Mr. Burton:

The fact, as I have said, is that I have no quarrel with the argument that assistance for this firm is valid and warranted. What I am questioning is the way in which the minister is operating this act, because I believe he is bringing the whole program and the administration of the act into question by the manner in which he is applying it. Not just in this particular case; I am not picking on this particular case. There are a number of cases. The minister and many members on the government side, including the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) said that through the program under the Regional Development Incentives Act, 59,000 new jobs have been created and not just kept in existence. No new jobs were created in that case and I suggest we should look at the operation or we may have other problems in respect of the administration of the act.

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested by today's speeches and I am rising for a few minutes only to remind my colleagues of certain facts which they seem to have forgotten.

The government tabled today a summary report of the Prices and Incomes Commission, on inflation, unemployment and economic policy. This report states and I quote:

As compared with most countries, there is in Canada an extremely high number of young people entering the labour market and meeting great difficulties in finding adequate full-time

June 20, 1972

Employment Incentive Programs occupations; moreover, a high percentage of worKers are salaried people. A high turnover rate and the seasonal nature of employment are further characteristics of Canadian labour markets. And yet we believe that the most important and baffling aspect of this problem is the continuance of regional disparities in unemployment in Canada.

This is a contradiction and a condemnation of what was said today in connection with government policies or initiatives to create employment.

The statement on page 7 is significant:

Moreover, the possibility of ever increasing inflation will exist if people and their elected representatives have an exceedingly optimistic vision about the extent to which this critical unemployment phase has been reduced.

I therefore appeal to reason and realism.

Finally I would like to quote a last sentence condemning the culprit. I am quoting from page 12:

Since governments are responsible for the whole administration of our economy, it is obvious that if they allow any excessive inflation of demand, they must bear the responsibility, whatever might be the direct impact of public expenses as such.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that should give us food for thought.

I said I will not take very long. I wanted only to remind my hon. colleagues that they have all received today a copy of this publication, in both official languages, and that we should well understand that the so-called twin problem of unemployment and inflation still persists in spite of the $578 million granted under the special government program aimed at creating employment and the actions and efforts he has made to this effect.

The government has trodden the wrong path and, today, we recognize that it is mistaken, that it has travelled the wrong track since it favoured an increased production while this has already reached the $100 billion mark, according to information published today by a Montreal newspaper. The problem does not exist at the level of production, but at the level of the ability of Canadians to market it.

I have said and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the problem in Canada is not one of production or of creation of jobs, but one of consumption. Canadians should have enough purchasing power to buy the products available on the market.

The global purchasing power, the total income of Canadians amounts to $67 billion and the gross national product $100 billion. How is it possible to buy a production worth $100 billion with $67 billion? That is mathematically impossible, Mr. Speaker, and as long as the government will continue to increase those $100 billion and refuse to spend as much effort to increase the consumption power, it will always find itself in the same situation as it is now.

During the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said at the Cabano in front of 2,000 persons that he could not meet their request for the establishment of a pulp and paper plant. He told them that he was not sure, according to the studies which he had, that those products alone would sell on the market. Yet, that same government asked those very workers to invest in that industry, to set it up to replace Irving.

Mr. Speaker, today the government says: We cannot help you because we are not sure. Why is the government not sure? It is sure Canadian workers can work, that the goods, the equipment are there. The workers even invested $700,000 of their savings in that new company. The government is not sure the goods will sell on the Canadian market.

If, Mr. Speaker, the problem does not lie in the hearts of the workers of Cabano, in the equipment, in the pulp and paper, but obviously, as the minister said, in the demand, then why not invest as much in the demand as has been invested in the production in the last three years?

Mr. Speaker, there are not two ways open. Again recently, the government announced the sale of bonds for a total of $400 million, asking Canadians to invest in their country. Here is the saddest and, in a way, most extraordinary part: the government sells this $400 million worth of bonds strictly in order to pay back the bonds which have now matured. This means that this government's whole financial policy consists in borrowing in order to pay its old debts, so that the debt of the country, that of the provinces and that of individuals grow heavier.

As a consequence, no matter how many millions the government throws right and left in order to have a clear conscience, it remains that poverty will go on increasing in Canada, that regional disparity will still be an awful reality, that those programs will be nothing but plasters applied to little sores, to what shows most, while obviously nothing will be done about the underlying disease which causes those superficial sores.

