1966-12-05

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (D) for the financial year ending March 31, 1967 was presented by Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I point out that these estimates include only one item, aid for India.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on health and welfare-Mr. Harley.

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Report of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, tabled by Mr. Speaker on Tuesday, November 22, 1966, relating to salary revisions affecting a number of positions in the Parliamentary Library, be concurred in.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question which the Minister of Public Works might be able to answer. I indicated my concern about this to an official a few days ago. The last listed position in the salaries under review is that of a cleaning service woman. An increase is provided, but there are two sets of figures, one for the time when parliament is in session and the other for the time when parliament is not in session. If a woman is required in the library to do cleaning work, why should she be paid less when parliament is not in session than when parliament is in session? I would remind the minister that there is hardly any time now when parliament is not in session. Is the minister in a position to answer my question?
23033-677$


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member can ask a question such as this of the Minister of Public Works, who has sought concurrence in a report. The hon. member can oppose concurrence in the report. Any questions relating to salaries or classifications should really be directed to Mr. Speaker. Since they cannot be answered orally, perhaps the hon. member would care to address his inquiries, in writing, to the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems odd that we should be asked to pass a motion endorsing a report when there is no way for us to get information in respect of that report on the floor of the house. If that is the situation, all I can say is "On division".


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows he can always obtain information, whether satisfactory or not, by communicating in the usual way with the Chair. There may be a disposition on the part of hon. members not to proceed with the motion until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has had an opportunity-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the motion be allowed to stand until I have been able to get this information.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orange: 1.	What was the cost per foot of the original utilidor system in Inuvik?
2.	What was the cost per foot of the extensions since the construction?
3.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare undertaken any studies to examine ways and means of extending water and sewer services to the residents in the unserviced areas in Inuvik and, if so, have these studies been made public?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2.
I am informed by the Northern Canada Power Commission as follows: The main

December 5, 1966
Questions
insulated pipe box carrying high temperature hot water, domestic water and sewer lines is referred to as the Utilidor. The original installation costs for the Utilidor averaged $200 per foot. The smaller individual branch services from the Utilidor to the buildings are referred to as Utilidettes. The original installation costs for Utilidettes averaged $100 per foot.
The original Utilidor system carried 8 inch supply and return high temperature water lines, 8 inch domestic water and 8 inch sewer lines. Extensions to the Utilidor consist of branch loops carrying 3 inch supply and return high temperature water lines, 6 inch domestic water and 6 inch sewer lines. Extensions of this sort have averaged out at $150 per foot. The reduction in costs compared to the original installations results from the use of smaller pipes and the fact that the original costs included design and engineering costs which are not repetitive for extensions.
The cost of providing new Utilidettes from Utilidors to buildings now averages $80 per foot. The reduction in costs compared to the original installation has been brought about by not including the design and engineering cost element which is not repetitive.
A few extensions of water and sewer service only have been made to premises located along the main Utilidor, using a simplified Utilidette adequate for smaller services for water and sewer and costs have been about $34 per foot.
It must be pointed out, however, that costs for Utilidor and extensions to existing system also depend upon the services to be supplied, the pipe sizes required, the terrain to be covered, the need for valves, expansion joints, corners, hydrants, the number of feet involved and other factors which will vary widely with the community and locality.
3.	The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in co-operation with the National Research Council and the Department of National Health and Welfare are conducting such experiments at the present time at Frobisher Bay and Inuvik. Preliminary reports are encouraging and it is anticipated that the intensive testing of different Utilidor designs under field conditions, now being carried out, will enable the design of Utilidor for use under perma frost conditions as found in Inuvik and other communities, at sharply reduced costs. The results will be made public when these experiments have been completed.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT 1939-45 AND KOREAN WARS
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many Canadians took part in (a) the 1939-45 war (b) the Korean war?
2.	In each of these wars, how many Canadians died in combat?
3.	For each of these wars, what were the total war expeditures of (a) the Department of National Defence (b) the Department of Defence Production?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Enrollments in the Canadian Forces totalled 1,086,343. (b) 25,583.
2.	Battle casualties: (a) 32,714. (b) 309.
3.	In so far as World War II is concerned, special War Appropriations were allotted to the Department of National Defence in the fiscal years 1939-40 to 1945-46 and $11,344,437,766 was spent. No special War Appropriations were voted for the Korean War, and as the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production had commitments other than the Korean War during the fiscal years 1950-51 to 1953-54 it is not possible to break down expenditure data in a manner which would allow an accurate answer to this question.


TRANSPORT TRUCKS FOR NEWFOUNDLAND MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to have the mail for points in Newfoundland contracted to transport trucks at North Sydney, Nova Scotia?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
The railway has no jurisdiction over the manner in which mail is handled.


S.S. &quot;CABOT STRAIT&quot;-SALE OF COASTAL STEAMSHIP
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Does the C.N.R. intend to sell its Newfound land coastal steamship S.S. Cabot Strait and. if so, is it the intention of the C.N.R. to charter this boat from its new owners?
2.	Does the C.N.R. intend to dispose of any other ships in its Newfoundland service and, if so. what are the names of the ships and the approximate date upon which it intends to dispose of each?
December 5, 1966


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. No.
2. The matter of the disposition of the S.S. Northern Ranger is presently under consideration.


OLD AGE SECURITY FOR SINGLE PERSONS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to increasing the old age security pension for single persons?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The government plans to introduce legislation at an early date to amend the Old Age Security Act to provide for a Guaranteed Income Supplement to certain Old Age Security pensioners up to a maximum of 40 per cent of the amount of the Old Age Security pension.


COLD LAKE. ALTA.-PURCHASE OF R.C.A.F. BASE
Mr. Smallwood: 1.	In what year was the property for the Cold Lake R.C.A.F. base purchased?
2.	From whom was this property purchased?
3.	What was the price paid for the said property?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The answer to part 1 is as follows: the property for the Cold Lake R.C.A.F. base was purchased between 1952 and 1963.
Parts 2 and 3 of this question involve a great number of names and figures and I would ask leave to put them on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answers to parts 2 and 3 are as follows:]
Former Owner	Price Pa
Hebert, Alfred	$ 900
Mulkay, Achille	650
Pawliuk, Mike A.	2,500
Dery, Paul	1,000
Cunningham, Jas. J.	3,600
Hagen, Lars	22,000
White, Cora B.	3,200
Bibeau, Roy	250
Poirier, Louis	22,892
R.C. Diocese of St. Paul	Exchange
Bergo, John E.	5,000
Veterans' Land Act-Interest	
in above-	2,717
Questions	
Province of Alberta	53,198
Hagen, Steingrim FW	7,000
Johnson, Charlotte A.	8,940
Myhres, Morgan	3,500
Button, Waldemar	2,500
Jackson, Patrick	2,300
Nelson, Carl Oscar	33,000
Chretien, Wilfred	5,300
Poirier, Adeline	4,500
Poirier, Fernand	4,000
Fex, Paul	4,000
Nelson, Robert W.	41,500
Smith, Herman H.	11,800
Estate of William Just	4,155
Bergo, Reidor	23,000
Elwood, Emma	8,500
Reed, John and Wilson	13,800
Hardin, Patricia J. S.	4,800
In addition, the Department of National Defence has made arrangements with the province of Alberta for the use of 1,297,099 acres of land for the annual payment of $66,349.98 and with the province of Saskatchewan for the use of 1,575,691 acres of land for the annual payment of $88,813.35 to provide for an Air Weapons Range used in connection with the base.


INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT RESPECTING PROPANE GAS
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Has there been an agreement between Canada, Japan and the United States concerning propane gas and, if so, what are the terms of this agreement?
2.	At what price does the Canadian government sell propane gas to the countries concerned?
3.	Do the prices include transportation to destination?
4.	If not, what is the cost of transportation?
5.	What other countries buy propane gas from
Canada?
6.	What was the domestic consumption of propane gas in 1965, and what quantity was sold outside the country?
Mr, Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) r
1.	No.
2.	The Canadian government makes no such sales.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Very small quantities of Canadian propane are sold in St. Pierre and Miquelon.
6.	The volume for 1965 is not yet available from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, but the National Energy Board estimates net

December 5, 1966
Questions
production for use in Canada (domestic disappearance) at 10,384,400 barrels, after taking account of small quantities of imports. Total exports of propane, as derived from customs' clearance, amounted to 3,081,700 barrels.


CANADIAN LOAN TO BOLIVIA
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Has the Bank of Canada or any other federal government agency made a loan to Bolivia in the approximate amount of $1,600,000?
2.	If so (a) what was the exact amount and what was the interest rate (b) if there was no interest what were the administration expenses and who will pay the administration expenses for this loan (c) for what period of years was the loan made and what are the methods of repayment?
3.	Are loans being made within Canada under the same conditions as above and by what agencies?


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: 1.	The government has approved a loan of $1,620,000 (Cdn) to the Bolivian Development Corporation to finance the procurement of Canadian mining and industrial equipment required for the economic development of Bolivia. The loan will be made from the development loan funds (included in Vote L-25) which the External Aid Office has placed under the administration of the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) under the terms of the agreement signed in December, 1964 between the Government of Canada and the IDB.
2.	(a) The exact amount of the loan will be $1,620,000 (Cdn). There will be no interest charge, (b) The borrower will pay a service charge of f of 1 per cent per annum to Canada and a commitment charge of J of 1 per cent per annum to the IDB to defray the bank's administrative expenses in connection with the loan, (c) The loan will be repayed in 30 years in 47 equal semi-annual instalments commencing 7 years after the signature of the loan.
3.	The government is not aware of any agency in Canada making loans on the same terms as those being provided to developing countries under the external aid program.


QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO BARLOWE-COTE LABORATORY
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Further to the answer to question No. 1,695, part 6, what are the names of the five "new drugs" that have been put on the market by this company?
2.	Was one Martin Van Ular convicted under the Canada Food and Drugs Act at Winnipeg, 1966 and,
)
if so (a) what was the name of the company he owned or was associated with (b) was it adduced that he is related to one Harry Van Ular, President of Generic Drug Products (Quebec) Inc. (c) are either or both of these persons related to Mrs. Jeannine Cote Van Ular, the owner of Barlowe Drug Laboratories, Registered?
3.	Has one Richard Neal Van Ular, aged 45, Rosemere, Montreal, ever been fined for dealing in controlled drugs and, if so, is he related to Harry Van Ular and Martin Van Ular mentioned above?
4.	is the above-mentioned Harry Van Ular the same person who was to appear before the committee on Drug Costs and Prices on October 11, 1966?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Trifluoproma-zine, triparanol, sopangamine, methaminodi-azepoxide and sulfadimethoxine.
2.	Yes. (a) Associated with B.M.C. Laboratories, Montreal; (b) Yes; (c) Yes, both are related.
3.	Yes.
4.	The Department of National Health and Welfare does not have this information.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER ICEBREAKING SHIPS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many icebreaking ships will the Department of Transport be operating on the St. Lawrence river this winter season?
2.	What are the names of these ships?
3.	In what areas of the river will they be operating and with what frequency?
4.	What is the purpose to be served by these icebreakers?
5.	Will the government give Atlantic ports the assurances that the icebreakers will not be used for the convoy of ships either way on the river during the winter season?
6.	What is the present proposed closing date for the Seaway?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The number of icebreakers assigned to the St. Lawrence river from Quebec to Montreal will depend on the development of ice conditions and the total requirement for winter icebreaking in all areas. The normal requirement is for three icebreakers in this area with help from a fourth as needed.
2. Actual ships assigned will also depend on conditions but last winter the ships working in this area were C.C.G.S. N. B. McLean, C.C.G.S. Ernest Lapointe and C.C.G.S. Saurel, assisted from time to time by C.C.G.S. Wolfe.
December 5, 1966



3.	They may operate in any part of the river between Quebec and Montreal.
4.	The primary purpose of these vessels is to establish and maintain a channel for the free movement of broken ice down the river so that it will not jam and form ice dams which will cause the river to rise and inundate the low lying countryside. The crossriver ferry services are also assisted.
5.	These icebreakers are not assigned to this work for the purpose of conveying ships.
6.	The official closing date for the Montreal-lake Ontario section of the seaway is December 3rd. The Welland Canal will close on December 15th. If favourable climatic conditions occur in the Montreal-Lake Ontario section, that section of the Seaway will be kept open on a day-to-day basis, beyond December 3rd, to be announced at noon each day. Construction requirements preclude any extension of the navigation season beyond December 15th for either the Montreal-Lake Ontario or Welland sections of the Seaway.


C.M.H.C.-LOANS FOR STUDENTS' HOMES
Mr. Latulippe: X. In 1965, what were the amounts loaned by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in (a) Canada (b) Ontario (c) Quebec (d) the constituency of Compton-Frontenac (e) Toronto (f) Montreal (g) for students' homes in Toronto and in Montreal?
2. Where does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation draw the funds it loans and what was the rate of interest it paid in (a) 1965 (b) 1966?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. * (a)	$507,609,000. (b) $171,084,000. (c)
$155,438,000. **(d) 105,000. (e) $65,648,000. (f) $80,899,000. (g) Toronto: $4,285,000; Montreal: $330,000.
*Items (a) to (f) include all direct C.M.H.C. loans for new and existing housing, for university housing projects and for sewage treatment projects.
**Information is not recorded on a constituency basis. The data presented are a close approximation.
2. (a) and (b) Funds are borrowed from the government of Canada. Interest rates paid are: January 1, 1965 to September 30, 1965, 5i%; October 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965, 5|%; January 1, 1966 to March 31, 1966, 5|%; April 1, 1966 to June 30, 1966, 5J%; July 1, 1966 to September 30, 1966, 5g%; October 1, 1966 to date, 6%.
Orders for Returns


FUNDS IN CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31. 1966?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Credits to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account:	1.	(a)
$1,821,524,902. (b) $2,028,122,460. (c) $2,184,209,822.
2.	Four per cent per annum, computed at one per cent per quarter on the balance in the account.
3.	(a) $66,307,701. (b) $74,981,492. (c) $83,251,648.
Debits to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account:
4.	(a) $22,965,077. (b) $29,792,144. (c) $36,945,752.


EXPO '67-FESTIVAL OF ARTS TICKETS
Mr. Deachman: 1.	When is it planned to have tickets go on sale for the Festival of Arts at Expo '67?
2.	What programs have been arranged and at what prices?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Tickets for Expo's Festival of Arts will go on sale on December 15th.
2. A complete program of performing arts has been arranged, including opera, ballet, music, theatre and popular attractions. The schedule of events is now being printed and will be ready for distribution when tickets go on sale in December. Prices will be announced shortly.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orange: 1. What are the northern and/or isolated allowances paid to employees of the Department of
December 5, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Northern Affairs and National Resources, Department of National Health and Welfare, Department of Transport and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2. Are there any distinctions in allowances made between locally hired persons and persons hired in other localities in each of the above agencies?
Return tabled.


RATIONS TO EMPLOYEES IN NORTHERN AREAS
Mr. Orange: 1.	What arrangements are made to supply rations to employees of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Department of Transport, Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Frobisher Bay, Cambridge Bay, Baker Lake, Inuvik and Fort Good Hope?
2.	What salary deductions, if any, are made with respect to employees of these agencies in these localities?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not know the extent to which the Prime Minister is in a position to advise the house and the country of the reaction to Prime Minister Smith's rejection of an agreement on Rhodesian independence. However, according to the press despatches, Mr. Smith accepted the proposed constitution and also agreed to the six basic principles which were referred to at the time of the Prune Ministers Conference. In addition to these six principles, the government of the United Kingdom now asks that power be given to the British appointed governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, over the police and armed forces, and that the governor also be given the power to appoint ministers.
In view of these last two addenda since the Prime Ministers Conference, and now that the matter is in the hands of the Prime Ministers Conference, will the Prime Minister give consideration to suggesting the removal of these addenda which are additional to the terms agreed to at the conference, which have been suggested since that time, and which, can only bring about serious consequences unless withdrawn?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have had no official information which would confirm or deny the reports
	! j J
which my right hon. friend has mentioned to the effect that Mr. Smith has rejected the proposals made to him by Prime Minister Wilson, but we expect to hear any minute about that because Mr. Wilson will be making a statement in the British House of Commons in about an hour.
All I can say is that if these reports are accurate and the proposals are rejected, then I understand it is the policy of the United Kingdom to refer the matter to the United Nations, and conversations to that end have been going on with the government of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth governments. The particular reference which my right hon. friend has made regarding the power of the governor general over the police and the armed forces in certain contingencies does not, as I understand it, go beyond anything that was discussed at the last Prime Ministers Conference. But I would like to look into that, and also the relationship of that power to the six principles to which my right hon. friend referred. I prefer to say nothing further about that at this particular moment. Perhaps I can make a more detailed statement when we hear from the United Kingdom government as to what actually has happened.


John George Diefenbaker: Then does the Prime Minister say that at the Prime Ministers Conference, in addition to the six terms which were basic, there were conditions giving power to the governor general over the police and the armed forces, and the power to appoint ministers? These powers, to which I suggest the Prime Minister give consideration are not the kind of powers that are at issue in this matter, and are a contravention of constitutional government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get official information as to what actually was proposed by the United Kingdom prime minister, before I comment upon it.


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the statement in the speech from the throne in the Quebec legislature with respect to the wish of the government of that province that the federal government vacate the old age pension field, and give the province exclusive jurisdiction in that area. I want to ask the Prime
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
Minister first whether this has been discussed at any time with the ministers of the Quebec government, either since the announcement was made in the speech from the throne or prior to it and second, what position the Canadian government intends to take regarding this request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I realize that this question is perhaps in order but I have some qualms about it inasmuch as it refers to a resolution which I understand is to come before the house later today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has no relationship whatever to the supplementary old age pension question which is to come before the house. As I understand it, the Quebec speech from the throne had regard to the whole field of old age pension legislation, and not merely to this supplementary legislation which is in prospect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say there has been no discussion between myself, or any representative of this government, and the head of the Quebec government since the speech from the throne was delivered in Quebec. It would not be proper for me to comment on that speech. There have been, of course, in earlier days, before the speech from the throne, indeed, over recent years, discussions with governments of Quebec and of other provinces as to the respecting constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and of the federal government in respect of social security matters, which very often are shared under the constitution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether in the light of this pronouncement by the province of Quebec the federal government proposes to make any changes in the legislation which is to be introduced in this house in the course of the next hour or so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The legislation is to be proceeded with shortly on the basis of the bill which has been prepared.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, now that the right hon. Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister and his government have had an opportunity to study the throne speech referred to by the hon. member, and the points of view of the other provinces relating to constitutional reform, I should like to ask him whether the government is seriously considering, as a centennial priority, a "made in Canada" constitution for these modern times?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no change in our position in this matter.


