1980-07-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, as a result of the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a question on metrication yesterday, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Because the Metric commission has spent $43,238,000 of taxpayers' money since it was created in 1971; due to the fact that it has kept both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) totally in the dark and uninformed as to the wishes of Canadians on the subject of metrication in retail food stores; in light of a survey of 2,046 shoppers done by an independent consulting firm for Dominion Stores Ltd. in the metric test centre of Peterborough, which indicated 88 per cent of shoppers favoured pounds over kilograms; since all major food store chains have indicated that they do not wish to proceed with metrication, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That this government respond to the wishes of the Canadian people, and not to the dictates of the Metric commission, and call a halt to metric conversion in the retail food sector which is slated to proceed on January 1, 1981, affecting some six million Canadians in approximately 21 cities.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY-PROTEST AGAINST ARBITRARY CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of great urgency to the Canadian livestock industry. Inasmuch as the reborn Liberal government has resumed its pell-mell rush to metric conversion, an action which is causing great confusion in the agricultural industry, particularly
during this period of economic uncertainty, and strong protests from the industry have been communicated to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the government restore the freeze imposed by the former Conservative government on the arbitrary metrication of the livestock industry, thereby allowing the conversion to go forward by voluntary action rather than by government coercion.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. First impressions are lasting impressions. The first impression a dignitary must have of Ottawa upon arrival at Uplands' dirty-carpeted international airport is that he or she is entering a mine-shaft disaster area. The lounge for VIPs might better be expressed as the "PITS".
The facilities at the air terminal are inadequate; the grounds and landscaping are atrocious. Priorities in many government programs are misplaced: millions of dollars are spent on monolithic structures in Hull, millions of dollars have been wasted on the white elephant known as Mirabel. Local and national pride must suffer because of the second-rate facilities at Uplands. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the upgrading of the international air terminal at Uplands be deemed as an urgent priority of the government.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that no native women were asked to participate as part of the official Canadian delegation to the World Conference of the United Nations, Decade for Women, in Copenhagen from July 14 to July 30; that this mid-decade conference is to look at the progress made in improving the situation of women and developing a plan of action for the next five years; that recommendations of the status of women report "Toward Equality" include a call for federal government commitment to native women; that only as a result of their own initiative native women were later invited to go unofficially, and therefore only minimally subsidized, while official delegates go with all expenses paid, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House calls for the minister responsible for the status of women to include some native women as part of the official delegation.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


NDP MEMBERS LEAVING CHAMBER DURING QUESTION PERIOD-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that-
The NDP walked out in a snit,
While most other members were unaware of it,
Until the socialists to the press did shout,
"The NDP had lost its clout";
Poor Stanley was left with tea and crumpet,
They continued to say "the rest could lump it".
Also on December last in dumping the veterans' bill,
Stanley sent all members home from the hill-
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the new brand of NDP Be cautious in leaving Stanley at sea;
Instead of causing an internal schism.
They explore all facets of Stanley's prism.
July 9, 1980
With his saintly quiver and righteous bow.
Relegate him to the second row.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

1980 FREE OLYMPIAD


CONGRATULATIONS TO ORGANIZERS-FUNDING OF 1984 EVENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the talent of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). On a matter of pressing and urgent necessity 1 would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43.
Last weekend, athletes from Ukrainian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Armenian communities of Canada and the United States met in Etobicoke to compete in the 1980 Free Olympiad, an event to protest the staging of the Olympic Games in Moscow and to draw attention to the fact that people from these countries which are captive nations of the U.S.S.R. cannot compete in the Olympics under their own flags. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That this House congratulate the organizers on the success of the 1980 Free Olympiad and ask the Minister of State for Sport or the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to consider seriously any application from the organizers for financial assistance from the federal government for the 1984 Free Olympiad.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In the throne speech we were promised that this government's procurement would be used vigorously to encourage the creation and expansion of Canadian businesses. In light of the fact that the Department of Supply and Services recently purchased several thousand tires from Hungary for use in the Post Office, even though there are over 2,000 Canadian rubber workers unemployed in our tire industry at this time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House instructs the Minister of Supply and Services to ensure that all future tires purchased by his department come from Canadian manufacturers employing Canadian workers.
July 9, 1980


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker. I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the recent attempt by the Hudson's Bay Company and Simpsons Limited to muscle their suppliers into providing retroactive rebates, and the uncompromising situation that would develop in the garment industry as a result, all of which has come about as a result of the pleasure of this government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House act immediately to pass legislation prohibiting such a move which can be described as no better than corporate blackmail.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ROYAL FAMILY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in recognition of a significant facet of Canada's cultural, linguistic, constitutional and, indeed, moral heritage, I have some reason to expect that I will gain the unanimous consent of the House on the following motion which is seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House instruct the government to mark in an appropriate manner the occasion of the Queen Mother's eightieth birthday on August 4 next either by a special cameo stamp issue, or by striking a silver dollar or other coin in recognition of Her Gracious Majesty, as well as of the heroic example she gave to all citizens in the Commonwealth in standing unflinchingly by her husband, our late King George VI, through all the trials and dangers of threatened invasion and bombing during the last war.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE CANADA


USE OF LAND IN NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA FOR PLOWING MATCH -MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, 1 move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House request the Minister of Agriculture to reverse the decision he made and to thereby allow the Ottawa-Carleton Plowmen's Association to use land used by Agriculture Canada in the national capital greenbelt for the 1983 International Plowing Match, permission for which was previously granted by the hon. member for Elgin when he was the minister of agriculture.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It requires a very simple "Yes" or "No" answer. The deadline of July 15 which Foothills Pipe Lines has stated is the final date by which government approval must be given if the pre-build section of the Alaska gas pipeline is to be constructed this year is fast approaching: It is just a few days away.
Will the government tell us, now, whether or not they plan to grant, or deny, that approval?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is what he wanted.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, that is a very simple answer. I must admit it was not quite the answer I was expecting, although I was looking for a similar answer. I would like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In the event that approval of the pre-build section is not granted, could the minister confirm that the loss to Canada, at this time of rapidly escalating unemployment, declining economic activity and serious balance of payments problems, would be in the order of 150,000 man-years of employment,
2696

Oral Questions
much of it in the hard-hit industrial areas of central Canada, and about $2 billion annually in our balance of trade position?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, no, 1 could not.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, I think 1 will try the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to see if he will be a little more forthcoming. I am very alarmed at the indecision, procrastination and evident inability of the present government to deal with the outstanding pipeline issues.
Will the government quit pussyfooting around with the pipeline and ensure that both the pre-build section and the Alaska gas pipeline in its entirety will be built as expeditiously as possible?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made a very interesting representation, and 1 am sure cabinet will consider it.


CONSIDERATION BY PARLIAMENT BEFORE LEGISLATION CHANGED
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? According to the Prime Minister, the government is actively considering whether to authorize this pre-build section in spite of assurances by Senator Olson, the minister responsible for northern pipelines, before a committee of this House that such permission would not be given until there were guarantees for the entire pipeline, as spelled out in the act.
Will the minister assure the House that the government will approach Parliament to seek permission for a major change in both the intent and purpose of the Northern Pipeline Act prior to granting any such approval?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that very question in the House last week.


Harvie Andre: Apparently the minister is reluctant to give his assurance to the House at this point, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He gave it last week.


Harvie Andre: The minister is aware that the purpose of this pre-build is to provide transportation facilities to carry the export gas approved by the previous government on December 6, 1979. The minister, then opposition energy critic, described that decision as "one that Canada will live to regret and it may go down in history as one of the greatest sell-outs we have seen."
July 9, 1980
Given that the government is now looking at ways to authorize this transportation or this sell-out, did the minister flip-flop on his own, or have his cabinet colleagues talked him into changing his position since December 6 last?


Marc Lalonde: Definitely not, Madam Speaker; definitely not.


Walter David Baker: But you did flip-flop.


LEGISLATION TO AMEND NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, the matter of this pipeline is a serious issue and the minister should not get out of it. Let me put my question to the President of the Privy Council, if he is there.


Mr. Nielsen:: He is not all there.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is quite clear, Madam Speaker, that in 1978 Parliament approved the Northern Pipeline Act which authorized a pipeline for American gas to be transported from Alaska to the lower 48. The National Energy Board has recommended a pre-build pipeline which will export Canadian gas to the United States.
Can the President of the Privy Council, the government House leader, assure this House that before such a fundamental change is made, legislation will be brought before the House, and that this will not be done behind closed doors by an order in council?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the act that was passed by this House in 1978. If he reads the Northern Pipeline Act, he will see clearly what its provisions are. I have already stated in this House, and 1 repeat, that nothing will be done by the government that is contrary to the provisions of the act passed by Parliament.


Harvie Andre: The intent of the act is what we are interested in.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have read the act in some detail. That is still not an answer to our question.


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-EFFECT ON CANADA'S ENERGY FUTURE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: May I put a
supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker? I find it shocking that the minister will not bring this before the House. In light of what was stated in the throne speech about self-sufficiency, and in light of the government's own policy of "off' oil, changing basically the use of oil to natural gas and other energy sources, but basically gas, if the pre-build goes ahead would the Prime Minister not agree that the construction of this export gas pipeline would jeopardize Canada's energy future?
July 9, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is hypothetical in its form-"if the pipeline goes ahead". I can assure the hon. member it will not go ahead if it jeopardizes Canada's energy future.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This is precisely what the minister was saying before he turned Judas on us, when he was in the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.
[DOT] (W25)


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister has said, as the member from Calgary pointed out, that we should not export this gas for a fast buck. The minister also said, to use his words, that there should be an ironclad guarantee before the pipeline goes ahead.
Could the minister tell this House, now, with a straight face, whether he considers those events and assurances in Washington, the resolutions and the 2 per cent investment by the company in the pipeline, were enough to live up to the test that he set out when he was the opposition critic?


Walter David Baker: The iron has turned to butter.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the steps taken by the American Congress, as well as the steps announced by the administration and those taken by the private sector, both the sponsors and the producers, are all matters that are before the cabinet and are going to be considered before any decision is made. If and when a decision is made, the hon. member will be apprised of it; 1 am sure of that.


CONSTRUCTION OF NORMAN WELLS-ZAMA LAKE OIL PIPELINE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It would appear that the National Energy Board decision on the proposed Norman Wells-Zama Lake oil pipeline will not be handed down until later on, perhaps toward the end of this year.
In view of the fact that this line will carry some 25,000 barrels of oil a day to replace oil presently imported from offshore countries and at a cost exceeding the domestic price, will the minister assure this House that, assuming the National Energy Board finds the line to be a public necessity and convenience and that the federal environmental assessment and review panel does the same, the government will give quick endorsement to the construction of the line?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, if I may answer
Oral Questions
that question, we will have to wait for the decision of the National Energy Board and also for the results of the environmental hearing before the matter will come to the government for final determination. It is premature to make a decision at this time.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Assuming approval is given by the National Energy Board and by the environmental assessment and review panel, will the minister assure this House that he and the government will not support any moratorium on the construction of the line?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, there are further representations to be heard from the native organizations in the Northwest Territories and the territorial government. To give a firm and hard decision at this time, before some of the representations which they wish to make to the government through myself, is really not giving them a fair chance to present their views. Therefore, 1 think any decision should be withheld, as I say, until they have that chance.


LACK OF OIL PRICING AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON DRILLING ACTIVITY IN CANADA
Mr.   Len. Gustafson@Assiniboia: Madam Speaker, my question arises from that posed by one of my constituents who is concerned about employment in the oil industry. Therefore,
I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Is the government aware that drilling activity is slackening off significantly in Canada and moving to the United States of America, which seems to be a repeat of what was experienced in Canada in 1973? The cause seems to be related directly to the government's indecision with regard to the oil pricing agreement. Is the minister aware of this very serious situation that exists in Canada today?


An hon. Member:: Of course not.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the latest report I have seen is that drilling is up-specifically, up 30 per cent compared to the same period when the Conservatives were in office last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: That was a dreadful answer.


Mr. Gustafson:: Madam Speaker, it is true there are more rigs. According to the latest figures I have, for July 2, there were 535 rigs drilling in Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C., the Northwest Territories, the Arctic and Manitoba; but there are 123 rigs down and not turning. However, in Saskatchewan there are 46 rigs turning, while in Williston, North Dakota-a small town-there are 151 rigs turning.

July 9, 1980
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Will the minister take seriously this very important situation which threatens Canadian oil exploration at this time?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in his long list of statistics the hon. member said nothing that contradicts what 1 have already told him, namely, that drilling is up 30 per cent this year compared to the same period last year when the Tories were in office.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY PREMIER AND TREASURER FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: May 1 at this point draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Honourable Lindsay Thompson, Deputy Premier and Treasurer for the State of Victoria, Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is of vital importance to consumers and small businessmen across this country.
In light of the recent disclosure that the Hudson's Bay Company and Simpsons Limited are using their combined purchasing power to squeeze volume rebates from small manufacturers and suppliers, and because this practice represents a blatant display of monopoly power that could not only force many manufacturers out of business but also reduce the levels of competition in the marketplace, will the minister inform this House whether or not he will be introducing amendments to the combines legislation that will enable the government to successfully break up a combination like the Hudson's Bay-Sears marketing conglomerate?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to say two things to the hon. member in that connection. First, I will discuss the matter with the director of investigations and research to determine if the practice described by the hon. member is harmful and comes under the Combines Investigation Act. Second, as soon as possible in one of the next sessions of this Parliament I intend to introduce amendments to the legislation on competition in Canada so that it will have more teeth than the present legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing the comments of the minister regarding the second phase of the competition policy, and I look forward to debating that. 1 would like to be a bit more specific, if I could. When the minister receives all the information and it becomes clear to the minister that the Hudson's Bay Company and Simpsons Limited have been pressuring their suppliers for rebates, what action will the minister take to deal specifically with this problem?


André Ouellet: Surely the hon. member will agree that the director of investigations has limited powers to act under the present legislation, especially as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision. Consequently it is premature for me to predict what the director of investigations might suggest after having examined that file.
*
* *


EXTENSION OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might go back to the Prime Minister with regard to the pipeline question and ask him to turn his attention to Q & M and the dilemma which faces the maritime provinces in particular.
In Halifax, on January 25, the Prime Minister was quite explicit and clear in putting forward his party's position with respect to the sense of urgency that they attach to the pipeline east to Quebec and on into the maritime provinces. Recently I have been somewhat concerned, and I think we all are, knowing that unless a decision is made very quickly the chance of ever getting a pipeline into the maritimes is virtually zilch, zero, nothing.
Will the Prime Minister indicate whether he will use his good offices to cause, under the appropriate sections of the legislation, the reconvening of the National Energy Board on this particular application, so that a decision might be arrived at no later than next spring or summer as to whether, in fact, it will be possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government still shares that sense of urgency. My understanding is that some difficulties were put forward by provincial governments of an environmental or financial nature. I will inquire into them.
It seems to me that the hon. member is making a very reasonable request when he suggests that kind of a deadline. It is certainly within the same understanding as my sense of
July 9, 1980

urgency. I will undertake to ensure that when we have finished this set of negotiations, we will be in a position to announce our entire energy policy. 1 hope very much it will encompass the building of such a pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, 1 welcome the temperate intervention by the Prime Minister: it gives us some assurance. But, after all, he made the promise last January and it is now the middle of July.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The points raised by Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick, in particular, and to a lesser degree by Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia, were in fact legitimate concerns for any province with respect to costing and some other matters.
Will the minister give some indication to those in the maritimes as to whether he favours the development down river from Quebec of a super, major oil port that would handle, for example, Arctic gas, Hibernian oil, imports from OPEC, and so on, or whether he subscribes to the view of the Prime Minister that the government still attaches some urgency to at least giving the maritimes an opportunity to join in the economic activity that is associated with, related to and flows from the activity of a major oil or gas pipeline, in this case a gas pipeline?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think I have already indicated to the hon. member, but I am very happy to repeat when speaking to the question he raises, that the first priority of this government obviously has to be a decision on whether there should be an extension of the gas pipeline to the maritime provinces. That is definitely our first priority.


