of the medical profession and others, and by the very nature of its name totally excludes the damage aspect and fails to properly illustrate those dangers both on the packaging as well as their advertising, and in view of the fact that with every day serious injuries are incurred by children and others, indeed making this motion an urgent one, I, therefore, propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the government take the necessary steps to ensure that all advertising including TV contain warnings as to the dangerous qualities of this product and that the trade name "Krazy Glue" be changed in order to eliminate its present appeal to children.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As important a public matter as this may be, the hon. member will be aware that approximately two weeks ago another hon. member raised the matter through several questions in the House, and the minister who was questioned at that time was no doubt aware of the circumstances. I repeat that the subject matter may be important but I could scarcely hold that in view of the reference to this subject matter on that last occasion the matter still retains the urgency required under the rules.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of obvious urgency and importance.
In view of the presence at noon today on Parliament Hill of hundreds of expropriated people from St. Scholastique who are angry at what they call the federal government's about-face with regard to them, and who are anxious, and rightly so, to be treated fairly and equitably, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That a parliamentary commission be established to hear evidence from all parties involved, to study and review all relevant documents, and finally to recommend to the government and Parliament specific measures in order to give justice to those expropriated at St. Scholastique.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion can only be debated with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SUGGESTED STUDY OF PROCEDURE ON ORAL QUESTION PERIOD-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of extreme urgency and very great importance for the future of Parliament. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the standing committee on procedure meet in a special sitting to examine most carefully the procedure of this House respecting the oral question period, more particularly with respect to supplementary questions which seem to be too numerous and time-consuming during a period which could be used in a more productive way by members of the different opposition parties on major issues dealing with administration, and current events and that the said committee report to this House before the adjournment for the Christmas recess.


Mr. Speaker:: Although the motion is moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 and although it deals with a matter of tremendous importance, I regret to say that, in my opinion, it is not exactly a matter of urgency but rather a matter of interest to all members and a relevant matter. I do not think it is an urgent matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


Mr. Fortin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) moved that motion under Standing Order 43 to further specify the terms of reference given by parliamentary leaders on both sides of this House, through the

November 6, 1974
House of Commons
Chair, to the committee on procedure which will be sitting after the Christmas holidays. Mr. Speaker, I think that matter is extremely urgent, and there is also agreement between the four parties that the oral question period should also be reviewed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
My motion was made pursuant to Standing Order 43. I have always been under the impression that such motions required the unanimous consent of the House. Maybe I did not listen carefully enough, but was the unanimous consent of the House requested or was the decision made in another way?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was endeavouring to indicate to the hon. member that while his motion contained a subject matter of extreme importance, it was in my opinion more a matter of continuing concern such as other rules and procedures of the House which may be considered, which may be improved and which may be clarified at each session of every Parliament. Suggestions as to such improvements in the procedures of the House and the oral question period, as well as supplementary questions, are matters of continuing concern and therefore in my opinion, while this is an important matter, it cannot be used as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek the consent of the House to set aside the ordinary business of the day. Accordingly, I rule it is not a proper question according to Standing Order 43.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say that I understand quite well what you said in respect of the motion of my colleague from Bellechasse, but I know that any rule or any ruling can be changed with the consent of the House, whether you like it or not. So at this moment I think you should have asked the House whether the House is ready or not ready for that motion. That is what I think.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will remind the hon. member and the House one more time that notwithstanding the fact that a motion is presented to the House pursuant to Standing Order 43, and notwithstanding the fact that that rule envisages the unanimous consent of the House before debate is possible, the wording of the rule is as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent...
Therefore, I take it as a condition of a motion presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 not only that unanimous consent of the House be sought but in addition that it not only be an important matter as this is but that it be a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which in my opinion this is not.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-361, to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of food).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code in so far as the destruction of food is concerned so as to make it an indictable offence and therefore provide a penalty in cases where food fit for human consumption is destroyed. When this is done purposely as a form of protest, it becomes an immoral act in a world where so many people are in danger of starvation.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Reynolds: To date, how many Chileans have been approved for landed immigrant status, how many have actually arrived and how many of these people were originally born in Chile?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Between September 11, 1973 and September 16, 1974, 2,697 persons whose country of last permanent residence was Chile have been authorized to come to Canada of whom 1,098 have actually arrived. Particulars of their country of birth have not yet been tabulated.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the government fail to publish an annual report of the Defence Services Pension Fund and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is any consideration being given by the government to investing the Defence Services Pension Fund monies into mortgages benefitting the contributors of the Pension Fund?
3.	Who are the contributors of the Defence Services Pension Fund?
4.	Is this Fund 50 per cent owned by the contributors?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The annual report of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Fund was tabled by the Minister of National Defence on October 3, 1974.
2.	No. Since the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account is part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, there are no separate moneys available and therefore consideration cannot be given to investing moneys in mortgages.
November 6, 1974

3.	The Government and every member of the Regular Force contribute under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.
4.	No. The Government contributes 1.8 times the members' contributions and, in addition, credits the account with interest and also assumes the responsibility for actuarial deficits as well as the amount considered necessary to provide for the increase in cost of benefits due to pay increases.


Mr. Horner: How much soy bean meal was imported in each year 1970 to 1974 to date?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: Statistics on imports of soya bean meal are recorded in the Canadian Import Commodity Classification under code 153-60 Soy bean oil cake and meal. Shipments of this material entering Canada in the years 1970 to 1973 and for the first seven months of 1974 were as follows:
Year
Quantity (cwt) Value ($'000)
1971
1973
Jan.-July
5,367,144	25,939
4,580,762	21,338
4,897,400	26,327
4,218,347	46,409
3,599,701	29,067


Mr. Horner: How much soy bean meal was used lor human consumption in (a) 1973 (b) 1974 to date?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Soy bean meal is not used for human consumption but is used in livestock and poultry feeds. Soy bean meal can be further processed into isolates and protein concentrates which are used in human nutrition. There are no statistics available for human utilization in Canada but it is estimated that approximately 0.3% of Canadian production of soy beans is used in human nutrition in Canada, or approximately 25,200 cwt.


Mr. Fortin: What notaries in the constituency of Lotbiniere were authorized to draw up documents for signature when a contract is concluded between a purchaser and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or a builder, pursuant to the National Housing Act of 1954 (a) to January 1, 1961 (b) from January 1, 1968 to date?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a) Information on notaries retained by CMHC to process mortgage documentation for
Order Paper Questions
loans approved in the Municipal Counties of Arthabaska, Lotbiniere and Nicolet prior to January 1, 1961, is not available, (b) Notaries retained by CMHC to process mortgage documentation for loans approved in the Municipal Counties of Arthabaska, Lotbiniere and Nicolet since January 1, 1968, have been: Horace Bergeron, Vic-toriaville; Jacques Blondin, St-Gregoire; Gilles Boucher, Victoriaville; Michel Boulanger, Victoriaville; Jacques Cote, Arthabaska; Nicolas Larochelle, Victoriaville; Pierre Martel, Nicolet; Laval Simard, St-Leonard d'Aston; Michel Simard, St-Wenceslas; Andre Villeneuve, Gentilly; Charles-Edouard Villeneuve, Becancour; Jean Villeneuve, Gentilly.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each year 1970 to 1973 inclusive, what was the financial contribution of the government to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?
2.	How many Canadian soldiers were placed at the disposal of NATO (a) on a permanent basis (b) on a temporary basis each year (i) 1970 (ii) 1971 (iii) 1972 (iv) 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: Insofar as the Department of National Defence is concerned: 1. The financial contribution to NATO infrastructure and military budgets for the period 1970 to 1973 was as follows: 1970/71, $14,384,000; 1971/72, $13,834,000; 1972/73, $14,323,000; 1973/74, $21,000,000 (estimated) See Note: 1.
2.	The number of Canadian Forces personnel placed at the disposal of NATO for the years indicated is as follows:
a. Permanent basis-
	Number	Number	
	Stationed	Serving	
Year	in Germany	on Nato Staffs	Total1970	5,792	401	6,1931971	5,312	327	5,6391972	5,092	234	5,3261973	5,036	233	5,269b. Temporary basis-	Maritime	Land and	Year	Forces	Air Forces	Total1970	4,546	4,679	9,2251971	4,536	5,215	9,7511972	4,526	5,665	10,1911973	5,016	5,665	10,681
Note: 1. The significantly higher contribution to NATO in 1973/74 was due to approximately $3,000,000 having been outstanding for 1972/73. This was caused by a new NATO policy of programming construction costs over a shorter time frame. Thus the contribution to NATO for the two fiscal years averaged: 1972/73, Approx. $17 million; 1973/74, Approx. $18 million.

November 6, 1974
Order Paper Questions CONTINUOUS MARINE BROADCAST SERVICE


Mr. Marshall: Of the eight stations announced under DOT News Release 90/74 on August 1, 1974, what locations were chosen for east coast areas to provide continuous marine broadcast service on the east coast and particularly in Newfoundland?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
eight stations mentioned in DOT News Release 90/74 on August 1, 1974 are all on the Great Lakes or Upper St. Lawrence River. A program is underway to extend the service to the East Coast at the following locations: Comfort Cove, Nfld.; St. Anthony, Nfld.; St. John's, Nfld.; St. Lawrence, Nfld.; Stephenville, Nfld.; Grindstone Island (Magdalene Islands) Que.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Eddy Point (Canso), N.S.; Halifax, N.S.; Saint John, N.B.; Sydney, N.S.; Yarmouth, N.S.


Mr. Allard: Does the government subsidize the Canadian Council on Animal Care and, if so (a) for how many years (b) through what department (c) what amounts were granted in 1971, 1972 and 1973 (d) did the government make a grant as capital for the Council at the time it was created or at some later stage of its development?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: National Research Council: (a) NRC has supported the Council since 1969-70; (b) National Research Council; (c) 1971-72, $60,000; 1972-73, $60,000; 1973-74, $60,000; (d) No. Medical Research Council: (a) since the inception of the Council in 1968; (b) Medical Research Council; (c) 1971-72, $60,000; 1972-73,$60,000; 1973-74, $60,000; (d) No.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of the Solicitor General received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: (a) 117; (b)
22; (c) 2.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Labour received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: (a) 52
employees; (b) 5 employees; (c) nil.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of the Environment received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. (a) 708; (b) 44; (c) 1.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What was the (a) name (b) position (c) job description of every individual presently in the Public Service of Canada who worked in the Office of the Prime Minister, in the Privy Council Office or as a Research Assistant, Special Assistant, Executive Assistant, Secretary, Advisor, Consultant or in any other capacity in or for the office of any Minister or Minister of State from 1963 to the present?


Mitchell William Sharp: A reply to this question would require the review of personal files of every individual employed in the Public Service of Canada. In view of the workload involved, the Government does not feel justified in undertaking such a review. Employees of the Privy Council Office have always been members of the Public Service. The remaining individuals described in the question may have been members of the Public Service on leave of absence, while attached to the Office of the Prime Minister, a Minister or Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and thereafter returned to public service assignments. The exempt staff of the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, Leader of the government in the Senate or Leader of the Opposition in the Senate may be appointed to the Public Service under Section 37 of the Public Service Employment Act. Parts (3) and (4) of Section 37 set out the "Rights on termination of employment" of such employees while part (5) assigns the determination of the "Order of appointments to the Public Service Commission". The statutory base for appointments to Ministers' office dates from 1918 "Civil Service Act". In 1929, the 1918 Act was amended to include appointments to the office of Leader of the Opposition plus an amendment dealing with appointment of such individuals to the Public Service on termination of exempt employment. In addition to the appointment procedure set out in Section 37 of the Public Service Employment Act, any person may apply for Public Service employment and if vacancies exist, selection proceeds via normal Public Service Commission selection processes.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have there been any changes in senior staff personnel of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in Hong Kong in the past six months?
2.	Has the government asked for and/or received the resignation of any such personnel?
November 6, 1974

3.	If no resignations have been received, is any one of such personnel under suspension or temporarily not carrying out his duties while an internal enquiry takes place?
4.	If any resignation has been accepted, has the Department any further action under consideration?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Mr. R. L. Wales, a senior official of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, who had been seconded to the Department of External Affairs since November 18, 1971 as Commissioner for Canada, returned to the Department on March 1, 1974. On March 5, 1974, Mr. C. F. Rogers, also a senior official of the Department of Manpower and Immigration assumed the position of acting Commissioner for Canada. Subsequently, on August 22, 1974 Mr. M. G. Clark, a senior official of the Department of Manpower and Immigration who had been seconded to the Department of External Affairs, became Commissioner for Canada. On the same date, Mr. C. F. Rogers replaced Mr. L. J. Freeman as Officer in Charge of the Manpower and Immigration office in Hong Kong. Mr. Freeman then proceeded to a rotational assignment in Toronto, Ontario.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1973 what persons were permitted to cut wood on lands under the control of Acadia Forest Experiment Station at Ripples, New Brunswick?
2.	How much wood did each person cut and how much money was paid to the Crown for such cutting rights?


Len Marchand: 1 and 2. For the Period January 1, 1973 to	September 30, 1974				
Persons	Cunits	Persons	Cunits	Persons	CunitsAckerson W.	892	Grant F.	4	Mac Beth J.	339Allain H.	4	Greer C.	96	Mac Neill E.	8Cormier R.	4	Haines E.	43	McCoy D.	32Denton M.	746	Holland E.	12	Phinney C.	795Dufour A.	8	Holland G.	8	Thomas J.	4Gilbert D.	971	Holland H.	37	Trzop F.	874Gilbert J.	464	Hopkins G.	480	Webber E.	376Gilbert K.	449	Leblanc R.	8	Young K.	698Gilbert W.	916	Lewis J.	11	Young L.	2
Stumpage dues received by the Crown for wood scaled from January 1, 1973 to September 30, 1974 were $50,310.46.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Have there been any revisions requested or considered in the VS Services Limited contract at the Goose Bay Airport Hotel?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Was the nationality of the ownership of the controlling interest in this company known or considered before the contract was awarded?


Jean Marchand: 1. There have been no revisions requested or considered in the VS Services Ltd. contract at the Goose Bay Airport Hotel.
2. Yes. Complete details on the company were obtained prior to the award of a contract.


Mr. McKinnon: During the site selection of the Other Ranks Club for CFB Esquimalt (a) was there any local input (b) were meetings held with residents of the neighbourhood to determine their site preference?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) There was local input from departmental personnel concerned, (b) Since the site chosen is separated from adjacent private property by the department's married quarter area and is approximately V4 mile from the nearest private dwelling, no consultations were held other than with departmental personnel.


Mr. Whittaker: What was the total amount of money given out in the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Grant Program to date (a) what was the total given out in the Program in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary and what percentage is this of the total distribution (b) what projects in the Okanagan Boundary, by name and amount were given in grants (c) how many were given grants in previous years and what amounts were given to them at that time (d) how many permanent jobs were created (e) what was the total amount of applications received from the constituency of Okanagan Boundary?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a)
Total
Year	committed
	$
1971-72	1,283,437.00
1972-73	3,664,558.00
1973-74	3,736,000.00
1974-75	3,183,258.00'
*This represents total committed to date for this year.
Year	Total Committed	Percentage of Distribution
1972-72				
1972-73	$ 75,105.00	2 per cent1973-74	$ 13,565.00	0.4 per cent1974-75	-	-
(b) and (c) There was only one project in the Okanagan Boundary funded since 1971 until the present. The name of the project was "Imagine Penticton". Please see (a) for figures, (d) Figures are not available, (e) Since 1971, there have been three applications received.
1102

November 6, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Whittaker: How many companies in Canada produce masonry jars and lids for home canning (a) do they produce both items for sales individually (b) what percentage of their production is sold outside Canada (c) what has been their total production of these items in the past five years, by year?


Gaston Clermont: Two companies produce glass Mason jars in Canada. These are Consumers Glass Company Limited and Dominion Glass Company Limited. These companies buy the lids and rings from Anchor Cap and Closure Corporation of Canada Limited and/or Bernardin of Canada Limited. The glass companies ship the Mason jars complete with lids to their distributors. The lid and ring manifacturers in addition to supplying the glass companies also supply the replacement market. The Mason jar and lid manufacturers do not export these products. Production statistics are not published. However, the two Mason jar manufacturers have advised the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that their current combined production is about 8.5 million jars per year, and 1974 production was higher than in any of the four preceeding years. The companies also advise that, in the past, certain market areas, i.e. British Columbia, have been inacessible to them because of U.S. imports.


Mr. Herbert: Is the government aware that economy air travel is already an uncomfortable experience for those unfortunate enough to be six feet tall or more and will the government exercise whatever influence it may have over Air Canada to stop consideration of the shaving of two inches of leg space from each row aboard their jetcraft in order to accommodate two additional rows?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: The airline is not considering any changes to economy class seating on any of its aircraft, nor has it made any changes for the past several years. The seat pitch in economy class is 34 inches, which conforms with standards set by the International Air Transport Association and the aviation industry.