William Heward Grafftey: Does the government not feel a definite statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Labour, but perhaps in his unavoidable absence I may be permitted to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister advise the house concerning the result of the week end discussions carried on by the Minister of Labour in an effort to end the shipping tie-up on the west coast?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only say that I have been in touch with the Minister of Labour over the week end. Discussions have taken place. They have been useful discussions and are continuing this morning. I can only hope, as I believe all my hon. friends do, that these discussions will result in a satisfactory conclusion to this very serious dispute.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the government received any recommendations from the farm organizations asking that a trusteeship be set up over the B.C. ports, under which the ports would resume operations while the dispute which is causing the disruption is being investigated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Subject to correction, Mr. Speaker, after checking, I believe I have received a telegram to that effect from the organization mentioned.
December 5, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


INQUIRY CONCERNING CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as government house leader whether he has been able to formulate any plan for the adjournment of the house over the Christmas-New Year holiday?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a firm announcement at the moment but our thinking is that we would adjourn for a Christmas break on the evening of December 22, to reconvene on January 3, with the hope of finishing the remainder of the legislation fairly promptly, and then having a short adjournment before the centennial session opens.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in this sort of tentative proposal I wonder whether the minister has taken into account the fact that some hon. members already may have gone on their Christmas vacation?


OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN MUNICIPAL VOTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the government house leader. Inasmuch as the weight of debate today falls on the opposition, I should like to ask him whether he would consider adjourning the house from five o'clock to seven o'clock in order to allow the members of the House of Commons staff-and this involves a considerable number of people-to cast their ballots in the civic elections?


George James McIlraith: I have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister been able to decide on the date on which he will bring down his supplementary budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Solicitor General, in keeping with the spirit of good will at this season of the year. In view of all the circumstances and taking into account their previous records as good citizens of this country, including in some cases overseas service, would the minister consider granting clemency for the trade union leaders at present jailed in British Columbia, so that they will be able to rejoin their families for the Christmas season?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should say that the hon. member for York South has already made some representations to me along these same lines. The matter is still under consideration. I am awaiting a copy of the argument advanced at the trial, which may be pertinent to the question before me.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. Will the department consider re-routing some of the box cars, which are presently sitting on sidings as a result of the embargo placed on shipments to the west coast, to facilitate the shipment of grain to the port of Churchill in order to fill up facilities there? These box cars are not being used at the moment.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I will have this matter looked into.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the intention of the government to amend the present immigration laws which today
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
make Canada a haven for those in the United States who do not desire to face up to their responsibilities as citizens of that nation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No.



DEPORTATION OF DESERTERS FROM YUGOSLAV VESSEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply to the last question was a model of terseness, and I hope his answer to my question will be simply "yes". My question relates to a notice signed by the deputy minister of manpower on Saturday regarding two Yugoslav ship deserters, Slavko Smoljan and Anton Ivanchev, who have been ordered deported to their country of origin. Is it not a fact that this is the first time a person who has sought political refuge from communism in Canada has been ordered deported back to a communist country? Will the minister obtain the opinion of the governor in council in this connection?-because that is the only way freedom can be assured. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to this situation because surely we in Canada do not want to drive back those who have left communism.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you rose to interrupt me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I rose because I felt the question had been asked at that point.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, this is an extremely delicate matter.
I was not here Saturday when the order was issued, but the case had been discussed previously and I assume full responsibility for it. We studied several cases concerning Yugoslav seamen who had jumped ship. We tried to treat them as generously as possible. We agreed, in that case, that some seamen who had entered Canada illegally could stay here, even if normally we should have deported them, as long as they met the statutory admission requirements, that is to say we felt that if those people had been able to file an application in their country and had been found acceptable, we would have accepted them and kept them.
As far as the others are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I believe that no government can accept the simple statement of an immigrant
Inquiries of the Ministry that he is a political refugee as reason enough to consider him as such.
So, we looked into the matter. I had someone check personally to find out if the Yugoslav sailors who returned to Yugoslavia were persecuted. After checking twice, the Canadian embassy reported that they were not persecuted. Should one single case of persecution be reported, the policy of the department will be changed completely with regard to the Yugoslav sailors who, until now, have been treated exactly like the Greek or Polish or any other sailors who try to enter the country illegally.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course the minister has been away for some time. I suggest that this particular case is alike in every particular to the case of Martil Bilic, the Yugoslav seaman who jumped ship at So-rel, Quebec. I ask the minister to look into this situation and indicate to this house tomorrow why these two deserters are not qualified for citizenship in this country?


Jean Marchand: Did the right hon. gentleman mention Mr. Martin Bilic?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Jean Marchand: I believe that Mr. Martin Bilic was authorized to stay in Canada under a ministerial permit.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the difference between his case and the case of these two men, Mr. Speaker?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is another case. I shall have to look into the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. The minister does not know the case about which I am speaking.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE IMPLEMENTATION IN SHIPPING INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary, in the absence of the Minister of Labour. Will that hon. gentleman indicate whether any steps have been taken to bring together the shipping industry itself, or the shipping industry and the various organized unions in that industry, in order to work out a formula to put into effect the hours of work section of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?
December 5, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Labour): The hon. member, more than anybody else in this house, should know that steps are being taken to provide such a meeting, since he was present at a meeting in the minister's office as recently as four o'clock on Thursday of last week. I mention this fact because I was taken aback by the remarks made on the adjournment motion on Thursday evening. The hon. member's remarks would indicate that he is not aware of what took place at that meeting which he attended.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should rise on a question of privilege at this time, since the circumstances referred to by the hon. member are immaterial. I did attend that meeting, but I merely want to know what is now going on and I should like the public also to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: The parliamentary secretary refuses to answer the question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
MEDICARE-PROTESTS FROM OPTOMETRISTS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received, as so many other members of the house have, protests from optometrists in Canada opposing the medicare decision which he announced on Friday to the effect that optical refraction services are to be optioned out to the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This certainly is a question which can be asked when the house returns to a consideration of the bill in question.


Barry Mather: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. FISHERIES



NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF BASE LINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any progress to report regarding negotiations with other countries on the establishment by Canada of base lines, from which the width of our territorial waters will be measured? Once 
they are established, bodies of water such as the gulf of St. Lawrence, Hecate straits and the bay of Fundy will be included as national waters. Has the minister any recent developments to report?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the most recent development is that we are meeting with a United States negotiating team at the present time.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. During these negotiations was the Secretary of State for External Affairs able to guarantee to our allies on behalf of the government of Canada that we will establish effective sovereignty over these bodies of water, so there will be no danger of these areas becoming sanctuaries for submarine activities by potential enemies of Canada and of our friends?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if this question is in order at this time, as the hon. member is asking for a general statement of policy regarding negotiations which have been taking place. However, I am not familiar enough with this subject to really determine with authority that the question is out of order, so perhaps the minister would like to reply.


John Angus MacLean: I defer, of course, to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to suggest that this question is very important and may involve the nub of the whole situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the latest proposal put forward by Canada were accepted, this problem would not arise.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question. Is the chief of the defence staff now in Europe to advise our NATO allies that if unification of the Canadian forces is approved Canada's proposed future military role will only be that of providing peace keeping forces for the United Nations?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker; and that is not
December 5, 196G	COMMONS
correct, as my hon. friend knows very well. I do not think he adds anything at all to the defence debate in this country by repeating periodically this suggestion, which is not in accordance with the truth.


John George Diefenbaker: Give us an answer that is the truth.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE-REMOVAL OF PERSONNEL TO NEW EUROPEAN BASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to indicate when our air force personnel at Metz and Marville will be moved, and could he indicate the names of the new bases from which our forces will operate?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do so. I hope, however, that I will be in a position to make some announcement shortly.



DONALD REPORT-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the week before last the Prime Minister indicated that in a few days an announcement would be made with respect to the government's policy regarding the Nova Scotian coal industry, arising out of the Donald report. Can he give the house an idea as to how soon we can expect it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had a very useful discussion two or three days ago with the premier of Nova Scotia. He will be reporting on that discussion tomorrow, and we hope an announcement will be made without delay. As my hon. friend knows it is a very important matter. We have to take into consideration at the present time the reaction of the government of Nova Scotia to certain proposals the minister made to them.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether in view of the fact that a year and two months ago the then minister of national health and welfare made the heralded policy statement, he does not agree that the time is long past when a further statement of policy should have been made?
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should have a further statement, shortly.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund and for the charging to the old age security fund under that act of a monthly amount to be known as the guaranteed income supplement, to certain pensioners thereunder up to a maximum of 40 per cent of the amount of the pension payable under that act; to provide for the determination of the income of a pensioner for the purposes of such supplement and for appeals by pensioners against decisions or determinations made under that act; and to provide for other related and consequential matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in this resolution parliament is being asked to consider a program which guarantees old age security recipients an income of $1,260 a year of $105 a month. Approximately 900,000 senior citizens now on modest incomes will benefit from this program in 1967. This number will increase over the next few years as the age for old age security is lowered from 68 to 65. The program will cost the Canadian taxpayers between $260 million and $280 million in 1967.
I know one main concern of hon. members is with the method of determining the levels of benefits under this program. Some persons have attempted to attach a means test label to the program, while others have talked about a needs test. Because it involves, the provision of a guarantee of a basic minimum income, it is necessary that a norm of eligibility be employed. There is no other way to administer or operate a guaranteed income program of this kind. But I can assure hon. members that the norm is, in my view, a simple and acceptable one. It does not involve what we commonly refer to as a test of means or needs.
I am confident that members of this house will resist the temptation to get partisan mileage out of the proposal on this ground; that no attempt either intentionally or inadvertently will be made to spread the spectre of a means
10708	COMMONS DEBATES	December 5, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment test among our older people. I repeat: the norm envisioned under this program is a far, far cry from the means test. I am confident that when the guaranteed income supplement is in operation, a majority, if not all, the eligible older people of Canada will agree with this assessment.
The purpose of this program is to provide maximum assistance to those on modest incomes. I suggest that the contemporary guaranteed income approach is the most effective and most responsible way of achieving this objective.
Lest I be accused of hairsplitting or of indulging in semantics, I will examine for a few minutes what is involved in tests of means and needs. A means test means just that. It involves an examination of the nooks and crannies of a person's financial status; the money he has in the bank, whether he owns a car or a home, the ability of relatives to contribute to his support, his earnings, and so on.
Under a needs test the other side of the ledger is examined. Its purpose is to determine between what a person has and what he needs for an adequate, decent existence, and to base benefits on the difference. Under a needs test, income is also taken into account but the emphasis is on meeting needs on a flexible basis.
The program proposed in this resolution is based on neither of these approaches. The criterion is a universal guaranteed income or floor below which an individual income will not fall. The objective is to provide a flow of income and the definition or determination of an individual's flow of income is identical with that used for income tax purposes. This is a simple, acceptable and effective way of determining eligibility and calculating levels of benefits.
No information will be asked for that is not already required for income tax purposes; there will be no snooping, no prying into financial affairs, no demeaning questions. This program is an innovation, the application of a contemporary technique to what has been a continuing problem in modern, industrialized society-the provision of adequate income to people who, because of age, are not able to earn on their own.
I am sure hon. members are aware of the current public interest in the guaranteed income technique. It has come in for considerable public discussion and there have been suggestions that the approach be applied on a broader basis. Many believe that the guaranteed income mechanism provides the best

hope for adequate income maintenance in an era where more and more jobs involving human labour are being turned over to machines.
The program applies this new technique in a limited and specific area. It is in an area where the chances of success are encouraging because it does not involve some of the difficulties which are associated with guaranteed income applied to all the population.
First, the great majority of people included in this program are, or will be, retired and there will consequently be no material interference with incentives to work. Also, of course, the program is designed for a specific identifiable group, and this should make for relatively easy administration or relatively less difficult administration.
Members will ask, as indeed they have asked, why this approach? Why not a flat rate increase in the universal pension? Opposition parties have suggested $100 a month. As a short range political project there is no doubt that to be on the side of an across the board $25 monthly increase is to be on the side of orthodoxy, easy administration and simple amendments to the existing statute. But any analysis based on long term considerations, supports the guaranteed income approach on two important counts. First, it provides more help to those on modest incomes-it guarantees a monthly income of at least $105, not $100-and second, it is a more effective and responsible deployment of the federal government's financial resources.
There are those who argue that the flat rate increase will provide an extra $25 a month to all. That, of course, is not true. Under our income tax set up some older persons are required to pay back a portion of what they receive. The guaranteed income format is steeply progressive and concentrates on added payments for those on modest incomes.
Estimates in the current year are that the guaranteed income supplement will cost between $260 million and $280 million in its first year. Let us take the median figure of $270 million. This is $100 million less than the cost of a $25 a month increase in the flat rate pension. The cost of the flat rate pension would, of course increase annually, so that by 1970 it would amount to something in the neighbourhood of $200 million a year more than the guaranteed income supplement.
In the long run, costs under the income supplement will decline as more and more people become eligible for higher and higher benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension
December 5, 19GS	COMMONS
plans. Any simple increase to $100 a month, on the other hand, is a commitment in perpetuity.
The guaranteed income supplement is meant to meet the income requirements of a specific group of people, those who because of age cannot benefit or will benefit only in part from the Canada and Quebec pension plans. The need to meet such income requirements will diminish as these plans become fully operational.
I would also note that the Canada and Quebec pension plans were devised with the $75 a month universal pension in mind. It would provide a basic retirement income to which contributory pension benefits would be added in the provision of a decent and adequate income level for persons when they retire.
When the Canada and Quebec pension plans were introduced, the retirement benefits were set at levels which, combined with those available under old age security, were designed to provide a satisfactory retirement income for most Canadians. At low income levels the combined benefits exceed previous earnings, while for those earning $5,000 or more a year the monthly benefit will be $179. These combined benefits compare favourably with those available in other countries.
The Canada and Quebec pension plans, of course, are of little benefit to those who through no fault of their own are unable to get any or complete coverage because of age. For this reason we are bringing forward this guaranteed income supplement.
The new program uses the old age security and Income Tax Acts as its legal and administrative base. This concept of an income guarantee plan was embodied in the recommendation of the special committee of the Senate on aging. In determining the amount of the guaranteed income, sources of income other than the supplement are taken into account. Income for this program includes, of course, only those items regarded as income for the purposes of the Income Tax Act; for example, money drawn from savings or received from the sale of a home, other possessions or investments, are not considered income. Gifts and donations received by pensioners are also disregarded in calculating the pensioners' income. Also social assistance payments from municipal, provincial and federal governments are not considered as income.
In using the income tax definition of income, awards for loss of life or loss of function because of disability, whether paid in
Old Age Security Act Amendment lump sum or continuing payments, are excluded as income. This relates to awards under commercial insurance plans, workmen's compensation and war pension. On the other hand, income from the basic flat rate old age security pension and from other pension plans, including the Canada pension plan, are counted as income.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to elaborate on some of the points I have already made. Under the present old age security legislation a portion of income from the pension is taxed back through personal income tax. At very high levels of income the proportion taxed back is considerable, while at low income levels nothing is recovered through personal income tax. For those people with incomes somewhere in between, the degree of recovery varies.
Under this program recipients of old age security who have no other income of the type considered as income under the Income Tax Act will receive the full amount of the supplement, an additional $360 a year. For those who have other income there is provision for partial supplements ranging up to the full supplement of $360 a year. This is available to single pensioners who have an annual income, including the flat rate pension, of less than $1,620 a year, and to married pensioners who have a combined income of less than $3,240 annually.
Thus the income supplement redistributes income in favour of single persons and married couples with an income of below $1,620 in the first case and $3,240 in the second case, rather than over the whole range of incomes as is the case under the existing old age security pension.
The program ensures a guaranteed income floor whereby no person who is receiving an old age pension will get less than $1,260 a year and no married couples who are receiving pensions will get less than $2,520 a year. The full or maximum income supplement is expressed as 40 per cent of the basic old age security pension. By making the supplement a percentage of the $75 a month pension, the supplement will automatically be escalated by any changes in the basic flat rate pension arising from changes in the cost of living as reflected in the pension index.
For those who do not qualify for the full or maximum supplement of $360 a year but who are entitled to a partial supplement, a simple rule applies with respect to the amount of their benefit. The annual supplement of $360
December 5< 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment is reduced by one half of the amount of income in excess of the $900 a year old age security pension. Expressed in another way, the amount of the supplement will be reduced $1 a month for every $2 a month that income increases over and above the flat rate $75 a month pension.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This is a different approach from the sharp cut off being applied in the proposal of the senate committee, which eliminated $1 of supplement for each dollar of income above the $75 old age security pension. In the program now under consideration we had originally thought to follow that approach and had estimated the cost at about $225 million. We have, however, decided to make provision for tapering off the supplement. This approach is more equitable for people of modest incomes from small pensions and part time employment. It is likely, as well, to be more acceptable. It is, of course, more costly and as a result the cost of the program in 1967 will be between $260 million and $280 million, as I have already mentioned.
Perhaps I can illustrate the partial supplement with two examples. If an old age security recipient has a small private pension of $120 a year as his only income other than old age security, the maximum supplement of $360 is reduced by one half of the $120, leaving a partial supplement of $300. In this example, the pensioner would have a total income of $1,320, consisting of $900 basic pension, $300 income supplement and $120 from the private pension.
Another example would be a recipient who has a part time job from which he receives $360 a year. He would receive an income supplement of $180 which along with the $900 basic pension, would bring his annual income to $1,440.
The senate committee suggested a guaranteed income at $2,220 for a married couple. We are proposing a higher level of guaranteed income. Pensioners will receive supplements which will guarantee an income of $2,520 for the couple if both are eligible for old age security. This will mean a maximum supplement of $360 a year for each spouse, or a total of $720 for the couple.
In addition, partial supplements will be provided for those who have income over and above their old age security pension, but who have a combined total income, including basic-pension, of less than $3,240.

