1984-06-06

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, forty years ago today, at dawn, about 14,000 young Canadians landed on the beaches of Normandy with their British, American and French allies, as part of the most impressive amphibious operation in history. They came from all parts of this country. Many belonged to military units with such evocative names as: The North Nova Scotia Highlanders, the Regiment de la Chaudiere, The Fort Garry Horse, The Regina Rifle Regiment. . . Canadians at home celebrated their victory and, at the same time, mourned the fallen. On the first day, 1,000 soldiers were killed in combat.
The success of D-Day paved the way for the celebrated campaign in Northwestern Europe which, less than a year later, would make it possible for the Allies to meet Soviet troops in Germany. It is then that one of the most violent periods in history finally ended. But at what price! During the war, the Canadian Forces lost 48,000 troops, of whom 12,500 lost their lives in this campaign.
Today, when commemorating D-Day, we can look back with satisfaction on what has been achieved during the last forty years. The sacrifice made by those young Canadians gave our country the right to make itself heard in the councils for peace that shaped the postwar world, as well as in councils which today discuss the same vital issues, those of world peace and security. In Western Europe, the conquerors and the conquered have come to terms and are now working together within the European Economic Community, for instance, and, another example, with their North American allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. After being the scene of two horrendous armed conflicts in this century, Western Europe has known nearly forty years of peace, an unprecedented phenomenon.

Any tendency towards self congratulation must, however, be muted. Around the world today, four million people, we are informed, are engaged in 42 wars, rebellions, or civil uprisings. Horrifying as these figures are, they are dwarfed by the
hundreds of millions who are suffering from hunger or who are being denied basic human rights, inequities which themselves can give rise to war.
Bitterest irony of all, the relations between the two major architects of the Second World War victory, the United States and the Soviet Union, are as bleak as they have ever been. East and West have arsenals sufficient not only to devastate one another, but, as a well-known American scientist reminded us this week, potentially to destroy the human race itself in a catastrophic "nuclear winter". Yet there are no serious nuclear arms negotiations going on at this time, and little progress is being made in other forums such as the Stockholm Conference or the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks in Vienna.
The differences between East and West are, unfortunately, real, and require us to take part in a strong defensive alliance for our own security. But we must constantly look beyond defence. The search for peace must be a constant preoccupation of our Government and of each one of us singly. We have to explore constantly how East and West can work together in the pursuit of common goals, to avoid war, contain crises, to increase mutual confidence, to achieve balanced disarmament and arms control, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote the prosperity not only of our own country but of the Third World which looks to us for help.
Today leaders of allied countries, Members of this House, and Canadian veterans have returned to the beaches of Normandy. They have done so to commemorate the valour which young people displayed there 40 years ago. It is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House, and Canadians across the land, pause for a moment to recall their sacrifices and to rededicate ourselves to their legacy, the legacy of peace and freedom.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, this is a day unique. Forty years ago today I never thought for a moment that I would be standing here in this place and participating in the way in which I am about to, in commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day. Other Members are absent, notably the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), who is in Normandy today where he was on the beaches 40 years ago today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), who is there today, was flying over the beaches on that day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was languishing in a German prisoner of war camp.

June 6, 1984
D-Day
How his heart must have sung when he received the news of the landings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: There are others here today who participated in that march to freedom, but because the Acting Prime Minister has put on the record four of the notable regiments that took part, I think it is only fitting that the entire 11 regiments which participated that day so long ago be part of the permanent record of this commemorative day. In the Seventh Brigade were the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, the Regina Rifle Regiment, and the Canadian Scottish Regiment. In the Eighth Brigade were the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, the Regiment de la Chaudiere, and the North Shore (New Brunswick) Regiment. In the Ninth Brigade were the Highland Light Infantry, the Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry-Highlanders, and the North Nova Scotia Highlanders. In support were the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa, a machine gun regiment, and finally, the First Canadian Parachute Battalion.
O)
I, like the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), was in the air. There were others at sea crammed into between 5,000 and 6,000 ships. From our vantage point it appeared that we could have walked across the Channel without getting a foot wet.
No words can underline the impact of the events which took place on this day 40 years ago. Referring to the Battle of Britain, Churchill said: "Never . . . has so much been owed by so many to so few." Similar words could be used to define the dynamics of the D-Day landing in Normandy. All the world knows that it was one of the largest and most complex combined operations ever seen, the like of which we had not seen before and hope never to see again.
It brought to bear the power and versatility of the air, combined with the dogged effectiveness of a mighty naval screen, and the mobile punch of armour, infantry, and heavy artillery. It showed the world something of the organizing genius, the mobilizing capacity, and terrible fire-power of freedom. D-Day was the opener for the Normandy campaign against a well-armed, highly skilled, determined, and versatile enemy. But nothing could withstand the power and resolution of the mighty Allied forces motivated by the restoration of freedom.
There is more than a memory of war, or the clash of mighty armies, or the nostalgia of times forgotten to justify keeping alive the memory of the generation which took its stand on the Normandy beaches. As a member of that generation who fought in that company, as did other Members, I can say that we shall not see their like again. I had just passed my twentieth birthday and was in an RAF Lancaster bomber squadron which provided an air umbrella for the protection of Canadians and all Allied forces participating in the landing on 40 to 45 miles of beach.
Young men and women took their part together. Women performed a silent but dedicated role on every front. There
were no back seats in 1944. The young men of that generation ranged the skies in search of an enemy whose power had been crippled and broken in the preceding months. They manned ships, tanks, and guns. They stormed the bloody beaches and bore in to grip the enemy in the lanes and hedgerows of the Norman countryside. They drove the enemy house by house through the inferno that was Caen-which lasted for 31 days.
This was a mighty gesture by a free people, worthy of a few moments' remembrance in the House of Commons so that future generations will not forget what they did there-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: -and above all, so they will not forget the goals for which they fought and died, the motivation that led young Canadians to contribute in the way that they did, many to the ultimate sacrifice. As young as most of us were, we knew our goal, and that goal was the restoration of freedom- the retention of freedom-that, if not achieved might have seen the Swastika flying over Canadian soil.
D-Day reopened freedom's door for Western Europe. It marked the end to the long incarceration of their hopes, their freedom, and of their dignity. Canada's part in that great drama was a worthy one, a proud one, and Canadians were well aware that the welcome they received was meant to underscore the rebirth of freedom for people who had learned its true meaning through its loss.
The bitter and hard fought Normandy fight has meaning today because it reasserted the rights of western freedom. Regrettably, there are vast sections of Europe where human rights, dignity, and freedoms are not respected.
As we join with free peoples everywhere in paying tribute to the generation which gave its youth and its hopes in order that freedom should live, let us not forget the obligation imposed upon us by their commitment and their sacrifice. Our first obligation is to keep faith with them by remaining alert to defend the goals for which they died. Do not let anyone say "It cannot happen here". It will not happen here only if we are constantly vigilant and continually at work against the prospect in whatever form it appears.
Perhaps equally important, we must work and strain so that the conditions which made their sacrifice necessary will not again exist, and moderate and reasoned measures will so prevail that the bright wings of peace will never again be tarnished by the rumour of war.
I would have liked, Mr. Speaker, to have said those things that came from my heart, in our other official language, French. I, like many of my colleagues, fought alongside Canadians of all stripes from all parts of our country. If I could do it fluently in French, I would do it in French.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 6, 1984