OVERLAND OIL PIPELINE ROUTE IN B.C.-NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the United States west coast refineries at the moment are in a surplus supply position, reducing the need for extended tanker traffic down the B.C. west coast, will the minister advise what progress he is making with the U.S. administration to ensure that the preferred Canadian overland pipeline route can proceed in the future?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I took the opportunity at my last meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy of the United States to indicate quite clearly that the federal government still prefers the overland route in terms of the future oil pipeline. This has been the consistent view of this party. We lost no time in reiterating our view in this regard to the American authorities, even though they may have been confused for a certain period as to what the view of the federal
Ora! Questions
government was at the time the hon. member's party was in office.


Pat Carney: My supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the government of British Columbia has indicated that it is not willing to proceed with the construction of the Alaska gas pipeline link through northeast B.C. until it reaches a financial agreement with the federal government on the financing of the social infrastructure, will the minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that these agreements will be in place in time for the Alaska gas pipeline to proceed?


Marc Lalonde: These discussions have been taking place over the last several years and they are continuing. This is a continuing issue and it has not been resolved as yet. As the hon. member knows, the whole question of the Alaska gas pipeline has many aspects. This is one of them, and the discussions will carry on.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. My intervention reflects a regional concern. It concerns the French CBC network which for six years has been scheduling the establishment of facilities in the North Shore area. I would like to know whether the minister intends to take action to force the corporation to meet its schedule or even anticipate on the plans established a full six years ago. Land was purchased six years ago in Sept-lies, yet never since has the corporation shown any interest in a population living along 600 miles of coast and as far as 1,250 miles inland. So my question is this: Does the minister really intend to take action to compel the corporation finally to establish facilities in Sept-Iles, and does he intend to meet with the corporation management so that they follow up on their own commitment in this regard?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I know that for a very long time the hon. member for Manicouagan has shown concern over this matter which is of great interest for the people in his area and in the whole North Shore area. So 1 would like to indicate to the hon. member that unfortunately I do not have the authority required to compel the CBC to meet the commitments he has mentioned. However, I can assure him that I have already made representations on his behalf to the corporation and that within the next few days I intend to meet with the management to discuss this matter.
2700________________________ COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________July 9, 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


INQUIRY WHETHER EXPORT TAX WILL BE IMPOSED
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the last two weeks, the minister has been forced to touch upon the subject of an import tax on all forms of energy. I would like to ask the minister-


An hon. Member:: Export-


Roch La Salle: -pardon me, an export tax. I thank my colleagues for the correction. I wonder if under the circumstances, the minister has asked his officials to draft legislation to this effect, and if not, does he intend to do so?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my officials have not been instructed to draft any type of legislation on the subject. As I have indicated to a great many Canadians, provincial spokesmen, particularly from Saskatchewan and Alberta, have commented that the people of those provinces found unjust that an export tax be imposed on oil and not on other forms of energy, that the issue had not been considered in the context of a full scale review of the energy policy and that the issue would be considered and reviewed. No decision has yet been taken on the matter.


REQUEST PROVINCES BE CONSULTED BEFORE IMPOSITION OF EXPORT TAX
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the responsible minister whether he can assure the House, since those discussions have been held in fact, that no decision to that effect will be reached without it having been negotiated with the provinces or at least without having obtained their agreement to the matter.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already had a number of consultations with all provinces on all sorts of energy questions, and it is quite possible indeed that, before a final decision is made, there might be others. However, I find it strange that the hon. member should suggest that a tax measure which, for instance, would fall strictly within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, should be subject not only to consultations with the provinces but also to their approval. If the hon. member is suggesting that the federal budget prepared by the Minister of Finance should first be approved by the provinces, 1 feel his conception of the role of the federal government is very strange indeed.


NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT-PROVISIONS RESPECTING FINANCING OF PIPELINES
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, we would be happy if the budget could be approved by the House of Commons, but we have not seen one yet.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can either minister tell us whether the government is considering changing the wording of section 12 of the schedule attached to the Northern Pipeline Act in a way which would change the requirement that financing must be in place for the complete line before approval is granted for the pre-build?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition is aware of the fact that the National Energy Board already made that recommendation to cabinet and, at the time, it refused to consider it until it had more information on the matter and there were new developments. The recommendation of the National Energy Board is still before cabinet and will obviously be either accepted or rejected.


Charles Joseph Clark: I wonder, then, if I might have an assurance from either the Minister of Energy or the Prime Minister that any change to the schedule which would have a significant effect upon the conditions would be brought before the House of Commons before it is implemented. In other words, I am asking for an assurance that the government will not use the device of simply amending the schedule as a means of avoiding debate in Parliament on what could be a very important change in policy.


Marc Lalonde: The right hon. member refers to a "device". I would refer him to the legislation which was passed by Parliament in 1978 and which specifically provided for exactly what he is talking about. In section 20(4) there is a provision enabling the National Energy Board to amend conditions. So there is no question about not respecting Parliament or the will of Parliament. Provision for this has been specifically made in the act, so there is no question of using any special device to avoid Parliament.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we now have a clear indication that the government is planning to change the conditions by changing the schedule and, consequently, changing the intent of the act which Parliament passed.
What I am seeking is a clear statement from either the minister or his superior in energy matters, the Prime Minister, that a change in the act will not be made by amending the schedule without coming to the House of Commons.


Marc Lalonde: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to misinterpret completely what has been stated. No
July 9, 1980

decision has been taken, as I have indicated quite clearly. A recommendation by the Energy Board has already been rejected. The matter is presently before cabinet, and when a decision is made it will be announced. No decision has yet been made one way or the other.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Following testimony by a Ministry of Transport aviation inspector before the judicial inquiry in Quebec City, Mr. Justice Dubin warned a senior Transport Canada official that he will not tolerate intimidation of witnesses appearing before his commission of inquiry into aviation safety. He also said he would do everything in his power to ensure that no witness appearing before his commission would be harassed or unfairly dealt with.
Will the minister assure us that he, too, will not tolerate harassment or intimidation of employees of his department by any of his officials, and that no effort to tamper with or influence testimony of employees who are to appear as witnesses will be allowed; and will he send a warning in writing to his deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers and all other officials and supervisors in his department to that effect?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the same judge, the Chief commissioner of the commission, should have found it useful yesterday, to compliment the officials in the air administration branch of my department for their openness, frankness and objectivity in this situation.
The air administrator of my department has repeatedly said, in private and in public, that officials of the department were free to come and give evidence before the commission. He said openly that there would be no penalty attached to such action. I wish to say emphatically-and this is as good as a letter- that it is also my attitude and I will see to it that it is implemented in the future as in the past.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's assurances in that regard. In the present context, with regard to the future treatment of these employees, to make sure that there is no possibility that those employees who appear as witnesses will be unfairly or improperly treated later by supervisors or officials for giving evidence to the inquiry which they might not like, will the minister issue a directive to all officials in his department that there is to be no unfair treatment or lack of consideration given to any employee, no lessening of their opportunities for advancement or promotion, no derogatory insertions in their personnel files, no refusing to speak to or to deal openly and normally at all times with such employees?
Ora! Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: My hon. friend is sufficiently sophisticated to know that a statement of that kind might not solve all the problems. There are ways of being unfriendly to a person when you want to be that, as my friend can well imagine. But speaking from the top of my head-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and with great sincerity, I might offer to do something even more worthwhile than what the hon. member suggested. 1 might promise to the House-because what is taking place now is, in my view, a very serious event which might have a traumatic effect on the department-to pay particular attention to the officers who are going to present testimony which might not be friendly to the department, and 1 promise to meet them and to ensure that they are not hurt in the process.


PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO ALBERTA ON OIL PRICING AGREEMENT-TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In reply to a number of questions from this side of the House, the minister indicated that to gain an oil pricing agreement with Alberta he had submitted four proposals to Alberta.
My question is whether they were really four distinctly different proposals, or did the minister submit four times the same proposal? If they were indeed distinct, which 1 doubt, I should like to ask the minister, what were the differences?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: First of all, I would like to assure my hon. colleague that at least four different proposals were made during the discussions I had with my counterpart from Alberta. These various proposals were all rejected for different reasons. However, I wish to add that the Alberta energy minister and myself have agreed that' for the benefit of the negotiations which are in progress, it would be preferable not to give out the details of the offers made.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, in a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I should like to ask whether he has considered the fact that he might be able to settle the tar sands, or the heavy oil portion of the agreement to allow these two massive developments to get under way.
He did indicate that Petro-Canada is ready to go and that these companies are ready to go. Indeed, Alsands is not ready to go without a commitment on pricing, Imperial Oil is not ready to go without a commitment on pricing, PetroCan is not

Oral Questions
ready to go for at least another five years. Elas he considered this?


An hon. Member:: Marc Lalonde is ready to go right now.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that I put forward four different offers on the table and they have been turned down. If my colleague suggests that we should have a special arrangement or separate arrangement for the tar sands development, I certainly would not object to discussing such a proposal. But I must say that I have seen no particular interest in such a separate arrangement for tar sands from my Alberta colleague. I have had no indication whatever that this would go anywhere.
But if my friend thinks that there is a possibility of making real progress by dissociating the general discussions and dividing them, I am certainly willing to consider this and even to communicate with my Alberta colleague to ask him whether he is interested. However, I must tell the hon. member that the meetings I have had lately lead me to believe that this would not be very productive.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he inform the House when the decision on branch railway lines will be made, the lines mentioned in what is called the Neil report, which he indicated he would look at? Was that decision made, and can he announce it to the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do so quite soon, Madam Speaker.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, "quite soon" is really not good enough in terms of an answer. Can the minister give us an indication whether "quite soon" will be before the end of July, and is he giving very serious consideration to retaining the lines that were put into the permanent network? That is what westerners really want to know.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 am quite aware of the importance of making a decision soon, because uncertainty in these circumstances is not good. But I have to go through the normal process of obtaining the support of my colleagues for whatever action I will take. My recommendation will be going to a committee of the cabinet very soon.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and
July 9, 1980
Oceans. In view of the fact that the extensive U.S. market has been closed by U.S. regulations prohibiting the importation of swordfish from Canada since 1971, thereby making the 3,500 tonnes quota for 1980 meaningless, I ask the minister whether he has recently been in touch with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for the regulation, to request them to lift the ban. If so, what response did he receive?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: have not been in touch recently with the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. I know that some efforts had been made before I left office, and I presume they were continued under my successor. I have nothing new to report on that. I am afraid that in fact what we are seeing is what 1 had warned about some time ago-that the size of the Canadian market was simply not large enough to permit a very economic operation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since the Canadian swordfish season opened in June, and the Canadian market is very limited-as the minister stated-will he undertake to present to the U.S. FDA a well-documented report covering scientific research to clarify the fact that the mercury level in swordfish is not significant enough to endanger human health, and request that the importing ban should be revoked so that this approximately $15 million industry could be restored to Nova Scotia?


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, 1 know that a great deal of very valuable and correct information was given to our American friends. They did not act at that time, but I think it is worth going to them again.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Did the minister give any consideration to the recommendation of the grain transportation task force which suggested that the private sector, if certain economic situations were to their advantage, would invest in rolling stock, cars- similar to the situation of the 100 per cent tax write-off on Canadian films? 1 believe that the suggestion was accepted by the previous administration. Did he give any consideration to that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we are giving consideration to everything, and I will add this one to the others.


LEASING OF HOPPER CARS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with the answer the minister gave,
July 9, 1980

but now I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, because his seatmate, the Minister of Transport, did not consider and accept a principle which was accepted by the Conservative government.
Is he aware that his government will be paying out $275 million to two American banks, the J. P. Morgan Interfunding Corporation and the Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, for leases on Canadian hopper cars?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Transport, is very much aware of all these considerations. He is demonstrating that daily.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: And I am happy to share with him-


An hon. Member:: Get your tongue out of your cheek.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am happy to share with him a commitment to improving very soon western grain transportation.


An hon. Member:: Beat your chest.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Has he and his department arrived at a policy yet with respect to the commercial salmon fishery in the Bay of Fundy and other areas of Atlantic Canada? If so, what is that policy?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I hope I understood the hon. member's question. The policy has not changed. Perhaps the hon. member is referring to some newspaper report to the effect that 75 per cent of a fisherman's income would have to come from the fishery before he was qualified to hold a licence. Frankly, I do not know from where the report originated. That is not in the policy. We are discussing the whole area of fisheries licensing, but under no circumstances would we put, in that type of region-which is rather dependent upon seasonal fisheries-that sort of regulation. So I can only knock down what appears to have been a rather mistaken speculation about the whole field of licensing.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact commercial fishermen in the Bay of Fundy and other Atlantic regions where the salmon fishery is now barred will not have a fishing season this year, is the minister now prepared to assure salmon fishermen that they will receive the historic payments in lieu of fishing that was the policy of his department for a number of years? If so, when?
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I really have to remind the hon. member-and he might want to look at this in Hansard when he sat on this side-it was announced that the ban would be continued but compensation would be terminated. The then minister, my predecessor, then realigned his position and I congratulate him for it. But the fact is that no money was left in the estimates to undertake the payment to fishermen. 1 am now trying to restore this budget, as I am trying to restore a number of others.


NATIONAL ANTHEM
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Radio and television stations used to end their programming by playing our national anthem, "O Canada". This commendable custom was dropped some time during the 1970s. Would the Secretary of State write a letter to the administration of the radio and television stations urging them to open and close their daily programming by playing "O Canada"?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I feel that the suggestion made by the hon. member touches the heart of every member of the House. It will give me great pleasure to follow up on it and communicate with all radio and television stations as well as with all cable companies in the country recommending that they adopt the policy suggested by the hon. member.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, during the period reserved for presentation of motions under S.O. 43, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) made a motion. I thank him for having brought to the attention of Canadians through his motion the very progressive policy my department has adopted concerning supply, in using this system to "Canadianize" our industry. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, when he made these statements, he indicated that we had bought thousands of tires from Hungary whereas in fact we have bought only 192.


Madam Speaker:: Order. There is so much noise in the House of Commons that I cannot even hear whether the hon. minister is raising a point of order and decide whether he ought to be recognized. I would ask hon. members to let me hear him so I can see what procedure should be adopted.

July 9, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Blais


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, I might indicate that what I was saying was that the hon. gentleman made allegations in the motion under Standing Order 43, which he presented. Those allegations were inaccurate. In effect, the tires were purchased from B. F. Goodrich.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order, please, it is sufficiently clear that the hon. minister does not have a point of order but is launching into a debate about a motion introduced under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Therefore, I cannot hear the hon. minister. The hon. member for Edmonton North on a point of order.
* *
*


SCHOLARSHIPS AND INTERNSHIPS FOR ATHLETES
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, at this time of the year when a lot of our athletes are looking for scholarships and internships, otherwise they will lose their scholarships here in Canada, my question for today was-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is very important. They have not heard it yet.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I need not remind the hon. member "question period" is over.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, it was not a question. I just wanted to know whether the minister had cashed the cheque for $12 million.


Madam Speaker:: Well, if it was not a question, it seems to me the hon. member has made his representations.
*
* *


POINT OF ORDER
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Supply and Services on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, it is a very simple point. During the period of motions under the provisions of Standing Order
43, opposition members make allegations which they do not pursue by asking questions during question period.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 cannot allow such an intervention any more than I can allow members on the other side of the House to use one procedure or another to express their dissatisfaction with answers they received from government members. I think I am being fair in not recognizing members of this side who are not pleased with allegations made during the period of motions under Standing Order 43, any more than 1 would let hon. members on the other side initiate a debate about an answer they obtained from a minister.


Sidney James Parker: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I presented some facts. Because I did not put in issue the manufacturing of that company-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Sidney James Parker: -the fact remains-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to continue the debate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in the House in both official languages copies of proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, anachronisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other acts subsequent to 1970.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: blues in respect of this question and answer and the several interjections which occurred at the time. I note that the phrase used in the second to last line of the question by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is "300,000 or 400,000 bales of hay". That is not, Madam Speaker, what he said and the interjections, had they been reproduced, would make that abundantly clear. What he said was "bushels", and the privilege of altering Hansard does not extend to members the right to alter the whole sense of what was said. The hon. member is stuck with the word "bushels" and Hansard should record that accurately, rather than in this fashion.
1 would prevail upon the Chair, because this has happened before and appears to be continuing to happen, to consider that it might be useful, particularly to newer members such as this one, to point out-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: He is not a new member and should know better. Either that party's caucus chairman, the House leader, or perhaps yourself. Madam Speaker, should once again remind members of the limitations which apply when members make alterations to the blues.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to interject at this time. I had the opportunity, because I sat very close to the hon. gentleman, to hear his explanation when the microphone was turned off. He immediately corrected himself explaining that he meant to say "bales" instead of "bushels".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on the same question of privilege. To those of us who were in the House yesterday it was quite clear that the hon. member, when referring to hay, did not use the word "bales" but rather "bushels", and in fact went to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) right after the question period and tried to explain to the minister privately. But I think to all members who were in the House it was clear he used the word "bushels" instead of "bales".