This approach, inherent in the senate committee's proposal of using the combined income of the couple rather than individual incomes, has been followed. This gives more equitable treatment between single persons and married couples, since it takes into account the full income of a married couple.
Under the proposed legislation the income of each spouse is taken to be one half the combined income of the couple in determining the amount of each spouse's supplement. Thus, each spouse receives the same amount of supplement.
Each old age security beneficiary entitled to an income supplement will receive one monthly cheque combining the basic flat rate pension with the supplement. In the case of married recipients, each spouse will receive a cheque, as is the practice under the old age security at the present time. For persons receiving the flat rate old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan, one cheque for the combined amount will be sent each month.
As I mentioned earlier, the proposed program is transitional in nature. In this regard, it endeavours to take a second step in meeting the recommendation of the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate on the Canada Pension Plan which recommended "further measures regarding the position of those people who, because they are or soon will be retired, will not be substantial contributors to, or beneficiaries from the Canada Pension Plan".
The first step in endeavouring to improve the income support for this sector of our population was taken last year through the amendment to the Old Age Security Act, under which provision has been made for the lowering of the age of eligibility from 70 to 65. Through this amendment all persons 69 years of age are now on pension, within a few weeks those age 68 will qualify for pension, and by 1970 all persons 65 years of age will be covered. By that time more than half a million persons who either could not participate at all or only to a limited extent in the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans will receive these old age security payments.
The initial cost of this amendment has been considerable and each year as a new age groups is added there is a substantial impact on total annual costs. In 1967, the additional expenditure will be $190 million; in 1970 when the full effect of this amendment will be
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
felt the additional expenditure for this improvement alone will be $568 million in that year.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. minister that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank members of the committee for the consent, allowing me to continue.
We now have before us a further extension of the old age security program to add substantial income support for this group. In 1962 and again in 1963 the old age security pension was raised, bringing the rate from $55 to $75 a month. Under this proposal the rate will be raised to a maximum of $105 a month.
In 1967, outlays under the existing old age security pension will reach $1,110 million; the additional cost of the guaranteed income supplement could reach the order of $260 to $280 million, making a total expenditure of about $1.4 billion. In 1970, the total expenditures under the old age security program will reach about $2 billion; of this amount expenditures under the guaranteed income supplement will be in the neighbourhood of $385 million.
It is proposed that the payments for this income supplement will be financed from the old age security fund. The tax measures required to meet these and other added expenditures of the federal government will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance in his budget in the very near future.
It is proposed that the guaranteed income supplement program take effect in January, 1967. The initiation of the program will, of course, be a large administrative undertaking. Early in the new year, application forms will be sent to all recipients of old age security. Those who qualify will receive monthly supplements retroactive to the month of January. Supplementary payment will be combined with the old age security cheque and we expect that the first cheques, including the retroactive supplementary income payments, will be sent out with the March old age security cheques. We would hope to have all these retroactive payments connected with the introduction of the program cleared up with the April cheque.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
Pensioners eligible for the maximum income supplement who have had their application submitted and approved by the end of February would receive a payment of $165 in March. This would consist of the $30 supplement for January, February and March and the $75 basic pension for March. For those who qualify for the maximum supplement and who receive their first supplement in April the first payment would be $195. In subsequent months when the backlog involved in initiating the program will have been cleared away, those receiving the maximum benefits-old age security plus the income supplement-will be getting a cheque of $105 a month.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
A simplified application form has been designed for the program. It was considered that this would be easier than the normal income tax return for many old age security recipients to complete. The statement of income on the application form requested in January, 1967 will be the pensioner's income for the past year, that is for 1966. The income of the great majority of pensioners is relatively stable from one year to the next, and they know with considerable accuracy what income they had in the past year. Because of this, it is not anticipated that this procedure will be difficult.
For those who need some assistance in completing the application, relatives and friends will assist them as they do now for old age security applications and for income tax returns. The staff in Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan and Income Tax offices will be available as they are now to answer questions and to deal with any special situations.
In some instances the pensioner may wish to revise his initial statement of income because of more detailed information obtained later. If this is done, an adjustment of the supplement will be made to take into account this change. Information supplied on income can be checked against income tax returns and third party information supplied to the Department of National Revenue on T-3, T-4, T-5 and other returns.
For the small group of pensioners who retired in 1966, the earnings for that year would not be representative of their income status in 1967. To prevent hardship for the pensioner who had retired in the year before he applied for the supplement, he will be allowed to exercise an option.
Under this option he can disregard his earnings in 1966 from the employment or business
10712	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment from which he retired, along with any pension income for that year, and substitute for them an estimate of his income from pensions, employment and any business in 1967. Thus, if he has no employment or business income but only his pension income in 1967, he would likely be better off to take this option.
Each year there will also be a group of pensioners who will retire from their employment or their businesses but who would qualify for supplements on a partial year basis. An option will be provided for them whereby they can use estimated income for the current year rather than past years' income and ignore earnings from the employment or business from which they have retired and have pension income counted only for the part of the year remaining after their retirement.
Some pensioners, although otherwise entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, may be temporarily out of the country for health reasons or to visit their children living abroad. It would seem fair to continue to pay the supplement to qualified pensioners for a reasonable period of absence from Canada. It is proposed that the supplement be paid in all cases for the month when the pensioner leaves Canada, and for a maximum of an additional six consecutive months. Payments would be resumed with the month when the pensioner returns to Canada. For those that remain permanently outside of Canada, in many different countries in many parts of the world, it would not be feasible for us to verify their statements of income in order to administer the guaranteed income supplement. For this reason, no provision has been made to cover those who leave Canada permanently.
The guaranteed income supplement will be administered by the old age security administration of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The income tax division of the Department of National Revenue will assist by matching information on statements of income received by National Health and Welfare against information obtained through income tax sources. Provision is made under the legislation for appeals against decisions or determinations made with respect to eligibility for and the amount of income supplement and basic pension payments.
In undertaking this program and in drafting the necessary legislation for it, the government has, of course, fully taken into account the constitutional authority of the federal parliament as it relates to old age pensions. The government is not in any doubt about the validity of the present Old Age Security Act,

DEBATES	December 5, 1966
or parliament's authority to enact the amending bill to follow this resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We believe that the proposals we will be placing before the house at the conclusion of this debate represent a conscientious and constructive attempt to meet the income problems of Canada's older people in a way which conforms closely to contemporary concepts of social justice. This program, we feel, will concentrate additional income where the need is most pressing-in the low and modest income areas. In this way, it achieves a realistic and equitable balance between the financial responsibilities of the federal government and its obligations toward those older people who have made such a substantial contribution to the nation's progress and prosperity.
With these thoughts in mind, I commend this resolution for the approval of hon. members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a question for clarification? There are two minor points I should like to clear up. The minister was reading rapidly, and I was not able to follow him completely. First, do 1 take it that supplementary payments received from provincial governments would not be considered as income? In the second place, is it correct to say that contributions from the families of old age pensioners would not be considered as income?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. I am certain that the answer to the first question is, yes. The answer to the second question is, definitely, yes.


Mr. Chatterton:: May I ask a further question? Will the minister agree to having this bill sent to a standing committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The bill will be examined in committee of the whole. I do not see the necessity at the present time of sending it to a committee. Hon. members have not seen the bill, yet; they may be able to determine the desirability or otherwise of sending it to a committee after they have had a chance to examine it. But at the present time, it is not proposed to send it to a standing committee.
I do not wish in any way to provoke a reaction from any quarter of the house, and I not make this comment for that purpose, but it will be apparent from what I have said, and because of the administration of the program, that the quicker we can deal with the legislation the earlier will extra money be placed in
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
the hands of old age pensioners. I am not saying this to deter the Leader of the Opposition from making a speech.


John George Diefenbaker: I say at once, with regard to this plan which has now been elucidated in some detail, that it constitutes, in effect, a means test, no matter how carefully and sedulously the minister endeavoured to get away from that salient fact.
Toward the end of his remarks he said- and I hope I am quoting him correctly- "We are concentrating this legislation where the need is greatest." In other words, in the last paragraph of his speech he revealed clearly and succinctly, though unconsciously, that what is being done here is to impose a plan which has not been accepted for years in this nation, namely, one which will bring into effect the meanest test of all-a means test.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However much he was able to decorate the proposal that he made with beguiling tinsel, verbal tinsel, he cannot get away from the fact that this proposal embarks on a new proposition, namely, that means tests and needs tests, masquerading under whatever name the minister may apply to them, are now going to be accepted as necessary requirements for those who are in need across this country.
The minister said there will be no interference with the incentive to work for those who qualify. If they work and earn, does that in no way reduce their eligibility? If a person has an income of $500 a year, or $300 a year, will that income secured by him as a result of his own efforts not reduce his qualification for the pension? Certainly, it would appear to.
Sir, what is being done here will bring about a new bureaucratic apparatus, with snoopers on every hand. It cannot operate otherwise. The resolution states that there will be provision for appeals by pensioners against decisions or determinations made under the act. That is something which was not dealt with by the minister. Since you set up an appeal procedure you indicate that a full and careful examination will be made, that snooping will be in effect and that the individual, on bended knee, will have to establish his need in order to get the added amount.
The minister ended by referring to great power and asking who is afraid of the big bad wolf? He said that constitutionally the government felt this could be done. That was another revelation.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
For the past several months we have been asking for action. We were informed that we could not get any action on this intended legislation until medicare was passed. But then the new government of the province of Quebec made an announcement. What is happening here is that the government of Canada is now in a rush to get this legislation through parliament before the legislature of Quebec can take action. That is the reason for the rush; that is the reason for the change. It is as patent as can be.
There was no concern about bringing this legislation forward over the last weeks and months during which old age pensioners have been faced with the highest cost of living in Canada's history; suddenly on Friday, this government that was conscienceless up to that point developed a new acceleration. One can only attribute to the fears of the government over what was announced in Quebec for this action at this time. Some of those close to the government, invariably recipients of information in advance of parliament, have stated that the move is regarded as a quick reply to the position taken by the Quebec government on Thursday. In the throne speech, Quebec claimed exclusive jurisdiction over old age security, and the federal government wanted to get in first.
That may have been the reason for the concluding remarks of the minister when, with lachrymose tones, he appealed to the house to pass this legislation at the earliest possible date, with dispatch and expedition, because otherwise there might be some delay in the payments.
If I understood the minister correctly, there are not going to be any payments until March. That being so, it is obvious that what has happened has been that this government suddenly developed an initiative. It suddenly dragged itself out of the characteristic inertia because of what was said in the speech from the throne in Quebec on Thursday last.
We have taken the stand that the old age pension should be increased immediately from $75 a month to $100 a month. We have asked for this over and over again, by motions and otherwise. We took that stand during the election campaign. We took that stand on January 20, 1966, when I moved, seconded by the hon member for Perth "that the following words be added to the address;
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have omitted to provide for an immediate increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for all recipients under the Old Age Security Act.
10714	COMMONS DEBATES	December 5, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The Liberal party, supporting the government, voted against that. Then, periodically thereafter, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, as did other hon. members, raised this question. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce, on July 14, 1966, moved to adjourn the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance:
-namely the total inadequacy of the policy just announced by the government-
That was the guaranteed income plan.
-which will deprive the senior citizens of Canada of the justice to which they are entitled, and the vital necessity of an alternative which would give an immediate increase of $25 a month to all citizens at age 65.
On March 26, 1965, it was moved by myself, and seconded again by the hon. member for Perth:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
That Bill No. C-136-
That was the bill covering the Canada Pension Plan.
-be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole so that the government may give consideration to and introduce amendments to the said bill to provide for a minimum payment of $25 per month out of the Canada Pension Plan account to all persons between the ages of 65 and 69 years who are retired from regular employment, and also to provide an increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for all those now 70 years of age or over.
Again on June 21, 1966, we took action in this regard, and again the government turned us down. On July 4, 1966, the matter was dealt with once more, and it is significant that when I was speaking on that occasion I was interrupted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The following exchange took place, as recorded at page 7134 of Hansard for that date:
We have again made our position clear on various occasions throughout this debate. Our position is simply that no alternative to $100 a month for the old age pensioners will meet the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without any means test.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, without a means test.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
That course we have followed consistently. Then, finally, on November 21, 1966, as recorded at page 10119 of Hansard, it was moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, that consideration be given to granting an immediate increase to all those in receipt of old age pensions without the imposition of a means test, or a needs test, or

requiring any disclosure of income or financial resources. Those various amendments were all ruled out of order or defeated. In every case when they were ruled out of order, it was members of the Liberal party who rose in their places; they were frightened at the prospect of having to vote on those amendments. They argued that the amendments were not within the power of the house to move in committee or otherwise as the case may be. Now, they are going to impose a means test. It means that Canadians are going to be taxed and are not going to receive the benefit therefrom, unless they are able to establish that they are in a position now recognized as one of destitution, within an income maximum of $1,260 a year.
There was a time when it might have been argued that there was no reason why the old age pension should be paid to everybody. Today, the old age security program is financed by Canadian taxpayers through a 3 per cent sales tax, a 3 per cent tax on corporation income and, subject to a limit of $120 a year, a 4 per cent tax on personal income. What is happening here now under this bill is that Canadians are being taxed for something they have purchased by taxation and contributed to, yet they will be denied the right to receive the increase. This is wrong. I know it is very seldom Right Hon. Mackenzie King is quoted by the Liberal party today; but that was the principle he enunciated over and over again. He said there should be no discrimination, that there should be nothing in the nature of a means test. Today, the minister introduces this bill. It must have taken him a long while to write his speech; it had "Kentish" touches about it.


An hon. Member:: He just read it.


John George Diefenbaker: He did not have anything to do with it. There are definitely "Kentish" touches about it. He said that it is not a means test and is not a needs test. You have to take a second and a third look at it. There was not very much applause from the Liberal benches when he mentioned this. He said, "You will find this is the only fair course to follow". I understand, if press references have any basis in fact, that there is going to be an additional tax levied in order to finance this measure. Again, it will be paid by all Canadians. Today, Canadians earn the old age pension; they become entitled to it because of their contribution, and yet those who contribute are not to receive any benefit unless they are able to establish that they come within certain limitations of income. The present system is nothing
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
in the nature of a handout. It is something for which the people are paying. What is taking place here is a most retrograde and unjustifiable course of action. I should like to know who coined the euphonious and deceptive phrase-"an income test".
It is interesting that on October 17 Senator Croll knew what parliament did not know. He was connected with the Senate committee on aging. .He wrote a letter on October 17 containing these words:
The legislation with respect to those 65 and over will provide for the payment of $105 without a means test or a needs test but only an income test.
He knew on October 17, but parliament could not find out. Then he goes on to say:
That means that those who are single and have less income than $1260 per year will receive the benefits.
What this legislation, as well as the further legislation and taxation, will mean is that Canadians will pay for a pension to which they will not be entitled unless their income falls to a level picked by the minister. This is unfair. What is the reason for this?
I do not know who worked it out, but it is of interest that on October 16, 1965 the Prime Minister dealt with the matter of pensions in a speech he made in Charlottetown. He said:
If you pay $100 at age 65 out of tax revenue that means $850,000,000 more out of the budget-income tax will go up,-
Was that statement about $850 million true? Today, if I heard the minister correctly, he said the increase would be from $260 million to $280 million. During the election campaign, when it was expeditious and beneficial to raise a bogey, the Prime Minister said the cost would be $850 million, and that was noised across this country by every Liberal candidate. It is interesting to note that he said he would not engage in an attempt to purchase the votes of people-"far be it from me". He said:
This is the old election auction using your money.
Then he used these words:
How easy it would be for us to say I will give you $105. But I don't believe in that sort of thing and I'm not going to participate in it,-
The figure which came to his mind was $105. Before the election was over, however, old age pensioners believed they had been promised up to $200 a month. It all depended on who the candidate was, and the part of Canada in which the candidate was speaking. There will be grave, and justifiable disappointment, now that this legislation has been
Old Age Security Act Amendment explained by the minister. We stood and continue to stand in respect of the increase to $100 a month. There is nothing which will demean the Canadian people more than having to go through this catechism, and catechism it is. The minister says, "Oh, they have just to fill out a document; we will make it simple".
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Why did the minister not explain the purpose behind the establishment of a court of appeal? If the government is going to accept a simple statement by the prospective pensioner, then why is the government setting up a court of appeal? It can only be setting up this court to deny the individual his entitlement, on the basis of his own statement. What a snooper's paradise will be created and what a multiplication of bureaucrats will take place.
All this is being done because the government is trying to save face. They know they should increase pensions and they know the only justifiable course is to increase them to $100 a month, but to do so would be to go back on the stand the government has taken against the motions proposed by Her Majesty's opposition over a period of a year and a half. The government has arrived at a plan which to us is inadequate and a denial of justice.
Civil revolutions have taken place over the right not to be taxed without representation. That was the essence of the revolution of the 13 colonies in the United States. In this case, taxation will be imposed on everyone, but entitlement will be restricted to those who come within the narrow confines of the bureaucratic formula which has been placed before the house.
Therefore, sir, I move:
That all the words after 'that' be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
'The government give consideration to introducing a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund and for charging to the old age security fund under that act of an additional monthly amount of $25 to all pensioners thereunder".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the opportunity of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, or the spokesman for that party, of speaking at this time, but I do want to raise a point of order in respect of the irregularity of this amendment. I suggest it is out of order and cannot be
December 5, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment entertained. If you want to give it some consideration, I will be glad to argue the point later this evening after the adjournment suggested by the opposition whip.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Chairman, because of the limitation of time available at the resolution stage, perhaps we should leave this amendment for the time being. The Chair may be able to make up its mind without argument. If time permits the opportunity should then be made available to those who wish to put forward their views. At this moment, I think we should proceed with the consideration of the resolution itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I take it that pending a ruling on the proposed amendment, for all practical purposes we are now discussing the proposal laid before the house by the Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid that slip indicates that this pension proposal sounds like a tax collector's offer instead of an offer by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I apologize to both hon. ministers.
The needs of our pensioners in this country are such that we welcome the announcement that something is going to be done. Let me remind hon. members that a few months ago at a Canadian conference on aging held in Toronto it was agreed that the minimum amount which an elderly person needs in order to get by at the present time is $138.96 per month. We are still far behind the needs of our people when talking about pensions of $100 or $105 per month. Incidentally, I hope we will not argue over the difference between $100 and $105 per month and I suggest that we now try for at least the $105 which the government is talking about, but that it should be without a means test of any kind.
In the short time that is at my disposal-I believe I have only 20 minutes-I should like to look briefly but squarely at the issues raised as a result of the way in which this proposal has been made by the government. In the first place, no matter how much the minister may try to dress it up, and no matter how much he may try to rely on semantics, the fact of the matter is that if a pensioner has to report his income in order to obtain the increase he is being subjected to a means test.
I say, therefore, to the minister that this change is not only a retrograde step, but it washes out the tremendous advance we made in 1951. In 1951, we decided that when
[Mr. MacEachen.l
Canadians reach the old age pension age they should all be equal. This government has decided that from now on our elderly people will be in two classes. All will have paid taxes to provide for old age pensions and they will also be called upon to pay various taxes even when they are pensioners. Though they are all equal in paying for old age pensions, when it comes to receiving them there will be a portion people will receive as a right, and another portion which will be received only if they meet the income qualifications.
I suggest that the government is taking a very unfortunate and retrograde step which I do not believe the Canadian people want to take. Parliament should not be asked by this government to take such a step. I recognize that the minister has come up with an income formula that sounds a lot less strict than means test formulas sound in respect of some other legislation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It sounds a little less strict than the means test formula which was in the original Old Age Pensions Act. However, even under this test of income the following problem will still exist, and it is a serious one. One pensioner will be able to get the increase because the extra income which he earns places him in category A and another pensioner will not be able to get the increase because the extra income he earns places him in category B. There will be much ill will, bad feeling and plain ordinary misery amongst the ordinary people of this country because of the distinction between what is and what is not income. The minister can boast about what is not counted as income but there are still too many revenue sources that are counted as income. For instance, I can think of all the superannuated civil servants for whom we are trying to get an adjustment and whose pensionable income is taxable; and of all those who are on pensions of $60 a month or more who will not be able to qualify for $1 of this increase.
I have given just one or two examples of the kind of difficulty which will arise. I refer to difficulties in the interpretation or definition of income, and I say to the minister it is not worth the days and nights he must have spent in trying to dream this up.
As a matter of fact the whole proposition is so complicated, and will be so costly to administer, that I say to the minister he should have taken the simple and direct approach we have been advocating for months, namely an increase in the pension by a flat rate across the board.
December 5, 196S