Mr. Elzinga: 1.	Has any progress been made to establish an airport in the Municipality of Westlock, No. 92, Alberta?
2.	Can the Minister of Transport advise how much of a grant will be forthcoming for the proposed construction of the airport?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes. Municipality of Westlock has applied for financial assistance to aid in construction of proposed new airport facility for the community.
2. No. The application is currently under review.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What is the (a) name (b) position (c) job description of every individual presently employed by (1) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (ii) the Bank of Canada (iii) the Canada Council (iv) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (v) the Canadian Commercial Corporation (vi) the Canadian Dairy Commission (vii) the Canadian Film Development Corporation (viii) the Canadian International Development Agency (ix) the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (x) the Canadian Transport Commission (xi) the Canadian Wheat Board (xii) the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (xiii) the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer (xiv) the Defence Research Board (xv) the Economic Council of Canada (xvi) Eldorado Nuclear Limited (xvii) the Federal Court of Canada (xviii) the Food Prices Review Board (xix) the Foreign Investment Review Agency (xx) the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation (xxi) Information Canada (xxii) the National Capital Commission (xxiii) the National Energy Board (xxiv) the National Farm Products Marketing Council (xxv) the National Film Board (xxvi) the National Gallery of Canada (xxvii) the National Harbors Board (xxviii) the National Research Council of Canada (xxix) the Representation Commissioner (xxx) the Science Council of Canada, who worked in the Office of the Prime Minister, in the Privy Council Office or as a Research Assistant, Special Assistant, Executive Assistant, secretary, advisor, consultant or in any other capacity in or for the office of any Minister or Minister of State from 1973 to the present?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to this Question is similar to the reply to Question No. 159 answered this day. It would require the review of personal files of every individual employed in the agencies listed.


Mr. Laprise: Is it the intention of the government to construct a railroad east of James Bay for the transport of ores and goods?


Jean Marchand: There is no active study by the federal government at the present time to construct a railway east of James Bay.


Mr. Muir: 1.	Did the Marine and Ferry Branch of the Department of Transport conduct a study to assess the existing terminal facilities and operations at North Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	What were the results and recommendations of such a study?
3.	What was the cost of this study and how many people were involved?


Jean Marchand: 1. The Marine and Ferry Branch of the Ministry of Transport engaged Swan Wooster Engineering Company Limited to study the existing ferry terminal facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and to recommend a program of development that would enable the terminal to adequately handle the traffic offering until the year 2000.
2. The final report has not yet been received from the consultant, but based on the draft already submitted to the Ministry of Transport the final report will recommend the construction of a new stern loading dock, parking lot and passenger facilities in 1975/76, and the construction of
November 6, 1974

various administrative buildings and additional stern loading facilities in a phased program over an eight year period.
3.	The contracted cost of the study was $43,000. The study was carried out by 13 professional/technical staff members of the consulting engineering firm and its Nova Scotia associates.


Mr. Dinsdale: What were the names of all persons who held the position of executive assistant, special assistant, private secretary, consultant and/or advisor, or any other special capacity to a Minister since the commencement of the 26th Parliament in 1963, and the end of the 27th Parliament in 1968, who have moved from that position to the Public Service or to Governor in Council appointments and, in each case (a) to what position did they move (b) at what salary?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government does not maintain records which would enable it to trace the subsequent careers of those who at one time served ministers in the capacities listed. In order to answer this question, it would be necessary to review the personal files of every individual employed in the Public Service of Canada. In view of the workload involved, the government does not feel justified in undertaking such a review. See also reply to Question No. 159 answered this day.


Mr. Dinsdale: What were the names of all persons who held the position of executive assistant, special assistant, private secretary, consultant and/or advisor, or any other special capacity to a Minister since the commencement of the 28th Parliament in 1968, who have moved from that position to the Public Service or to Governor in Council appointments and, in each case (a) to what position did they move (b) at what salary?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to Question 525 answered this day.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Did the government commission statues of the Rt. Hon. Richard Bennett and the Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen for the purpose of having them placed on Parliament Hill?
2.	On what dates were these statues completed?
3.	Where are these now being stored?
4.	For what reason have they not been placed on Parliament Hill?


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. Mr. Speaker, as regards the Right Hon. Richard Bennett, the answer is no. As regards the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the answer is yes.
2. The artist's design proposal for the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett statue submitted in the fall of 1969 was not approved. The statue of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was completed in June of 1970.
Order Paper Questions
3.	The statue of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen is in storage at Plouffe Park, Ottawa, the Department of Public Works storage area.
4.	No decision has been reached as yet. The matter is under study and a decision should be reached before the landscaping season next spring.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Bring on the landscapers.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: For the year 1973, what was the distribution by income groups of families and individual taxpayers, and particularly the groupings of income (a) above (i) $1,000,000 (ii) $500,000 (iii) $100,000 (b) below (i) $6,000 (ii) $5,000 (iii) $4,000 (iv) $3,000 (v) $2,000 (vi) $1,000 annually, based on income tax returns, Statistics Canada statistics or any other source?
Return tabled.



SPRUCE SPRAYING

Mr. Howie: 1.	Over what area, defined by counties, has spruce bud worm spraying been conducted in New Brunswick since January 1, 1974?
2.	How much money, since January 1, 1974, has Canada paid for such spraying?
3.	Did the spraying achieve its planned objectives, what were these objectives and, if not, what relative success can be reported and for what reason was complete success not achieved?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-PRISON INVESTIGATION

Mr. Dick: 1.	For each year 1970-73 inclusive and 1974 to date, how many enquiries, commissions, boards investigations have been authorized and set up by the Department of the Solicitor General using people from outside the departmental staff or taken from within the Department but away from their normal jobs to investigate prison escapes, prison conditions or to conduct surveys or special enquiries on behalf of the Department?
2.	How much money has been expended on each of these investigations, enquiries, commissions, boards, etc?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
28543 - 214

November 6, 1974
Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and it is with regard to the proposal made in Rome by the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning aid in the form of grain. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why it was felt sufficient for the Canadian government to make a proposal to increase our grain aid to a level that is still well below that of 1970-71 and 1971-72 although the need and the general level of starvation has greatly increased? We like to look at OPEC countries and suggest that they have created great problems by increasing the price of oil, but we must recognize that there are great problems for food importing countries by virtue of the increase in the price of grain.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to this question as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The various countries present at the world food conference were asked to make pledges. They were asked as a collectivity to pledge ten million tons of grain annually during the next three years. The government of Canada looked at this request very carefully and came to the conclusion that a proportion that would indicate Canada's willingness to help would be 10 per cent, which is about one million tons per year. Never in the past, of course, have we supplied one million tons a year every year for three years. It may be that we will be able to supply more, but we felt that was a constructive contribution to the world food conference and one we hoped other countries would follow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the decision to make the commitment for one million tons a year was based upon an estimate of the inventory surplus or some other consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained, it was based upon the request to which we were responding and as I say, if we are in a position to supply more than one million tons out of our surplus, we have not closed the door to that. We felt we should make a positive response, however. No other country in the world has made as positive a response as Canada has to meet this world problem.


Mr. Fairweather:: They have not spoken yet.


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A GRAIN BANK
Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, relating to the attitude of the government of Canada to the proposal that a grain bank be established by the food exporting countries. Are we to take it that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has committed Canada to this proposal? Has the government of Canada endorsed this idea and has it prepared concrete proposals on how such a grain bank could be established?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I would prefer to wait until my colleague returns from Rome. Negotiations are continuing and I know he has instructions to do everything that Canada can do to help meet the very serious problems now facing the world. It is probably the most serious problem the world has ever faced in this field.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you lend-lease Otto?


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-POSSIBILITY OF CURTAILING OTHER AID PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FOOD AID
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated in Rome that the government has allocated some $50 million out of our total aid spending to cure what he calls food problems in the world, may I ask if that involves any increase in the government's total aid budget? If it does, what existing aid programs is the government contemplating cutting to provide the additional food aid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this question was examined at great length in this House, in cabinet and in cabinet committee. An undertaking to supply about one million tons of grain annually, if it is in the form of food, represents an enormous increase in the funds put at the disposal of the countries of the world for food aid. We have been looking at the rest of the program to see whether this would involve us in having to cut back within the limits that we have established for our aid programs as a whole. We believe it will be possible to finance this increase in food aid within the three year period providing we can, with the support of parliament, increase the total amount of aid by perhaps 15 per cent each year.


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-POSSIBILITY OF CANADA SUPPLYING FERTILIZER AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL AIDS
Jack Burnett Murta: May I ask a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the President of the Canadian International Development Agency has been quoted as saying that Canada, because of inflation and rising prices, will not be able to provide as much aid to third world countries as was provided formerly, and as fertilizer is in short supply in underdeveloped countries, will the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs say
November 6, 1974

whether Canada is considering providing additional aid, such as fertilizer and high energy agricultural input aids, besides grain?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the first part of the question, I hope members of the House noticed that when my colleague made his statement in Rome, he said that physical amounts of food are needed, not money. That is why Canada undertook to supply one million tons of grain every year for three years, instead of so many millions of dollars. That is the most practical response we can make. We are also pledging additional money to help in supplying other products which we may not be in the position to supply physically ourselves but which may be needed.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. An Ottawa man called the office of our parliamentary leader yesterday to say he had purchased a 10-pound bag of sugar in Ottawa one morning this week for $5.49 and had returned to the store one hour later to find that the price had jumped to $6.29, with no price being posted on the sugar, and as the price had gone up by 80 cents in one hour, can the minister indicate what action he is taking to protect consumers from this type of price gouging. Can he say whether he plans to take action to overcome the excessively high price of sugar in this country?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that the price of sugar has increased so much. The government will probably announce soon its sugar policy. As for the profiteering mentioned by the hon. member, I plan to introduce a bill very soon and I hope that this time the hon. member and his party will support it.


EXPIRATION OF INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RENEGOTIATE AGREEMENT OR NEGOTIATE WITH CUBA
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the international sugar agreement expired in December, 1973, what action has the Canadian government taken in trying to renegotiate that international agreement? Can the minister also tell the House whether he is negotiating a bilateral agreement
Oral Questions
between Cuba and ourselves for a guaranteed supply of sugar for this country.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions aimed at getting the international sugar negotiations under way again. I cannot give the hon. member an up-to-date account of the status of those negotiations but I will be pleased to make inquiries and give that information to him and to the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. As we import almost no sugar from Cuba, can the minister say whether he is involved in negotiations with that country in order to supply people in this country with Cuban sugar which would be guaranteed as to price and supply.


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


AIRPORTS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport.
At midday, a fairly important delegation of expropriated people from St.-Scholastique asked the government to review their requests. They do not demand preferential treatment, but merely ask to be treated on an equal basis with the people from Pickering. May I ask if the government or the ministers concerned meet at noon-time with the representatives of that delegation, Mrs. Lafond and Mr. Raymond, and if they agreed on some sort of agreement to ensure fair treatment for the expropriated people from St.-Scholastique?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, expropriation matters in St.-Scholastique are obviously under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works. As for the number of people from St.-Scholastique whose situation has not been cleared yet, I think there are hardly a hundred left out of the original 3,000. All other cases have been settled, either through court decisions, or by mutual agreement, and I might ask my hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works if he believes people have been treated unfairly.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The Minister of Transport says his colleague should answer my question. I would therefore like to hear the answer of the Minister of Public Works.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell the hon. member is I shall be meeting that delegation next Friday.

November 6, 1974
Oral Questions


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister say whether in fact there are areas off Vancouver Island, such as inland waters, that were explicitly excluded from the test case put before the Supreme Court in 1967?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the record on so specific a question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I understand a new test case is to be put. I would like to know whether the federal government will be supporting the position of the province of British Columbia or opposing it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I gather the test case would relate to the inland waters as defined by that judgment. I think we will need to have further information on the exact relief being sought, particularly if the court has defined an area of inland waters which would be under provincial jurisdiction. It would be in our interests to work out with the province the exact demarcation of the two.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. According to an RCMP superintendent, there is ample evidence now in police hands about loansharking activities in southern Ontario, but because loansharking as such is not an offence under the Criminal Code, no charges are being brought. However, lending money at exorbitant rates is a breach of the federal Small Loans Act and is a punishable offence. What does the government intend to do in order to help smash these organized crime operations and, in particular, what is the minister going to do to remind the enforcement agencies of the requirements of bringing a prosecution under that act?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the government will
introduce in the next few days a bill to amend the Act and deal precisely with those cases mentioned by the hon. member.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice in relation to offences under the act which are now taking place. Does the minister have any information and is any suggestion going out to the enforcement agencies about offences under existing legislation?
[Mr. Drury.)


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is of course our constant policy with regard to federal statutes and offences within them to examine the manner in which they are being obeyed and to investigate whether it seems appropriate to lay charges, whether the investigations indicate that is the proper method.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Several times in past weeks I have asked the minister whether she could table in the House a copy of the contingency plans her department has in the case of a major oil spill on the west coast. Is the minister now prepared to table such a plan?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, for some time now, hon. members opposite have been pressing me to table the plans to be carried out in the event of oil spills on the west coast.
I have tried to make them understand that I do not have any specific plan but rather contingency plans suitable for all kinds of circumstances, whether they be oil spills at sea or on land, on the east or the west coast, or spills of toxic substances on land. We have a system under which all the means at our disposal are coordinated by computer and can be adapted to any circumstance. To give an example of the efficiency of this plan-because I was pretty sure that the hon. member would ask further questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; order, please.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I therefore made an inquiry about a hypothetical accident on the west coast. I got an answer and if I unrolled it, it would stretch from here to the hon. member's chair. I will use the usual means and send a messenger to hand it to him.


USE OF CANADA'S FRESH WATER SUPPLIES BY UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact no government policy has been stated in this House regarding the use of Canada's fresh water supplies by the United States, and in view of the fact that you have and are aware of-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: -a firm policy statement on the export of Canadian water prepared and in files in your office-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
November 6, 1974


Robert Lloyd Wenman: -why have you not presented this to the House? When will you do so, who is stopping you from presenting this to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In addition to reminding the hon. member that his question is argumentative, I might point out I have refrained from reminding hon. members of the fact that all questions and remarks in this chamber are traditionally put to the Chair and not directly to the person who is being questioned. I refrained from doing that at the beginning of the session in order to allow hon. members time to acquaint themselves with the procedures, but it might be well now to remind hon. members of that.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to answer my question.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly sorry, but I was busy giving the document to the messenger and I really did not hear the beginning of the question. I wonder if the hon. member would mind repeating it or rather shortening it.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In view of the fact no government policy has been stated in the House regarding the use of Canada's fresh water supplies by the United States, and in view of the fact that you have and are aware of-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: -a firm policy statement on the export of Canadian water prepared and in your files, why have you not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: -presented this to the House and when will you do so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jeanne Sauvé: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we have no policy for the export of water to the United States.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister whether the purpose of the Airport Inquiry Commission's hearings was to determine, in light of any new evidence, whether or not a second international airport was needed for the Toronto area. If this is the case, can the minister then explain why advertisements for positions at the new airport facility have appeared in various newspapers when the commission has not yet submitted its final report?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the question. It obviously refers to the airport at Pickering. Of course, I still do not have this report. I will not have it before the end of December.


Henry Perrin Beatty: As the minister missed part of my question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to repeat it. May I ask the minister whether the purpose of the Airport Inquiry Commission's hearings was to determine, in light of any new evidence, whether or not a second international airport was needed for the Toronto area. If this is the case, can the minister then explain why advertisements for positions at the new airport facility have appeared in various newspapers when the commission has not yet submitted its final report?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference of the commission have been tabled in the House. It is not up to me to interpret them. I think the hon. member can do that himself.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister decided to continue the moratorium on rail branch line abandonment? If not, has any decision been made and what is it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been made. It will have to be made very soon because we are committed to maintaining the branch lines until December 31. Therefore, we will have to make a decision very shortly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has been reported that the government will consult with the grains council on which lines will be abandoned. Has the government also agreed to hold extensive talks with the provincial governments on any rail line abandonments, and has the government agreed in principle to provide financial assistance to the provinces for highway inprovements which would be required in the event that the railways were shut down?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this decision has to be made by the Governor in Council. The Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the Wheat Board, made some formal statement on this and I think he is the one who can probably answer the hon. gentleman's question.


POSSIBLE REVIVAL OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. In

November 6, 1974
Oral Questions
view of the fact that both CN and CP are supposed to have plans to propose to the minister regarding reconciliation of rail transportation problems, I wonder whether the minister has seen those plans and read them and is able to advise the House if any recommendation was made to revive rail transportation passenger service in the province of Newfoundland.