Mr. Speaker, we of the Social Credit party do not want to play politics by taking up any more of the time of the House with this matter. I ask my colleagues to give serious consideration to the fact that after four years in power, after establishing boards, one of which condemns it today, after encouraging production in order to curtail inflation and unemployment, the government has met with complete failure.

Several million dollars are paid out to Canadians in order to try and reduce unemployment and inflation. If Parliament is acting in good faith, let it then give to Canadians the opportunity of really sharing in the economic growth of their country so that they may afterwards share in its social development, by giving the Canadian people what is lacking to dispose of the production which we are so anxious to increase, that is the illogical and unacceptable gap between the total national income and the gross national product. If the government ever understands this, we will eliminate the regional disparities from coast to coast, because we will have given to every Canadian, regardless of his language, an equal chance to really participate in the economic growth of his country.

In conclusion, I point out that the motion moved by the Progressive Conservatives blames the government for its failure to stimulate production. This motion makes me laugh because the Conservatives today blame the Liberals for failing to do what they themselves have not done, and they cast a stone at one another.

I hope that in the near future solutions will really be produced in this House, instead of mere criticisms. The

June 20, 1972

Social Credit party suggests an effective solution: giving Canadians sufficient purchasing power to dispose of the production which I trust Canadian industry will supply.

Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):

Mr. Speaker, today's proceedings emphasized all the shortcomings of the present government as a result of a motion brought forward yesterday. I became aware of it only at noon and I saw that it blamed the government for its inability to face its responsibilities during the past four years. In fact, it is said that the money made available to industry for the purpose of coping with regional disparity had not successfully settled the problem of unemployment.

I know there are problems, those which every country has to face for its development are similar to those we have in Canada. However, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) mentions the efforts made by the Canadian government in the field of employment and in this field we are second to no other country. We have made noble endeavours even though we still have a long way to go. In fact, if it had not been for the present government, the unemployment rate of 6 per cent-which some like to bring up to 7 and 9 per cent-might be 10 or 15 per cent as in other countries.

If we consider some of the formulas suggested today by the movers of the motion, I do not see there, if I understood well, any real solutions; they merely pointed out what they think is wrong with government policies.

Industry was blamed because it did not do well enough in Canada. But industry-and this is normal-is somewhat like a human being; it is born, it can be sick and it can die. What can the State do to avoid this difficulty? It establishes and tries to establish industries in depressed areas in order to keep there those who are seeking a job not too far from their environment.

Therefore, we try to create some new industries. In fact, I have not heard a member of the opposition criticize this policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, nor have I heard of anyone refusing the grants and saying: "I refuse these grants because they are not advantageous for my area" Opposition members knew as well that it was impossible for the government to fill up everything it wanted to and that there would still be a bit of room for criticism.

I was somewhat disappointed to hear the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), of whom I have a very high opinion, begin his speech by saying that he was tired to hear members of the present government repeat what the government had been doing. It is unfortunate that he be tired, Mr. Speaker. I would like him to get some rest, so that he may come back to us in form, after the next election which will certainly take place within a year. I wish he will not be tired enough to fall apart during the election period, because I have a lot of respect for him. If he came back, he might be of some help to us.

He mentioned in his speech the weakness of the agricultural policy as well as the program concerning industrial investments. Now, I noted, during the meetings of the committee on agriculture, which I attended whenever possible, that a proportion of Canadian industries are not as flourishing as I would like them to be, but that they had

Employment Incentive Programs

made tremendous progress, despite the very difficult conditions that agriculture, in every part of the world, had to suffer. We can be proud, as Canadians, to have an agricultural industry that survived somewhat better than elsewhere.

But in order to make this industry even more flourishing, we introduced truly good measures, and provided the establishment of the Marketing Board. Even if my colleagues from the Social Credit party opposed this bill from the beginning, they were compelled to approve it later because farmers have exerted pressures in order to have it passed as soon as possible. This bill was passed within less than one year. We might then have spared this industry some difficulties, assisted it with more effective marketing of products, given farmers a greater purchasing power, as my hon. friends from the Social Credit party usually say. We wanted to do so, but it was not always easy, because the government's policy was ill-understood by the opposition. I would not blame them, because everyone does not possess the ability to grasp and understand the meaning of everything. However, had we enjoyed a little more cooperation there would be fewer hon. members complaining in the House and our constituents would feel a little more proud of us. I admit all these weaknesses.