Erik Nielsen: But as my colleagues from French Canada are aware, in emotional times such as these, the language of one's mother tongue expresses them more adequately.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, forty years ago this morning, what Field Marshall Rommel predicted would be the longest day of the Second World War began on the beaches of Normandy. The Allied invasion of Europe, otherwise known as D-Day, or Operation Overlord, had begun.
Today, not only on behalf of my caucus but also, may I say, on behalf of a generation yet unborn on the day of that invasion of the beaches, I would like to pay tribute to those Canadians who were there on that historic morning, and to those who followed them. Let us remember with gratitude and with praise the courage of all and the sacrifice of the many, and join our hearts with the families, friends and comrades of those who died, who were maimed, or who were captured. We will remember them.
It is important to remember. A society that cannot remember, that has no respect for history, that lives only in the present moment without concern for past or future, is a society doomed to shallowness and to destruction. But remembering must be a way into the future as well as into the past. Therefore, let us not be captive to images of war which our memory of that great invasion naturally brings to mind. For in the next war there will be no soldiers and sailors and airmen going off to war, some to die, some to return, all to be remembered for their sacrifice and bravery. There will only be the instantaneous destruction of hundreds of millions of human beings, men, women, and children, and the complete breakdown of civilization as we know it, not to mention of the planet itself, due to the heinous environmental damage that a nuclear war would cause.
Therefore, let us be captive instead to the images of individual courage, national planning, international co-operation and human community which all went into the success of the invasion and the war effort in general.
As individuals let us match the courage and self sacrifice which we so rightly honour today with a willingness to sacrifice our own lives for the cause of peace and human future. For war is not the only opportunity to fight for peace. We can fight for peace in peacetime, each in our own way, by being true to our deepest insights about the tragedy and futility of war, and acting on them.
As a nation let us put our hearts and minds together once again as we did at that time, and build a purposeful economy designed to serve the common good and the hopes for the future which so many who served had when they came back, and which so many young people today have for themselves and their families.
As a member of the international community let us recall what nations are capable of when they work together for a
D-Day
common goal, and never cease in our efforts to get the world to redirect the vast resources, both material and human, now sinfully directed to mutual overkill, from death to life, in a common struggle against poverty, disease, pollution, and the roots of war.
Finally, let us all remember that beyond our identity as Canadians we have an identity as human beings, all members of the same human family, with a common home, the planet earth. Let our loyalty not only be to Canada but also to all our fellow creatures and creation itself. Let us long for and work for the day when we shall all truly beat our swords into ploughshares, our spears into pruning hooks, when nation shall not rise against nation, nor shall we learn war any more.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I want to join briefly with my colleagues and thank them for the testimony they have given on this most memorable day. All over Canada sentiments will be advanced much like the sentiments that were expressed by the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), and by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). People will recall this most dramatic day in their lives, and they will remember the events of 40 years ago when they were young, tough, and courageous. They will remember D-Day.
Soldiers, airmen, and sailors will all have memories of that crucial day when Canada and its allies stormed ashore to secure a foothold on fortress Europe.

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers, our airmen and our sailors will all have vivid memories of that crucial day when Canada and her allies stormed ashore for a foothold on fortress Europe.

