1966-12-13

THE BUDGET


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that I have arranged two meetings with provincial ministers here in Ottawa early next week. On Monday I will meet with the provincial ministers concerned with consumer credit regulations to discuss a number of matters relating to this subject. On Tuesday I will meet, as is now usual at this time of year, with provincial treasurers and ministers of finance to discuss the economic situation and its bearing upon our mutual financial problems. In view of these arrangements, which have now been confirmed, the government proposes that the supplementary financial measures will be introduced Monday evening, December 19, at eight o'clock.



ENDORSEMENT OF BILLS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve) asked leave to introduce Bill No. C-257, an act respecting the endorsement of bills.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-258, to amend the Broadcasting Act (television receiving apparatus).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, on November 25 the Board of Broadcast Governors announced that they were recommending to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that applications involving the use of ultra high frequency
channels for television broadcasting should be accepted. At the present time very few of the T.V. receiving sets manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada are capable of receiving UHF stations. The purpose of this bill is to empower the Board of Broadcast Governors to require the manufacturers of television receiving sets to include an ultra high frequency band on each unit.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 to discuss an urgent matter of public importance, namely the threatened strike by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association as a result of the refusal of the government to accept the recommendations of Judge John Robinson, the conciliator appointed by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member address the Chair on the question of urgency of debate?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite evident that the reluctance of the government to deal with matters of a similar nature in the past makes it extremely urgent that parliament should be given the opportunity to discuss the present situation prior to any strike taking place.
Some 650 members of the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association are now in the process of a strike vote, and the result of that strike vote will be announced tonight. In view of the fact that they have accepted the recommendations of Judge Robinson, recommendations which the government is rejecting, it seems obvious that the vote will be in favour of a strike by an overwhelming majority.
We have had sufficient lessons in similar situations where the government has been reluctant to take any action. The present situation is far more serious because of the fact that the government is one of the parties involved in the dispute.
11044	COMMONS
Air Traffic Control Dispute
Parliament should have the right to know of the circumstances that are involved and the reasons why the government has rejected the recommendation of the judge whom the government has appointed to study the matter and make recommendations. We have recently experienced a strike at Air Canada because of the government's inaction. Parliament cannot at this particular time leave this matter in the hands of the government, which has proven itself incapable of handling similar situations in the past. The economy of the country cannot stand further abuses because of the lack of action by the government. The situation is even more important owing to the involvement of the government in the dispute.
The recommendations of the judge are acceptable to the employees of the association. The people of Canada are entitled to an explanation as to why these recommendations are not being accepted by the government.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that these are very urgent and vital matters at the present time.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive of anything that it would be more urgent to debate, if in fact the allegations made by the hon. gentleman were correct, because I am sure all of us would agree that it would not be in the national interest to have all the civil aviation in this country tied up by a strike at any time, and particularly at this season of the year. However, I do suggest, sir, that the situation the hon gentleman has alleged as one requiring an urgent debate has not been correctly stated by him. I am not imputing motives in saying that; I am merely saying that the situation is that Judge Robinson was asked by me as Minister of Transport to give certain advice to the government.
The judge saw fit to divide his report into two parts. I asked him whether he could expedite the second part as much as possible, and the last advice I had from him was that he did not expect to have it until January 21. Therefore I suggest it would be quite irresponsible for the government to seek to found upon a partial report, which after all is giving advice to the government, any decision it might take. I want to emphasize the fact that Judge Robinson was not a mediator; he was asked to advise the government on certain points regarding conditions of employment. Because he was not a mediator there was

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
nothing final that the government could responsibly do until the whole report is in, because the subjects on which he has not reported are directly related to those on which he has.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, there is another and more compelling reason why we should not depart from the ordinary procedure today- though this might not be true tomorrow-and it is this: My hon. friend the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) has arranged for a meeting tomorrow morning with the representatives of the air traffic controllers, who are represented by three different associations. Discussions are going to be continued. We do not know-we are merely surmising-what the result of the strike vote which is now in progress will be. It seems to me that to have a debate based on surmises and hypotheses instead of on facts would not contribute very much to our enlightenment or to the negotiations.
I am sure that the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), who has had great experience in these matters, knows that it would be very difficult in circumstances of this sort, at a time when the government is seeking to find an accommodation which will meet the situation and is still waiting to receive the full report, for the government to make statements in connection with the question, because they might prejudice the negotiations.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, urgent though the matter is, that any disturbance of the ordinary procedure, at a time when the matter is being actively pursued by the government and this particular group of very essential employees, would not contribute to a solution of the problem, and would be very apt to prejudge any accommodation. For those reasons I suggest that it would not be opportune to depart from the ordinary business set down for today, in order to have a debate at this time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has in my opinion gone far beyond the question of urgency but has discussed the matter itself. I hope that in seeking to reply I will be given the same latitude that he enjoyed.
The minister admits that this is a matter of national urgency. If the air traffic control staff withhold their services it will be even worse than the Air Canada strike because it will tie up all aircraft in Canada, not merely the aircraft of one company. This would be a disastrous event, and it will be particularly serious if it comes at this season of the year when so
December 13, 1966

many people are hoping to be home for Christmas. So that the matter of urgency is not in dispute.
However, the minister raises two other matters. He argues, first of all, that this question should not be discussed at the present time because the government is in possession of only a partial report from Mr. Justice John B. Robinson.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Judge Robinson.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is information which we do not have in full detail, and this is why I think the hon. member for Ontario is justified in asking for a debate.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The information I have is that the report given to the minister by Judge Robinson is self-contained and complete, in so far as salaries are concerned, and that portion of the report can be acted on by the government without delay. If this is true, if the report deals with salaries completely and if it is self-contained so far as salaries are concerned, there is no reason for the government not to act on the report. I point out that if a private employer received a report from a judge making certain recommendations the government would insist that the employer give serious reasons for not accepting those recommendations. The house has a right to ask the government why, in the light of a report it has had for over one month from a judge it appointed, nothing has been done to accept those recommendations, and why no action has been taken to safeguard the Canadian people against the dire possibility of a strike at this season of the year.
The air traffic controllers are employees of the Minister of Transport. The minister must accept the responsibility, because of his dillydallying for over a month, with nothing being done, for these employees in sheer exasperation taking a strike vote to bring the matter to a head.
The second argument the minister put forth is that discussions are under way, and that therefore it is not opportune to discuss the matter at this time. I point out to the house that last week I questioned the President of the Treasury Board about the strike threatened by the air traffic control employees. The minister at that time pooh-poohed the suggestion that there was any strike threat; but now the government can no longer hide this fact. It is common knowledge that a vote is being taken and that a strike
Air Traffic Control Dispute deadline is being sought. How much longer is there to be delay. For how much longer will the government sweep this problem under the rug? I think parliament is justified in asking for a debate. The government ought to give us all the facts, and the minister ought to table a copy of the report of Judge Robinson so that we can see if there is justification for the lame excuses the government has given for not acting on this report, which it has said is not complete.
The information I have is that the other matters still to be reported on do not preclude the government's dealing with salaries immediately. I think the sooner this matter is debated the greater is the prospect that we may be able to avert a strike which would cripple this country irreparably.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister rises to ask a question of the hon. member who still has the floor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this: Does the hon. gentleman think it is right for the house to presume, before the results of the strike vote are known, that the vote will be in favour of the strike?


Michael Starr: Do you want to bet on the result? I know what this is about.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not our responsibility to presume there will be a strike. I presumed last week that there would be a vote on the strike. That assumption, however, turned out to be correct. It is our responsibility to foresee the possibility of a strike and to know what action the government intends taking to avert it. Had the government faced its problems before they were overtaken by them we might have averted the serious strikes we have had within the last six months.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it would not be logical to enter into an emergency debate before all means have been exhausted by management and labour. It is true, as the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) pointed out, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is in fact the employer at Air Canada and we must recognize that Air Canada is a crown corporation, but as long as all the means have not been used to reach an agreement between both parties, I do not
11046	COMMONS
Air Traffic Control Dispute think that it would be wise to discuss the matter during an emergency debate.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) provides in his motion-and I congratulate him for having introduced it in English only; there was probably no French copy-

I move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 to discuss an urgent matter of public importance, namely the threatened strike by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association as a result of the refusal of the government to accept the recommendations of Judge John Robinson.

Mr. Speaker, does the government have to accept the proposals or suggestions of a conciliator?
It was mentioned quite correctly earlier that, in this case there was not a mediator entrusted with suggesting a solution that both parties must accept as soon as possible, but rather a conciliator, which is not the same thing at all.
Since the Minister of Transport tells us that representatives of the association and the government will meet tomorrow morning, I think we should await the results of that meeting before raising a matter of such importance and hold an emergency debate in this house.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: There can be no doubt that the prospect of the strike which now faces us as a result of failure to reach agreement with the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association and its members is an extremely serious one for this country. It would be most unfortunate for a strike to take place at a time such as this. I do not doubt that the house has a certain responsibility in such a situation. It is beyond question that a heavy responsibility rests on the government.
I should like to make one point as to the urgency of this matter and the advisability of debating it at the present time. In my view the argument presented by the Minister of Transport, based on the fact that a strike vote is being taken, was not relevant; I doubt whether anything said here this afternoon will have any influence on that vote. Of greater importance is the fact that negotiations are going on this afternoon-


Michael Starr: No, they are not.


Robert Norman Thompson: As long as there is any hope of negotiations leading to an agreement, it seems to me that any debate here which
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	December 13, 1366
might prejudice those negotiations would be unwise.
I agree that this might not be the case tomorrow. I agree, too, with those who think the government has neglected to take the action it should have taken. It is time we realized in this country that there are certain types of strike action which cannot be tolerated. This applies to areas where there is an important public interest and where a public service is being rendered. Though I do not minimize the importance of this issue in any way, it appears to me that a debate at this time would only prejudice the likelihood of concluding these negotiations in a satisfactory way-and settlement by negotiation is the only way in which this dispute can properly be settled.
I doubt whether the urgency of this matter concerns us directly at the moment. Remembering that the strike is not yet in effect, I am sure we would not wish to interfere with the normal process of negotiations, if there were any chance of a successful outcome.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: In speaking briefly in support of the urgency of the debate and the admissibility of the motion, I wish to deal with the arguments which have been advanced against the motion on grounds of lack of urgency.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I believe it is agreed on all sides that this is an urgent matter. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Red Deer in advancing arguments against your putting the motion, have in fact, dealt, not with urgency, but have given, as a so-called reason for not entering upon a debate in the matter, a ground which does not go to the question of urgency at all and is therefore, strictly speaking, irrelevant. It is a ground which goes rather to1 the matter of judgment as to the advisability of discussing the situation at all at this time.
It is significant that in doing so, in putting forward that irrelevant answer to the argument of urgency, both the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Red Deer have questioned one of the very bases of democratic and parliamentary government itself, namely the undoubted right of parliament to discuss matters of national concern, and especially the right of parliament to discuss matters of national concern which assume urgent characteristics.
What I say in support of the motion on the matter of urgency is that Your Honour should
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
not accept, as a ground for rejecting the motion, such an irrelevant reason, because what we may say in the course of discussion is a matter for judgment in parliament and by members of parliament. In that matter we cannot be precluded by the Minister of Transport, or any other hon. member opposing the motion, from exercising our right to discuss it.
The right to discuss it cannot be questioned. We ourselves have the responsibility of determining what we say. I submit to you, sir, that neither of the hon. gentlemen has done anything but question the very basis of democratic parliamentary government itself, that is, the right to discuss, and they have not said anything relevant to the question of urgency of debate.


Mr. Nicholson:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Is it not a question of timing of debate, rather than one of urgency? Is it not the choice between urgency of debate at this moment as against urgency of debate tomorrow or some other date?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that in my view the Minister of Labour has demonstrated clearly by this question the whole unfortunate proclivity of the government to put off, and put off, and put off-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -until the matter is not only urgent but is one of practically insoluble crisis. That is their whole objection to this motion, and that is why the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has so wisely brought the matter up today, while it is not so urgent and not an insoluble crisis. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the urgency of discussing this matter than the question put by the minister.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), and I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in saying there is no question but that this is a matter of urgent public importance. The only question that seems to be involved is that of urgency of debate. The whole thing can be put in a few words, that what the government wants to do now is procrastinate and delay a little longer.
Air Traffic Control Dispute
Ministers of the government say the judge was appointed only as a conciliator and not as a mediator, and that therefore they cannot accept his recommendations. But I wish to point out that the judge was appointed by the government. The employees have accepted his recommendations but the employer, the government, has not. The government appointed this man. It got his report and now it will not accept the recommendations made by the judge.
What the Social Credit want to do, and what the Ralliement Creditiste want to do, is wait until a strike is on, wait until we feel the effects of the procrastination by the government. As I have pointed out on several occasions, the government knows it has 12 separate groups in Air Canada. It has its own employees. During the past year there have been strikes continually in essential industries. It has been a year of strikes and the government has done nothing about them. If ever there was urgency of debate, if ever there was a national crisis that should be debated, I submit, Mr. Speaker, now is the hour. Now is the hour to strike in debate, and settle something the government is unable to handle.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief word to contribute to this discussion. Not only do I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) that the argument advanced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) is irrelevant to the question of urgency of debate, but I would also point out that a recent experience denies the validity of this argument.
On Friday, December 2, we had a debate in this house under standing order 26 on what was then a very serious labour-management situation on the west coast. Negotiations to try to settle the west coast disruption, were under way at that time. It was at a critical point, yet it did not interfere with the settlement of that dispute for us to debate the matter in the house. As a matter of fact, five days later the dispute was settled.
I suggest that in this case it is even more important to have a discussion in the house because in this case the employer is the government, sitting here in parliament among us on the floor of this house. I submit, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it is irrelevant for the Minister of Transport to give us his judgment as to whether or not it would be a good idea to have a debate. It is our democratic right;
December 13, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute and we have this recent experience which shows that a debate like this can be useful. I suggest that Your Honour should allow this debate.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think I should remove any misunderstanding there might be in the mind of the hon. member for Red Deer, or of any other hon. member, that negotiations are going on today, because negotiations ended after a seven hour meeting yesterday, with no conclusions being arrived at that were worth while.
I think we should have a look at some of the things behind this situation because it seems to me, as another hon. member has suggested, that the government simply wants to delay and delay. This is a matter that has not come before the government this week or last week. It has been a matter of some concern over the last number of months. It was in the face of a strike threat back in May that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) instructed both associations which deal with air traffic controllers that he was willing to appoint a commissioner, and in his letter on that occasion he mentioned specifically that he and his government would give immediate consideration to the findings of the commissioner. Five weeks after the event is not "immediate consideration", in any man's language.
Another question which is important in my mind, and in the minds of other hon. members, is that a strike is imminent. There is no question of the outcome of the vote that is presently being taken. Anyone who has talked to air traffic controllers in any of our major cities knows that it is going to be a vote for a strike. The only question at issue is when the strike might be called, and in view of the fact that the government has fobbed off the air controllers time and again, I would judge the strike is going to take place within the next few days.
I think it comes close to becoming immoral when a government which appointed a commissioner on its own terms, and outlined his terms of reference, is not willing to accept his report in good faith, in the same good faith as it was accepted by the air traffic controllers. They have accepted the recommendations of Judge Robinson, and it is my understanding that Judge Robinson is disappointed at the action of the government in not at once implementing his report, which deals with pay rates which are reasonable. I, for one, would like to

know why it is that the government has been so anxious to suppress this report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that at the moment the hon. member is making a very strong argument with regard to the substance of the motion and not with regard to the limited question now before the Chair.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport himself opened up a number of these questions and has left himself open to that kind of criticism this afternoon. One of the things we should not forget in this matter is that this will not be a strike such as the Air Canada strike; it will be a strike against everything flying in this country. We have seen reports from both Air Canada and American air lines that if this strike takes place there will be nothing flying in this country during two or three of the busiest weeks in the year. In view of that I say it would be folly if we did not deal with this issue in debate, hoping that through our debate we may force the government to act reasonably in dealing with these air traffic controllers.


Mr. Speaker:: After hearing the comments made by hon. members from both sides of the house the Chair, of course, can have little doubt but that the question raised by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) is of the utmost importance and of a most urgent nature.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The question which must be decided by the Chair, on behalf of hon. members, is whether or not there there is an urgency of debate in accordance with citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, based on precedents and practice of the House of Commons. The question proposed by the hon. member for Ontario is based, by his own admission, on an assumption. I believe I can use his own words to indicate that he said it seems obvious that the vote taken elsewhere today will be in favour of strike action. Possibly there is a presumption that could be the result, but I suggest the point was well taken by the Minister of Transport when he said this is not a fact but a hypothesis or a presumption.
The Minister of Transport argued a point which, although some hon. members feel may not be relevant, I think it is. In view of the fact there are to be negotiations tomorrow morning, we must decide whether this debate, if there is to be a debate on this very important and urgent question, should be held this afternoon rather than tomorrow or some other
December 13, 1966

day. There is a point to which I have wanted to make reference, a point which I feel should be brought to the attention of hon. members now. It is my understanding of our practice that there can be only one debate on a specific matter under standing order 26 during a session. If this afternoon we had such a debate a question might very well be made, by way of a point of order, that a second debate on the same matter could not be held tomorrow. I am wondering whether that is the position in which hon. members want to place themselves. If the situation deteriorated as a result of a vote which might take place on the negotiations which the minister has indicated are to take place tomorrow, then a second debate could not be held.
The citation which I have in mind appears in May's 17th edition at page 363 and is as follows:
It has also been ruled that a matter, specifically debated on a motion for adjournment under the standing order, cannot be raised again in the same form during the same session.
This reference is to standing order 26. In other words there can only be one adjournment motion under standing order 26 in respect of any particular subject. In view of that, it is my feeling that hon. members might want to move with some caution in regard to the question of whether we should have a debate on this urgent matter this afternoon or tomorrow.
Taking this fact into account and, of course, noting the arguments put forward by hon. members in support of the proposal made by the hon. member for Ontario, I suggest that the motion should not be allowed at least for this afternoon.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which relates to a gratuitous statement or observation by the United States ambassador to Canada, Walton Butterworth, regarding the provisions of the Bank Act as they affect the Mercantile Bank. It also relates to strong personal criticism by the ambassador of the hon. member for Davenport, (Mr. Gordon) while minister of finance. Does the government feel it appropriate for this ambassador, as in the past, if I may use a colloquialism, to be a 23033-699J
Inquiries of the Ministry butter-in on Canadian affairs? Is he justified in criticizing the policies of Canada in the manner he did, occupying the position that he occupies?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the matter raised by the right hon. gentleman, I am told that the reports in question related to a private off-the-record discussion or conference. Therefore it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment on those discussions which took place at a private conference. They were off the record and known to be such by those who took part. If the remarks attributed to the ambassador had been made publicly, a very different situation would have been created.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a new rule. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the presence at this gathering in Washington of the Canadian ambassador to the United States, who took up the defence of Canada, would indicate the public nature of this meeting. Has the Prime Minister received a report from the Canadian ambassador? This United States ambassador is interfering in Canadian affairs, and did so even during my period of office. Is he justified in subjecting us to this type of criticism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman does not admit that there is any apparent distinction between a private discussion, the contents of which were revealed, and a public discussion. I have received a report on this matter from Washington which confirms that this discussion was off the record, and that this was known by those who took part.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it justifiable for an ambassador to a friendly country at a private meeting, which was as public as this apparently was, to subject us to this type of criticism for the benefit of the Rockefeller interests?




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilamh
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board in respect of the threatened strike of air traffic control personnel. Will he tell us why the
December 13, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry government is not acting on the report of Mr. Justice Robinson, and what reason there has been for the delay which has brought this situation to the point where the employees have no other recourse than to take a strike vote?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member spoke of a threatened strike. A strike vote is taking place. As a result of the hon. member's long experience in labour matters I am sure he is well aware that no strike is threatened at this point. A strike will be threatened when the associations involved say they are going to strike, after they have the results of the vote, and move toward setting a strike deadline.
The second point I wish to make is that discussions have been going on for some time with employees concerning the report of Judge Robinson. In respect of the discussions which I understand will take place tomorrow, I have requested that I be allowed to meet with representatives of the three associations. We will continue to discuss this particular matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. The minister still has not answered my question as to why the government has apparently consistently refused to accept the recommendations of its own conciliator appointed by the Minister of Transport?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, Judge Robinson was not a conciliator.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not say he was.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, you did. He was appointed to examine certain working conditions in respect of air traffic controllers and report back to the government. The government is entitled to consider these recommendations, but it is not bound by the advice of Judge Robinson. It is up to the government to consider whether or not an acceptance of such recommendations would be in the best interests not only of the employees but of the people of Canada as a whole, to whom the government is responsible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. No one is denying the government's right to consider recommendations, but let me ask the minister for a third time why the government has refused to accept these salary recommendations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to answer this question after I have discussed the matter with the employees association.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Did the government ask Judge Robinson to bring in a report on the salary and wage question?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has rejected the proposal?


Edgar John Benson: There were no proposals.
These were suggestions of someone hired by the government to look into working conditions in respect of these particular employees.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government rejected those recommendations?


Edgar John Benson: We have not got them all yet.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. I wonder whether he can tell us why, then, Judge Robinson did introduce his report in two parts. Could he tell us the reason why Judge Robinson submitted the first report on rates of pay?


Edgar John Benson: I think this question would have to be submitted to Judge Robinson. I have no idea why he split his report.


John George Diefenbaker: You have no idea of anything in connection with this matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answers I would ask him this: What instructions were given to Judge Robinson, and therefore what was his function?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: The
minister doesn't know.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would wait just a moment, I have the order in council here. I will be pleased to read it to him to indicate the terms on which Judge Robinson was appointed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of hon. members that the order in council should be read? I assume it will be long and may be more in the nature of a statement than an answer to a question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 13, 1966


Michael Starr: We want to find out what is going on.


Edgar John Benson: The order in council is dated June 23, 1966, and says:
The Committee of the Privy Council advise that pursuant to part II of the Inquiries Act, authority be granted to the Minister of Transport to appoint His Honour John Beverley Robinson, District Judge of the Temiskaming District, in the Province of Ontario, as a Commissioner to inquire into and report upon the conditions of employment of air traffic controllers, and in particular:
1.	To examine the factors and considerations that should be taken into account in determining rates of pay for air traffic controllers, bearing in mind the unique duties, responsibilities and requirements they are expected to carry and meet;
2.	To examine the relationship between these unique duties, responsibilities and requirements and the conditions of employment applying to air traffic controllers, including the arrangements for hours of work and overtime and for security of employment in circumstances where, for medical reasons, employees are unable to continue in the type of work for which they are trained;
3.	To examine the need, if any, for special provisions, unrelated to established rates of pay, to compensate air traffic controllers for these unique duties, responsibilities and requirements; and
4.	To report to the Minister of Transport as quickly as possible on the above matters, if possible within 60 days of appointment, with such recommendations as he deems appropriate, including recommendations on the effective dates of any changes proposed.
The rest of the order simply sets out the normal powers of a commissioner.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer the minister has now given, does he not agree that Judge Robinson did exactly what he was asked to do? He has given a report; he has made recommendations. Why is it, then, that the government refuses to accept those recommendations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question asked by the hon. member is more in the form of argument.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ROBINSON REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In light of the considerable controversy which surrounds the first part of Judge Robinson's report, would the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry be willing to table this report in the House of Commons?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to think that request over, but it seems to me that it is not an unreasonable one.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General who always gives me clear and definite answers.
He told us a little earlier that, at the beginning of next week, a meeting of the provincial Ministers of Finance would be held to discuss monetary matters of interest to each of them. Does the minister intend to suggest to them that the Bank of Canada should be used to finance without interest the development of their respective provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Finance whether these meetings will be entirely in camera.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They are for the purpose of exchanging views about our future plans, and I do not think it would be appropriate for these meetings to be held in public.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the Federal Power Commission staff counsel in Washington has reported directly to the F.P.C. accusing

December 13, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Trans-Canada Pipe Lines of deliberate prevarication and misrepresentation in their undertakings to the Canadian government just a few months ago, can the minister give any enlightenment to the house as to just what is happening in these hearings relating to the proposal for this pipe line?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: That is exactly it, Mr. Speaker; the staff is entitled, and as a matter of fact has the duty, I presume, to present views to the commission. But it is common knowledge that the Federal Power Commission has no obligation to accept those views and often does not.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am quite aware that this is an internal staff report; but the importance of such an accusation certainly reflects upon the government, and we are entitled to know whether the submission given to the government by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is of the nature described.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is supplementary to a question asked by the hon. member for Red Deer. In view of this alleged misrepresentation, I am wondering whether the minister has looked into the matter to see whether possibly the same thing has happened with regard to the advice that was given to him. I should also like to ask the minister, in view of the serious and quite probable outcome of such an allegation, whether the government is studying some alternative way of supplying gas to eastern Canada, such as the looping of the northern line?