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think this discussion should be prolonged, but 1 concur in what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) have said. I would appreciate it very much if you would consider examining the blues yourself and, if you find this has occurred, you could order the appropriate correction to be made.


Madam Speaker:: We now fortunately have two ways of checking the record. The reporters take down what they hear from an hon. member and we have the soundtrack from the televising of the proceedings. If the soundtrack has not picked up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Reference to Committee


An hon. Member:: The hon. member should take a lie detector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It sometimes happens that some words are not picked up by the microphone. However, 1 need not remind hon. members that they cannot cause Han-sard to be changed in respect of something which has been said by another hon. member. Perhaps that hon. member when he comes into the House, after reading Hansard tomorrow and sees what has taken place in the House today, will want to give an explanation or correct himself, if there is a need to do so. 1 will leave it to the hon. member to ascertain or indicate what he really meant or said in the House on that particular day.


STATUTE LAW (MILITARY AND CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS, COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1980 MEASURE RESPECTING PENSIONS OF VETERANS
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-40, to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


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


Walter David Baker: Later this day.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
July 7, 1980-The President of the Privy Council:
That the report of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, entitled "For Canada's Children", tabled Friday, May 30, 1980 (Sessional Paper No. 321-4/127), be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to, and ordered for consideration under, government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.

Order Paper Questions


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simeoe) moved: that the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Friday, June 27, 1980 be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(c)
Abraham and the Three Angels (by B. E. Murillo) was purchased for 8,000 pounds sterling.
Lamentation (by Q. Matsys) was purchased for $31,000
Mercury and Argus (by J. M. W. Turner) was purchased for 7,150 pounds sterling.
' *

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 10, 52, 67, 71, 117, 238, 542, 763, 836, 986 and 1,219.
[ Text]


Mr. C'ossitt: 1.	Did the National Gallery of Canada purchase paintings through arrangement with, or on the recommendation of, alleged British spy Mr. Anthony Blunt and, if so (a) what are the names of all the paintings (b) what were the dates of purchase (c) what was the amount paid in each case and what was the total amount paid (d) what was the total amount of money paid to Mr. Blunt for his services?
2.	Did the gallery purchase a painting entitled "Cleopatra and Augustus" purportedly by Mr. Nicolas Poussin and, if so (a) was the painting certified by Mr. Blunt as an original Poussin (b) was the deal with the gallery completed by British art dealer, Mr. T. Harris and, to the knowledge of the government, is this the same Mr. Harris who has been referred to in the alleged recent British spy revelations concerning Mr. Blunt?
3.	Has the government any information that Mr. T. Harris was in any way connected with the Maclcan-Burgess-Philby and Blunt affair and, if so, what is the information?


David Michael Collenette: 1 am informed by the Secretary of State and the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	(a) Abraham and the Three Angels by B. E. Murillo Lamentation by Q. Matsys Mercury and Argus by J. M. W. Turner Augustus and Cleopatra by N. Poussin (b) The date of purchase in the above order are as follows:
1948-	Abraham and the Three Angels (by B. E. Murillo)
1949-	Lamentation (by O. Matsys)
195 I - Mercury and Argus (by J. M. W. Turner) 1953-Augustus and Cleopatra (by N. Poussin)
Augustus and Cleopatra (by N. Poussin) was purchased for 500 pounds sterling
The total amount paid for these purchases of works of art was 15,650 pounds sterling and $31,000.
(d) Professor Blunt was paid an annual honorarium of 250 pounds sterling a year from June, 1948, to May, 1956, for a total of approximately 1,850 pounds sterling.
2.	(a) The painting in question was attributed to Poussin by Professor Blunt in print in 1938, and this attribution was maintained by Professor Blunt in the Burlington magazine as late as 1977.
(b) In so far as the Secretary of State is concerned: The painting was purchased from the Spanish Art Gallery Ltd. operated by Mr. Thomas Harris.
In so far as the Solicitor General is concerned: See Secretary of State's reply to part 2(b) and answer to part 3 below.
3.	The policy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is to preserve the confidentiality of all information it holds on individuals and organizations.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was CBC radio station CBO-AM, Ottawa, increased in power in the past few years and, if so (a) on what date (b) to what amount of wattage?
2.	Technically, how large a radius is a 50,000 watt radio station supposed to carry in so far as providing good service?
3.	(a) Is CBC aware if CBO-AM Ottawa, produces adequate signals in the area of Brockvillc, Ontario in the constituency of Lccds-Grenville (b) for what reason is it not available on numerous occasions except faintly (c) what steps will CBC take to provide proper coverage for Brockvillc by the station especially since CBC programming has been eliminated bv Brockville's private radio station CFJR?
4.	Have complaints been received from persons in the area that they are unable to pick up CBC news programs, particularly "The World at Eight" and "The World at Six"?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes.
July 9, 1980

(a)	February 1, 1977
(b)	5Kw to 50Kw.
2.	No general answer can be given to this question since it depends on such factors as directional radiation patterns, frequency of the station, ground conductivity and tower height. Also, because of propagation characteristics after dark, most stations alter their broadcast pattern in the evening, as required under international agreement, to protect the coverage area of other stations.
3.	(a) The CBC is aware that CBO does not provide an
adequate signal in the area of Brockville.
(b)	Because of the necessity to protect the coverage area of existing stations on the same frequency, CBO could not be designed to cover the Brockville area.
(c)	CBC has constructed an FM transmitter near Brockville which is expected to go into service as soon as signal interference problems are largely resolved. This transmitter will carry the same programming as CBO.
4.	Some complaints have been received from people in the Brockville area about lack of reception generally, not specifically about "The World at Eight" and "The World at Six".


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. John McGrath a staff member of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at station CBO and, if so (a) is he with the news department (b) on what date did he join the staff (c) is he on six months probation (d) what are the qualifications which lead him to receiving the job (e) what arc his duties?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, was Mr. McGrath refused entry to the United States on at least two occasions and, if so, for what reasons?
3.	Did Mr. McGrath at one time work for the program "CBO Morning" and did he do research on the opening of mail by the RCMP and, if so (a) did any of his research concern the Octopus Book Store of Ottawa (b) is such research material still in existence and, if not, was it destroyed and for what reason?


Peter A. Stollery: 1. To be answered elsewhere.
2.	This question should be directed to the immigration and naturalization service of the United States Government.
3.	To be answered elsewhere.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	Yes.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	October 29, 1979.
2.	To be answered elsewhere.
1(c), (d), (e), 3(a), (b).
The circumstances and terms of Mr. McGrath's employment and assignments as an individual CBC employee are among those details of internal management and administration which Parliament has not, as a matter of
Order Paper Questions
custom, required the CBC to provide. The background of this custom was explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of public funds spent in establishing CBC FM English and French transmitting stations in the Constituency of Leeds-Gren-ville near Maitland, Ontario?
2.	Did CBC engineers find that the operation of such stations interfered with radio and television reception by persons in the area and, if so (a) were many complaints received (b) did tests in the past eight months show any improvement in the situation?
3.	What are the future plans for the stations?
4.	Are the stations inoperative at present and will they continue to be and, if so, what will be done with them?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Five hundred and twelve thousand dollars.
2. (a) Approximately 100 complaints were received because a number of weak FM signals (Radio & Television) in the area were affected when the CBC FM transmitters were tested. The transmitters were installed to replace CBC service formerly provided by a local affiliate, to strengthen inadequate AM coverage areas and to provide a basic French language service for the area.
CBC/DOC tests have established that the CBC signals are in conformity vtith DOC standards and consistent with the provisions of the licence issued by CRTC.
(b) No.
3.	The stations will go on the air as soon as the signal interference problems are largely resolved. CBC will shortly be making available to area residents technical advice on possible remedies to reduce or eliminate the interference.
4.	The stations are inoperative at present. See answer to (3).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past six years, what was the total amount spent by the government on construction and maintenance on government owned buildings or property of any kind in the Hull, Quebec area?
2.	What was the total for the six years combined?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 am
informed by the Department of Public Works and the National Capital Commission as follows: In so far as Public Works Canada is concerned: 1. The following amounts were spent in the past six years on construction and maintenance of government-owned buildings and property in Hull, Quebec:

July 9, 1980
2.
Fiscal Year	Order Paper Questions Amount ($000)
1974/75	$ 34,448
1975/76	$ 56,415
1976/77	$ 46,831
1977/78	$ 48,941
1978/79	$ 39,037
1979/80	$ 20,539
	$246,211
Note; This includes expenditures on roads and bridges but does not include expenditures for leases or lease-purchases.
In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: I. In each of the past six fiscal years, the following amounts were spent on construction and maintenance on government owned buildings or property of any kind in the Hull, Quebec area:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1974/75	$ 3,738,367
1975/76	$ 4,569,625
1976/77	$ 5,471,095
1977/78	$ 6,169,983
1978/79	$ 7,006,486
1979/80	$ 6,210,970 $33,166,526


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What percentage of all persons employed are in part-time jobs?
2.	How many do not work sufficient hours to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Statistics Canada has reported that in 1979, 12.6 per cent of the employed labour force were part-time workers. Statistics Canada defines a part-time worker as one who usually works fewer than 30 hours a week and does not consider himself or herself a full-time worker.
2. Under the current rules for minimum weekly insurability, it is estimated that about 130,000 individuals who were parttime workers were prevented from establishing a claim in 1979.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programs or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Justice?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: 1(a) and 2. See list below, (b) None.
Payee
Maureen K. Saltman
Edmund John Clark Warren Standerwick Lois Jeanne Viccns
Sharon Card Hope MacLean
Ray Corrado
Margaret Ruth Canshorn
Fiore Sicoly
Marilyn MacCrimmon Aidan R. Vining
Frank Maunula
Marie-Diane Rousseau
Social Planning Council of Winnipeg
University of British Columbia
Services	Expenditures	Total
	78-79	Contract
	$	Amount $
Study the feasibility of rationalizing the number of quasi-judicial tribunals in the federal government, including functions of some of these tribunals as a means of reducing their number and overall operating costs without adversely affecting performance.	13,086	38,086Operate a project at the Vancouver, B.C. Court House to test out some of the proposals of	18,023	34,417the Law Reform Commission of Canada in the area of pre-trial procedures, but limited to	36,000	72,200federal prosecutions.	12,000	25,200Implement an evaluation design for the department's diversion projects.	21,000	49,175Produce a format for the evaluation of the Native Courtworker Program.	4,050	16,387Conduct trial implementation of the evaluation design for the Native Courtworker Programs in two jurisdictions. Report on the results and recommend changes needed to the evaluation design. Consult on the evaluation report and on the implementation of changes in the Native Law	13,204	48,929Student Program.	3,250	3,250Preliminary research directed toward designing an evaluation for delivery of Legal Aid Services through the judicare and public defender models.	18,415	18,415Evaluate and report on projects which provide legal services to mental patients in institutional settings.	4,150	4,150Prepare and oversee the implementation of an evaluation design for the Unified Family Court Projects (Phase II).	12,283	12,283Design and perform an evaluation of the Vancouver Pre-Trial	600	600Discovery Project.	500	500Elaborate a research design that could be utilized in evaluating the Thunder Bay Legal Aid Clinic.	4,412	4,412Design and implementation of an evaluation of the Pt. St. Charles Legal Aid Clinic.	10,030	18,330Develop a research design which could be used to evaluate the impact of Legal Aid "User Fee" (Manitoba).	6,500	6,500Implement an evaluation designed to examine the cost and service effectiveness of the delivery of Legal Aid Services through Judicare and Public Defender Models.	24,000	262,743
July 9, 1980
Payee

Order Paper Questions
Services
Expenditures
University of Regina
University of Toronto Arboleda Florez Wyberna Ltd.
Robert O'Reilly
Michele Rivet
Joan Tator
Norman W. Hill
Brian Tannenbaum
Ian V. Dubienski Dennis O'Connor
Lome Elkin Douglas G. Heatley
Design and implement an evaluation format of the Regina Native Council Project.
Evaluate current practices with respect to mental disorders and the Criminal Justice System in relation to:
Pre-Trial
Post-Trial
Corrections & Police Training
Prepare a research paper on the lump sum awards granted pursuant to the provisions of the Divorce Act.
Conduct research in the area of childrens' rights namely to assist in preparatory work for study proposals with respect to Section 33 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and to collect data with respect to sexual abuse of children.
Review and analysis of Law Reform Commission working papers and reports on I) Jury 2) Homicide - assaults and threats, 3) Contempt of Court; preparation of policy discussion papers outlining the policy implications of the Law Reform Commission proposals in terms of substantive and procedural implementation; and outline alternative proposals for implementation and the feasibility thereof as they relate to the law reform proposals.
Research concerning guidelines in the area of sentencing and corrections; participate in the preparation of papers that would present discussion as to the efficacy of guidelines, participate in discussion to compare the desirability of legislative guidelines with exemplary guidelines and whether empirical or normative guidelines.
Assist and advise the Department of Justice by directing the Sentencing Project.
Advisor to the Sentencing Project particularly to examine the use of "day fines" as a sentencing alternative and its implications.
Consult on, and design the evaluation of the Regina Mediation Diversion Project.
Data analysis of selective changes in the Bail Reform Act (1975) in Victoria.

3,000
45,347
24,772
4,348
2,500
1,000
5,963
11,611
9,302
7,233
2,572
3,999
2,500


Mr. Shields: Since August I, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Treasury Board and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Insofar as the following are concerned:
Name
Seally W. John
Treasury Board Canada Administrative Contracts
Number of Contracts
8
Treasury Board Canada Policy Contracts
		Amount paid		
Treasury Board Canada	(a) 8	$ 34,546.20	Number of(b) 19	$503,263.41	Name	ContractsOffice of the Comptroller General	Carpenter R.	2of Canada	(a) 22	$248,997.35	(b) 4	$ 46,540.24	Silverman Consulting Services	1Treasury Board Canada Administrative Contracts	Laplante, Gauvin, Pouliot, Guerard et Associes Incorpore	1August I, 1978 to March 31, 1980	Fortier Joseph W. Guy	1Number of	Groupe ECI Inc	1Name	Contracts	Cost	Maybee John R.	1McDonald David	1	$ 525.00	Laventhold and Horwath	1Allard, Beaudoin	1	1,400.00	William Nobleman and	Sherwood L. E.	1	355.00	Associates Ltd.	1Poncelet M.	1	125.00	Abonyi George	1Hamilton Richard E.	1	8,625.00	E.A. Ames and Co. Ltd.	2Nepean Development Consultants	1	500.00	Murat B. E.	1Vilaire Pierre et Associes	1	17,230.20	Milligan Eric A.	1
Total
Contract
Amount

5.000
45,347
24,772
4,348
2,500
2.000
8,463
45,636
9,302
33,330
7,939
3,999
2,500
August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980
Cost
5.786.00 $34,546.20
August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980
Cost


[Stage Direction]
5.000.	00
35.460.00 15,843.58 33,520.40
4.200.00 22,039.46
2.000.	00
444.00
290.000.00
30.125.00
20.200.00
[Stage Direction]
July 9, 198C|
Order Paper Questions Treasury Board Canada Policy Contracts		
Name	Number of Contracts	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980 CostTowers Perrin Foster and Co. Ltd.	1	8,141.00Anderson R.	2	12,480.00Extral Consultants Ltd.	1	6,637.50Collerette Pierre	1	8,000.0019	$503,263.41Office of the Comptroller General Administrative Contracts	Name	Number of Contracts	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980 CostRobinson A. J.	1	$ 750.00C. Lovell Limited	1	3,380.96Center for Policy and Management Studies	1	500.00Social Science Federation of Canada	1	150.00Crandall R. H.	1	16,900.00University of Victoria	1	16,640.00Quasar Systems Limited	6	73,063.75Friescn, Kaye and Associates	2	43,169.51E.A.C. Amy and Sons Ltd.	2	49,750.00Manitoba 37656 Manitoba Ltd.	1	32,700.00Square One Management L.td.	1	6,1 13.13Chatcauvert Dcnyse	1	1.200.00Dixon Management Consultant	1	3,000.00Van Eijk, Jannie	1	180.00Youtec Consulting Ltd.	1	1,500.0022	$248,997.35Office of the Comptroller General Policy Contracts	Name	Number of Contracts	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980 CostHickling and Johnston Ltd.	1	$ 23,886.24Kemball P. R.	2	11,179.00Thames Group Research Incorporated	1	11,475.004	$ 46,540.24OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Howie: As of November 1, 1979, how many persons were receiving old age security benefits?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As of November 1, 1979, there were 2,209,133 persons receiving old age security benefits.