Let me say to him also that the ingenious system he has devised under which people will have to count toward the supplement only half of their income will produce some very interesting difficulties and complications. As I understand it, if a person is making $30 a month, only $15 of it is charged against his record for purposes of getting the increased pension. In effect, therefore, this person is being taxed a 50 per cent rate on the $30 he is making and all the people earning from $30 up to $60 will be taxed a 50 per cent rate on the money they are making over and above their pensions. These are people who have already paid taxes to provide for the pensions, who are paying the sales tax and are probably paying other taxes as well. The Minister of Finance must have dreamed up this 50 per cent tax on the little bit of income which pensioners earn on the side.
If a pensioner earns over $60 a month, then he is not eligible for any portion of the increase, so that in effect a 100 per cent tax is imposed at that point.
What a proposal to be laying before the house in the month of December. I misnamed the minister by calling him the Minister of National Revenue but my hon. friends around me are giving him his real name; it is Scrooge. That is all we can call a minister who is proposing this kind of scheme just two or three weeks before Christmas.
The administrative difficulties in connection with this plan will be out of this world. The minister tried to tell us that the forms will be simple. We have seen simple forms from the government before and I can imagine how simple these forms will be. He has already told us that in the first year this plan, as he has revised it, will cost some $260 million to $280 million a year. He has said that the scheme we have advocated, namely a flat increase without a means test, would cost $100 million more than that. He nods his head in approval.	.
I submit that by the time one has considered the administrative costs of all the complicated details, and by the time one has considered the take-back which would come in the way of income tax when pensions are paid to people in the higher income brackets who do not need them, the difference of $100 million would be considerably narrowed. Even if it were not wiped out altogether but only narrowed, $100 million is a small sum compared to the amount of money which this government throws around, and compared with what is required to meet the needs of our

Old Age Security Act Amendment older people and the maintenance of their dignity and their self-respect.
Another admission which the minister has made in the course of his remarks this afternoon is that he regards this as a temporary measure. He tells us that in the course of time, as the Canada Pension Plan gets into full operation and people start getting pensions under that legislation, there will be fewer payments under this plan because the combination of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan will put people beyond the range of this proposed increase. In other words, this is a plain admission by the minister that it is not a genuine, absolute increase in the basic amount of old age security; this is just a temporary measure to bide for a bit of time.
When we were discussing the Canada Pension Plan-and I was involved in that discussion to quite some extent-we were assured time and time again that the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan did not foreclose the possibility of increases in the basic amount of old age security. It is my contention that it would be a much better balanced pension plan if the amount under the Old Age Security Act were larger in relation to the amount that comes under the Canada Pension Plan. This is an admission that this will not happen. It is a temporary measure to see things through for a little while, and it leaves the basic pension under the Old Age Security Act at $75 a month.
Some of the points I am making are not necessarily in logical sequence, but I had to jot some points down as the minister was speaking. I will now refer to another element of unfairness which I think the minister is importing through this resolution. We have fought for years in this parliament over the rights of Canadians who go abroad, either at the time of retirement or after they have gone on pension. Surely, in Canada we do not regard it as a sin for people to go to warmer climates when they are older or to go to places where their children live, or to the old country whence they came.
Gradually, we have improved our attitude in this respect. At one time you could hardly go abroad and retain the right to draw your pension. Now we have reached the position where if you had 25 years of residence in Canada after the age of 21 before you went on pension, you can draw your pension anywhere in the world. At present we have gone a step further and we say to the people who must leave the country before their pensionable age
10718	COMMONS DEBATES	December 5, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment that they can still qualify for a pension provided they had 40 years of residence in Canada subsequent to the age of 18. But now, we will draw a line within those groups of people. We will say that these people can draw the $75 a month while living abroad but they cannot draw the supplement. How many complications has Scrooge thought of in this resolution?
I suggest that when the minister says to us we are orthodox and old-fashioned and that he has thought of something new, he is just playing with words, twisting things and changing them until he has lost his sense of proportion.
I will also say to him that his remarks about people getting their payments by the end of March, as though he had done something generous, do not add up. Some of those people perhaps will not be alive to get these payments at the end of March.
I may remind him that the minister announced this general plan last July. Some of the details have been altered since then, but in the main it is the same plan that was announced on July 14. There was no reason for leaving this plan so long before being presented to parliament for debate and consideration so that payments cannot be made until the end of March. I suppose that as a result of the administrative difficulties with regard to the enactment of the bill there is nothing that can be done about it, but I say to the minister the whole problem of the delayed payments can be solved instantly by amending this legislation to provide for a flat $105 across the board. There will then be no problem in increasing the payments at the end of December, or at least at the end of January. When you put all these things together, what is income and what is not income, the half you are allowed to keep and the half you are not allowed to keep, the question whether you live in Canada or five elsewhere, and so on, I suggest you build up a complicated system which is so far from what we produced in 1950 and 1951 that it is really disgrace to the party which sits on the government side of the house today.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that it is difficult to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and to take this matter to a committee now. I suppose that would put payments off that much longer. But I do say to the minister that in 1950 we did have a joint all-party committee of both houses of parliament which went into the

question, spending weeks in fact months, discussing the matter. Like so many tasks which have been done by committees, a good job was done. The Old Age Security Act we have on the statute books today was not dreamed up by the government of that day. There were a lot of good men who sat on that committee and it was the committee that produced an excellent scheme of old age security payable as a matter of right to our elderly people. The government is now going back on the good judgment of an all-party committee which was arrived at in 1950 in trying to bring in this supplementary plan.
We have heard talk today of what the increase is going to cost and we are all supposed to be floored by these figures the minister has produced. We have also been told that the Minister of Finance is going to bring in a supplementary budget to provide for the necessary payments. I deplore this as strongly as I can. During the time this government has been in power over the past three and a half years it has collected nearly $400 million more by way of old age security tax than it has paid out in the form of old age security pensions.


Mr. Regimbal:: Where is that money now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know where it is now.


Roger E. Régimbal: It is in the sock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, the sock is empty; what was in the sock was used up last month for another purpose. There is certainly no Christmas stocking around as far as this government is concerned. I do not know where the money is. I know that government bookkeeping is largely a matter of bookkeeping rather than a specified amount of dollars in a fund or bank, but the fact of the matter is that the government has collected in three and half years nearly $400 million more from the Canadian people earmarked for pensions than it has paid out in pensions. Therefore, morally I say that the government is bound to use that money for this purpose before it proposes any additional taxation.
I have a notion, Mr. Chairman, that the government is trying a shock treatment. It just wants to put on taxes at the same time so as to make the people feel that the reason taxes are going up is that pensions are going up. This is supposed to deter people from asking for more pensions for our elderly citizens. I do not think this will be the effect, Mr. Chairman. I do not think the Canadian people are
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
all Scrooges. The Canadian people want to do the right thing for our older citizens. They will agree that these pensions should be paid and they will agree that these pensions should be raised across the board without a means test, a needs test or an income test of any kind.
Let me say again, that in all of this it is important that we meet the needs of our elderly people. We are not meeting their needs with a pension of $105 a month when our welfare people have informed us that our elderly people require $138 a month. But even more important than the monetary needs of our older people is their right to dignity and self-respect.
I have been connected with this question long enough now to be able to say that I know the difference-I have seen it with my own eyes-between people who were on the pension in the 1930's and 1940's and people who have been on the pension in the 1950's and 1960's. In the 1930's and 1940's to be on pension was a disgrace. In the 1950's and 1960's people have been proud to be on pension. The abolition of the means test made the difference. Now, we are changing this by saying that people who will now be on pension are those who are submitting themselves to this kind of test.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when you take away dignity and self-respect from any group of citizens of this country, which is what this proposal will do, you are doing something that ought not to be the business of parliament. There is no point in the minister getting worked up over the use of the phrase "guaranteed annual income". He is borrowing the phrase from thinking which is related to the working period of people's lives and is trying to use the phrase to justify a means test program. The present $75 a month is a guaranteed annual income to our people; and $105 a month would be a guaranteed annual income for our older people in just the same way if only they all received it regardless of their situation or any other income they may have.
The minister has provided us with some details which we will look into further before we get through second reading and into the committee of the whole stage of the bill, but I submit that the complications which are wrapped up in this bill are just not worth the trouble. This will become apparent very soon when the minister begins to hear from the elderly people across the country about their 23033-678
Old Age Security Act Amendment feelings of horror and regret that this step has been taken.
The Liberals on the other side of the house applauded the minister when he made his statement today, but let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite as well as the minister that this is a political mistake. The minister said he hoped that the opposition parties would not try to get too much political mileage out of it. But the opposition parties do not need to get mileage out of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Leave that to the appeal board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As my leader says, the appeal board will do that. It is the government party itself which is retreating politically by making a mistake in this field, a field in which they made a mistake once before. The government thought in 1957, when it lent millions of dollars to the pipe line people, that it could win the election that year by granting a $6 increase in the old age pension; but the government learned otherwise. If the government today thinks that it can poll the support of the older Canadian people with this kind of program, then let me tell the minister and the government that members on that side of the house will find once more that it is otherwise.
The Canadian people like dignity and selfrespect; they like the fairness of the old age security plan which pays pensions to all of our old age pensioners as a right. I submit that this is the plan that should remain intact, whatever happens to the amendment that has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I can see procedural difficulties but I will not raise them. However, I wish he had asked for $105 a month. If the government is prepared to go that far, then let us give the pensioners $105 a month without a means test. But whatever happens, I hope that the government will take this debate seriously, as it should take debates in parliament, and will decide even yet that the thing to do is to increase the pension across the board without instituting a means test.
These are my closing words, even though I repeat myself, Mr. Chairman. If the government will adopt my suggestion, it will not have to tell the Canadian people that our pensioners will not get this increase until the end of March; they will get it in their very next cheques. This, Mr. Chairman, is what this parliament ought to demand.
December 5, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend should have been here this afternoon, the one who sits on the committee on health and welfare, to deal with the matter, but he had to go to Montreal as a member of a parliamentary delegation.
Nevertheless, upon the introduction of this resolution, I wish to express our surprise. Although we had been given to understand that the amendment might be introduced in this form, I honestly thought that it would deal with the old age pension.
Mr. Chairman, I do not at all take this resolution as an amendment to the Old Age Security Act; in my opinion, it is simply a social welfare measure for the aged.
The present Social Welfare Act, as it exists in the province of Quebec, enables us to help the elderly to the extent of $30 per month, after an investigation has been made. This temporary measure enables us to help the pensioners, those who receive the present $75 cheque. This means that we can help the elderly in the province of Quebec up to a maximum of $30 per month.
I heard it said that our old people will receive $360 a year under this act. I would like to give a few explanations concerning these figures, because some people always seem to have the knack of holding up certain figures, but when we proceed to an examination of these figures, we find that they are greatly reduced.
The population expected something else from the present government, after all those fine promises. I can still recall the minister's jaunts into my riding. The ministers came one after the other-I think I got six, seven, maybe eight who promised $100, with respect to old age pensions. A pension means "abstention". Abstention from any investigation. A pension is a certain sum granted to an individual as a matter of right, necessarily without any investigation. It is something owing, not charity. There were promises of $100, $105-several even promised up to $125 per month.
Today, what is purely a social assistance measure is brought before the house. The legislation introduced is social assistance for the needy. They will get $360 a year at the most, following an investigation and many inquiries-and heaven knows that older persons have to submit to numerous tests-they will get a $5, $10 or $12 monthly increase, according to the inspector's generosity.
{Mr. Knowles.]
Mr. Chairman, since I have been sitting in parliament, I am fed up with all those investigation procedures which have but one purpose; to increase the number of bureaucrats and give, as it were, to employees taxes collected from the taxpayers and which should be used for the aged who have rendered services to their country and who deserve some reward.
As the two previous speakers pointed out- I do not wish to repeat their arguments-as a result of that legislation, everybody will be taxed for the benefit of a few. I feel that such will be the effect of that piece of legislation throughout the country.
The minister actually said, with regard to the eligibility requirements, that neither the contributions-for instance, the assistance given by children to their parents-nor the fact that a property owner benefits from a provincial contribution, will affect in any way the assistance provided by the government.
Well, if the provincial contributions are to have no effect whatsoever, some older people in the province of Quebec will surely get $135 a month. The data provided by the minister in that connection were so vague that I wonder what the eligibility standards will be. There is nothing clear nor precise at the moment. And I think that this legislation, like all others which are brought in, is rather confused to make older people believe that they will obtain something when, in fact, they will only get a few dollars more per month.
Well, I prefer at the present time the assistance given in our province to the aged, that is an amount of $75 and a supplementary benefit of $30, because I believe that when this legislation is passed, Quebec will revoke the temporary legislation carried pending the stabilization of old age pensions.
I support the amendment moved by the Conservatives and I feel that it would be better to give everyone at least $100 a month, whatever their income. Someone will say: Yes, but some do not need it. Well, Mr. Chairman, those who do not need it, those whose income is taxable will give it back when they pay their income tax, that is all. Then we would kill two birds with one stone. We would abolish that army of inspectors who will again poke around in the homes of our old people, and which costs almost as much.
The minister said: That will cost $270 million. How can he be so sure? It might cost
December 5, 19G6	COMMONS
only $200 or $190 million. I guarantee, for instance, that with the present system it will cost at least $100 million to pay those investigators. And those $100 million will again be paid by all the Canadian taxpayers. And that is why we are against those notorious investigations, those political investigations inspired by patronage. Heaven knows how much patronage there is in those investigations.
And we want to fight patronage.
A statutory pension should be given to everyone.


Mr. Guay:: A national dividend.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, a national dividend would still be the best. That is what it is anyway, but when it is given without an investigation.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I heard the minister say a little earlier, that there will be practically no investigation, just a form to fill. Yes, when one knows what a form is. The proof is that there will be an investigation, that the first payment will be made in three months only, which means that the government investigators will have three months to go from house to house to check if this old man or this old lady has filled his or her form, if one of them forgot to declare any source of income, in short if anything was overlooked, then a reduction will be made. They will be told: According to the interpretation of the new legislation, you are entitled to $2, $3 or $5 per month. That is what will happen and I want to tell the people that this is what they must expect if that legislation is passed as is. Not many people will get $360 more per year; however, there will be a lot among the patronage handlers, the Liberals, some families I know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, clamour all who will, but I have had enough of those inquiries. We have seen abominable things going on and some dare say there is no patronage.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No? Come and see our ridings. When you have armies of investigators-the only thing they lack is a red hat on their head-carrying out that type of investigation. I say that is antisocial. If our old people deserve something, let us give it to them. Let us stop insulting them and treating them like beggars.
23033-678J
Old Age Security Act Amendment
If an old couple has managed through 50 or 60 years of work to purchase a little home, worth roughly from $4000 to $8000, where they can live out in peace the remainder of their days, such investigations as are proposed-


An hon. Member:: There is no investigation concerning the home.
Another hon. Member: The investigation does not include the home.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No. I am speaking of the present investigation system. The statement made by the minister is not very clear; according to him, money in the bank will be taxable; as for the house, everything will depend on what income from the house is taxable.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: No it is not taxable.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Oh yes; it all depends on the income from the house.


An hon. Member:: No, it is not.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Sure, if such house brings in an income, inspectors will visit the old people and say: Your house is well worth $60 per month; that is an income.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Well, that is it. We do not have the bill yet and we do not know all the details thereof.


An hon. Member:: Then do not speak about it.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I will speak about it, because prevention is better than cure, prevention is better than keeping quiet, withstanding everything and accepting everything.
I say that this legislation, as drafted, is unacceptable.


An hon. Member:: You do not know anything about that.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The very principle of it cannot be accepted by reason of the investigation. We do not want any investigation for the aged. We do not want any investigation at all; that is clear enough. I cannot speak of the criteria for eligibility, because I do not have the bill, since we are only considering a proposed resolution. But one can understand, for instance, that there will continue to be investigations, just like in past years. The same method as in the past years will apply;
10722	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment there will be no getting out of that and again it will be our old people who will suffer, while bureaucrats and investigators will thrive on that.
Besides, we in the province of Quebec discuss this over-all plan, because it will probably be in agreement with the plan of the provincial government. The Quebec government has advised the leaders of the present federal government that it is getting ready to take back old age security pensions. In this regard, we find in he Devoir of December 5, 1966 an article entitled:
Old Age Security:
To say no to Quebec, Ottawa will advance mainly economic arguments.
At a time when the government is endeavouring to prevent the establishment of a special status in Quebec, at a time also when social security is considered more and more as an instrument for the application of national economic policies, the decision of the Johnson government to assume full and exclusive responsibility in the field of old age pensions gives rise to the greatest interest in the capital.
There is, first, the constitutional aspect of the question, but that is not all. It has been shown, in that respect, that nothing in the British North America Act forbids a province to establish an old age pension plan.
On the contrary, the constitution had to be amended in 1951 precisely to enable the federal government to take action in that area of social security, which had, until then, remained unoccupied, provided that such action was not inconsistent with existing or future provincial legislation.
We know by what stratagem the federal government took over social matters in 1951. After taking away from the provinces their powers of taxation and all means of organizing their own social system, the federal government quickly interfered in fields which were 100 per cent under the jurisdiction of the provinces. It continues to do so today. The government still refuses to give back to the provinces what it borrowed from them. Yet, when the government borrowed these powers of taxation, it agreed to give them back to the provinces as soon as the war was over. It is said that the provinces are unable to organize social security. Of course, they are unable to do so. All the means of doing so have been taken away from them, and today it is said that they are unable to do it.
Well, I think that Quebec will probably give a lesson in courtesy to the central government who wants to centralize everything here. The present Johnson government is not the only one to do that, one need only to look at the

DEBATES	December 5, 1966
Liberal party. In fact, today's issue of he Devoir says:
Johnson will not be alone in his fight against Ottawa. The Liberals will support him.
The Liberals will support Mr. Johnson in order to regain their rights from Ottawa.
I believe that the Quebec era is about to begin, Mr. Chairman. Quebec was long enough the object of ridicule. I am certain that if the opposition, as well as the government in office, continue their good work in the orientation and planning of social matters, Quebec will certainly attain its goal, at any cost, and the Ottawa government will be forced to restore what it borrowed.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Stole?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: What it borrowed. I hope that during the referendum which will take place in the province of Quebec on that matter, and I believe that will be an eye-opener for Ottawa-that there is a majority of 75 per cent for the repatriation of our taxation legislation and that we will be able to live in a Canada where the provinces will be free in the exercise of their internal administration.
I submit that the act as it is presented does not constitute an amendment to the Old Age Security Act. It is merely a social assistance measure and we have already one in Quebec. As drafted, this act is not at all what the Liberal party had promised in the election before last.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I must
apologize to the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I was rising on a question of privilege. First, I would like to hear again what the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has said, to ascertain whether I understood him properly. I believe, if attention was paid to his words, that there are grounds for the question of privilege- tomorrow's official report will tell. At a certain point, while speaking about the inquiries to be conducted by our civil servants to check whether or not people will be eligible
December 5, 19S6

for an increase that would raise their pension to $105, he went as far as to say that bureaucrats and inspectors will pocket all the money.
It would be in order to know if he meant "steal" when he spoke about "pocketing". Nevertheless, it is necessary to raise a question of privilege and I feel that, if he went farther than he intended, he should withdraw or be called to order.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: May I reply, Mr. Chairman?