The sailors of the destroyers Algonquin and Sioux will see in their mind's eye their guns firing on the Juno Beach defences. The airmen of the RCAF will see again the cratering of German gun positions, or the fighter sweeps to keep the Luftwaffe at bay. And soldiers from a dozen regiments, English and French, properly identified in the House this afternoon, will perhaps live again the tension before battle, and call to mind friends who did not make it as they slugged through the German defences.

But June 6 does bring to mind more than the anniversary of the most important landing in history, a landing in which
15,000	Canadians took part, Mr. Speaker. It was as well the day when was launched what was later to be called the war of liberation, the rescue-by singularly dedicated troops-of the European civilization which the Nazi invaders were on the verge of obliterating, the beginning of the end of the human disaster that was World War II.

June 6, 1984
Oral Questions
I am sure Hon. Members will join with those who have spoken this afternoon in a vote of thanks to all those young men who risked their lives to expunge the evil from Europe. I would ask all Hon. Members to remember as well the women who worked to make the battle a success, and the women who lost sons, brothers, and husbands. For them too, D-Day is a traumatic memory.
For all of us, D-Day will long live in its full glory as an epic day which epitomizes the sacrifices that democratic peoples are willing to make to preserve the values of civilized society. I particularly draw attention to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), because those sacrifices were made for generations to come. I cannot bring before the House the sort of testimony which the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) can bring. I was but four years old at the time. However, I can say that we have lived upon the bounty which has resulted from that level of human sacrifice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might observe a minute's silence in memory of those who fell.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would there be unanimous consent to extend the Question Period until thirteen minutes past three?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this question yesterday I would like to direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. He will know that yesterday the Canadian dollar fell to its lowest value in history in terms of the U.S. dollar, to 76.79 cents. The previous low was on June 29, 1982, when it fell to a value of 76.80 cents. At that time the Government had to raise Canadian interest rates five percentage points higher than the U.S. rate to stem the flow of funds to U.S. dollars. That is what had to be done to stop the devaluation of the dollar.
Today our prime rate is 12 per cent and the U.S. rate is 12.5 per cent. The Minister of Finance said that he was not spending his nights worrying that the dollar was 81 cents in March. Is the Government worrying now that the dollar is under 77 cents? Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us
whether the Government will act to protect the dollar? If so, how? Will the Government put interest rates up past the present 12 per cent?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member opposite knows very well that it is not our practice to speculate on interest rates or indeed on the fluctuating value of currencies.
The Hon. Member also knows very well that during the past few days the value of the United States dollar has strengthened not only against the Canadian dollar but against most other major currencies. At the same time, however, I would note for the Hon. Member that the Canadian dollar has also strengthened against most other major currencies. In fact, if the Member wants to engage in his almost minute by minute speculation about the Canadian dollar's value, today it has strengthened again. The basic consideration is the strength of the Canadian economy, which has meant that Canadian interest rates during the past year and one-half have been very close to and in a few cases less than those in the United States. That is a development in our economy that I am sure the Hon. Member opposite would want to join with us in welcoming.


OUTFLOW OF CAPITAL
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is useless to expect a frank and clear answer from the junior Minister of Finance or from anybody on the government side. We cannot get any firm declaration of the Government's economic policy with respect to the dollar and what it is going to do.
In the First quarter of this year we had a huge capital outflow. Direct investment of $500 million left this country. Unidentified outflow was $1 billion. That is added to the $34.8 billion in capital that left this country in the last three years, 1981, 1982, and 1983. Does the Minister agree that the real reason the dollar is sinking is because of these huge capital outflows? If he does not agree, what does he say is causing this constant devaluation of the Canadian dollar? How does the minister propose to stop these outflows and this devaluation which has reached the lowest point ever in our history? Even the 1930s did not match it.
How does the Minister propose to stop these outflows and get the economy back on track again other than by the resignation of the Government? We know they will not contemplate that.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks about government policy with regard to the value of the Canadian dollar. He knows that on many occasions in the past we have indicated in the House that the value of the Canadian dollar is related to interest rate movements in the United States. If interest rate pressures in the United States are upwards, Canadian dollars will flow from Canada into the United States seeking short-term higher
June 6, 1984

returns. That in turn means that Canadians buy U.S. dollars, driving down the value of the Canadian dollar. It is perfectly straightforward. The Hon. Member knows that. What the Bank of Canada does, and the Hon. Member knows this as well, is to moderate such movements. The Bank of Canada will continue to moderate such movements.
Instead of raising all sorts of dark forebodings, as the Hon. Member so often indulges in, he should recall that it is the basic strength of our economic recovery which has enabled the Bank of Canada to moderate the fluctuations in the Canadian dollar exchange rate and the Canadian interest rate. It is also that basic strength which has enabled Canada to have interest rates that, in many cases, do not exceed and in some instances are lower than those in the United States. The fundamental proposition the Member should bear in mind is that the Canadian economy is strong and the recovery is strong.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have asked two serious questions which affect the future of this country and everyone who lives here, and have had nothing but specious quacks from the Minister of State for Finance. There is no strong recovery under way. The dollar is sinking. This country and its economy are in danger.
I will direct one Final supplementary to the Minister, and let him try to answer without giving the recorded broadcast which they have about U.S. interest rates. Our cash reserves today are minuscule. We have a foreign debt of about $130 billion. Our foreign exchange reserves, with all the money we borrowed, are $3.67 billion. The capital base of this country is eroding. The Government has caused these problems. It has been in office for the four years while they accelerated. What is it going to do about the problem? What program is going to be brought in to stop this rot before it goes any further and no one can stop it?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to be getting more and more excited with his own rhetoric. The fact is that we have an economic recovery of substantial proportions in Canada today. The Member will know that in the Final quarter of 1983 economic growth was continuing at a pace of about 7 per cent. It has, as we fully expected, and as we have stated on a number of occasions, moderated during the First two quarters of this year. That was to be expected. It is a more sustainable rate of growth, as the Hon. Member knows.
With regard to the question of interest rates in Canada, the Member knows perfectly well that those interest rates are largely influenced by developments south of the border, not here in Canada. When the Hon. Member describes the Canadian economy as being in some sort of perilous condition which has given rise to higher interest rates, he is talking through his hat. He is talking nonsense, and he knows it.
Oral Questions
The fact is that interest rates in Canada are to a substantial degree a function of interest rates in the United States. Nevertheless, with the economic recovery in which all Canadians have shared, with our success in bringing down inflation, Canada is now in a more productive and competitive position. One result of that is not only has our export trade reached record levels, but we have been able to maintain interest rates which are comparable to and in some instances lower than those in the United States.