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to the first part of the question, namely whether there has been any foul play or not or whether what Trans-Canada Pipe Lines said to the F.P.C. was true or not, I think the hon. member would be well advised to look at my file which is now in his possession, as it was tabled in the house.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: That is what made me suspicious.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The views of the hon. member are well known here, and I presume in
[Mr. Thompson.)
Washington also. A judgment regarding the quality of the presentations of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in this case has been made by the government and the presentations were found to be correct. The National Energy Board also expressed an opinion on the actions of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and found them equally acceptable. The Federal Power Commission in the United States is of course entitled to take a different view. That is all I can say on the subject.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to revert to the matter upon which the Minister of Finance was questioned a few moments ago. Would the minister take advantage of the presence of the provincial treasurers to try to reach an agreement or conclusion with them on the matter of legislation regarding deposit insurance, because this matter is becoming of increasing urgency in the deliberations of the banking committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the consultations in that connection have for the time being been completed and the legislation has now been drafted, but not in a form that we considered satisfactory for presentation to the house. That is the only reason for the delay; it is not the need for further consultation at the present time.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monfeiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Due to the fact that many sound and reputable Canadian insurance companies have considered his statements both inside and outside the house yesterday as a grave injustice to their position in the financial community, I wonder whether he would care to make any clarification of what has been implied?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding of what took place yesterday in this house. Indeed I understand that the Montreal Star carried a headline that the North American Life Assurance
December 13, 1966

Company was involved, which of course is not so. In addition, I gather that on the C.B.C. news last night a partial statement that I had given to the C.B.C. was carried, which implied that I believed that Canadian general insurance companies were less trustworthy than British and foreign companies operating in Canada. I would like to deny that. But I would say in answer to the question that has been asked that I do believe it is most important that I should have meetings with these Canadian companies as soon as possible, so that the fact of the failure of the North American General Insurance Company should not have an adverse effect upon the rest of the reputable Canadian companies.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the apparent failure of the Ontario Securities Commission to protect investors from financial manipulation, and the decision that was made not to hold open hearings into the collapse of Prudential Finance and associated companies, will the minister, in view of the federal responsibility in the insurance field, take steps to have a full-scale public investigation so that confidence which has been undermined, as was suggested a moment ago by the minister's answer, will be restored for the many investors at home and abroad, and Canadians may have the assurance that their savings will be protected from financial manoeuvring?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the right hon. gentleman would suggest that we should have a royal commission to investigate the administration of the Ontario government. That is not our responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is about as close to the truth as the hon. gentleman often comes. May I ask at once whether an investigation will take place, since the responsibility regarding insurance companies rests here, so that statements such as the one made by the minister on television, which has caused unnecessary hurt to decent companies will be avoided? He was the responsible one.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to answer questions regarding the responsibilities of the federal government toward insurance companies at any time that the right hon. gentleman or anyone else wishes to ask me any questions either here in the house, in a committee or elsewhere.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Mitchell William Sharp: But I do not feel that I should assume responsibility for the financial administration of the Ontario government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This self directed applause indicates how weak the answer was.
Let me again ask the minister to answer the following question: Will he set up a commission or an investigation to look into the ramifications which have been revealed in recent days regarding one insurance company, for the purpose of dispelling the fears of investors at home and abroad?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just so that this statement by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition does not cause unnecessary concern about Canadian insurance companies, let me say that this is the only case which has come to the attention of the administration where any federally incorporated insurance company for which we have responsibility has been in any difficulties. In this case, difficulties arose because of the theft of $500,000 worth of securities, and only for that reason. So far as I know there were no other cases.


John George Diefenbaker: You are the one who is causing the difficulties.


Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance, but in order to get it into proper context I should remind him that yesterday he suggested he would do the following:
I should like to discuss with the Canadian companies whether it is necessary to tighten regulations in such a way that the policyholders of Canadian companies have just as much protection as the policyholders of British and foreign companies operating in Canada.
My question is this: Has the Minister of Finance sent an invitation to the Canadian insurance companies to attend such a meeting to come to such a conclusion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I directed the Superintendent of Insurance, who is one of my officers, to issue such an invitation. I understand he is issuing it to the association which is called, I believe, the All-Canada Association of Insurance Companies. I am not absolutely certain of the name of the association.

December 13, 196S
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



RHODESIA-INQUIRY AS TO COMMITMENT BY CANADA TO USE FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. At the recent Commonwealth meeting in London concerning the existing situation in Southern Rhodesia, did Canada give any sort of undertaking to any or all of her Commonwealth colleagues that, if necessary, we would support the use of armed forces in Southern Rhodesia in order to bring about the termination of the Smith government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 REPORTED INCREASE IN RATES FOR HOTEL ACCOMMODATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I apologize for not sending him notice of it, but I only just received this information from a gentleman who travels extensively in Canada. Last week this gentleman rented a room in a hotel in the Montreal area for $9.50 and on the door he found the following notice: "After May 1, 1967 the same room for a single person will be $22.50; for two people, $32.50". Can the minister take this matter up with the appropriate municipal authorities to stop this practice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question is so urgent that it cannot be placed on the order paper.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of the absence of the Postmaster General. I wonder whether any announcement can be made in the house regarding the postal delivery strike in Montreal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this morning an agreement was signed by the two parties. This agreement was submitted for ratification to the members of the unions and it is hoped that by now this ratification has taken place. If so, work will be resumed tonight.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
As the ministerial committee has submitted its report to the cabinet, does the government intend to introduce shortly a bill defining the units of negotiations and recognizing them on the natural as well as on the national level.



AIR POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
URGENCY OF SITUATION IN CANADIAN CITIES On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the urgent situation existing in several Canadian cities, has the department taken any action to exercise its responsibilities for control of air pollution as it affects the health of Canadians?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then, may I ask what action has been taken?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question is too general for me to answer at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe there is agreement amongst hon. members that the question is much too wide to be answered at this time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the minister whether there have been any recent conferences with provincial authorities in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question as notice.


Mr. McCleave:: Because you do not know.
December 13, 1966



EQUIPPING OF AUTOMOBILES WITH PROTECTIVE DEVICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare also relates to the immediate problem of smog and air pollution, especially as it affects our metropolitan areas and urban centres. Last week it was brought to the attention of the minister that the United States has ordered that in 1968 all cars to be imported or made in the United States would be equipped with a clean air package.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I interrupted the hon. member at the wrong moment. Is he about to ask a question?


William Heward Grafftey: The minister said he would look at the situation as it affects Canada and report to the house. Can he inform the house now whether he has looked into this situation, and whether or not the Canadian people will be protected by similar Canadian standards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The results of my examination have revealed that the matter is under consideration.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; can the minister tell us whether officials of the minister's department are in Washington at the present time to attend the important meeting on air pollution, and is the government seriously considering an overall air pollution policy for the protection of our cities, which are now very seriously affected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had notice of a question from the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison) in connection with this matter. I should like to tell both hon. members that a representative of my department is attending the relevant conference in Washington.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have asked questions about the composition of the labour relations task force. I should like to reply now by saying that we have retained the services of four task force members and have selected a full-time executive officer. I think members of the house know that Dean Woods of McGill University is the chairman. Abbe Dion of
Inquiries of the Ministry Laval University, Professor John Crispo of the University of Toronto, and Dean Carrothers of the University of Western Ontario, are the members of the task force. George Saunders, who is at present the director of the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour, has been lent to the task force as its full-time executive officer. In addition, as work progresses a number of other public servants and outside consultants will be associated with the work of the task force. Some of them have already agreed to serve, but not all of them have yet been approached.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Has the minister had time to consider the question I put to him yesterday and can he give us an answer today?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question put yesterday by the member for Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot, I wish to inform the house that the Agricultural Stabilization Board has been authorized to make an interim payment of $3 per normal ton of sugar beets of the 1966 crop in order to help growers to meet their seasonal obligations.
The board met with the representatives of the growers to determine the most appropriate time to proceed with the interim payments.
As conditions and needs vary from one part of the country to the other, it has been agreed to make payments at such time as is most suitable to each area concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question. Does that mean that some areas will receive their interim payments only later and that Quebec is one of those areas?


John James Greene: According to our present plans, Mr. Speaker, Ontario producers will soon receive their interim payments. As for the sugar beet growers in the other Canadian provinces, they will receive their interim payments at the beginning of the year, early enough to help them with the start of their spring work.

December 13, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Solicitor General. I should explain that my question is based upon the written reply given yesterday to question No. 2182 which indicated that one Mr. Edward Elroy Hunt, an inmate in the B.C. penitentiary up till June 26 of this year, committed suicide by tying his shoe lace to a towel rack, the towel rack being only 30 inches above the ground. I should like to ask the minister whether he could explain to the house how a person can hang himself when he is suspended from something only two and a half feet above the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether the house would want the minister to attempt an explanation at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of manpower. I ask the minister whether a labour analysis is being compiled in the Department of Manpower.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the President of the Treasury Board, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Labour yesterday that this analysis was being compiled in his department with the co-operation of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, would the Prime Minister look into the resultant cost to the taxpayers of identical work being done by two government departments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to my original question. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in addition to looking into the unnecessary cost of duplication to the Canadian taxpayer, he would also advise the house who authorized this unusual move.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the Prime Minister-I see he is about to leave his seat-but I am wondering whether he has an answer to the question I asked him yesterday regarding the recommendation for extradition proceedings, and if the failure of any provincial government to act would result in the federal government proceeding?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had a reply to that question submitted to me, but the Solicitor General will be returning to Ottawa this evening and I should like to discuss it with him. After I have shown him the reply, I hope I will be able to answer tomorrow. I apologize for being a day late.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister whether the C.P.R. will be permitted, as has been the case in recent days, to continue pressing the Board of Transport Commissioners to rule on some of these branch line abandonment applications when the whole subject is under the purview of the transportation legislation which is soon coming up for third reading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the premises on which the hon. gentleman has based his question are correct. I would have to inquire into the premises before I could give an answer to the question which would be meaningful.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: A supplementary question; is the house to conclude then from the minister's comments that he has not received-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a
question.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we assume from the minister's remarks that the presidents of both the C.P.R. and the C.N.R.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
December 13, 1966


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -have withdrawn all applications for abandonment of rail lines?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Assumptions or conclusions are not questions.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the Canadian Pacific has made application to abandon certain lines in Manitoba. Could he use his good offices to remind the Canadian Pacific that this is contrary to government policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better inform myself on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My understanding was that the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National had told the Board of Transport Commissioners that they were withdrawing all applications for the protected lines and that they would in due course furnish information which might be required by the commission with respect to the unprotected lines. It also was my understanding that there would be no hearings in these matters until after the protective system comes into effect, which would be on passage of the act.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister not been advised by the Manitoba Branch Lines Association that the Canadian Pacific is in the process of making these recommendations now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had representations from the Manitoba Branch Lines Association and I am looking into those representations. As the hon. member knows, the Board of Transport [DOT]Commissioners is a court of record and I have the greatest confidence that they will proceed in accordance with the law and policies which have been laid down.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I posed a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the application of unemployment insurance to fishermen on the west [DOT]coast, as a result of changes in regulations, [DOT]and the minister replied that he would have
Inquiries of the Ministry preferred to have notice. I am wondering whether he is now in a position to reply.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave yesterday stands. I had not received any such letter until I obtained a copy from my hon. friend, the hon. member for Skeena. The original was received by my department yesterday. It was marked as received in Ottawa yesterday, though it was dated December 7. The letter has been acknowledged and the matter is being looked into.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister tell the house-


An hon. Member:: He cannot do that, he is gone.


Gilles Grégoire: To the Minister of Transport then. Can he tell the house whether it is true that-I see two members have just left, Mr. Speaker, but that will not change anything, because they never speak and never do anything-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is true that the Russian government recently announced that a Russian icebreaker would be assigned to the St. Lawrence river next winter in order to make winter shipping easier for Russian ships on that river?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not a spokesman for the Russian government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. This information is taken from an editorial published in the Toronto Telegram of December 10, that is last Saturday, and I should like to know whether there is any truth in the statement of that editorial to the effect that a Russian icebreaker will come and clear the St. Lawrence river for winter shipping, and whether the Department of Transport is aware-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
December 13, 196S

Inquiries of the Ministry



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of external affairs, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the proposed legislation in the United States which will claim ownership by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the ocean floor extending 100 miles from land, including part of the lucrative fishing grounds of Georges Bank, what representations, if any, has the minister made to the United States authorities with regard to the effect that passage of this legislation would have upon Canadian fishermen?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, since the proposed passage of this legislation has not been brought to my attention at this stage, I will look into the question and find out exactly what has been done in this regard.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether any of the territory referred to in the question of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg lies within the base lines that we have been negotiating?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Not to my knowledge.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Raymond Ballard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister consider putting a freeze on applications for rail line abandonments while the new Railway Act is before the transportation committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is such a freeze, Mr. Speaker; there is no need to put on another one.



REFERENCE TO REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION ON STATUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
[Mr. Gregoire.l
Has the hon. lady been successful in her attempt to convince the government that a royal commission on the status of women should be set up, as proposed by the delegation for the equality of women in Canada?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Not entirely successful as yet, Mr. Speaker, but I would commend to my hon. friend the slogan used by an American women's magazine, which exhorts one never to underestimate the power of a woman.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Having faith in the power of women, I ask the Secretary of State whether she would get in touch with the C.B.C. and secure from them a copy of the words used on the first performance of "Quentin Durgens, M.P.". I asked for that script and was told that parliament could not have it because it was copyrighted-an insufficient and improper answer. I ask the Secretary of State whether she would secure that. While she is at it, would she also obtain from the same body the remarks and statements made by the Minister of Finance on December 11 and December 12 on C.B.C. television.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why this material should not be available to the right hon. gentleman. I shall certainly ascertain the position, and obtain it.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Russell H. MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I could address it to his parliamentary secretary, who could take it as notice. I ask why yesterday in the United Nations Canada abstained when the vote was taken condemning apartheid policies in South Africa. How many countries actually opposed this resolution?


Mr. John Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I shall take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, December 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I raised a number of points yesterday about the legislation before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member might wait for a moment before beginning to give hon. members who have things to do an opportunity to get organized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are so polite.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, last night we were discussing some of the problems affecting old age pensioners, and some of the shortcomings of the legislation before us as it related to them. I do not wish to continue in this vein too long, but I want to read a letter from a constituent of mine who has lived in the north country all his life. He has made his contribution to northern Ontario and represents a group of people who have pioneered in this country. The value of their contribution is well known. This man now lives at Teck Pioneer Residence, an old people's home in Kirkland Lake. His letter was addressed to the editor of the Northern Daily News. This is what he says:
Dear Sir:
I read, with no little interest, the column of your Ottawa correspondent, Patrick Nicholson dated Wednesday, November 3rd, 1966. In it he grows eloquent ... he always is . . . about the brilliance of Hon. Allan MacEachen who will, he says, earn gratitude from our old age pensioners who will receive thirty dollars a month additional if they can show that they have no other income; and glory from the taxpayers who will be relieved to know that the amount can be given without an increase in taxes. He estimates that 45 per cent of the 1,200,000 pensioners have no other income and it is to this element he proposes to give $30 a month extra. But to get it they have to send in to the Federal Office a statement to the effect that they have no other income. Others who have annuities up to $29 will, if they want the extra dollar or so send also a statement of their income. This is called a negative income tax form. This is no "means test" says this brilliant man and his backers. Well, let me say that if the vast majority of old age pensioners are not as brilliant minded as the Hon. Mr. MacEachen, they know in their heart it is a reversion to the "means test"; and I think they will remember it when polling day comes around. How they glibly talk, these brilliant men, about the $450,000,000 it is going to cost. Do they talk about the millions upon millions that these pensioners produced during their hey day?
Old Age Security Act Amendment
To hundreds of thousands of the lowly pensioners, it looks as if the brilliance of the Hon. Mr. MacEachen has been to preserve the profits of our huge Corporations at the expense of the poor pensioners. It is not my purpose to introduce a lot of figures from government charts. The same Patrick Nicholson has shown us on more than one occasion where millions have been wasted. Not long ago I read where General Motors showed an unprecedented two billion dollars and this year they raised prices again, and it just seems like yesterday since I read about Massey Ferguson making 112 per cent profit and they too raised prices. Only the other day when the Finance Committee was in session at Ottawa, Andrew Brewin of the N.D.P. spotted what he thought something strange in a $350,000 item. After strenuous inquiries he was told that the item had been tax deductible, and when he asked for what he was told, it was a fund solicited by political parties. I hope we hear more about that! Many like myself must have heard the statement made on T.V. the other night, that we, yes, we poor pensioners, along with the rest of you, loaned some South American country $200,000,000 without interest and payable 50 years hence. Sounds like Alice in Wonderland when you hear all these things, and then you see these brilliant men standing up, down in Ottawa with owllike faces deploring the fact that we can't increase the pension to all, so that it might coincide somewhat nearer to the rising cost of living.
And latterly, it is a safe bet to say, 60 per cent of all that pension money paid to all pensioners will be spent immediately in the locality of the recipients and, as Mr. Nicholson has pointed out, it is not just peanuts,-a dollar bill spent in several transactions can keep a person busy a good part of the day. This is a very important thing for all politicians to remember when they are soliciting votes from their ain folk. The pension system is here for good. We recognize it as a right not a hand out, and the wise administrator will always see that it is adjusted to the normal standard of living. In the meantime we must get this cursed means test" removed from the Statute Books at the earliest possible moment. I don't think I am alone in making this protest. Even if I was, it would still be a letter from
Hugh G. Kinniburgh.
I believe this is the type of letter which is being written by old age pensioners across Canada to most members of parliament. In my opinion, Mr. Kinniburgh, a man well over the age of 80 who still retains all his faculties, does an exceptional amount of reading and is well known throughout northern Ontario to which he has made a great contribution, has correctly stated the issue.
The pension system is here to stay. It will be expanded. It will become part of our every day life to an ever increasing extent. Moreover, a good administrator would see that pensions were closely related to living standards and set in accordance with those standards.
Like members of the Social Credit party, I will support this measure. But, unlike them, I will support it only because I think it does
December 13, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment something for some of the people; I have no intention of supporting it as an example of the proper way of dealing with the pensions structure. In the end, I believe, we shall be obliged to turn to the deficit income tax system. Before we do so it will be necessary to amalgamate all our social security measures into one piece of legislation. There will be no further playing with pensions. That will belong to the past. Every Canadian, whether he works or not, whether he is in good health or not, will be entitled to a basic income as of right. Until we have reached that stage, the social security and welfare programs of this nation will not have reached standards which I believe all Canadians would support.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the needs of our senior citizens are so pressing, more particularly so in view of the continuously rising cost of living, that I would in no way want to delay passage of Bill No. C-251. Even though I feel that this legislation is not perfect, I would not want to deprive senior citizens of the small amount of comfort which the legislation provides.
However, I greatly fear that those who expect a cheque soon after January 1, 1967 will be a bit disappointed, because I believe that it will be some time before the effects of the legislation are felt.
Although I have no intention of making a long speech so as not to delay passage of the bill, my obligation to the pensioners in my riding forces me to call the attention of the house for a moment to the views of the senior citizens back home. I wish to acquaint the hon. minister with the observations of retired citizens, with whom I am quite regularly in contact on week-ends.
The minister will surely be interested to learn that I have yet to meet one old age pensioner who welcomes this piece of legislation, that is, Bill No. C-251. All those I met complained that this measure would not satisfy them fully.
Moreover, a great number of older people cannot see the difference between a means test and a needs test. They think that either one will deprive them of an income they greatly need. Our older people convey their feelings in a most vivid way when they say: Whether you are bitten by a black dog or a white dog, there is no difference because it hurts just as much.
Mr. Speaker, it is generally agreed that this legislation, in its present form is a kind


of tax on thrift. Those who, in their youth, have tried to save up to meet their obligations when they retire realize that there is some discrimination against them and they say: It is a tax on economy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, for example, the minister to hear the conversation at meetings of the Golden Age Clubs.
How I would like to see the minister in St. Hyacinthe listening to old age pensioners when they start comparing the amount each of them will be receiving under Bill No. C-251. He would see, for instance, that some would be receiving perhaps $30, others $20, $10, $5 or even only $2, while many-those who have saved in their youth-would get absolutely nothing. The minister would then see for himself that Bill No. C-251, as it now stands, would create dissatisfaction and dissension.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is painful for a senior citizen, at the age of retirement, to find that, after all the efforts he has made, he will not get the same compensation as his neighbour. This will generate countless difficulties among our people.
In his remarks, the minister told us that, in order to qualify for benefits or a supplement under this legislation, applicants will have to complete a very simple form and that nobody should suffer inconveniences. This seems to me somewhat surprising and I shall repeat here what senior citizens told me: How come an arbitration board is being established to settle disputes in certain cases, if those forms are so simple to fill out and if no one is to be deprived of what he is entitled to? In that regard, I would like the minister to give us more details, so that our aged citizens might know for sure. Indeed, they fear the obligation to complete forms in order to obtain money which they feel reverts to them.
Mr. Speaker, since the start of this session particularly, my party has done its utmost to convince the government that it ought to grant a $25 monthly increase to all Canadians reaching the age of retirement. I believe that this is the most equitable way of doing justice to everybody. In order to administer Bill No. C-251, no doubt a legion of civil servants will be necessary, and the resulting costs for the public treasury will be quite above the savings made in the way the minister has asserted when he introduced his legislation in the house.
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is only fair to have all pensioners treated equitably according to the same method. It is important that the legislation we are considering shall entail no discrimination nor give rise to discontent among the people. The senior citizens are entitled to such treatment, and I call upon the minister-it is not too late,
I believe-to reconsider his bill and listen to his colleagues of the Liberal caucus who have made to him representations similar to ours, to the effect that there should be a flat increase, regardless of means or needs. We have heard it said several times that tremendous pressures have been exercised on the minister. Up to now, he has refused to yield, but I believe that logic and common sense demand that he should reconsider his position and grant an equal amount to all the older citizens.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to deal with one more point on which, as a representative of the province of Quebec, I would like some explanation. The hon. minister knows that the Quebec government recently declared its intention of taking over the field of old age pensions. We also know that the Quebec government has the support of the Liberal opposition at the legislative assembly, and that Messrs. Lesage and Laporte have explicitly approved the intentions of the Quebec government in that respect.
Section 94 of the B.N.A. Act also gives the provincial government the right to legislate in that field. I should like to quote that section, which reads as follows:
The parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including payments to survivors and invalids regardless of their age but no law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of the provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister owes some explanations to the citizens of Quebec in general, and also to the Quebec representatives in this house. He must indeed make his position clear, because it would seem unfair to leave unsettled a problem which interests so many people and raises so many questions in the minds of the citizens of Quebec as well as of the other provinces.
I think the minister should clearly state his position in this regard and trust this house. He should also say how he understands article 94 of the British North America Act.
It is impossible to ignore the wishes of any Canadian province, whether it be Quebec,
Old Age Security Act Amendment Ontario or any other, and I think the minister should state his position clearly. I therefore ask him not to miss the opportunity to make his position known, because if this is not done, there may be between the two levels of government a misunderstanding which would be prejudicial to the population. I think that the minister will want to spare the population that.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express special criticisms on Bill No. C-251 entitled:
An act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In my opinion, this bill lacks generosity toward our senior citizens and encroaches on provincial prerogatives, without consultation with the provinces and without providing unconditional fiscal compensation to an active province, a province which decides or would decide to occupy the field of old age pensions.
According to the original character of old age pensions-that is when they were established in our country-the government should now increase them to $100 per month, even if provinces are allowed to keep the indigent cases which would persist despite this automatic increase to $100. By refusing to do this, the present Liberal government practises toward elderly persons a beggarly policy. This reminds me when we were attending primary school, we used to see that picture in our readers; a family had confined the old parents to a corner of the kitchen, serving them a very poor allowance of food for their meals, forgetting all the services and the work they had done.
In my opinion, the government's approach in that bill is a beggarly policy. Neither does the government take into consideration its capacity to pay. It can today, if it so decides, give all recipients of old age pensions an automatic and universal pension of $100 a month, according to its capacity to pay and the cumulative surpluses of the old age security fund, and taking also into account the savings it could realize in certain fields coming under its jurisdiction. I mean especially the Department of National Defence where we spend too much according to the part we play in international organizations and according to our little importance in international and defence matters.
At this point, I should like to quote in part a speech delivered by the hon. member for Cartier on November 28, 1951, referring to the Old Age Security Act that had just
11062	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment been introduced in the house. It seems that Mr. Crestohl was at that time a member of the Liberal party and one can find his speech which, I think, is very much to the point, in the English version of the Debates of November 26, 1951, on page 1319. I quote:
I should like now to make one or two observations with respect to the application of the act in practice. The theory of paying a pension universally to rich and poor alike carries with it a dignity commensurate with our desire to preserve for our senior citizens the self-respect to which they are entitled by age alone, if by nothing else. It eliminates the stigma, in my judgment, of relief or charity and clothes it with the stature of a reward well deserved and well earned for many years of service.
That is the spirit that was prevailing when the Old Age Security Act was introduced in 1951.
Precisely, at that time, the government made the old age pension universal in character.
Anyhow, every citizen has an equal right not only to the old age pension, but also to the medicare and hospital insurance.
How is it that the present government has, for instance, in the case of the medicare bill, stressed, besides three other conditions- compulsoriness, state control and portability -the universal character of the plan. How is it that, during the same session, the present government insists on universality in the field of medicare, which is a social measure, precisely on the principle that every citizen has an equal right to it, while in the field of old age pension, which is another social measure, it discriminates and denies that all citizens have an equal right to universality?
I say that the present government once again, and in many other fields, contradicts itself and is inconsistent in the philosophy of the legislation it introduces, and that is the criticism I have to make concerning the bill before us.
Thus, the industrious and rich citizen will pay taxes all his life, contributing generously to the old age security fund. On the other hand, the lazy, spendthrift and improvident citizen, after a whole life of public assistance and laziness perhaps, will benefit fully once again of the act before us today. In many cases, the present government encourages and will be encouraging social vice by this bill; laziness and lack of foresight will be dealt with exactly the same as the virtues of foresight, industry and thrift of the citizen who worked all his life.