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: With respect to the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It must first be established whether or not there are grounds for the hon. member's question of privilege.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: With respect to the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Rinfret: There is no question of privilege.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, this is in order to clarify some of the hon. member's words.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The question of privilege, as formulated, is unfounded.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -because I feel that the hon. member-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege or on a point of order?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: because my words were misinterpreted. When I said-he understood that they were going to pocket the money- I was referring to-


Prosper Boulanger: You were referring to the investigators?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, but would the hon. member be kind enough to listen a while. When I said that they were going to pocket the salaries which we pay, I was referring to salaries which will be paid out of the taxes collected; I was saying that they were going to pocket pension money which should be given to the elderly and which the investigators will receive. That is what I meant.
Old Age Security Act Amendment The hon. member should read Hansard and listen carefully.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; in view of the fact municipal elections are being held today and in order to afford an opportunity for the staff of the House of Commons to vote, I suggest, if there is agreement, that the committee rise and report progress.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is agreement, as stated, but I would like to call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there was a request earlier in the day that the house suspend its sittings from five until seven o'clock, and that is agreeable to the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house suspend its sitting from five until seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It may be a convenience to members in all parties if I were to advise them now that there are no questions on the adjournment motion this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to resume the committee stage and then suspend?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, t967, to provide for the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and for the charging to the Old Age Security Fund under that act of a monthly amount, to be known as the guaranteed income supplement, to certain pensioners thereunder up to a maximum of forty per cent of the amount of the pension payable under that act; to provide for the determination of the income of a pensioner for the purposes of such supplement and for appeals by pensioners against decisions or determinations made under that act; and to provide for other related and consequential matters.
10724	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment The Chairman:	Order. Pursuant to an
agreement just reached I do now leave the chair and the committee will resume its sitting at seven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, we finally have reached consideration in this committee of an issue which I believe is of more urgent importance than many which have occupied our attention for some time. This house seems to be prone to getting bogged down in matters of passing concern or in expending its time and energy on problems which probably have more political connotation than anything else. At this particular time, however, we are discussing a matter of continuing concern to a large segment of our society, namely, the senior citizens of this country. I suppose arguments in favour of increases in the old age pension payments at this time are almost redundant. Throughout the past months debate has taken place on various occasions and while suggestions and questions have been raised by some hon. members concerning the ability of our economy to sustain such increases, I cannot remember anyone advancing the argument that those increases were not necessary.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
We are all aware that the spiralling cost of living has so reduced the purchasing power of the dollar that an amount considered reasonably adequate in the past has now become completely inadequate to assure the very minimum standard of living. Communications received from those on pensions of various kinds, veterans, superannuated civil servants and old age security recipients, have all emphasized the dire financial straits in which they find themselves and many of them almost pathetically plead for a little extra assistance to help them in meeting the added costs of living.
I suppose it was never envisioned that the pension was to be the whole means of livelihood, but because of conditions beyond their control many people now find themselves in the position where this is so. Unable to save from their meagre earnings throughout the

DEBATES	December 5, 1966
years, they must now depend on the pension cheque not to add a few extras but to provide the bare necessities of life. Thousands of others, perhaps a little more fortunate, a little more thrifty and far-sighted in some cases, thought they were providing a financial cushion in the form of investments, pension plans or annuities but now discover that the thief of inflated prices has robbed them and they as well are fighting to keep the proverbial wolf from the door. Increasing food prices, rising rents and general increases in living costs all combine to warrant an increase in pensions at this time which in fact is long overdue. Our senior citizens must not be left to live out their final years in penury, isolation and neglect.
In the foreward to the final report of the special committee of the Senate on aging reference is made to two meanings of the word "welfare" and the committee associates itself with the first which is:
-an essential activity of the community, ensuring that every citizen is able to call upon community services that he may need as a right of membership within the community.
While some explanations may be necessary in the general application of this principle, there can be no doubt about its specific application to the aging members of the community. As the legislation to follow the resolution now before us is based at least in part upon the findings of the Senate committee on aging, I should like to quote from the terms of reference of that committee:

that a special committee of the Senate be appointed to examine the problem involved in the promotion of the welfare of the aged and aging persons, in order to ensure that in addition to the provision of sufficient income, there are also developed adequate services and facilities of a positive and preventive kind so that older persons may continue to live healthy and useful lives as members of the Canadian community and the need for the maximum co-operation of all levels of government in the promotion thereof

I call attention to the fact that in this reference the phrase "sufficient income" is used. I believe this should constitute the objective of society in endeavouring to fulfil our responsibility to the aged and aging of our country. I do not wish to inject partisan politics into this debate except to say that in general it is the philosophy of the party to which I belong that it is the right of every citizen to share in the benefits accruing to society through the combined efforts of all our people.
December 5, 1966

The resolution before the house is as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund and for the charging to the old age security fund under that act of a monthly amount, to be known as the guaranteed Income supplement, to certain pensioners thereunder up to a maximum of 40 per cent of the amount of the pension payable under that act; to provide for the determination of the income of a pensioner for the purposes of such supplement and for appeals by pensioners against decisions or determinations made under that act; and to provide for other related and consequential matters.
There are several principles enunciated in this resolution and the first is the principle of a guaranteed income for senior citizens. On page 19 of the report of the Senate committee on aging we find a recommendation couched in the following terms:
The committee endorses in principle the institution of an income guarantee for all persons aged 65 and over and recommends to the federal government that this proposal be given immediate study.
On subsequent occasions, at least two ministers of the crown have given approval to this concept not only as it applies to this age group but eventually including all Canadians. Speaking in Gore Bay, Ontario, on Friday, March 18, 1966, the Minister of Agriculture said:
It would not surprise me, as automation increases and more and more of our prosperity is produced by machines rather than men, if this idea of a guaranteed minimum income turned out to have real possibilities as a part of over-all government manpower policy.
Later he said:
It does not seem impossible to me that one day we might find the simplest and most efficient way of meeting this challenge of revolutionary economic change will be to introduce a guaranteed minimum income for every family in Canada, maybe even every adult.
He also said:
I wouldn't be surprised, if a careful economic analysis were made, to learn that it would cost little more than the tangled melange of welfare programs already in effect across the country.
One of the most important questions is how such a plan is to be implemented. The idea of the means test is repugnant not only to the potential recipient but to the finer sensibilities of society charged with its implementation. We are gradually moving toward the implementation of one of the early proposals of the Social Credit movement which was based on the principle that every citizen of Canada
Old Age Security Act Amendment had a right to an income which was his share of the affluence resulting from technological and scientific developments across our nation. This was envisaged for all, regardless of economic status. This is another instance where Social Credit was perhaps several decades ahead of public opinion.
What are the conditions of eligibility as outlined by the Senate committee and the procedures to be followed in administering the suggested income guarantee plan? They are, first, ten years residence and net cash income from all sources, including old age security and the Canada pension plan, below the amounts of $1,260 for single persons and $2,220 for married couples; second, that the program be administered and financed by the federal government; third, the completion of a simplified income form annually and that the amount by which the declared income falls short of the established minima in any year constitute the benefit for the year following; fourth, that there be "sample checks" periodically, as under unemployment insurance, to catch abuses, but no means or needs test inquiries on traditional lines; fifth, income, capital and deductions be defined and treated as for income tax purposes so far as possible, except that all public transfer payments other than temporary needs-tested supplements would be included.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I refer to these conditions because it seemed to us, in following as well as we could the rather lengthy and involved statement of the minister, that it followed rather closely although not entirely the qualifications laid down by the Senate committee on aging. I note that the supplementary payments which are now made by the provinces will not be included in arriving at the income figure. I believe this to be very wise. Also our understanding is that the value of assets does not constitute an impediment to the receipt of the additional amount but that it is solely and entirely based on the amount of income. Further, according to the minister, apparently the simplified forms will be less repugnant than other income tax forms which we are all required to file. If the government refuses to eliminate completely the income requirement, it must be minimal and of such a nature that present inquisitional methods which are used to discover the income of our senior citizens in some categories must not be used by those whose task it is to ascertain the rate of supplementary income. Even so, there is inherent in such a requirement the danger that through
Old Age Security Act Amendment desperation some people may be tempted to file incomplete statements in order to obtain the larger amount.
The maximum amount envisaged by the resolution before us is $30 which increases the pension to $105 per month for a single person and $185 for a married couple. The minister's statement indicates some variation in these amounts depending on income, but basically this is the picture.
There is an amendment before the house which creates somewhat of a problem. The amendment states:
The government give consideration to introducing a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund and for charging to the old age security fund under that act of an additional monthly amount of $25.00 to all pensioners thereunder.
Now we are placed in a position where apparently we have to decide between a $100 basic rate with no means test for old age pensioners and the $105 contained in the resolution with the income test which has been outlined. I cannot predict just what the reaction will be when we make a decision as between those two particular figures. However, that is what we will be faced with.
Some time has elapsed since the committee report was tabled. Even then the amount suggested was considered inadequate and was offered as an interim recommendation only until a definite formula had been established to set rates of pension. About that time, a Canadian conference on aging was held in Toronto and the proposals emanating from their deliberations were $138 for a single person and $223 for a married couple, and that there should be continuous review of budget standards to ensure that the living standards of the elderly are kept in harmony with those of the rest of the community.
In 1958 the Social Credit party advocated a basic old age pension in the amount of $100 per month. We maintained at that time that the country was well able to carry that responsibility. Once again it seems that we were in advance of the times in that only now do we have such a recommendation before us in the resolution.
In line with the many representations made by old age pension groups and others we urge the government to raise the basic pension to $100 per month or $105 per month and then, if considered advisable, to proceed to a study designed to establish a minimum income level above that figure. I suggest that this should

December 5, 1966
not only be granted to old age pensioners but that careful examination be given to the possibility or desirability of expanding it gradually to take in all the citizens of this country. This would to some degree assuage the resentment in the hearts of some over the seeming injustice of the plan in that those who are thrifty and have made sacrifices to assure themselves of say $30 per month are not eligible for the supplementary amount while others, perhaps a little less thrifty, do qualify. I am not speaking of those who through circumstances beyond their control and in spite of every endeavour to provide for retirement years have been unable to do so. Limited opportunity, low wages, and the raising of a family have combined to deprive these people of financial security. I refer only to those who have lived to the limit of their income unnecessarily and who now, without income other than old age security, will be eligible for the larger amount.
A constituent has expressed this point in the following words:
A poor chap who has laboured for years (and I know many such) through the "no pension" era, the seven, and six-day work years, the no-holiday years, the very restricted pension era-with means test, the depression and lay-offs in industry-and yet has, despite all wrung some savings from nearly nothing of income margin-if he has saved even $35.00 per month, this, plus his $75.00 O.A.P. puts him $5.00 above the extra assistance ceiling. He will get nothing.
Another chap, who lived the life of Riley, or of the proverbial "grasshopper green" and saved nothing, has his $75.00 and will get the whole $30.00 proposed handed to him. Why were we not all wasters and spendthrifts-we would be subsidized for it trader present thinking, not penalized-as we are for having saved?
I want to state that this person also has made it clear he is not referring to those who because of impossible circumstances were unable to save, but to those who were unwilling to save.
In conclusion I urge that very careful consideration be given to the first recommendation of the Senate committee as it appears on page 18 of the committee's report, namely:
The establishment of a technically competent body to study the income needs of older people and to develop a socially acceptable minimum budget for single persons and couples, which would be adjusted automatically each year on the basis of a suitable index of consumer spending or of earnings, with a review every five years to reflect changes in the relative circumstances of the working population and the retired population.
We have stated many times that the needs of the aging members of our society should not be the subject of political consideration

December 5, 1966	COMMONS
but that levels of pensions should be established by a body of competent individuals who will assess the needs and make recommendations as suggested in the report of the Senate committee on aging. Therefore we heartily concur in the recommendation made by the Senate committee.
We welcome the introduction of this resolution, imperfect as it is, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss more fully and completely the needs of our senior citizens and the best solution of their problems. We hope that the government will bring in amendments to establish a basic pension of $100 or, as I have said before, $105 a month and will adjust the other provisions accordingly.


Herman Maxwell Batten: During the earlier part of the sitting today the right hon. Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to the resolution before the committee. If it is the wish of the committee I should be pleased to hear arguments regarding the validity of this amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the minister accept it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier that I wished to raise a point of order with respect to this amendment. First of all, a proposition in almost the same terms as this amendment has been dealt with already by a vote of the house. The amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne called for an increase in the pension of $25 a month. As I said, this has already been voted on, and it is an axiom of the procedure in this house that a proposition, once having been determined upon in the course of a session, cannot be put forward again.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
But more than this, Mr. Chairman, may I refer to page 216, paragraph 4 of citation 250 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads in part as follows:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor-General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended.
I believe that in this case not only are the fundamental terms of a money resolution amended but an entirely new proposition is submitted for the consideration of this committee. For example, all the words after "that" are to be deleted and an entirely new system is proposed to the committee. On the ground that the fundamental terms of a money resolution cannot be amended, I submit that this amendment is not in order.
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like you to take under consideration the fact that at the resolution stage the government has put forward a proposition which may or may not be acceptable to the house. During the course of debate on the resolution stage suggestions may be made which might lead the government to make alterations in the bill to be founded on the resolution. There are instances in British and Canadian parliamentary practice where resolutions have been brought forward, have been modified; they have been withdrawn, other resolutions have been brought forward, and a bill founded upon a modified resolution has been introduced.
In the amendment before the committee at the present time an alternative proposition is put toward, and I would think that the government would welcome a decision of the house with regard to it. The government has put forward a proposal to increase the rate of pension to certain pensioners and it has been disclosed that this increase will amount to $30 a month. We have put forward the alternative proposition that in view of the fact that an increase in pension is being considered by the government, a more equitable scheme would be to make the increase $25 a month across the board without excluding anyone. This is an alternative proposition, and why should not the house be tested on it before the government proceeds? If the house is of the opinion that the second proposition is better than the first, then the government may modify its bill accordingly. We are not at the stage where although a bill may have been prepared-it usually is

the legislation is set without any possibility of being changed. Consequently I suggest that Your Honour should take this factor into consideration.
At page 216 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, from which the minister read, paragraph 3 at the top of the page commences with these words:
The object of the resolution recommended by the Crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure.
It is quite obvious that the house could reject the resolution, in which case the government would have to try again. But at the same time, when the house is in committee of the whole, as it is at the moment, alternative suggestions might well be considered. Although the minister has drawn the attention of the Chair to paragraph 4 and has based his argument largely upon that paragraph, which reads, "Amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an
December 5, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation", we are not here proposing an alternative scheme that substantially alters the royal recommendation. It cannot necessarily be concluded, Mr. Chairman, that our proposition will increase the amount of money which according to the minister will be made available under this particular scheme.
The resolution of the government does not disclose the exact amount of money that is to be expended. There may be quite a bit of doubt as to what that total will be. In fact, the minister indicated that there is a wide spread of several million dollars in his figures. Our alternative scheme might not exceed the actual amount of money that would be spent under the government's scheme. So we are putting before the house, and I think quite properly, an alternative to the proposition put forward by the minister in order to give the house a chance to decide which of the two is preferable under the circumstances.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there is no further discussion of this matter perhaps the committee would wish me to make a ruling now. This ruling is on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this afternoon. The amendment reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"The government give consideration to introducing a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and for charging to the Old Age Security Fund under that Act of an additional monthly amount of $25 to all pensioners thereunder.
During the time that has elapsed since the amendment was moved the Chair has had an opportunity to give serious and careful consideration to the validity or regularity of the proposed amendment. I suggest to the committee that the Chair entertains serious doubts that this proposal is indeed an amendment. It would appear that the amendment in the first instance is in the nature of an alternative scheme, and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre during the course of his remarks stated that it is an alternative scheme. But as such it would be an expanded negative.
If the amendment were ruled to be in order and adopted by this committee the main question, which is the consideration of the resolution proposed by the minister, would be terminated. This committee of the whole, as are all committees of this house, is limited in its

deliberation to the terms of its order of reference-in this case the terms of the resolution proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare which was referred to the committee of the whole house.
Under the heading "Procedure in committee of the whole house on expenditure" in May's seventeenth edition, page 798, the following is stated under the subheading "Procedure on amendments":
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
The approval or the reduction of the expenditure under consideration, or an increase in the stringency of the terms and conditions of the charge thereby created, are the matters specially entrusted to such a committee, and to these objects amendments are directed.
An amendment proposing to substitute for the resolution an argumentative justification for the refusal of the demand is out of order, as are also amendments proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
If the committee would permit the Chair to make a further reference to May's seventeenth edition at page 632, I should like to read a paragraph appearing under the heading "Reasoned amendments", which says:
Since the primary purpose of the committee is to consider and amend in detail matters which have been referred to it, and since such matters have, in the case of bills, previously been agreed to in principle by the house or, in the case of the three kinds of committees dealing with public charges . . . are matters in which the initiative properly belongs to the government, it is not usually in order in committee of the whole house to move an amendment to leave out all the words after the first word in a resolution in order to add other words. There are precedents, however, for amendments of this type being moved in committee of the whole House upon resolutions (not imposing charges) which were preliminary to the introduction of bills.
Respecting my earlier remarks having to do with the proposed amendment being in order as an alternative proposal or alternative scheme, I refer the committee to section 4 of citation 250 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor-General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution. The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the committee of supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
For all these reasons, with all deference to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition I have to rule the amendment out of order.
December 5, 1966	COMMONS