Jean Marchand: I have not seen them yet, Mr. Speaker.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS-CONSIDERATION OF SAFEGUARDS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF POLICY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the report that Canada has placed a moratorium on a dozen proposed uranium export contracts and that discussions with South Korea on the sale of a CANDU nuclear reactor have also ground to a halt pending a nuclear safeguards policy by the government, would the minister advise the House whether a similar moratorium has been placed on the proposed sale of a CANDU reactor to Argentina?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the contract has already been executed with Argentina and it is at a different stage from the contract with Korea. However, the government of Canada and the International Atomic Energy Agency are both now in the process of negotiation with the government of Argentina respecting satisfactory safeguards. The sale to Argentina will be dependent upon the conclusion of an effective safeguards arrangement between the agency and Canada and that country.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the government finally comes to a conclusion regarding those safeguards, will this House be given an opportunity to debate their efficiency or effectiveness, and will the minister table the regulations or decisions that have been made regarding the safeguards policy for the consideration of this House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
At the end of the 1974 election campaign, it was reported that a group of Liberal ministers promised that, if reelected, the Liberal government would take steps, the day after July 8, to increase the price of industrial milk, and that

such a price hike would be adequate to cover rising production costs.
Does the Prime Minister feel the prices now received by industrial milk producers are adequate to cover all production costs and leave a reasonable profit to encourage them to keep producing milk?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: If I am not
mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the question calls for an opinion statement. The government, of course, feels it is doing the right thing; as regards that part of the question that may seek information from the government, I am taking note of it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I did not criticize what has been done, I merely asked if it was possible to do more. My supplementary is this; in order to prevent industrial milk producers from finding themselves in the same critical condition now faced by beef producers, can the Prime Minister give assurance to this House that measures guaranteeing this group of producers a fair and decent return will be introduced very soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What action does his department take in periods such as this, when the price paid to producers for C grade beef is considerably lower than that paid for A grade beef, to see that this differential is passed on to the consumers and that C grade beef is not being sold at A grade prices?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department and members of the board chaired by Mrs. Plumptre are presently studying the issue. I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question which enabled me to do some checking. I can assure him that the Food Prices Review Board is to present a report on that other quality of beef meat within the next few weeks.
November 6, 1974


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It would appear that the conclusions of a recent study by Professor C. L. Dudley of the University of Ottawa's department of geography and regional planning indicate that the regional development incentives of the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion have been ineffectual in inducing manufacturers to establish new plants in the nation's economically depressed areas. The study goes on to say that while increased business activity may have been stimulated and new jobs created, in many cases this growth is marginal and tends to serve those industries already located within the depressed regions.
Will the minister please explain to the House why so few attempts have been made to relocate new industries, which would far better serve to stimulate the over-all growth and development of these depressed regions than by further subsidizing traditional industry groups?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to the last half of the question first, obviously the main reason we have not sought to relocate industry is that hon. members on both sides of the House would be properly opposed to such a policy of moving industry from one location to another. As for the findings of the study, I have not seen them in detail, but may I say that, by and large, regarding our not being able to persuade certain kinds of industry to locate in slow growth areas I can make the same comment that I have made several times previously, namely that this is one of the problems with the program that we are seeking to try to correct.


INDUSTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In response to questions previously put to him regarding the depressed state of the lumber industry in Canada, the minister replied that his department is studying the situation and will be making recommendations. Is the minister prepared today to inform the House what action his department is planning to alleviate some of these very serious problems?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have been examining this question in some considerable depth but our study is not yet completed. I do not expect to have any announcement this week, but as soon as a decision has been taken I will announce it in the House, which is the appropriate place.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


EFFECT OF POSSIBLE DEFICIT OF AIR CANADA ON DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL AND THIRD LEVEL CARRIERS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Knowing that the Minister of Transport is keeping the financial affairs of Air Canada under his keen scrutiny, I should like to ask him whether in his opinion the anticipated deficit of Air Canada will have any adverse effects on the orderly development of regional air and third level air carriers?


Jean Marchand: My answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have been in some difficulty two or three times this afternoon with questions that are really seeking either a very general expression of opinion or a general expression of government policy. I have tried not to interfere with those questions and have let them be posed, but I have moved away from allowing a supplementary question. If this kind of question is going to be put, then I think it is fair that hon. members ought not to expect to ask a supplementary. When a question of a general nature is asked, hon. members will have to expect a general reply. In this case perhaps the hon. member would be more specific.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of abusing the privileges of the House, but perhaps I did not put the question as well as I should have. I was really rising on a point of order as I did not catch the minister's reply. I did not hear what he said.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say anything.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I said very plainly that I did not think so.


IMMIGRATION
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister for Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister tell the House, to clarify the situation, if it is true that following some pressing representations made by his colleagues in caucus this morning-


An hon. Member:: What do you know about that?


Claude Wagner: -is it true he is going to change his inflexible attitude concerning the future of Haitian refugees?

November 6, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker.


AIR CANADA
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the vice-president of Air Canada said in Winnipeg that Air Canada did not propose to build the base in Winnipeg until 1979. In light of the Prime Minister's statement in Winnipeg during the election campaign, I wonder whether that date meets with his approval?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement but I imagine it is true in so far as it represents Air Canada's intentions until the time the government asks it to accelerate the date.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister give the people of Winnipeg any indication as to when that base will be completed and operating?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to answer this a few days ago and the Minister of Transport also replied to the question previously.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the detention of two Polish families who attempted to cross from Canada to the United States at Niagara Falls last week, were refused entry thereto, returned to Canada and detained for first having entered this country illegally after escaping from Poland by means of forged papers or other identity cards. Will the minister and his officials take all necessary steps to determine as soon as possible whether these two families might be granted refugee status and, secondly, will he have his officials investigate the means by which, and the sources from whom such fraudulent papers may have been obtained so that those who would unscrupulously profit from such activities may be apprehended, and in order that people who would sincerely wish to immigrate to this country might not jeopardize their rights or privileges to make proper legal application?


Robert Knight Andras: 
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of National Defence I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the talk of cutbacks and/or cutouts in the Department of National Defence, will the minister please inform the House whether he or his staff have had any discussions with the municipal authorities, the chamber of commerce and the labour council in the Moncton area with regard to the economic impact of possible closure or the reduction of Canadian Forces Base Moncton, resulting in layoffs and general economic effects on the community and the Moncton region generally?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question directly. I am not aware of any discussions but I will check this out and get some information for the hon. member.


IMMIGRATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the indication in the minister's short statement on immigration that he would encourage Francophone immigration, and in view of his own expression about Haitians, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has mounted any special program to recruit immigrants form Haiti, who of course are Francophones, and, if so, can he state in a general way what that program is?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think to illustrate that, in spite of the difficulties that face Haitians who are coming to Canada on an illegal basis, I should put on record that for the first six months of the current year we have accepted 1,790 regular immigrants from Haiti; for the same period only 1,398 from France, and it is possible that the total for the year 1974 of legitimate immigrants into this country from Haiti will run to 3,500 as compared with 2,178 for 1973 and 836 for 1972. I think that is an indication of our willingness to process and deal favourably with
November 6, 1974

applications that are made in a legitimate manner and in accordance with the rules, regulations and laws of this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking the minister about his willingness to accept immigrants from Haiti, I asked him whether he has mounted any special recruitment program consistent with his policy of recruiting Francophone immigrants generally?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, an office was opened at Port-au-Prince a year and a half ago, which I think is an indication of our long-standing desire, and it is my hope that we can find ways and means to improve recruitment of Francophone immigrants to Canada, hopefully to Quebec.


ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and perhaps one short supplementary to the secretary of the Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To my knowledge there is no secretary to the Privy Council present in the House.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I intended that my question be directed to the President of the Privy Council. Thank you very kindly. I had no intention of demoting the minister.
In view of the fact it has been some ten days since it was drawn to the attention of this House that there has been a flagrant abuse of the Election Expenses Act, I believe an immoral exploitation of a loophole, such that provincial political party associations are going to reap benefits which were not intended, does the President of the Privy Council have any intention of introducing amendments to close up this loophole and stop the exploitation of the federal Election Expenses Act by the NDP or other political parties?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been reviewing the operations of the Election Expenses Act and I think it will be necessary to bring revisions before the House. The hon. member may be aware that one member on the Liberal side, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, already has a private bill on the order paper for that purpose.	V


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for one short supplementary.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, is the introduction of this bill being delayed as a government bill because of the fact that on October 28, 1974, on Liberal party of Ontario stationery over the signature of the president Jeffrey King, individuals were being asked to donate to the provincial party in the same manner-


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


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I do hope, however, that hon. members on the other side of the House will co-operate in dealing with measures to clear the order paper so I can deal with this matter.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the drastic drop in cattle prices and the demand for feeder cattle in eastern Canada, can the Minister of Transport assure the House and the country that he and his department will make every effort to encourage both railways to make all possible livestock cars available in western Canada? We have the cattle and we want to move them but there is a shortage of cars right now. Will the minister's department assure the House and the country that they will make every effort to get these stock cars into western Canada to move the cattle?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I will make every effort that can be made in these circumstances.


HOUSING
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Could the minister tell the House if an agreement has been entered into with the government of the province of Quebec under the National Housing Act providing for the construction or the purchasing of housing facilities for rural and native families?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we have signed agreements with the province of Quebec. I would have to check the precise details in relation to the question, but it covers the broad range of housing available in other provinces and this is a great step forward for the province of Quebec and for Canada.


INQUIRY AS TO REINTRODUCTION OF BILL C-134 PROVIDING LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
During the last Parliament, the Minister of State responsible for Urban Affairs introduced Bill C-134 providing for the continuation of the National Housing Act

November 6, 1974
Oral Questions
concerning loans to municipalities; does the minister intend to re-introduce that legislation in the course of this session?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; this bill will be re-introduced.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question, through you, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the action taken under the Combines Investigation Act which resulted in General Mills Canada Limited being fined for misleading advertising of pewter beer mugs which were in fact made of aluminum, an offer described by the Justice Department's prosecutor as untrue, misleading and deceptive, will the minister now initiate an action against the Secretary of State, his seatmate, for misleading advertising contained in a letter offering Canadian flags to all Members of Parliament. This letter states that the small flag is on a "gold plated desk set mounting" when in fact it is only gold-coloured plastic.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should think that the hon. member can refuse such an offer if he so wishes.


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services of which I have given him notice with regard to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. In view of the fact that of the orders placed by this company with Canadian companies six out of ten provinces received less than 5 per cent of the business of this company and eight out of ten of the provinces received less than 15 per cent of the business of this company, can the minister advise the House whether any action is being taken by the government to bring this corporation in line with announced government policy to promote government business across Canada.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of my hon. friend. As a matter of fact the activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation should be put in the perspective of the total purchasing power of my department. Having that in mind, we acquired last year in British Columbia four per cent of our total needs in goods and services. This is not enough. This is the reason why next week I am going to Vancouver to open a new regional office in order to do

more business in British Columbia and in western Canada generally.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. I was not as concerned about British Columbia as the maritime provinces which are receiving a lot less than their share of the action. Is the government taking any action to make sure this business is spread equally across Canada and especially in the maritimes which are not as rich as the rest of Canada.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, of course in our purchasing activities we must bear in mind the total industrial output. My department cannot create industries in different regions. This is why we must maximize our purchasing power by regions having in mind their total industrial output.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
[DOT] * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great importance of the subject matter I wonder if Your Honour would inquire of the House whether it would give consent to revert to motions so that the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs might table a very important statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Rome so all members would be in possession of the facts which would supplement the unusually very terse and abbreviated nature of the answers by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I have the permission of the House I would be very happy to table a copy. I have only one copy and I understand the rules require that two copies be tabled, one in French. I have only one copy in the English language but I shall undertake to have both copies laid on the table. I present one copy now in English.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, why do we not make it an appendix to Hansard.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has just been brought to my attention, as parliamentary leader of the Social Credit Party in the House, that you made the following reply to the Leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), as reported in the Hansard of November 4, and I quote:
The hon. member for Temiscamingue will note, I am sure, that there are exactly five creditist members in the House at this time. I intend to
November 6, 1974

recognize a second creditist member during the question period. This, to my mind, is a fair proportion under the circumstances.
I have perused our Standing Orders, as well as Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th Edition, to ascertain what the Speaker's powers are as to the counting of hon. members. The only reference I have found is the case of an hon. member inquiring whether there is quorum. Mr. Speaker, considering that you took the liberty to count the members of our party who were present in the House at the time to justify the number of questions allowed, I feel it is within my rights and privileges, as parliamentary leader, to explain why there were only five of us present in the House. Four hon. members were representing fellow citizens involved in arbitration awards of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, while the other two were attending a committee meeting. Mr. Speaker, I feel that our 11 members carry their share of the load as well as any other party and that this practice of counting hon. members should cease forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that it was not the Chair that raised the subject. The hon. member for Temiscamingue raised the question of whether or not one of his colleagues ought to be recognized during the question period. My reply was simply to indicate I was trying to maintain a proportion between the various parties in this House. There were at the moment five members of his party to whom he referred present in the House. I indicated I had the intention of recognizing a second member during the question period, which I did, and that two out of five for Ralliement des Creditistes in proportion to the attendance of other parties in the House was absolutely just in the circumstances bearing in mind-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -that two members of the Ralliement des Creditistes out of five members represents 40 per cent. If the Chair were to recognize 40 per cent of the New Democratic Party and 40 per cent of the Conservative Party at the same time, there would not be enough time, to say nothing of government members seeking to be recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I say only that my reference to the number of members of Ralliement des Creditistes present in the House was not my idea but was raised by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Further to that question of privilege, I can understand that you could say then that there were only five of us in the House. When the Chair allowed us three questions, for instance, during the question period, we never complained; the Chair did so willingly. But the other day, being told that there were only five of us was insulting. The number of members in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I am very serious in pointing it out to you, is our business. I doubt that the Chair counts the number of hon. members
Point of Order-Mr. Joe Clark
present each day before deciding how many questions will be allowed the Conservatives or the New Democrats.
Last Monday, the NDP had six members in the House and we had five. To my knowledge, in 16 years, the Chair has never said to the House: There are so many members in the House; you are therefore entitled to this or that many questions. The Chair has made its little point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might point out to the hon. member that I was perfectly aware on the day in question of the fact that there were exactly six members of the NDP in the House, that is the difference between the two parties at the moment, and the leader of the NDP did not ask me why they were not recognized. I have heard questions from their members. I recognized exactly two from their party and two from the Ralliement des Creditistes, which I felt was more than just in the circumstances in relation to all hon. members present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) is rising on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: I simply wish to let you know that twice you have called us the Ralliement des Creditistes. This is not our name at all. We are the Parti Credit social du Canada, The Social Credit Party of Canada.
So I respectfully request that you call us by our name from now on.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to an answer which I have just received to a question on the order paper which will be recorded in Hansard which, I believe, certainly inadvertently misleads the House. My question had been to seek the names and positions of those people who had served in the political offices of ministers of the Crown since 1963 who are now in the public service or the agencies. The answer in the reply of the President of the Privy Council indicated:
A reply to this question would require the review of personal files of every individual in the Public Service of Canada.
I submit that that is not correct. An alternative method to proceed would have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seriously question whether the hon. member has a legitimate point of order. He has received a reply. Whether or not he questions the quality of that reply is not a point of order in this Chamber.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised the point as to whether or not the statement tabled by the President of the Privy

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
Council should be appended to today's Hansard. I took it that since there was no objection to that, it was agreed that that would be done.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of statement referred to, see Appendix "A".]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That this House calls on the Minister ol Veterans Affairs to review the terminal date of March 31, 1975, now specified in the Veterans' Land Act, and to report thereon to the House within the time limit set out in chapter 3 of the Statutes of 1974.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the solemn ceremonies of November 11 I rise with pleasure and pride to participate in this debate on the Veterans' Land Act on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and so ably supported by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). But I do so with certain misgivings because of the broken commitments by this government, especially with regard to veterans and the armed forces. It was for that reason that I indicated last evening, before calling it ten o'clock, that I could not share the confidence of my friend, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), who preceded me in the debate.
I suggest that in a manner of speaking this whole debate is a comment, and not a very favourable one, on the government's credibility and reliability. A year ago we started out with unanimity. That unanimity has been wearing away, and now we find the government backing off. In veterans affairs, as in so many other areas, the government seems determined to run roughshod over the demands of this House. It lacks respect for this House.
Only yesterday we observed an example of the roughshod manner in which the government treats this House. As a relatively new member of the House I was literally appalled at seeing the government House leader, and then another prominent member of the government, rise to question a ruling of Mr. Speaker. I had been led to believe that that was just not done. However, we observed it yesterday; we saw once again the manner in which the government is prepared to ride over the rules of the House, and is trying to run the House for its own convenience.
What do we observe today in relation to this debate? We see the unanimous consent of the House of a year ago being reneged. A year ago almost to the day, on November 9 to be exact, as we were reminded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, this House agreed unanimously to

a motion under Standing Order 43 to have the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) re-examine the Veterans' Land Act with a view to extending the deadline for applications for benefits under the act. This was a unanimous agreement, let me emphasize.
What do we hear now? We hear vague hints and suggestions and what I would like to describe as weasel-word promises, and a gradual withdrawal by the government from a position it held as a minority government in a delicately balanced House. It is withdrawing from that position because it now has a majority. Could we suggest that member's of the government agreed a year ago to this study simply to build up their credibility in an election that they knew would have to come soon? Now that they are in a majority position, we hear a different song. I suggest that this is characteristic of this government led by this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
We saw it yesterday, and we heard it today also. Yesterday we heard the minister back away from his position. My comments are not directed toward the minister in person-I want to make that clear. I have great respect for him and his personal devotion to the veterans. But he is not supported by his government led by this Prime Minister. I feel that the minister has been compelled to back down by the failure of his colleagues to give him the support he needs in cabinet. I think that this is reprehensible. They have ganged up on him. Withdrawing from earlier commitments is all too characteristic of the government.
We have heard the promises made during the election campaign, promises that are now being repudiated, promises of public funds spent to the tune of about half a billion dollars which are now being repudiated. We have heard the promises of the government, and we know they are not to be relied on, Mr. Speaker. It promised us a new and better bill to help veterans. This is now being hinted at across the House, and we are being asked to accept that promise.
As an example of the broken promises offered by this government let me draw your attention to the conditions in the veterans' hospital in Victoria where many of my constituents go for treatment. This is the hospital where they used to get the treatment they deserved, but where now they are treated with something just bordering on contempt. They are a nuisance in that hospital now, whereas once they commanded respect. Under this government the veterans' hospital in Victoria was handed over to the province a month ago, with catastrophic and disastrous results. I should like to put some detail on the record which reached me on Monday of this week as the result of experiences at the hospital over the past weekend.
The staff, which had been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs, was given the option of alternative employment or early retirement. Those who decided to stay on have been offered alternative employment. In fact this means that former administrators are being asked to perform tasks which, compared to their former employment, can only be considered demeaning. Instead of helping in the administration of that hospital they are now being asked to carry messages from building
November 6, 1974