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
I also want to say, in the second part of my remarks, that the present bill encroaches on provincial rights. In 1951, a constitutional amendment authorized Ottawa, with the authorization of provinces, to legislate on old age pension. Section 94A, which is very eloquent and explicit, reads as follows:
It is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, why did the provinces agree then to a constitutional amendment? Because, according to the text of the 1951 amendment, they were keeping, absolutely, completely, totally, their responsibility in the field of old age pensions. There is no clearer text in the Canadian constitution.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Indeed, that can readily be appreciated for, in 1867, according to the letter and the spirit of our constitution, the exclusive authority in all local, regional, civil, professional, family and social matters was conferred upon the provincial legislatures. And the 1951 amendment respects the letter and the spirit of the requirement imposed by the provinces at that time, to allow Ottawa to legislate that safeguard for the future. Well, that shows that old age social security comes first under the jurisdiction of the provinces or of any province which today or in the future decides to look after it.
That amendment did nothing but ratify the initiative taken by the central government in 1927 about old age pensions, an initiative rejected first by Quebec on constitutional grounds but accepted by that province in 1936 and at the federal-provincial conference held in December 1950. I have already mentioned in the house on other occasions the increasing progress of the federal government on the road to centralization in fields which do not come under its jurisdiction, particularly that of social security. And in times of war and economic recession it became the major holder by far in the field of taxation in Canada, and to spend that money it interfered in provincial fields of jurisdiction.
The province of Quebec refused in 1927, and until 1936 it waged that constitutional fight which is reaching a peak today. Those were not useless fights because, as a matter of fact, we have come today to a decisive turn in the history of Canada, to an important
December 13, 1966

cross-roads in our national, constitutional and administrative life and that is why it is high time to put up the markings which will enable our various governments to get their bearings for the future.
By the new 1951 amendment section 94a, the provinces, including Quebec, agreed on the proviso that they keep fully for the future their authority in that field. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the 1951 amendment dealt only with old age pensions and not with old age assistance. As far as old age assistance is concerned, the then premier of Quebec, the late Maurice Duplessis, agreed on behalf of his province to co-operate with the government in Ottawa with regard to old age pensions. He said the amendment should be drafted in very clear terms. I would like to quote from the proceedings of the federal-provincial conference held from September 4 to 7, 1950. As reported at page 27, Hon. Maurice Duplessis said:
Quebec is in favour of granting the old age pension to people of 70 without means test. We are in favour of old age pensions starting from 65 up to 70 on a contributory basis. We are willing, indeed pleased, to co-operate with Ottawa. If any modification of the constitution is appropriate in the circumstances, well, we would be willing to consider in a most friendly way the possibilities of modifying the constitution in the matter of old age pensions. But we cannot, Mr. Chairman, and I think you will admit that, commit ourselves to an indefinite policy.
That is why section 94 (a), the 1951 amendment, must be considered and analysed in a restrictive manner. It must not be interpreted and extended as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is doing, under the pretext that he has the responsibility and the authority to extend an old age pension plan to groups of older Canadians under the form of old age assistance, assistance to the needy, what is called a guaranteed income, or by any other name.
According to the statements made and the agreements entered into in 1951, and according to the then Quebec premier himself, this would not have been accepted without consultation.
This is unfortunately what is provided in the government legislation, that is a $30 increase for the needy, without previous agreement with the provinces. It is a well-known fact that for several years, Ottawa has been contributing to old age assistance following consultations and in co-operation with the provinces. The federal government is now trying to interfere in the field of old age assistance, without the advice and consent of the provinces.

Old Age Security Act Amendment
Mr. Speaker, this procedure is autocratic, unconstitutional and seriously impedes the balance within a federative system.
According to the letter and the spirit of section 94(a), should a province decide to legislate with regard to old age pensions, as has just been announced by the Quebec government, the federal legislation may apply to the other passive provinces but not to the active provinces, unless the latter agree to certain standards.
Ottawa must give way and grant that province an annual fiscal compensation, that is give back unconditionally to that province the amounts of money that the citizens involved would receive if the federal program continued to apply to their province. For Quebec, in 1967, that amount would reach approximately $275 million.
The procedure for Ottawa's opting out and the settlement of fiscal compensation come within the ambit of political negotiation and must be discussed between the two levels of government. That is why any possible conflict in that respect between the central government and one or several provinces could not be referred to the Supreme Court, as has been suggested, because the latter has no authority in that regard and, also, because under a federative state, the supreme court is not a constitutional court.
Since January 18 last, several members of the various parties in the house, except government members, have asked the Prime Minister and other ministers to set up a joint parliamentary committee on constitutional and fiscal reform, so that the basis of the country's administration may be set, in 1967, in a legal, social and economic context, but the federal government remains adamant, while some provinces, such as Ontario and Quebec, have instituted such committees. The federal government has always refused, and is still refusing, to answer that question properly.
Again, with respect to that problem, we find that instead of providing the country with proper bodies to prevent conflicts and settle questions, it allows uneasiness to drag on and constitutional chaos to increase; in that connection, we will probably have further turmoil and discord which would be avoided if men of good faith, as are all Canadians from coast to coast and all members of this house, had the opportunity, once for all, to determine in a special committee the needs and responsibilities of the various levels of government.
11064	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Once more, I blame the government for that situation. I have done so perhaps ten, fifteen times already. But I must continue to do so until we get that parliamentary committee which is essential and urgently required, so that the various governments can set up their respective administrations firmly, clearly and in harmony. I do hope we obtain it on the occasion of the Centennial which is an appropriate time to create and encourage national harmony and brotherhood.
A province that decides to legislate on old age pensions, according to the 1951 amendment I read to you a while ago, has priority and, to my mind, the exclusive right to do so within its boundaries, by virtue of federal balance and the principle according to which a right must be coupled with the financial means to exercise it. Having a right is not all; we must also have the financial resources, the pile of dollars necessary to make good that right, to exercise it. Ottawa must thus grant such a province unconditional fiscal compensation.
Ottawa's right to legislate with respect to old age pensions is but temporary and sup-pletory, that is to say as long as a province does not legislate. In this case as in other cases, Ottawa wishes to justify its control by pointing out that old age pension payments have economic repercussions. In fact, government officials have claimed that an automatic pension increase to $100 per month was equivalent to putting into circulation a large amount of money, and that it was not appropriate to do this in times of inflation, and that such action would bring about economic and inflationary results. This is a very superficial and childish objection, since all payments and all expenditures of the various governments have economic repercussions.
This government's argument just shows that the provinces also have a great part to play in the economic and financial orientation of the country, since the payments they make and the expenditures which they incur also have economic implications. Old age pensions, like old age assistance, public assistance, medical assistance, medicare, the Canada pension plan and other social measures, must be part of an over-all social security program. The rules of co-ordination, economy, efficiency and environment make this a necessity. This is why the provinces have every constitutional, social, and administrative reason to take action in all social security fields. In this

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
connection, I would like to quote the conclusion to an article written by Mr. Paul Sauriol, in today's editorial page of Le Devoir. I quote:
The province of Quebec which operates its own pension plan, is therefore right in wanting to recuperate old age pensions in full, as provided by the Canadian constitution; all elements of social security must be a part of a well integrated and co-ordinated plan; they must not come under various authorities; this applies to pensions for the invalid and the handicapped, and to all classes of people depending on community support.
Mr. Speaker, if Ottawa is panic-stricken on account of the decision taken by one or many provinces to occupy the whole field of old age pensions, I believe it is the first responsible, on account of its systematic refusal to revise the constitution and institute a joint parliamentary committee on taxation and constitutional reforms.
Therefore, according to these remarks, which are derived from a study of this bill, I do not only feel that it lacks generosity, that it denies the equal right of all older citizens to receive the old age pension, a right that was sanctioned at the time the act was passed in 1951, a universal character that we find embodied, in the medical care legislation, but I think this bill, runs against provincial prerogatives and upsets them, provides no tax arrangements and wants precisely to probe indirectly into the old age assistance field as regards needy people, without any previous consultation with the provinces.
And that is the reason why I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that:
This house, while of the opinion that necessary steps should be taken to secure for the senior citizens of Canada an adequate pension, also believes nevertheless that no legislation providing for an old age security service in Canada would be sufficient unless it provides for a tax compensation system for any province wishing to establish its own autonomous old age security plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), following the speech he has just made, proposed a motion which I have here. The hon. member says that, at this stage of the proceedings, he can move an amendment to the motion which is now before the house, but the proposal which he suggests at this time is not an amendment but a substantive motion and, for that reason, it cannot be accepted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I thought that you were asking for the
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
opinion of hon. members. If you allow me to make just one point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that it is the prerogative of the Chair to decide to what degree comments may be made-would the hon. member please resume his seat-to what extent they may be made with regard to procedural matters. In the case of the motion moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, there is no shadow of a doubt that it is not even an amendment, and I fail to see what arguments the hon. member could advance in support of that motion which, as I said, is a substantive motion.
The hon. member for Lapointe might move, if he wishes, a modified version of that motion but, as such, obviously it is not an amendment which can be accepted by this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is merely a flaw in the drafting of the motion and not a basic defect. I suggest it should read:	"That all the words following the
word that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is obviously more than a flaw in the drafting. The amendment is absolutely out of order, and I think that the hon. member for Lapointe could submit a proposal along the lines of the motion moved, if he wishes. I do not say in advance that the amendment would be acceptable, but surely, as it now stands, it definitely cannot be accepted.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the debate at this stage because of the importance of the measure which is before us, and I will align myself with those hon. members whom the minister characterized as stupid and dishonest. This statement made by the minister appears on page 10894 of Hansard and reads as follows:
Anyone who equates the means test with the norms set out in this program is either stupid or dishonest.
I want to be placed in that category along with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) and others because I know, I believe and I understand that this bill does introduce a means test. The hon. member for Brantford was not intimidated by the minister's statement, as were other members on the government side, and I congratulate him
Old Age Security Act Amendment for his courage. We on this side are not intimidated either. The minister has now characterized all of us who have spoken about the means test, and all old age pensioners who will object to proposals involving a means test, as stupid and dishonest. It will take the minister more than a year to extricate himself from his insulting statement which is reported in Hansard.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
When I spoke at the resolution stage I drew attention to the fact that earlier in the session, in July and in November, I had asked the minister to let us know whether his proposal, which he denied involved a means test and which he denied involved a needs test, involved a check on a person's income and resources. In July, and in the first week of November, he did not have the courage to answer my question. He said I would have to wait until the bill was presented. All the time he knew that the bill involved what he calls a test of income, but he did not have the courage to tell us that in September and in the first week of November. He was afraid because it would have disclosed his hand, and he would have then learned that he was imposing on the old age pensioners of this country a means test to which they should not be subjected.
I do not know what has happened to cause the minister to do this. If you look at the bill, Mr. Speaker-and we will be examining it in detail subsequently-you will find that the ^minister will have a whole army of people snooping to see whether or not honest disclosures of income have been made. He obviously does not trust the old age pensioners.
I just happened to glance at the proposed new section 17, where I find, if you read it in full, that there are nine different sources of additional information to which the minister and his officials may refer to check the disclosures or lack of disclosures made by the old age pensioners. It runs the whole gamut from the department of national health, the Department of National Revenue, the finance department, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the unemployment insurance commission, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Then, information may be obtained from any provincial authority administering a program of assistance payments; resort may be had to any information obtained pursuant to any other act relating to income or income from a particular source; and lastly, where social insurance numbers have been assigned under the authority of any other act the minister or
December 13, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment other authority can exchange information contained in the applications for such numbers with the department which will be administering this particular act.
There, Mr. Speaker, are nine areas in which further investigation may be made in order to see whether an old age pensioner has correctly assessed or disclosed the proper information to the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You are completely misconstruing the clause, completely misconstruing it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister will have the chance to explain this later on, Mr. Speaker. It is rather an odd situation. He talks about privileged information in the form which will be filled out by the old age pensioners, and he then goes on to talk about exceptions with regard to information obtained on behalf of the minister, and exceptions with regard to information obtained under any other act and from social insurance numbers.
We will be giving the minister plenty of opportunity to explain this when we get into the details of the bill, Mr. Speaker, but here he is imposing upon the old age pensioners of this country a means test and a snoopers test. I think this is going to be a very humiliating experience for our old age pensioners. It will mean duplication and an intensification of government investigation of matters of this sort over and over again. I think it will take an army of public servants to get all the information that the minister will require. ,
As I pointed out at the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker, how ridiculous it is to embark upon a course with regard to which we know there will be great difficulty. There are tests of means applied in other areas of the government. Let me mention the war veterans allowances as one example. I know from actual experience the great difficulty and hardship involved in determining the income of a person on war veterans allowance and in getting rebates when a mistake has been made either by the applicant or the department, with embarrassment to all concerned. Yet the minister is embarking upon this course with regard to our old age pensioners.
All of this, Mr. Speaker, was wiped out in the fall of 1951 and when the act came into operation in January of 1952. Several hon. members have drawn attention to the operations of the joint commission which studied this problem and reported in 1950. They have also drawn attention to the action taken by this House of Commons in 1951. I suggest that

anyone interested in the subject should read the report of that committee and read Hansard for the period when the subject matter was dealt with in this house, so that they have the background to this problem.
Is is rather astonishing, Mr. Speaker, that after 30 years' operation of old age pensions -because they started quite early-the decision was reached that the means test should be abolished. This was not a hasty decision. The proposal had been advanced on many occasions prior to 1950; it had been discussed in the house, in the other chamber and by various people time and time again. So it was not, as I say, a hasty decision; it was a carefully considered conclusion arrived at by responsible people.
I had occasion, Mr. Speaker, to refer to Hansard for the second session of 1951, and I noted that that session was remarkable, in the opinion of two or three people, in that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale), the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) and myself, along with Howie Meeker, entered this chamber the victors in four by-elections which had taken place in June 1951. The powers of survival of the three of us still here are worthy of note.
Despite that important aspect of the second session of 1951, Mr. Speaker, I think it was overshadowed in the minds of objective observers by the speech from the throne and by the activity which took place in that particular session. Let me just read from Hansard for Tuesday, October 9, 1951, page 1, this paragraph from the speech from the throne:
The primary reason for summoning you for a second session in the present year is to invite your consideration of a measure to provide increased security for our older citizens through payment of pensions, without a means test and as a matter of right, to all Canadians with appropriate residence qualifications who are over the age of 70 years, and to establish a fund made up of special contributions levied for that purpose.
That, sir, was the purpose of having the second session of parliament in the fall of 1951. The primary reason for summoning the members together, as outlined in the speech from the throne, was to abolish the means test and to give pensions as a matter of right. I was very much impressed with that when I came here as a new member.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I listened with interest to the debate that took place when the actual bill was introduced. I was impressed with the presentation of the then minister of national health and
December 13. 1966	COMMONS
welfare, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs. All new members are impressed with that minister.


An hon. Member:: It does not last long.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That impression lasts for one day or two. I was impressed with his presentation on that occasion and I suggest to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare that he read again the speech made by the then minister on October 25, 1951. He, and others, might well read the subsequent speeches made by members of the other parties in the house. That House of Commons consisted of 190 members on the government side, far too many, and on the opposition side of a rather small but able group of Progressive Conservatives, a small but able group of the C.C.F. and a small but able group of Social Credit members, chiefly from Alberta. The men of that day were able-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are more able now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would not say you are more able. I was impressed by the C.C.F. in 1951, much more so than by the N.D.P. The total group on the opposition side was a very able group, and there was a much more able government than now to the right of the Speaker. I can well remember the men occupying the treasury benches of that period. The parliament of that day, exclusive of the new members I mentioned a few minutes ago consisted of men of great experience and considerable ability. One has only to call to mind 10, 20 or 30 of those men to realize that what I say is true. It was those men who concluded that our old age pensions should be handled on a different basis, that the means test should be abolished and pensions be given as of right.
What are we doing in 1966 in attempting to reverse that decision? That decision was not arrived at hastily, sir. It was arrived after years of discussion, after an excellent piece of work by a joint committee, and after careful consideration by men who were equal in mental stature to any of us here. Those men reached their conclusion and spoke in favour of abolishing the means test. What are the lesser men of this period doing in attempting to reverse that decision without sound reasons for so doing? By what process of thought can the treasury benches come out with the present proposal, a retrograde step unjustified under present circumstances.
We have come a long way since 1951 in the field of social security. There is greater emphasis now on social consciousness in this
Old Age Security Act Amendment country. People realize that the real values to a country, in addition to its natural resources, are the values of human beings making up its citizenry. We have come a long way in the fields of health, research and education. We have done a good many things to improve the lot of the citizens of this country. Having moved a long way in the field of social security, a concept that I commend, why do we now embark on a retrograde step? We are wealthier now than we were in 1951. We have a larger population and we are equal to any additional financial burden. Yet in 1966 we face the problem we faced in 1951, the rising cost of living and inadequate incomes to meet that rising cost.
In the 1951 debate you will find that most of the time was spent in recommending an increase in the old age pension. The idea of abolishing the means test was universally accented and the debate centered on raising the ceiling, then $40, to meet the rising cost of living. I started off by drawing attention to the statement made by the then minister of national health and welfare and I think it is well worth recording again what he said then. I refer to page 383 of Hansard for October 25, 1951. The minister had been talking about methods of paying old age insurance in other countries and he was talking about the actuarial principles some of them used. I read:
Such systems fall far short of universal coverage to which we attach the highest importance and on which the parliamentary committee placed the greatest emphasis; while suited to the needs of the industrial wage earner, they exclude inevitably large sections of the population, particularly the farmers and other groups of self-employed. Even for the industrial wage earner, such systems take many years to mature and benefits in the first ten years or more are nominal in amount. The result is that side by side with such schemes a large continuing program of means test pensions is and must be maintained for many years to cover the needs of those who cannot be brought under the scheme, and to supplement the benefits of those who do come under it.
I point out the minister was referring to schemes in other countries. He goes on to say this:
Let me repeat. Where such a system operates, two programs exist indefinitely side by side:
(a)	a system of insurance benefits, paid as of right only, to those who have made the required contributions; and
(b)	a system of old age assistance, based on a "means test" for those who cannot so qualify.
This is what the government of that day, supported by all members of the house was preparing to eliminate. The then minister was drawing to our attention systems that were in

December 13, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment vogue. Then he said this, as reported on the same page of Hansard:
The universal pay-as-you-go system which the government is now proposing makes no invidious distinction-as such systems in effect in some other countries do-between those who have made a stipulated number of contributions over a period of years and those who have not.
That, sir, was the major step forward taken by the parliament of 1951. Let me quote again from the then minister of national health and welfare. I am not always charitably disposed to him but he was a different man in 1951.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
On page 386 I find these words:
If we are to gain a true impression of what we are accomplishing with this measure, we must look behind these statistics and remember that they comprise not just a vast cross-section of unknown persons but a true cross-section of our Canadian people. These people are our own neighbours, relatives, clergymen, factory-workers, railway workers, farmers, fishermen, civil servants, retired members of our police and fire departments, office workers, clerks, housewives and so on, all of them persons who have made their contribution to the building up of this country and who have made it possible to achieve the greatness which is recognized as Canada's in the world today.
I commend to the present minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) that attitude of mind, that form of expression, so that he may better understand the type of people in whom we are interested. We should not think of them as being just old age pensioners or statistics. These are people. These are neighbours of every one of us in this country. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) had that in mind when he made his effective speech in 1951. Why cannot we accept a practice which has been in effect now for 15 years, instead of going back to make the invidious distinctions which prevailed when people were subjected to a means test?
In the course of that debate, the position taken by the hon. member for Essex East was supported by Mr. Donald Fleming, Hon. Donald Fleming as he later became. Those of us who remember him very well know he was a man who investigated with the greatest care every problem which presented itself. He made no hasty and ill-considered judgments. He was not one who would carelessly throw away or waste government money. He kept a close eye on expenditure when he became Minister of finance, and in the days when he was in opposition, in 1951, he was one of our leading spokesmen on matters of this nature.
Well, Mr. Donald Fleming was convinced of the rightness of abolishing the means test, and he had served on the joint committee of 1950,

I would just quote a passage from his speech as it appears on page 393. He had this to say:
I can give reasons why the committee recommended universal payments. First, it was felt that in the case of those who did not need the payments it would be a simple matter for the Minister of Finance if he so chose to draw them back in the way of taxes. In the second place, it was thought that the administrative problem would be considerable. It does not matter what figure you choose as the breaking point between those who will receive and those who will not; you are applying a means test. It may be that it would be an infinitely more generous means test than that which had prevailed hitherto, but nevertheless it would involve the application of such a test. That in turn would have brought with it almost all the objectionable features of the present administration of the means test. It would mean that you would be penalizing thrift in many cases while making payments in other cases to those who had not generally practised equal thrift. It would have meant more intrusion on the part of officials into the affairs of individuals. For these and other very good reasons, not least of all being the administrative difficulty of enforcing such a test as compared with the administrative ease with which money could be taken back in taxes from those who did not need it, the committee arrived. I think soundly, at the conclusion that the simplest and most effective system was the universal system.
That argument holds true today. It is just as cogent and important as it was in the fall of 1951. Why is the present Minister of National Health and Welfare rejecting sound arguments of that kind? The two men I have mentioned, the hon. member for Essex East and Hon. Donald Fleming have made outstanding contributions to the life of this institution and to Canada.
They were not the only ones who took part in that debate. I will not quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because we have heard him often on this subject. But he played a prominent part and made a very effective contribution for his party. Of course, without any shadow of doubt, he supported the abolition of the means test.
Then, speaking for the Social Credit party of that day, the hon. member who sat for Red Deer, Mr. F. D. Shaw, also supported the measure before the house. I will quote briefly from what the said as reported on page 402 and commend these words to the members of the Social Credit party who are in the house today.
May I refer first to the abolition of the means test in connection with this universal old age pension? We have always taken issue with the means test. I am compelled to believe that we in turn have been forced into that position over the years because of two very important factors. In the first place there was never uniformity of administration.
December 13, 1966
Then, he went on to speak about the difficulties in his own province. I read further from what he said:
In the second place, down through the years we have always clamped a pretty severe test upon old age pensioners in that there was such an extremely low allowable income.
He continued to develop that argument.
I have placed before you now, sir, the statements made and the attitudes expressed by leading members of the four parties in the house in the fall of 1951, and I say to this House of Commons: why should we now change the system which was arrived at in that year, a system whereby the means test was abolished and old age pensions were given as of right? It cannot be argued today that the men of that particular period did not have plenty of experience behind them as to the inequities of the means tests and the administrative difficulty of putting it into effect. I well remember in the days before I entered this chamber, during the short period when I served in the Manitoba Legislature, hearing innumerable cases of people applying for old age pensions and being subjected to the humiliating experience of having to disclose their incomes, their possessions, their resources and so on.
I was as happy as anyone was in the parliament of 1951 when that bill passed and the means test was abolished. The bill did not occupy much of the time of the house. It was considered on October 25. Then the house went into committee, and in two days in November the issue was concluded. Unanimous consent was given at each stage, and there was very little debate except during the clause by clause study of the bill in committee of the whole.
That was the situation 15 years ago. Yet here we have the Minister of National Health and Welfare seeking to reimpose a system which was found to be inadequate 15 years ago. I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) were here to participate in the debate on this issue. I should like to ask him whether he agrees with what he said in 1951 or whether he has reversed his stand. I wonder what he said in cabinet when this bill came up for consideration by the cabinet. Did he tell his colleagues that everything he said in 1951 was unsound and should never have been brought into effect? Is he one who would advocate the reimposition of a means test after the introduction of this very useful bill in 1951 for which the Liberal party took a great deal of credit and, indeed, it deserved credit for such a forward step?
Old Age Security Act Amendment (5:20 p.m.)
Now we are having a retrograde step, a turning back of the clock with the imposition on the elderly citizens of this country of a means test to which they should not be subjected. All this nonsense about calling it just an income test in filling out a simple form, evades the issue. There should be old age pensions without a means test, as a matter of right. If one looks back at past debates on this subject one finds that some people talked about old age pensions as a national dividend to which people were entitled after 50 years of service to their country, in some capacity or other, during the course of their lifetime.
No one can deny at the present time that there should be an increase in the amount of money available for old age pensioners because of the rising cost of living. We have suggested an over-all increase of $25 a month without a means test to avoid the administrative difficulties. The minister has tried to make political capital out of this by saying that his proposal is $30 a month, a higher figure that we are suggesting. However, the minister is excluding quite a number of people and is imposing a humiliation on half a million or more of our old age pensioners.
The minister wants them to disclose whether or not they have been financially successful in life. In this society of ours success in life is sometimes measured by financial results. This is the type of society in which we live. Now, the minister wants these people to sit down and confess that they have not been as financially successful as their neighbours, and therefore they will get a hand-out of another $15, $20 or $30 a month. The implication is that if they had done something differently when they were in their twenties or thirties, they would not have to get this extra money now.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that people 70 years of age and over have made their full contribution to the life and development of this country and suffered accordingly in so doing because many of them did not get the wages or salaries to which they were entitled. That is why I have participated again in this debate. I think it is essential that we have the background to this whole issue; that we know what was done in the past and that, before this debate is concluded, we should have a really satisfactory explanation from the government as to why this change is now being suggested.
I do not think the proposed change is soundly based on the financial situation in

December 13, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment Canada. I think there is enough money available to meet the extra requirements of a flat increase across the board without a means test. It is just a matter of saving the money, here, there, and elsewhere, and several hon. members have indicated the areas in which savings could be made. But oh, no, the saving is to be made at the expense of the elderly people of this country. This is where the government is holding back the extra $100 million a year that would be needed for everyone on a universal system. The money is not going to be given to those people who are in the marginal areas, or just over the borderline. These are the people who will be required to make the sacrifice. That is where the saving will be affected, by not paying the increase to the
200,000	or 300,000 old age pensioners who will not fill out the ministers' form, or who will not qualify under the stringent regulations which the minister will propose.
I shall conclude, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying the minister should think again about this. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) gave the minister a first class idea which he will find recorded at page 10949 of Hansard for December 9. The hon. member suggested that instead of the increase we were talking about, or the $30 which the minister was talking about, there should be an increase which would not be in perpetuity, for those people who will not qualify under the Canada Pension Plan.
He suggested that such an increase, be it $25 or $30 a month, be given to all those who are now neglected and who do not qualify under the Canada Pension Plan. The amount involved would gradually diminish annually as these people pass on. I do not see why the minister cannot accept that suggestion. It would not require a means test. It would not require the filling out of the forms or the use of thousands of snoopers to determine whether people are honest, dishonest, or just innocently careless. The increase would be given to all old age pensioners, but those who eventually qualify for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan would then revert to the present $75 a month, plus what they would draw from the Canada Pension Plan. Why can't the minister accept that idea and modify his bill accordingly?