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. I want to refer to the latest Statistics Canada report which, in reporting that the recovery is slow, states, and I quote:
-the upturn in business investment in plant and equipment that usually appears in the second year of growth is not evident in the preliminary forecast of the survey of public and private investment in Canada.
Strong business investment automatically creates new jobs. Since the United States is experiencing a record investment boom, as is clearly demonstrated in the fact that its unemployment rate is 7.8 per cent compared to our rate of 11.4 per cent, can the Minister give any substantive reason in the face of these recent high interest rates why this poor unemployment record in Canada will not deteriorate further in the future?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the level of unemployment in Canada is in part determined by the additional workers joining our labour force. The labour force in Canada has grown over a number of years at a faster rate than in the United States and, indeed, than in most industrialized countries. We have created more jobs in Canada, and at a faster rate, than most other industrialized countries. Yet the fact remains that there are larger numbers of people joining the workforce.
With regard to the private sector, the Hon. Member should know that corporate proFits have increased substantially during the past year. The liquidity position of corporations has improved enormously. We see capacity utilization continuing to increase. I do not doubt that we shall see the benefits of increased investment in plant capacity during the course of this year, which will bring benefits in terms of employment as well.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is another example of the Ministers talking with their rose-coloured glasses on, and not dealing with reality.


INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I am sure he is aware that the Minister responsible for the co-ordination of economic policy for the Government, the Minister of State for Economic and

June 6, 1984
Oral Questions
Regional Development, said recently in his leadership campaign that the Industrial and Regional Development Program simply is not working in creating jobs. Does the Minister agree with that statement? Does he agree that this program should be changed and that it should be replaced in all or in part with tax reductions or tax incentives that are clearly designed to create that new employment we desperately need when there are 1.5 million people out of a job today?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the lead of our respected Prime Minister and his response to one of the Hon. Member's colleague who asked the same question, and indicate that I will be tolerant as well. Also, when my colleague, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development was asked that question, he indicated that perhaps Hon. Members would be wise to read the entire speech and not take what was said out of context.


GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Earlier today as various Members paid tribute to those who served on D-Day, we heard of the sacrifices that were made for Canada and for freedom. For the last three or four years the Minister of Finance and government Members have been asking Canadians to make sacrifices in the name of rebuilding the economy. It seems that one group of Canadians is not a part of this equation.
It was reported the other day that in 1983 the Chairman of Dome Petroleum earned $7,600 a day. That is the amount of money that the average UIC recipient would receive in an entire year. Does the Government plan to ask people like Jack Gallagher to make sacrifices so that we may build up the Canadian economy, as it has asked the average working Canadian?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I also read this article and my memory of it is that the particularly high salary that that particular gentleman received on that particular day was due to particular circumstances. In other words, if I recall correctly, he was leaving the company and that led to a settlement, which explains at least in part the high salary that he was receiving.
It seems to me that my hon. friend should bear in mind special circumstances when he is passing judgment on matters of this kind. The tax system in Canada provides for higher and higher payments as the income of an individual gets higher and higher. It is a progressive system. Consequently, everyone gets to contribute to the development of the country as a whole, according to his capacity.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, one could make some comments about the progressive tax system and how upper income earners are making their contributions. I will leave that for another day.


SALARY INCREASES FOR CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the case of Mr. Gallagher was only one case. However, I would like to remind the Acting Prime Minister that in the past year the average wage settlement for the average Canadian was below 5 per cent, which is the rate of inflation. However, we found that the 1983 salary increases for top corporate executives in Canada were in excess of 12 per cent. That is double the rate of inflation. These are the same people who are asking their employees to take salary and wage cuts, or to keep their increases below the rate of inflation. How long is the Government of Canada prepared to accept this type of hypocrisy? What does the Government plan to do about it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in the answer to the previous question I tried to indicate to my hon. friend that he must not introduce his questions in this particular way. Quite often there are valid explanations for particular cases. The Hon. Member did not apologize for his question because he is too proud for that, but he seemed to recognize that his question was not well posed and was not one from which conclusions could be extracted.
A similar thing applies with respect to different categories of people and their improved compensations. As a former Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, I have a bit of experience with these matters. I did learn that it is unwise, to say the least, to judge the income increases of groups of people on the basis of one year. One must look into the situation of a number of years past and study the factors which might have influenced the compensation given to a group of people over a period of time. That is the kind of advice I would like to give to my hon. friend.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Acting Prime Minister that we are speaking of the corporate elite of Canada. We are speaking of the executives of the major corporations of Canada who received across-the-board salary increases of an average of 12 per cent while their own employees were asked to take wage and salary cuts, or to keep their increases to an absolute minimum. Many of these individuals were earning salaries in excess of $500,000 to begin with.
Because the Acting Prime Minister understands the role of the Anti-Inflation Board, a Board on which he was a member some years ago, and because he recognizes the role of corporate leadership, does he think that this is the kind of leadership we can expect when people are being asked to be more realistic about their demands? Is this the kind of position that the Government supports? If not, what is it going to do about it?
June 6, 1984