to building, in the hope that their self-respect will wither and they will take early retirement. This is not the sort of treatment they thought they were going to get when the hospital was handed over to the province.
There are only two doctors left in the hospital. Once there were six. My friend who spoke to me about these matters on the telephone the day before yesterday was obliged to call on a chest specialist to examine him because the chest specialist who had been at the hospital was no longer in attendance. The doctors who were in attendance were so occupied they could not offer him the treatment he required. Where, I ask you, but in a veterans' hospital, with the history of how they became veterans and the circumstances of why they went there known to the staff, is it more likely that a chest specialist should be in attendance? Is this living up to a commitment?
The laboratories have been moved, and even wheel chair cases are obliged to go from one building to another for laboratory tests. Is this living up to a commitment? Electrocardiogram equipment has been removed from the veterans' hospital and patients who require this, although they are not expected to run, have to go to the other hospital to get electrocardiogram readings. I submit this is reneging on a commitment.
The chronically ill, those known as 29ers, are no longer able to eat in the dining room in the veterans' hospital. Even those in wheelchairs have been told to go to a much smaller accommodation known as the board room.
These are simple evidences from one person, Mr. Speaker, and I know I can get others. As far as I am concerned, they are evidences of the government's attitude toward those who saw their duty in wars in which Canada was involved. I find it disgraceful. These men are being repudiated by the leaders of the government just as the government is now reneging on the commitment of earlier governments to veterans under the VLA. As it is reneging on the commitment it gave to the veterans just a year ago by its association in the unanimous consent accorded on that occasion to a motion, so now it is reneging on the whole operation and hinting at other better legislation.
Some of those opposite who have spoken in this debate, such as the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn), may be inclined to believe the promises the government makes from time to time, and particularly the promise of new and better legislation for veterans. I am not so gullible, Mr. Speaker. I have learned my lesson. I have been hearing promises since May and June of what the government is going to provide, and for many months before that. We have all seen so many of those promises repudiated.
We were warned by the "Chief Manitou" of promises himself, right at the outset of the campaign, that there were going to be promises made and we had better beware of them. He began to make a great many promises involving a lot of public money, and of course they have since been repudiated. Not too many of those promises fell on stony ground, however, and now that he has his majority position he feels quite free, indeed entitled, I suggest, to forget them.
Let us not get roped in by the vague and uncertain promises we hear from the other side of this House about new and better things for veterans. We cannot believe it
Veterans Affairs
until we see it. This reneging process could have attained epidemic proportions so let us watch out, let us beware.
What new legislation is being hinted at, Mr. Speaker? Let us see it. If it comes from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) as has been suggested, let him bring it on. We cannot believe it until we see it. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House and myself fall into a class of unbelievers as far as the government is concerned because we can no longer accept its promises.
The VLA we now have must not be rejected or allowed to die on the statute books until something as satisfactory has been brought forward to replace it. We all know the story of the bird in the hand, so let us not go beating about in the bush looking for the bird that just may not be there.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate because I happen to be a veteran, having served in the Royal Canadian Air Force and also the Canadian Army. I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whose motion we are debating. I appreciate the remarks and their sentiments, but on the other hand I must say that I too have been interested and concerned about veterans for many, many years. As a matter of fact, on Remembrance Day this year I shall be taking the salute as usual before at least one of the legions, of which there are five, in my riding.
At the end of world war II, Mr. Speaker, I was able to take advantage of the educational credits offered, and my brother took' advantage of the Veterans' Land Act. Both of these were commendable ways in which the government showed interest in veterans, and we were helped a great deal. Just a year ago I was honoured by my legion, Branch 217, with a 25 year pin, and this certainly indicates that I have every concern and interest in veterans.
At this time in the debate, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that virtually everything has been said, and said several times. I believe we should take a look at the Veterans' Land Act, however, its provisions and history.
The Veterans' Land Act was enacted as one of three postwar rehabilitation programs and was designed to assist veterans of world war II and of the special force in Korea to settle in Canada as full time farmers, part time farmers and commercial fishermen. Assistance was also available to veterans who wished to act as their own contractors in construction of their own homes.
The act consists of three parts. Under Part I financial assistance, including both grants and loans, may be provided to veterans who held a Veterans' Land Act certificate of qualification on October 31, 1968, and who desire to settle on the land as full time farmers, part time farmers coupled with other employment, commercial fishermen, settlers on provincial or dominion lands, or Indian settlers on Indian reservations.
Part II of the act provides that any veteran who is approved for a loan under the National Housing Act may receive financial and other assistance to build his own home on any lot acceptable for a single family dwelling.

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
The amount that may be advanced is $18,000, or the amount of the approved NHA loan, whichever is the lesser.
Part III makes additional, fully repayable loans available to full-time farmers, part-time farmers and commercial fishermen both at the time they are established under Part I of the act and for so long as they have a subsisting contract with the director. The act requires that all veterans who wish to obtain financial assistance under the farming, small holding or commercial fishing provisions of the act must have had a valid qualification certificate by October 31, 1968. I understand that there remain some 100,000 veterans who indicated a possible interest in the Veterans' Land Act by obtaining a qualification certificate on or before that date, but who have not yet applied for financial assistance. The deadline for them to do so is March 31, 1975.
Veterans who have a subsisting contract with the director, and who wish additional financial assistance up to the limits of the act, may submit loan applications up to March 31, 1977.
The Veterans' Land Act regulations require that a small holding contain a minimum of one-half acre. However, when a parcel of land does not contain this minimum and no other land is readily available to make up one-half acre, this requirement may be reduced by 20 per cent. Commercial fishing establishments, and veterans whose disabilities are assessed by medical officers of the Canadian Pension Commission at 50 per cent or more, irrespective of whether the disability was service associated or not, may be exempted from this minimum acreage requirement.
Veterans wishing loans for full-time farming must have had at least two years' practical experience in the type of farming in which they wish to be established before a loan may be approved under the act. Farm loans may be approved under the categories of commercial family farms or small family farms.
Loans for commercial family farms are generally limited to farmers whose full-time occupation is farming. Financial assistance may be approved up to the lesser of $40,000 or 75 per cent of the security value of the land, basic herd livestock and farm equipment.


Mr. Benjamin:: We all have the stuff the hon. member is reading.


William Kenneth Robinson: Of the total amount which may be advanced, $6,000 is available under Part I and bears interest at 3.5 per cent per annum. The remainder may be lent under Part III at the rate of interest applicable under the Farm Credit Act, which I understand is 9.25 per cent at present.
The down payment under Part I is 10 per cent of the amount requested for the purchase of land and buildings and to effect permanent improvements. As the maximum assistance on commercial family farms under Parts I and III may not exceed 75 per cent of the value of the security held, or to be held by the director, a veteran seeking a loan under Part III must have an equity of at least 25 per cent in the land and chattels offered as security for the assistance requested, or pay in cash an amount to raise his equity in the security to the required percentage.

Small family farms are units that do not produce a large enough farm net income to be classed as commercial farm units. In most cases such small farmers obtain some additional income, on top of their income from agriculture. Financial assistance of up to $18,000 or 75 per cent of the market value of the land, whichever is the lesser, may be approved. Interest rates are similar to those for commercial farmers; that is, 3.5 per cent is charged on the first $6,000, and the Farm Credit Act rate of 9.25 per cent applies to the balance, as I previously said. In addition to the down payment of 10 per cent, full-time farmers are required to repay two-thirds of the amount expended under Part I for all purposes except chattels over a period not in excess of 30 years, with interest at 3.5 per cent.
The remainder of the assistance under Part I, plus any amount used for the purchase of chattels not exceeding $1,200, is a conditional grant and need not be repaid if the veteran fulfills the terms of the contract for a period of 10 years. In the aggregate a veteran may obtain a conditional grant of up to $2,320.
A feature of farm lending peculiar to VLA is the open end mortgage concept; that is, as the principal indebtedness is reduced, additional loans may be approved provided the indebtedness at any one time does not exceed the statutory ceilings.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has not told us anything thus far which cannot be obtained if one writes to the minister. The veterans of this country are interested in what is to happen to those particular pieces of legislation. I think the hon. member is wasting the time of the House by reading this material into the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I doubt whether the hon. member has raised a valid point of order. He may have a difference of opinion, or a grievance about the way in which the hon. member is presenting his case. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson) has the floor and he may continue.


William Kenneth Robinson: Small holders and commercial fishermen may also obtain part I assistance of the same basis and terms as described for full-time farmers. In addition, up to $10,000 may be lent to them under Part III, provided the individual veteran contributes in cash or equity one dollar for each five dollars borrowed, thus making available for disbursement a maximum of $12,000 under Part III and an aggregate total under both parts of $18,000.
The conditional grant available to farmers is also available to small holders and commercial fishermen up to a maximum of $2,320, depending upon the acreage of cultivable land. However, small holders generally use the full amount of assistance available under Parts I and III for house construction or to purchase land, and for permanent improvements and their grant is, therefore, normally $1,400. The remaining indebtedness is repayable over a maximum period of 30 years, with the Part I indebtedness repayable at 3.5 per cent and the Part III indebtedness at the rate applicable to loans under the Farm Cerdit Act at 9.25 per cent.
Qualified veterans seeking establishment on federal or provincial land as farmers, commercial fishermen or small

holders, may obtain a grant of up to $2,320 for the purchase of improvements, for essential building materials, for clearing and breaking, and for livestock and equipment. No down payment is required, and the $2,320 is not repayable if the veteran fulfills the terms of his settlement agreement for a 10-year period. Similar assistance is available to Indians on Indian reservations.
Since inception, 140,000 veterans have been approved for assistance under the Veterans' Land Act, more than 13 per cent of the enlistments for world war II and Korea. For the fiscal year 1973-74, over 8,000 loans were approved of which 2,500 were additional loans to veterans already settled under the act. Since inception of VLA operations, in excess of $1,200 million has been disbursed under all sections of the act. The outstanding principal investment is $545 million. Currently there are approximately 9,000 farm accounts and 51,000 small holding and commercial fishing accounts. At the end of September, 1974, the total VLA staff consisted of 480 employees, compared to 1,818 in 1947. As one can see, this represents a considerable reduction in staff, in line with the reduction in the number of claims. ^
Since 1942 when the act was created there have been a substantial number of amendments. The original ceiling of $4,800 was progressively increased to $40,000 for full-time farmers and to $18,000 for small farmers, commercial fishermen and small holders. The repayment period has been extended from 25 to 30 years. Aside from the increased ceilings perhaps the most significant changes have related to the purpose for which expenditures may be made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister wants to cancel these provisions.


William Kenneth Robinson: Initially, expenditures were limited to the purchase of land and improvements and to the purchase of a limited amount of livestock and farm equipment. It is now possible to utilize loans for almost any worth while purpose relating to the improvement of the security in land permanent improvements, for livestock and equipment, and to pay off various farm operations or property debts.
There were no terminal dates in the act prior to 1959. In that year, by means of Bill C-50, a section was introduced into the act which established a time limit for a veteran who wished to be settled under Part I to obtain a certificate of qualification. The time set was 15 years after September 30, 1947, or 15 years after a veteran's discharge, whichever date was the later. By Bill C-80 in 1962 this date was extended to October 31, 1968, which corresponded with the final date for the use of re-establishment credits.
For the purpose of phasing out VLA lending operations in an orderly manner, Bill C-128 was approved by parliament in 1965. It established terminal dates for submitting loan applications and for the commencement of work related to construction or effecting other permanent improvements. The terminal date for new establishment loan applications was the March 31, 1974, but this deadline, pursuant to the provisions of Bill C-17 approved by parliament last spring, has been extended to March 31, 1975. A veteran with a subsisting contract may apply for an addi-
Veterans Affairs
tional loan up to March 31, 1977. Construction or improvement work must commence within one year of these dates.
The foregoing is a concise history of the act and its provisions. It is now time it was terminated. If new measures are necessary, they can be brought forward, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with the minister when he said, and I quote:
An urban housing program for veterans who have reached or are approaching retirement from post-war careers is inconsistent with an agriculturally-oriented rehabilitation program which was designed to assist veterans following their discharge from wartime active service.
I also agree with him when he said, and I quote:
Many low or modest-income veterans have needs in respect to housing. It is realized that many do-and that their requirements or preferences are varied in nature. It is in recognition of that awareness, and of the greater relevancy of the provisions of the National Housing Act to those needs, that a study has been undertaken to examine whether special arrangements should be made to assist such veterans.
In conclusions may I say that I have every concern and interest in veterans and their affairs. I have had close contact with them for over 25 years. However, I do believe the Veterans' Land Act should be wound up without any further extension. I must therefore vote against the motion because the Veterans' Land Act has really outlived its original basic usefulness.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not often speak on matters affecting veterans, although it goes back a long way to when I first became a veteran. And 1916, in the month of March or April, is a year and a day of long ago. Through the years I belonged to the Canadian Legion, first in the Great War Veterans' Association from September, 1917, through to 1924 when the Canadian Legion had its beginnings.
When I was Prime Minister I recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that the Canadian Legion, by reason of its service, should be entitled to have the addition of the royal honour of Royal. It was pointed out to me that no other national Legion, whether in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or elsewhere had that right. I could only conclude that the Prime Ministers of those several countries had not asked her for her approval. As a result of the representation made, the Canadian Legion became the Royal Canadian Legion.
When I listen to these young members speak, I begin to realize that I am indeed casting my longest shadow toward the east. I have listened to a number of the speeches and read all of them. I would now endeavour to bring this House back to the question that we face.
I recall the days of world war II and the tremendous galaxy of greatness sitting on the treasury benches. All of them today have gone beyond, excepting one. I think of Colonel J. L. Ralston, Angus L. Macdonald, Chubby Power and Clarey Gillis of the CCF. There are other members I could mention in the Social Credit. The only one now living of that group who sat on the front benches of those days is the Hon. Joseph Thorson.
In 1944 it was decided that this House should consider a veterans charter. In those and in later days when debates took place on matters concerned with veterans, ministers were in the House. Today the numbers that are present

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
consist of two ministers. That is of some interest, I am sure.
The veterans charter was something on which we all worked. I have not looked up Hansard, since, but I recall the hours and days that we spent. Many of those were veterans of the first great war, for few of the second great war had yet returned.
In the last days of that legislation the three Ministers of Defence mentioned the contribution made by Her Majesty's loyal opposition and of various amendments, and I say this in all modesty, that they were advanced by myself.
Why this haste to get rid of this legislation? What is the reason? It certainly cannot be in the heart of the gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). Indeed, as he listens to the debates, he makes very clear the fact that he is doing a job he does not want to do because he invariably keeps his eyes down on the documents before him.


Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan):: Come on, John. I am busy.


John George Diefenbaker: It is true. I have watched the minister with interest. I have great admiration for his tremendous service in the days of war. He has a job to do.
Why do these members of the government want to get rid of this legislation? They talk of politics. Somebody mentioned there should be no politics in connection with veterans affairs, and that is right. Those sitting opposite should be their own physicians in that regard.
Before the election the government postponed action, along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Their plea was accepted, and action was put off until after the election. There were no politics, of course, activating any member of the government in postponing this legislation; they were filled with a desire to help the veteran. I heard about it in my own constituency. People said: "Isn't it wonderful how the government listened to the arguments of the opposition and has postponed action on terminating the Veterans' Land Act?"
Now the election is over, a majority has been attained, and this motion is being talked out. It is being talked down and opposed by the very members who were giving it their utmost support during the period between 1972 and 1974. What is the haste here? As pointed out by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), the government has promised that sooner or later, at some time, other legislation will be introduced. I say the government should postpone consideration of this motion and bring in that legislation now. I ask the government whether it has that legislation ready, or is it in cold storage? Have the bills been drawn? I wait for an answer, but the minister is silent. The answer is no.
I ask the government not to play politics with this matter. Do not endeavour to deceive the veterans of Canada into thinking that somewhere, some place, some time, the government is going to introduce something that will be even more beneficial to them than VLA. I say, produce it now and let it be seen.