Mr. MacKay: 1. With reference to the government's restraint program of (a) 1978 (b) 1979, by province and territory, what (i) was the per capita reduction (ii) was the total reduction in expenditures (iii) were the reductions as a proportion of the national total?

2. For the same years, did the Atlantic provinces bear a disproportionate share of such reductions stemming from programme changes and cuts?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: 1 and 2. The Treasury Board secretariat does not have all the information required to address these questions, and such information would be costly to assemble. Moreover, considering program cuts in isolation would provide only a partial and misleading picture, for several reasons. First, it is important not to ignore the rapid growth in on-going programs, such as equalization payments which favour economically weaker regions. Second, there is the impact of certain "tax expenditures", such as the Investment Tax Credit for DREE designated areas and the Child Tax Credit which again tend to favour the economically weaker regions. Finally, other policies, while not having direct budgetary implications, nevertheless have important consequences for particular regions. One example is the extension of Canada's territorial waters to the 200-mile limit.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Labour receive a brief from the Canadian Executive Board of the Building and Construction Trades and, if so (a) did it contend that the 1935 Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act should be updated because it gives advantage to non-union contractors on government tenders (b) has the minister answered any of the points raised in the brief and, if so, what were his answers and to which points?
2.	Is the government prepared to consider that government contracts given to contractors should be given either to those who employ union help or to those, although non-union, who pay a fair wage in the area in question?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: 1. (a) Yes
(b) The minister has not answered any of the points raised in the brief.
2. The government's position has always been that employees working on government contract projects should be paid fair wages.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question no. 971.

*July 9, 1980
l[ Text ]


[Stage Direction]
|
Mr. McGrath: I. Did the government reduce radar approach services at the St. John's airport land, if so, are the reductions within safety standards?
2. Was there a reduction in man-years and in equipment in connection with Ithe operation of the radar services and, if so, for what reason?
\[English]


David Michael Collenette: Transport Canada advises as I follows: 1. At the time of the question, radar approach services I at St. John's airport had not been reduced. However, on May 130, 1980, a notice to airmen-NOTAM-was issued advising (aircraft operators that it was planned to withdraw the PAR (service at the St. John's airport on June 9, 1980. As scheduled, (a NOTAM was issued on June 9 advising that this PAR | system was decommissioned. This system was decommissioned (to enable the relocation of the glide path on runway 17 during the upgrading and modernization of the existing instrument landing system on that runway. All other instrument approach systems will continue to be operated in accordance with exist-| ing safety standards.
2. Now that the PAR system has been decommissioned, it I will be removed. The immediate reason for the removal of the equipment is to provide a standard threshold crossing height for aircraft utilizing the ILS on runway 17 which will enable | aircraft to take advantage of a greater runway landing distance under IFR conditions. The long-term reason is to remove this old equipment to comply with departmental policy to remove precision approach radar systems at an airport when two front-course instrument landing systems are available on separate runways. It is not expected there will be a reduction in person-years as the approved number of air traffic controllers is unchanged and these person-years will be utilized to provide increased staff for the control tower at St. John's. The number of person-years within the telecommunications support area will remain unchanged.
Madam Speaker, 1 would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion under S.O. 26


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the amendments to condition 12 of schedule 3 of the Northern Pipeline Act which have been proposed by the National Energy Board, which amendments, if approved by the governor in council, would subvert the intentions of Parliament as expressed in the original Northern Pipeline Act, and could result in the most massive, wasteful and shortsighted sell-out of a non-renewable energy resource of recent times.
I submit personally that the motion meets the test under the rule; second, the question period today indicated why we need this debate; third, if there is to be a cabinet decision before the debate then it would be useless to have a debate after, we need the debate now; and fourth, no government business will be affected if there is a debate tonight, and it will not affect the pension legislation. I urge you to grant leave, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member gave the Chair the required notice to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26. In his application the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) raises a number of points. He questions the wisdom and legality of the amendments proposed by the National Energy Board to the Northern Pipeline Act. He wants to discuss whether such changes to the act were ever intended when the House passed the Northern Pipeline Act in 1978. He feels that because cabinet must make a decision soon regarding the ratification of the proposed amendment, the issue requires the urgent consideration of the House.
While the hon. member is quite properly concerned about the importance of the subject, the Chair must determine whether Standing Order 26 is the appropriate avenue through which to bring this subject to the attention of the House. On April 30, 1975, as appears at page 5340 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled that under almost no circumstances can a review of the law be regarded as an emergency provision rather than a continuing legislative concern of this House. Therefore, it does not constitute a proper subject for debate under Standing Order 26.
The hon. member also wants to review the legal authority of the National Energy Board, an entity to which Parliament has given certain powers under the Northern Pipeline Act, for proposing amendments to a schedule of the act. In a similar situation which involved Bell Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled on November 9, 1971, on pages 9467 to 9468 of Hansard:

July 9, 198
Motion under S. O. 26
ft also appears to the Chair that the hon. gentleman, in the main, is asking for a review or reconsideration of the statutory powers of the Transport Commission ... It may well be that such a review or reconsideration of the powers of the commission might be desirable, but it does not seem to me that a debate under Standing Order 26 is the appropriate or the effective method for such a review.
It seems to me that Mr. Speaker Lamoureux's ruling applies precisely to the case that we have before the House today.
Finally, Standing Order 26, section (16), states that the right to move the adjournment of the House is subject to the condition that:
The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.
The member himself has stated that he raised the matter as early as April 17 of this year. Since then there have been two opposition days dealing with energy policy, one on May 8 and one yesterday, July 8. As well, the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines, to which all reports and agreements mentioned in the Northern Pipeline Act are permanently referred, has also been meeting. It must also be noted that Standing Order 65(1 )(t) states that this committee shall report at least three times in every session.
It would seem to the Chair, therefore, that this subject does not qualify as a genuine emergency and that the House has had and will have other opportunities to discuss the matter.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has obviously availed himself of the opportunity to raise the matter in the House on a number of occasions. The fact that he seems to feel he needs yet another opportunity does not in itself constitute an emergency.
For these reasons 1 must regretfully decline to accept the hon. member's motion at this time.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, with respect to the ruling which you just gave on the Standing Order 26 motion, 1 rise again to inform hon. members that Standing Order 26(3) provides:
When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the member shall rise in his place and present without argument the statement referred to in section (2) of this order.
Section (2) simply says that this House will now adjourn. I would like the House to realize that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was perhaps given some latitude which is not permitted by the rules.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Don't be so mealy-mouthed.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 suggest that the parliamentary secretary has made a gratuitous intervention. I happen to know that the original draft prepared by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was a lengthy one, and 1 counselled him to shorten it. When he stood he read a briefly stated motion. His comments were so brief that I am sure Your Honour does not feel that he transgressed the rule in any way. The parliamentary secretary should save that comment for some other occasion.


Madam Speaker:: It seemed to me that the very, very short statement which was made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was quite acceptable. The draft which I received, of course, gave in length many arguments for which the hon. member thought that this motion should be considered, and that is fine. The draft can be very lengthy, but it is helpful for the Chair if it provides all the bases upon which the motion is requested.
However, the statement made today by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, it seems to me, was reasonably brief, I am sure that it was formulated to inform the House briefly of the reasons for which the hon. member was putting his motion.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 15 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations pertaining to the confidentiality of certain parts of the information requested.
Perhaps you would be so kind. Madam Speaker, as to call I notice of motion for the production of papers Nos. 4, 7 and 22


Madam Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or contingencies expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 15 be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. Memhers: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15 Mr. Nystrom:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, memoranda, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications, between June I, 1979, and February 25, 1980, involving the Treasury Board and relating to the possibility of transferring any or all of the government's computer operations to the private sector.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest completed study on grain transport in western Canada
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the document requested is of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. However, I sent today a copy of the requested document to the hon. member. Therefore, the hon. member is asked to withdraw his motion.
uly 9, 1980


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
otion No. 7-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all minutes of meetings, ocuments, telegrams and letters concerning discussions between officials of the epartment of Transport and Hydro-Quebec relating to high tension electrical ines crossing the Ottawa River below Carillon and the St. Lawrence River bovc Bcauharnois.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, again the docu-ents requested are of a voluminous character and would equire an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. I have, however, sent a copy to the hon. member. Therefore, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REPORT OF PROFESSOR BARNHILL- CARLETON UNIVERSITY-OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. MacKay:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of a report commissioned by the Bureau of Physical Resources, Department of External Affairs, prepared by Professor Barnhill of Carleton University, Ottawa, in 1979.
Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the report asked for by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) was prepared as an internal working paper and contains comments on the competence, abilities and personalities of certain employees of the department. As such, it cannot and should not be tabled. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Madam Speaker:: Will the hon. member withdraw his motion?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, this report, which was commissioned by R. K. Plowman of the Bureau of Physical Services, is obviously one that is of great moment. The actions of this particular department have been indirectly commented upon. It is the single department within the Department of External Affairs which is totally responsible for the provisioning of our diplomatic and other representatives abroad.
The bureau spends a great deal of money and is of such a character that I think the government would want, particularly if it is committed at all to freedom of information, to commission this report which appears ironically enough to be held back by the very person who commissioned it, Mr. Plowman. It deals with his management style and the style in general with which the bureau is managed.
Veterans' Pensions
I would certainly not withdraw my request but request that it be transferred for debate. If the government will not put this information on record, there may be other ways of doing it.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that Bill C-40, to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred by unanimous consent to Committee of the Whole.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. We are waiting to hear from the minister.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I was going to give him the floor. Then 1 should withdraw "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?" and give the floor to the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald).


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is with a good deal of pride that I speak on second reading of this bill dealing with amendments to the Pension Act, the compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
As hon. members know, these are economy conscious times. This government is committed to fiscal responsibility and the prudent management of taxpayers' money. But this government has another commitment, a commitment spelled out in the last election campaign by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he promised help to those Canadians who need it most.
This pledge was kept last month when Parliament passed legislation increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $35 per month. Now this government is proposing that Parliament give similar recognition and support to another group of Canadians who deserve our help. I refer to disabled pensioners, the widows and dependants of those Canadians who went to

July 9, 198i
Veterans' Pensions
war for us and those many needy veterans and their dependants who are and will be receiving the war veterans allowance.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of a government and of a nation which continues to honour its debt to those who risked their lives so that future generations could prosper in peace. Memories of war may fade but the reality of hardship for many veterans and their survivors is ever present. To recognize this reality is simple justice.
It is symbolic that this bill is being introduced 50 years after war veterans allowance legislation was first passed in Parliament. During the past five decades, ministers of veterans affairs have enjoyed the support of all parties in this House in their efforts to upgrade veterans' legislation. Certainly I am no exception. By volunteering to give quick passage to this legislation, the opposition parties are showing that they continue to share this government's concern for our veterans, their widows and dependants. As the ministerial guardian of their interests, 1 thank hon. members sincerely for their co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of legislative changes proposed in this bill, many of which are of a minor nature. I intend to concentrate my remarks on two measures which are of overwhelming significance both in terms of financial commitment and the number of people affected.
First is the amendment to the Pension Act. The purpose of the Pension Act is to provide compensation to those members of the forces and their dependants for disability or death which was a result of military service. The current legislation provides that surviving widows will receive a widow's pension if the wartime pensioner died as a result of an injury or disease which was incurred during or was attributable to military service, or if a peacetime pensioner's death arose out of or was directly connected with such service.
In addition, it provides that a widow's pension will be payable if the pensioner was entitled or would have been entitled to disability pension assessed at 48 per cent or more during his lifetime. Originally the cutoff point was 80 per cent but almost 50 years ago it was changed to 48 per cent. This was because it was considered that in cases where a disability was severe enough to be paid at that rate, death from whatever cause could be assumed to be related in some way to the problems and disabilities of service.
The current legislative provisions have been criticized for many years because of the 48 per cent cutoff which results in a widow whose spouse was pensioned at that rate receiving $554.78 per month, while a widow whose spouse received pension at the 47 per cent rate would receive no pension unless death was related to service. At the same time, it has always been recognized that in any legislation which has a cutoff point, there will be some persons who will not receive benefits because they miss that cutoff.
Generally speaking, it has been considered that the earning capacity of a disabled pensioner is not as great as it would have been had he not been disabled. On that basis he may not be able to provide for his widow and dependent children after
m[DOT]" I *
his death as adequately as he otherwise would have been able^f to.
Mr. Speaker, we are proposing that there be two systems of^^ widow's pensions payable under the Pension Act. In those cases where pensions for the disability have been or should have been paid at the rate of 48 per cent or more, it can be assumed that service played a part in the cause of death, and the present pension system and rates will continue.
In the cases of lesser disabilities where pensions are paid at less than the 48 per cent rate, we are introducing a system whereby the surviving widow will receive one half of the pension paid to her spouse and that will include the additional amount for being married and having dependent children. It will not include other allowances such as attendance allowance and clothing allowance.
As hon. members know, the previous Parliament was dissolved before the former Bill C-28 could be debated. This present bill is the same as Bill C-28 in its treatment of widows' pensions, but as members will hear later it offers a vast improvement in terms of legislation for war veterans allowance | recipients. It is intended by this bill to introduce proportionate pensions for widows and dependent children over a period of six and one-half years.
We are proposing that those surviving widows and depend ents of pensioners who were pensioned from the 38 per cent to 47 per cent assessment level should receive pension benefits starting on October 1 of this year. On April 1 of each following year, the cutoff point will be systematically lowered until by the end of fiscal 1986-87 all eligible widows and dependent children will receive pension benefits relating to disability levels of 5 per cent or more.
1}'
It is estimated that some 15,000 widows and 600 children will become eligible for proportionate pensions on October 1,
1980. By the time the legislation is fully effective, 26,000 ^B widows and 10,000 surviving children will have received these ^B new benefits. Similar provisions are being made with respect to surviving widows and dependent children of former prisoners of war.	^B
Mr. Speaker, I recognize there will be questions as to why we propose to introduce these improvements over a six and one-half year period. Veterans' organizations have a good understanding of the need for such measures. Financial considerations are an integral part of any proposed new legislation. As things stand, the survivors of the more seriously disabled will be helped immediately.
I am proud to say that when this legislation is passed it will overshadow, in terms of generosity, similar legislation anywhere in the world. I believe this is an extremely positive development.
Mr. Speaker, on the golden anniversary of the introduction of war veterans allowance legislation, this Parliament is being asked to reconfirm a commitment made 50 years ago. It was in 1930 that the Parliament of Canada officially recognized that a small segment of the veterans population could not cope with the negative effects of war and needed assistance. At that time