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit inclined to talk about the Social Credit party, and the reason is not that the other parties are brighter, since they did not show any recognition of the government's efforts. The leader of the Social Credit party for Canada (Mr. Caouette) has not even dealt with the motion. He preferred to rave about the Bank of Canada and his own philosophy, and ended his speech by asking us to play "Social Credit" even though the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) thinks that we do nothing but play in this House. Nobody would forgive us that kind of game.

I feel we must not misinterpret statistics if we are to come to the right conclusions. I fear that the hon. members whom I had already asked to give me figures may misinterpret them. I saw two possible interpretations. Either those figures were misunderstood, or their full meaning was not grasped. I was right. All this came up in the agricultural committee, where I did a great deal of work, as well as in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.

After dealing with agriculture, I will now turn to the question of grants during the few minutes which I have left.

My constituency has taken advantage of our programs, although no more so than other constituencies in the country. I was a bit hurt at hearing today the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) criticize the government for investing several million dollars in Eastern Canada, while it failed to do the same for Western Canada.

Mr. Speaker, whenever a committee sits, or this House discusses a bill, we are given the chance of helping any part of the country. I went out of my way last spring to urge this House to vote as soon as possible the $65 million to be given as grants to the Western Provinces, for I was convinced that Western Canada needed that money more than any other regions. However, whenever Eastern

June 20, 1972

Employment Incentive Programs Canada obtains some grants, the sword of Damocles is dangling over our heads, which is deplorable.

In my constituency, industry and commerce are perhaps thriving. The shipyards, thanks to the new policy of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), have provided employment and are in a position to compete against many others who are unable to outdo us. The reason is that in my constituency the government has carried out a policy which makes it possible to meet labour costs and which has created 3,700 jobs last year alone.

I do not therefore understand why we do not give more serious consideration to the programs set up by the government. When government members rise in this House, I wish they could have at least 30 or 45 minutes. This might be fastidious for those listening to us, but we could then at least once or twice a year, tell opposition members what the government is doing and they could in turn go and ask their constituents whether they are really satisfied. Then, the farm organizations which visit the ridings of opposition members-which I, for one, did-would not be so disappointed to find out that citizens are not informed at all about all that the country is doing for them. This is deplorable, and I do think that those who are indulging in political games in this House may soon find out that the achievements of this government prove that the motion introduced today was in no way justifiable.

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):

Mr. Speaker, I shall take part in the debate briefly because the area that I represent feels that it has been disadvantaged by the application of the DREE legislation. In this area we feel that we suffer from unfair competition, with many other parts of the country, because of this government's transportation policy. Our railroad costs are high, and now we feel our problem has been compounded by the DREE program.

Many of the points I wish to make have been covered, some of them very well, by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). In his forthright manner he has a habit of hitting the nail on the head. It was refreshing to have him come out with the honest statement that the DREE legislation was drafted in an effort to discriminate against wealthy areas. As I have said, the people in the area I represent feel that DREE discriminates against them. I think this is completely wrong, Mr. Speaker. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said over a hundred years ago, and I paraphrase him, "You don't necessarily help the poor by tearing down the rich". I would point out to this government that tearing down the "have" parts of the country does not necessarily build the "have-not" parts in view of the conflicts that take place and the wasted effort.

A few nights ago, during private members' hour, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) introduced a bill. He told us that in Carleton Place, which is a non-designated area, the Findlay Foundry has shut down completely, with a loss of 200 jobs. It transferred its production to the province of Quebec, in a designated area. Ostensibly, 200 jobs have been created in Quebec

but of course there are 200 less in Ontario, so the net gain to the nation as a whole is nil. Indeed, the net loss to the nation as a whole, in my humble opinion, would be the amount of the DREE grant.

I read in a newspaper recently of a $685,000 grant to Catelli Foods, a subsidiary of the American firm, General Foods. This grant was to enable them to build a plant to produce tomato paste from tomatoes imported from Portugal, Spain and Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, the area I come from is one of the prime tomato producing areas in Canada, but there it is impossible for a farmer to get a contract to grow tomatoes. However, the government is now subsidizing a company in Montreal to process imported tomatoes.

Farmers from my area have been coming to Ottawa to meet with officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture in an effort to re-establish the sugar beet industry. So far they have not been successful. But there is some discussion of a new sugar refinery to be built at Cornwall, Ontario, which is a designated area, in order to process imported cane sugar. That mill might have gone to Oshawa, Ontario, except that Oshawa is not a designated area. These are the things, Mr. Speaker, that lead the people in my area to feel that we have been discriminated against and, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River pointed out tonight, perhaps this was the purpose behind the legislation.