Mr. Andrew Chalwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in the house, and I should say how much I appreciate this honour and the privilege that goes with it of representing the riding of Grand Falls-White

Bay-Labrador. I am also very pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-251, the guaranteed income supplement plan for old age pensioners. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before the house, and it is going to be one of the most far-reaching in consequence.
It is the fourth major piece of social security legislation which has been introduced since the government took office in April, 1963.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Chatwood: No other government in the history of Canada has introduced such far-reaching and comprehensive social security measures as has the present administration. The government, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), are to be congratulated for establishing a well thought out plan for social security in this country.
The old concept that social security was merely a hand-out has, I think, changed and should be forgotten. What is now important is the attitude that social security means assistance for those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to earn a living to maintain the standard that they should have in the 1960's. Prior to 1963, there were three main categories of social security. First, we had the social insurance programs; second, fixed payments made automatically to individuals within given categories, such as the old age pension and disabled persons' allowance and, third, social security measures under provincial jurisdiction which were governed by means tests. This government, by expanding social insurance programs, such as the Canada Pension Plan and medicare, has taken great strides in the development of social security programs.
The other approach, fixed payments to all within a given category and the means test approach, allowed for many inconsistencies. For example, the paying of a fixed benefit to all within a given category meant that many people would not receive a sufficient supplement on which to live. The Canada Assistance Plan, therefore, was an imaginative method of ensuring a more flexible and equitable approach to people who required assistance.
This government has developed a philosophy of social security which is based on providing assistance to those in need without at the same time infringing upon their dignity as human beings, and it is consistent with this
December 13, 1S66

approach to social security that the government has introduced a guaranteed income plan for our old age pensioners.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Therefore, I was more than a little surprised at some of the resistance from the opposition to this enlightened approach to social security. I would have thought the opposition would welcome a guaranteed minimum income plan for old age pensioners. I am rather surprised also at the attempt in some quarters to associate this plan with a means test. It is quite obvious to anyone who studies the plan that this is quite a departure from what has been referred to as the means test. I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter at some length with many of the old age pensioners in my own constituency, and I have been able to explain to them the procedure that will be adopted under this plan. It is one that has received almost universal support from my constituents. Unfortunately, there still are a number of people in Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador who do not enjoy the same standard of living as those in the more heavily populated areas. There is, perhaps, more familiarity among certain groups with the full meaning of the means test. I am, therefore, pleased to note that this plan does not involve this approach.
I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if any other piece of legislation before this house has been of greater interest to the group which will benefit directly from this legislation, and I doubt if there are very many items of legislation which have been more in tune with the needs of those concerned. This supplement will, when passed by the house, provide for a guaranteed income of $105 per month for those eligible for old age security. This amount will not be reduced if an old age pensioner owns his or her own home or receives a gift. This amount will not be reduced if an old age pensioner receives social assistance from municipal, provincial or federal government departments. This amount will not be reduced if an old age pensioner receives a disability pension either under workmen's compensation, under commercial insurance or under a war pension. This plan is able to provide more assistance for those who need it because it does not attempt to provide additional payments to those who already have a considerable income.
We all recognize that the money for these payments does not come from an endless source, and that additional money must in the long run come from additional taxation. It is, 23033-700
Old Age Security Act Amendment therefore, far better to make this additional assistance available to those who need it and not incur the need for additional taxation by making payments to those who already have a sizeable income.
One of the many features of this legislation is that the supplement will be available to those eligible through filling out a simple form. This form will be simpler than the income tax form and will not require any information not presently provided on the application for old age security and on the income tax forms.
This government, while putting forward legislation to serve all persons eligible for old age security payments, is very aware that this group is made up of individuals and that the feelings and rights of the individuals are of prime consideration. You will, therefore, understand when I relate this legislation to my own riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the people who are living within this riding. Individuals who are within this riding are perhaps not dissimilar from other individuals living throughout other parts of Canada.
This riding contains 142,000 square miles and has approximately 1,000 miles of coast line. It contains two major airports, a pulp and paper industry and a lumber industry. It has mines producing asbestos, copper, lead, zinc, silver and iron. It has many ports. It has a rapidly expanding hydro industry. It supports an active fishing industry and naturally has the municipal, medical and other services and businesses to support these industries.
The percentage of older people in the coastal fishing communities and in the older towns is higher than in the newer towns which have sprung up around the industrial areas. Therefore, the proportion of persons eligible for old age security and assistance is correspondingly higher. The younger people who make up a high percentage of the population in the industrial areas do have parents and grandparents living in many cases in other communities. I am sure that, while they are involved in the pressures of their new life, they are aware of the importance of this proposed legislation which will bring more comfort and security to the older people who are living in their family homes, either in the inland woodlands or surrounded by the rugged beauty and splendor of our Atlantic coast.
Our older people, who were the pioneers of some of our older industries, have seen towns
December 13, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment grow up around them and now are living in the towns which they helped to build. These people have been faced with the additional costs of living inherent in any town and city dwelling and will, I know, be well able to use this supplement to the old age security pensions they presently receive. Many types of areas in which older people live in this riding are, I am sure, repeated across Canada; on the west coast in the mountain areas and in the maritimes. I am sure that everywhere there are older people who are waiting for the proposed legislation to pass, so that they may enjoy a little more security and comfort, which is their right.
I have lived, Mr. Speaker, in the Labrador area of the province of Newfoundland for the past 14 years, and the latter portion of that time in the industrial area of western Labrador where the number of retired people is comparatively small. The people in this industrial area come from all over the riding as well as from other parts of the province and from other provinces. These people are concerned about their retired friends and relatives who are living in their original homes. They are only sharing what is a general concern, that this legislation will be passed as soon as possible to give the older people this very necessary additional income.
I urge those who oppose this legislation to remember that these are flesh and blood people who are waiting for their assistance. They should remember that the diatribes the opposition has directed at the minister and other members of the house may keep those individuals who do the talking warm, but do little to warm the pensioner who is trying to stretch his cheque to cover food, fuel and clothing.
This program, Mr. Speaker, will provide a supplement of an additional $360 a year to persons presently receiving old age security who require this additional supplement. For those who have partial income, there is a provision for receiving part of this supplement, so that a single pensioner is guaranteed an annual income of $1,260 and married couples are guaranteed an income of $2,520 a year, if they are in the age bracket for old age security. The supplement is expressed as a percentage of the $75 a month basic old age assistance. This means that the supplement will be raised, together with any raise in the basic flat rate of the pension which could result from changes in the cost of living.
For those who have a small personal income in addition to the old age pension, the
[Mr. Chatwood.l
proposed legislation provides for a partial supplement. In this way, the amount of the supplement would be reduced by $1 per month for every $2 a month that personal income increases over and above the flat rate of $75 a month. This means that a person would have to have a personal income of $60 a month or greater in order for the supplementary pension not to apply. The bill provides for more assistance to people with a small income from pension or personal sources or from part-time employment, and allows some of our pensioners to take parttime jobs for small remuneration without having too large an effect on their supplementary pension.
Last year an amendment to the Old Age Security Act made provision for the lowering of the age of eligibility from 70 to 65. This means that in 1967 all persons of age 68 will be covered by the old age pension and by 1970 all persons of 65 years of age or above will be covered. All these people will, of course, be eligible for this new supplement, o (5:40 p.m.)
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is intended to take effect in January, 1967. The setting up of the administrative side of the program is a very large task, and it is expected that the retroactive supplementary payment will be sent out to recipients with the March old age security cheques. Following that, those receiving full extra benefits will continue to receive their cheques for $105 each month, and those receiving partial supplements will receive a cheque for the appropriate amount. In all cases, of course, the basic amount of $75 will be maintained. An important item in the calculation of a person's income is that when a person retires in the middle or at the end of a year, to prevent hardship to him he may disregard his earnings during the part of the year that he was employed. He may use his income status for the remainder of the year after retirement or the income during his first full retirement year, as a basis for his eligibility for the supplement.
It would be very simple to ask that there be an across-the-board increase to all old age pensioners. But it seems to me that by adopting this approach, in actual practice we would be giving assistance to those who did not need it. Unless we are prepared to adopt realistic measures which meet the pressing needs of older people as well as other low income groups, we shall have failed in our task. I congratulate the minister for the enlightened approach which has been taken in meeting the
December 13, 1966

needs of the older citizens of our country. The legislation which he has brought forth will provide assistance where needed and still maintain the dignity of the individual. This kind of enlightened social security measure has been so much a part of the legislative program of the present administration. I am proud, therefore, to support this measure introduced by the party that has been the author of every single major piece of social security legislation that has been placed on the statute books of our country.


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker,
it was not my intention to enter this debate, but because of rather extenuating circumstances and reports I have received recently from throughout my riding, upon which I shall enlarge in a few moments, I feel that I must take part in the discussion. I should say at once that I am prepared to vote in favour of this bill. I do not want to, in one way, but I have to on the premise that half a loaf is better than no bread.
It is my understanding that this supplement to old age security will provide a maximum of $105 per month or $1,260 a year. The old age security payment is, as I understand it, to remain at the same figure of $75 a month for all, but the supplement will, on a test basis, bring it up to a total of $105 per month for those people who have inadequate means.
The word "test" has been explained in many different ways; therefore, I shall refer to it, at least momentarily, as just a test. In the case of a person who has no income other than the $75 a month, I understand he could draw an additional $30 a month; but for every $2 that he earns, $1 will be deducted from the $30 supplement. Let us consider a few cases. There are people who, through sickness or no fault of their own, find themselves existing on the old age security payment only. Such a couple would receive, under the present regulations, $150 a month. If this bill passes, they will also be entitled to the supplement. But let us suppose these people have a little initiative and own their own home. They may rent a portion of it to a friend for, say, $60 or $70 a month. Then, surely this is income which should be reported. If it is not reported, this income will be "snooped out", as one hon. member mentioned. I find it rather difficult to understand the fairness of this program when applied to such people.
The minister made a statement concerning people who were against this measure. I think perhaps he did not mean what he said because I do not think he is the kind of person who
Old Age Security Act Amendment would take away the initiative of these people. If their initiative is taken away, we will shatter their individual enterprise. We must remember that many people in these circumstances like to do something for themselves. Let us consider, for instance, the case of a man who has no income other than the $105 a month. For the sake of argument, let us say he is 68 years of age. He will receive an income of $1,260 a year, including the supplement. As I understand it, this man will have to pay $22 tax on that income, because $160 of that income will be subject to income tax. I do not think this is fair. I believe the minister would want to take a good look at this matter. I think that perhaps when we review the things we think we know, we begin to realize the things we thought we knew.
Let us consider for a moment the case of a man whom I know very well. This man worked hard all his life. Fifteen or 18 years ago he was in fairly good financial circumstances. He worked for a firm that provided no pension plan, because at that time pension plans were not as popular as they are today. This family was comfortably well off. However, his wife was very ill for a few years before she died. In that period of time, he spent many thousands of dollars in an effort to cure her sickness. I know whereof I speak, because last year I spent $10,000 in nurses' fees for my wife. I called on this man. He did not ask me to call on him; he was not the kind of person that would want you to call on him. However, one of his friends said he thought this person was having a difficult time, and I went to his home. This man is now just past 70 years of age, and is trying to exist on only $75 per month.
I went to the city of London and made arrangements for a little extra money to be provided to him in order that he might live in some semblance of decency. This man had an ordinary room in which he had a bed and a few other things from his home of sentimental value, including a television set which was almost beyond repair.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
He paid $50 a month for the rental of this room. He told me that he set aside $20 every month to pay for his food. I am sure that with the spiralling cost of food items he did not have much in the way of a steak to place upon that meagre little table of his, and the remaining $5 was spent on his clothes, his smokes and his entertainment. I contend that on this basis this man could have very little in the
11074	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment way of entertainment. I wonder sometimes how cruel we can be.
I suggest that the minister look at this bill again, and keep in mind the rapidly rising cost of living. Let him think of these people who, through no fault of their own, find they cannot sustain themselves, and let him increase the pension to $105 across the board to everyone who is entitled to old age security.
Let us take another case, that of two old pensioners receiving $75 a month each or $150 jointly. If one or both of them make an extra $120 a month they cease to be entitled to a supplement. Does this not encourage people to remain idle? Is this not a way of saying to people in this age bracket "You are worn out; you are through and ready for the scrap heap"?
Why should we legislate against the unfortunate? I maintain that this is just one area in which we are encouraging the raising of a race of weak people.
A good point has been made by an hon. member in this debate exemplified by a man and a woman, both pensioners, contemplating marriage. The man is getting $75 old age security and because he is physically fit he is making $120 a month. Therefore he would receive no supplement. The woman is entitled to old age security or $75 and, under the bill, would receive $30 supplement. However, they wish to get married and live out their twilight years in relative happiness. If they do this, then the woman has to pay a matrimonial tax of $30 per month. We know that there are many taxes. As a matter of fact, the Minister of National Revenue is not here right now but I am betting he is in his office trying to calculate how he can put a tax on the air we breathe because that is about the only thing left on which we do not pay taxes at the present time.
These are some of the points which the minister should consider. After all, we sometimes say that the road to purgatory is paved with good intentions.
For some years we have been advocating an across the board increase in old age security to $100 a month. I think this figure should be $105. I should like to bring to the attention of the house at this time the fact that the socialist party also have agreed the pension should be increased to $105 a month. Let us take a good look at the legislation. I should like the minister to review the whole legislative program. Let us look at it objectively, keeping in mind the dignity of the individual. Let us not make these people crawl.

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
Let us suppose that no tests were required and that an across the board increase were granted. Think of the savings we could make in the administration. I was speaking to one of the welfare officers of the province of Ontario and I asked him what it cost to make a casual call on a person with regard to old age assistance. He said that the cost of a casual call was $5.75. I think that a saving could be effected if we made a complete survey of the cost of this program.
If these pensioners were not required to pass a test, they would not have to make out income tax returns or other returns such as eligibility returns, or whatever you wish to call them. Many of these people have never made out an income tax form in their lives and if they were faced with this necessity they would have to go to someone else for assistance. Many people at this age are a little confused, and so filling out these forms will only add to their burden. I say that if we were to pay $105 across the board we would certainly get a good share of that money back in income taxes and other taxes, and we would be releasing more money for circulation throughout the country. According to the recent indices, it is possible we might need this extra impetus before too long.
I should also like to point out that it would be necessary to employ a great number of people to check these returns and these applications. Think of the savings in the cost of the administration in this one area only. Let us also think of the great savings in empire building. I think it is a readily recognized fact that there is enough empire building going on here now. Why should we encourage more of it?
I believe that if we grant these pensioners an increase across the board we will be respecting the dignity of the individual person, our fellow man. I think this is of prime importance.
Let us consider now the test required under this legislation. It has been called many different things, and there are many names we could call it, but perhaps they would be unparliamentary. I think we must admit that this bill does include a means test. You can call it a means test, an eligibility test, a needs test, a financial standing test or an income test. Somebody suggested we might call it "the MacEachen formula test".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alfred Irvine: But, Mr. Speaker, when the smoke screen has disappeared, all the clouds
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
have melted and the test is revealed in its true form, I am sure it will be known as a means test.
Yesterday I received a letter which I should like to put on the record. I asked my correspondent for his permission to do so and, if necessary, I will state his name. It is dated December 9. He writes the following:
I am one of many elderly citizens now coming due for old age pension, and know that such people have weathered two world wars, depression, low incomes, and many difficulties. Many, of such as we, have saved, economized and often gone without much that we would have liked to have had, in order to have our own home. During this period that we have experienced many companies had no pension scheme, or had noncontributory schemes, resulting in a man receiving no pension or very little. The new pension schemes do not help us very much.
Further the salaries and hourly rates have been very small during the years.
Many have not been able to save much and these have to rely on welfare or relatives.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
There are, however, many of us who have not smoked or drank liquor and somehow have been able to get a home paid for. True the homes are worth more now, but rising costs of living, taxes, etc. make living increasingly difficult, this cannot be denied.
If increase in old age pension is given by the means test, those who have not saved will qualify for the whole amount, but a man owning a well kept home will be told to sell his home, and live on the income from the sale. This sounds easy, but looking into it shows that such people are in a difficult plight. The cost of living in a good senior citizens home is very high.
The social workers say "Stay in your own home, it will not cost the government or city so much".
Thus you will concede such people need the increase in O.A.P. as much as anyone but the means test will block them.
I recently saw that the member for Brantford advertised in the London paper that he stands for $105 per month all round. I wrote to him along the above lines.
This letter is from a man, Mr. Speaker, who formerly came from the riding of the minister of external affairs but who is now living in my riding. He is paying tribute to the words of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), and I must pay tribute to him too. I have pushed a chair aside for him here, and if he were in his seat I would ask him to join me on this side of the house.
I also understand that, in addition to this test, there is to be an appeals procedure. I should like the minister to enlarge on exactly what this appeals procedure means. How will it work, what will it do? Does it mean that some of the statements made by these pensioners will not be accepted as valid, or what
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion does it mean? To what extent is snooping to be encouraged? How embarrassing will these procedures be? What kind of test is it to which the minister makes reference?	.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed and discouraged that this whole legislative program has not been made a little more comprehensive. However, I have no recourse but to support it, for even in its present form it will help so many people who are in dire need. But is it not just too bad that we cannot have a little bit of respect for the dignity of the individual and particularly for our elderly citizens? Many of these people have worked hard and have made great contributions in so many different ways to this great country in which we are privileged to live. Through no fault of their own in many cases, they find themselves financially embarrassed in the evening of their lives at a time, when they should be enjoying a certain amount of contentment and happiness.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I circulated 40,000 copies of a questionnaire to householders, regardless of their position or wealth. Within the last 10 days I have had 3,000 replies, and one of the important questions that 1 asked was as follows: Do you approve or disapprove of an increase of old age security to $100 a month with no means test or other tests? In answer, 79.51 per cent said they approved it; 19.42 per cent disapproved; and 1.07 per cent made no comment. I think this is a good test case, Mr. Speaker.
These 3,000 replies are available in my office to anyone who wishes to see them, Mr. Speaker, but I think they show what the people want. We are here to give the people, as far as possible, those things that they need.
I should like to close by saying that dependency is, perhaps, one of the strongest bonds of society. All men are made dependent upon one another for protection and security. We, in this house, have a solemn responsibility resting squarely on our shoulders, no matter where we may sit. This responsibility is to look after our elderly people who need assistance.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be
11076	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Immigration-French immigration to Canada; the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe), Family Allowances-request for increased payments.


Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the house agree, with unanimous consent, to adjourn for the dinner hour and to resume its sitting at seven o'clock?


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of lhe Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I think that perhaps the house should not adjourn in order to expedite its business.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to make as a follow-up to the eloquent pleas made earlier in this debate by the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and others. One reason I enjoyed listening so much to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who spoke earlier this afternoon, was that he tried to reconstruct the basis of past parliamentary discussions relative to old age security and the question of means testing.
I think it is well that the younger members in this chamber-and I think particularly of the younger members opposite-acquaint themselves with that period of time 14 or 15 years ago when the subject matter of old age security and means testing was being debated at length in parliament. It seems to me that at that time members came to the conclusion a system of old age pensions that was based on means testing was simply not satisfactory for the older people of this country. As a result of the measure that is now before us, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing at least a partial return to that kind of situation.
I realize, of course, that to be fair one ought to differentiate between various kinds of testing for the purpose of social allowance or for

DEBATES	December 13. 1966
the purpose of paying pensions. That is certainly so, Mr. Speaker. But surely, a lot of the acrimony that welled up to the surface in this debate could have been avoided had members agreed to some kind of definition of terms. In my estimation, the kind of test that is involved in this measure before us is not to be construed as a means test in the sense the term was used years ago. It is not a means test in that sense; but it is nevertheless a testing of means so far as current income is concerned. All these digressions and all this bitterness could have been avoided if that had been conceded by members on both sides of the house.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I think the minister could have helped matters had he been prepared to present statistical data and charts showing estimates of the number of old age pensioners expected to receive the additional income under this proposal, the number receiving the pension if the old age security pension had simply been increased on a universal basis, and the differences in administration costs between a pension paid on a means test basis and one not so paid. I submit that the increase in administration cost will be a direct consequence of additional administrative chores in the testing which is part and parcel of the measure before us.
I agree, and I say this with all the emphasis I can muster, that it is unfortunate that we are increasing the administrative machinery and costs to take care of a problem that is not major, the additional old age security payment which might be made to those having more than a basic current income. The minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) argues that by increasing old age security universally it will be paid to the people in the category of senators, members of parliament, and others. This argument will not be given credence in the country, particularly by those people in pensionable age groups.
If the government is so concerned about senators, why did it raise senators salaries to $15,000? Why did it not not leave their salaries at $14,640, because the extra $360 pension then would have brought their income to the present $15,000 level. This sort of argument is spurious. The government made a case by saying that a number of people getting this pension will not need it. Is that a good enough reason to embark on a course resulting in highly increased administrative expenditures? I do not wish to dwell at length on this point
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
as it has been covered by previous speakers, not the least of whom were the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I think younger members ought to pay close attention to what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he elaborated at length on the deliberations 15 years ago which led to abolishing the means test.
Before it escapes me, I want to make a further comment about whether the test here is a means test. In the traditional sense, it may not be a means test. The difference is in degree, and not in kind. It is the same kind of means test we had before but it is somewhat less in degree. No amount of speech making by members opposite or by the minister can erase that fact, and it is a fact in my estimation.
I feel that the government's measure will be welcomed by people in different parts of the country working in occupations that do not bring the highest incomes. Those people need the higher pension. I have in mind marginal, agricultural areas, areas where people have been earning low wages, and so on. Such people have not accumulated assets to give them an income which would disqualify them from the benefits of this measure. Despite that, once this legislation is implemented, the administration of it will bring, many borderline cases to the fore. What I dislike about the measure is that it is, by the minister's own admission, an interim one. It is an ad hoc measure for an ad hoc purpose. After 1975 it will not have application. That raises one of my major objections to the measure.
At the present time there are many people aged 56 who, in the later years of their productive life, find themselves working for a low income. By 1975 those people will be of a pensionable age. They will find that since during the nine years between now and 1975, they will have paid at the lowest scale of the Canada Pension Plan premium range, when they retire in 1975 they will not receive $105, but $75 plus a Canada Pension Plan amount at the lower levels of the scale. It is reasonable to assume that inflation will continue to a greater or lesser degree, and that the cost of living will be higher then than now. These people will be up against it. This measure will have no earthly application to them because the effect of it ceases in 1975.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made what I and many members admit was a cogent and closely reasoned argument for increasing basic old age security to $100 or $105 a month.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The whole concept upon which the Canada Pension Plan was based was inspired by the hope that it would provide, together with benefits from old age security payments, a total pay packet amounting to between 60 per cent and 65 per cent of past earnings. This cannot now be the case, since the basic old age security payments is to be left at $75 per month. I believe the minister indicted both himself and the government when he told the house that this measure was to be effective only until 1975. I say this because such a decision leaves a considerable social problem to be dealt with after that date.
I have no objection to the concept of a guaranteed minimum income program as such. This is an idea which has received increasing publicity during the past 18 months or so. Such an approach would enable a government to do away with the present multiplicity of welfare programs and bring them neatly together in one all-encompassing social welfare scheme. But I do not think such a solution should be applied to the needs of older people today.
The idea of making a guaranteed income available has many virtues when applied to the overall economic problems of this country, those which have to do with poverty and its causes. But I would not like to see such an approach substituted for an outright increase in old age pensions to $105.
I do not feel there is any point in reiterating the basic and important arguments which have been advanced by hon. members on this side of the house. But surely, we have reached economic levels in this country, levels of productivity and of gross national income, which enable us to afford to provide old age pensions at a level sufficient, along with Canada Pension Plan payments, to allow a minimum income on retirement amounting to between 60 and 65 per cent of earnings during a working life based on a $5,000 standard?
The government may or may not be justified in arguing so strenuously in support of this particular measure. My own opinion is that it is not justified in doing so. However, if hon. gentlemen opposite refuse to accept proposals or amendments offered by the opposition there is, of course, one way in which
11078	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment this question will finally be settled, and that is by public opinion itself.
I feel that the people of this country, regardless of age, would agree that it is time we were prepared to approve an old age pension in the order of $100 or $105 a month which, taken with benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, would constitute a package large enough to allow our elderly people to live in real comfort at the standard we would wish them to enjoy.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It
is becoming more and more apparent as time passes and the debate proceeds that the government has made a fundamental and terrible error in its approach to matters affecting the welfare of the senior citizens of Canada.
With due deference to the minister, who was not then the minister concerned, I would remind the house of what happened at the time the Canada Pension Plan was under consideration. At that time, a simple amendment was moved asking that the Canada Pension Plan be wiped out and that old age security payments be increased. It is now becoming obvious that this is what should have been done. I intend to show, if I may, that all the developments since that time have resulted in a welfare jungle as far as the old people of Canada are concerned.
As was pointed out, the Canada Pension Plan will fill a need for some people at some time in the future. The government agreed that this was true, but promised that something else would be done for the old people to fill the gaps which existed in the arrangements. So they brought in the Canada Assistance Plan to fill some of the holes left by the Canada Pension Plan. This was supposed to be all-embracing in its benefits to the old people. The Canada Assistance Plan has been enacted. It has not proved very successful. Even if it had, a tremendous number of gaps would still be left.
What happened? The government now brings down amendments to the Old Age Security Act in order to plug a few more holes. The intention is to help those people who got nothing out of the Canada Pension Plan, who were not assisted by the Canada Assistance Plan and who got little out of the old age security legislation. So, an attempt is made to give them additional income by means of old age security payments after a means test. It is unlikely that this latest effort will prove effective. For one thing, it will only be in force for a limited time. Then again,