uly 9, 1980

arliament provided through legislation an income tested aintenance allowance to compensate veterans who, due to hese intangible negative effects of war, were considered to be re-aged and incapable of self-maintenance. It was directed oward those who had served in a theatre of war and who had ~een disabled during wartime. In a sense, war veterans allow-nce was regarded as old age assistance, but paid at an earlier ge due to the concept of pre-aging.
Joseph Shull, in his book "Veneration for Valour", called ar veterans allowance "an annuity, the premiums of which he veteran has paid with his service during war." He said eterans themselves had a more telling description-"the burnt-out pension."
I think both descriptions are apt, Mr. Speaker. Most veterans have no need of these benefits, but there are some who have. Some had their youth and vitality drained in war. The working lives of others may have been shortened by the experience of war. There are others who suffer from disease and other ailments born of wartime hardship.
In any event, wartime experience has caught up with the 94,000 Canadians and widows of veterans who now receive war veterans allowance. About half are under 60 years of age and receive federal income support through our program. The remainder are over 65 and receive federal income support, primarily through the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement programs with a modest "top-up" from war veterans allowance.
This is where a significant disparity occurs. Over the years recipients over 65 have benefited more from the war veterans allowance program than their younger comrades. Basically this has resulted because increases in the guaranteed income supplement have been considered exempt income in the income testing process of war veterans allowance. The recent $35 a month increase in GIS means that the single recipient over 65 is now receiving $70 a month more than those who are under 65. For married couples this disparity has not risen to $85 a month.
One original intent of the act was to provide equal treatment to all veterans. One intent of this amendment is to ensure that this happens again. As 1 mentioned earlier, Bill C-28 failed to deal with this disparity. Three years ago I set up a task force within my department to review war veterans allowance legislation. These amendments reflect their major findings as far as benefits to clients are concerned.
The most efficient way to erase the disparity 1 mentioned is to establish a new war veterans' ceiling and, at the same time, assess as income all OAS/GIS payments made to recipients over 65. If our proposals arc approved by this House, effective July 1 of this year single recipients under age 65 will start receiving an extra $10 a month, and married couples under 65 will start receiving $12 a month more as the program is phased in over seven years. By doing this and reducing OAS/GIS exemptions by an identical amount each year, we will have eliminated the gap between the two age groups by April, 1986.
Veterans' Pensions
The bill also contains an amendment which is designed to ensure that such disparities never occur again and that future GIS increases will be passed on automatically to recipients under the age of 65.
Simply put, those over 65 will receive the same benefits as before while those in the younger category will receive annual increases until full equity is achieved. I should also point out that such increases are additional to the current quarterly cost of living increases provided to all recipient veterans and widows. Naturally, many of those now under 65 will be benefiting from the old age security and guaranteed income supplement program long before the transition period is up. We estimate that allowance recipients now under 65 reach that age at a rate of approximately 4,000 a year. Virtually the same number apply for WVA benefits at ages 55 or 60, so we are finding that the total number of our under 65 clientele remains constant at roughly 50,000.
1 would like to point out that a substantial number of WVA recipients will be receiving their first increase in the basic rate since 1973 and they, together with persons coming into the program in later years, will increasingly benefit from this legislation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is appropriate to quote from a speech made by prime minister Borden to Canadian troops before Vimy Ridge in 1917. I do so because this bill is the most important piece of veterans' legislation to be placed before Parliament in many years, and I believe it is only correct that Canadians, particularly the younger ones, are reminded that this is not charity but a right well and nobly earned. Prime minister Borden told those soldiers:
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of your people at home .. . and that no man whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.
By approving this bill, we will once again be honouring that duty which has been reaffirmed many times throughout our history.
One final word: This government has kept its promise to OAS pensioners with its $35 a month GIS increase. It is now proposing to help our war veterans and their families who have been disadvantaged as a result of service to this country.
In this modern age, society is often accused of neglecting both the contributions of our forebears in building this great country called Canada and their needs as they age and experience infirmity. It is often stated that the measure of the social conscience of a nation lies in its treatment of its aging and dependent population.
The government's continuing concern for our senior citizens was recognized through the latest GIS increase. We are now proposing that similar recognition and support be provided on behalf of Canadians who served their country with valour during a time of war. This is why, as Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am proud to move second reading of this bill.

Veterans' Pensions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the main reason I am speaking to this bill is that my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), is not able to be here because of illness. 1 am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery from an operation that he has had.
I would like to welcome the minister back to the House. 1 hope he does not find today's exertions too much, and I also hope his health will continue to improve and that he will be with us throughout the life of this Parliament.
First of all, when one looks at this bill, it does puzzle us as to what took it so long to arrive here. This is a bill where many of the features have been in effect for 15, 20 or even 50 years. They were unjust when they were drafted and when the bill was passed and they have remained unjust ever since. Some of them are relatively minor. However, I agree with the minister that the bill has two major issues that it approaches and there are several minor corrections made to cure these almost tedious discriminatory effects that have been occurring over the years. That is the part that I cannot understand. 1 will speak about the minor points first and get to the major ones later.
The first one I note with pleasure. World War I veterans are no longer discriminated against for war veterans allowance. They were required to spend one year or 365 days overseas during World War 1 before they became eligible for WVA, if 1 may use the abbreviation, whereas World War II veterans were only required to spend one day overseas. That situation simply baffled me. Ever since World War II, which is 35 years ago, we have had two classes of veterans, namely the World War II veteran who had to spend only one day overseas, the other being the World War I veteran who had to spend one year overseas. This was a ridiculous requirement which should have been amended 35 years ago.
The second one is a minor amendment that provides fair treatment for orphans. There is another amendment with regard to a widow who loses her pension if she remarries. If she should lose the second husband, she can again draw the pension she received following the death of her first husband. That is a progressive move.
There is another amendment here which I welcome; I had not seen it previously. If a mistake is made by the Department of Veterans Affairs which adversely affects a veteran's pension, it can now be corrected within the department rather than requiring governor in council approval.
There is one glaring omission here; I do not think it is the fault of the minister. It is a difficulty I had hoped he might mention in his speech. Maybe he will do that when called upon to answer questions in the committee stage. 1 refer to the total absence of any mention in his remarks of the Veterans Land Act. There is mention of it in the bill. It has nothing to do with the part of it that 1 am worried about, namely, the right of spouses under the Veterans Land Act.
A lot of publicity was given to a case about a year ago concerning a woman who shared a business with her husband.
July 9, 198
The business had a Veterans Land Act loan put on it which immediately made it the sole property of the veteran. The wife H no longer had any right whatsoever. If the marriage breaks up. the wife has no right to the home (he two of them share. That case may have received more publicity than most, but it is not H an isolated one. This is happening all the time.
There is a great difficulty when trying to change this by H phasing in a bill to change the terms of 40,000 mortgages in^H effect under the VLA. I would appreciate it if the minister^B could tell us if they are still working on that. They wcre^H working on it. I had received assurance that an amendment would be ready this spring, difficult though it was. That is^J what kept us from putting an amendment into the Veterans^H Land Act when our Bill C-28 was introduced.
Bill C-28 has become fairly well known due to the fact that it has been mentioned almost every Thursday afternoon since this Parliament began sitting. The Conservative government introduced that bill to rectify the anomalies and inequities that we saw in the veterans' legislation at that time. This is what caused me to make my opening remark as to why it took so long for this bill to be prepared.
The first half of Bill C-40 is almost a reprint of our bill C-28. It has exactly the same effect. That bill was there to act as a pattern, and I believe in some ways it did, although there are more changes than I expected in the new bill. We wonder why it did not come in a bit sooner. Why was it necessary for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to get up in the House of Commons during question period to ask if we could please get this veterans' bill? He asked for that bill sight unseen. Nobody on this side of the House saw Bill C-40 which the minister has just introduced until today.
The Leader of the Opposition offered to free up a day of the House of Commons in order that this bill could be brought in. We guaranteed to put it through all stages today. That was quite an offer to make. When I read a couple of clauses in this bill, 1 had some second thoughts about the wisdom of offering to pass the bill through all stages without having seen it.
1 will get to the two major issues right away. I wish to point out that the history of this bill is that it was brought into the House today because the Leader of the Opposition made an issue of it on Monday. I might quote some of the minister's statements; Hansard is full of them. The minister said he was soon going to discuss the matter with cabinet; he was soon going to talk to his colleagues about it. This might be the first bill we have ever dealt with that has never been to cabinet, as far as one can tell from reading the minister's comments over the last few weeks.
flip*
There are two main issues here. The first is the 48 per cent rule, the main reason for the bill in the first place. As the minister pointed out in his remarks, over the years if a pensioner was getting a 48 per cent pension, his widow- generally they were widows, but it could work the other way around-would get $550 odd dollars a month for the rest of her life. However, if the pensioner was getting 47 per cent, she did not receive anything. This is so obviously unfair that it has been the subject of debate and questioning in this House as
uly 9, 1980

ong as I have been here. Frankly, there seemed to be no rogress at all until proposed legislation about a year ago when I asked the staff of DVA to prepare Bill C-28.
At this time I would like to express my gratitude to the staff f the Department of Veterans Affairs. I can tell the minister hat he has an excellent staff. They accepted the change in overnment in a purely professional manner. I only suggested method of getting around the 48 per cent rule that would base the survivor's pension on the amount of the disability pension. That seemed to free up the log jam which resulted in nothing having been done about the bill before. The staff worked on it with a will. They thought up new ideas on their own. I was very pleased with the bill that came in.
Quite frankly, I think there are some improvements in this bill, but there are a couple of things that I do not think are improvements. Bill C-28 was given first reading in this House on December 6 last year. There was an understanding in the House that it would be passed before Christmas. However, for some reason which absolutely baffles me, the NDP presented a motion to the House which the Liberals found irresistible. It was a chance to defeat the Conservative government. I talked to an NDP member about this today. 1 was told it was a chance to bring in a motion which the Liberals would vote for. They thought if they brought in one like the Regina manifesto, the Liberals would vote against it. I said: "Don't fool yourself, they would vote for Satan himself in order to get back into the treasury benches".
That bill died on the order paper because of the defeat of the Conservative government on December 13. I find it hard to believe that the hon. member who worked hardest of anyone in this House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to get justice for pensioners should have seconded the motion that killed this bill on the order paper. That hon. member seconded the no confidence motion.
Today history is repeating itself. Only a few minutes ago the same gentleman seconded another NDP motion that would have adjourned the House today. The minister came out of hospital to appear here today for the consideration of this bill.
I could hardly believe my ears a few minutes ago when I heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) move that the House adjourn this afternoon to discuss something else, and was seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member realizes that the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was for a debate on an adjournment motion which, had it been granted, would have taken place at eight o'clock this evening. It would not have interfered with this afternoon's debate.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I appreciate, as I always do, advice on the rules of procedure that the hon. gentleman provides.
The major issue, as I see it, has to do with the 48 per cent rule. We should look at what it does to widows. Had our bill been passed, payment would have commenced on April 1. With Bill C-40, it is payable October 1. Some 15,000 widows
Veterans' Pensions
have been without it since April 1 and will remain so until October 1 because the government formed by my party was defeated on an NDP motion.
It must weigh heavily on people with a social conscience that there are 15,000 widows who are not receiving a pension which this House obviously feels they are entitled to. 1 am sorry the minister appears to have been unable to find the money to pay the widows retroactively. When our estimates were turned in I was informed by a very competent staff that there were sufficient funds in the estimates to pay that bill. It may be the minister has decided to put the money somewhere else. I notice he took quite a bit of credit for putting it into war veterans allowance.
I do not wish to take too much time. There are several complex changes within the war veterans allowance but mainly it can be summed up in this way: Those under age 65 drawing war veterans allowances will receive an extra $10 a month if single and an extra $12 a month if married. This is fine for a start, but there is another part to it. Those over 65 will find that their guaranteed income supplement payment, for the first time in our history, will be considered as income; it will not be considered exempt income, as heretofore. Up until now the guaranteed income supplement has always been considered exempt income in the case of war veterans allowance recipients aged 65 or over. So this is a benefit the aged veterans will lose.
It appears to me that over the course of time this will amount to quite a bit of money and hon. members will find that the bulk of veterans are going through that age now. I have some figures here which show that practically every veteran who is eligible is between the ages of 50 and 65. There are a few over 65 at the present time, some 90,000 but in the age group 55 to 59 we find 264,000 out of a total of some 900,000.
The people who will benefit from this legislation, as can be seen quite quickly, are those in the 55 to 65 age bracket. The minister has told us, suggesting a kind of quid pro quo, that people under 65 will be getting more benefits and people over 65 will get less. To balance it, those who will be aged 65 in a very short space of time will represent the vast majority of veterans and they will get less than would have been the case if they had been left alone with the guaranteed income supplement being considered as exempt income. This is not the impression which the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) gave when he was asked on June 3 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
Madam Speaker, does the statement just made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) mean that the $35 increase in the guaranteed income supplement will be treated as exempt income under the War Veterans Allowance Act, so that the recipients of war veterans allowance will not have their allowance cut back by virtue of the $35 increase?
The minister replied:
That is what I was indicating. Madam Speaker.
We find today there is quite a difference. It is going to be counted as income for those over age 65. This is the way I read

July 9, 198C
*
Veterans' Pensions
it. This will be cleared up if the minister wishes to provide the answers during the time we are in Committee of the Whole. I suggest that this, like so many Liberal promises, looks good on the surface; you have to get underneath to determine exactly what is going on. There is a cut here and it seems to me we are moving in the direction that veterans will not be given any treatment simply because they are veterans. They will get the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement and the idea of treating the guaranteed income supplement as part of their income will deprive them of some income. In the long run, the aim is to treat veterans the same as everybody else; they will get this pension in the same way as if they were drawing OAS and GIS.
I do not wish to take more time as I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will wish to carry on. We look forward to reaching committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) I should like to commence my remarks this afternoon by extending a warm welcome to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). We are pleased he has been able to come back to the House this afternoon for what, in the view of many of us, is an historic occasion.
Because it is that kind of an occasion I am particularly glad also to see in the gallery-I trust Mr. Speaker will not call me to order for noting people in the gallery-the deputy minister, the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, the chief pensions advocate and a few other officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and its associated agencies. I do not see the chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board-I guess he has been transferred to Charlottetown. But, Mr. Speaker, even if there is lots to do back in the store I believe these persons have the right to be here this afternoon for what I have already referred to as an important occasion in the history of our veterans' legislation.
As both the minister and the hon. member for Victoria pointed out, the bill deals with two main sections of our veterans' legislation, namely, the 48 per cent rule that applies to the widows of disabled veterans and the War Veterans Allowance Act. In both cases something is being done that we have waited for over a very long time.
As the minister indicated, when the Pension Act was first brought in, the provision for a widow's pension applied only if the veteran's disability had been assessed at the rate of 80 per cent. About 50 years ago that was changed to 50 per cent, which in practical terms works out to 48 per cent. But there it has stood for 50 years. During that period of time there have been many efforts to get the legislation changed; I think 1 need hardly say any more to underline my contention that this is an historic day.
Likewise with respect to the War Veterans Allowances Act, we are taking steps to make the position the same for veterans over 65 as for veterans under 65, and we are also ending the uncertainty about increases in the guaranteed income supplement being passed on to veterans or to veterans' widows.
I shall deal a little later with the remarks made by the member for Victoria; I think he has not read correctly the provisions of the bill which is now before us in that respect Instead of the government being criticized on this point, I think we should give credit. Up to this point we had to ask each time there was an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, whether it would be passed on to the veterans receiving war veterans allowance. If the member for Victoria will look at page 29 of the bill, he will find there a clause which provides that from here on the ceiling on the War Veterans Allowance Act will go up automatically when there is an increase in old age security or in the guaranteed income supplement.
If you will pardon another moment of personal indulgence, Mr. Speaker-you reach a point, you know, at which you enjoy history, especially when you can look back and say you were there for some of it-at about noon today I took a moment to go into the library and do a little looking into ancient Hansards. I was pretty sure I would find what I was looking for and, sure enough, there it was. I found that it was in the month of May, 1943-that is more than 37 years ago- that I made my first intervention in the House of Commons with respect to veterans affairs. What was it about? It was about the widows of veterans of World War I. So I am hardly entering into a new field when I take part today in a debate dealing with the widows of veterans.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, because of your association with veterans affairs and the veterans affairs committees in the past, and for a while, sir, you were also parliamentary secretary to the minister of veterans affairs, this matter of the 48 per cent rule has been debated time and time again. We had perhaps the definitive recommendation that it be corrected when Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods brought down his report. We had it again in the Hermann report, and on two or three occasions we had recommendations from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that the 48 per cent rule be corrected.
It is good to know that persistence on the part of many people does pay and that we have reached this point today. Like the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), I should like to give some of the credit to those people we are not supposed to notice, those who are in the gallery today. They and their predecessors, a long line of employees in the Department of Veterans Affairs, have done a good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, sir, we have now reached the point where we are changing the 48 per cent rule, and this is a day to celebrate. Before the afternoon is over, I shall probably have a critical word or two to say about this and I shall have something to say about the things that are not in the bill. The minister may say, "Stanley, I thought you were my friend." Well, I am, and even after I have found fault with some things in the bill and have pointed out some of its shortcomings, I still
uly 9, 1980