In the 30 seconds remaining to me I should like to ask some questions about the Opportunities for Youth program and the Local Initiatives Program. What is their purpose? Are they make-work programs? Are they to be permanent? I do not criticize them except to say that I am afraid in many instances they do not encourage positive production. If we had a booming economy, perhaps then we could enjoy that luxury.

May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, on June 7 last, as reported at page 2937 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) two questions with respect to the operations of Panarctic Oil Company Limited. As hon. members know, this is one of the commendable things which the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) accomplished when he was minister of Indian affairs and northern development. He set up a consortium of Canadian companies with the government of Canada, which has enabled the Canadian people to hold 45 per cent of the equity in Panarctic Oil Company Limited.

June 20, 1972

Unfortunately, its operations have been completely shrouded in secrecy. We have not been able to get a copy of the TENNECO agreement under which gas has been hypothecated for export to five American companies. We have not been able to get information about farmouts of some property owned by Panarctic to various other companies.

The two questions I want to ask about this matter are as follows. Since Panarctic has announced that it now has sufficient gas in place to warrant doing an aerial reconnaissance with a view to building a pipeline, who is to build that pipeline: will it be Panarctic? Also will the people of Canada have a 45 per cent equity in that pipeline, apart from any loan capital which may be involved- I am dealing now with equity capital-or is another consortium to be formed in order to build the pipeline and obtain the main benefit from any gas found by Panarctic Oil: will the Canadian people find that the money they have put up to develop Panarctic is to benefit mainly some other consortium?

Also, I want to know what disposition will be made of the gas in the event that it is found, that the pipeline is feasible and that the supply of gas in place is adequate to justify the construction of a pipeline. An article in the Globe and Mail of June 2 which refers to the aerial reconnaissance Panarctic has undertaken reads in part as follows:

Mr. Hetherington said market considerations indicate that much of the gas involved would go to the United States.

Mr. Hetherington is president of Panarctic Oil. I want to know if the Canadian taxpayers are to be asked to put their money into the expansion of Panarctic Oil. Are we to be asked to put up money for the building of a pipeline in order to hypothecate gas to the United States when, according to the annual report of the National Energy Board, as of June 30 last year there was a deficit in our reserves of natural gas of 1.1 trillion cubic feet?

It will be useless for the parliamentary secretary or a minister of the government to tell me that this matter will be decided when this question is heard by the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board can only deal with those who make an application. If the application is made by a consortium of companies apart from Panarctic Oil, or by a consortium in which Panarctic Oil and the government have a small equity, all the board can do is say yes or no.

The government has the responsibility, first, for deciding what its policy is to be. Is it to continue maintaining a 45 per cent equity not only in Panarctic but in the pipeline as well? Second, it has the responsibility for ensuring that this gas is retained in sufficient quantities in Canada to meet the needs of Canadian gas consumers.

Mr. Benjamin:

That will not happen if the Liberals have anything to do with it.

Mr. Douglas:

We all remember what happened one year ago last October when the National Energy Board allowed the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States. A year later it was raising its hands in horror because we had to ration gas and were unable to

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

take orders in certain parts of Canada for customers who wanted gas.

Mr. Benjamin:

Shame.

Mr. Douglas:

So we have a right to know in advance what the government's policy is to be. If the government does not know, if it is just blundering in the dark, it should tell us. I for one will keep insisting that the government tell us what is going on in connection with Panarctic Oil. So long as that venture was a doubtful proposition, there was no objection on the part of the oil industry to the government's putting up 45 per cent of the equity. Now that Panarctic has come across what promises to be one of the best gas finds in the world, I suspect the government is likely to be crowded out of the picture.

I want a definite statement from the government to the effect that it will stay in the picture, that the Canadian taxpayer will have an equity not only in Panarctic but in the pipeline, and that the gas will be hypothecated mainly for Canadian requirements and will not be diverted before Canadian needs are adequately met.

Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, the questions raised by the hon. member are at this stage hypothetical. As soon as a specific application is placed before the National Energy Board for the Development of a pipeline, the board will need to make certain decisions. The first decision it will have to make is whether there is sufficient gas for Canadian requirements and for export. This decision will be made in light of the best technical knowledge available and there is no reason to question the competence of the board in this respect. I note that the hon. member did not do so.