Is it for economic reasons that this legislation is being ended? Again there is a deep silence from the government benches. The government is going to save money from this. Is that the purpose? The government profligately spends the people's money, yet to save a few dollars it is going to take money from the veterans, many of whom are today beginning to realize that they ought to have taken advantage of the Veterans' Land Act. Surely the government will reconsider its decision.
A few days hence we will stand on Parliament Hill and do honour to those who gave their all. A few days in advance of this day of national remembrance and dedication we have before parliament a motion asking for a review of the terminal date of the Veterans' Land Act. But the government sits silent, in expectation of something about to be achieved.
I do not want to go into a lot of detail, but I make an appeal on behalf of those who are asking that this legislation be not set aside until the government has has an opportunity of deciding whether the legislation should be repealed. We talk of justice being done to our veterans, and much has been done in this regard. But just as important as that justice be done is that justice appear to be done.
In this case all I can say is that, as one who has a badge which I treasure above all others-a 50 year active membership badge in the Royal Canadian Legion-I appeal to the government to reconsider. Think for a moment what its action means. I ask it to adjourn this debate until the new legislation is brought in. Do not ask this House to vote for something evanescent, for something promised by a government which, with the greatest respect, has not been noted up until the present time for carrying out its promises, its responsibilities and its undertakings.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to participate in this debate following the profound remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I do not expect to emulate his oratorical skill, but I do want to assure hon. members that I am as sincere in what I say as he and others members on this side are regarding this motion.
It is unnecessary for me to detail the events that led up to this debate; that has been done by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), whose strategy and procedural work in bringing this debate before the House today are recognized by members on all sides of the House. Indeed, we are deeply indebted to them for this opportunity to draw the attention of the minister once again to our absolute opposition to the abandonment of the Veterans' Land Act. Through the procedural work of these members we have obtained at least a one-year delay.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the signatures which were required to move this motion all come from members on this side of the House, and this despite the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre endeavoured to interest members of the Veterans Affairs Committee who sit on the other side of the House in affixing their names in order that the matter might
November 6, 1974

receive full and frank discussion. But this has not been the case and I think it illustrates some partisanship of one kind or another.
Government members of parliament and also the minister hint at some new plan which might supersede the legislation being phased out, Mr. Speaker. But it is only a hint. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out, the minister is strangely silent when this subject is brought forward. There have been some innuendos on his part and on the part of others, but we have had nothing of a concrete nature.
The first part of the motion asks the minister to review the terminal date of the VLA and to report back to the House in 15 days. We still hope that within that 15 days he will come to his senses and heed what has been said in this debate. If he does, he will wipe out the deadline of March 31, 1975, and while he is at it he will repeal section 3 of the Veterans' Land Act which sets up the October 31, 1968, deadline for qualification.
I am going to repeat what others have said, but being repetitive seems to be the only way that we will get the government to appreciate our strong feelings in this matter. I think repetition also serves to emphasize the validity of our arguments. I think we also want to assist the minister in convincing his colleagues in cabinet and those others who sit on the government side that this is a fit and proper course for him to take.
Attention has been drawn by other hon. members to the fact that we are debating this matter on the eve of Remembrance Day. We have just passed through committee, preparatory to third reading in the House, a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to give generous increases to veterans. That, I suggest, is a symbolic wreath which we may lay on the cenotaphs of remembrance across this land. But just as surely as that is a symbolic tribute to those who died-and war veterans allowance is a tribute to those who are still living-it must also be a black mark on the Department of Veterans Affairs and on the government if they permit the Veterans' Land Act to go by the boards.
I plead with the minister to reconsider the suggestion to refurbish and update the VLA which has meant so much to so many people and, if he will not, I would urge him to introduce a suitable housing program. If he stood in his place now and indicated that he was about to make this announcement, I would sit down, and I am sure that all hon. members would be silent and await with interest what the minister had to say.
No one can deny the benefits of the VLA which has been in effect for approximately 30 years. We listened to a long discourse in this regard by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). Many full time farmers have been established on the land, and a great number of others have benefited.
I personally have benefited under this legislation so I can speak from experience about the great work that has been done for veterans in this area. These benefits have been provided to full-time farmers as well as to fishermen, those with small holdings and so on. I do not think I need detail that.
Veterans Affairs
At this point I should pay tribute to the efficiency of members of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and particularly those who have worked under the Veterans' Land Act. I pay tribute to them all for the way in which the act has been administered. I would pay tribute as well to the past and present directors, and to those field men who were of such great assistance to the veterans over the years.
Let me follow somewhat along the line taken by the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert in trying to analyse the thinking of a government which would contemplate doing what it intends to do in phasing out the Veterans' Land Act. Obviously the minister has been advised in this regard by the officials of his own department. I am sure their opinions are based on statistics only. The point was well made yesterday by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) that more important than statistics are individual persons whose livelihoods will be affected and whose very opportunity for advancement will be curtailed if we neglect the human factor.
The flow of letters across members' desks from people objecting to the phasing out of this act, and asking if we are in a position to do something to persuade the government to do otherwise, indicates to me the personal nature of this thing and how these people feel about it. Let us not be swayed by statistics.
One argument being used by officials to convince the minister is that administration costs are too high. Let me point out that the staff is already in place and experienced. This is a good group of men who know more about settling people on the land than perhaps any other single group in the country. Surely cost is not a factor. Mortgage money comes from a revolving fund constantly being replenished by the repayment of loans by veterans. Surely cost is not a good reason for these people to take this view.
Some suggest that there are not sufficient numbers of veterans interested in this act. For goodness sake, some 150,000 veterans established eligibility, and 100,000 will be affected if the act is cut off. Let me read what was said by the Director General of the Veterans' Land Act when he appeared just last week before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I quote from page 2:28 of the proceedings of that committee on October 22:
Mr. Chairman, we have had approximately 2,000 loan applications for new settlement-
Surely the need is there. The reason for phasing this out cannot be that insufficient numbers of veterans are applying. If there is in fact some element of truth in that suggestion let us consider why there is not a sufficient number of veterans coming forward. To begin with, many veterans were simply unaware of the October, 1968, deadline. They were not members of veterans' groups of any kind, the Legion, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans, or what have you. They did not read their magazines and did not see the supplements in the newspaper. I suggest they did not realize the finality of the deadline.
Other people felt their way of life was good and sufficient for the rest of their lives, and there was no reason for them to apply. We have had many letters from individuals, all of which would suggest that conditions have changed. Let me read from one of those letters as follows:

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
At that time I was employed as the Manager of the Delhi Auction Exchange, owned my own home in Delhi, and if I knew of the deadline, I had no reason to register for a permit. However, as you no doubt know, I have since lost my position (I was never given any reason for the dismissal) and now I am trying something new.
The property in Lynedoch consists of a house and six acres with about lVi acres of cleared land and in order to make the necessary repairs and purchase some small equipment I may find it necessary to place a small mortgage on the property.
If there is any way you could assist me in obtaining the necessary registration permit, I would appreciate it very much.
I think that indicates what this debate is all about. There are many others who neglected to quality because the amount of the loan was meaningless to them. There is simply not enough money available to be of any use in today's society. I have another letter which bears that out, and this is only an example of many that have come to me and I am sure to others. This letter is from a Mr. Braley of Simcoe, who states:
Most country or city lots cost way over $15,400 so what choice does a vet have to take advantage of this? Would you please ask parliament if they would please consider increasing the amount of loan at reasonable rates of interest so that I and others could be helped?
I made some inquiries of a licensed real estate appraiser in respect of the value of land and houses in my area. He indicated that an unserviced rural building lot costs from $7,000 to $8,000; serviced town building lots cost from $12,000 to $15,500, and that a house and lot in the town of Simcoe cost $39,900, that is for the very cheapest. So you can see how meaningless has become the amount available. Those are the things that officials of the department should be taking into consideration when they suggest that not enough veterans are interested.
The third reason often advanced in support of phasing out the VLA is that the act was not designed for the type of housing required today, but was designed to settle full-time farmers on the land. The argument continues that those who would quality now would be too old to enter this occupation. At this point in time that may well be true, but surely it is not beyond the comprehension of those in the department to change the plan and the conditions.
I well recall my earlier interest in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs when I asked a former director general about lot sizes. I suggested that we could change the size that veterans must have to meet the conditions of the various towns and villages, and in reply he suggested that we could not change the rules in the middle of the ball game. The minister now does not want to change the rules, he wants to call the game in the seventh inning when there are 100,000 veterans who could still qualify. It is inconceivable to me that officials would want to kill this program rather than change it, particularly at this time when housing is desperately needed by veterans, many of whom are in the declining years of their lives.
That is the thinking of the department in spite of the statement by the minister on March 31, 1974, when we were debating this matter and he said:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this extension will provide many veterans with the opportunity to take advantage of a program which was designed for them.

He concluded by stating:
It should be made quite clear that we are not doing this as a favour to veterans but simply as a right which they have earned.
If that is true, and I am sure we all agree, why in the world are we trying to get rid of this thing?
In conclusion I would simply like to summarize what I have been trying to say by listing the essential changes the minister must consider if we are to retain the Veterans' Land Act and make it meaningful and useful to veterans in today's economy. This should be the minister's task in the ensuing 15 days when he makes his decision, or decides-and from what we have heard about this we are skeptical-to introduce a new housing program. The new program, if there is to be one, must be exclusively for veterans. They are a special group. They did a special service for their country and deserve special recognition.
Second, the increase in the loan ceiling in respect of house and lot must be made realistic in light of today's escalating costs.
Third, lot size should conform with lot sizes set forth in provincial and/or municipal regulations and bylaws.
Fourth, the terms of repayment should be as generous as those which now exist in the present act.
Fifth, there should be attractive interest rates, even subsidized if necessary. These are the conditions the minister should note when drafting new legislation or when setting levels which we hope he will do. All these terms are not something the motion gives gratuitously or grudgingly. They belong to the veterans as a right, as the minister has so well said, because they have been justly earned.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Madam Speaker, the government is not keeping faith with the veterans in Canada. I say that because I cannot believe that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has his heart, mind and soul in terminating the Veterans' Land Act on March 31, 1975. I consider him to be a man of compassion and concern. I just cannot believe he would not support this motion put from the opposition.
I appreciate that the minister has lost the war with his cabinet colleagues and the backbenchers in the Liberal Party. He has failed to gain any support whatsoever for the needs of the veterans in Canada. All I can say to the members of the Liberal Party who have spoken is that they have adopted a very cold, callous, calculating and hypocritical attitude toward the veterans of Canada.
Three strange things are happening in this debate. First, we are debating a motion in respect of government legislation moved and seconded by opposition members. It is a credit to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's St-Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that they have brought forward this motion at this time to underline the need to extend the legislation. It is the first time in my nine years here when I have seen two opposition members bring forward for debate a motion on government legislation. This is a credit to them.
November 6, 1974

Second, there has been a change in the position, posture and attitude of government members. There should be compassion and concern with regard to veterans, but I find a total absence of compassion and concern on the part of government members. In fact it would be like looking for water in the Sahara Desert to find this. Back in March of this year government members took a non-partisan attitude with regard to the legislation which extended the Veterans' Land Act from March 31, 1974, to March 31, 1975. I was rather proud of their attitude and their action concerning this matter.
Now, with the exception of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I have heard no member of the Liberal Party support this motion. All I have heard from them is that opposition members are taking a partisan attitude. There was no partisanship prior to the legislation of March of this year, but now there is partisanship on behalf of the Liberal members. 1 recall when they were in a minority position how humble they were in respect of this legislation because they knew they could not enter the election without supporting this legislation. But after July 8 they acquired their old arrogance and their miserable attitude toward veterans. One mistake the Canadian voters made was to give a majority to the Liberal Party.
The third strange thing is that I am amazed that the Liberal members are prepared to accept on behalf of the veterans of this country a vague promise of help which is without substance, form or time. I should like to read from the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to underline how gullible the Liberal members can be with regard to this vague promise. He said:
I expressed the view a moment ago that an urban housing program for veterans who have reached or are approaching retirement from post-war careers is inconsistent with an agriculturally-oriented rehabilitation program which was designed to assist veterans following their discharge from wartime active service.
This is not to say that many low or modest-income veterans do not have needs in respect to housing. On the contrary, it is realized that many do-and that their requirements or preferences are varied in nature. It is in recognition of that awareness, and of the greater relevancy of the provisions of the National Housing Act to those needs, that a study has been undertaken to examine whether special arrangements should be made to assist such veterans.
Because discussions are still in progress, I am not in a position to comment further at this time. I am hopeful, however, that it will be possible for me to do so in the not too distant future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not even on the drawing board.


John Gilbert: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, it is not even on the drawing board. Not only that, but to expect the government, through the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), to bring forward a program which will be acceptable and suitable to the veterans is asking too much. Why do I say that? The present Minister of State for Urban Affairs has been in that ministry for five months. What has he done to cure housing problems across this country? We have seen a drop of 25 per cent in housing starts. That will not help the veterans. We have had the highest interest rates that have ever prevailed across the country. He acts like Santa Claus trying to put young people in poverty by offering them $500 to buy a home.
Veterans Affairs
A young person over the weekend asked me if I could imagine a minister attempting to persuade him by saying he would give him $500, and that therefore he could go out and buy a home ranging in price from $50,000 to $60,000 or $70,000, and then pay for it for the rest of his life. If that is not placing young people in poverty and if it is not placing a great strain on their marriages, then I do not know what else is, Mr. Speaker.
The Liberal members would accept the vague promise of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to place this matter in the hands of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. If there were anything on the drawing board we could examine it, but the minister knows there is not, and yet he says there will be a study concerning whether legislation will be brought forward to help the veteran. I am amazed at the attitude not only of the minister but of all members of the Liberal Party. The veterans of this country are fully aware of what is being done to them. They will rise up with a wrath which would be comparable to that of the great prophet Amos. They will pour forth their thunder and their scorn forever and forever. I am almost preaching.


An hon. Member:: Amen!


John Gilbert: What is needed to give the veterans of this country a fair deal? First, we should not even be considering an extension of time with regard to the right of every veteran to establish his entitlement to this special program. There should not have been a qualification time for a certificate set at October 31, 1968, nor should there have been a termination date of March 31, 1974, or of March 31, 1975. If the veterans of this country are to be treated fairly and equitably, there should not be any date whatsoever. They should have the privilege at any time to exercise their rights.
Second, there should be an increase in the limits with regard to the loans. The limitation of $18,000, which has the net effect of a loan of $15,400, is not practical today. What we should be doing is getting the figures that are required for people to purchase homes, and adjusting to the prices of houses.
We should be changing the land requirements because the requirement of a half acre back in the 1940's, 1950's and early 1960's is not appropriate today and, as the last speaker so eloquently said, today that just cannot be obtained.
The fourth point is with regard to interest rates. To charge any veteran more than a 6 per cent interest rate on any loan that he obtains, is really treating him in a very niggardly and miserable fashion. At present the rate is 7 per cent.
I want to point out to you, Madam Speaker, the type of trickery that the Department of Veterans Affairs is perpetrating. This letter came to me back on March 20, 1974. It is from a constituent of mine who says:
In response to our recent conversations, I enclose herewith a photostatic copy of a form letter requested to be signed in connection with an application for assistance under VLA. At first glance it would seem to be presuming a change in the Act at April 1" whereas, currently, applications must be in by expiry of the Act March 31 to get consideration. Upward revision of interest rates in Part III in my view would be tantamount to killing the Act as there would be little benefit in obtaining such assistance except at rates at least reasonably below

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
conventional mortgage rates. In addition of course, the outside limit of $18,000 ($2,600 of which is the applicant's) is unrealistic in today's real estate market. Argument that increasing the limits would re-open previous applications is hardly valid in that previous borrowers under the act would have already enjoyed the gains in real estate values.
Then he encloses the form in which they ask veterans to sign a certain statement, part of which I will read. This is what veterans have to sign:
I have been advised that the interest rates of Part III loans is 7 per cent at the present time. It is my understanding that this rate is subject to change on 1st April, 1974. I will continue with my Application for Assistance regardless of any change that might take place in Part III interest rate on my Agreement if my loan should not be processed to the approval stage before the above-mentioned date.
I am aware it is my responsibility to submit a property acceptable to the Director prior to March 31, 1974.
If the property is rejected because of area zoning, drainage, price or other reasons not associated with title difficulties, I realize an Application for another property cannot be accepted after March 31, 1974.
This is the type of procedure and attitude that the department has been perpetrating on veterans. I am totally ashamed of this attitude of the government and more especially of the Liberal members of parliament, with the exception of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As I said at the outset, I feel sorry that a man who has made such a tremendous commitment to his country, both in service and in loyalty, should have been subjected to a war that he has lost in the cabinet, and should have been unable to persuade the cabinet that the veterans should have the highest priority with regard to some of the programs that exist.
It has been said that civilizations are evaluated according to the way in which society is treated. If that is so, our civilization, or more especially this government, will be regarded as one that has treated veterans in a very shabby and niggardly fashion.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, especially one where I am certain of the sincerity of so many members. I include in that sincerity the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and of course the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald).
I rise to say that on this weekend of weekends and this day of days it might be important that we not all speak for the record, merely to place on the record those moments and things that concern us so desperately in the one situation which confronts us.
I for one would like to say that there are people in Canada who ask: who were they? That should be asked clearly. Who were they? Why did they go? What did they do? It is important to say to those people who ask: they were young, they walked with a quick step, their hair blew in the wind, they went laughing, they went strongly, they left their fathers and mothers, their children and their friends.
It is important that people not always see them as they are now in veterans hospitals. It is important that people not always see them as so many crosses row on row. It is important to remember that they did indeed go to end war. They had decided to put an end to war. This was their

decision. This was their legacy to us at a time when we required them.
They returned, and the Canadian government of that day did honour to them, did not say they were Sunday soldiers, but said that they did indeed deserve a spot in our country, in our hearts and in our minds for life, for all their lives. This was done in those days.
Having had a father who came from that war with a total disability, I remember the situation which he faced. I remember him facing the depression and the possibility of losing his pension if he went out to earn $1.50 shovelling snow. None of us are apart from this, it does not matter what political colour we are. As the war disappears, we forget. Unfortunately it came again.