elcome the opportunity that the House has today to put it hrough all stages and see that it is written into law very hortly.
What we like about the bill, as I say, is the ending of that 50-year reign of the 48 per cent rule. What it provided has been that where a veteran was on a disability pension of 48 per cent or more, the widow has been entitled to a full widow's pension under the Pension Act. But if the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent, there has been no pension whatsoever for the widow.
1 suppose there are some readers of Hansard who will wonder how we arrived at the odd figure of 48 per cent. The reason we arrived at it is that the original stipulation was that it be 50 per cent; but then we have another rule which says that all pensions be paid in even figures of 35 per cent, 40 per cent, 45 per cent and 50 per cent. A pension of 47 per cent is paid at 45 and a pension of 48 per cent is paid at 50, and that is how 48 per cent got into the language of this legislation.
To many of us it has seemed grossly unfair that one widow whose husband had been at 50 per cent gets the full widow's pension, whereas a widow next door whose husband had been at 45 per cent does not get it. The minister used to give us a rationale as to why it should stay that way. I am glad for his sake that he does not have to give that defence any more. I am glad for his sake that he can now speak with pride of the fact that he is bringing in this legislation to do this for the widows of veterans.
I think one of the reasons we have reached this point is that with the passage of time the veterans themselves are becoming older and more of them see the prospect of their days coming to an end and their leaving widows. Since most veterans who are on disability pensions are on pensions below the 48 per cent level, they have become much more concerned in the last decade or so than they used to be about this provision. It has moved up just about to the top of the legislative changes for which the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations have been asking. When we are handing around credits today, I think we should give a good deal of credit to the various veterans' organizations who have pressed for these provisions.
What is happening is that a 50-year regime is being corrected and from here on pensions will be paid to widows of veterans where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent, but of course not below 5 per cent. We still have a cutoff at the 5 per cent figure.
I might as well come right away to the feature in this bill which I do not like. I was not surprised that the hon. member for Victoria did not point it out because it is the same provision which was in his bill of last December 6, Bill C-28. That is the provision under which this glorious new regime will be staged in over a period of six and a half years.
As the minister said in his speech, if this bill becomes law, come October 1 about 15,000 widows will qualify for pensions under it. But it is going to take another six and a half years for the other 11,000 widows to qualify because, in effect, the
Veterans' Pensions
threshold point is being brought down this fall from 48 per cent to 38 per cent; but then you have to wait until next spring for it to be brought down a little bit further, and so on down the line, and it will take until April 1, 1987, before all the widows of veterans whose pensions were below 48 per cent will get the benefit of this legislation.
I hope the hon. member for Victoria will not mind-he said some things about me, so I will say something nice about him-if I say that when he brought in his bill last December, he said to me that he was sorry about that provision and that he dared to hope it would not take long before it could be changed. I say the same thing now to my friend, the minister across the way. I know that he is a fighter for veterans in the cabinet. He has to fight all the time. I am sure he did not accept this without a struggle, and I hope he will carry on that struggle.
This House has been used to my asking questions about veterans affairs at least every week, and 1 suppose that many members think that when this bill is passed, there will be no more questions. Oh, oh, let us see! The next chance I will get, I guess, will be on Thursday to ask the minister when he will bring in an amendment to cut out this six and a half year stage. I am glad to see him nodding his head, and I think he is really on my side. To ask those widows who, according to the terms of the bill are being declared to be eligible, to wait in some cases six months, a year and a half, two and a half years or six and a half years, should not be done. This Parliament cannot do that without bowing its head in shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 can tell the minister that I have already drafted an amendment which I shall move when we get to Committee of the Whole, which will read as follows:
That Bill C-40 be amended on page 11 by deleting therefrom lines 14 to 31 inclusive.


An hon. Member:: It is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not out of order, do not tell me that. In the House of Commons we might not be able to move certain things, but we can vote against things, and we have the right to vote against those lines being included. If we strike out those lines, then a previous provision in the bill would bring it all into effect on October 1 of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like the hon. member for Victoria, I regret that it has not been made retroactive to April 1, the same date he had in Bill C-28; but if we cannot get that, at least this right that we are now establishing after 50 years should not be held off for a six and a half year period, or for one and a half, two and a half or three and a half years, as the case may be. As 1 say, I know how things happen around here. I know that if we were to deny this bill because we do not like something in it, we would be irresponsible. This is what the cabinet has

Veterans' Pensions
come up with and we must get it this afternoon. But surely this provision is so unfair that the Committee of the Whole will want to support my amendment to bring it into effect for all widows no later than October 1 of this year. As one who has been concerned about a better deal for widows of veterans for a long time, a concern I know I am sharing with many people within the sound of my voice, 1 welcome this historic day.
Now 1 turn to the question of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Here again 1 think this is an historic day. The minister referred to this being its golden anniversary, but I would like to put it in its proper context. The War Veterans Allowance Act was brought in 50 years ago at a time when the old age pension act, the one which was passed in 1926 and came into effect in 1927, was in effect.


Mr. Parent:: Were you here then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, but I knew about it; I was aware of it at the time. That pension was $20 a month at age 70 with a means test. 1 will not tell the whole story of the fight that we had to get that improved, but I can tell the House what it was like. The War Veterans Allowance Act was drafted in that context. It too was a means test pension, and the gist or the heart of it was that it was to be something which would provide for veterans who could not prove disabilities under the Pension Act something a little better than was available to the civilian population. So the amount was a little more than $20 a month, and it was available slightly under the age of the old age pension. 1 think it was age 60 right at the start and the means test was a little less severe.
But for the civilian population we have moved on and greatly increased the amount. We removed the means test completely from the basic amount of that pension and we have lowered the eligible age from 70 down to 65. Yet for the war veterans allowance its essentials are still much as they were in 1930. It is a means test pension. I know that some like to call it "income tested", but when what one gets is cut short because of something else one has, it does not matter what it is called, it is tough to take.
I think it is hard to argue today whether the war veterans allowance or the burnt-out pension is something better for veterans who cannot prove their disabilities than is the case for the civilian population, which was the raison d'etre of the War Veterans Allowance Act. 1 am not just using this phrase because it came out of the convention in Winnipeg last weekend, but we should be moving in the direction of a guaranteed annual income. I know of no better place to start with that concept than with our veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 think that is what should be taking the place of the War Veterans Allowance Act, or that that is what should be coming out of this in-depth review which the minis-
July 9, 1980
ter said has been going on in his deparment for the last two or three years.
That is my general comment about the War Veterans Allowance Act. I do not suppose anyone has criticized it, particularly its means test provisions, over the years more than I. But at the same time I admit it has been a welcome piece of legislation. The burnt-out pension, which it is popularly called-and many veterans who receive it just call it their pension - means a great deal to them. It has solved many a family situation. Also it is good that the day came when we provided a widow's allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act as a matter of legislation.
A moment ago I referred to the questions on behalf of the widows of World War I which 1 asked of the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie back in the early 1940s. Actually the questions 1 put then were when we were going to make these grants being given to such widows a matter of statute instead of being at the grace of the government with a supplementary estimate every year. It is one of the things we won rather early, to put widows under the War Veterans Allowance Act. It has been good legislation, but it was good compared to what was available to the civilian population when it was brought in. In view of what we have done for the civilian population now, we should be doing better. Again I say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and to all those people in the gallery whose presence I have already noted and welcomed, get to work on a guaranteed annual income for our veterans.
With respect to the changes in this bill dealing with the war veterans allowance, I am afraid at this point I must differ with the hon. member for Victoria. He found it to be something of which he was critical. I think it is good. What the bill is proposing is that payments be made to veterans in receipt of the allowance who are under age 65 at so much a month and it goes up a little bit every year. There again, why stage it? Some of these veterans will not live long enough to get the full amount, so why stage it?
1 was going to tell the minister to talk to his colleague sitting beside him, but he is leaving the chamber. His colleague knows how to get billions of dollars out of that cabinet. The Minister of Veterans Affairs needs to get only a few million. 1 say that veterans are entitled to the increase they will get under the War Veterans Allowance Act immediately instead of its being staged in. But I say to the hon. member for Victoria that when it is staged in in full, the veterans below age 65 will be getting the same amount as those above age 65.
I congratulate the hon. member for Victoria on being critical and suspicious about these people over there. He thought he saw a loss to the veterans because, while the under 65 were getting this increase, the over 65 were to have their G1S counted as income for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act instead of its being exempt income. But what he must note is that this bill raises the ceiling on the income that such war veterans allowance recipients can have, so that they will keep in full the extra $35 they arc now getting.
Then the bill goes a further step which I welcome most warmly. Under section 19.5 on page 29 of the bill, it is


July 9, 1980

provided that the income factors, that is the ceiling on the income of war veterans allowance recipients, shall be increased simultaneously with, and by the same amount as, any increase in the amount of each of the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement provided from time to time by amendments to the Old Age Security Act, other than adjustments made under that act in relation to the consumer price index. 1 do not mind that latter exception because they get it under an escalation clause in the War Veterans Allowance Act. But this indicates that we will not have to stand up any more when there is an increase in the GIS and say, "Will war veterans allowance recipients get it?" It is in the act; it is automatic that the ceiling goes up. It is in two parts. First the ceiling goes up now so that they can keep the $35 they are now receiving, and later on any increases in the GIS will result in an automatic increase in the ceiling under the War Veterans Allowance Act. When my hon. friend reads it, and if he agrees with my interpretation of it, 1 think he will see that it is something good and something we warmly welcome.
Pardon my repetition, but I am still thinking that this is a pretty important day in the history of veterans legislation, doing as we are something about that old 48 per cent rule. We are now doing something to improve greatly the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, in particular by putting those under age 65 in the same position as those over age 65. I can think of a number of correspondents to whom I shall send copies of this day's Hansard with great pleasure. They were not sure the bill would contain this, but 1 congratulate the minister for having put it in.
A speech from this corner of the House on a piece of legislation would not be complete without some reference to those things which are not in the bill. I deeply regret there is nothing in it about the way in which the amount of the 100 per cent disability pension is determined.
Just as the minister has solved the problem about the GIS by making it automatic so we do not have to ask for it every year, why did he not include in this bill a provision that the amount of the 100 per cent disability pension would stay at the level of the average take-home pay of the five designated categories in the public service? We decided a few years ago that was to be the rule or the idea. Then, having put the pension at that average in that particular year, we left its escalation to the consumer price index. In a few years it slipped behind and we had to do that again. Now it has slipped behind again. Why not make this just as automatic as the minister has now made the increase in the GIS being passed on to the veterans?
As I say, there is some question about the level of the amount. One can always ask for more. However, the point we have arrived at is not bad, considering what it was back before the days of the Woods report. This is an omission that is unfortunate and I earnestly wish it had been included.
Veterans' Pensions
I wish also that the legislation had included an increase in the pension rates payable to former prisoners of war. Again my friend can talk to his colleague sitting next to him; he can tell him a few things. It took a long while to get compensation for former prisoners of war. First we got it for those who were prisoners in Hong Kong, and we greatly improved that schedule so that most Hong Kong veterans are now covered between the basic 50 per cent they get and the disability rates they have received as well. I think the average Hong Kong veteran is now up to 80 per cent or 85 per cent, and quite a few of them are at 100 per cent.
It took longer still to get recognition for those who were prisoners of war in northwest Europe. We obtained that eventually. It took two bites again to get compensation for World War II prisoners of war, and then to get it for World War I prisoners of war. It is still a fact that those rates are pretty low considering the fact that the widow's pension again is determined by the veteran's rate of disability pension, or the combination of the disability pension and the prisoner of war compensation.
We used to say they needed that extra just to get up to the 48 per cent, but now, even though it will not be necessary to get up to the 48 per cent to guarantee a widow's pension, the amount of the widow's pension will still be determined by the level of the pension the veteran was drawing. Just because we have corrected the 48 per cent rule does not mean we are going to give all widows in that category the same pension widows in the upper categories get. It does affect not only the veterans themselves who were prisoners of war, it affects their widows, and I hope something may yet be done.
I do have the odd note here on my desk and I see I had as the other point I wanted to make one that 1 have actually dealt with already when dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act; that is the desirability and the need to move into the concept of a guaranteed annual income for veterans.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) wants to get this going while she is still a Liberal cabinet minister. She will have trouble with some of her other colleagues in getting the money for it on a grand scale. The Minister of Veterans Affairs might get some ideas from her.
Those are the three main things not in the bill which I wish were there; the settling of the five-category provision making it automatic, improving the position of prisoners of war, and getting started with a guaranteed annual income for those who are in receipt of war veterans allowance.
Having said that about the deficiencies of the bill, I return to what I said at the start. This is an historic day. Although I deeply regret the revision under the 48 per cent rule is going to take six and a half years to phase in, I welcome the fact that we are making this change and the fact that we are improving the position under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am glad the minister was able to come back from the hospital and be with us today for this important and historic piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 9, 1980
Veterans' Pensions


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in a debate on a measure involving veterans, and particularly to follow the three members who have had so much to do with helping veterans in Canada. 1 refer to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), the former minister, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has served long and conscientiously on the veterans affairs committee. We were able some time ago to make a series of recommendations with regard to helping veterans who were war prisoners and those who made it back without having to suffer ignominy.
I want to say I was very pleased this government saw fit not to do what was being suggested by all too many people, namely, the burying of the Department of Veterans Affairs in some other department. I am pleased and proud this government and our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) saw fit once again to bring back the Department of Veterans Affairs, dedicated solely to the welfare of veterans. Although this was put together under the former government, and under the hon. member who spoke previously, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), I am satisfied that had that government been in power a little longer the department would in fact have been divided and there would in effect have been a minister of veterans affairs to look after that particular interest. Heaven knows, as the former minister of national defence he had plenty to do in that portfolio.
I was pleased to hear the former minister commend the staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs, because that is a group of professionals who bring to their jobs a kind of missionary zeal in respect of the necessity to do something. It is too easy to forget these veterans. At age 53 I was not old enough to serve during the Second World War and I feel I have no vested interest in the pensions paid to veterans. However, I feel that 1 certainly have a responsibility to those who made it possible for me to complete my education, go on to law school and eventually become a member of Parliament. Had they not performed that service, giving of their time, their effort and often their lives, with many of them being wounded during the war, it would not have been possible for people like myself, growing up as the generation immediately following them, to have enjoyed the great life we have enjoyed, and the opportunity to recognize this responsibility. 1 guess as a teenager growing up during the Second World War it is fair to say our heroes were those who served in the services. We had our athletic heroes, sure, but the ones we really looked up to, and continue to look up to, are those who gave of their time and a good part of their lives in the service of this country.
I want to commend the minister and the former government, for that matter, for making the 48 per cent rule as dead as a dodo; that was an unfair rule. If 1 may say so, citing a personal experience, my father who served in both world wars, in the Royal Naval Air Service in the First World War and as a squadron leader in the Second World War, suffering primarily as a result of his service in the First World War, was a 48 per cent disability pensioner for something like ten years.
About one year before his death, because his health, believe it or not. improved in so far as his pensionable disability was concerned, he was dropped to 40 per cent and my mother was not entitled to receive a widow's pension. Fortunately, we have changed the legislation so that if that individual, who is now on 48 per cent disability for something like three years, eventually gets better he can in effect plan his estate knowing that his widow will in fact receive a pension. To that extent 1 was very pleased to see the changes which got rid of that antiquated 48 per cent rule.
I want to pay tribute to the evaders and former prisoners of war who today continue to act on behalf of their colleagues to do what is possible to see to it that POWs get the kind of pensions and assistance which they require. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already commented upon the fact that we helped the Hong Kong veterans first, because theirs was a textbook case and one that required immediate attention. Gradually, stage by stage, clause by clause, session by session, Parliament by Parliament, we improved the pensions to these particular individuals who served and suffered as prisoners of war or evaders and were able to help people in that particular category. I believe that the present premier of Prince Edward Island is one who evaded escape as the result of being shot down during the Second World War. These people, not being content to act only on behalf of their colleagues and themselves-of course, they have a vested interest since they were POWs-did everything they could to bring to the attention of young people the sacrifices made by veterans during the Second World War.
Mr. John Miller wrote a book about the veterans of Dieppe called "The Forgotten Heroes''. Those who have done any research on the matter at all will recall a book entitled "The Shame and the Glory". Books such as these highlight what was faced by these young men. There is a tendency today, and 1 particularly find it around the schools, to think of veterans as they look today, not as the young men of 18 years, 22 years and 23 years who served during the Second World War. We have an obligation and a responsibility through providing these books and talking to young people to point out to them the sacrifices which were made.
The legislation which we have before us today is first-class. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre 1, too, have one little gripe. It is not so much with the legislation; it is a problem on which I have been harping for as long as I have been here as a member of Parliament. I refer to the fact that we must continually be pressing the Canadian Pension Commission, the War Veterans Allowance Board and pension advocates. We must do everything we can to expedite applications for pensions. It still takes too long to process these matters.
We tried to expedite these matters when we brought in the legislation with regard to the "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule because it was slowing up some of the applications. We brought in a veterans review board so that there would be a body independent of the Department of Veterans Affairs
July 9, 1980