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I suppose
we on this side could have anticipated your decision. Nevertheless, we must make every effort possible for the senior citizens of this country, as we have done during the course of the entire session.
A comparison was made between the minister and Scrooge who is known to us from the legendary story which has been handed down to us. Scrooge might be pardoned for his attitude because he was stupid, but in this case I believe it is deceit. I believe the senior citizens of the country are being deceived.
Not too long ago, referring to myself and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister said that we were adopting our attitude for the sake of publicity. Again, on November 23, in a C.B.C. program called "Preview Commentary" one Marcel Gingras said the same thing. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee that every position we have taken on old age security has been vindicated and proven true as the result of the explanation given to us this afternoon. That applies equally to the statement I made about leaks of information to the Toronto Star. That statement is also true, because we had proof this afternoon that it is so. We are getting used to that in the house as a way of operation by this government. I think it is high time it was brought to an end.
The minister had little enough to say about the appeal board and the position it will have under this legislation. Again I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that what has been done is extremely retrograde when we consider how old age pensions were initially constituted in Canada. Under a Liberal administration in 1950-51 every senior citizen became entitled by right at age 70 to participate in the old age security program. The decision taken by the Liberal government in 1956 and at the beginning of 1957 was not as serious to my mind as the step the minister took in this house today.
I hope that there are backbenchers in the Liberal party who in this instance are willing to stand up and say that the government is wrong because fundamentally that is how they feel. There is no question of the truth of that. We shall see what those backbenchers do in due course.
As was pointed out by an hon. member this afternoon, in 1956-57 the government used the balance in the old age security account for its own purposes. Fifty million dollars was taken out for this and for that so that the fund would look poor and emaciated. Now the government is playing with larger sums of
Old Age Security Act Amendment money. Let me remind the committee of what the minister said during the discussion of another piece of social legislation. The minister was being questioned by the hon. member for Simcoe East about money that was to be used and he said, as reported at page 7938 of Hansard:
Frankly, I do not attach any real Importance to these figures. I do not attach any real importance to-
Then the amount of money, a large amount, is mentioned specifically. The minister was also being questioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The money involved ran to millions and millions of dollars. But those millions were not important then. Surely, bearing in mind the unanimous point made by the joint committee concerned with this matter in 1950 and 1951, the money was important then and is important today. Is the m nister bringing in a new era of political thinking? If the minister is thinking about the amount of money that will be needed by the end of the fiscal year for any increase and il he is projecting that amount into the future, 1 do not think he need be concerned. He need not be concerned about the amendment this afternoon which sought to increase the old age pension by $25. I shall show why in a moment. The minister himself several times said it would be worth while increasing the pension by $25 across the board.
One looks at the cost of administration and then one looks at the money saved by eliminating the $500 tax free for those aged 65 to 70. Income tax will be collected from people in a taxable bracket. I should like to see all the money involved detailed so that we might know how much the program would cost the government because, frankly, I do not think it would cost the government that much. The minister may not agree with me, but then the minister wants to impress his view on the committee. He has impressed his view on the cab net.
I saw what happened to the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I hope he and his colleagues will not sit in their seats on this bill. I hope they will support the move to $100 a month pension.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I take exception to the statement of the hon. member, on a question of privilege, because he is implying that we sat in our seats when this issue was before the house.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No, no.


Alexander Bell Patterson: He completely misrepresents the facts.
December 5, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment


Eric Alfred Winkler: The hon. member misunderstood me. But I can recall that the other evening, when an important point in the medicare legislation came up, the hon. member and his colleagues saw that the government could be defeated and they sat in their seats. We shall see where the hon. member and his colleagues stand on the old age security pension.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I believe it is contrary to rules of the house for an hon. member to impute motives. The imputation is absolutely false.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman-
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: You are in a bad humour.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am never in a bad humour. But I understand I shall have to retract, because I believe it was a member of the Ral-liement Creditistes who sat in his seat.


An hon. Member:: Now you are in a good humour.


Eric Alfred Winkler: At least I endeavour to be honest with the people I deal with. And I am particularly concerned about honesty when we are dealing with old age pensioners. As further support for the stand we are taking, let me draw attention to the fact that all senior citizens have contributed to this fund, and in accordance with the decision reached by this house in 1950-51 they are entitled to its benefits. If they are not, I have misread the reports of what was done at that time. But I believe I am correct in what I say.
By the action they are proposing now I believe the minister and the government will alienate every senior citizen and forfeit whatever degree of support they might otherwise receive. I am not thinking about getting votes. I am thinking about support for the government in general.
Anyway, all that went by the board long ago. As the Minister of National Defence, in particular, made clear the other day, the Canadian people mean nothing. In this instance it is a case of satisfying one person alone, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I have a circular before me. It is a publication put out by the Commercial Clearing House, Inc. directed to law officers and others. The first article in this volume, which is dated November 29, 1966, concerns the guaranteed income supplement. It states right here in this
[Mr. Patterson.[
article sent out to law officers that the increase will be dependent upon a means test.
We were told in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself that there would be no means test, that it would be some other test. Be this as it may, people who have built up a small reserve for their old age will be discriminated against by reason of a means test. Let us not be deceived, even though the government is trying to deceive parliament in this regard. The minister will present this house with a very unfair bill when this evening is over.
I will do my utmost to stand by the position we have taken ever since January 18. We have been vindicated in every move we have made to get a better deal for our senior citizens. The government has chosen to pay no attention to the House of Commons or to the needs of senior citizens. By its neglect in this and in other fields the government is digging its own grave and, as far as I am concerned, the fate which is coming to it is well deserved. This legislation will do no good to those who have contributed to the fund and who deserve the benefits of the fund rather than the discriminatory type of legislation which will be imposed upon them by this administration.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this point in the debate to discuss the two main objections which opposition speakers have raised to this resolution. First, there is the allegation that the guaranteed income plan before the committee does in fact contain a means test. Then there is the allegation that the plan favours those who d'ssipated their incomes when they were young and penalizes those who saved.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Hear, hear. That is correct.


William Warren Allmand: Both these criticisms are false, and I should like to deal with them in detail. The resolution now before us would raise the old age pension to $105. This proposal is not based on any whim of the government. It is founded on the serious study which was made by the Senate committee on aging, the findings of which were published in the Croll report.
The plan before us is a guaranteed income plan. If it contains a test at all, it is not a means test. When the means test was in force an official would visit the house of the applicant, assess his income, his property, his home, his car and so on, and would then decide whether the applicant was entitled to a pension. Under the terms of the present
December 5, 1966


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: The hon. gentleman is only describing himself when he says that.


William Warren Allmand: It is a matter of opinion, Mr. Chairman. I think that people who maintain that this plan has a means test are either stupid or dishonest and I cannot see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.


Richard Albert Bell: That is an accurate description of the hon. gentleman.


William Warren Allmand: We will let the public decide that. I am sure that the public will support this plan. Many people have written me to say that this is a very just plan and that it is the only way to spend money on social welfare to help those who really need help.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This afternoon one member in the opposition asked the minister whether he would refer this legislation to a committee. I certainly hope that will not happen because this matter has been dealt with for almost two years by a Senate committee. Briefs were presented, representations were made and opinions brought forward. We have the report of this committee and I think it is time now that we enact this legislation so that it will be in force by January 1, 1967. I believe this is a good resolution and I have no hesitation in supporting it to the fullest.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in stating that the $30 a month men-
Old Age Security Act Amendment tioned in this resolution should be given as a matter of right and without the necessity for tests or inquisitions of any kind. I should like to dwell on a topic which no one up to now, so far as I can recall, has raised. We are dealing here with a particular class of people, a particular class of Canadians which the Minister of National Health and Welfare said numbers around 900,000 at the present time. All these people were born before the turn of the century. Seventy per cent of them went to the little red schoolhouses across Canada. Most of them did not reach grade 8 in school. These people are in a special group. They were raised on the farmlands of Canada or in the small villages. Very few of them went to high school. Many of those who did went to the first world war. I can recall some who went from my own high school. Many whom I knew went as lieutenants and did not come back; they died on the battlefields. A generation of brain power was lost. As we go along we find that many of them went through two world wars. These people are in a special class. My appeal is that we consider them. They lived under special conditions which I hope we never have again. As a matter of fact we will not, because the whole picture is changing in respect of education right across the country and pensions in general.
Many of these people went through two world wars. I do not have to remind you of those who in the first world war suffered in the trenches often for over a week at a time in the mud and the dirt. Over 500,000 people took up arms for Canada, and this out of a total population of around eight million. This is a splendid record, Mr. Chairman. Then we had the depression which started in 1929, one of the longest and worst depressions this world ever has suffered. I should like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that that depression lasted until 1940 and these people were in the prime of their earning years during that period. Their earnings were probably around a couple of dollars a day. Last Saturday I saw a chap who told me that in those days he earned $240 a year working on a farm. He got his board and his bed. I know that many fellows in those days slept under trees in the summer. I remember one chap very well. He came from the maritimes to work in Fort William. I remember stopping and giving him a ride into town. He had slept under a maple tree. He had covered himself with paper to protect himself from the heavy dew. Then there were those young men who spent their days in the work camps which existed across this country and received $5 a month. How in the world
10734	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment have we the parsimony in our hearts today to say that we are going to impose a test in respect of this money for those noble 900,000 who are left?
I should like to go further and say with reference to those people who did have the opportunity to save, whether it be in the form of life insurance or in the form of money in the bank, that the hard buck they earned in those days today buys only 30 cents worth of goods in the market. There is something else to which I should like to refer. I am going to mention bonds. In 1936 those people who were earning a buck were asked by Mr. Mackenzie King, then prime minister of Canada, to invest in this country as a patriotic duty. I remember that a banker called me and asked me whether I would buy some of those bonds. If I remember correctly, the bank interest rate was down to 1J per cent. The banker said that he would lend me the money to buy those bonds. The bonds bore 3 per cent interest. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, people paid 97 cents on the dollar for those bonds. There were coupons attached to the bonds and those coupons expired in 1966. I have had many letters from people across Canada who bought those bonds and some from my own riding telling me they were advised by the financial people and by their bankers particularly not to cash those bonds when they could have received 70 cents or 75 cents on the dollar for them. They were advised to keep their bonds. They were told that the government would redeem them at 100 cents on the dollar in 1966.
I say to you Mr. Chairman, that it was a scandalous act on the part of the government when they reneged on their obligations to the people of Canada, these people who earned their money in the great depression years. This was a scandalous act and I as a Canadian am ashamed of it. I know a lady who has $4,000 worth of those bonds. I could read into the record the letter I have received from her. She states how she and her husband worked and slaved selling butter, pigs and eggs in order to buy those bonds. They did this so that when they reached age 70 they would have enough money to live on. What can they do now? Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not been following the market, but I suppose she could get 50 cents on the dollar for them. Do you know what that means? That means that in today's market she will get 15 cents out of every dollar she and her husband invested. I say to the government and to every member sitting on the other side of the house, correct that; either correct it and pay up or give those

DEBATES	December 5, 1966
people a normal rate of interest. Raise it from 3 per cent to the current rate of interest.
I have had a question on the order paper which has not been answered. It is said that the speculators have got in on this. I have enough faith in this country that whether or not the speculators have gotten in on it I know they expected the government of this country to come across and deliver or else they would not have bought the bonds. This is straight reneging on a debt.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I venture to say that most of these bonds are held by the original owners. I do not know whether that is the case because I have not had an answer to my question which has been on the order paper for some time.
Here is a special group of people who were born before the turn of the century, who served during two world wars, came through all the years of depression, and experienced a high inflation after the end of the second world war. Anything they had been able to save prior to then was used up during that period. I refer to a group of people, the majority of whom do not have more than a grade eight education. In the 1950's many of these people lost their jobs because they did not have sufficient education. That was a sad state of affairs. Never again will we have the opportunity of doing justice to these people. You can check the record to make sure I am right, but I understand that the rate of employment among these people aged 45 and over during those years was 25 per cent below average, and this related not only to those with grade eight education and under but many other better educated people of the same age group.
In 1951 after a committee of the house had considered this whole problem at length all members of the house agreed that we should not have a means or needs test or anything that even resembled one. That is the meaning of what parliament did at that time. Let me remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that one hon. member who was a strong supporter of that proposal was a previous minister of health, the hon. member for Essex East. He was the hon. member who said that never before had we witnessed such unanimity in the house.
At that time, if I remember the figures accurately, 380,000 people in this country were given an old age pension as of right. In spite of that fact the present minister now sits on that side of the house and tells me that an increase cannot be given to our pensioners
December 5, 1966

without a means test. In the 1950's, after the end of the second world war, the government was able to provide pensions to our elderly and I am sure this government ought to be able to do the same thing now. If the government cannot do this now something serious must be wrong with its housekeeping policy.
It is my hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will check back and read the speeches made by his colleagues in the early 1950's in which they said that no one would ever again be taken into court for making a false statement in respect of a pension application and that never again would their estates be taxed after they were dead and gone. This is exactly what the minister is proposing now, or at least he is providing an opportunity for this to happen.
As a physician let me inform the minister that I come into contact with many elderly people, many of whom will not apply for a pension increase. They are not familiar with forms because their education is not as complete as ours. Some of them who do apply will be pulled before the appeal board. The people who will receive the increase will be taxed if they pay income tax. The same situation will prevail as in 1952 when Mr. St. Laurent was the prime minister. At that time the government suggested it would tax those who received pensions on the basis of their income tax returns.
On many occasions I have said that the present minister is a nice man, but perhaps I was a little na'ive in expecting him to say that pensioners who were not required to file income tax returns would be given $30 per month extra without any questions being asked. The minister has disappointed me. Perhaps I should not have built up such a hope.
To recapitulate, I have dealt at some length with this special class of individuals because I believe that Canadians generally owe them special treatment. These people were born before the turn of the century and suffered the ordeals of two world wars and the greatest depression in the history of this country. By providing a means test before they can benefit from the increase is, I suggest, poor treatment for those people who helped to make this country what it is and carry it through bad times. When the minister presents his bill to the house I hope this provision will be changed so that these people may obtain the increase without any test whatsoever, and justice in a small measure will be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Old Age Security Act Amendment


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, as I considered the government's proposal in connection with old age pension legislation I was reminded of a newspaper picture I saw a short time ago in New York. It depicted a woman boycotting a supermarket. She was pushing a baby in a baby carriage. The carriage carried a sign which stated: Daddy cannot afford me because I cost too much to feed. As I listened to the minister's explanation this afternoon I felt that the elderly people of this country must feel much the same way toward the government-Daddy cannot afford me because I cost too much to feed.
I am sure the elderly people of this country have come to the conclusion this year that almost all other segments of the population have enjoyed an increased income. The crowning indignation of elderly people I am sure occurred as a result of reports a few days ago to the effect that within two hours this house approved one and a half billion dollars for expenditures of various kinds. When we consider the amount of money this house has approved in the past few days it is no wonder that elderly constituents, like one who resides in my constituency, have written and said: This government has barrels of money but none for us.
The minister this afternoon wove a very capable web of words, but behind that web of words could be observed a veritable jungle of administrative difficulties and red tape. This jungle has been created to persuade the elderly people of this country that there is a great deal more in this legislation for them than there actually is. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, very quickly cut through the jungle of red tape and confusion and brought to light the difficulties that will ensue as a result of the shortcomings of this legislation.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
There is no need for me to emphasize the facts which he brought out, but I do feel sure that elderly people went through a lot of difficulty, that they needed help and guidance and that they turned to many people in order even to establish their birth dates at the time the old age security pension legislation was first introduced. I cannot help but believe that they will be in very difficult straits indeed if they have to go through all this bureaucracy in connection with the amendment now before us.
This evening I wish to make two points to underline what I think is basically wrong
10736	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment with the legislation. I will deal with them as simply and plainly as I possibly can. First, I believe that this legislation undermines the whole principle of the old age security pension legislation. Second, I believe that the proposed amount is completely unrelated to the needs of elderly people. In connection with my first point let me say that the old age security pension legislation established a most important right, namely, the right of any person who has reached a certain age to receive an old age pension with no questions asked. This did not come easily.
In 1927 the first old age pension was $20 a month at the age of 70 with a means test. Step by step through the 1930's and 1940's the amount was raised until in 1951, as has been so eloquently expressed by a number of hon. members, the Old Age Security Act emerged, not as the brainchild of one party in this house but as the considered opinion of a committee representing all parties in the house, the members of which in turn represented the elderly people from wide sections of this country. The 1951 Old Age Security Act gave $40 a month at the age of 70 with no means test. In effect it wiped out the necessity of a means test. Then, election by election through the 1950's and 1960's the amount was raised until in 1963 the present amount of $75 a month was reached.
Since 1963 there has been no change in the $75 pension. The amount is still the same in spite of the fact that since 1963 there has been an over-all rise in the cost of living of around 10 per cent. Food, rent and health care are the three factors which bear most heavily on the old people of this country. These three factors taken together have risen by as much as a third in the cost of living since 1963. Indeed, it would probably take the whole $105 or very close to it to bring the old age pension up to the purchasing power of the $75 at the time that amount was first established.
This legislation will turn the calendar back 15 years. It will bring back the hated means test. To call it a needs test will not make the means test any sweeter to the old people of this country. The minister says there will be no welfare people prowling around and nosing into the affairs of the pensioners. That is true, but the old people themselves will be expected to police their own affairs and this will not improve matters.
The minister has spoken of an appeal board. What is the reason for an appeal board? The reason for an appeal board is that the government authorities do not trust the word of the

DEBATES	December 5, 1966
old people, many of whom will be expected to reveal their income tax forms.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is she not aware that there is an appeal provision at present in the Old Age Security Act and that this is simply a continuation of that right of appeal? What is so terrible about it?


Winona Grace MacInnis: The
difference is that it will be needed in an infinitely greater measure than it has ever been because now the old people themselves are being put on the honour system to declare what they have and the appeal board will be needed in order to make sure that they have told the truth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This will be an appeal board to deal with income; there is now an appeal board to deal with age and residence.