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
many people who are on the borderline, as it were, are bound to be excluded. They will not be eligible for benefits.
An effort has been made to block the holes, but the sieve is still there. There are still many people who are not covered by the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan or these old age security provisions. If the government could turn the clock back and adopt the proposal to make a simple increase in old age security payments, I am sure it would do so. But now there is no way out for hon. gentlemen opposite except to continue to add to this patchwork, hoping that in time everybody will derive some benefit where the need exists.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I say this is a wrong approach. It is embarrassing to the people who have to make the applications. It is not the approach originally taken with respect to the universal old age pension.
I would just like to mention a few of the things which come to the attention of a member of parliament in this welfare jungle which we now have, and I am extremely sorry that we are going to have another set of qualifications with respect to pensions. There will be another set of forms, and another set of criteria. But right now, when a member of parliament gets an application for a pension from one of his constituents, he needs a check list to try to figure out what assistance his constituent can receive.
Someone will write and say, "I am in difficulty; I need a pension". Then, his member has to write and ask, "How old are you? If you are 69 or over, you should be getting old age security". If the person writes back and says he is under that age, then the member may reply, "If you are over 65 maybe you are entitled to some assistance under the old age assistance plan or the Canada Assistance Plan".
Failing that, the member asks, "Are you a single woman, or a widow over 60? At least in Ontario you may be entitled to the widows' allowance". But if that is not the case, then the member will ask, "Are you a mother with children, whose husband cannot work or who has left you? If that is the case, you may be entitled to mothers' allowance. If your husband has left you, have you tried to locate him?"
But that may not be the situation. The applicant may ask, "What about the Canada Pension Plan?" At present the government is
December 13, 1966

advertising that on January 1, 1967, the Canada Pension Plan is going to pay off and the people are going to get it. They are going to "get it" all right, Mr. Speaker, when people discover the smallness of the amount of that pension after only one year's contribution to the plan.
Then if the applicant says, "I have never been earning myself, I will not come under the Canada Pension Plan", the member may write back, "Perhaps you are eligible for the supplementary allowance under the bill we are now considering in the house". But if all this fails, then the member may ask, "Are you a veteran? What is your age and where did you serve?" Then, there is the question of the blind and the disabled, and here the requirement of a medical certificate arises.
The member may ask, "Were you injured in an accident? Are you out of work because of some accident? If so, perhaps you should be getting workmen's compensation. If you lost your job, perhaps you should have applied for unemployment insurance".
This is a rough list of the questions a member has to ask. This is a jungle, and now the government has added three more swamps to the jungle in which unwary people can get caught. The unfortunate part is that as this welfare jungle increases, more guides are needed to help people through it, because the people who have to traverse it are the ones who are least able to do things for themselves.
Each time we create a hazard to welfare assistance, the government has to employ a lot of officials to guide people and sort out what kind of government assistance is applicable to them. Then, an establishment is needed for the guides to work through, and all this increases the cost of administration of pensions and general welfare legislation.
We have been told how many people will need to be employed to administer the Canada Pension Plan. I have no doubt many more will have to be employed to examine the returns which people will be required to make to secure this increase in old age security. Each time a hazard of this kind is created, or a test is developed, it requires the employment of more and more people to assist the elderly and the disabled to find out what sort of assistance they can get.
Very soon people will not be able to travel through this welfare jungle without a specialist to help them along, and it is not unreasonable to say that a good many members of parliament have turned into specialized welfare officers. I feel that way myself. I have no 23033-701
Old Age Security Act Amendment objection to it, but my goodness if I, and many other hon. members, do not have a large check list and a number of years' experience in figuring out what sort of assistance an individual should get, I do not know where the individual would get that help. He cannot get it from provincial welfare offices. They do as much as they can, but welfare legislation is part federal and part provincial. It has reached the point where very few people in Canada know what sort of assistance the average person who is in trouble can get. This is why I feel the government set off on the wrong course when it started the Canada Pension Plan.
At the time the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, the then minister was most insistent that the plan go through as originally drafted. I know she fully believed in the Canada Pension Plan as a step toward a better life for older people. But in my opinion, a fundamental error was made at that time, as a result of which administrative costs are going to become greater than originally envisaged. In addition, the plan will cost more in heartaches resulting from the filling out of forms. I believe the government should have started in another direction.
I am not going to vote against this bill. How can I, Mr. Speaker? The steps have been taken.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is too good.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister says it is too good. I say it is not good enough, but it is one more step in the effort to include all the needy and all the aged under government legislation. What is the next step going to be? I do not know. This is the third step. We have had the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Assistance Plan. Now, we have amendments to the Old Age Security Act.
We did not need any of these steps. We could have done the whole thing by adjustments to old age security. But, as I say, I am going to support this measure because we have gone so far there is no other way to get out than by trying to plug the holes here and there.
The minister has called this bill a measure that will take its place with the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Assistance Plan, within the old age security package in this country. That is a very nice set of words, but wouldn't it be easier if we had only one piece of legislation to amend, the one which has been on the books since 1951, instead of a package which keeps falling apart? As the
11080	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment paper and the strings become worn, the package keeps falling apart.
It is not a neat package. It is a jungle. In my opinion, we would have been much better off if, in the beginning, amendments to the Old Age Security Act had increased the amount of old age security. The administration of that act is reasonably easy and had we left it that way I fully believe we would not have had to take these three additional steps to set up protection for our senior citizens.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
As I said, I am going to vote for this measure. Perhaps if the government keeps bringing in bills we will eventually plug all the holes and adopt one standard form for people to fill out. Such a form could be sent down to the national revenue headquarters and run-through a computer. The form would show whether an individual was or was not a war veteran and the amount of his income and so forth. The computer would then give an answer as to whether or not he was entitled to an increase in old age security or other assistance. Perhaps that is the position we will reach in the end. In any event, let me add to the confusion by saying that I intend to vote for this bill because I have no other choice.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my comments-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me begin my remarks in closing this debate on second reading by thanking hon. members who have participated for the benefit of their opinions on the bill now before us.
As I stated during the resolution stage and later durmg the introduction of this bill, this measure introduces the concept of a guaranteed income for recipients of old age security. The purpose of the measure is to guarantee an annual income of $1,260 to single recipients and $2,520 for married recipients. In addition to that, the measure will provide partial supplementary payments to single individuals in the income range of less than $1,620 and to married recipients in receipt of incomes in the range of less than $3,240.
The annual estimated cost of this measure, at least for 1967, is $270 million. All of this money will be spent in supporting the incomes of s ngle old age pensioners who receive less than $1,620 per year and married old age

DEBATES	December 13. 1966
pensioners with a combined income of less than $3,240 per year.
Hon. members have argued strongly in favour of their advocated concept of what is described as universality. They have agreed with the decision of the committee, and later of the house, in 1951 to establish a universal old age pension plan. Whatever the merit of that plan, and there was definite merit at that particular time, it is still a fact that the proposal I am making has one advantage not enjoyed by the plan adopted at that time. All of the money that will be allocated through this measure for old age assistance will be given to individuals with low and modest incomes. No one has argued against that point, because it embodies one of the chief principles of the guaranteed income approach. I suggest hon. members ought to consider the measure adopted in 1951 as one that should not necessarily stand for all time. At least, they should be prepared and willing to examine alternative approaches as time goes on, to determine whether or not there is a better way of redistributing income in favour of those pensioners on low and modest incomes.
Let me suggest that this measure does exactly that, redistributes income in favour of those on low and modest incomes. That is the principal argument in favour of the measure I am advancing to this house. While it is true that universal old age pensions are paid to everyone who has reached a certain age, it is also true that a certain portion of that income is lost in the sense that it does not reach those with low and modest incomes. The only reason I mention this to members of the house at this stage is to illustrate the fact that there are many classes of individuals in this country who would benefit from an across the board increase, but this would not be of help to those on low and modest incomes. This measure does represent a 40 per cent increase in old age security, and this is the first time the House of Commons has been asked to approve a 40 per cent increase amounting to $30 per month in benefits.
This measure is superior to the proposal to increase old age security by $25 across the board because it does have this redistribution effect. It gives an additional $30 a month to at least half a million old age pensioners, in contrast with the $25 monthly increase. It also redistributes at least $36 million to that group who, under the proposal advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), would be denied this amount ot money.
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
This proposal is transitional in nature. It applies to recipients of old age security who were born in 1910 or earlier. It applies to this identifiable group because it is felt that the intention of parliament in passing the Canada Pension Plan was to rely on that measure as the principal retirement program for the great majority of Canadian people.
We were asked by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to take further steps help those individuals who, because of age, could not benefit fully or only in part, from the Canada Pension Plan. That is why this measure is transitional. I was pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Churchill) seemed, at least in this respect, to approve of this measure.
A good deal of the discussion during the debate on second reading has related to the income test proposed by this bill. It can be argued in this house as to whether this is an income test or, in effect, the old means test. Ultimately the decision as to whether or not this is a test which will respect the dignity of old age pensioners is a matter which will be determined by the old age pensioners themselves.
[DOT] (6 :50 p.m.)
We are not working in a world of theory when we are talking about the means test. When I stated that anyone who equated the means test with the income test proposed in this bill was taking a very mistaken attitude, I had in mind the means test that is currently administered in the provinces of Canada under existing categorical programs. That is the means test as it is known by the people of Canada and by the beneficiaries of the categorical programs.
The income test proposed in this bill is a far cry from the means test that is now employed under the categorical programs and which may be replaced, and will likely be replaced by the needs test by the provinces as the Canada Assistance Plan comes into effect. The income test contained in the guaranteed income supplement program is a test which takes into account the income of the applicant to determine whether he shall receive the maximum supplement of $30 a month or some part thereof.
I want to illustrate again the difference between the means test and this income test by noting the different effect that certain types of income have on the determining of eligibility under the income test and the means test approach. I begin by saying that a sale, for example, of real property has no effect on the 23033-701S
Old Age Security Act Amendment eligibility for a supplement under the income test approach, since the proceeds are not part of income. However, such a sale could have a very adverse effect on the person receiving old age assistance, since the personal property would suddenly be increased and when liquidated over a five-year period might yield an income in excess of the ceiling.
Second, gifts or donations received by a recipient of this supplement have no effect on income under the income test, but certainly these gifts or donations may be treated as income for allowances under the means test. Insurance benefits, workmen's compensation awards, war disability pensions, private disability insurance payments, some annuities and retirement pensions, and the non-taxable portion of annuities would all be ignored in applying the income test, but taken into account in applying the means test.
For example, a recipient, of the guaranteed income supplement who lives alone in a house assessed at $5,000 would have no rental income to declare under the income test, but under the means test he would be regarded as having $250 in imputed income from rents. Personal property yielding no revenue has no effect on a man's eligibility for the maximum guaranteed income supplement, but under the means test, for example, a person receiving old age assistance cannot receive the full amount if his personal assets are worth more than $2,800 if single, or $4,100 if married and both are recipients. Suppose a man has assets of $6,000 yielding 4 per cent interest. Under the guaranteed income supplement program his income would be $240; but, for example, under the administration of old age assistance his income would be $1,000.
I cite these illustrations, Mr. Speaker, to underline the fact that there is a very great difference between the income test we propose in this measure and the means test as it has been known in the past in Canada and as it is now administered by the provinces.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister would permit a question. Could the minister advise the house whether he actually believes that old age pensioners receiving provincial supplements will be any further ahead under this legislation? It is perhaps a pretty difficult question for the minister to answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to deal with the question of provincial supplements later, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with it at a later stage in my remarks. I want to say simply
11082	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment that the success of this program will depend upon the acceptability of the test we are proposing and on the humane way in which the program is administered. We believe we can administer this program in a way that will respect the dignity of the old age pensioner.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made some comments with respect to the relationship between the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security pension. He referred to a recommendation of the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan to the effect that, "the level of combined benefits available under the Canada Pension Plan and old age security should represent a high proportion of the previous earnings of those people whose incomes do not permit other adequate provision for their retirement". This certainly was a recommendation of the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to recite the ceiling income of $5,000 to show that the combined pension of $900 of old age security and $1,200 Canada Pension Plan was less than 50 per cent of the $5,000 income received while working. He went on to say that this Canadian package will provide much less than 50 per cent. Yet, in choosing $5,000 on which to make his calculation he ignores one of the basic features of Canada's social security system; that is, it is weighted in favour of the low income groups-those, in the words of the recommendation of the joint committee, whose income does not permit other adequate provision for their retirement.
But for people whose average earnings have been $3,600, the combined pension does amount to 50 per cent of their past earnings. For those with lower earnings the percentage is even higher. If the pension of wives is included it should be noted that the percentage of past earnings received in old age security and Canada Pension Plan payments rises to 60 per cent for those at the income ceiling, that is, $3,000 on earnings of $5,000, with even higher percentages for people at lower earnings levels.
In leaving this point, I would refer to the fact that the international standard set by the International Labour Organization at its meeting in June of this year was 45 per cent of past earnings for a man and his wife, both of pensionable age. I would suggest that the actual operation of the Canada Pension Plan meets the recommendation of the joint committee in suggesting that the benefits
IMr. MacEachen.]
DEBATES	December 13, 1966
ought to be a high proportion in respect of those people whose incomes do not permit other adequate provision for their old age.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I want to refer to the attitude by representatives of the New Democratic Party in connection with this guaranteed income approach. I would refer especially to the attitude taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), who in two speeches vigorously denounced the program now before the house, a program which she applauded with great sincerity in June of last year. We had then been discussing the Canada Assistance Plan and one of the matters frequently discussed in the debate was the Senate report on aging. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) in at least three places in her speech referred approvingly to the report of the Senate committee on aging and suggested that the principles embodied in the report should be brought into the house by the government of Canada.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have based our proposals largely upon recommendations of the Senate committee on aging. Not only have we based our proposals on these recommendations but we have improved the Senate recommendations considerably and in two important respects. We have increased the combined income of married pensioners considerably above the amount recommended by the Senate committee, and we have put in a provision by which a partial supplement will be payable to recipients of old age security with income of $1,620 for a single person and $3,240 for married couples. The Senate committee had recommended a sharp dollar for dollar loss in income in excess of this amount. I am surprised that my hon. friend has not seen fit to endorse as strongly now this program which she asked us last June to bring into effect.
However, I wish to criticize the members of the New Democratic Party even more seriously for what I consider to be a very abrupt change in policy in regard to the guaranteed income approach from that taken last June by the leader and the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party. As found on page 7090 of Hansard the leader of the New Democratic Party said:
We in the New Democratic party feel that if the government were to establish $100 per month pensions at age 65 and set up a guaranteed annual income measure providing, let us say, $1,500 per year for single people and $3,000 per year for a married couple, people who had nothing but their pensions would still be entitled to some additional assistance under guaranteed annual income measure.
December 13, 1966

Those who have some private income in addition to their pensions, and this would be indicated when they filed their income tax returns, would not be entitled to any additional payment.
This is an endorsation of the principles contained in this measure. Of course the amounts are different but the principles are the same. Later the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party said:
We in our party, as our leader stated the other day are looking forward to the day when assistance to people who require it will be based on the concept of a guaranteed annual income or some form of income maintenance. If a person's income does not add up to the level which has been set then his income will be augmented up to that
That is a declaration of the principle which is established in the bill. Having in mind the program that we were developing I asked the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party a question. I said I was interested in knowing whether he supported the income test in principle. He said:
Obviously,...otherwise you cannot have an income maintenance program. I am sure the minister knows that as well as I do.
The hon. member said that in order to administer an income guaranteed program one has to find out what income a person has.
Later, at page 7210 of Hansard for July 5, 1966, the hon. member for York South (Mr! Lewis) said:
We require some general program providing a guaranteed annual income for a person or a family through the application of a negative income tax or some other method whereby, without the humiliation of a test and by a simple declaration of personal income, society makes up the difference between what a person or a family in fact has by way of income and that which, according to budgetary analyses, that person or his family requires to live on in their way, not in my way or in the way of the social welfare worker but in their way.
Old Age Security Act Amendment the measure does. Finally, we proceed by using a simple declaration of personal income, in the words of the hon. member for York South. These are the elements. You may disagree on the amount but the principles advocated earlier this summer and the principles established in this measure are precisely the same.
I would have had greater respect for members of the New Democratic Party if they had said to me: Yes, you are now implementing the principles we advocated last June and you are proceeding in precisely the same way but you are not giving enough. However, they have not taken that attitude. If they had done so they would have been honest. At least they would have been honest in terms of their approach last June and they would have advocated larger amounts. However, they have rejected totally the position they took in June. Now they are opposed to the concept of a guaranteed annual income and are strongly in support of a universal approach unrelated to the income of the recipient. They have abandoned the position taken in June in favour of the 1951 position taken in the house by all parties. This is true conservatism.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regards the report of the joint committee as binding forever on the conscience of the Canadian people. It is like the law of the Medes and the Persians. It cannot be changed. We do not take this view.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you changing it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not take the view that the principles embodied in a law should never be changed. We are now advocating a new approach.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister say "new"?
We have here a declaration by the leader and the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party which show them to be in agreement with the approach of the government, first of all, to the concept of a guaranteed annual income. We are making a start by applying the guaranteed annual income concept, as recommended by the Senate to a particular group in the population, namely, the recipients of old age security. This concept is the first element of the agreement. The second element is that income should be augmented up to a certain level. First you find out what a person's income is and then you bring the level of his income up to the specified amount. We are in agreement on that and this is what


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A new guaranteed income approach which was advocated last June by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the leader and deputy leader of the New Democratic Party and which now, in December, is being rejected by every spokesman in that party. I call this conservatism. We are in favour of at least trying a few new things to see whether we can not make better use of the limited resources that are available for social security programs in Canada. We believe that this new approach will make better use of the money, and will put it where it is most required, than would the approach taken by members on the other side of the house.
December 13, 1966
11084	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment [DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
We have been asked by one member after another, Why don't you give all the pensioners $25 or $30 more a month and recover from those who pay taxes in the form of income tax? That approach was advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in a rather surprising declaration of principle which I will not deal with tonight. It was also advocated by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) and by other hon. members who seem to believe that the proper way to proceed is to pay everybody and recover the money from those who pay taxes. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, this is an approach that ought to be and has been considered. It would certainly be simpler to pay a higher universal flat rate and recover much of the additional cost through income tax. That is the approach that has been put forward by quite a number of members and it is an approach that we have considered.
I want to point out, first of all, that recoveries under the existing old age security program are not as large as many people think. For example, it is estimated that under the present $75 old age security program the expenditures in 1967 will amount to $1,110 million. Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre care to estimate the recovery in taxes from that amount of money? Would he care seriously to suggest that this is an alternative to the program I am putting forward? We estimate that recoveries will be only $33 million and, as I say, the expenditure will be $1,110 million.
If the flat rate pension, for example, were increased in the manner advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, to $105 payable to all old age security recipients, the total cost in 1967 would be $1,552 million. What would be the net recovery from income tax, Mr. Speaker? Only $48 million. In other words, expenditure would be increased by $442 million while income tax recoveries would be increased by only an additional $15 million.
We know that the incidence of income tax is progressive but it does not, as appears from what I have said, provide sufficient recoveries to have any sufficient effect on decisions with respect to an increase in the flat rate benefit. In other words, some recoveries are made but in relation to the outlays they do not represent an alternative course of action that would appeal to the government or, I am sure, to the House of Commons.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In making this calculation
has he taken into account the effect on other people's incomes, that is, the incomes of storekeepers and merchandisers generally, that this extra flow of money would have?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course we have, Mr. Speaker, but I am dealing with this particular point which has been a major point in the debate. What I am saying is that the effect of the program that I am recommending is likely to be greater in its effect on income than is the alternative advocated.


Mr. Walker:: Would the minister accept a question? Would he advice me how many members of parliament and senators would be beneficiaries under the flat rate increase?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already put that on the record twice and I am afraid I would offend some of my hon. friends opposite if I put the numbers on again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. minister permit one other question on his figures? Do they include recoveries from sales tax and corporation tax or only from income tax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am dealing with the proposal which was made in the house so frequently in connection with income tax recoveries. I have asked that an estimate be made of the net difference in expenditure between the guaranteed income proposal set out in this bill and the proposal for $100 a month payable to all old age security pensioners. I am told that the net difference, taking into account tax recoveries, would be of the order of $97 million in 1967 and $176 million in 1970. In other words, Mr. Speaker-and this is a very important point-even when account is taken of income tax recoveries under the two proposals which have been made, while the guaranteed income program pays a higher maximum benefit it will still cost about $97 million less in 1967 and about $176 million less in 1970.


Mr.   Kindi@: May I ask the minister whether he has also taken into consideration the additional cost of administration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to come to that point in a moment. I think hon. members will at least want to consider whether the tax recoveries that have been suggested as an alternative are of the magnitude to make that alternative a realistic one.
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
I have been told during the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) that a whole army of bureaucrats would be required, that we would have to have a bureaucrats' building, that we would have thousands of snoopers. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said that there would be 10, 15 or 20 forms to fill in. No wonder the old age pensioners might get alarmed if they receive reports of the kind of uninformed and inaccurate comment made in this house by the hon. member for Broadview, who could have had no other thought in his mind than to create worries in the minds of the old age pensioners at the thought of having to fill in 10, 15 or 20 forms.
Of course we will require additional people to put this program into effect. We will not need a whole army, however. I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North that we would need a very small part of the army over which he presided when he was minister of national defence. We will not need-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the minister mean me?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was never minister of national defence to my knowledge.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: And I hope he never will be.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is hardly the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It shows how mixed up you are.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry, I was referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who I understand at one time was minister of national defence. He was the person who talked this afternoon about a whole army of bureaucrats and thousands of snoopers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In his day though we had an army. Will the minister not grant that?
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me tell my hon. friend from Halifax the size of the "whole army" that his colleague has in mind for the administration of the guaranteed income supplement. We estimate that the additional administrative costs which will be incurred by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue and the Comptroller of the Treasury in respect of the guaranteed income supplement
Old Age Security Act Amendment program will be $3.6 million, or 1.3 per cent of the $270 million to be paid out in benefits. Members on this side of the house and the government believe that this is a relatively small cost to be paid in the effort to provide an additional $5 a month to more than half a million of the most needy pensioners and to save about $100 million in pensioner payments. It has been suggested that the new program will involve great numbers of additional employees. We shall need more employees. We think that we shall need at the beginning, to get the program under way, some 675 casual workers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Let him go on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. He will have plenty of time in the committee stage to continue his retreat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand there is not unanimous consent?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks to make on clause 1 but if the minister would rather take the floor and finish what he was saying I would be willing to give him that opportunity. In particular I should like him to go into the comments he promised to make on the situation with respect to provincial supplements. He said earlier, I believe, that he would get to that. I realize that we are on clause 1 of the bill, but it is not the title. It is a clause providing for a number of new definitions. I point out in particular that it provides for what is to be known as a pension and what is to be known as a supplement. In other words, we have in this definition section the heart of this measure. There are to be two kinds of payment, the basic $75 and the supplement. That seems to make any comments in order.
If the minister would like to speak on the question of what will happen to people who now get the provincial supplement when they get this supplement, I shall be glad to yield the floor to him.
December 13, 1966
11086	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking subject to correction, I think clause 1 is the short title, is it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister gets into an embarrassing situation let me say that clause 1 is not the short title.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg your pardon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 1 seems-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. I have made a fool of myself.
I accept that.