which could look at these particular applications and ensure that no veterans would be shut out.
It seems to me that there is still room for improvement. Some of the pensioners who have applied to increase their pensions find that it takes months to obtain a decision. 1 must candidly confess that sometimes it takes much longer than months. The veteran is the kind of individual who can face up to reality. He does not mind being told that his application has not been allowed. So would it not be better to tell him that after two or three months, rather than to keep him waiting for some time up to a year before a decision is made?
I would like to add one more thing to which I was privy, and I do not think that I will be violating cabinet secrecy. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre commented on how hard the Minister of Veterans Affairs fights in cabinet. It was my privilege to be a colleague of the minister for some four years, and 1 can say that he is a tiger in cabinet on behalf of the veterans. I can also tell hon. members that he has many allies in that particular cabinet or this legislation would not have been brought forward.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise in this House today to speak on this veterans' legislation. It is legislation which in some small measure will improve the benefits paid to those who have truly served their country, and to the dependants of such veterans. To my mind this bill cannot be passed too quickly.
This bill is not offering the war veterans of Canada any special consideration because of the hardships and debilities suffered on account of their actions in whatever the theatre of action. It is offering simply an opportunity to remove certain inequities and disparities which have existed for far too long. The purpose of this bill is to redress the injustices which certain war veterans and their dependants have suffered through years past.
In other words, this bill is the very minimum which this government can pass. For this reason it is inconceivable that the bill should not pass today. The bill was long overdue when it was tabled by the Conservative government last November. Times and circumstances being what they are, there is no less urgency now.
1 would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for his initiative and the members on the government side for their co-operation which has made it possible to introduce this bill today.
When the Conservative government introduced the bill last year-or a bill fairly close to what we have before us today-it was recognized that it was the minimum which any government could offer. We knew that it did not begin to go far enough in terms of supporting men and women and their dependants, but that it was a start.
By virtue of the actions of these men and women, it was long past due. It was our intention last year to put through the bill quickly as a first concrete step in improving the lot of veterans. Likewise, it is my sincere hope today that the government will
Veterans' Pensions
consider passing this bill only as a first step in an area where further improvement must be made.
The minister in introducing the bill emphasized that these are economy-conscious times and that this government is committed to fiscal responsibility and prudent management of taxpayers' money. I say hurrah to that, but it rings a little shallow", for almost every day in this House we talk about cost overruns, a booming deficit and unchecked spending. I ask the government not to practise fiscal restraint against the veteran or his family. These people have been neglected, I feel, because government has found it too easy to put their cause in a lower priority risk area.
We have all attended Remembrance Day gatherings and have been sombred by the thought of those who lost their lives. But those who came back broken and fractured have become somewhat of a forgotten group and are well down on that list of government priorities. I was happy to hear the words used today-that there is the possibility of further additional consideration being given to the relief of dependants of war veterans and war veterans themselves.
The bill will ensure that widows of disabled veterans are treated equally before the government. It does not ensure, however, as everyone in this House knows, that there will be a decent standard of living for the woman who has never worked outside the home, as is so often the case today, and is not yet eligible for old age security.
The bill will at last remedy one of the great inequities which has already been mentioned a number of times today, an inequity which lasted far too long, the 48 per cent cutoff. It was assumed that where a veteran was in receipt of a 48 per cent pension or more, his death was in some way related to his disability occasioned by serving in the interest of his country. But it was also assumed that the death of a veteran receiving a pension of something less than 48 per cent was not related to service, and as a consequence his widow received no assistance. How ridiculous, and slow we were to act!
As it is, it will be six and a half years before that change in legislation reaches all of the 80 per cent of the veterans and dependants who were assessed at lower than 48 per cent. Let us hope that many of them will live long enough that they will see the day when they too will receive the benefit of this golden anniversary year legislation.
I am pleased, however, to see that most of those items relating to the veteran's widow, formulated last year by the Conservative government, are carried forward in this bill. A remarried widow will now be allowed to apply for a widow's pension after the dissolution of her subsequent marriage. The continuance of a dependent parent's pension will now be left to the discretion of the commission rather than being automatically stopped as it has heretofore. It will now be possible for someone who maintains the household and looks after dependent children, after both the veteran and his wife have died, to receive that veteran's pension.

July 9, 1980
Veterans' Pensions
These measures are long overdue and will affect a relatively small number of people but will make an enormous difference to those who should have been assisted before.
The actual disability pension for veterans, even at 100 per cent, is a pitifully small amount, an amount no one in this House would dream of living or subsisting on. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) announced an increase in the basic rate of pension for disabled veterans in May of this year, an increase for which the Conservative party had fought long and hard. We did everything we could in committee to have an amending formula included which would have kept this basic pension adjusted to increases in the pay scales of the five selected categories of public service workers, but to no avail.
I am disappointed that no mention has been made of this in the new bill. Personally, I can see very little advantage these days in a meagre one-shot increase with no built-in protection against inflation. Inflation is a fact of life today and any fixed income simply has to be indexed in some way if a person receiving it is to survive. We may honour the dead, but it seems to me we are treating the veteran rather shabbily.
I should like to interject here that while pensions and pension legislation is one thing, the processing of pension applications is another. This government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs initiated a move of the pension commission as well as the department to Prince Edward Island. A strong commitment was given at that time to the effect that the veteran would not suffer or be hurt by the move. The Legion magazine, in its May, 1980, issue, documents a longer processing time with a reduced number of applications. This is a situation that the department should not allow to continue. The application would not have been made if the need was not there. That need continues month by month as people wait for the processing of those applications.
Speaking further to disability pensions, 1 believe, as has already been established, that there are special circumstances for the Hong Kong prisoners of war. At the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the minister indicated that, as far as the government was concerned, a prisoner of war was a prisoner of war, that the government would not differentiate, and it has not in this bill.
1 believe that the treatment undergone by the Dieppe prisoners of war was so dreadful and so extended as to make them a separate class of prisoner of war. No one who has any idea of what those prisoners went through and how, as a result of that experience, their lives have been affected since, could fail to agree that the present 20 per cent pension is sufficient compensation. It is well documented that the mortality rate among Dieppe prisoners of war is substantially higher than the death rate of other POW groups. There are more Dieppe prisoners of war on pension and those pensioners receive on average a higher pension than others simply because their disabilities are greater. It is well documented too that, as a group, Dieppe prisoners of war suffer a more accelerated general deterioration in health and premature aging than do other prisoners of
war. Veterans' organizations across the country are prepared to recognize this fact.
A large number of these Dieppe prisoners, most of whom are now in their mid-fifties, are partially or completely out of the labour market by reason of health or nervous conditions, heart and lung diseases or other disability causing premature death in this group, not to mention the whole range of physical and psychological disadvantages stemming from their four years of maltreatment, degradation and deprivation. The government should be giving these Dieppe prisoners of war compensation of at least 50 per cent, and this bill should be amended accordingly before long. If we do not honour the living, let us at least make their probably shortened lives somewhat easier and more enjoyable.
"Giving" is a misleading word to use. The government is not "giving" pensions to former prisoners of war and other veterans; this money has been earned by those who fought in two world wars. I recognize the words used by a colleague just a moment ago, who said they have given the people of this country the opportunity to enjoy today the privileges and freedoms that are so dear to us. Let us recognize the fact in this House that these people have a right to enjoy a respectable lifestyle. It is the duty of the government to protect and ensure this right. All Canadians owe these pensions to them. It is not a matter of giving-it is a matter of owing to those who fought for our country and who have well and truly earned our respect and recognition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words chiefly in reply to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who spoke about those over age 65 and about pension increases. I can assure him that they will lose nothing.
The hon. member had another question about the wives of VLA recipients. I am glad to be able to tell the House that this legislation will be forthcoming before too long. We have had a problem dealing with it and getting it in a shape satisfactory to all concerned. 1 expect to bring it forward before the House recesses, however, depending, of course, on when that is.
I should like to make a correction to my speech, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Apparently there was an error in the text I was reading from. 1 said that on October 1, 1980, 15,000 widows and 600 children will become eligible under the Pension Act. I should have said 1,500 widows. I wanted to mention that so that it can be corrected in Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is too bad. I wish your error had been correct!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 2 carry?
July 9, 1980

On clause 2-


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to speak for just a couple of moments on this clause. With respect to the remarks which the minister has just made, 1 want to say that I wish he had made the correction earlier; it would have saved me from doing a lot of mathematics concerning the 15,000 figure rather than 1,500. 1 also share the feelings of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about this. As there are so few involved, it might be possible to treat them a little better.
Second, 1 would like to speak about the war veterans allowance. I welcome the minister's comments about that. I accept his word, of course, that people over 65 will not suffer, which is referred to in Hansard. With due respect, I would like to point out that it was his speech which confused me, not the bill. 1 can honestly say that I got a copy of this bill after ten o'clock this morning. I know it is very difficult with the short time they gave us, and I imagine there was a great deal of racing around done in the department. Nevertheless, that is when I got my copy and I used the minister's speech more than I did the bill when I spoke.
However, at page 11 of the minister's speech it does say "a new war veterans' ceiling and at the same time assess as income all OAS and GIS payments made to recipients over 65". That left me with the impression that, if you are to assess that as income, then it will have a detrimental effect on them.
On page 12 of the minister's speech it also says "by doing this and reducing OAS and GIS exemptions by an identical amount each year we will have eliminated the gap".
That is about all I wanted to comment on. 1 am pleased with the remarks that have been made about the bill and the preceding bill, namely C-28. I believe that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, has some more detailed questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as I said by way of an interjection, 1 regretted that the minister had to make a correction to his speech and tell us that only 1,500 widows would get the benefit of this legislation on October 1 instead of 15,000. To me that makes it all the more urgent that the main-flow in this bill be corrected.
I realize there has not been very much time since the speeches made on second reading were delivered. However, 1 wonder if the minister has had a chance to reconsider whether, when we get to class 14 on page 11, he will agree to my proposed amendment to strike out that part of the clause which has a delaying effect.
The other question 1 would like to put to the minister is, in effect, the same one which has just been commented on by the hon. member for Victoria. Is it crystal clear with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act changes that the ceiling on permissible income is being raised so that no WVA recipient will lose any portion of the OAS and GIS that he is now receiving, in particular so that he will not lose the $35. Is my interpretation correct that the changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act mean that from here on automatically any
Veterans' Pensions
increases in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement will result in that same increase in the ceiling on permissible income?
So 1 have two questions to put to the minister: one about making the changes in the 48 per cent rule effective across the board on October 1; and the other, the assurance about the provision in the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Chairman, 1 too want to express my satisfaction and pleasure in welcoming the minister back in the House. I know he was hospitalized and that it was only yesterday when he was released from the hospital. I also know how intent he was on bringing this legislation forward before the House adjourned this summer.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate myself on being a member of a government and Parliament who offer to my former fellow members of the Canadian armed forces the most generous, the most adequate benefits in the world. As those benefits are being paid to those who have been called the most courageous in the world, the best troops a country could have to protect it, I think it is only fair for the Canadian government to choose to increase benefits that have remained the same since 1973, so that our veterans, those who fought for the allies, those who fought the war of 1939-45 and earlier wars, can enjoy the most generous pensions in the world. I am very happy with this new bill, Mr. Chairman, and trust it will be passed without further delay.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Chairman, there are two points that I would like to bring to the minister's attention. I also take this opportunity to bring them to the attention of the officials who are in the gallery today.
One particular area to which I think the department and the officials should give consideration concerns the grey area in the granting of pensions. There is some doubt as to whether or not the pension should be either granted or increased. Certainly as a representative of those people, I would be most pleased if the department officials on the pension board or the pension commission would relent just a little and make it easier for the pensioner to get the benefit that probably-more than likely- is his just due. It is this grey area where I think the benefits should go to the individual. I believe it is something that probably would not cost the government that much and it would certainly satisfy a great number of the pensioners involved.
Second, I do not think it is fair for the spouse's income to be associated in any way with whatever should be accruing and could be accruing to the pensioner himself. I know that in some cases the pensioner would have funds available to him if it were not for the wife's income. This is something which is worthy of consideration, and perhaps the minister might have some comment on that.

Veterans' Pensions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I did not get up on second reading so that we could get the bill through quickly. However, 1 would like to make a brief submission to the minister now and ask him what he is prepared to do on the matter.
First, 1 would like to add my agreement and support for what is being done today and say that I support the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
There is still a very small group of veterans in Canada who are totally left out, either by recognition, rights or entitlement to benefits under our veterans' legislation. This small group who have an association were in Ottawa a few weeks ago, and at that time 1 believe they met with the minister and with members of the Liberal caucus, the Conservative caucus and our caucus. The people about whom I am speaking, if the minister will hear my representation, are probably at most the 200 surviving veterans of the Spanish civil war who were members of the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion who were the first to fight against the Fascists. They were made outlaws in their own country because they violated the Foreign Enlistment Act. They journeyed to Europe by many various and devious ways, to England, through France and into northern Spain. They are in their own right and by all definitions of the word heroes. Many were decorated by the republican government of Spain at that time. Many were wounded, captured, tortured and died in the fight against fascism.
Had the rest of the western democracies listened to them, we may have headed off Hitler sooner than we finally did. They were vilified by some in their own countries, and certainly ignored and deserted by their country. All they asked for when they met with parliamentarians a few weeks ago was recognition as veterans. They were not asking for benefits or anything else, just recognition that they no longer be considered outlaws in our own country.
I hope the minister will take this to his cabinet colleagues so that they do in fact receive recognition as veterans, and more. Upon receiving that recognition, they should automatically get the right to receive veterans' benefits, whether it be disability pensions-and any medical practitioner could assure the minister as to whether their disability is attributable to war wounds-or war veterans allowance. I doubt if very many would even ask for those benefits. We could undo the wrong of all these years if we made the gesture of recognizing these gentlemen as veterans. I do not know if it is still on the statutes, but if it is we could possibly repeal the Foreign Enlistment Act. That may be sufficient.
As a result of the minister's meetings with them, is he agreeable to trying to provide that recognition for at most, 1 suspect, 200? They only know of 125 but there may be a few more scattered around Canada who have not come forward and made themselves known. Is the minister giving consideration to that? Will he take whatever action is necessary, either by regulation, legislation or whatever else is required, to include as veterans members of the Mackenzie-Papineau bat-
July 9, 198C
talion of the Spanish civil war, with all the rights and entitle ments thereto?


Mr. Bosley:: Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused about the1 procedure. 1 thought we were going to get answers as we went along. If we could, I would like that, because I am somewhat confused about a couple of matters that, if we were going to Standing committee, would be raised there. I need to know and I im not sure how to find out since we just saw the billH * , * today, what is counted as exempt income in calculating thc^^HSB
IS a laic umi IS uciciIIII1ICU. /xs iui as iccciving uciitins, m
some cases they vary. The recipient of war veterans allowance today probably receives more than ever before in the history of Canada. Let us use a figure of $6,000, which is not the actual figure; 1 do not have it here today. If their income is over that, they do not receive WVA. Does that answer the hon. member's question? It does not.


John William Bosley: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated in his speech and the documents indicate that the discrepancy today between, for example, a single individual under 65 in receipt of the WVA is receiving something in the order of $70 a month less than somebody who is over 65, and the reason for that is the effect of the exemption for the income that is referred to in the speech as CIS. What is indicated is an intent to change the deduction or to change the exemption category to reduce the level of OAS and CIS income which will count as exempt income.
If 1 can put the question again, what now counts as exempt income in calculating the WVA, CIS or OAS and CIS?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: As 1 understand what the questioner is referring to, $2.88 is old age security and the balance is GIS. He is also in receipt of WVA. 1 might tell the hon. member that many times, unless he has the full details, WVA, OAS and GIS is very confusing. If the answer is not satisfactory, please feel free to put it forward again and we will see if we can get an answer.


