Lewis Mackenzie BRAND

BRAND, Lewis Mackenzie, B.A., M.D.

Personal Data

Progressive Conservative
Saskatoon (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
November 21, 1925
Deceased Date
February 15, 1994
physician, surgeon

Parliamentary Career

November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
  Saskatoon (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 51 of 54)

February 21, 1966

Mr. Brand:

1. Does the government plan to introduce legislation this session to provide capital and operational assistance to sheltered workshops for the mentally handicapped throughout Canada?


Later comprehensive estimates have not been completed. During the two-year period 1963-1964-$415 million, $69 million and $51 million flowed into Canada from the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries respectively for direct investment in foreign controlled concerns, and $1,327 million for the net acquisition of portfolio Canadian stocks and bonds by residents of the United States against which there were outflows of $128 million and $5 million for the net repurchases of such securities from the United Kingdom and other overseas countries respectively. The increase in the value of foreign-owned investments in Canada would be larger because of retained earnings.

In the first nine months of 1965 the net inflows from all countries for direct investment and for the acquisition of Canadian securities amounted to $290 million and $428 million respectively.

2. See statement attached.

foreign financial markets'* 1 2' <2>

Market 1963 1964 1965

Private -($'000 Canadian)-

placement 135,135 - -Various 330,000 416,000 270,000""Various 42,000 152,000 47,000'*'Various 309,000 300,000 422,000'3 4'2. If so, will provision be made for all levels of

mental retardation, or will the legislation be limited to those who with training may achieve normal or near normal levels of production?

Full View Permalink

February 21, 1966

Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the revelations on the television program "This Hour Has 7 days" last evening, will the minister consider reviewing the case of the widow of airman Edward E. Chambers and other cases like it with regard to pension entitlement?

Full View Permalink

February 18, 1966

Mr. Brand:

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The simultaneous translation system is not working. I am sure many members who cannot understand the very fluent French of the hon. member for Sherbrooke have difficulty without the simultaneous translation, and I am sure they do not want to miss the hon. member's very excellent words.

Full View Permalink

February 18, 1966

Mr. Brand:

I have just a few remarks to make, Mr. Chairman, particularly with regard to the morale problem in the armed services. My comments are not made as a result of information I have received from various assistants. I am speaking now at the request of many members of the armed forces who have approached me personally and expressed their concern about the way things were going in the armed forces today. They themselves offered to me what I thought might be solutions to these problems. If I may be presumptuous, perhaps I could suggest to the minister what the solutions might be.

Primarily, I should like to refer to jet pilots in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I placed question No. 419 on the order paper, which read as follows:

What are the numbers of R.C.A.F. jet pilots under the age of 28. who have retired voluntarily from the R.C.A.F. in each of the following years-

The years mentioned were 1957 to 1965. I think the figures are most interesting. You will notice that in the year 1957, only 4 retired. In the following years there were 3, 1, 8, 7, 6 and 8. In the year 1964, there were 26 who retired. These are highly trained specialized members of the Royal Canadian Air Force who retired voluntarily. They are young men, still under the age of 28. In the year 1965 there were 27 who retired voluntarily. There must be a reason for this. The reason they retire under the age of 28 is that in order to get a job in civilian aviation in the United States, where most of them have gone, they have to be under the age of 28.

I spoke to many of these pilots and asked them why they were leaving the Royal Canadian Air Force. The first thing they said was they liked the Royal Canadian Air Force; they enjoyed the life. However, they were concerned about the security of their tenure. Many pilots had been retired by the minister, at the minister's orders, as I understand. These pilots wondered whether they could get

a permanent commission in the force. They never received a positive answer. They did not know whether they were still going to be pilots when they were in their thirties.

If they were let out of the air force when they were in their thirties, what would happen? They would be out in civilian life with no job, and there would be no job for which they were qualified. They would be too old to go into the field of flying passengers for large air lines, unless they were exceptional. The average man is just too old for this work. He has had tremendous training which I understand costs, if I heard the minister correctly, between $200,000 and $250,000. If we lose to the United States 26 pilots, each of whom was trained at this cost, then we have lost $7J-million or more to the United States.

When I heard that they did not have training which they could use in civilian life, I asked these pilots what they felt should be done. They had what I thought was a very good solution. They suggested that perhaps their training could be tied to a university, which it most certainly is in the type of work they do in the aeronautical engineering field, and while they were training with the air force they could receive a degree from some affiliated university.

Then, if these men were retired at an early age from the R.C.A.F. they would have a degree with which they could approach prospective employers and obtain a job in this manner. There is a precedence for this in the armed forces colleges which grant degrees in engineering and so on. I feel the idea has some merit, Mr. Minister, and I should like the ministry to look into this matter, and particularly to discuss it with the men who are thinking of leaving. Perhaps these discussions would be most revealing.

When I heard the associate minister refer to the increased number of voluntary releases over the past few years from all the forces, and attribute this to increasing opportunities for employment in the country, I began to wonder if that was not more the type of statement a person would make on the hustings before an election campaign. It seems to me that directly tied with that statement is the opposite one that by virtue of their training they are unable to get employment in civilian life.

Today we heard the associate minister saj there are increased re-employment opportunities. I have talked to members of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Army and I have

February 18, 1966 COMMONS

asked them why they left the forces. Their reason was dissatisfaction with what is going on; they did not know what the future held for them. Believe you me, Mr. Minister, if this is not a morale problem I do not know what else you could call it. There is something very wrong indeed when there is this sort of increase in voluntary releases, as the associate minister pointed out.

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

There is one other point I should like to make. Both ministers have commented on the tremendous economies effected as a result of this integration of the armed forces. I am sure there are many areas in the armed forces which for many years have required integration. I certainly agree with this and the general tenor of what has been done.

However, when I look at the estimates at page 252, it seems to me, though I am not a chartered accountant and perhaps cannot understand this, that instead of a decrease in 1965-66 over 1964-65 there are increases all the way down. I see one decrease, and that is with respect to mutual aid.

I would ask, what about this efficiency we keep hearing about? I also see a decrease in pensions, due to efficiency I presume. But in every other item there is an increase, with perhaps one exception. The amount of money paid for the permanent personnel of the army has increased, and the navy is about the same. If I remember correctly, the amount to the air force has gone down, which is directly related, I presume, to the number who have left the air force as a result of voluntary release and other releases practised by the minister in his wisdom.

I would ask the minister whether he would consider looking very carefully once again at the loss of these highly trained personnel. I do not think the Canadian tax dollar should be used to provide men to fly aeroplanes in any other country than our own. This is something that I am sorry to say extends to other fields in our country as well as national defence; but surely it is something to which we should not turn a blind eye. I suggest we examine this problem as closely as possible to see what we can do to retain these highly trained people. Although the re-engagement bonus is a wonderful idea-and I agree with the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) that it is not enough-this is surely closing the stable door after the horse is stolen.


Supply-National Defence

I should like the minister to look into the reasons for this and perhaps come up with some conclusion which would be to the benefit of all armed forces in Canada today.

Full View Permalink

February 17, 1966

Mr. Brand:

A supplementary question-

Full View Permalink