An hon. Member:: That is normal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can only be magnanimous and accept the minister's remark.
I address myself to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does he wish to make his remarks now on the question he omitted covering when he closed the debate on second reading?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are now in committee and it will be possible for me on clause 9 to deal with the provincial supplements which I was urged to deal with earlier in reply to questions by the opposition. As hon. members know, the guillotine was applied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister does not wish to have the floor, perhaps I might retain it for a few minutes.
I have already said that this clause provides for a new section 2 in the Old Age Security Act. The clause sets out a number of definitions. One of the definitions tells us what a pension is to be and another tells us what a supplement is to be. I submit that in that distinction we have the very heart of this bill in that it provides for a $75 fiat rate pension to be paid to everyone who reaches pensionable age and it provides a supplement to some of these people if they meet conditions set out later in the bill.
It is interesting to see how concerned the Minister of National Health and Welfare is about the views of the members of the New Democratic Party and about some of the things we have been saying. He made a remark a few moments ago that the old age pensioners of Canada could not be but disturbed by reports reaching them of some of the things said in this house by members of this group. I have to tell him that his own speeches get much better publicity throughout this country than ours do and the clippings of those speeches which have been coming to me


by the dozen in the last two or three days suggest that the pensioners of Canada are disturbed by what he has said and are not disturbed by reports of what we have said. They are disturbed over the fundamental fact of this legislation, that from now on many old age pensioners will not get the full amount of the pension as of right.
I want to say right at the start of the clause by clause consideration of the bill that I object to the distinction set out in clause 1 between the pension and the supplement. As I say, this brings us to the whole point, that for one portion, the pension, no income test is required but for the supplement an income test is required.
The minister has tried to say, as have others on that side of the house during the course of the second reading debate, that we do not seem to understand the difference between a means test and a needs test or the difference between a means test and an income test. Let me assure the minister that we understand the differences among these three kinds of tests. We have stated-I made this clear myself-that we recognize that the income test under this legislation is much less severe than means tests as we have known them in the past or as they exist in other legislation at the present time. Our problem is not that we do not understand the differences among the various kinds of tests. The fact is that we do not like this income test. We do not like the test written into the act by Bill No. C-251 which robs the old age security pension of the universality it has had since January 1, 1952.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The minister tries to make a great deal of the fact that because we stand by the principles laid down in 1950 in the report of the joint committee on old age security, we are somehow venerating that document and giving it the respect paid to the laws of the Medes and Persians. He tried to tell us that his government was bringing in something new. I suppose this could become an argument in semantics, but as we see it the fundamental principle of the 1950 report, arrived at after many years of discussion in this house, was a good one. In the main it was a declaration that when people reach old age in this country there should not be any means or income test applied to their eligibility for pension. When the government now introduces a test with respect to part of that pension it is not coming in with something new; it is coming in with
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
something as old as the former old age pension legislation which was passed in 1926 and became law in 1927.
The test in this bill is infinitely less severe than was the test in the old age pension legislation of the middle '20's. But it is still a provision which says to older people: You do not get the full amount of this pension unless you report your income and when you report your income, if you have more than is provided for in the legislation either your pension will be cut back or the increase will be cut out altogether. We think this is fundamentally wrong. We think that far from it being a progressive step it is retrograde and we do not believe the Canadian people will approve of it. If this bill goes through, as apparently it will since the government shows no sign of changing its attitude toward it, I can promise the minister as surely as I can assert I am standing here that it will be the occasion for a major fight in the next two or three federal elections in this country until we get rid of this test on the extra amount. We are glad that a new figure of $105 a month is being established. That is why we voted for the resolution and why we accept this bill. But the issue in the field of social security for the next few years and for the next election or two will be a return to a no means test pension for the aged.
The minister speaking tonight, and other speakers from that side of the house in the last few days, made much of the business of not giving a pension to those who do not need it. The minister was not so concerned about the senators tonight as he was last week but he is still trying to make the point that there is virtue somehow in not giving the pension increase to those who are wealthy. In hiding behind the fact that the wealthy do not need this increase the minister adopts an attitude which cuts off from benefit scores of thousands who are just over the line. The minister can boast about the lack of severity of the test he proposes. What he does not realize is that it will create differences between old age pensioners which will be very hard for them to understand and which will detract from the sense of dignity and sense of pride which have gone with being a pensioner in this country for the last 15 or 16 years.
I regret very much that the minister does not appear to appreciate this point. I do not know what kind of mail he is getting. I know that the mail I have been getting in the last week or so expresses amazement, concern and horror on the part of the older people of this country at this change.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The minister seems terribly concerned about the way in which the New Democratic party approaches the question of a guaranteed annual income. He quoted statements made by some of my hon. friends. I felt a little hurt that he did not quote one of mine; the fact is that he could not find one which would fit into the category he had in mind. But even when he quotes from members of this party who have dealt with this subject he admits that their support of the principle of a guaranteed annual income was always expressed in relation to a stated level of income.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The only member who mentioned any amount was the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. None of the others I named mentioned any amount.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only the other day my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway quoted a figure of $138 a month as affording a more realistic annual income for old people than $105. I submit that in talking about a guaranteed annual income one cannot divorce the principle from the level which is contemplated, and $105 a month is just not the kind of level which can be characterized as amounting to a guaranteed annual income. When we in this party talk about the desirability of a guaranteed annual income-this has been said by others in several comers of the house in the last few days-we are thinking mainly of people in their working years. We believe the whole question of social welfare benefits could well be approached on the basis of making a guaranteed annual income available. We think that the problems arising in the paying of unemployment insurance benefits might well be examined in terms of this concept. But when people reach old age it is a different story. We think that when this point has been reached the level of income granted to these people should be an amount available to all who reach that age.
The minister also commented a few minutes ago on the question of income tax recoveries. I accept his figures, though even he will admit, I am sure, that they are estimates and do not necessarily include the whole picture-sales taxes, corporation taxes, taxes paid by others, and so on. I ask him to consider this point as far as this business of payments being made to millionaires is concerned. One does not consider the taxes paid by a wealthy person only in terms of the extra tax he pays when he receives an old age pension. When a wealthy person gets an old age pension of $75 he does not pay additional
11088	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment income tax in an amount equal to $75; there is no tax bracket in this country in which one pays 100 per cent. But let me make it clear-when I was on the committee in 1950 we worked this out-that wealthy person is usually a person who has been wealthy for a long time. During his lifetime a wealthy person pays in income tax, sales tax, corporation taxes and the like, both before and after he goes on pension, an amount which is definitely greater than the total amount of his pension even if he lives to be 100.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
So I suggest that the figures the minister has used with regard to recoveries do not answer the case of the individual wealthy person. The fact of the matter is that the individual wealthy person does not gain in the long run from getting the $75 or from getting an increase such as is being proposed tonight. All the minister is doing, by hiding behind the argument that he must not pay the increase to these wealthy people, is denying it to the people who have $65, $75 or $100 a month. These are the people who are really going to be hit by this scheme.
People who have $50 a month will get something, people who have $59 a month will get something, even if it is only 50 cents, but from $60 up they will get nothing, and there will be scores of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands, in the range from $60 a month up to $200 a month who will not get any benefit from this increase.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member had a choice, if he had an additional $100 million, would he distribute it across the board or would he attempt to raise the income limit as specified in this measure? Which road would he take, because I think this defines the problem?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no hesitation in answering that question. I think the principle of universality in the long run is best for everybody, and if I were confronted with a Minister of Finance of the kind that the present minister is confronted with and he said to me "you have that much money" that is what I would do; I would remove the means test altogether and make it universal.
I would do other things as well. I would raise the $3,000 ceiling on income tax which is paid into social security and make other tax

DEBATES	December 13. 1966
changes to satisfy people that we were really getting it back from the wealthy. But the minister, by the speech he made earlier and by the question he has asked right in the midst of what I was saying, shows he is unaware of the fact that the defence he is putting up for not paying it to the wealthy is a device that hits people who have $60 a month, $75 a month or $100 a month.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the hon. member not aware that his proposal has the same effect that it hits people on the lowest incomes?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My proposal, which is that we set a figure at $105 and give it to everyone, would give the increase to those who have nothing else. It would give the increase to those with $50 a month or $60 a month, to those with $75 or $100 a month, and it is those people who are in great need. As a matter of fact, the government must know very well that there are people like retired civil servants-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the hon. member aware that the moment he takes the attitude that he subscribes to a universal across-the-board increase he is definitely hitting hardest against those in the lowest income bracket? No matter how many millions of dollars he has, he is always giving less to those on low incomes than is given by the approach put forward in this measure. That is the real problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose I could answer that using the line of reasoning that the minister used a while ago. He justified the Canada Pension Plan-old age pension package on the grounds that in percentage terms it meant more for those in the lower income brackets than for those with higher incomes. I give him the same argument now. When you give $30 to a person who has nothing else but $75, you are giving him a greater percentage increase than when you give $30 to a person who now has $150 a month.
I submit that the minister is still not facing up to the plight of this group. I do not know how many of them there are. Certainly there could be 100,000 and possibly 200,000 or 300,000 but the government is doing nothing by this program for those who have other income of $75 or $100 a month. The minister seems unaware of the fact that this problem exists.
I know that the half million people who have nothing else and who will get the full $30 cannot but welcome this program. I also know that the very wealthy will not care
December 13, 19G6	COMMONS
because they would be paying most of it back anyway, but the minister is separating this in between group and saying that these people cannot get supplementary income, and in this respect I say that the government is being most unfair.
I have spent longer than I intended on this point. There will be plenty of opportunity to come back to it during discussion of the clauses that follow. When we reach those clauses which deal with the income test, and particularly that clause which deals with the kind of declaration that applicants will have to make, I hope that the minister will give us a pretty firm indication what these forms are going to be like and what kind of questions these people will have to answer. We have not been given that kind of information in connection with some other measures that have gone through the house. In this case the minister is making much of the fact that all that is going to be required is a simple income declaration, but I will wager a good deal that when the form comes out in January, or whatever month people get it, it will defy the definition, simple income declaration. If it is going to meet the conditions laid out in the clauses in this bill, there is not going to be anything very simple about it.
So, Mr. Chairman, as I said when I rose, my objection to clause 1 is that it creates the basic distinction now being established between a pension and a supplement. Gone are the days when old age security was one and the same for every person. I think this is a retrograde step and a mistake. I welcome the fact that the new figure for the old age pension is being set at $105 a month, but I maintain that the pension ought to be given to all who reach the eligible age, without any means or income test.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to reiterate our stand. The figure of $75 a month was the pension after the increase that was granted in 1963. Since that time there has been great inflation across the land. In the past year we have seen wages go up by as much as 30 per cent and 35 per cent. Food costs have gone up 10 per cent. Rents, depending on location, have gone up 10 per cent to 25 per cent. Nothing has been done to correct this situation. In other words, we are three years behind in correcting this problem. Had the minister introduced his guaranteed income plan after correcting the deficiency between the increased cost of living and the old age security pension, I could have agreed with 23033-7021
Old Age Security Act Amendment him. But the minister did not increase old age security during that period.
In our opinion the principle involved in this bill is a negation of what the house passed in 1951. In our opinion it is a step backwards. In view of all our social services and the advances that have been made over the years, when we treat our old people who built up this land in this way, then in all conscience we must say our treatment of them is retrograde.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I want to repeat the point that was made so well and so ably by parliament in 1951, namely, that thrift should be recognized. These people have worked all their lives and through thrift have been able to accumulate a little. They have paid income tax, municipal tax and sales tax, thereby contributing millions of dollars to the treasury of this country. By this measure we are now telling them that they cannot benefit as a result of their thrift or their contribution through taxes. These people through their efforts have made this country and have helped make it possible for us to attain a better standard of living than we could otherwise have accomplished.
In 1951 it was decided that the cost of administering the Old Age Security Act should be kept to a minimum. The minister now tells us that with this change administration costs will be in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000. I do not quarrel with that statement because I am sure the minister has gone into this aspect, but I do wonder what problems he will encounter when an additional
500,000	or 600,000 people will be receiving-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It will be 900,000, approximately.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister has added to my apprehension by increasing the figure. He will have difficulties in dealing with increases in payments. How does he propose to carry out administration in this regard? Many of these people will have to fill out additional forms. One of the projects of his department must be directed toward instructing these people in the proper method of making out applications. I should perhaps go a little further and state that it will cost a great deal more to administer this plan with its changes than it cost to administer old age security in 1952.
The third point I wish to make is that these people have a great deal of pride and will accept additional money on the basis of right but will develop a psychological resistance if it is offered on the basis of charity. It has
11090	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment been stressed in geriatric studies that people in advanced years, 70 and upward, need to be assured that they are wanted and not considered as paupers. For that reason parliament decided in 1951 to do away for all time with the means test.
Much of the money we will pay out will be recovered through income tax if they have sufficient income. However, if my statistics are correct only 3 per cent of the people in Canada over 70 years of age have an income of $5,000 or more per annum. If I am wrong I hope the minister will correct me. This would indicate a great need to increase pensions to the majority. The minister has suggested that we are going to save money by reducing administrative costs but that we will only recoup a small portion through taxation. This is an indication that there are few wealthy people in the elderly category.
The minister did not touch upon the fact that much of the increase will return in the form of taxes because the recipients will spend it on rents and other services performed. Surely the treasury will be enriched as a result of income and sales taxes paid by those people who are providing these services and accommodations for our elderly people.
A number of people in this country live on a marginal income in their own homes. They will not qualify for this increase but they actually have little more than they need. As they grow older they require more help. In some cases a husband and wife will find themselves in this situation and require someone to assist in doing the housework in order that they can remain in their home. Without the income to pay for such help they will have to move into nursing homes. When this happens the government will be faced with a cost of approximately $200 per month per person. I do not think a person can be maintained in a nursing home in Canada for less than that amount. That money comes from the taxpayers of Canada. The minister has not touched upon this feature of the bill.
When we are dealing with older people we must realize that some over 70 are in good physical condition and able to look after themselves, that others need a certain amount of care and assistance whereas others need a great deal of care and medical attention. We must concentrate in keeping the first two groups out of nursing homes as long as possible, because everyone maintained in a nursing
IMr. Rynard.]
DEBATES	December 13, 1966
home represents an added expense to the taxpayers. We must make an effort, by the provision of a little extra money, to assist these people in remaining in their own homes.
We on this side of the house are placed in a peculiar position because, while we oppose the philosophy of this legislation, we must support it in order to provide some assistance to a portion of our elderly population. I would be the last one to suggest that the minister is blackmailing us into adopting this attitude, but half a loaf is better than none at all.
As we proceed with our consideration of the bill I hope the minister will give consideration to our suggestions because I am sure when all is said and done he will find that by the adoption of this measure we will add to the expense of assisting our elderly people. In support of this argument one need only consider the number of people in our cities and towns who could, with a little assistance, remain during their latter years in their own homes.
We are disappointed with this measure in that it does not bring old age security up to the necessary level at which our elderly people can maintain themselves. Keeping in mind the increased cost of living which has occurred in these last few years.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, let me review for a few moments some of the administrative costs that we may reasonably expect as a result of the adoption of this bill. The minister has indicated that administrative costs will amount to approximately $1,500,000. We all know that is a minimum figure picked out of the air. It is not what will eventually happen with respect to the cost of administering the old age pension supplement program contained in the bill the minister has placed before us. Even if the figure of $1.5 million is correct, when one takes into account the number of old age pensioners involved this amounts to about $2 per pensioner. In other words, it will cost $2 per person to pay these people who will receive the additional $30 a month. If the minister has any objection to my figures I would like him to say so as I go along.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The figure I mentioned was $3.6 million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That makes it worse.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is about 1.3 per cent of the $270 million.
December 13, 196S	COMMONS


Mr. Kindt:: Thank you. The hon. member who just spoke mentioned $1.5 million. I have in my notes the figure of $3.6 million. I am glad the minister has made this correction; it straightens things out.
The number of people involved is estimated to be about 800,000, and if you divide $3.6 million by 800,000 you arrive at a figure of approximately $5 a head. In other words, it will cost about $5 per head or about 50 cents per person per month to administer this program which will pay $30 a month to 800,000 old age pensioners. In my opinion the minister is empire build ng in putting forward this program. Added to the cost of administering the program must be the building costs and all the other matters involved in administering the legislation. I believe the costs of the program will eventually reach $10 million.
In my view, and I am sure this is the view of the old age pensioners, it would be far better if these costs were paid out in the form of an addition to the old age pension. But this is not the principle being followed in this program. The costs of administration will be high. The minister says that the present estimate is $3.6 million. These costs will have risen to $10 m llion before the minister is finished with the program. I ask hon. members to divide my estimate of a cost of $10 million by the 800,000 people who will be receiving the supplement, and they will find what the cost is per individual. It will amount to close to $1 per month to pay the $30 supplement.
It might pay the minister to make this calculation before we proceed any further with the bill. Then he will have some idea of what it will cost per individual to administer this plan. Let us not forget that these costs must be related to the $30 a month that will be paid out per individual. The minister has at the back of his mind the idea of excluding from this program those who are millionaires. He is doing a tremendous injustice to those people who are in need. It would be far better to make the payment universal, take the $225 million, or whatever the figure is, and divide it among the 1,200,000 old age pensioners. In this way all would receive the same old age payment.
I shall be glad to deal further with the question of administrative costs. The minister has not said anyth ng about building costs or how many people will be employed to administer the program. In my estimation he will employ about 500 people, or the number might be as high as 1,000. What will be the average salary of these people? It will be
Old Age Security Act Amendment perhaps $8,000. Having looked at the estimates of the minister's department, I think this is a reasonable figure. If you multiply $8,000 by the 750 people who will probably be involved you arrive at the figure of $6 million. We are being hoodwinked on the question of administrative costs. We are being told one thing in order that the minister can sell this program to the people, but it will cost far more to administer than the figure the minister has mentioned.
If the minister does not think I am right, let him sharpen his pencil and begin figuring out these costs, because I am certain the figure the minister has given us is far, far too low. Let him tell us how many people he thinks will be employed to administer the program. How many people will it take to check 1,200,000 applications? What about the costs involved in housing these people? We have not heard anything about these matters. The minister is trying to sell us a bill of goods without giving us the facts. He has made an estimate of $3.6 million. I wonder how far he will get with $3.6 million in administering the plan and checking on the income of 1,200,000 people. He will not get to first base, and he knows it.
I say to the Minister of Transport, who is now laughing, that he should figure out these costs before the government continues with the program. They want to build a bureaucracy and hire Liberals to fill the positions. They do not care one fig about how big the bureaucracy gets and how many people are put behind desks to administer a program that is absolutely unnecessary. All that is needed is a simple amendment to the existing Old Age Security Act. The staff now administering that act could also administer this plan and distribute the money. It would be a simple question of arithmetic. No additional staff would be needed, or virtually none. The people employed in the department at the present time could administer an increase of $30 per month, or whatever the amount will be, to our old age pensioners.
However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Transport do not think this way. They think in terms of building a bureaucracy, to which the people of this country are violently opposed. The people of Canada look at the number of civil servants on the payroll and consider that the cost involved is already far too high. But here we are asked to pass a bill to add 750 or 1,000 people to the government payroll. Why do it? It is absolutely unnecessary, and the cost of
11092	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment distributing the additional $30 per month will eat heavily into the taxpayers' dollars.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of clause 1 of this bill I hope the minister will be agreeable to dealing with the question I brought to his attention when he was speaking earlier in the debate on second reading. My question referred to the supplementary payments made by provincial authorities to people now receiving the old age security pension. We have heard two very long speeches by the minister in the house. He has appeared on the national television service to explain the rudiments of the plan to the people of Canada.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
However, there are one or two things which I think the minister should be able to explain while we are on clause 1 of the bill. He appears to have unlimited statistics in front of him which seem to be more available to him than to us. First of all I ask the minister whether he agrees with the figure which has been mentioned on several occasions, namely, that there are some half a million recipients of old age security in Canada who at the present time have no other income than the $75 payment. I do not recall whether the minister himself mentioned this figure. I should like to have some indication from him whether this figure is accepted by the officials of his department.
We have heard the minister praising this legislation as opposed to an over-all across-the-board increase in old age security payments. In doing so the minister has continually stressed the fact that under this legislation more needy people will benefit than would be the case with an overall increase. I wonder whether the minister can actually say that he really believes this is the case, because I do not think anyone has as yet brought out how many of the half a million people receive some form of supplementary payment from the provinces. I realize that a great many of them do not receive any supplementary payment but I believe that some do. Unless the minister can show otherwise, I believe he is misrepresenting the facts. He may be right in saying that these people will qualify for the extra $30 a month, but will they actually be any better off? Can the minister assure the house that these people will be better off when this legislation is passed? We have no such assurance despite the fact that the minister has said that supplementary payments by the provinces will not be considered in computing the income of old age pensioners.

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
He also said that ownership of a house, money in the bank or gifts from relatives will not be taken into account in arriving at the income of recipients of old age pensions. He has not dwelt at all on the question of whether supplementary payments by the provinces will be continued. I know it might be very difficult for the minister to give us this assurance unless he has already been in touch with the provinces on this matter. He may say that he cannot speak for the provinces, but I feel that before we pass clause 1 of the bill the minister should give us the benefit of any information he may have on this matter at the present time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in his remarks a little while ago the minister was on the defensive in trying to explain away quite a number of facts. It will take him the rest of his political life as Minister of National Health and Welfare to explain away what he is doing under the present bill. His pretence that the forward step which was taken in 1951 should not be binding like the laws of the Medes and Persians, as he put it, but that the new idea which he has proposed should be adopted as a sign of progress will not convince anyone in this country. To pluck out of the air what was the mode and fashion in the 1920's and 1930's and then tell us in 1966 that this is a new and a fresh approach which should replace the advance made in 1951 is arrant nonsense. As we have said, it is a retrogade step and I am surprised that the minister pretends that it is a change for the better.
I would like the minister to give us a little more information with regard to the cost of the administration of this program. He has given us an estimated figure of $3.6 million, which of course will be doubled by the time this plan is put into operation. Account must be taken of the fact that several hundred new people will have to be employed at an average salary of $5,000 a year to carry out some of the work connected with the plan. According to Parkins's law the minister's estimate will certainly rise.
Then he told us about the amount of money which will come back to the treasury from the taxes of old age pensioners who happen to be in receipt of more than the stipulated minimum income. The minister has attempted to create the impression that money paid out for old age pensions is an added weight on the economy of this country. I wish he would give us the figures showing how much of the money that goes into old age pensions comes
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
back to the treasury. A number of investigations have been carried out demonstrating that virtually all the money received by the old age pensioners is immediately spent on rent, food, clothing, drugs and other necessities. It does not go into speculative investments; it cannot be salted away in savings accounts. How much of it comes back from other people such as landlords and merchants? It must be a very large figure indeed because the minister mentioned that the cost of old age pensions would reach $2 billion by 1970. The fact is that the $2 billion will be spent and not hoarded and, being spent, it will provide income for other people in the country who in turn will pay back a large proportion of it by way of income tax.
Let us be realistic and not pretend that this is just an added weight foisted upon the working population of this country. The minister used this argument when he said that the present scheme will cost $260 million to $280 million but that if our proposal were adopted the amount would go up by another $100 million or $200 million and in this way an increasing mountain of debt would be imposed on the working population of this country. He should modify these figures by showing how much of this sum will come back by way of income tax and by way of the other taxes which Canadians have to pay-and there are other taxes. I think this really alters the picture, and the minister is the one person who should put it in the right perspective. He is the man charged with the responsibility of administering a scheme on behalf of the old age pensioners of this country to provide for them in their old age. He should be the one to inform the people of Canada and the members of this house how large or how small the burden is in respect of taxation. Instead he takes the other point of view and tries to build up a big bogey and frighten us all to death.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The minister says that we cannot afford any more money for our old age pensioners, that we are trying to stretch our dollars in order that we can look after those who are in more serious need than others. This is not an attitude that should be adopted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare; that is the function of the Minister of Finance. He is the one who always has to preach blue ruin, doom and gloom. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should be doing everything in his power to make life more comfortable for the people who come under his care, and the
Old Age Security Act Amendment people who come under his care are those people who are in receipt of the old age pension.
The minister is not forward-looking at all. I pointed out the nature and attitude of the minister who held that office in 1951, a forward-looking minister who was very active in promoting the proposition which was unanimously adopted by the house and which favoured the old age pensioner, and rightly so. Here we have a reactionary minister who is not in the forefront of social reform by any means. This man is leading the retreat from Moscow. He has given up. He has ambitions, of course, but they are not being furthered by the attitude he is showing now with regard to this legislation.
This minister is saddling the Liberal party, though I should not warn them, of course, with a political problem that will not be very easily solved by them. All their talk about being the great party of social reform is being whittled away and undermined by the activity of the present minister of National Health and Welfare, in marked contrast to the activity of other Liberal ministers of health and welfare.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to give us a rosier picture of the cost of the old age security pension instead of this picture of doom and gloom which depicts every additional $10 per month paid to the old age pensioner as placing an extra burden on our shoulders. Let the Minister of Finance talk like that. That is what ministers of finance like to do; they are always preaching that kind of gospel and scaring the people.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare should be pressing on on behalf of the people for whom he bears such a responsibility. Instead he is taking this backward step and is now going to humiliate at least half a million of the older people of this country by the proposal that he has placed in this bill. This is what we are objecting to.
The minister is, of course, going to gloat a little later on because he is going to say that no one in this house really opposed the increase for the old age pensioners. Of course no one is going to oppose helping those who need help, even by means of the unsatisfactory method that the minister has adopted. It is really too bad when we vote on measures in this house that we cannot record the fact that we are voting for them not because we like the method that is being pursued but because we want to do something on behalf of those who require assistance.
11094	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
I guess it is hopeless to ask this minister to be forward-looking. He is a reactionary. It is hopeless warning him about the political dangers into which he is leading his party. Perhaps some of his colleagues will have to take him in hand.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, I have been following the debate for some time and I might not have participated in it had it not been for several things that have occurred in the past few weeks which force me to say a few words at this time. The minister is aware that during the last few weeks I approached him on one occasion or another and suggested that perhaps the direction his department was following or wished the country to follow was not exactly the way that those who were in the gravest need thought would be most beneficial to them. The minister is aware that under his guidance those who are in need will be taken care of under the Canada Assistance Plan, and several suggestions were made in the house in this connection.
I know the minister will pay particular attention to my remarks because he wrote to me in regard to a question which I raised. Perhaps the Speaker did not realize the seriousness of the question at the time, but I am sure the minister did because undoubtedly people were writing to him directing his attention to the position of those who really need assistance.
I rise tonight because I am afraid that the same situation is going to develop in the case of the old age pensioners as developed in the case of needy widows and disabled persons. The minister has indicated in the past and has also assured us in this debate that he will look after these people and make sure they have a certain amount of money paid to them every month. But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite all his efforts to explain the difference between a needs and a means test he has not been able to satisfy me as to the difference. Nor has he been able to satisfy those who really need the extra payment, nor has he been able to satisfy the provincial ministers, nor has he been able to satisfy those who are in charge of administering the particular section of the act that applies to people in dire need of assistance.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: He has not even satisfied himself.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am given an assist from this side that the minister has not satisfied himself. I am sure he has not in his own mind. If he had had his way in cabinet, and I am sure he tried, the bill he is proposing today

DEBATES	December 13, 19G6
would not have been presented to the people of Canada in its present form.
Cases have come to my attention of children who have lost their fathers and their mothers have the responsibility of raising them. Having just lost the breadwinner these widows are left in the position where, because representatives of the provincial government who administer the act misinterpret it, they are told they must dispose of everything they own and that until they have disposed of everything they own they will be given nothing even though it may be just a few days before Christmas. I am sure the minister knows of such cases. I am convinced there are many thousands of similar cases not only in my province but in others. This cannot be shrugged off by saying it is due simply to a change in government and in attitude. The minister must accept his responsibilities. If he does not, is the act he is introducing in the interests of the Canadian people or is it not?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Yes, it is.