An hon. Member:: You soon forgot, however.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: The hon. member would be wise not to refer to me but to bring his mind to bear on those people who were so important to us.
It happened again. I remember when I stood in short pants by a train that was going somewhere with an older brother on it; a year later I rushed to a port to see a sister going away in the navy. Then a younger brother joined them. This is what has happened down through the generations. In the same way we lost the cream of our youth.
I was proud to call these people who served, my comrades, and I was proud that succeeding governments, which served in times when veterans were important, would see to it that they received special consideration.
The day may come when young people may not go to war to end wars. We are not ashamed to say that, and our fathers were not ashamed to say it to us. We did not go like lions and tigers to devour the enemy simply for that purpose. We went to fight for high sounding causes, we were idealists and so were some older men who went with us and fought like younger men to lead us.
Lest anyone make a mistake, it should be understood how we would handle the situation, as it were, from the outside. We would be with our comrades-indeed we are with our comrades and our minister. We have no doubt that veterans receive the kind of treatment that is important. We make decisions justly and honestly, taking into account the seriousness of the situation and our responsibilities.
It is the minister's difficult task to administer the act justly and to bring forward legislation that will benefit the veterans. This we believe he has done and will do. We have no doubts about it, Madam Speaker. At this point it is like freeing someone from an almost unwanted patronage. We believe it is time for those veterans to be recognized openly lest they be thought of as people who have not earned their way in life.
We believe that by doing something different, by removing this kind of giving which is not recognized as being truly a reward, we can make things better in the long run. When pruning a plant one must be careful not to destroy it. We are mindful of our responsibility, Madam Speaker, and will not forget it.
November 6, 1974

When the scribe writes that last word, that last line, when he puts in that last comma, that last dot, we can rest assured he will say, "They did not forget". We are certain that they, our comrades, would have been much like us, charged with responsibility.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish to commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for having introduced the motion presently before the House, and to associate myself with their eloquent and passionate pleas to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to review the terminal date March 31, 1975, of the Veterans' Land Act.
While the injustice of the phasing out of this act has been of concern to many members in this House and while we have tried to impress that concern on an intractable government, I want to express my admiration for the work done by one member of this House in particular-the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. He has devoted time and effort to keeping this issue in the arena of public awareness. As a result of his article in newspapers across the country, branches of the Canadian Legion, veterans' organizations and members of our armed forces have stepped up their representations to individual members of parliament to reiterate how the phasing out of the act will adversely affect them.
Equally important, Madam Speaker, is the adverse effect that this breach of faith, this breaking of a commitment will have on our system of government. When government, any government, fails to honor its commitments, then the credibility of the whole system suffers. It is ironic to think that those who fought and sacrificed to safeguard and protect our democratic institutions, our system of responsible government, should now be betrayed by it.
I listened to the speeches of the mover and seconder of this motion, Madam Speaker, and I listened with anticipation to the words of the minister to see if he would respond in the same generous humane way as the two hon. members who preceded him. And while I have great respect for the minister for much of the work he is doing, his statement yesterday afternoon came as a great disappointment. His flat refusal even to review the terminal date of the act was surprising and discouraging, particularly in view of his remarks that he was considering another housing program for veterans. If such is the case will the minister not consider an extension of the act at least until such time as the new housing program for veterans is operational?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, we all know that the gestation period for any piece of legislation is uncertain, and there certainly was no indication by the minister that any new housing program for veterans would have a high priority on the government's list of legislation. In fact, we were not even told if the proposed program is yet off the drawing board.
Veterans Affairs
In view of the absence of detail about a new housing and land program for veterans, surely it is not asking too much of the minister to extend the current legislation until something better, something more in line with contemporary costs and needs, can replace it. Is there to be an interregnum between the two programs? And, if so, who is to say who and how many veterans will be reinstated? Are our veterans to be left waiting in limbo while a suitable program-and one might ask, suitable to whom-is developed?
Will it be suited to the costs of housing in various parts of the country? Will it take into consideration the fact that the present $18,000 limit for a lot and a house is a ludicrous figure in this day and age? Will it acknowledge that $18,000 would hardly pay for the lot, let alone the home?
Will it recognize that the present one-half acre stipulation in the act has restrictions both for those wishing to locate on farm land in the country where such acreage is inadequate, and in a suburban area where it is too large? Will it be available to those who were eliminated from the benefits of the current act by the arbitrary imposition of the 1968 deadline governing the issuance of certificates? Will any of these things apply in the proposed new legislation?
The extension of the Veterans' Land Act would allow time to rectify these inequities or to bring in a new housing program, one that could be applied in terms of today's housing market, housing prices and housing construction. It would allow time for many people still in the service, who will retire to parts of the country other than where they are presently located, to work out suitable retirement plans. Even if they could do the improbable and meet the conditions of the present act, why should they rush to purchase a house just to beat the deadline of the March, 1975, expiry date?
At a time when the morale of our armed forces is low, and when that morale has suffered further blows in recent weeks with announcements of restraint and restriction, the situation surely should not be further aggravated by the news that the government will not retreat from its intention to phase out the Veterans' Land Act.
There are many veterans, Madam Speaker, and many active service personnel in Kingston and the Islands, the constituency I represent. Kingston has a history of 300 years of military involvement. Its citizens are serving Canada in many centres in this country and abroad, and those who remain behind are concerned-concerned about what the government proposes to do with this act, and concerned about who is to come within its terms. They want to be certain that those who should be able to avail themselves of the benefits of the act will have the opportunity to do so. But we are speaking of more than money, or terms, or rewards. We are speaking of faith, or breach of it; of trust, or lack of it; of honoring commitments, or breaking them.
On March 12, 1974, as recorded at page 434 of Hansard, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, during the debate on the Veterans' Land Act, said:
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

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
who went overseas to fight in the defence of freedom ... I wish to assure honourable members as well as my comrades across this country that this government intends to continue to live up to its commitments to all veterans.
I remind the House that he was referring to the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act. Yet a mere seven months after that statement the same minister, speaking on the same issue, told the House yesterday that the original purpose of the act has been amply fulfilled.
Earlier today the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) said that this legislation has outlived its usefulness. Surely we do not look at legislation from that point of view. A law does not outlive its usefulness. Law is not static. It is something which lives and breathes and continues to change in a way which reflects the social and economic needs of the day, as this piece of legislation ought to do. It is not enough for the minister to say that the original purpose of this act has been amply fulfilled, and then dismiss it from his mind. This law should be adapted to meet the needs of the day.
What puzzles me, Madam Speaker, and many others, is this: what prompted the government's change in attitude with regard to the Veterans' Land Act in the short space of seven months? Cynics will point to the recent election results, with justification, as the determining factor in changing the government's position. Let me say that the government's approach, its changed position, reminds me of litmus paper. The government was true blue when it was in a minority position, because then it felt pressure and had to react. But now it is true red; it has a majority and seems to think it can do as it pleases.
If the minister is considering proposals to assist our veterans obtain decent housing, as he indicated yesterday, it seems to me that it is even more important for him to accept the motion now before us, which asks him to review the terminal date of the Veterans' Land Act and to make a further statement within the next two weeks on what the government intends to do in this area. Then he could provide more definite information on any proposed new program. He could also give notice to all serving personnel in this country that the government will not break faith with them and that the present act will remain in force until a more equitable, contemporary housing program for veterans can be introduced.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, it is with considerable trepidation that I enter this debate. I was flattered when my colleagues asked me to contribute. Many in this House had the honor to serve their country in the armed forces during the war. Others of us were of too tender an age to be eligible for service; but we enjoyed the luxury of being defended by those gallant troops without ever having to don uniforms ourselves. Indeed I was but a wartime twinkle in my father's eye.
I suppose it can be said, rightly, that only those who endured in that struggle can understand the nature and extent of the sacrifice entailed by leaving families and homes, and answering the call to combat in the service of country, particularly in a war which initially was not of our own making. They heeded the summons to defend our allies, which probably made the sacrifice even more acute. With this in mind I take part in this debate. I defer to those who actually saw service, and have always been

conscious of having grown up free of fear and danger because of the tremendous sacrifice made by those who answered the call.
Although I was born immediately after the end of world war II, I grew up in war torn England and can remember, when I was five and six, my home neighbourhood being ruins, our block of flats being the only one standing. We amused ourselves in those days by playing on bomb sites. I also remember that many of my classmates did not have fathers. I remember every family conversation being laced with references to the war, and many times I heard of the sad loss of members of our family. Actually, eight members perished at one time in an air raid. I mention this only to show that my generation has been made aware of the great sacrifice that our parents and grandparents were forced to make so that we, in my generation, could stand here today.
I was somewhat puzzled by the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), who talked about members on my side of the House lacking compassion. Let me tell the hon. member that some of us on this side have vivid memories of what the war was all about, even though we did not fight in it. I trust hon. members will bear this in mind.
Why am I taking part in this debate? Consider the motion before us. It has been presented not long after our eight-day debate on the Speech from the Throne, during which the opposition had any number of opportunities to discuss any subject. Indeed the minister participated in that debate. The question raised by this motion could have been raised at that time, especially as the minister had stated he was studying this matter. Bear in mind, also, Madam Speaker, that the estimates of the department were before the committee of the whole about two weeks ago.
I submit that there is not a member opposite who believes the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has not been giving this matter serious consideration every day and that he will not continue to do so. Is it seriously contended that the effect of this motion, if passed, will be this: that the minister will begin to review this question? What is the real reason behind this motion? Is it real concern for veterans, a genuine concern for their well-being?
Nobody doubts the sincerity of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as well as many others on both sides of the House who have spoken on this issue. No one questions the sympathetic views expressed on behalf of our veterans. But, please, do not question the sincerity of members on the government side.
I take extreme exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who said this is a further example of how the government rides roughshod over parliament. I believe the opposition is wrong in insisting on flogging this issue to death and misleading the general public.
November 6, 1974

I do not want to become too partisan, but it is obvious from comments of members opposite that we should have some partisan approach. My reading of the situation, from a vantage point outside parliament in March of this year, was similar to that of Geoffrey Stevens in his article of March 13. We all know that Mr. Stevens is not the greatest friend of the Liberal party, or has not been in the past. Hon. members might like to read that article. The Conservative party at that time was desperately looking for any excuse to provoke an election at any cost. I quote from the article:
The Conservatives found a way to twist the VLA deadline into an insipidly worded non-confidence motion while protesting that defeating the government was the farthest thing from their minds.
The New Democrats found a way to use the non-confidence motion to bring another, and dubious, concession out of the government while protesting that politics was the farthest thing from their innocent minds. I quote:
The veterans of Canada will know, said NDP leader David Lewis... that the Conservative party is ready to play politics with their welfare.
That is what we have before us today, genuine sincerity on behalf of some hon. members, and an exercise to save face for the actions of last March by others, playing the veterans of our nation off for political gain. I certainly cannot condone that. Those who protest do so full well in the knowledge that this minister, who is perhaps one of the most distinguished ever to grace this portfolio-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: -and his sincerity cannot be questioned, would not dare to jeopardize the rights of veterans. Not being privy to cabinet decision making, I fully share the faith of my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), who stated last evening he was sure the minister would introduce legislation to answer the needs of those few veterans who have not been assisted under the Veterans' Land Act. Perhaps this can be done by a mortgage financing program under the Department of Urban Affairs, or by a program for rural retirement settlement under the Department of Agriculture.
There is no question of the government reneging on the commitment made by former Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden in 1917, which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe quoted yesterday, and which can be found at page 1069 of yesterday's Hansard.
I recently had occasion to be guest speaker at the semiannual meeting of the Toronto and district Royal Canadian Legion at No. 10 branch which is in my constituency and, I might add, as a non-veteran. I might say at this point that that portion of my constituency, which is known as the borough of East York, was settled primarily by veterans and their families after both world wars. I can safely say that the constituency of York East probably has one of the largest concentrations of veterans in the country. By coincidence, I might state that I am very happy that the mayor of East York, His Worship Willis Blair, is here today to hear my remarks.
At that meeting I spoke on benefits in general that had been available to veterans under programs established by the Department of Veterans Affairs. A significant portion of my speech dealt with the question of the Veterans' Land Act. I would like to read from that. I quote:
Veterans Affairs
The Veterans' Land Act was designed to assist veterans to pick up the threads of civilian life following discharge from active wartime service by settling on the land as full or part-time farmers, or in association with their occupation of commercial fishing. It was realized that not all veterans would be interested in or find that the provisions of the act best suited their post-war needs and plans. As a result, two other post-war rehabilitation programs were developed, university training and re-establishment credits, with benefits under all three measures being alternative to each other.
Having regard for the purpose of the legislation, the lengthy period which had already elapsed since the end of world war II, and for the fact the university training program had been completed in the midfifties, in 1959 parliament approved amendments which established September 30, 1962, as the terminal date for veterans to use re-establishment credit benefits or to become qualified under the Veterans' Land Act. In 1962, this deadline was extended to October 31,1968.
For the same reasons, in 1965 parliament enacted further amendments which established terminal dates for phasing out VLA lending operations in an orderly and reasonable manner. These legislative changes specified March 31, 1974, as the final date for qualified veterans to apply for settlement under the act and March 31, 1977, as the deadline for veterans with subsisting VLA contracts to apply for additional loans. Last spring, the March 31, 1974 deadline was extended one year.
We all know the reason for that. The opposition, for their own political gain, forced the government to extend this an additional year.
As I have noted, the Veterans' Land Act was designed as a land settlement program to assist veterans following discharge from active wartime service as distinct from being an urban housing measure for use following retirement from post-war occupations or careers. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind that the other two alternative programs were concluded quite some time ago, it is difficult to believe that veterans genuinely interested in VLA assistance have not had an adequate opportunity to do so in the period of almost 30 years which has elapsed since the end of World War II.
At the luncheon break I discussed this matter and the impending probability that the VLA would be terminated in March of next year, and there were no objections from any of the members with whom I spoke. In fact an office holder of the Legion said that it was quite understandable that the government should want to phase out this program at this time, and that he knew most veterans were more than satisfied with the efforts of successive Canadian governments over the years to ameliorate their lives.
Indeed, the only time when this topic arose in the general election campaign was at all-candidates meetings via planted questions by my Tory opponent. That is how the people in York East felt about it once it was properly explained. I think the minister has done a very good job of explaining it.
What then is the nature of the problem today? The nature of the problem is that in spite of understanding the nature of veterans benefits 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.
Is it not 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
1126