Winona Grace MacInnis: That is true, and the powers of the appeal board will be much broader than they are at present. So the fact that there is no means or needs test will not fool the old people of this country. They will find out the hard way as time goes on. The facts are plain. Under this legislation the maximum income that anyone can get is $105 a month, and to get it the pensioner must virtually declare himself a pauper. This is what we object to in this legislation which segregates the elderly people of this country, the pioneers to whom the hon. member for Simcoe East has referred so eloquently, into two categories, those who do not receive the supplement and those who are categorized as paupers and are stigmatized in this way before being able to receive the income supplement.
I say that the elderly people of this country will not consider this legislation in the way in which it has been presented by the minister, namely, as a step forward. In fact it is a step 15 years back to the bad old days of the means test and lower incomes. This legislation has been put before us after the Senate committee on aging has said, as appears at page 17 of their report:
Any suggestion that these older people, when the $75 pension is not sufficient, should be expected to depend for supplementation on public assistance after a needs test is utterly unacceptable.
Let no one tell me that "public assistance" necessarily refers to provincial public assistance. These words are not capitalized in the Senate report, and this is precisely what this amendment is doing. It will force the elderly
December 5, 1966

to depend for the supplementation of their incomes on public assistance after a means test put on by themselves. This is what the Senate committee states is utterly unacceptable.
This is the exact effect of the resolution. It will destroy the right of an elderly person to receive the pension and it will put us back to the days of the means test and of charity for the aged. This is the first point I wish to make. It has been made by others but it cannot be made too clearly for even at this stage the minister and the government could well think back to the time once before, which was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when they did too little too late and they lived to regret it.
The second point I wish to make is that the amount of the pension increase is completely unrelated to the needs of the old age pensioners. Let nobody tell me at this stage that the old people and we in this party have been urging $100 a month pension at the age of 65. As the years have gone by we have been urging whatever we thought could be secured, but the fact remains that no one knows the exact amount which should be given to the elderly people. On page 10 of the report of the Senate committee on aging it is pointed out that according to the 1961 census 54 per cent of the population aged 65 and over had gross money incomes of less than $1,000. This amount excluded 8 per cent of all the people who reported their incomes and the survey also excluded 18 per cent representing elderly farm residents, inmates of institutions or persons living in non-private households. If this 26 per cent had been added to the 54 per cent, the percentage of elderly people with gross incomes of less than $1,000 would have been very much greater, as the Senate committee on aging points out. The 1961 census is now out of date as the basis for calculation, and the cost of living in the last 18 months has risen very steeply indeed.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In support of what I say about there being no proper basis, I want to refer to a communique from the Canadian Welfare Council which has just come to hand in the last day or two. The council is now going to study the spending patterns of low income families and is going to undertake a survey over the next two years which will cost some $100,000. In announcing this survey Reuben C.
Old Age Security Act Amendment Baetz, executive director of the council, said in part:
One of the main purposes of the study is to gather more reliable data for establishing adequate public social security provisions, not only for those receiving assistance under current programs, but also for those who would be included in any new programs.
Up to now, decisions on benefits have been determined by a combination of political expediency, financial limitations, and rough estimates of need. For example, the federal government's program for a guaranteed minimum income for the aged is being launched without a thorough study of minimum needs, as was recommended by the speciai committee of the Senate on aging.
This amendment which the minister is proposing, according to the executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council, is being launched without a thorough study being made of minimum needs as recommended by the Senate committee on aging. As was pointed out this afternoon, a subcommittee of the Senate committee on aging reported that a single person living alone required $138.96 a month to live on, and that was in January. Yet this government is launching this proposal, which will cut out an across-the-board income increase entirely for the old age pensioners, without any thorough study being made, of what are the needs of the elderly people or on what the increase should be based.
We in this party, are in favour of a guaranteed income, Mr. Chairman, but to call this a measure to provide a guaranteed income would be laughable if it were not so tragic. My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, as I say, has already referred to the $138.96 statistic which the Senate committee reported last January was the monthly amount required by single people to live on.
Reference was also made a few moments ago to Sweden. In Sweden the old age pensioner receives two-thirds of the average annual amount which he received during the best 15 years of his working life, and these years do not have to be consecutive. As the head of the Swedish economic council told the prices committee a week or so ago, in Sweden the pension is geared both to productivity and to the cost of living and rises in step with them.
There is some sense in talking about a guaranteed income if you have an old age pension of that kind. I want to suggest to the minister that fooling around with this sort of thing will not provide a guaranteed income at all. It is guaranteed insecurity, guaranteed poverty, and the old people will feel the full force of it
December 5, 196B

Old Age Security Act Amendment before very long. As I say, the proposal we have today is not for a guaranteed income but for guaranteed poverty.
When I think of the elderly people of this country, those who have built this country, have hewn its forests and tilled its fields, have made its homes and raised its children, have worked its mines and fished its shores, those elderly men and women both in my riding and in ridings across the country who have nothing to depend upon except their community for which they have worked so long and so hard, people who believed and had faith in the minister's statement that something much better would be in store for them, I am reminded of a verse which puts the situation much more eloquently than I could put it:
Two things, says Kant, fill me with awe,
The starry heavens and the moral law,
And yet a third, more awful and obscure,
The long, long patience of the plundered poor.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the elderly people of this country have certainly had the long, long patience. But this government has permitted them to be plundered of their heritage and their birthright, which surely is to finish out their days in this country in comfort, with modern living standards and in security. I appeal to the minister to cut out playing with words and to amend the legislation so that we may once again go back to an across-the-board old age pension in this country as of right. I ask the minister to undertake a study to fix an income level which we can truly call a guaranteed income for the elderly people of this country.


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Chairman, with far less fire, vigour and enthusiasm, but I hope with a bit more logic, I should like to deal with some of the points raised with regard to the resolution before us to provide an income supplement for certain pensioners. This is a supplement to be provided those who have no steady or significant source of income other than the basic old age pension itself, though there are certain other exceptions in the form of social assistance, disability pensions and the like.
To me, the key word in this resolution is "supplement". I think no one denies the entitlement of all our senior citizens to a basic old age pension as a matter of right, and there is nothing in this resolution to contradict this principle. However, an argument against any supplement for people who are in need in my opinion lacks, in the first place, moral realism.

It obviously follows that in order to supplement the basic universal payment to those who require more there simply must be the establishment of some criterion by which to judge that requirement. Those who stubbornly refuse to see any other way to handle this situation but to increase the basic pension constantly seem to me to overlook the fact that whatever the basic amount for practical purposes it could never be enough to meet the needs of some people who have no other source of sustenance. Continually to look after these people with a flat rate increase to all is continually to hand out public money to many who simply do not need it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that there must always be some method by which those less fortunate may receive further help from the public purse. In other words, there must be devised a method to provide additional help to those in additional need.
Because of the need to be selective there must be a standard of qualification for this extra assistance. As one newspaper editorial recently put it, it seems to me that there is much more rhetoric than reason in the attack on this plan by the opposition parties. The bogey of the degradation of a means test and the argument that the qualifying yardstick robs the aged of their dignity is pure nonsense. The proposed measure of eligibility is clearly one of income declaration, the release of which information Canadians have been used to for years and years. Certainly most Canadians feel no injury to their dignity when they fill out their income tax forms, and as far as I can tell they certainly take no offence on those happy but rather rare occasions when they receive an income tax rebate cheque.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Surely this measure guaranteeing incomes must be recognized as one of the most simple, impersonal and fair measures to be introduced and suggested in contemporary times. Most certainly the measure bears no resemblance to the old type of means test in existence during depression days. Undoubtedly that was humiliating and degrading and very few Canadians would countenance a return of that type of bureaucratic imposition. To attempt to describe this legislation as employing the same test I suggest is trying to make political capital, is distorting the truth and is irresponsible.
I should like in passing to comment on some of the merits of this legislation as I see them. All or nearly all senior Canadians will share in the Canada Pension Plan. We had to recognize, however, that there was a gap between
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
the present and the time when that program would take full effect, and the proposed income supplement program will certainly fill the void without becoming a permanent drain on the old age pension fund. The present plan is selective, and extra financial assistance will certainly be directed to those needing it.
I commend the minister for going beyond the recommendations of the report of the special committee of the Senate on aging by providing $2,520 a year for married couples instead of the recommended $2,220. I also commend the provision that ensures the reflection of increases in the cost of living, because by setting the supplemental income at 40 per cent of the old age security payment that income increases automatically with the rise in the cost of living.
I suggest to hon. members that the plan being considered cannot be looked at in isolation from other social assistance measures of this government passed at the last session, including such measures as the Canada Assistance Plan. We hope that included in the measures will be this supplementary income plan for the aged, and we hope to see the passage of the medical care bill. These three pieces of major legislation are needed to complete our social welfare program.
I suggest that we take cognizance of the remarks of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace when he drew the attention of the house to certain other measures instituted by the government in past years. I think we should be very proud when we compare the standard of our pension plan for the aged with the pension plans of all the enlightened countries of the world. Speaking a few moments ago the hon. member gave some interesting facts on this topic. Reference was made to the high level attained by the Swedish pension plan. It must be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that that level is reached through a contributory plan similar to the one introduced by this government in the Canada Pension Plan. The effect of that will be felt in a very few years.
I should not like to close my remarks without taking the opportunity to thank and congratulate Senator Croll and his colleagues of the special committee of the Senate on aging which studied the problems of our senior citizens with such compassion and wisdom. This enlightened legislation to some degree is, I think, their brainchild. We are recognizing in law for the first time so far as I know the principle of a guaranteed income. This is a break-through, and I shall support the bill wholeheartedly.
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, we welcome one feature of this bill, the recognition that our old people cannot possibly live on $75 a month. When it comes to the final vote no doubt some members will be constrained to vote for this bill because of that single fact. But I for one think that a means test for our old people is absolutely wrong. It is wrong not only because it will bring out inaccurate figures; it is wrong because $100 a month or $105 a month is not enough to live on.
A member on the government side said we were either stupid, perverse or both if we could not see the difference between a guaranteed income and a means test. I will not take up the time of the committee arguing that point. I say that one is stupid if one does not know that a person today, especially a person living in a city, needs a guaranteed income well above $100 a month. It is indeed necessary to see the difference between a guaranteed income and what this program is.
Surely no one is contending that this bill gives everybody in Canada a basic living. We have not got to the point yet, it seems, of thinking that the old age pension is intended to provide a complete living for our old people. But I contend, Mr. Chairman, that $105 a month is so much below the necessary income level for any person in Canada, married or single, that it is only a question of how much we can afford to pay these people. How much can the gross national product provide for these people? We ought to take a sober look at our country to see what social security we can afford. I think we should be able to afford a basic living to every man, woman and child in Canada but on the basis that we as Canadians should all be willing to work for that basic security.
I stand here as a Conservative and say that we ought to pay, at this present stage in our history, a guaranteed income to give security to our old people because they have not had the opportunity in the past, as the hon. member for Simcoe East said, to earn and save money. They have not had the ability to do it. Certainly, with inflation galloping at the rate it has, our old people have not had the opportunity of putting away money after paying for rent, food and drugs.
Taking the figure of $105 a month you do not have to be very bright, once you start working our what you need, to come to the conclusion that perhaps $150 a month might have been closer to the basic minimum. So I
December 5, 196&

Old Age Security Act Amendment entirely reject the argument about a guaranteed income because if this pension plan purports to provide a guaranteed income to enable our people to live in health, reasonable comfort and security, $105 is a pitiful sum of money.
I do not know whether the Minister of Finance can find enough money to pay for this program. I know that in recent months a certain amount of magic has come from his department. They found close to $55 million, some say $110 million, just like that. I suggest that if we need $500 million the minister ought to look in the crystal ball or take Aladdin's lamp and rub it and get this sum. If we have not enough money to pay to our old people to enable them to live in comfort, then we had better go back to work. We had better smarten up our whole economy so that it can produce the money.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We have been told about the pension plan in Sweden. What type of excuse is it to point to Sweden, a country with limited resources, and say that they give their people a certain basic standard of living and it will be good enough if we do the same here. I do not agree. Canada, so far as the proportion of natural resources to population is concerned, is the richest country in the world and if there is any problem about giving our old folks a reasonable standard of comfort we need to look hard at our own ability to work and at the courage of our governments at all levels to stop giving money to the bums and make sure that they give it to the old people who have worked already and who have earned our undying gratitude.
I suggest we stop wasting money by the hundreds of millions on building islands in a river, putting on expensive television programs and sending members of the press on wild excursions to Europe to dig out filth, and that we should spend some of that money looking after our old people. I would have respect for a budget which said that we had to tighten our belts. But I do not think we have to tighten our belts at all. I think we have to roll up our sleeves.
It is time we got back to the dynamic program of the previous administration when we decided that the way to pay our bills and support our old people was to sell our products in the markets of the world, to develop the brains of our young people by technical training, to build new railroads into the wilderness instead of abandoning railroads, to dam the rivers we have and stop the pollution


of our streams instead of whining about being short of water. If we want to find money for our old people, stop wasting it on those who are abusing the unemployment insurance fund. I am not looking for votes from people like that. I would say that any young man or woman capable of working in Canada today should be given an opportunity to work and that no welfare or relief of any kind should be provided in affluent times such as these. I do not speak with any golden spoon in my mouth. There has never been a golden spoon in my mouth. During the great depression which my hon. friend from Simcoe East spoke about tonight I worked every day for very small wages. If I was of retiring age today, it would not be any money I earned between 1930 and 1950 which could have been put into a fund of any kind.
All I ask of our young people today is that they do what our grandfathers did and what our mothers and fathers did. They took up the challenge of a country which was a wilderness and they built it up until we have now what is, I suppose, the second highest standard of living in the world. That was not done by socialism and it was not done by wishful thinking. It was done by hard work and thrift, and as a Conservative I do not know any substitute which is a satisfactory answer to Canada's needs. I know that the people of Canada are willing to work and I know that those of us who have worked and who are able and willing to pay taxes do not want any penny-pinching budgetary arguments which would deny to our fathers and mothers and to our grandfathers and grandmothers the right to partake in this rich feast which they at least have so rightly deserved.
I do not like double-talk. We have the money if we want to find it. We owe this debt to our old people. Those who want to pay it do not call such an action socialism. It is a debt. It is a debt of honour, more so because these people have actually done the work. We should only be paying them the wages they have already earned.
I think the money can be found and again I say that if our monetary experts say the money cannot be found we had better find ways and means of creating new wealth with the sweat of our brows so that we can follow one of the oldest standards in our Judo-Christian civilization, that of giving to our older people, our fathers and our mothers, the honour which is due to them. I know no better way of honouring our fathers and our mothers than by paying them the money which they have so richly deserved.
December 5, 1966


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I should first of all like to indicate that I support any measure which will improve the circumstances of the old age pensioners of this nation and help them to maintain themselves more easily as free citizens. However, unlike hon. members on the other side, I believe this could best be done by continuing to adopt the principle laid down in the Old Age Security Act which made old age security a pensionable right of every citizen who paid income tax in this nation. By the resolution we are considering today we are asked to indicate our belief in a new thesis so far as older citizens and old age security are concerned. In other words, we are moving into the field of welfare rather than remaining in the field of old age security. We are indicating that we believe in a means test or, as the minister puts it, a needs test.
It amazes me that the minister should say: do not get the idea that by this proposal we intend to investigate people; we shall ask them to tell us what their income is and on that basis we shall inform them whether they qualify for the increased pension and also whether they qualify for assistance. If we adopt the approach recommended by the government it will be necessary first of all to increase the number of civil servants in order to provide the investigators who will be required to check the reports made by applicants. Those reports must then be examined to determine whether or not the applicants are telling the truth. In other words, we would have to carry out the same procedures as are now followed in connection with old age assistance. I do not know what additional cost to the treasury this would involve. I do know that in my area of Canada the officials who carry out this work at the present time are overburdened. There is no indication that there will be a lessening of their work if we include, as I believe the minister indicated, an additional 900,000 people. If we are to take this approach then we are basically putting into effect the same scheme as when the old age assistance program was introduced, and I do not think this is good enough. I do not think this is what the people want.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Surely the taxpayers should be telling us, their representatives, what in effect they are willing to pay for. I think the taxpayers of this nation are willing to pay for an increase in old age security with no strings attached to it. During the last election campaign, when I spoke with people, whether young or old, and

Old Age Security Act Amendment discussed this subject with them, they indicated strong approval of the $25 per month increase that we proposed in our program.
I do not think that making the increase effective as of January 1, 1967, is fair or equitable in view of the fact that the government has contributed to the cost of living spiral which in a most detrimental way has affected the livelihood of the people we are talking about. No old age pensioner can say he is as well off today as he was on January 1, 1966 and this by a long shot. The government has been a party to agreements that have had a significant effect on the cost of living. It has agreed to very substantial increases in the salaries of many Canadians. Yet it now says to the old age pensioner, You must wait until January 1, 1967, before you get anything and then the amount you will get will depend on the kind of income report you make.
I deplore this kind of approach. It shows no real feeling for the problems of people who find themselves in difficult straits. During the recent medicare debate we saw a government that is willing to sacrifice principle to the dollar. During the election campaign it promised the people certain things but immediately the election was over it started watering down its promises because of financial considerations.
In some fields this approach may be all right. We may say that problems which need solution must wait because of the financial difficulties in which we find ourselves. But this is not the case so far as old age security recipients are concerned. They are the people who are deserving of every possible consideration from whatever government is in office.
What about other people? What about the people who are being asked to contribute certain amounts from their income tax every year for old age security purposes? We are saying to them, There is one level of old age security for you and there is another level for someone else. In doing this we are moving away from the basic concept that every Canadian who pays income tax is making a contribution to a pension which he will receive as a right when he reaches a certain age. That should be the only basis for qualifying.
There is nothing which frightens me more than the proliferation of jobs in the civil service. This plan in effect removes to a certain degree the freedom of the individual to enjoy certain rights without investigation. We are now moving into one more area in which we will add another group of troops to the civil
10742	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment service and thereby eliminate that much more freedom of the individual. If we are to be realistic we must produce the kind of legislation that will put all Canadians in the same position. We are not doing that with this resolution and the bill that will follow it.
We will not be keeping faith with our older people, the people who have made their contribution to the building of Canada, the people who went through the great depression from 1930 onward, who found themselves in a position where they could not save money, unlike people who are working today, but had to fight the good fight sometimes with less than a subsistence income. We are now saying to these people, Sure, we will give you something more but you will have to pass certain tests.
The minister seems to think that the word "needs" is better than the word "means", but this will make no difference to the person who is being investigated. People are going to find they must undergo the kind of investigation that they are subjected to when they reach age 65 if they wish to qualify for additional assistance. I do not think there is any need for that in this country. We are sufficiently rich and prosperous to be able to give our citizens a certain amount of money at a given age.
Let us be realistic. There is no one in this chamber who would want to try to subsist on $105 a month. Yet we are saying to anyone in this position, sure, you can have an increase and you probably need it to remain healthy and alive, if that is possible on $105 a month, but you are going to have to submit yourself to certain degrading tests which will show that you may be able to have only half of the $30 that is available, because of this, that or the other thing. I do not think that is good enough. I think we should be bigger than that.
We members of parliament sit here in this chamber and in committees and talk about food prices and how they have increased. But we cannot put ourselves in the position of the man or woman who gets $75 each month and has to pay the rent and go out and buy groceries. There is no way in which a man who is earning $18,000 a year can find himself in that position. Yet as members of parliament we are debating today the rules and regulations under which we will give these people $30. Are we not really being big people when we say to them that in order to get this they must do this, that and the other thing.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We are told by the Minister of Finance that if the old age security payment is to be increased in any way there must be an increase