Stanley James Korchinski: home. Move into a slum area; do not get too big a home because we will not ass'st you it you do." The same sort of thing will be done under the old age assistance plan. Can I be assured that this will not be so? Can the minister assure me that there will be a different attitude in regard to old age assistance than is being displayed under the Canada Assistance Plan? The minister knows he cannot give that assurance.
The minister should tell the provincial premiers and the provincial welfare ministers that they are not following the directives. As this measure stands it will be admin'stered in a way that neither I nor any other legislator in this house wants it to be administered.
I am sure the Prime Minister does not want this country to drift in the wrong direction. I am sure we do not want people to have to come begg ng on their hands and knees. I am sure the Prime Minister does not want to have women and children standing in front of us crying. I do not want this.
I am not one who obstructs the business of the house, but I tell the minister that unless he has a very satisfactory explanation for what he is doing, unless he knows exactly what he wants, unless he can tell the premiers or the provincial ministers responsible for administering this measure that there is no means test or whatever it is called, the people in need will not receive satisfaction.
If I am quite emotional, Mr. Chairman, it is because I have seen sad cases which I wish I did not have to bring to the minister's attention. I am sure his intentions are good. If he went back to his colleagues in the cabinet I am sure that on reflection they would think twice about his statement on television. To suggest that because there are people getting $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 salaries there should be the sort of test he envisages is not worthy of the type of minister we have.
I am sure the minister has the interests of the people at heart. He must look into the situation closely before it goes completely out of hand, before we have a situation where the number of cases builds up so much that the only remedy will be to amend the legislation. When that time comes we shall amend it. I wish that the nr'n'ster would now amend the legislation in such a way that it would be more acceptable to us and to the country.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I did not say anything on second reading of the bill but I feel I ought to make three or four observations now on some points that concern me.

Old Age Security Act Amendment The first point has to do with the application forms that will have to be filled out by people who think they are entitled to the increase. I am concerned about the penalties involved if applications are not filled out properly. The hon. member for Simcoe East made a good point a few evenings ago which impressed me when he suggested that the people who will collect the additional increase in old age security are unique in this respect, that a great number of them have gone through two major wars, a major depression and an era when wages were low. They have had to educate families at high cost. These people were never in a position to put anything by for their old age. There are hundreds of thousands of such people in Canada. I can visualize some people who fall into this category. The vast majority of people who will be affected by this measure are in this category.
The hon. member for Simcoe East mentioned that many of our old people do not have too much education. Will the old people be able to understand the application forms they have to fill out? Will the people helping them fill out the forms say, if you do not say anything about this or about that you can get the increase? This sort of thing can happen and it has happened in other cases, not with respect to old age pensions but with respect to welfare. I have seen it happen and I have been involved in cases where it has happened. People applying for welfare have made application and have omitted stating certain facts. I know one woman who is now indebted to the government to the extent of $1,700 through no fault of hers. To my dismay I found she could not read. I found that she had not made out her own application and she did not know what had gone on. Her husband is partially paralysed and unwittingly she has been placed in a position where she has hardly enough to live on. I can visualize the same thing happening where people without education apply for old age assistance.
A good deal has been said about the cost of administration. I will not get into that field because I do not know what the administrative costs will be. I feel I must, however, support those who suggest that the cost of administering this plan will be exorbitantly high. I cannot see how it can be otherwise with all the applications to be considered.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What concerns me mainly is the fact that we are moving away from a very good principle which was established 15 years ago and about which much has been said in the house,
11096	COMMONS DEBATES	December 13, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment namely, that older people are entitled to draw a pension as a matter of right, not just because they may need one. These people have earned every penny of the pensions they have been granted. We must not forget that wages have gone up and the cost of living has increased. This being so, old age assistance should be increased in accordance with the increase in the cost of living. It may be that such an increase would not be proportionate to the increase in wage rates, but there is a principle involved and pensioners are entitled to have their pensions increased in the same way as workers are entitled to an increase in wages.
Members of this party feel that they are obliged to support this bill. We cannot do otherwise. We cannot place ourselves in the position of voting against a measure from which many people will benefit. But though we support the bill I do not want anyone to get the idea that we approve of its principle. I certainly do not.
I am sometimes amused when I hear the desk thumping on the other side of the house, particularly when some backbencher gets up to acquiesce in whatever action the minister intends to take. I wonder whether those members are getting the same kind of letters that we are receiving or whether they are meeting the same kind of people we are meeting. Someone sitting near me says that they are hiding their heads in the sand. I wonder whether they are speaking for their constituents or trying to win a little favour from those sitting on the front benches. I believe the latter is the case.
As I say, we will support the bill even though we do not approve of the principle. As has been said before, half a loaf is better than no bread at all and it is on this basis that I intend to support the measure before us.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause carry?


Robert Simpson: Would the minister deal with some of the questions which were asked?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Churchill asked me to tell him the number of persons who are expected to receive the full benefit of this legislation. We believe that at least half a million old age pensioners will be eligible for the full $30 per month. We assume that an additional 300,000 or more will be eligible for partial supplements. So there will be a total of some 900,000 receiving either full or partial supplements.
The number of those receiving old age security supplements from the provinces is

estimated to be 60,000 and the average benefit paid to them by way of provincial supplement amounts to $22. So this group will be better off on the average than under the provincial supplement programs. In the province of British Columbia I believe the maximum supplement is $30 a month. Hon. members will notice that we do not regard a provincial supplement as income so the federal supplement will be payable to all pensioners who qualify. They will not be denied by virtue of any provincial supplement. It is a matter for the provinces then to determine whether they will continue their supplementation. We stand ready under the Canada Assistance Plan to contribute 50 per cent of supplementation by a province in excess of $105 up to the level determined by the province. Thus our plan is neutral with respect to what happens in a province. It is still open to a province to continue its supplementation if it wishes in excess of $105 a month and we shall share the cost in provinces which decide to pay more under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Pugh:: Has the minister had any conversations on this question with the provincial authorities? He has mentioned British Columbia. Has the minister had any conversations which would lead him to believe that provincial governments might make a cut in present assistance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had an exchange of correspondence with the premier of British Columbia in which I explained as carefully as I could the effect of our legislation as I saw it on any provincial supplementation, and the possibilities which were open to any province. I have had conversations with provincial authorities in Prince Edward Island which pays a straight $25 a month across the board. I have attempted to explain the situation. I am not in a position to request a province to take any particular course with respect to its supplementation policy. I have attempted in this bill to keep our legislation neutral in that respect and to give the provinces a free hand in deciding their course of action.


Robert Simpson: Does the minister feel that if a particular province discontinues its supplementary payments to recipients of old age pensions the purpose for which this bill was introduced will have been achieved when they receive the additional $30 from the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member will see in another clause of the bill that we do not intend to regard any provincial supplement as
December 13, 1966

income. So provincial recipients of a supplement will not be denied the federal supplement because they are receiving assistance from a province. That is our attitude. If a province decides to say, This person is now getting $105 so we will not pay a supplement at all, that is something I cannot control. Neither I nor this parliament can dictate to a province what it should do in this field. However, if a supplementation allowance is paid by a province in excess of $75, we pay 50 per cent and the province pays 50 per cent. Our $30 would occupy that field and the province, if it wishes, could seek sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan for a supplementation over and above $105, but that is a matter for the province.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister's words are a little unfortunate. There is a suggestion that the province might well cut down on the extra supplementation it is now giving, but I think it goes a little further than this because it is not a money supplement alone which is most helpful. In British Columbia anyone who gets a supplement of even $5 a month also gets with it medicare, drugs, and other services. This is why I asked the minister whether he had been in conversation with the provincial ministers of health to find out if there is anything in contemplation by them, as a result of the increased payment by the federal government, which would in the end cut down on the provincial supplement which carries certain other benefits with it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Any supplementation undertaken by a province beyond the $105, with the health services or health benefits of the Canada Assistance Plan, would continue to be available. I have explained that I have had an exchange of correspondence with all of the provincial ministers. At least, I have sent them letters, and I have had extra correspondence with B.C. and P.E.I. explaining what I conceive to be the effect of our plan. There is nothing in our proposal which obliges a province to cut back its supplement. It is a matter for the province to decide. I cannot decide it.


Mr.   Kindi@: As matters now stand very few of the less well-to-do old age pensioners pay income tax. Many do not fill out a form. Of course they are liable if they have any income, but if they get the old age pension, which now amounts to $900 a year, and they are given a $1,000 exemption they do not feel it is necessary to fill out an income tax form.
Old Age Security Act Amendment But when you increase that by $360, bringing it up to $1,260, they are going to have to fill out an income tax form and pay income tax on the $260 in excess of $1,000.
Old age pensioners look upon something of that sort as complete nonsense. Now they will be required to fill out an income tax form. Some of them will have to hire an accountant and pay him far more than the cost of the income tax to fill out a form for them. Many people when they reach 75 or 80 years do not wish to be bothered with that sort of thing, but now the minister is forcing them to figure out their income tax and provide him with a statement each year in order to get this $360. The old age pension is now taxable. Am I not right on that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we are not
amending the Income Tax Act, so whatever I say is to be regarded as the opinion of a relative amateur in this field. The old age pension is taxable and has always been taxable. As I understand it, recipients of old age security aged 70 or older have an exemption of $1,500, plus $100 for charity. Potentially they have an exemption of $1,600.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: At age 65.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, 70.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I understand it, the old age security pensioner, aged 70 and over, has an additional exemption of $500. I also understand that recipients of old age security less than 70 years of age have the normal exemption applied to every other taxpayer of $1,000 plus $100. If my analysis is correct-I notice that the hon. member for Carleton may not agree with me-then the situation with respect to pensioners 70 and over will not be affected by raising the income level with respect to taxability. But certainly those aged less than 70 would be affected. They would pay income tax because they have been raised into a higher income level. The whole question of exemptions which the hon. member raises is really a matter for the Income Tax Act, and the Minister of Finance will be dealing with it, I hope later in the session.


Robert Simpson: The minister has repeatedly pointed out that in calculating income under this bill no consideration will be taken of supplementary payments made by the provinces. In answer to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary he said he could not speak for the provinces, and this we understand. But I would like to ask him, is it the hope of the government that the provinces
11098	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment will continue their supplementary payments so that people who qualify for something up to $30 a month under this bill will actually be receiving something additional under the plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can appreciate the purpose of the question. It is to seek the support or hope of the government that provinces will continue supplementation. Again I must repeat that if we had taken the view that provincial supplementation was regarded as income under this bill, then the persons involved would not be eligible for the federal supplementation. But we did not take that view, so they will qualify for this benefit. They will not be in any sense reduced in benefit because of the provincial supplement, so that pensioners with no other income will get the extra $30, making the pension $105 a month.
The hon. member asks, will the provinces now say, they have received what we have been giving and so we will cut back our supplementation? All I can say in reply to that-and I would hope this would be the case in areas where the extra assistance is necessary'

is that the provinces should take advantage of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan in order to provide required supplementation above the $105, for which the federal government would pay 50 per cent.


Robert Simpson: I have one more question. Now that we have this statement from the minister I would like to get to a point which specifically comes under the federal government. Before we reach clause 9 I should like to ask a question regarding the determination of income. Will the minister confer with his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in order to obtain some assurance that treaty Indians now receiving old age security and, because of the high cost of living in most areas, supplementary assistance in the form of cash payments or rations, will not be denied the additional $30 per month under this bill?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Surely we should have an answer to that question because it is of importance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to speak to the minister in this regard.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question in relation to the administration of the supplementary benefit to old age

DEBATES	December 13, 195$
security. Many people have raised this question during this debate and outside the house. Has the minister or any official of his department arrived at an estimate of the cost to the treasury which will be incurred by the administration of the application of this supplement to old age security compared with a straight across-the-board increase as suggested by the opposition? Will this amount to $10 per individual or $20? Has any estimate been made in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The estimated cost of administering this program during the first year is $3,600,000.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up too much time on this point but it seems to me the minister is negligent in not having consulted with the provincial ministers of health regarding the supplementary payment. Let me give an example of what I have in mind. Federal supplementary benefits will amount to $30 or a portion thereof per month. The supplementary payment will be held back after the first of the year until the application has been approved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The applicants will not receive the supplementary payments until the end of March.


David Vaughan Pugh: Perhaps they will not receive them until the end of March, but in the meantime they will have received additional provincial payments over a period of three to six months. When they begin to receive the federal supplement it is possible the provincial government will demand the repayment of the additional $160 to $180 provincial supplement. This will create a terrible situation. It is difficult enough to live these days because of the high cost of living, but if they are asked in addition to return provincial supplements they will surely be in difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Nickel Belt gave an example of an individual who had filled out a form improperly and had to repay a certain amount of money. This illustrates the importance of this situation. Is any change to be made in respect of the benefits the people are now receiving from the province because of the proposed federal supplement of $30 which will not be received until the end of March? The minister was in conversation with someone else when I mentioned this point, and in order to make it clear to him let me repeat it briefly.
Federal payments will apparently be made to those who are eligible on the basis of income tax returns but they will not be filed
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
until the end of April. In the meantime many eligible pensioners will have received additional payments from provincial governments. It is conceivable that these people will be asked to return these additional moneys to the provincial governments upon receipt of the federal supplement. This way amount to only $120, but if income tax returns are filed late it could amount to $360. We should make sure that no one will be adversely affected as a result of the possibility of this situation occurring.
It is my suggestion that the minister will be derelict in his duty if he does not find out from the provincial authorities whether they intend to make any change in respect of additional assistance as a result of the increase in federal old age security payments. Can the minister give us some assurance in this regard?


An hon. Member:: He cannot give that assurance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Certainly I cannot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we should pursue the question of provincial supplements a bit further. It would be appreciated if the minister was a little less hypothetical in respect of his hopes and got down to specific cases. Six months have now passed since we put the Canada Assistance Plan into effect. The minister has informed us that if provinces wish to pay supplements over and above the federal plan of $105 per month the federal government will share in those supplements under the Canada Assistance Plan. Apart from the situation in Prince Edward Island, and we all know the genesis of that case, can the minister tell us whether any province has requested the federal government to share in a supplement to the old age security pension under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the present time we are sharing in supplementary payments under the Unemployment Assistance Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what I asked.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We can share in this regard through the Canada Assistance Plan back to April, even though agreements have not been signed by the provinces. In respect of this particular plan I will have to obtain further information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact the minister is not aware of any sharing, it appears that no province has moved into this field yet
Old Age Security Act Amendment by asking the federal government to share in the payment of supplements to old age security pensions under the Canada Assistance Plan. If that is the case, are we not just beating the air now? Is it not clear that chances are slim for those individuals now receiving provincial supplements to continue to draw those supplements as well as the federal government supplement of $30 a month?
Earlier the minister spoke about the average as being $22 per month compared with a possible $30 a month. He said the average individual would be better off if he lost the provincial supplement and received the full federal supplement. That reminds me of the story told by Mr. Abbott when he was minister of finance about a man who was six feet tall but drowned in a lake with an average depth of only five feet.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, I ask my question for the purpose of clarification. Are we to understand from the various statements made by the minister this afternoon that when a provincial government pays a supplement to an old age security pensioner over and above the $105 per month there is no limit so far as the federal government is concerned and that provincial governments through the municipalities, or however it may be done, may supplement these old age security payments over and above the $105 a month? Is this true even though these supplementary payments may be increased in value by the inclusion of hospitalization and medicare provisions or the payment of premiums for these services by provincial governments? Is that what we are to understand?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, this is the case. The only caveat I enter is with regard to the expression "without limit". The limit would be the requirements of the pensioner. But if, on the basis of needs or budget requirements, the province determined that $140 was necessary in a particular case, we would share in the cost. We have put no ceiling on our sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan. That is why we thought it would go better than other programs which have income ceilings. This is the situation, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few questions and give him some advice, if I may, regarding provincial supplements. I come from Alberta where the provincial government in cases of need pays a supplement up to the amount that those on old age security receive. If their need is great
December 13, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment enough, they are also supplied with a medical card under which practically all their medical requirements are met. I know the minister will say that we have the medicare plan. However, that plan will not come into effect for another 18 months. If those people who now receive the supplement from the provincial government of Alberta receive $30 a month more under this plan, they will lose most of the provincial supplement and also their medical cards.
This has happened so often in the past. I have had a great deal to do with all kinds of relief and pensions in the province of Alberta and have found this is always the case. When income increases a little, the medical card is withdrawn and they lose their supplement. I am wondering what the minister is going to do about those people who lose their medical cards. The supplement will be lost for sure, and in practically all cases the medical card will be taken away from them.
I suggest to the minister that until the medicare plan comes into effect and reaches the stage where it means something to the people who require help, he will have to supply a medical card to the people receiving old age security. An alternative program must be provided for these people until the medicare plan covers their requirements for hospitalization, medicines, doctors' bills and all the other things connected with medical treatment. I shall be glad if the minister will answer this question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, because it is a card provided by the provincial government and not by the federal government-


Frank John William Fane: I know that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -there is no way in
which, through this legislation, we could replace a card that had been taken away. All I can say is that under the Canada Assistance Plan we share in the full range of medical expenses of pensioners who receive supplementation under that plan. If the province of Alberta proceeded in this way we could participate in providing the whole range of health services to persons eligible for benefit under the Canada Assistance Plan. I think this is a way that may open the door to overcome what my hon. friend sees as a problem.


Frank John William Fane: Such as those people who will lose the medical cards that they now possess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not fully aware of the circumstances under which the province provides these medical cards. I would want to know a good deal more about it before I could be definite. All I am saying is that persons receiving supplementation under the Canada Assistance Plan are eligible for the whole range of health services shareable by the federal government.


Frank John William Fane: With no part of the cost coming out of their $105 a month?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If they are supplemented beyond the $105 under the Canada Assistance Plan, yes.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. We all know that that the medicare plan will not come into effect until July 1, 1968. What happens in the meantime? Before the minister answers that question, I point out that today many old people are being hospitalized and will have to buy drugs. This situation will also prevail after January 1, 1967. Many people will be supplied with glasses under the provincial plan. These things are additives to the supplement paid by the province of British Columbia.
This comes back to the question I asked earlier. What happens to these people if the province says, we are sorry but with the additional $30 your income has now exceeded the limit under which these things are provided. Therefore the expensive operation you had, the drugs you require, the glasses with which you have been provided, have to be paid for by you. We find that you owe us $1,242.53.
I am picking that figure out of the air, but it could be the case. In answer to the hon. member for Vegreville the minister said he did not know about this card business and what the province of Alberta would do. It is the minister's duty, and a very strong one, to know what the province will do before we pass this legislation. He should know the effects of the legislation on the provincial governments. He should know how they are going to treat the legislation. Surely he could obtain assurance from each and every provincial authority that until the plan gets into full swing no one will be penalized because of payments already made to people by the provinces. The minister says he has no control over the provinces. Is the minister so far removed from the rest of Canada and the provincial governments that he does not know how they will react to this program?
December 13. 1966	COMMONS
This is a very important point. It is a question the minister should look into first thing tomorrow morning. He should have the department find out what the provincial governments say will be the effect on their plans of the additional $30 a month or less down to $1. He should ascertain how this program will affect the recipients of supplementary benefits in the provinces. I suggest that the minister start working on the problem tomorrow morning, and he should be able to give an answer to the committee before the end of the week. There is no reason at all why we should not have an answer to this question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to point out that the situation with respect to these pensioners would not be in any way different under the proposals advanced by my hon. friends in the opposition than under the proposals I am advancing. I do not share the interpretation put forward by my hon. friend with respect to what constitutes my duty as the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My duty is not to determine for the provinces what they will do with respect to the operation of this plan.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I am surprised that my hon. friend would suggest that I should know what the province of Alberta or any other province will do. All I did was to make sure that the individual recipient, with respect to action which I recommended to this parliament, would not lose any benefit recommended under this bill because of a supplement received from a provincial government. It is absolutely clear that no benefit will be lost as a result of this bill because of a benefit which is received from a province. If a province decides to take another course of action as a result of what is done in this parliament, then surely that is something that the provincial legislature must decide, and it is going rather far to expect me to be able to make a definitive statement on that. What I have done is to ensure that benefits available under this bill will not be prejudiced because of benefits payable by a province. I think this is quite important.


Mr. Chatierion:: I think that this is a rather irresponsible position to take because the payments that are being made available now are shared by the federal government. If the payments we make do not prejudice the payments obtained from the provincial governments through existing programs, then 1 am not concerned. Surely in view of the fact that the federal government is paying half the
Old Age Security Act Amendment benefits now being received by these people through federal legislation the minister should be concerned about the position that the provincial governments may take as a result of this legislation. This is part of the government's responsibility.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow this up by once again saying to the minister that although he may not be responsible for any action that the provinces may take, the federal government is not only responsible for any action taken by a department of that government, namely, the Indian affairs department, but it is duty bound to make sure in no uncertain terms that the supplementary payments now being received by our Indian people who are in receipt of old age assistance are not reduced to any extent. The minister has said on several occasions that he cannot say what the provinces will do. However, he has also said, both in the house and on television, that these supplementary payments will not be taken into consideration in determining the pensioner's income. This is quite correct but it has appeared to many people to mean that the government believes that these payments will be continued.
We cannot blame the minister for this interpretation but this might be the understanding which a lot of people might have of his statement. The minister has said on many occasions how much benefit this legislation will bring to the older people but the true facts of the matter are that a person who is receiving $75 a month and through necessity is receiving an extra amount of up to $30 a month from the province, or from the Indian affairs branch, will not be better off if the province discontinues this supplement or if the federal government omits to make it quite clear that the supplementary payments which are being made now to the Indian people will continue together with the extra $30 a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that he is concerned that no individual in any province suffer any loss of benefit as a result of this legislation. I know that the overriding concern is that there should be an increase in the benefits but the minister is facing the fact that there could be a loss of benefit and he does not want this to happen. May I point out to him-I am repeating what has already been said but 1 am trying to clarify it-that although in some cases the pensioner may get from the government an extra $30 and lose $30 from the province and as a result seem to be no worse off, the loss of medical benefits can be a serious factor.
11102	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The minister said that this is not his responsibility, but at least he should be acquainted with the laws in the various provinces at the present time. The decision by a province to cut these people off will not be done through the whim of some premier but will happen because the legislation in the province so prescribes. If this is the case in some provinces people will get their medical cards only if they are on some kind of supplementation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is not the case.