Mr. Douglas:

The board cannot make policy.

Mr. Francis:

The fact is that the decision will be made in the first instance by the National Energy Board. After that decision is made, the question of the merits of the application before the board will have to be considered.

The government has made abundantly clear, through its participation in Panarctic and in other ways, its concern for Canadian ownership in the pipelines which will ultimately be built to bring gas and oil from northern Canada. At the time the applications are received it will be the responsibility of the Energy Board to make a recommendation. In the first instance this recommendation will come from the board and then the government will have an opportunity to review the situation. It is certainly premature at this time to announce in detail, as the hon. member apparently anticipates, what policies will be followed. Only a general outline of the principles followed by the government can be given at this stage.

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):

Mr. Speaker, I raise a matter tonight pertaining to my question this afternoon to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). In effect, I asked him whether permission

June 20, 1972

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion given to the railways to abandon service and rights of way also implied permission to abandon their responsibility toward farmers and landowners with respect to the maintenance of fences and drainage and the cutting of weeds.

I speak tonight on behalf of thousands of Canadians who have been inconvenienced and financially wronged by the frequent failure of the railways to fulfil their responsibilities to the farmers and landowners along rights of way when it comes to the maintenance of fences. I speak especially on behalf of farmers and landowners in the counties of Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, as well as Hastings, whose properties border the now defunct and abandoned CP line from Glen Tay to Tweed.

I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that when Mr. Pickersgill and his Canadian Transport Commission, or the Canadian Railway Transport Commission, both of which bodies adjudicate with respect to the abandonment of railway lines, allow railway companies to abandon a line, they should not allow them to abandon their responsibilities to their neighbours along the line. Robert Frost said that good fences make good neighbours. This is true. I have received many complaints from local farmers about the poor condition of the fences, as a result of which cattle stray and are lost. They complain that the railway no longer keeps the fences in order, that it no longer does its share of repair work. One man lost two head of steer.

When I drive along the right of way which is adjacent to No. 7 Highway I think of this strange, new, slack society of which this government is part, and the strange anomalies which result. Here we have a multibillion dollar corporation like the CPR-I used to be one of its great admirers, Mr. Speaker, having spent my early childhood in a community served by that line at Kaladar-branching out into many other lucrative lines of business, luxury hotels, mines and smelters, airlines serving the world, but taking a cavalier and careless attitude to local responsibilities. Fence posts are allowed to rot and break off. In addition, the company neglects to cut the weeds and the seeds are allowed to spread to adjacent farms.

Throughout the area, municipal councils are very concerned about this situation as are the conservation authorities, in particular the member municipalities of the Moira Conservation Authority. The representative for Kaladar township, Mr. Claude McArthur, has given me information in this regard. It has also been pointed out that the railways, along abandoned lines no longer devote any attention to drainage or to keeping ditches and key water courses operable and open. This complete dereliction of duty can no longer be tolerated by the neighbouring farmers and landowners.

Some time ago it was brought to my attention that the CPR intended to give this right of way to the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests to operate as a snowmobile trail. Who would then be responsible for the fences, Mr. Speaker? I cannot go along with this scheme because I do not think the stretch of right of way is adaptable for this purpose. I say that the land should be returned to the farmers and landowners along the right of

way, each one to receive the land that fronts along his property.

I do not know what the railway paid for this land in 1880 when their charter was granted, but it should be given back to the farmers for a nominal fee of, say, $1 per parcel to make it legal. Then they could join up their fences across the right of way and have use of what is their land just as their forefathers did before the building of the railway. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the deeds to the farmlands pre-date the federal charter to the CPR for this line. Moreover, the right of way land, because of its present condition, is not worth as much as before the line was built.

I respectfully ask the minister to convey my thoughts to the CRTC, the CTC and the CPR in order that this inconvenience to my constituents may be allayed and that justice for them may be obtained.

Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is proficient in both languages, he will certainly pardon me for replying in French, as he will easily understand my explanations.

As the question he asked today was much more general in scope than that which has been discussed tonight, my answer will not be as precise as he would have liked it to be and as I should myself have wished to make it.

In the meantime, I have been able to contact the officials of the Canadian Transport Commission to check on the limits of its jurisdiction in view of the right of ownership which could affect the discontinuation of railway transport.

When a railway is in operation, it is required by statute-in this case, under section 214 of the Railways Act- to put fences on each side of the track in order mainly to prevent animals to wander into the railway's property.