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to indicate to my friend that the question as posed was not a fair one. He must not judge a person's improvement in income on the basis of a single year. It may be that a group of people will receive an increase of 12 per cent this year but received increases of only 3 per cent, 4 per cent, or 5 per cent in past years. It may very well be, and I believe it is the case, that a group of people will receive a 5 per cent increase this year but received increases of 7 per cent, 9 per cent, 12 per cent, or even 20 per cent in previous years. In order to judge the fairness of income increases given to different categories of people in Canada, one must study the situation in some depth. That was the kind of advice I was trying to give to the Hon. Member.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and is in regard to one Balentine Leschenko who, a few days ago, disappeared from the third unescorted temporary absence which was given to this man who was an inmate of the Edmonton maximum security prison. Mr. Leschenko was serving time for robbery and armed robbery. As recently as August, 1983, the Parole Board denied him an unescorted temporary absence on the basis of a need for further demonstration of good behaviour. In view of the fact that this particular prisoner has escaped or attempted to escape on two or three occasions, can the Solicitor General tell us exactly why that prisoner was out on an unescorted temporary absence, keeping in mind the fact that he will not be eligible for mandatory supervision until February 26, 1991?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those cases that falls under the jurisdiction of the National Parole Board. The individual concerned had served some 12 years in penitentiary. He was eligible for parole some five years ago. For five years the Parole Board had been reviewing his case and finally came to the conclusion that, in its judgment, he should be allowed out on unescorted temporary absences. He took two such absences without incident. On the third absence, he violated the rules. I cannot say that the Parole Board did not act within its discretion. When considering the criteria that were presented, it decided to allow this inmate to begin a process of resocialization after spending 12 years behind bars.


ROLE OF NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Solicitor General could first let the House know whether or not Lechenko has been apprehended. As well, the House would be interested to know what experience the particular members of the Parole Board had who decided that it
Oral Questions
was all right to let this prisoner out on an unescorted temporary absence. What does the Solicitor General have in mind to do about the fact that, at the very least, it seems to be a strange exercise of judgment, given the fact that this man is only 33, his offences include armed robbery, and his past record is one of attempted escape and escape?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, as to the success record of the National Parole Board in granting unescorted-


John Allen Fraser: I am talking about these parole officials.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not know the particular parole officials who sat on this case. The National Parole Board hears nearly
45,000	cases a year. I will look into the matter. However, I can tell the Hon. Member, and it is a matter of public record, that members of the National Parole Board are drawn from a very broad cross section of people, including former policemen, people with experience in the correctional service, educators, people with journalistic experience, and some former Members of Parliament. So far as their success goes in deciding on the granting of unescorted temporary absences, I can tell the Hon. Member that in 1981 they had a 98.99 per cent success rate on temporary absences granted. In 1982 they had a 99.36 per cent success rate. There were only 13 failures out of over 2,000 cases. In 1983, out of 2,761 unescorted temporary absences, the success rate was 99.49 per cent, so I thank the Hon. Member for his supplementary question.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, the latter not being in the House at this time. The Standing Committee on Agriculture met last Thursday. Five members of our Party were there along with one member of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. Only one government Member showed up. We had to adjourn and could not pass the amendments to the agriculture stabilization act out of committee. Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether he is prepared to ensure that more than one government Member will attend the committee meetings so that if we in our Party show up and Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party show up, we can pass the Bill out of committee? Could we have a commitment that when the committee meets we can pass the Bill through, clause by clause, in order to get it back to the House as quickly as possible so we can get some money into the hands of the western farmers?

June 6, 1984
Oral Questions


Mr. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that at the next meeting there will be enough committee members present for clause-by-clause adoption of the Bill.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Parliamentary Secretary, my office was informed by telephone that we are going to meet tomorrow afternoon. I will tell him when the meeting is, and I hope he will show up.


REQUEST FOR EARLY PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I believe he has responsibility for amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. When the Bill comes out of committee, and hopefully we can do that tomorrow, will the Minister use the influence of his good office and suggest to his House Leader that we get this Bill passed next week? The Minister of State for Finance stands and talks about all the things we cannot do. Here is one thing the Government can do in terms of putting some money into the pockets of western farmers.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Their own money!


Charles James Mayer: Can we have a commitment that the Minister will do what he can to get that Bill on the Order Paper so that we can pass it through all stages in this House by the end of next week?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Acting Prime Minister knows, Mr. Speaker, Canadian veterans of the last war who elected to live overseas following discharge from the service are now being denied war veterans allowance pensions because they refuse to return and reside in Canada for one year. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why a Canadian who fought for his country in the last war, who is a veteran in every sense of the word, is being denied a benefit which every other veteran receives, simply because he refuses to return to Canada and live here for one year? Why is that the case? And why does the Government not correct that kind of injustice?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am really not familiar with the particular aspects of this question. I have found in my some 20 years in
politics that 93 per cent of the time there is a good explanation for these situations. I will try to find it, and my friend and I can then pass judgment on the adequacy of the reason.


RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. According to a press report yesterday, the executive director to the Minister of Veterans Affairs said: "The only reason those veterans must return to Canada for one year is so that the Department of Veterans Affairs can get to know them". That is the most illogical argument I have ever heard in my life. It seems to me that if that is the key argument used by the Government to refuse to pay those pensions, it is one which seriously requires re-examination. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister to use his good offices to do that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: will, Mr. Speaker.


VIA RAIL
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question arises out of his promise this past weekend to restore the Edmonton-Vancouver VIA Rail passenger service partially. In April of this year the Minister said that the only way this service could be restored would be through a cost sharing arrangement involving the federal Government, the provinces, and the municipalities. Can the Minister assure the House that this condition is not attached to his commitment to restore this service by the fall of 1985?
Could he also tell the House why the President of VIA Rail, when he appeared before the committee last week, completely contradicted the Minister of Transport when he stated that there was no commitment to restore this service? Does the Minister have a breakdown in communications with the President of VIA Rail, or are we to assume that the President of VIA Rail was less than frank with the committee?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question, let me explain that I have never said there must be a cost-sharing. I said we were trying to recruit the involvement of the provinces and the municipalities, that we would provide the rail service and we would want them to complement that by investing in promotion, market development, tourism development and other parts of the economic side of that package. We have received very useful co-operation from the municipalities. I am still waiting for an equal commitment from the provinces.
Because of the major economic importance to the Province of Alberta and British Columbia, to say nothing of the entire country, in encouraging the development of new tourist traffic,
June 6, 1984

we have gone ahead to reintroduce that line. The task force which was established under the leadership of Mayor Decore and Mayor Harcourt will continue to develop the role and responsibility of the municipalities and provinces. We have, therefore, been able to generate that kind of local level responsibility and commitment, and I am hoping the provinces will also show signs of being good partners in this kind of arrangement.
As far as the statement made by Mr. Franche in front of the committee is concerned, he, of course, was not in a position to make that kind of commitment in front of the committee because, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Transport who makes policy on VIA Rail.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the task force. May I then ask him why he pre-empted his own task force in making his decision before the task force brought down its report, particularly in light of the fact that I understand his own task force was recommending that the reinstatement take place in the spring of 1985? And why is the Minister delaying the restoration of that service until the fall of 1985? May I ask the Minister also whether any similar consideration is being given to the restoration of the VIA Atlantic service which was dismantled in the same fashion as the western transcontinental service?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the Hon. Member for the opportunity to clarify the situation which he has tried to put forward. The fact of the matter is that we have been working very closely with the task force, and the reintroduction of the Edmonton-Jasper-Kamloops-Vancouver line is in total accord with its recommendation that it be initially a three-day service. We have fully conformed to the kind of proposals the task force has made.
With respect to the question of timing, we have given ourselves until the fall of 1985 because there are some variables which we cannot control, such as the deliberations by the Canadian Transport Commission. It would certainly be my intention to try to have the service in place by the spring of 1985. We are working towards that, and if we can get full co-operation of the CTC and others, I am quite confident we will have it in operation by that time.
As to the third part of the question, we have had a number of discussions with Members from the Atlantic area concerning the economic justification for improvements in service. As the Hon. Member knows, we have reintroduced the Moncton-Edmundston line as a demonstration of our interest in serving that part of the region. We will maintain and continue that same kind of innovative approach in consulting with communities and enlisting their co-operation.
Oral Questions


TORONTO-PETERBOROUGH-REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, well over six months ago the Minister of Transport and his personal staff promised the people of my constituency and the local councils that if they got together, co-ordinated their efforts, the Minister would meet with them and serious consideration would be given to reinstituting the Toronto-Pet-erborough VIA Rail passenger service which was so stupidly cut off by the Minister's predecessor. Just last week the Minister's departmental officials admitted in the Committee on Transport that absolutely no consideration has been or is being given to the reinstitution of that line which could be economically sound and for which there is a good demand. Why will the Minister not meet with them and at least review that silly decision?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would speak up a little bit so we could hear him on this side of the House.
There have been consultations and discussions. We have looked at the proposition, and I suggest he go back and talk to his friends in the Ontario Government to get an answer on why there has been no reconsideration of that line.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday we witnessed the fact that veterans, in this case Dieppe veterans, felt that so little attention was being paid to their case that they had to march on Parliament Hill. Although no government Members showed up, they did this to call the attention of the Government to the fact that they have a special case for having their pension classification increased from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. In recalling D-Day of 40 years ago, we know that the Dieppe raid had a lot to do with the success of D-Day. I call on the Acting Prime Minister to use today as a golden opportunity to announce that the Government is going to meet the request of the Dieppe veterans and increase their pensions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my hon. friend uses this day to ask questions which the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is in Normandy today, would have been in a position to answer on those days when he was here. I will bring it to his attention and I am sure he will want to provide an answer when he gets back.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: This is not exactly a new item. It has been before committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. All Members of Parliament have received communications on this, including the Acting Prime Minister, and I am surprised that he just wants to duck the question and not indicate where he stands on this issue.