Frank John William Fane: Did the minister say this was not the case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not necessarily the case. We can share in the health services even if there is no financial supplementation under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for leading up to the point I am making because it seemed to me from what he said earlier that the government could share in the medical costs only of those pensioners who receive supplementary payments. I gather that he has gone a step further and now says that this can be done for medical costs only. If this is so I am very pleased to hear it. May I ask him whether the regulations under the Canada Assistance Plan are completed and whether there are any agreements between Ottawa and the provinces with respect to that plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, the regulations have not yet been submitted to the Governor in Council. I have indicated my hope that I will be able to submit them very shortly and I hope it will be possible to sign agreements with the provinces as soon as they have been submitted. Consultation with all ten provinces and the development of regulations which will apply to this big new program have been a very big operation. Obviously a good deal of time has elapsed but it has been taken up with this very important work and I do not think that any time has been lost by the officials in getting ahead with the regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not deny that this is a big task and I am prepared to give the officials the time they need to do it, but I think the minister has been quite unfair with the house and the country in the way in which he has thrown the Canada Assistance Plan at us as the answer to all these problems. For all practical purposes it has not had any effect. To say that the Canada Assistance Plan solves the

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
problems is not to play fair with us inasmuch as he has had to admit that the regulations have not yet been submitted for approval to the Governor in Council and agreements with the provinces have yet to be signed. Six months have passed since our approval of the Canada Assistance Plan and another six months will pass before it becomes an effective operation; yet these changes are to' come into effect on January 1.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the revelations made by the minister are all the more shocking when one considers not only the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but also the fact that we have spent weeks in dealing with medicare so that it may be put into operation by July 1, 1968. The minister has not done his homework in putting into action something that was given so much fanfare and heraldry by the minister and his minions earlier this year.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I want to make a point to reinforce what my colleague said about the difficulties that beneficiaries under provincial plans will have. The provinces are in this field because of the vacuum that has been left by this government, of which the minister is part, over the years. Anybody would concede that if ever an issue was determined in the election of November 1965, it was that the old age pensioners were not getting a proper break. That was the loudest voice which spoke out on that day.
I can understand why the provinces, tired of the dilatoriness of the federal government, have had to move into this field. At least their politicians hear the voice of the people and are aware of their needs. I am surprised that the minister should dodge behind a kind of anti-co-operative federalism-I thought he was a proponent of the other kind-in the answers he gave earlier tonight. He has told us of correspondence with the government of Prince Edward Island, and I think with two other provinces, with regard to the measure we are now considering. Did these provinces ask that the means test be obliterated? I imagine they did. What was the request of those provinces and what was the minister's answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a comment about the concern of hon. members for the provinces and their supplementation programs. I think we ought to keep this problem in perspective. In Canada there are 1,200,000 pensioners. The provinces provide supplementation for 60,000
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
of that number. Certainly the province of Nova Scotia is not a province that in any way would be affected because it does not provide any supplementation for old age security recipients.
The fact is that generally speaking provinces have not moved into this field because of the relatively small number of pensioners receiving supplementation-60,000 out of 1,200,000. This is, of course, an important group and we have framed the legislation in such a way that our benefits will still be available even though recipients are receiving provincial supplementation.
In reply to the question of the hon. member, the province of Prince Edward Island has not asked for removal of the income test and the province of British Columbia has not either. I think the latter province was concerned about the application of the legislation to their program of supplementation, but I would have to re-read the correspondence to determine whether there was an actual request for removal of the test. I do not think that generally there was.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I put one short question? I take it that the correspondence was initiated by the provincial governments concerned, not by the minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have initiated correspondence with all the ministers of health. I sent them copies of the bill, explained the program and indicated my readiness to explain it further. Questions have been asked especially by the province of British Columbia.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This was after the legislation had been introduced in this chamber?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I understand the reluctance of the minister to accept the situation with regard to supplementation by the provinces. Even though I may not sympathize with the point of view he expresses, there may at least have been some degree of consistency. But there is none, I venture to suggest, in respect of the important matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Churchill. I think the hon. member raised a very important point, because control in relation to supplemental payments is under the same authority represented by the minister. It is a question of one minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Old Age Security Act Amendment Development, versus another, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Either tonight or before this bill receives third reading the minister must give us the positive assurance that in relation to this particular matter the supplemental payments which may be made by the department of Indian affairs will not in any way be interfered with. There is a simple situation involved here. The minister needs only to look to his left hand, or indeed to his right hand I suppose, having regard to his position, to get a positive and definite assurance in this regard. Without that assurance I venture to suggest that we can have no confidence that the minister will, in his relations with the provinces, seek to ensure that supplemental payments are not affected.
Here is a matter that is under the control of this parliament, so let us make it clear and definite. The minister can settle the matter raised by the hon. member for Churchill, tonight, but he will certainly have to give this assurance before we proceed on third reading.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I did agree to speak to the minister about this question and I will give whatever information I can to the committee. The committee can then determine whether my information meets the situation.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two other matters I want to put before the minister. First of all, may I say how strongly I support what was said by the hon. member for Churchill, who was aided and abetted so ably by the hon. member for Carleton. I have an Indian reserve in my constituency and these particular Indians will be very much interested in what is going to happen to the supplemental pensions and other forms of relief provided.
I also want to tell the minister that in some of the cases where provincial governments make supplemental payments to the recipients of old age security there are bound to be double payments. I should like to ask the minister whether he contemplates allowing deductions to be made by the provinces for what they allege are overpayments.
In the past I know that this practice has been frowned upon but it has been allowed. I think the minister should assure the committee that these deductions will not be made from the increased payments authorized under this amending bill. This is something which I think is very important. If these people find that $30, $60 or $120 is going to be
11104	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment deducted from their increase in the old age security pension they will be very unhappy. Therefore I think the minister should assure us that this will not be the case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will do our best.


William Heward Grafftey: I do not intend to be very long, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to point out once again to the minister that the time has surely come for the Canadian government to consider what I call a true reform of our constitution, particularly after the remarks made by the premier of Quebec. In my opinion, there is no doubt that it is a joint responsibility under the British North America Act and we can rest assured that the field of old age pensions is certainly a responsibility that we share with the provinces.
I will only repeat what I said in the house a few days ago. I feel that the time has come for the federal government to undertake a real study of our Canadian constitution.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

I said at the outset that I would be brief and I intend to be brief. By pretending that difficulties do not exist in this regard the federal government is plunging its head into the sand.
This government came to power a few short years ago and time and time again in the province of Quebec and in other provinces it has had great difficulties because of unilaterally entering into fields that obviously were in the realm of conjoint jurisdiction. I say to the government that the premier of Quebec is being very reasonable. He is voicing a moderate opinion. If Mr. Lesage were premier he would voice the same point of view but perhaps not in such a moderate way. When the government unilaterally entered into fields of conjoint jurisdiction when the Liberals were in power in Quebec it found time and again that it was faced with profound difficulties. I say, let us not exacerbate the situation. I will not take a position at the present time. Some might say I am sitting on the fence.
I will not take the position of saying that the provinces ought to bring forth a better act in the field of old age pensions than the federal act. Surely the federal government and the minister know that by acting as they have in these circumstances they are exacerbating the problem of federal-provincial relations. Before the Minister of National Health and

DEBATES	December 13, 1966
Welfare or any other minister unilaterally acts in the future as this minister is acting, one basic thing will have to be got under way. I will not reiterate my idea that this measure ought to be a centennial priority. It is my hope that certain things will take place during centennial year to unite our country, that we may get on with the basic job we have to do. We should do those things before any minister of the Crown introduces further legislation that will have an effect, through unilateral action, on conjoint jurisdiction.
The basic job facing this government and this parliament is to get down to the task immediately of attempting to get a made in Canada constitution suited to modern times. Backbenchers on the government side have said to me time and time again that there is not enough unity in this country to start getting on with this job. I say there is enough unity to get on with the job of constitutional reform. Until we get constitutional reform ministers such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not be able to introduce the kind of legislation he has introduced lately without getting into unseemly and unnecessary difficulties. We need in this country a modern constitution suited to modern times, a made in Canada constitution that will make the minister's job easier.
I predict that there will be unnecessary difficulties and federal-provincial friction which could have been avoided had the government taken the initiative in calling an allparty committee to Ottawa to study the constitution and to enter into a dialogue with Quebec and the other provinces. Perhaps that dialogue ought to take place before the conference to study the constitution is convened.
Perhaps we shall find that the British North America Act is flexible enough to meet current needs or that we need only small amendments or that we need amendments to a greater extent. Perhaps we shall need a whole new constitution. We need to get down to the job. I am sure my hon. friend opposite from Quebec agrees with me. Until we get down to this basic task each minister of the crown who unilaterally plunges into a field such as we are concerned with here will meet with the difficulties the Minister of National Health and Welfare has encountered in any program he has undertaken.
Let us get on with the job, Mr. Chairman. Many government backbenchers have told me that they do not think the country is unified enough for us to get on with the basic job of reforming the constitution. Some say it is a
December 13, 1966	COMMONS
government responsibility and that an all-party committee should not deal with it. If that is so, I am willing to let the government shoulder the responsibility. Let it tell the premiers of Quebec and the other provinces and all the people of Canada what its idea is about reforming the constitution so that we may avoid the kinds of difficulties that we have seen the Minister of National Health and Welfare getting into in the legislation he has before the house today. Ten years ago he might have got away with it; 15 years ago he would have got away with it. Even five or six or seven years ago he might have got away with it. But today we are in 1966, and he will have difficulties in a month or a week from now with Premier Johnson or with other premiers. We shall have those difficulties until the government and this house get down to reforming our constitution basically to fit modern times.
Some people may think that I am going out on a limb, but I feel very strongly about this matter. I believe that these facts must be brought to the minister's attention now. I foresee many difficulties for him and for other ministers who attempt to bring down similar legislation unless we get down to the difficult job before us. I know this and hon. members opposite know it too.
I do not expect miracles overnight. We must get the premiers of the various provinces and people from different parts of the country around the conference table. It will be a difficult job to get agreement as to the dialogue needed to reform our constitution. Because it will be a difficult job is no reason for delaying any longer. Every day wasted will be another day's delay in getting on with the job of improving federal-provincial relations, unifying this country and strengthening national unity.
I agree with many of the humanitarian social welfare notions of the minister. I think he is well intentioned, but the Canadian people are worried. It is very good to have legislation on the statute books but more and more people are becoming concerned about how to make that legislation work. I repeat for the fourth or fifth time that legislation such as this will not work until we get down to brass tacks and bring our constitution up to date. Every other minister who brings similar legislation before this house stands so warned.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Mackasey:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In view of the difficulty, which he has acknowledged, in arriving at agreement on amending the constitution, does
Old Age Security Act Amendment he maintain that we should postpone this legislation until such time as agreement can be reached? Is that what he is suggesting?


William Heward Grafftey: For two years now I have been pleading with this government to get a dialogue going in this country in preparation for the reform of our constitution. The difficulty which the minister will encounter in making this legislation applicable not only to Quebec but to other provinces across the country arises because the government has hastily embarked on these measures before devoting its attention to the basic reform of the constitution which is required.
I heard the hon. member make certain declarations both inside and outside the house the other day. I agree with many of his humanitarian aims. But if they do not work once they are embodied in legislation their practical value is questionable however praiseworthy they may be. I think it is high time we put on the brakes and found out where this country is going before legislation of this kind is placed before the House of Commons in future.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Am I to understand that the hon. member is proposing that we postpone this legislation and deny this $30 a month to a million old age pensioners until the constitutional problem has been settled?


William Heward Grafftey: I think the hon. member is putting a question which confuses short-term political expediency with the long-term issue of national unity facing this country.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You have not answered my question.


William Heward Grafftey: I do not propose to answer a political and leading question from a backbencher.


George Louis Chatterton: It appears that the regulations governing the Canada Assistance Plan have not yet been promulgated. I am satisfied that the Canada Assistance Plan has a bearing upon the government's present proposals. Would the minister consider it reasonable or possible for any province to enter into an agreement with the federal government with regard to the Canada Assistance Plan before the regulations have been promulgated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. That would not be an orderly way in which to proceed.


George Louis Chatterton: In that case may I ask the
minister to advise many of the members on
11106	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment his side of the house, specifically the hon. member for Peterborough, who have blamed the provincial governments for not entering into agreements with the federal government, that the provinces are not in fact to blame and that it is the government which should take responsibility for the delay in reaching these agreements?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is true we have not promulgated the regulations. Officials of my department have had to travel to the ten provinces and consult with officials there with respect to them. But I hope to get them before the cabinet and secure the agreements soon. It is still possible for provinces to seek sharing arrangements retroactive to April. I am not making any complaint about the provinces with respect to the regulations and the agreements, because it has been a big job.


Frank John William Fane: Would the minister answer the question I asked concerning the collection of overpayments? Can he assure me that provincial governments will not be able to make collections from the amounts pensioners will get by way of this extra money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to deal with that question when we come to a later clause which deals with this aspect of the bill.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a qustion to the minister.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) pointed out tonight, of course, that there may be friction between the provinces concerning jurisdiction over old age security. I believe the provinces have the right, under section 94a, to exercise their option and claim full jurisdiction over old age security, if they wish to do so.
Could the minister tell us, should any province wish to claim such jurisdiction under the constitution, whether he would be prepared to recommend that the federal government pay the fiscal compensation to that province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Our approach is that we have the constitutional authority to operate in this field both with respect to the Old Age Security Act and the current amendments. There is nothing in our bill which would prevent a province from setting up its own program of old age security. No consideration has been given to the question of financial compensation.

DEBATES	December 13, 1966


Mr. Baldwin:: Would the minister not agree that the problem here is precisely the same as that which engaged the attention of this committee some time ago and the committee in which we were considering the Pension Act? I asked a similar question of his predecessor and referred to a statement made before the committee in 1964 by a legal adviser to the department who suggested there might be difficulty if a pension scheme in one of the provinces were comparable to the pension scheme of the federal government. In such a situation it might be necessary to refer to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question of comparability, because there is a constitutional point involved. This is the same principle.
I submit this is a serious matter. It was considered by the committee and there was doubt in the minds of the legal advisers of the government of that time a doubt which must attach to this particular piece of legislation. If a province did enact legislation of a type similar to the legislation here, it might well be argued that the operation of the federal legislation affected the operation of the provincial scheme. This was seriously considered in 1964.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the complexity of this constitutional question but at this point I can only repeat that the federal government is satisfied that it is proceeding with propriety, that it has no doubt about the propriety of the Old Age Security Act or the amendments which are proposed in this amending bill. I am afraid I would be transgressing upon the rules if I attempted to meet either the hypothetical question put forward, or to give a legal opinion, which is really what the hon. member is inviting me to do.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Webb:: Has the department planned any action for the protection of the aged when they get this increase? I refer in particular to landlords who are renting homes to the aged and also to people operating homes for the aged. In the past, immediately an increase was announced these people raised their rents or increased their charges with the result that the old people did not benefit. They only got $1 or $2 a month for cigarettes, tobacco, candy, and so on. On two occasions in the past I pointed out to the former minister that I
December 13, 1366	COMMONS
thought consideration should be given to single recipients of old age pensions when two or more are living in the same home. I think they should be entitled to at least $15 or $20 a month more than married couples because the recipient of a single pension has to pay the same rent, the same taxes, the same insurance and the same hydro and fuel bills.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we would certainly be concerned if any unfair advantage were taken of an old age security recipient because of any increase. This would really be a matter of concern to us and I will consider overnight, although I am doubtful, if there is any way we can help in this regard. In the bill we have established a standard for single persons which in its application we think is beneficial to the single person and to the married couple, but I think this could be better dealt with on a later clause.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, I do not think it should be incumbent upon members of the house to have to draw the Chairman's attention to the clock. We have done it now six times. There is a rule which should be followed and if members call it ten o'clock the rule should be enforced.


Maurice Rinfret: May I say to hon. members that I have not yet heard the words "ten o'clock".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said them in both languages.


Maurice Rinfret: May I request the hon. member, or any other hon. member to say it a little louder.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since everyone is in such good humour, could we not sit a little longer?


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I do not know if the committee has heard me. Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Is somebody going to ask
about tomorrow?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Michael Starr: What is the business for tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, that the government would wish to go on with the bill we are now considering in committee, which I hope will be finished fairly quickly so that we can get on with my bill as I have been waiting all week to bring it before the committee. But I should add one word of caution. It may be necessary for my hon. friend, the government house leader, who is otherwise occupied at the moment, to consult with certain hon. gentlemen opposite in case there has to be some rearrangement of the business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I put the following question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration;
Before the minister left for Paris, did he himself or his officials have any consultations with representatives of the Quebec government on the Canadian policy with regard to French immigration?
The seven minutes which I am allowed tonight will enable me to make a few comments and bring forward certain suggestions.
According to section 95 of the Canadian constitution, the central government and the provinces have a concurrent responsibility in the field of immigration, which means that two levels of government can legislate and make regulations. Section 95 also stipulates that the central government has precedence, since all provincial laws or regulations must follow directives from Ottawa in this field.
These constitutional provisions therefore enable the provinces to legislate in the field of immigration and presuppose-because of the concurrent responsibility and the balance which must be respected in any federative system-consultations, agreements and communication of information between the central government and the provinces interested in immigration. To this date, we know that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have set up a provincial immigration service and that the Quebec government over the past few years has been preparing to create a provincial department of immigration.
11108	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Moreover, because of a greater national awareness, being fully aware that it is the bastion of the French-Canadian nation the centre from which it must radiate and extend its influence, the province of Quebec or the government of Quebec intends to increase French immigration and immigration of French speaking people, and modernize its social and humanitarian legislation correspondingly.
For these reasons, it is imperative, particularly with respect to French immigration and immigration of French speaking people, that the federal minister of immigration take no initiative or decision in this field, nor must he elaborate any definite policy, without consulting the Quebec government, taking into account the position of this province, and keeping in constant touch with the representatives of the Quebec government.
Let us not forget that the Canadian federation originated in a pact between the two great founding nations. Now, the first responsibility of the Quebec government lies in the survival and self-fulfilment of the French Canadian nation and of its French culture. The parties to a pact or a contract must consult and discuss with each other.
It does not seem to me that the federal minister of immigration, before his recent visit to Paris and after he returned got in touch with the Quebec government with regard to French immigration to Canada and to measures which the central government intends to bring forward in this field taking into account the views of Quebec.
I trust the minister tonight will give the house an assurance that he intends to consult with the Quebec government soon and that, in the future, he will not take initiatives concerning French and French speaking immigration without first getting in touch with the Quebec government through the regular channels, o (10:10 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my department is interested in the problem of French immigration which also concerns me personally. As a matter of fact, since I became head of this department, I made two trips to France in order to promote French immigration.
When I met with Hon. Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Quebec minister of justice and immigration last August, I asked him to speed things up and to organize his immigration service as soon as possible. The Hon. Guy
[Mr. Allard.1
DEBATES	December 13, 1966
Favreau, one of my predecessors, had also urged the provincial government to establish an immigration service in 1963.
Ever since confederation, that is since 1867, the province of Quebec has had nothing to do with immigration, even if it had a clear jurisdiction under the constitution. Now that some interest is shown in the matter, the federal government, which was within its own jurisdictional rights, should not then be censured.
I met Hon. Jean-Jacques Bertrand in France. After having conferred with five French ministers, I met the Quebec delegation to which I made a report on my trip. When I returned I wrote to the Quebec premier also to report.
So I wonder where the hon. member for Sherbrooke got the opinion or rather the information to the effect I did not communicate with the Quebec provincial government. On the contrary, I contacted its representatives on several occasions and kept them abreast of my representations. There is one particular thing I wish to point out to the hon. member:
I do not intend to telephone the Quebec provincial government every day in order to know if French immigration is of interest to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: I believe Quebec authorities will have to develop their own policy and express themselves the desire to meet with us for discussing that policy, because I am not in the immigration department as a head clerk of a department that could be eventually established in Quebec.
In his remarks, the hon. member for Sherbrooke has not taken into account apparently the equality of both governments in a matter that seems very important and in which are involved both levels of government.
Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the federal government-which has been indicated on several occasions-is to interest itself in immigration of French speaking applicants. We wish to co-operate with the province of Quebec, but co-operation requires efforts on both sides. It is necessary that the Quebec government should indicate clearly that it is interested in our immigration policy; it will have to elaborate its policy before we can be asked in the House of Commons whether we know that policy, because it has never been formulated. Then, if all those things happen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
December 13, 1966	COMMONS


Jean Marchand: -I believe that the objective pursued by the hon. member for Sherbrooke will also be realized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PAYMENTS

Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) why family allowances had not been raised since 1944. My question will be answered this evening as it has been slated for discussion at ten o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, family allowances are an important matter, although they are seldom debated and easily forgotten. I would say that the measure concerning family allowances is the most important, the greatest and the noblest piece of social legislation any government can give to a nation, since it deals with the family, the nucleus of society, parishes, provinces and federations.
Without families, we would not have any federal government and we would not need social legislation, or anything else for that matter. But the family is the basis of society, life and any economic development organization. We must sincerely and truly respect the family in all its rights, if we are to be equal to the task.
Mr. Speaker, society and parliament, those in charge of administration must come to the help of man, as is their duty and responsibility.
The family, under the present system, must be helped and protected because it is in trouble. The family is in real trouble; it finds it hard to grow, to live and be respected.
There are laws to protect animals but not to protect human beings in their greatest, proudest and most respectable attributes.
People know what they want. They want to live in dignity; they want their moral and vital needs to be respected and fulfilled; they want the family and other natural groups to be protected. They want each individual to be respected as a human being must be and not treated as an animal.
Mr. Speaker, man needs security, not so much for himself as for his family. As head of a family and breadwinner, man needs help. Men and women must be protected against expected and unexpected hardship and against insecurity, illness and I would even say against death.
Proceedings on Adjournment on Motion
In certain countries, Mr. Speaker, this security exists; it is organized by the state. In a great many other countries, it does not exist, and each day brings many tragedies.
In the final analysis, the Family Allowances Act must be respectful of life, pres-servation of life, man and the human species.
Mr. Speaker, family allowances should be a major concern of governments and should be considered as the most important feature of a nation, since life and the very essence of society are at stake. The Canadian famTy is not respected. We can say, without fear of being mistaken, that it is exploited.
We have laws for the protection of many institutions, Mr. Speaker, financial institutions which, under state approval, are responsible for the rising cost of living, without regard for anything. The family is being hurt, society suffers by accepting these increases in the cost of living, all these tax increases, these increases in the rate of interest for the benefit of financiers, but to the prejudice of the family.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we ask for a balance of our national economy, and that is the business of the government and the minister, and especially the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) because he alone is mainly responsible for all the organizations. He has all the information, all the necessary specialists to balance the budget, that of the families especially. And the family budget is the first he should balance. When the family budget is balanced, when everything goes well in the family, everything goes well everywhere else-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member in the middle of his very interesting speech, but I see that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is anxious to give an answer to the hon. member.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) and his concern about the family allowance. I would like to tell him, as I am sure he realizes, that the Liberal party has recognized his need and has in fact done more than any other party to assist families.
I should like to elaborate and explain that there have in fact been a number of changes
11110	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which have resulted in substantially increased benefits for a large number of Canadian families. In 1949, for example, the decreasing rates affecting all children over the fourth child in the family were removed. For example, under the pre-1949 set-up the fifth child lost out on a dollar a month, the sixth and seventh children lost $2 a month each and every child above the seventh child lost $3 each.
These decreasing rates were abolished in 1949. Again in 1957 substantial changes were made in the rates of benefits under the program. Until 1957 the rates were $5 a month for children under six, $6 a month for children 6 to 10, $7 a month for children 10 to 13, and $8 a month for children 13 to 16. In 1957, the $5 and $7 a month rates were changed to $6 and $8 respectively.
Then again in 1964 additions were made to the program providing for the payment of $10 per month for children 16 and 17 years who were attending school or who because of physical or mental impairment were prevented from doing so. An additional 400,000 children are now benefiting from these extended allowances, excluding the province
DEBATES	December 13, 1966
of Quebec, where a schooling allowance program is in operation. The federal government turns over to Quebec the moneys to cover the actual cost of that program. Approximately
137,000	children in Quebec benefit from these allowances.
While the department is continually studying ways of improving programs of this kind, the question of priorities must also be borne in mind. For example, the demands on the federal treasury for such proposals as the guaranteed income supplement, now before the house, as well as for medicare, the Canada Assistance Plan, education and so on are very heavy and it is a question of determining which areas or fields of concern should be given priority.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, may I add the
word.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member before he says the word he referred to.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.