John William Bosley: What I am trying to find out, Mr. Chairman, is where the $70 discrepancy comes from. Can the minister give me some figures which show me how the $70 difference is composed? Is it composed entirely of GIS? It is composed of GIS and OAS? Is it composed of some other exempt income? I understood it to be, and I was really trying to clarify it, OAS and GIS. My problem then became, since OAS and GIS is higher than $70 if you are in receipt of GIS, where does the $70 figure come from that is the basis of the attempt to equalize the payments of which we all approve?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have to confess that I find the hon. member's question a little confusing. When the hon. member is talking of pensions, could he determine for me whether he is talking of the under 65 or over 65?
.
ic
r

?M. i '
*pf


July 9, 1980


John William Bosley: Both, Mr. Chairman. The minister indicates in his speech that the difference we are trying to resolve is an income difference, a maximum income award to those who have no other income and that a pensioner in receipt of OAS and GIS, and who then gets a WVA over that, is about $70 a month more than somebody who is under 65 who therefore is not in receipt of OAS and GIS.
My problem is this, and maybe 1 can explain it this way. When you become 65 and start to receive OAS and GIS, you clearly receive more than $70 a month OAS and GIS. What I am trying to find out is how does the difference only get down to $70? I presume the answer is that OAS is counted now when you are establishing the eligible WVA with somebody who is over 65 in receipt of OAS.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, the hon. member is right, it is counted. The $70 he is referring to is really something of a slipback to the fellow below 65. The hon. member has really answered his own question. This is no longer going to be a problem. We have erased this today in our legislation. The fellow of 65 on OAS and other supplements receives a greater amount of money than his colleague or comrade under 65. With the legislation we will put through today, we will be erasing that. It will be on a comparative basis. 1 hope that answers the hon. member's question.


John William Bosley: I would like to ask the minister one last question. At some point in his speech he said, and I made a note, that he is talking about changing the regulations. Is he proposing to change the regulations to change the categories that are now exempt income? He said in his speech that he would be changing the category, that he would be changing the exemption with regard to OAS-GIS income.
I need to be clear on this because I have a large number of veterans in Sunnybrook in my riding. In practice, I understand that to mean the only change in the regulations will not be OAS, because it is already not exempt; the only change in the regulations would be to take GIS income, which has up until now been exempt, and to make it no longer exempt. That will be the only change in the regulations. Is that correct?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Plus $2.88 OAS.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I could be helpful on that one point. I imagine that where the hon. member is confused is that he is thinking that maybe all of OAS or all of GIS has been exempt income. That has never been the case. The exempt income, which is now $70, is an accumulation of several of these things which have gone through as increases either in OAS or GIS and which now add up to $70. As the minister has just said, two dollars and some cents of OAS is exempt income, and this means that $60 odd of GIS is now exempt income. These are being removed and the ceiling on the permissible income is being raised, so that in the end there will be no change in the net amount which veterans over 65 receive.
Veterans' Pensions


Thomas Gordon Towers: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister would comment on the point I made earlier, that is to say, the discriminatory aspect of the pension program-the fact that married couples are discriminated against when the income of the wife is used to prohibit WVA being given to the husband, though if a couple were living common law the income of the wife would not affect the pension of the gentleman concerned. To my mind, this is wrong and I believe the rules should be changed because the present practice is most discriminatory.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, a husband and wife are treated as a family and their incomes are counted together. This can reduce WVA payments, as the hon. member indicated. What the hon. member is asking, I take it, is that the wife's income should not be counted. But, you know, income could be as high as $50,000. So in these cases we apply the rule which applies to GIS.


Thomas Gordon Towers: It is certainly not that way in Alberta. We do not have war veterans wishing to receive war veterans allowance while their wives are receiving $50,000. If this type of program is to be carried on, then at least the allowance when the wife is working should be increased. The present arrangement is not acceptable to me or to a lot of people who are caught in this situation.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The problem is an understandable one and it is one which we face in many cases. Any time we can do what we feel is fair, we certainly do it. Some of these people do receive quite high incomes and it is hard to get money and carry out the program in a way which is fair to all veterans. However, I shall be pleased to consider any suggestions the hon. member may care to put forward.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Pensions to widows of certain members.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated when I was speaking at the second reading stage, I should like to move an amendment to clause 14. There are a number of subclauses in it, and so on. My hon. friend across the way wondered if I could move an amendment which would be in order. It is our undoubted right in this chamber to vote against anything brought before us-to vote against a clause or against a portion of a clause-and that is what 1 propose to ask the committee to do.
1 do not propose anything new. I simply propose we be given the chance to vote against clause (3.2) at page 11 of the bill. If this is approved, if we strike out lines 14 to 31 at page 11, then, of course, the whole clause is left with its provision coming into effect on October 1, 1980. That provision is already in the bill on page 10 where the reference is to the rates set out in clauses 12 to 20 of schedule A. If it were not for this redefinition of what clauses 12 to 20 mean, everything would be fine; it would be in effect from October 1. I might say that those references to clauses 12 to 20 are to columns in the schedule which specify the different pension rates-45 per

Veterans' Pensions
cent, 40 per cent and so on. If we can get those lines out, then this is an awfully good bill. It puts the provisions into effect on October 1. Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-40 be amended on page 11 by deleting therefrom lines 14 to 31 inclusive.
In the French text, it would be lines quatorze to trente-deux.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I challenge the validity of this amendment and offer a few citations for your consideration. First, only the Crown can alter the royal prerogative. Standing Order 62(1) clearly states:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
I would argue that even though the wording of the hon. member's proposal does not actually call for an increase in expenditure, the effect of the deletion of lines 14 to 32 of this clause would be to increase expenditure. For this reason the motion is out of order since the hon. member does not sit on the treasury benches.
There are two other citations at which hon. members might want to look. Citation 773(7) clearly states:
An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the public treasury, if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the royal recommendation.
This arose from a decision by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in June of 1969.
I could go on to cite Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which clearly outlines the same principle in citation 246(3). Rather than read it, I will draw your attention to it. In net effect, I am objecting to the procedural acceptability of the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is perfectly right that a member not of the cabinet does not have the right to propose in positive terms a bill or a motion calling for the expenditure of money. I am not doing that. The parliamentary secretary will contend, quite rightly, that the effect of my amendment is to increase the charge on the treasury because all this money would have to be paid this year instead of over six and a half years. But I know from memory that it has happened a number of times if it is done in this way. Let me put it this way. There is no rule in our procedures or anywhere else which says that we have to vote for everything that is put before us. We can vote against any clause in a bill.
There is also a provision that a clause can be divided into its constituent parts, and I could ask you, Mr. Chairman, to divide clause 14 into its constituent parts so that we could vote for all the other subclauses but not vote for subclause (3.2). All I am asking is that we be given the democratic right to vote against something that is put before us. The effect of that, as I said, will be for the money to have to be paid. I did not see
July 9, 1980
the bill until noon today, and I am sorry that I did not anticipate this to the point of looking up some precedents, but I know that it has happened a number of times that we have been permitted to vote against something, even though the effect of such a vote would be to increase the cost, provided we are not proposing it in positive terms.
All I am asking is that you allow members of the House the right to vote for or against what is put before them, not to be told on a procedural point that we have to vote for what is in front of us.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, 1 must say that I listened with great interest to what 1 think is a most ingenious argument, an argument the ingenuity of which one would be hard pressed to find against, and I urge you to find in favour of the amendment.
The precedents which have been read by the parliamentary secretary apply to a situation which is not the situation which has been placed before us by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Aside from the procedures, which I think are quite in order, with repect to the amendments, for the reasons given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think everyone in the House had better consider the effect of having this matter struck down in procedural terms. The effect of its having been struck down in procedural terms is not to give the House the opportunity of improving upon the benefits that have been proposed in this bill. Because, in fact, the benefits, in terms of the payment out to veterans, will be improved. That goes to the merits of the bill itself.
I think we have to be extremely careful that we do not put ourselves in the position here of depriving members of Parliament of their ability to vote against something that is put in front of them. So I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, with respect, to find in favour of the amendment and to allow it so that not only will the bill be improved in terms of veterans but that as well the right of members of Parliament in dealing with legislation will be protected.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very short contribution regarding one of the references made by the parliamentary secretary about the power to have bills prepared which involve the expenditure of money. If he would check with Bill C-578 standing in my name on the order paper, which is an act to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, he would find that there are occasions, exceptional occasions I grant you, when such bills are accepted. In that spirit, I think we should be able to support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a very worth-while amendment which I would find quite easy to accept.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to prolong this debate unduly, but my point does go to the heart of responsible British parliamentary government, and that is the ability of the Crown to initiate all
July 9, 1980

spending and taxing powers. While I take the point of the hon. member for Victoria on his bill, all members can allow any bill to be introduced as a courtesy; but it would seem there would be precedents in private members' hour in the past which hold that where such bills infringe upon the royal prerogative, those bills are ruled out of order at that time. Or at least, it goes beyond the realm of a private member to introduce such a bill.
But more specifically to the point is citation 246(3) in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which states:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment-
This is the key point, Mr. Chairman.
-infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
1 think perhaps that is more solid proof that this amendment is out of order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Chair proposes to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and then to make a ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I note that the parliamentary secretary has not addressed himself to my contention that members of the House of Commons have the right to vote yea or nay to propositions that are put before us. It is the government that has put before us the proposition containing lines 14 to 31 on page 11. Surely we have the right to say yea or nay to it. To deny that right, to say that we have to accept it, is certainly contrary to the principles of democracy.
I have been trying to find instances in the past when we have voted against certain tax increases and we were allowed to do it, even though, if we had won, the government would have lost money. I do not have the right to make a positive proposal which involves the expenditure of money, but 1 do have the right to vote against a subclause that has been put before us. 1 am happy to do it either way. You can divide the clause into its several parts and we could vote for some and against this one. I just think it is simpler to accept this amendment to delete the lines which I have indicated.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Chair has listened to the argument. The royal recommendation reads as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An act to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowances Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act."
Clearly the amendment imposes an additional financial charge upon the Treasury. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition is quite specific; it has been cited. Citation 773(7) reads:
An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the public treasury, if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the royal recommendation.
Veterans' Pensions
I fail to understand how it does anything other than relax the qualifications and purposes as expressed in the royal recommendation. In the circumstances the Chair rejects the motion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is perfectly right when he says that it is open to hon. members to accept or reject clauses put before them, and that is certainly his right in committee. But in the circumstances the Chair rules against the admissibility of the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling, but will you now split this clause into its separate parts?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Then there is a difficulty here. Standing Order 75(1) reads as follows:
In proceedings in any committee of the House upon bills, the preamble is first postponed-
This we have done. It continues:
-and if the first clause contains only a short title it is also postponed-
This we have also done. It continues:
-then every other clause is considered by the committee in its proper order; the first clause (if it contains only a short title), the preamble and the title are to be last considered.
It seems to me that we consider the bill clause by clause. 1 presume that means the entire clause at each stage. This is the interpretation the Chair is making at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I invite your attention to clause 776 on page 234 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads as follows:
A committee has the power to divide a clause or to decide that the first part of a clause shall be considered as an entire clause. A motion to divide a clause must be taken before the clause is adopted.
Of course, I can put such a motion but it is clear-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: If the hon. member puts such a motion, we will accept it and take the clause by sections, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rule says that I have to write it out.


Mr. Lamontagne:: In both official languages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 14 of Bill C-40 be divided into its separate subclauses.
If this amendment carries, we will vote on the separate subclauses, and I will vote for all of them except subclause (3.2).


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that clause 14 of Bill C-40 be divided into its separate subclauses, presumably for voting purposes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the amendment to clause 14 carry?
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) agreed to: yeas, 80; nays, 0.

Veterans' Pensions


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member said that he would vote against all clauses except the last one, it seemed to me-


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Mr.   de Corneille@: If this is done, it then says "(3) subsection (2) shall come into force". If there is no (3) subsection (2), what will be coming into force? I am not quite clear on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member misunderstood. I said that I would vote for all the subclauses of clause 14 except subclause (3.2), lines 14 to 31, on page 11. Now that the committee has voted in support of my motion that it be called by its various subclauses, I trust that is what the Chair will do.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 14(1) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Subclause (1) agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 14(2) carry ?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 specifically said in the motion "subclauses". While we let clause 14(1) go which had an extra subclause in it, clause 14(2) contains subclauses (3.1) and (3.2). I am asking for a separate vote on subclauses (3.1) and (3.2). 1 will vote for subclause (3.1) but against subclause (3.2).


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall subclause (2), lines 27 to 48 inclusive, on page 10 of Bill C-40 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Subclause (2), lines 27 to 48 inclusive on page 10, agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall subclause (2), lines 1 to 13 inclusive on page 11 of Bill C-40, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Subclause (2), lines 1 to 13 inclusive on page 11, agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall subclause (2), lines 14 to 31 inclusive, carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Subclause (2), lines 14 to 31 inclusive on page 11, agreed to: yeas, 62; nays, 58.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the remainder of the subclause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 23-Proportionate compensation payable to the widow in respect of deceased evaders or prisoners of war.
July 9, 1980


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to point out that this clause is an amendment to the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, which is a companion piece to the clause on which we have just voted. Had we been successful in defeating that clause, I would then have asked for a division on this clause; but since it seems that we are slightly outnumbered, 1 simply make the point that the same change should have been made here, that clause 7.4 on page 19 be deleted.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 23 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 48 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 49-Regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the printed draft copy of the bill I have has written in it "49-see clause 45". There is nothing in my copy to indicate what clause 49 actually says. May I ask whether it is the same as clause 45? After all, if wc are passing something it should be before us in written form. I had to write out my amendments. What is clause 45?


An hon. Member:: It is the same as clause 49.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the copy you have at the table has anything in it for clause 49? Obviously the copy I have is incomplete. Has anybody a copy that has anything other than just "see clause 45"?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: In response to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the copy before me has clause 49 which reads as follows:
Regulations or amendments thereto made pursuant to the said act that are directly related to the application of the said act, as amended by this act, may be made applicable on or after July I, 1980.
Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to know it is there. Some members have sent me copies of the bill which have clause 49. The copy I have, which was given to me this morning-I still have it and can show it to you to indicate that I was not fooling-has no clause 49 in it. If the copy you have and that you initial has in it the words you have read, 1 am satisfied.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is an amended copy. The previous one to which the hon. member was referring does not have that clause, but it is in this copy; you have read it and I hope that clarifies the matter.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The copy in the hands of the chairman of committees is as indicated and I propose to initial it if it is adopted in this form. Shall clause 49 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause I agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the title carry?
July 9, 1980


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, before we complete committee stage I am wondering whether the minister will reply to my query in respect of clause 2 regarding what consideration or action the government is prepared to take to provide recognition of and entitlement to the veterans of the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion in the Spanish civil war?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I planned to make some reference in this regard but I see that time is moving on. The hon. member may not know but this is under consideration by the department. I have no answer for him today other than to say that it is under consideration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you in favour of it?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall 1 rise and report the bill?


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I may have missed this, but is there not on page 32 a schedule that has to be carried?


Walter David Baker: That is part of a section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is part of clause 44 which was carried.


David Michael Collenette: Then I withdraw that question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is no schedule in the bill before me. It is my understanding that the schedule is part of clause 44 and was adopted when clause 44 was adopted.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to say that despite the shortcomings which we found in the bill, and the improvements which we will have to make later, it is a good bill. It is a good day and we are glad that we were able to put the bill through all stages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with this bill and 1, too, think that it has been a good day for Parliament and for the veterans. I regret very much that the government did not see fit to agree with the amendments which were supported by this side of the House, but that is their position.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council tell the House what we will be dealing with when we convene tomorrow?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it has not been definitely decided. There are a number of options. We did plan to continue with Bill S-6 today, and there are also Bills C-3 and C-4. 1 will undertake in a few moments to obtain a definitive answer for the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
There is also the matter of Bill C-30, which was reported yesterday and which could be brought forward tomorrow. I will undertake to get the information for the House leaders so that they can inform their colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 10, 1980