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
application by March 31, 1975, 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 reviewing the expiry date of this act or simply through straight-forward 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 entered this debate 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 extend to that veteran some privilege, whether by new legislation or by interpretation of old legislation, this is something we must always do. Therefore I oppose the motion.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to follow the remarks that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) used in opening his speech, which was an attempt to impute improper motives to the members of this House when they were considering this very important matter shortly before Remembrance Day a year ago. I think that if the hon. member reads Hansard he is going to regret having made those opening remarks regarding this very important matter. He may justify his stand if he wants to, and I may disagree with his stand if I want to; but he ought not to try to justify his stand by retreating into the worst kind of partisanship that we have seen during the course of this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He ought not to accuse any member on this side of saying to the minister that he lacks compassion. We have never said that. But what we have said is that we are worried about the company in which this compassionate minister finds himself so far as this legislation is concerned. We do not doubt for a moment that the minister, as the hon. member for York East has said, considers this matter every day and that he is concerned about it every day. What we are concerned about is that his colleagues are not equally concerned about the position of veterans every day.
I now turn to the remarks of my hon. friend, the member for Toronto Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). I use the expression "my hon. friend" with some justification since he is a man I knew for many years before I came to this House. His contribution to this debate has been to read into Hansard a brochure on veterans' legislation, all of which is well known to the beneficiaries of veterans' legislation. He might better have read into Hansard the act and regulations. He took us on an Alice in Wonderland tour of the statute. Surely he did not do this for nothing. In taking us through the act he must have meant that it was a good piece of legislation. Then having said that by implication,

he announced to the House that he was going to vote against this motion, while two sentences before he had said he thought VLA was a great piece of legislation.
The minister and others in the House have implied that a study is being undertaken of other legislation. I ask the minister, as others have asked, where is this legislation? What is the timetable for the completion of this study? When is the bill going to be brought forward? If the minister says it will be introduced within a short period of time, then I would call on that compassionate man to call off his dogs and let this matter stand while the House examines that legislation. There is not one member in this House who does not have concern for the veteran. But what I am concerned about is the way this whole matter had degenerated.
I share the concern of many members of the House that these studies, if they exist at all, are only at the beginning stage. Perhaps the government does not really know what it intends to do. This piece of legislation will be off the statute books for a long time before any other legislation is made available. If this is the case-and it has not been denied-then I respectfully suggest that the deadline be removed and the statute amended so that in no way is any veteran deprived of the benefits of the legislation. More than that, I suggest the statute be amended so it is in tune with the current situation in urban communities.
I have heard the members of the House discuss the issue of partisanship. We have not approached this matter with any partishanship, and quite frankly we do not like being accused of partisanship. I remind every member of the House that when this matter last came before us as a result of the hard work of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it was brought forward under Standing Order 43 and received the unanimous consent of the House. That includes the consent of the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). There was no question of partisanship at that time.
What has happened to that unanimity? Where are these other members of the Liberal party? I would be cynical if I suggested the reason is majority government.
I want to say something to those members of the House who, in a few moments, are going to stand up and vote against this motion. I want them to remember the last Remembrance Day and how proud they all were to leave this House and, on that sacred day, visit Royal Canadian Legion branches and cenotaphs all across this land and proudly lay a wreath presented by the government in memory of those who served their country in war. Madam Speaker, I will lay you dollars to doughnuts that when all of the members left that solemn ceremony and went back to the Legion branch for good fellowship, they told their friends in the Legion how they had given unanimous consent to the resolution moved last year just a few days before Remembrance Day.
In a few days' time the members of this House, including the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFar-lane), the hon. member for Toronto Lakeshore and the hon. member for York East, are going to go out of this place and lay those self-same style wreaths, and I should like to see them look those survivors in the eye and tell
November 6, 1974

them that they voted against this statute which was meant to benefit our veterans.
I conclude on this note. I listened with great interest to the eloquence of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. If he reads his speech, he is going to find that he dug a little hole for himself. He is going to find he said that retired veterans were second class citizens because of this legislation, and that the government was attempting to uplift them by taking their benefits away.
In the course of his eloquence he had this to say: "The veterans of this country are in the hearts and the minds of all of us". And they are. What we ask of the government today is that the veterans be in the legislation that is approved by this House. I ask those who choose to vote against this motion, which many of us were very proud to sign in anticipation of the day of remembrance, to remember what I can only term the hypocrisy of the position that they are taking.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am going to vote against this motion, and I say so at once so no questions will have to be asked across the floor. When I hear hon. members opposite talking, I wonder whether they are talking about the same veterans I am talking about, namely, those who served in the first and second world wars. Why should we be ashamed of ourselves for the kind of assistance we have given our veterans?
Rather than listen to hon. members opposite I think it would be more appropriate to listen to what the president and two vice presidents of the Canadian Legion said on a local CBC television program entitled "Platform". They were asked how veterans were being treated, and they said they had been treated extremely well. They said they felt that the veterans of this country had been treated better than the veterans of any other country which was involved in the first or second world wars.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The government is still leaving some of them out.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Does the hon. member want to listen or does he want to shout? I am prepared to sit down while he shouts, after which I will get on my feet and speak.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will speak after you so that we can hear what you have to say.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have a little bit to say and I take second place to no one, including those veterans in the House, of whom I am not one. Certainly as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and as a past vice chairman and chairman of that committee, I begin to wonder when I hear members opposite suggest that we have been arrogant because we now have a majority. Surprisingly enough, from 1966 to 1972 when we had a majority and when we were considering this legislation, representatives of the Canadian Legion said this was the best veterans' legislation they had seen in 50 years. They said that then, and they are saying it now about veterans' legislation.


An hon. Member:: What about the Veterans' Land Act?
Veterans Affairs


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The reason the opposition parties want to keep this piece of legislation in existence is that they have not been able to come up with any new ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member for York East (Mr. Col-lenette) has indicated what the veterans feel about this particular piece of legislation, and we all heard the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) talk about what happens when we all go back to our local legions. The thing I thought significant was that I found myself apologizing for the members of the opposition party, and I did so in view of what members of the Legion in my local branch were saying. They asked me why those fellows were playing politics. They were saying that this was a shameful thing to do in a minority parliament. I indicated to those veterans that members of the opposition were not playing politics, but were sincere in their belief that this piece of legislation should be extended. That is the kind of non-partisanship all hon. members of this House should bring to debates on veterans affairs.
I did not hesitate at the time to indicate that I quite frankly did not agree with extending it, as I felt the act had served its purpose. I was not ashamed to say that then, and I am not ashamed to say it now. I will not be ashamed to say it when I go back to my riding to attend a dinner on November 11.
I think this piece of legislation has been used to do a good job. We have all heard what has been done, as recited by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). Perhaps hon. members opposite have to be reminded that surely there comes a time to look at new and different ways to help the veterans rather than the same old ways. This bill has outlived its usefulness and we have to move on to something new.
I was quite frankly surprised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he looked over at the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and indicated that the reasons he was not going along with this motion were economic. That right hon. member should know better, and knowing better I do not think he should have made that kind of ridiculous suggestion.
There are new areas of assistance to veterans that we must consider. We must consider the ages of these veterans at the present time. One suggestion that has been made, and I think it is incumbent upon me as a member of parliament to repeat it, is that we should start giving old age pensions to veterans at age 60. Many of our citizens gave up their lives during wartime, and many others gave up five or six years of their lives away from their wives, families, their brothers and sisters, and perhaps this is one way we can show our appreciation. We can never compensate them for that sacrifice, but perhaps this is one way we can help them, by lowering the eligibility age for old age pensions to 60 for veterans. That may be a start in the right direction.
The minister has suggested that there will be some arrangement made in respect of retirement. I do not know what he has in mind, but perhaps there will be some form of compensation in the way of rentals or municipal tax payments. In any event, I think we have to look at new ways to assist the veterans. These are not young people
28543 -3V2

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
who have just come back from a war and are endeavouring to re-establish in civilian life. We have a different kind of veteran today. Our veterans today are looking to retirement, and their needs and wants are different. Surely we have to come up with new ideas rather than continually extending old acts that have long since served their purpose.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in voting against this particular motion. Nor will I be ashamed to go back to the veterans in my riding and indicate to them, as I am doing publicly here in this House, that I am against this motion because the act has done the job it was set up to do. Let us now get on with some new legislation. For the reasons I have stated I am voting against this particular motion, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) I was somewhat astounded when the younger member for York East (Mr. Collenette), possibly not knowing what went on in this House last session, drew his own conclusions to support purely partisan arguments. He obviously does not know the contents of my file on this subject, which I might add goes back as far as two of the minister's predecessors, that is, prior to the expiry date of 1968.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) suggests, I have a whole raft of letters from veterans who will be cut off by the phasing out of the Veterans' Land Act at this time. I think it is pure politics on the part of hon. members to suggest that because we want to see this extension we are, in some way, denying the validity or the worth of the legislation in the past. This is an argument bereft of any strength and is made merely to take up time and to confuse the issue. I invite any hon. member who has a large serving garrison in his riding, as I have in Edmonton, to counter that statement.
Let me remind hon. members of the many thousands of veterans who, instead of opting for a civilian life back in 1946 and 1947, stayed in our armed forces. Many others perhaps rejoined in 1952 because of the Korean conflict. These men also have an entitlement.
There is one point I do not seem to have been able to get across to the minister, his predecessor or the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton. Regardless of what these veterans decided to do at the end of the last war, there is nothing we in this House should do to deny them the rights they earned through service to their country in time of war. Should a right be denied them because they decided to remain in the armed services?
Hon. members should keep in mind that the last 10 years of service in the armed forces must be taken into consideration in any decision by a veteran to settle in this place or in that place because of the various requirements of the act. Under the Veterans' Land Act a veteran must be present during the construction of a Veterans Land Act house. Sometimes I think the officials of the CMHC and the officials of the VLA work at cross-purposes.
I know that officials of the Department of National Defence have expressed a great deal of concern about the difficulties servicemen are having in trying to fit into VLA programs at this time. This concern was caused by the 1968 abridgement and by the refusal to grant an

extension beyond 1974. Now again it is caused by this government through the person of its minister slamming the door on this type of legislation which is in fact housing legislation.
Somehow or other there is an insistence that this is some sort of agricultural settlement. Within the city limits of any major city we have had VLA settlements. They were not any agricultural settlements by any stretch of the imagination. The requirements have been reduced over a period of time. In the case of a disabled veteran, depending upon his disability, the size of a lot could be reduced even more. It is nonsense to suggest that this is agricultural legislation. The problem is housing.
I might bring the minister back to the situation after the war, because some of the other members might not be aware of it. At that time thousands of veterans coming back were seeking housing. I remember reading in the newspapers at that time the ads of people who were looking for an apartment or any type of housing in the city of Edmonton.
At that time housing was provided through the university, through the city and the province, in veterans' quarters. That was one type of housing. There was another type of housing assistance known as wartime housing, with the financial arrangement that that involved, and there was the VLA.
Somebody hit on the idea that some of the men might not like to settle in the big cities but would prefer to settle in some of the smaller towns where they could perhaps have a small holding on the side. This was an idea that was current at that time. It was popular with many men. However, the main purpose was to house veterans rather than to make small-time farmers of them. The purpose was to provide housing when there was a shortage of housing.
What have we today? We have a shortage of housing. When our servicemen come out on retirement pensions, regardless of their rank, we tell them they have rights under the VLA. We tell them there is a maximum mortgage under Parts I and II of $18,000. One does not have to go to the centre of Toronto or Ottawa to see what the price is for a three-bedroom house. All one need do is go to St. Albert outside the city of Edmonton, within a few miles of the Canadian forces base. One will find that there it is necessary to make a down payment of $20,000. It is ridiculous to think that a retiring serviceman would have that kind of money to put down on a house.
The government must accept the responsibility for inflation. If there is a point where inflation hits doubly, it is right here. I have received letters in which the men tell me that they have found homes but the cost is out of their reach. I have the letters here if anyone wishes to see them. I could read them into the record. I could also read, particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, the comments of the President of the Canadian Corps Association on this point. For the benefit of some hon. members I believe I should place this on the record. The letter is addressed to the minister and is dated January 28, 1974. It states:
November 6, 1974

We would like to make some comments concerning your stand in support of the decision to phase out the Veterans' Land Act as of March 31,1974. As you are well aware, all the veterans' organizations in Canada are opposed to a deadline, or any other form of limitation being applied to a veteran's eligibility for benefits under the Veterans' Land Act.
We refer specifically to the statements you made in the House of Commons on November 6, 1973 in answer to the address given by Mr. Jack Marshall, M.P. In your answer to Mr. Marshall you alleged that some veterans were attempting to take advantage of more than one of the three forms of rehabilitation which they were entitled to after honourable discharge from the Armed Forces at the end of World War II. 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 can say that here is one who, at that time after the war, was not aware of the Veterans' Land Act. I was a city boy. I attended university. It was only after I had been in university for some time that I became aware of this program, not that I would have availed myself of it but I heard of it only at that time. I recall this very graphically. The letter further states:
There is another point that has not been brought out recently as far as we kpow and that is the scarcity of housing that existed immediately following the end of World War II. This is why many veterans were unable to find suitable properties which could be financed through the Veterans Land Act at that time. Veterans and their families were forced to rent two or three rooms -in someone else's house, or buy a place they did not want just to have a place to live. And then, when the housing shortage started to ease, the prices went up to the point where the monies available under the Veterans' Land Act were inadequate to meet the inflationary costs.
I wonder whether anybody remembers the inflation of 1952-53. There was an increase of 13 points in one year. At that time it was necessary to make changes in the Veterans' Land Act to increase the mortgage ceiling and the valuation of property. This is not the first time a government under Liberal leadership has seen galloping inflation and has had to react to it, but perhaps the reaction was a little more prompt in those days than it is now. The letter continues:
And this is why they were unable to take advantage of the Veterans' Land Act later on. So you can see that the veteran was caught in a giant squeeze-play, first from the one side by the housing shortage, and then from the other side by rising costs, and then the game is called in the third quarter because the timekeeper wants to go home early. The solution to this problem is to keep the Veterans' Land Act in operation and to bring it up to date with changing conditions and rising costs.
Perhaps I might interpolate here that that is precisely what the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), myself and many others in this House have tried to impress upon the ministry. That is the purpose of this motion. I realize there are others of my colleagues in this House who wish to speak, and therefore I shall end my remarks briefly after quoting further from this letter:
You stated that many qualified veterans still serving in the Armed Forces are already established under the Act and that others are in the process of doing so. You say 'many', not 'all,'. How about the remainder, and what percent of the total do they constitute? How can a man stationed in West Germany or the Middle East go about finding suitable property in Alberta or Ontario?
Veterans Affairs
I will ask the minister that question. He failed to answer it. When I finish my speech he can answer. How can a man who has given notice, who is presently posted away from Canada, as many men are, make a selection of property, and how can he complete the necessary documents in order to meet the deadlines and the tables laid down in the act? The minister can give the answer. Hopefully there is one.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Sure there is.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I continue reading from the letter:
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 soldier set foot on Canadian soil, except as a prisoner of war. However, they were not so cautious with their own personal safety a lot of the time.
Finally, in connection with the investment of $1.25 billion of public funds, there has been a great deal of money made in interest, and the value of this investment must have at least tripled by this time. With the interest rates as they are now, and the properties as security, what better way is there to invest public funds? We believe that the public would be well satisfied to know that their money is invested in this way.
I should like to underline Mr. Heesaker's remarks. This country invested millions and millions of dollars in the free education of its veterans. How did this pay in dividends? This brought uncounted hundreds and hundreds of per cent in profit to the nation. It invested millions and millions of dollars in veterans' housing, farms and so forth. This was paid back. We are not asking the minister to provide any more money in grants. This is not to be a government expenditure. This is to advance more moneys for mortgages which are to be repaid. We ask for more faith in the remainder of veterans who would be entitled to benefits under the VLA.
The letter goes on to read:
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 and at the same time you are investing public money in a very profitable venture.
On many occasions I have put my views on record on this, and all I can say is that yesterday I told the minister in connection with Bill C-4 that, although it contained many good things, I was bitterly disappointed at what it failed to contain, and doubly more disappointed at the reason why. This was done for fiscal reasons, not administrative reasons. Hell's bells, this government wastes more money in one day than it would cost for a whole year to carry out the program that we call for in Bill C-4.
I am bitterly disappointed that this minister-and he is a veteran entitled to the respect of every member of the House-has had to disclose to the House and to the veterans of Canada, who would be entitled to benefits under VLA, that this administration has closed the door. I think this is a crying shame.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Sir,
although this is my first speech in the thirtieth parliament

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
of Canada I hope I will be allowed to reserve the amenities and courtesies on the selection of our presiding officers to a later date, perhaps the budget debate. But I would not like the opportunity to go by without saying that your selection as Deputy Speaker was a personal joy to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Now, because others wish to take part in the debate and the hour goes apace, I should like to make a plea, as short and simple as I possibly can, from a member who is a non veteran to a minister who is a veteran. I say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that there is no way in which the people of Canada can thank him enough for what he himself personally underwent on behalf of this country. There is no amount of money that can ever compensate him for what happened to him, and there is no way in which Canadians can sufficiently express their gratitude, although we have tried in a humble way with various programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
However, I must say that I think he was wrong when he said at the veterans' meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, that the time had now come to put the veterans' problems in the same category as the problems of the older members of our population. I think that was wrong, because we make exceptions almost every day in our treatment of distinctive segments of the Canadian population. For example, a few days ago there was a considerable feeling, among members of the House at least, as to whether the Indian housing problem was being properly tackled. And so the story goes, but I will not take time to list other examples. Obviously we are a House which is capable of drawing generalizations, but also capable of making exceptions to those generalities.
My sole point in rising at this time is to say that I think most Canadians have no objection to continuing every veterans' program to the last veteran who is left in Canada, expensive though that program may be, because it is a distinctive way in which we can say thank you to people who have allowed Canada to be what it is today.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. I want to answer the hon. member opposite. He asked me if I was claiming, with regard to a person who wanted to establish in Alberta and who had served in Germany-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the minister but I must point out that to allow the minister to speak at this time would be to give him the floor a third time. This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Are hon. members ready to allow the minister to answer the question, with the knowledge that there are other members who wish to speak?


Jack Marshall: I myself would certainly be willing, Mr. Speaking, but there are members here who have been waiting to speak for some time and they should be granted an opportunity to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair cannot guarantee any time before six o'clock.