June 6, 1984
Oral Questions


DELAY IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL PROCEDURES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister is talking to the Minister of Veterans Affairs maybe he could also make some representations on behalf of the many veterans who get an incredible run-around from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It takes years and years to have an appeal heard. There is often an automatic rejection, and then another four years go by in appeals. It often seems that it is the Government's bureaucratic policy to wait for veterans to die off so it will not have to pay the pensions coming to them. Perhaps he could make that representation also so that justice can finally be done and these delays can be stopped.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on matters of this kind I have had an opinion about my hon. friend's Party for a long time. That opinion is simply that whatever the Government does for any group of people, veterans, or married women, or unmarried women, and what not, they always come back and suggest a lot better. Their intellectual contribution in the last number of years to the development of social services in Canada has simply been to add another ten when there was 100, or another 20, or another 30. That has been their intellectual contribution to the social services of Canada. Consequently I am not surprised by today's request because it comes every day from that Party.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have here the current householder of the Minister of Transport in which he says:
My job as an MP is to listen and serve your interests. That is not "porkbarrel-ing". This is just good, honest representation.
How does the Minister justify reinstating a VIA Rail line in his own riding while at the same time standing up in this House and telling the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumb-erland that he has met with the heads of municipalities in the Peterborough area? That is simply not the case. Would the Minister stand in his place and retract that statement? His own office said there was a letter in transit; the letter has never been received. There was a commitment to hold a meeting, and the meeting has never been held. This is the third time the Minister has unintentionally misled this House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to note that the Hon, Member has substantially improved the quality of his reading material recently. I hope that practice will continue, because he may learn a lot more about the qualities of a good MP. I would be glad to send him past copies so he can have a full library.
The fact of the matter is that there have been a series of meetings held, and discussions have been ongoing. As I explained to the Hon. Member previously, the reasons have to
do with the kind of discussions we have had with the provincial government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Peterborough on a supplementary. Would the Hon. Member bear in mind that there are many Members on his side seeking to be recognized?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Thank you very much for the supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


NEWSPAPER REPORT
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister's office that advised the Peterborough Examiner on May 11 that a letter had been sent outlining the Minister's position. As of today that letter has not been received. Therefore, would the Minister advise this House why he is not only, intentionally or otherwise, misleading this House, but at the same time misleading all the heads of all the municipalities in the region of Durham-Northumberland, Peterborough, and Peterborough-Hastings?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that I am responsible for VIA Rail, not for the Canada Post Corporation, so I cannot give him a full explanation for the delay. At the same time I will check and make sure that we have a more rapid delivery.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister, concerning the $7.3 million subsidy the federal Government has agreed to pay to Atlantic Container Express to carry cargo from the Port of Montreal. In February of 1982 the Government paid a similar subsidy to a related company, Newfoundland Steamships, at a cost to the taxpayers of $5.9 million. How can the Minister justify an expenditure of $13 million in public funds for a transportation service that the former Minister of Transport said did not require a subsidy? There were two carriers performing the service without a subsidy.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Hon. Member to the possibility of holding some discussions with his two colleagues who represent the St. John's area. They have felt, as have many people in that area, that this is important to the development of the marine shipping program and service to that area. It is part of the review we are doing, and if his colleagues from that area are prepared to say that they want to see the elimination of that service and a reduction of some 40 per cent of the potential work in that port, then I would be quite glad to have those representations from the two Hon. Members from St. John's.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, if he does not know, I can tell the Minister that there were no representations from St. John's,
June 6, 1984

Newfoundland, to continue this service, because there is no benefit to Newfoundlanders in subsidizing freight from the Port of Montreal when there is a perfectly adequate railway service through the ports of Nova Scotia, including North Sydney.


REASON FOR SUBSIDY
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not admit to Parliament that the reason for the subsidy is because Terra Transport is providing services at below cost? The Government had to provide this subsidy to equalize the subsidization. We are getting into one big subsidization which is really intended to benefit friends of the Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is going to come as a wonderful piece of news to the people of St. John's, Newfoundland, that their two Members of Parliament are not interested in any kind of program which would keep some 40 per cent of the port activity going on in St. John's. I am sure that will make front page news in St. John's tomorrow.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I see him on this side of the House. He is getting a little practice, because this is where he will be after the next election. My question is with regard to the crab fishery and the absence of licences for P.E.I. fishermen for the crab fishery. I have discussed this in committee. I have raised it in the House. I have mentioned it to the Minister and have written to him. Is there any assurance coming from the Government that P.E.I. fishermen will indeed be awarded crab licences for the crab fishery on P.E.I.?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, if the resources will ever allow for an incremental fishing effort in the Gulf, the first priority will be for P.E.I. fishermen.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ANNOUNCE ISSUANCE OF LICENCES
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there may be some licences forthcoming for the fishermen of P.E.I. I was hoping that the Minister would announce that now, rather than waiting to announce it during the election campaign. Would the Minister announce today that there are indeed licences going to be issued to Island fishermen in the crab fishery?
Oral Questions


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by the way the Hon. Member treats that topic. As he knows, we have a consultative committee in which all the participants in the fishery do participate. There is a consensus that as soon as there is a positive scientific report by the biologists which would allow for increased fishing efforts-which report is widely distributed to all participants-the priority will be given to P.E.I. fishermen.
I hope the Hon. Member realizes and understands that fishing allocation is done by rational and fair criteria.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. For a number of years there has been an application before the Foreign Investment Review Agency with regard to the amalgamation of Renault automobile manufacturers and American Motors which have a plant in my constituency. This application has been before FIRA for many years. Can the Minister give us any indication when there might be a decision on that application?