DEBATES	December 5, 1966
in taxes. On what basis are the people going to be taxed? Is he going to add an additional percentage point to the old age security program? If so, he is being most unfair to those people who today are contributing to that fund and who will never qualify for any amount over and above what they are now receiving. Surely if we are to be asked to pay an increased amount of tax the Minister of Finance should be asked to give us some indication of how he expects these additional revenues to be raised and who will be contributing to them. He should tell us whether the people who today are paying into this fund are going to be asked to pay an additional amount and at the same time not be able to secure any benefits therefrom.
I think it would have been a much simpler procedure and would have been much more readily acceptable to everyone in Canada if the minister had been willing to increase old age security payments by the use of the same formula which has been in existence. With the increasing cost of living, with the many additional obligations faced by the older people today, along with the fact that people are living to an older age because of the improved health facilities in our nation, although at the same time they are dependent during their longer life on advanced medical science and the medicines which are available, one would think that he would see to it that these people are able to maintain themselves without having the necessity to become involved in a means or needs test. In other words, they should not have to find themselves in the position where they have to submit themselves to investigation.
I support anything which will be of assistance to the older citizens of our nation. I support this program, if no other program is available, because anything which will assist these people is of benefit to them and they need the assistance. I believe, however, that as members of this house we could find a much more forthright approach to a solution of their problems than is indicated by this legislation. I believe we should be as straightforward with them as we are with the university students. If we were willing to go over the financial commitments of the government I believe we would find many areas in which we might reduce the amount of assistance now being made available. I think the C.B.C. is an outstanding example. Perhaps we would then find that we would be able to make the money available so that these Canadian citizens would not have to face an investigation
December 5, 19S6

and meet requirements which are not in keeping with the dignity which we would like them to have. We think nothing of giving $100 million to the C.B.C. to operate every year. Yet after the government pares down this program the amount of money involved will not be much more than that. The minister speaks about $300 million but I am doubtful that when we get through anything like that amount will be required, because there will not be that many people who will qualify for the $30.
These are the sad facts of the situation. There will be many who will not qualify and there will be many who will not apply. There will be many Canadians who will take the position that they are not going to submit themselves to an investigation in order to receive additional funds, whether or not they can live on the amount they are receiving now. This is something to which the government should give serious consideration. This is a fact of life. There are many people in this nation who have a great deal of pride. One of the results of having that pride is that they are not going to go around begging, and many people feel they are begging when they have to submit to an investigation. As members of parliament we should be considerate of these people. We should realize that these are the basic facts of life in this nation. We should be forthright enough to tell these Canadians that they can have an additional $25 or $30 because this is the kind of nation which can afford to give its people that amount of money.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes to comment on the legislation which has been placed before us today. It is interesting to look back to see what the minister was saying to us almost six months ago. In the month of July he made an announcement in the house on motions. It appeared in Hansard under the heading, "Announcement of guaranteed minimum monthly income". He told us that the government intended to provide further income for the support of older persons in Canada. In the course of his remarks he said that he had made a speech on this subject in Regina on March 7. At page 7652 of Hansard he concluded his announcement with these words:
I can inform the house that such a program will be presented to parliament for approval in the autumn, after parliament has reconvened.
It is now December 5; autumn has escaped us. The minister comes forward now with the
Old Age Security Act Amendment program he spoke about on March 7 in Regina, in the house in the spring, and announced on July 14. This is a rather slow, ponderous pace in dealing with what we all consider to be a very important problem. The minister now wishes to rush this legislation through the house in order that everyone will be satisfied. On July 14 he was asked two or three questions. My colleague the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi asked the minister the following question, as found on page 7659 of Hansard:
Does the announcement he made this afternoon, relating to pensions and a guaranteed annual income for our older people, involve a means test?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker.
Then the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi asked this supplementary question:
Without making a play on words, the minister said it does not involve a means test, but does it involve a needs test?
The minister then replied:
No, Mr. Speaker.
A few minutes later I asked a question of the minister in these words as they appear on page 7660 of Hansard:
Will the senior citizens of our country who will be eligible for the increase he mentioned earlier today be subjected to a test as to their income or resources before they will receive any additional money?
The minister then replied:
Mr. Speaker, the details of any particular method of applying the guaranteed income will be disclosed in the legislation.
That was on July 14. Just to complete the questions that were asked I should like to draw attention to a question I put to the minister on November 2 as recorded at page 9448 of Hansard for that day it reads as follows:
Will the senior citizens who will be eligible for an increase in their old age pensions, or those who qualify for the proposed guaranteed income, be obliged to disclose their income or financial resources before receiving any additional money?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the details, and they are naturally of great interest to all hon. members of the house, will be fully disclosed when the legislation is before us.
I then interjected and said:
Just give me an answer, yes or no.
There we have the minister playing the old cat and mouse game on July 14 and November
10744	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment 2. He was unwilling to disclose whether or not the people who may benefit from the proposed legislation would have to disclose their income or resources before being eligible. He has indicated today that what he is applying is a means or needs test. These people must disclose their income or resources or they will not qualify for the increase.
Let me quote one more statement of the minister as recorded at page 7652 of Hansard for July 14:
Through this income guarantee program the needs of the older citizen can be more adequately met In a way that is financially responsible and least burdensome on the treasury.
In the summer the minister recognized the needs of these elderly people but he refused to admit that they would be subjected to a means test. Today he has told us they will have to disclose their income. Surely nobody in this country will be fooled or misled by the semantics indulged in by the minister. On July 14 he said that the needs of the elderly people would be met but on December 5 he says they will have to disclose their income in order to qualify for the extra money. Obviously he is reintroducing a means test similar to that which we found difficult and objectionable during the 1940's. We finally removed that means test to the great relief of everyone, but it is now being reintroduced.
If the means test is of such great importance, why is it not applied to the entire $75 rather than just the additional $30? The minister by suggesting that an extra $30 is required to meet the needs of our elderly citizens is admitting, as has so frequently been suggested in this house, that $75 per month is not adequate. He is admitting that additional income is required. Yet he is subjecting these people to a means test in order to determine whether or not they qualify. Surely this takes us back to the 1940's when pensions were $30 per month and later raised to $40 per month on a means test basis. This was a humiliating experience to a great many citizens of this country and they should not be subjected again to that experience.
I presume that some people who have been drawing the old age pension for a number of years will now be subjected again to a means test. Many of these people went through the means test before, but in spite of the fact we did away with the means test they will be subjected to it again because of the retrograde step of this minister.

DEBATES	December 5, 1966
The minister is very skilful in the use of words. This afternoon he told us in flowing language that a norm of eligibility will be established. I hope senior citizens will look up the meaning of that phrase in order to find out what it implies. A much more simple statement might have been presented by the minister but he had to dress up his remarks today. Senior citizens who wish to apply for the additional $30 will have to fill out a form in order to find out whether they fall within the norm of eligibility.
The first part of the minister's statement today was rather good, but when he reached the point of telling us that people who wanted the extra $30 would have to fill out a form he got into greater intricacies than I ever imagined. His statement became very confusing when he attempted to indicate what constituted income and what did not. Instead of simplifying this matter he has made it very confusing.
Applicants for the extra $30 will have to fill out a form and disclose their income. Surely this constitutes the means test all over again. These forms will be subjected to scrutiny by officials and, as the minister has indicated, a third party will be consulted in an attempt to make sure that the statements contained in the forms are accurate. Again we will experience the old inquisition to test the honesty of those who make application for old age pension increases.
I do not understand why this government must make life so difficult for itself and for the citizens of this country. What the opposition should do under the circumstances is pass this legislation without change and let the government flounder in the administrative mess which will be created. This legislation will create an administrative nightmare because of the number of people involved. If only half of our elderly citizens apply for the additional money the government will have to scrutinize approximately 500,000 forms and obtain information from third parties to make sure the facts disclosed are accurate. A further check will have to be made to ascertain that no mistakes have been made and an appeal board will have to make sure that the applicants have been justly treated. Surely this will involve an administrative nightmare requiring the employment of a great many civil servants.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Every member of parliament will become involved, as we were in days gone by, because interested citizens will see us or write to us
December 5, 1966	COMMONS
asking for assistance. This assistance will be freely given, as it was in days gone by, but it is an additional burden which will be placed on members of parliament. I do not quite understand why such a system should be adopted at this time because we had this experience in the past and there are now departments of government dealing with instances where the means or needs test has to be applied. It has to be done with regard to the war veterans' allowance, and my experience with that department a little over two years ago was that it creates a great deal of administrative problems to determine whether or not certain receipts obtained by a person can be judged as income or not under that act. The same thing applies in this case. What happens in the case of an overpayment? Will the pensioner or his estate be obliged to make a return of that overpayment? This is a problem which the government has had to face with regard to war veterans' allowances. Experience has shown that it poses administrative difficulties.
In spite of this the government is undertaking this task which will involve at least half a million people and perhaps more. The number of pensioners who will make applications for additional assistance might reach 900,000 or even a million. A simpler method would have been to grant what we have proposed so often, namely an additional $25 a month across the board. This would take care of all the marginal cases, and there will be plenty of them, people who only have a few dollars above or below the pensionable income or who get a little extra money during the course of a year. It will be very difficult indeed to make a decision which will be satisfactory to those concerned.
This is what the government is asking parliament to approve. We say it is basically wrong, that it is reverting to a system which parliament decided many years ago to discontinue. Again we are imposing a humiliating means or needs test on our senior citizens. The hon. member for Simcoe East pointed out very clearly that the senior citizens 70 years of age and over are a group who deserve the best from their country because of the period during which they have lived. I think this should be taken into account by those who are considering this matter.
I do not know of any generation in Canada's history which has had such a strenuous life as the people who are now 70 years of age and older. It is difficult to recall any period in which a generation has suffered as much as
Old Age Security Act Amendment that particular one. It may have been true of some in the eighteenth century but I doubt very much that it has been true since that period. Consequently this is an opportunity for a country like Canada with a population of 20 million, with considerable resources, and in an age which we now call the age of the affluent society, to do justice to a generation which saved the situation for us in years gone by and laid the foundation for the plenitude which we now enjoy and for the peace and prosperity which exist in our country. I think the government is making a serious mistake in failing to recognize this fact, as the hon. member for Simcoe East pointed out so eloquently, failing to recognize that here is a great chance during the centennial year to do something for a generation which has made a greater contribution to the life of Canada than any generation in our history.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the committee is of particular interest to me. I should like to remind all hon. members, as I have done in a previous speech, that in the last election campaign I had no hesitation in stating from platforms in my constituency that I would support an increase in the old age pension of an additional $25 a month making the total pension $100 a month. I stated that in my view, and I refer to my own individual view, it was a liberal measure. I believe it verily to be a liberal measure, and although it is now not being supported by my party to which I have adhered loyally all my life I still believe it to be a liberal measure, if I may be permitted to say so.
In the first week of this parliament I voted against the Conservative amendment to the Speech from the Throne condemning the government for not increasing the old age pension. I believe I had valid grounds for doing so because the government had just been elected at a general election and had just received a mandate from the people of Canada to carry on. I felt, and honestly so, that in voting against the Conservative amendment I was voting against a straight motion of want of confidence. I may have been wrong but I maintain that I was right.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member is on very thin ice.


James Elisha Brown: I do not think it is too thin. Had the Conservative amendment been passed by the house at that time the government would undoubtedly have had to resign and we would have had another general election.
December 5, 1966

Old Age Security Amendment
I do not wish to dwell any longer on this particular point. Tonight, after a year in office, the government has brought down its program, its policy for the older people of this country which provides them with a minimum income. Had this minimum income been paid across the board to all old age pensioners in addition to the old age security pension I would have been a happy man tonight because then the position I have taken all along Would have been proved right. I would have represented Liberal party thought in this country although perhaps a little in advance.
I still believe that the legislation which the government has proposed today is not the best. I feel that the Canadian Welfare Council agrees with me and that all major welfare organizations also agree with me. They are in favour of a minimum income but they are in favour of it being paid to everyone regardless of the income of the recipient. If their incomes were high under such an arrangement taxpayers might have it taxed away, but they would at least receive it.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for his speech. He stated that there was no means test in the proposed legislation. In my view there is a means test. The applicant for the supplement to the old age pension must show that his or her income falls below the minimum or else he or she cannot qualify for it. The proposed legislation forces people to prove they are poverty-stricken before they can qualify for the supplement. In my view, and I admit it to be only an individual view but I give it as a member of parliament, this is scarcely the Canadian thing to do at this time. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we have a means test in front of us.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I have a man working for me as a gardener. He is an old age pensioner and I like him very much. But I do not like to think that what he earns from working for me and for others, though he is over 70 years of age, will deprive him of receiving the supplement. I admire the man for his initiative but I should not like him to lose out by working hard at his age to the extent that part of his income over $1,260 a year will be deducted from his allowable supplement up to $1,620 a year.
I want my position in this debate to be clear, Mr. Chairman. I cannot and dare not oppose this resolution because if I did I would be opposing the principle that thousands and thousands of needy people should receive this

supplement, and I could never do that. Apparently I cannot have my own way in this matter and I will have to yield, as may many hon. members, to the government's proposed plan. But I do want my position to be made clear to my own electors.
There will be an increase in the old age pension through this supplement, but there will be a type of means test no matter what anyone says. This is not what I wanted and it is not what I said I would stand for. But I support it in general because I am forced tor in fearing that if I oppose it I will in reality be opposing a step forward toward a truly minimum retirement income that may come some day for all Canadians.
It was pointed out to me tonight a few moments ago by an hon. member of this house that if this supplement were paid to everyone the whole basis of the Canada Pension Plan would have to be changed or it would be thrown out of gear. I believe this may be correct, and for that reason a minimum income to everyone might have to be adjusted when the Canada Pension Plan starts paying money to recipients. Therefore I am going to reserve the balance of my remarks until a later date.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the debate obviously I will make my remarks brief. The last hon. member who addressed the committee pointed out something that members on both sides already know, that no matter what semantics the minister employs his legislation involves a retrograde step. Call it a needs test or any other test you like, the minister in his haste to put legislation on the statute books that will do him credit is in fact reverting to a means test. The hon. member who has just spoken has made the record abundantly clear. No amount of semantics on the minister's part will change the record. This is a test. The hon. member who has just taken his seat pointed out that this measure will definitely impinge upon people over 70 who want to lead an active life and receive certain remuneration for their efforts. In brief, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is ill-considered, hasty and involves a means test, be it called anything else by the minister and the government who are trying to hasten its passage through parliament.
The main reason for my rising tonight is simply to say in the closing minutes of the debate that many Canadians are frankly worried about the future of this country vis-a-vis federal-provincial relations and constitutional reform. I am not saying for one minute that
December 5, 1966

we should always be paying attention to Quebec to the exclusion of the rest of Canada. But I did ask the Prime Minister today a succinct question in these terms: In view of the throne speech emanating from the Quebec legislature last week, in view of what the government of Quebec has said about the necessity of constitutional reform, and in view of what all the other provinces have been saying to this government about the need for constitutional reform over the last months, has the time not now come for the government to decide on definite action in order that this nation in its centennial year may obtain a made in Canada constitution suited to modern times?
Why does the government without consulting the provinces in a conjoined area of jurisdiction under the constitution now rush into this issue pretending that nothing is wrong? Cannot the government read the writing on the wall and realize that once again by acting unilaterally in a field such as pensions they are only exacerbating the situation? Does the government not realize, having read the throne speech which was issued from Quebec and having listened, if they ever do listen, to the other provincial premiers, that the time has now come for basic constitutional reform?
What this country needs today is a modern constitution which is made in Canada and is suited to modern times. I proclaim to this committee tonight that the minister is rushing headlong into difficulties not only with Quebec but with the other provinces. Pretending that the provinces do not exist, that there never was a throne speech in Quebec last week, that Mr. Johnson has said nothing about pensions, that there has been no such thing as a federal-provincial meeting during the last few weeks and that the present constitution is perfectly satisfactory, the government is unilaterally plunging into a conjoined area, namely, that of constitutional reform. I maintain that this kind of legislation-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Pursuant to provisional standing order 61 A, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to forthwith put the question on the resolution. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may we have a standing vote on the resolution?
Resolution (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to: Yeas, 65; nays, 18.
Business of the House


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the resolution carried.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacEachen thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, could we revert to motions for the purpose of dealing with a matter that I raised in the house earlier today?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed by hon. members that we revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith:
That the report of the joint committee on the Library of Parliament, tabled by Mr. Speaker on Tuesday, November 22, 1966, relating to salary revisions affecting a number of positions in the Parliamentary Library, be concurred in.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is that the report of the joint committee on the library of parliament, tabled by Mr. Speaker on Tuesday, November 22, 1966, relating to salary revisions affecting a number of positions in the parliamentary library, be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have received an answer to the question I asked earlier today. I reserve my opinion on the situation to which I referred, but I do not wish to hold up the adoption of this report. So far as I am concerned, therefore, the motion may carry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume consideration of item No. 82 on the order paper, the medicare bill at the committee stage. At the conclusion of that, we shall deal with items 94, 95, 96 and 97 which deal with minor clarifications in the boundaries between the Northwest Territories and

December 5, 1966
Business of the House
the three prairie provinces, and an amendment to the Canada Land Surveys Act. When those are concluded perhaps we could consider item No. 110, the bill to amend the Companies Act to permit the incorporation by letters patent of certain miscellaneous private companies which are now required to come before parliament for incorporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May 1 ask the minister when he intends to have the old age supplementary allowance dealt with, the legislation that has just been introduced?


George James McIlraith: That will depend on how rapidly we make progress with other items. I hope it will be very soon. I am not in a position tonight to give a firm answer to that question because I do not know when the medicare bill will have been dealt with finally
in all its stages. I would expect that hon. members would wish to see the bill authorizing supplementary payments to pensioners and to study that bill before we debate it. I hope that will be very soon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister consider dealing with it immediately after the medicare legislation has been disposed of?


George James McIlraith: It would be irresponsible to give such a commitment at this moment. I am hopeful that the medicare bill may be dealt with quickly tomorrow. I would not think it proper to call it immediately after that tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 6, 1966