Walter David Baker: I think that in the circumstances we cannot give our consent at this point. But we do not want it to be construed as refusing the minister an opportunity to answer the question put to him. However, in the circumstances we cannot give him our consent at this time because of the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest that if there is a minute left before six o'clock, we could come back to the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to this debate I realize that there is a point that some of my friends on the government side have missed. Many of them have said, and have freely acknowledged, that there are still many problems that veterans are facing who did not obtain certification in 1968 and for whom, for a number of reasons, it is impractical now, in the remaining months of existence of the Veterans' Land Act, to make application. That has been freely admitted by a number of government speakers, but they have all said that they recognize this, and of course in time and on a proper occasion they will consider doing something about it.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) ended his speech with what can be termed the pious hope that his government would, of course, if there was a single injustice give it appropriate consideration at the appropriate time and, I suppose, do something appropriate. What the government is asking us to accept is the elimination of a bill that gives rights to veterans which the minister admitted they have, Mr. Speaker. It was not too long ago in this House that he said, as recorded at page 948 of Hansard:
It should be made quite clear that we are not doing this as a favour to veterans but simply as a right which they have earned.
That right has been accepted by the government. That principle has been accepted, yet hon. members on the government side have said it will be done away with because it has outlived its usefulness. But they have not said what they are going to put in its place. I repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Not a single member on the government side in this debate has indicated what the government intends to do to secure those rights that it has admitted do exist. That is the weakness in their position. It is more than a weakness; it is a glaring defect in the logic of their utterances.
I am not going to get into the question of whose motives are sound and whose are right. I did not enter this debate to quibble over the sincerity of hon. members in the matter, and I would hope that some of those who have quibbled about it will not quibble about sincerity of motivation the next time they debate in the House. The reaction of hon. members this afternoon has been quite evident.
It has been suggested that we are in this situation today because the government was forced into legislation which gave the right to 25 members, upon petition, to have a matter reviewed. It has been said that the Veterans' Land
November 6, 1974

Act should be reviewed because it has no further purpose. I should like to remind some of my friends on the government side of the wording of the motion of November 9, 1973. My hon. friend from York East was not here then, but this motion obtained unanimous consent in this House and it was his colleagues, sitting in the House on that day, who approved it. The motion reads:
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.
That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. That is what the government agreed to last November 9. That is why this motion is before the House today, and none of what they agreed to then has come about.
It is not enough to come in front of this House and say, "We have decided, despite what we agreed to a year ago, that we are not going to amend that legislation. We are going to do nothing to secure those rights. We are not going to continue the legislation and make amendments which would put into effect the principle to which we agreed on November 9, 1973. We are going to eliminate it; take it right out of the legislation."
But that is what the government is doing, and it is doing it without offering us any commitment that something will be placed before us in substitution. I say that with all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, and I ask every one of my friends on the government side to ask themselves quietly in their own consciences if they believe that something will be brought in as a substitute, and what commitments they have that this will be done. 1 have the answer already, of course. The answer is that they do not have a clue whether they are going to do anything or not.
I ask one other commitment from hon. members on the government side. After they defeat this motion today, after they have wiped out this legislation which their minister admits secures the rights of veterans, will they search their consciences and go to work to make sure that very soon substitute legislation is put before the House so that the rights, which the government agreed to a year ago, will be reasserted at the earliest possible time?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think I was just about to bring up the same point because no other member seems to be standing to participate in the debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) under Standing Order 37(2) has right of reply, having moved a substantive motion. I wonder if we could come to an agreement to allow the hon. minister, in a short speech with allotted time, to answer the question that was asked?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I rose to say that we would consent. I have spoken to the minister about that.
Veterans Affairs


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we will allow the minister to give a short answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me if I could explain how a veteran serving in Germany could select a piece of property on which he could become established, and I told him I could explain. A year and a half ago regulations were passed, approved and accepted to the effect that a soldier serving in a foreign land could select an agent to do this. That is how it is done and that is how it has been done. A number of veterans have thanked me for this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have had a good many experiences in my years in this House but I think this is the first time that I ever had the privilege of concluding a debate that I started.
In connection with this two day debate which was provided for in a statute that was passed in March, I want to say how much I appreciate that speeches made by all members but I have to say that in particular I appreciate the speeches of those who have supported this motion.
1 am still conscious of the events of the last session of parliament. Because of that I am surprised that there are those on the other side who have spoken as though we should not have brought this motion before the House of Commons. Not only was there complete unanimity on November 9, 1973, to the motion put in my name and seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), which was again read a few moments ago; there was, also, on March 28, 1974, unanimous approval for the amendment to the bill we had before us that day, which provided for this debate to take place. Indeed, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in speaking to that amendment said, on behalf of the government, that the proposal was welcome.
In other words, last March this House, at the very time it was extending the Veterans' Land Act for another year, said that we would welcome the opportunity some time after September 30 to debate the matter again. That is what we have been doing. We have been carrying out in the past two days the will of the House, as expressed by the House of Commons last March.
Because I have the right of reply, I am allowed to speak until the last minute. But it is not necessary for me to do so. Rather, I should like to speak for just a few minutes, and in doing so to deal not with the unimportant things which have been said by members on the other side, but to deal with what those on the government side seem to regard as their strongest argument.
Liberal after Liberal has said that it is time for something better, and that they are going to oppose this motion, that they are going to oppose the continuation of the Veterans' Land Act beyond March 31, 1975, because veterans should have something better with respect to housing. That would be a good argument if there were anything to it. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs was

November 6, 1974
Veterans Affairs
very clear yesterday. All he was able to say is this: The matter is being studied.
There was no suggestion that any legislation is being drafted. We have been given no assurance by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) that his department is dealing with the matter. So, we are being asked to let the Veterans' Land Act, a piece of legislation that deals with housing for veterans, die on March 31, 1975, with no assurance that there will be anything to take its place on April 1, 1975-indeed, there is no real assurance that there will ever be anything to take its place.
How my friends opposite could have fallen for that argument is, to me, a mystery. Some of them are new members and they do not know that the government can make promises but not come through with them. Member after member on the other side has said, "We are going to vote against the motion, against the proposal to continue the Veterans' Land Act, because we are in favour of something better." But where is that "something better"?
I join with those who have expressed belief in the minister's complete sincerity and concern for veterans. I say to them, and I say to the minister, that if it is true that there is to be veterans housing legislation, that is all the more reason to let this legislation stay on the books until that time comes. That would show that the government means business. We fear that if this legislation is allowed to drop, then in the weeks and months ahead, when the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and I, as well as others, stand up and ask where is that veterans housing legislation, the answer at first will be that it is being considered, it isHinder study; then, after a while, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will stand up and say, "Well, the veterans have available to them the government's general housing legislation."
I predict that this could well happen, and the idea in the mind of the Minister of Veterans Affairs might never come to pass. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that without any guarantee that we are to see such veterans housing legislation soon, or ever, it would be utterly irresponsible for this House to let the Veterans' Land Act die.
I must sit down, Sir, before you call it six o'clock. The clock is going faster than I thought. I know that the government has stated its position, and I know that Liberal after Liberal has said he will vote against the motion. But, Sir, in that 15 minutes between the putting of the motion and the vote, during that time when the bells are ringing for 15 minutes, or however long they may ring, there will be time for the government to rethink its position.
What will the position be if the government decides to let this motion pass? It will not actually extend the Veterans' Land Act. The motion calls on the minister to come back to the House within 15 sitting days and tell us of the result of another review. In effect, that is all. This motion, if passed, will simply guarantee another review, another statement by the minister within 15 sitting days. The issue will remain open. But a defeat of this motion is, in effect, a statement that the Veterans' Land Act is going to die on March 31, 1975. I do not think the House of Commons should say this at this time, just a few days before Remembrance Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank all those who have participated in this debate. Each has expressed his views. I hope that we will now, by our vote, show where we stand with respect to the rights of our veterans.	.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Debate on the motion being terminated at this time, it is my duty to put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion, pursuant to the special order adopted previously. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 6.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
1134

November 6, 1974


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Mr. President, I wish to join those who have spoken before me to congratulate you on your election to preside over our proceedings. You bring to your high office a range of learning and of experience that bear directly on the matters we have before us. The acclamation by which you were elected expressed the confidence of this conference in your capacity to help us bring our deliberations to a fruitful conclusion.
I should also like to pay tribute to the Secretary General of the Conference. He, too, is no stranger to the problems we shall be surveying. His special credentials are reflected in the quality of the preparatory work that has been done. Given the importance of the conference, there has been all too little time to set the parameters of our discussions. Nevertheless, it seems to my delegation that we have rarely entered upon a conference where the issues have been set out with greater clarity or the solutions with greater realism than in the documents the Secretary General has put before us.
This conference is engaged on a mission to seek the elimination of hunger-man's oldest scourge and the most persistent enemy. Together with the Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas and the world population conference in Bucharest, it is part of a process of reassessment of man's global relationship to the resources that sustain him that may yield us a new consciousness of the global responsibilities carried by every nation and people. We in Canada will not shirk these responsibilities, and are willing to play our part in furthering those common endeavours which bear promise of helping to produce a lasting freedom from want for all mankind-but the endeavours will remain barren if they are not truly common and truly sustained.
Hunger must today be tackled at every level-at the family, village, province, country and region as well as the global level, for no unit of society bears any graver responsibility than that of feeding its people. In our present world community we are everywhere faced with an agonizing awareness of starvation wherever it occurs; and finding means to harness production around the world to alleviate it poses a challenge to our ingenuity as well as to our compassion. We in Canada recognize that our farmers can grow more than they do at present. To that end, we have recently taken several policy initiatives that will not only ensure that producers will have more stable and satisfactory returns, but that they will have a better transport and storage system to get their products to market. We believe that these initiatives will permit Canadian agriculture more nearly to reach its potential. We must however remember that, whatever food may move internationally, most men for the foreseeable future will inevitably remain dependent on the food produced near to their neighbourhood markets.
It is for this reason that Canada emphatically supports the development of increased food production capacity by developing countries as the key to an anti-hunger strategy.
Where opportunities for efficient food production exist my government stands ready to accord it a high priority in our assistance programs Canada has always been responsive to requests for assistance in this area. We are now carefully re-examining the skills and resources that may exist in Canada suitable for assisting the development of new agriculture and fisheries capacity in developing countries to determine practical ways of making them readily available. We therefore intend to have a matching response for countries who set about energetically to mobilize their internal food production resources and who give a high development priority to efficient food production.
We know from experience that expanding food production on a secure basis is not easy. It demands adaptation of land and water, technology, research, finance, modernized storage and transport facilities, marketing organizations, planning, and government services; all of which may require changes to traditional modes of life. Increased production is also facing barriers arising from supply shortages of certain inputs, notably nitrogenous fertilizers. No deus ex machina will remove these impediments overnight, and each country must come to terms with them in its own way. Where Canada can help to make these problems more manageable it will, and it will strive to see access to inputs maintained internationally on an equitable non-discriminatory basis.
The situation of the "vulnerable groups" in food-deprived areas is a reproach to us all. The spectacle of two hundred million malnourished children, and of nursing mothers suffering on a similar scale, makes a mockery of the ideals professed by every society. The malnourished children of today must somehow be enabled to become the wellsprings of tomorrow's prosperity. This conference should determine upon effective ways for directing a greater volume of food to these groups, and make them priority recipients under international food assistance programs. UNICEF and the world food program, not to mention the voluntary organizations who form so much of the vanguard in this struggle, must be given the resources to develop programs to this end which are truly effective. Canada intends to play its full part in this effort.
We cannot ignore the fact that in the immediate future there will be substantially increased demand for food imports in a number of countries that cannot pay for it. The food aid programs of many donor countries have hitherto been facilitated by the existence of "surplus stocks", which are now non-existent. Food aid is consequently falling off just when it is needed most. Yet the people fed by "surplus stocks" cannot be counted "surplus people", and their needs cannot be written off. Canada has seen its commitment to these programs as a commitment to international solidarity and to human compassion. We do not intend to abandon them now. Food aid donors, and indeed all prosperous countries, have an obligation to maintain these flows while emergency conditions persist, and should expand them if possible.
November 6, 1974
[Stage Direction]
Conversely the recipients, past and future, have an obligation to take every reasonable measure to augment the availability of food locally, in order that food need not be diverted from those who are unavoidably hungry to feed those who are avoidably starving.
Canada accepts the main elements of a long-term food aid policy which have been recommended to us. I shall now set forth the specific response of the Canadian Government to these recommendations:
First, the Canadian Government accepts the concept of forward planning; it has decided to make its own commitment for the next three years.
Second, it agrees with the concept that, if the eroding effect of sudden price increases on the levels of food aid is to be avoided, the best way of pledging food aid is in physical terms, that is to say, in quantities of food rather than in amounts of money.
Third, Canada supports the setting of a minimum target for world aid flows of 10 million tons of foodgrains a year.
Fourth, in pursuance of these principles which we have accepted, Canada hereby commits itself to supplying an average of 1,000,000 tons of foodgrains annually for each of the next three years. In pledging thus more than a proportional amount towards the total target, we have had in mind that it is a minimum target and that we are facing a situation of extraordinary gravity. We would hope that other traditional and new donors will subscribe with us to the objective of surpassing the minimum target.
Fifth, Canada is prepared to increase substantially the allocation of commodities other than foodgrains for food aid purposes.
Sixth, we accept the proposition that multilateral food aid programs have operated to good and beneficial effect and that their continued effectiveness must be buttressed by adequate resources. Accordingly, we are prepared to channel approximately 20 per cent of Canada's food aid through these multilateral programs. In order to carry out this commitment Canada will make a supplementary contribution to the world food program.
This, Mr. President, is the substance of Canada's response to the situation of acute distress that is confronting us.
In the longer term there is clearly a need to define more closely the circumstances where food aid is appropriate, and avoid the disincentives it causes in indigenous production. There is merit in suggestions that grain stocks for emergency relief be set aside on some consistent international basis, and arrangements made for their rapid mobilization when needed, and we will help pursue this question.
Canada has long been a proponent of grains arrangements that would augment world food security and of other measures to this end. At last year's FAO conference Canada supported the principle of a voluntary undertaking on world food security and since then has participated actively in the consideration of alternative texts. The voluntary undertaking that is before the conference contains a framework of objectives whose attainment would be a significant world achievement. Canada endorses the undertaking, and will, once suitable country coverage and
implementation arrangements have been concluded, become a party to it. We must not blind ourselves, however, to the fact that much work remains to be done, particularly among the countries chiefly concerned, to make meaningful food security a reality. In this demanding and detailed task Canada will participate fully.
World food security in its broadest sense can only be attained by the prudent management of food supplies at every level-a situation where governments, growers and traders in every country use their best judgement and foresight to assess probable needs and supplies. Canada has provided a key element in world food security in the past through its supply management and maintenance of stocks. This task is one we would be happy to share more widely. Improved information can play a big role, and we hope to see all the countries at this conference contribute extensively and accurately to the proposed early warning system. Food-importing countries have an evident selfinterest in improving their storage capacity, which would augment world security. On a longer-term basis security is most likely to come from providing producers and traders with stable expectations of a financial return commensurate with the value of their product-a value which few people anywhere today would be inclined to denigrate.
Two allied international fields of concern are inextricably bound up with the food problem: international trade, and the preservation of the environment.
Canada has long supported a general liberalization of trade in food products, in order to encourage the efficient producer and thereby provide more abundant food at reasonable prices. This is one of our main objectives in the impending trade negotiations in Geneva. We recognize that certain food-importing countries face an enormous challenge in meeting their food bills in the short and medium term, and that this dilemma arises in some respects from factors beyond their control. This payments problem extends into every aspect of the economies of the countries concerned, however, and it is principally through general financial measures, including those taken within the IMF or IBRD, that Canada would expect to see this problem attacked. We are confident that the Geneva trade negotiations will follow the directives to the Tokyo ministerial meeting of the GATT in September, 1973, and secure additional benefits for the trade of developing countries, and Canada will strive to see this accomplished within a nondiscriminatory trading framework.
In the longer-term perspective mankind has no choice but to arrange his feeding in harmony with a balanced use of all the earth's resources, or his civilization will go the way of those of Nineveh and Babylon-which destroyed the soils that fed them. The World Population Conference of Bucharest marked the first, albeit halting, step towards using a full range of policies to control the pressures exerted on this planet's resources. Progress in this area must be accelerated. Already we are experiencing declines in catches of certain species of ocean fish, and the sea is not the only resource whose capacity might come to be tested in the foreseeable future.
World food production has maintained a precarious adequacy through notable research accomplishments and through the application of modern technology. To gain
1136
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1974
further ground these efforts must be redoubled, but our perspective of the problem must also be widened so that entire eco-systems can be used to greatest advantage and a lasting equilibrium can be achieved.
Mr. President, I have outlined in some detail the Canadian position on the various elements of the world food strategy that the Secretary General has set before us. We recognize that this strategy, if it is to bear fruit, will require a reordering of priorities on all our part. We also recognize that it will require the mobilization of vastly greater resources for agriculture both nationally and by the international community. We believe that the time to set this world food strategy on its right course is here and now by this conference.
As an earnest of Canada's commitment to the solution of the world food problem, I am pleased to announce that the Canadian Government has decided to allocate at once the sum of $50 million of Canada's development assistance to be used in ways which will make an effective impact on the present critical situation.
The primary aim of this conference, as we see it, is to produce at every level of society an awareness of the affront to the human conscience that hunger constitutes, wherever it exists, and a determination to make its elimination a basic policy goal of all governments represented here. If that is to be the result of our conference, its conclusions cannot be allowed to implement themselves. We must try to ensure that we have the mechanisms that
will enable us to monitor and review the progress that is being made, to correct the strategy when and where it needs correcting, and to see to it that existing and new resources are used to promote agricultural development in a coherent and effective manner.
It is our view, Mr. President, that in this essential process of pursuit, full advantage should be taken of the experience and the established competence of the organizations that have a contribution to make to the solution of the world food problem. This is not to say that all should remain as it is but that we should approach the matter of institutional arrangements with economy and good sense.
On October 30 the Prime Minister of Canada met in Ottawa with the premiers of the ten Canadian provinces to discuss the problem of inflation. My Prime Minister took this opportunity to raise with his colleagues from the provinces the world food problem. They told him that they were also preoccupied by it and that provincial governments were prepared to cooperate with the Government of Canada in contributions to the resolution of the world food problem. I think this vividly reflects the seriousness with which Canadian people view the problems before this conference.
Future generations have a claim on our intelligence and our compassion, as do today's, and if we do our work well they may come to look back on this conference as the starting point for the development of a global process that gave each man, in truth, his daily bread.
[Stage Direction]

1137
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 7, 1974