Edward C. Lumley: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for a number of years. I have had that answer for a number of years from those who have held that portfolio. Can the Minister assure the House that, when that decision comes down, the jobs of the workers in the Brampton plant will be protected and that there will not be any decrease in employment because of the decision which the Foreign Investment Review Agency makes? Can we have that decision soon? The workers are concerned about what is going on there at the present time.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that all I have heard for four and one-half years from the Conservative Party on the other side is about the free market. I am very surprised to hear someone on the other side talk about protection. If the Hon. Member has some patience, I think he may have some good news in the future with respect to that application.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Welfare. In their discussions

June 6, 1984
Oral Questions
regarding pensions yesterday in Toronto, the provincial Ministers of Health agreed in principle on a number of points and on the general broad outline of pension reform. We welcome that. On the same day that the provincial Ministers were meeting, there was a report tabled in the House regarding the Canada Pension Plan. There has obviously been some disquiet about the fiscal ability or soundness of CPP. Does the Minister agree with the authors of the report that, in order to keep CPP viable, increases on premiums would have to be in the order of 11 per cent of salary?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, unless the Member is talking about a period of over 50 years or something like that. I do not have my dossier with me. I think he knows very well that it was not the Health Ministers who met yesterday in Toronto. It was officials and people from other Departments in charge of the funding of pensions, mainly from Finance.
Everyone in Canada knows that the rate of contribution will have to be increased because we kept it very low for 16 or 17 years. That is valid for la Regie des rentes du Quebec as well. The increase will not be of the amount the Member mentioned, and it will not be all at once. People are talking of a fraction of a percentage or one or two points at a time over the years.


THE MONARCHY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, if I can get his attention. My question is with regard to the proposed Royal visit to Canada this summer. Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting New Brunswick, Ontario, and Manitoba. Will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that, if there is a general election this summer, under no circumstances will the Government of Canada request that Her Majesty not come to Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think we have enough real problems without trying to resolve, in anticipation, the hypothetical ones.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 5, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
*


John Carnell Crosbie: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's West on a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in his reply to a question asked of him this afternoon, the Minister of Transport suggested that there had been a representation from Members from St. John's with respect to a subsidy given to Atlantic Container Express Limited. That is completely untrue and incorrect. I have never made any representation to the Minister. He has never explained the purposes of this subsidy to me. I am opposed to it with the present information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Hon. Member has made his point, I believe. It is not a question of privilege, but he has made his point.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister is acting duplicitously, Mr. Speaker, and I protest.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from many citizens from my riding of Grey-Simcoe who are deeply concerned about the extensiveness of pornography in our country as portrayed in magazines, movies, and videos. They are also concerned about the moral ethics of people in our country which allow room for depictions of violence and degradation and the exposure of children to degradation, violence and pornography. The petitioners would like to see concrete changes made to the Criminal Code to eliminate once and for all these examples of abominations from our country.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of some 600 signatories from the community of Hanna in the constituency of Crowfoot, Alberta. The signatories are asking that preference be given to Prairie Cable Television in their community which would give them the option of a service which is local, retain a business within their community, and allow for a broadcasting system that is sensitive to the needs and aspirations of the community. These signatories hope that the Minister of Communications will lend particular attention to their call due to the fact that it is an almost unanimous petition from the whole community.
June 6, 1984


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from some 152 people in my constituency who express concern for the rights of the unborn. The petitioners point out that annually there are over 60,000 abortions and that living aborted babies are being used for commercial experimentation. These petitioners from Dauphin, both the town and the rural area, from Winnipegosis, Grandview, and Gilbert Plains, urge the Government to pass legislation to recognize unborn babies to be truly living persons having the same rights as all citizens.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 629 and 771.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Arctic Waters Advisory Committee and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: June 6, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Towers: Does the Government make funds available to children of veterans who attend post-graduate schools, secondary schools, technical schools or universities and, if so, is there any plan to increase the available funds and, if so, in deciding on the level of increase was consideration given to the current cost of tuition fees and related expenses?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, the Department of Veterans Affairs does make funds available to children, of certain deceased veteran disability pensioners, who attend post-secondary institutions, including post-graduate schools.
Benefits are provided under the Education Assistance Act for post-secondary students enrolled in universities in Canada and those in technical institutions which have as an admission requirement, completion of secondary school or equivalent.
Assistance is provided to the eligible student in the form of a maximum monthly living allowance of $380.19 and a maximum grant of $800 per academic year which is applied to tuition and other related costs. Monthly living allowances, in accordance with the regulations, are adjusted annually to the corresponding change in the Consumer Price Index.
The maximum grant level of $800 for tuition and related expenses is currently under review by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc that Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak at length this afternoon on Bill C-37. However, in view of the fact that the Order Paper is very crowded, in view of the fact that the Government is prevailing upon the Opposition to get the Bill passed as quickly as possible, and in view of the fact that we are also anxious to get Bill C-34 in for second reading, I am prepared to sit down and invite you to put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is as follows: Mr. LeBlanc, seconded by Mr. Caccia, moved that Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Carried?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: No! All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
June 6, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.10 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 7, 1984