I want to make it clear that the matter involves farm lands located in rural areas. The purpose of this measure is to protect the land owner. The railway company is also responsible for destroying weeds on its own property and, in some circumstances, it must also insure the protection of animals.

Mr. Speaker, before the Board allows a rail service to be discontinued, it must bear in mind the representations made by the land-owners as well as by any other persons living along the railroad, who believe they are entitled to some consideration.

The major factor is that the abandonment of a rail line cannot affect the rights and responsibilities of farmers nor those of the railway company, since they are joint owners.

There may be some responsibilities resulting from continuing relationships between the railway company and its neighbour, as joint owners, that the Board may be authorized to control.

Had the hon. member had in mind this afternoon more specific points such as those he mentioned tonight, I should have been very happy to reply more adequately to his question, but since it was general in scope, I had to answer in the most appropriate way possible.

June 20, 1972

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):

Mr. Speaker, on June 2, as reported at page 2803 of Hansard, I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) the following question:

In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has introduced a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act which will increase the limit on loans, can the minister inform the House whether he will be proposing any amendments or changes to the Veterans Land Act?

The minister responded as follows:

Mr. Speaker, there has been a disinclination on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs to extend and expand the opportunity for veterans to go into farming. It has been regarded as a phase-out operation.

It is an over-all policy of this government to be disinclined to promote farming, including farming by veterans. The government must come to a full recognition that our veterans sacrificed so much for my generation in order that I might grow up in a democratic society. I would point out to those who may wonder why I speak on this topic that I am the first in four generations of my family who has not had to put on a military uniform to serve in the defence of Canada.

This government should have recognition for the people brought into such service and should consider a number of changes in dealing with veterans, including an amendment to update the Veterans Land Act to cover the veterans of the Korean war. Along with that there should be a number of other changes in the method of dealing with veterans in our society. There should be a greater increase in benefits for the 29,000 war veterans under age 65 whose allowances were increased by only 3.6 per cent in the Turner budget. That is one area in which there could be real improvement.

There should be a change in the Old Age Security Act in terms of reducing the age from 65 to 60 for veterans and non-veterans alike. This would further help enhance employment in Canada. Administration in the department for handling applications should be increased to meet the present backlog of applications before the pension commission. I talk of a backlog of some 7,000 applications which have not been dealt with by that department. In addition a single, 100 per cent war disability pensioner receives $3,500 per year. This should be raised to $4,500 as suggested by the Royal Canadian Legion. Along with that there should be increased domiciliary care facilities for disabled veterans within reasonable distance of their residences. These are some of the things that should be done by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Though the years keep extending the distance from the days when these gentlemen served the needs of this country, ours is the generation and the government that should not forget the services they rendered to Canada. The government should be concerned with bringing in changes to ensure that these people are taken care of in this part of the twentieth century.

Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of interest to the various charges against the government by the hon. member. I sat as chairman of the committee which last year was responsible for a report, on the basis of which the government substantially rewrote the veterans' charter. I am of a generation that did serve in the last war. The hon. member said he was the first in four generations of his family who had not been obliged to do so. I hope he is never obliged to do so.

This government has by no means forgotten its obligation to veterans. Let me refer, for example, to Bill C-215, to amend the Pension Act, which will increase the number of staff of the pension commission to deal with the backlog of applications of which the hon. member spoke.

As far as the Veterans Land Act is concerned, this was a specific measure introduced after World War II, designed as part of a package for the rehabilitation of veterans, and it has very substantially served that purpose. Many thousands of veterans have been settled on the land as a result of its provisions. But now the decision has been made to phase it out as a specific veterans measure. As the minister indicated in the House, those measures designed to encourage Canadians to go into agriculture are within the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). That legislation has been amended, changed and brought up to date but a terminal date has been put on the Veterans Land Act provisions.

In view of the many thousands of applications under the Veterans Land Act, and the government's decision to phase out this aspect of the legislation, it would not be fair to those who have gone before to have changes brought in for those who come in just under the wire, getting the benefit of substantial changes in ceilings, terms and conditions. I think it is only fair and appropriate that measures designed to encourage Canadians to go into agriculture should be dealt with in that context.

There are other measures benefiting veterans. The hon. member touched upon a wide range of them. If I had had a little notice of the range of points he intended to raise, I might have brought more information to the House. But I want to assure the House that Canada has not forgotten its veterans. Canada is well aware of its debt to its veterans and intends to honour it.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, June 21, 1972