1966-06-29

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
MINISTER RESPECTING WHEAT DELIVERIES [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I gave notice on June 28, and could have raised this question of privilege yesterday but I did not do so. After the house hears the question of privilege it will understand why. This question of privilege arises out of a lengthy answer on a point of privilege raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) when he said as follows, as reported at page 6871 of Hansard of June 27:
On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member's uncorrected statement could do damage to our commercial interests. I have never made any such statement as attributed to me by the hon. member and I deny it.
He was referring to a question I had asked on June 27, as follows:
Then may I put a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and in view of the minister's statement that irreparable damage had been done by the strike, can the minister tell us what is the situation?
I say that the answer by the minister given by way of privilege may reflect on my integrity in setting out the facts, and does reflect on what are the facts. On page 6053 of Hansard of June 7, 1966 in reference to the strike and its effect on deliveries of grain from western Canada to Russia, my question was as follows:
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement of the Minister of Labour I would like to now put a question to the Minister of Finance. What effect has this long strike had on the fulfilment of the wheat contracts that were made by the wheat board with other nations?
The Minister of Finance answered:
Mr. Speaker, this strike is having a very serious effect.
Then I asked as follows:
A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister says "a very serious effect" does he mean that sales will be lost in respect of wheat agreements made between the wheat board and those countries purchasing our grain?
The Minister of Finance replied:
I do not know whether this in fact will happen. I do not think it need happen. All I can say is that this strike is having a very serious effect upon the delivery of grain-
May I pause there; "a very serious effect upon the delivery of grain". He meant in my opinion the delivery of grain to fill the contracts with Russia, when there were 23 boats waiting to be loaded. He went on to say:
-that the wheat board has already sold, and it is beginning to back up the movement into the country, making it more difficult for the wheat board to equalize its quotas.
In reference to this may I say that the Minister of Finance is responsible for the wheat board, and I would think that statements made by Mr. McNamara, the head of the wheat board, would be statements of which he would approve; or if he did not I would think by this time he would have made his position clear to Mr. McNamara. I should like to quote from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development of June 7, 1966, at page 381. Mr. McNamara was appearing before this committee and said:
In fact, we were not only on schedule but considerably ahead of schedule, up until a few weeks ago. But of course, now they are very dissatisfied because they have 23 boats waiting for wheat and it is expensive when you charter freight and cannot get delivery. The Russians therefore are now very dissatisfied and I can understand this dissatisfaction because, as I tried to explain earlier, this is the period of time when they need imported wheat. Their new crops will be coming in and they will not be so dependent upon the imported wheat. There is no doubt in my mind that the delay at this time, in Canada meeting her commitments is going to have far reaching effects against Canada. We know from our experience last year in Vancouver, when our shipments were delayed and we had strike conditions there, that we have not yet recovered from the effect of those strikes. Because many buyers who normally were coming to Vancouver with confidence are now reluctant and are asking a lot of questions before they will enter into commitments from Vancouver. We also know that shipowners are now charging a higher freight rate from Vancouver than previously prevailed, which is making the Vancouver wheat more expensive and not as attractive-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether it is necessary for the hon. member to go to such lengths to put his question of privilege. I suggest that he come to the point soon.

June 29, 1966
Labour Conditions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to the point. I quoted the minister, who said:
All I can say is that this strike is having a very serious effect upon the delivery of grain-
In view of the statements of Mr. McNamara to the agriculture committee, which I quoted, I think my question was intellectually accurate and proper. The minister must realize that the strike had a serious effect on contracts, and I submit that my question to him as to whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce had considered previous contracts when negotiating new contracts so there might be a clause included by agreement in respect of delays, was a proper one. I now ask the minister to withdraw his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member has a right, on the basis of what he has said, to ask the minister to withdraw his remarks. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege and explained his position, as he has a right to do, but I do not think he has made out a prima facie case of privilege.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts-Mr. Basford.
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on industry, research and energy development-Mr. Cashin.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-215, respecting certain conditions of employment of dock workers at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of this house share the general satisfaction over the settlement of the strike of longshoremen at the three St. Lawrence river ports referred to in the motion. At the time I announced the settlement of this dispute in the house, on June 14, I stated that the settlement would not have been possible without an assurance from the Minister of

Labour or the government that an industrial inquiry commission would be set up to inquire into working conditions at the three ports. On Thursday last I announced that such a commission had been established, and I tabled a copy of the formal appointment.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The mediator, Judge Lippe, in his report recommended that such a commission should be established. He also recommended in that report that the conclusions of this commission should be implemented by legislative enactment at the earliest possible date. The terms of appointment of the commissioner cover working conditions or what might be referred to as suggested formulae for possible increases in productivity in return for the increases agreed upon between the employers and employees. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the conclusions of this commission should be implemented, as recommended by the mediator.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX ACT

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the resolution adopted on June 9, I move for leave to introduce Bill No. C-216, to amend the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not paying attention and allowed motions to pass. I would ask the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys, the items listed in the supplementary estimates (A) for 1966-67, relating to the Emergency Measures Organization be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on national defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
June 29. 1966


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister would explain the reason. No doubt there is a reason for this action, and the house should certainly have the information.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will be glad to explain, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the committee now has some time available to consider the supplementary estimates, which previously it did not look as if it would have. I think it is the view of most members of the house that the committee system is useful, and that where the committees have the time and ability to study the estimates, they should do so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go
into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Davis: What were the total expenditures of (a) the Department of National Defence, by province, for the fiscal year 1963-64 (b) the Department of Defence Production, by province, for the fiscal year 1963-64?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Defence Production as follows: Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.
Questions


DISCIPLINARY MEASURES FOR RETURNING OFFICERS
Mr. Ricard: 1.	Has the returning officer, during his term of office, the right to ask for funds for the benefit of a political party?
2.	If not, are disciplinary measures provided and what are they?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this question, in my view, appears to ask basically for an interpretation of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. It is my understanding that ministers of the crown cannot properly offer such legal interpretations; thus I do not feel that I can rightfully attempt to answer this question by the hon. member in its present form.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
1	feel the hon. member could have given me an answer much sooner, as my question has been on the order paper since April 22, 1966. It seems to me the reason he has just given me is really no reason at all.


TOILET FACILITIES ON PUBLIC WHARVES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what public wharves in Nova Scotia has the federal government installed toilet facilities?
2.	What is the annual revenue available to the federal government for the installation of toilet facilities on public wharves in Nova Scotia and which of the wharves make payments and in what amount in each case?
3.	From whom are the revenues received in each
case?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Caribou, Pictou, Sydney and Yarmouth.
2	and 3. Public toilet facilities are installed at the Caribou and Yarmouth ferry wharves. At Pictou, small office and toilet facilities installed in wharf shed for Magdalen Islands Transportation Company Limited under lease, annual rental $690. At Sydney a portion of the wharf shed, including toilet facilities, is occupied by Robin Hood Flour Mills Limited under lease, annual rental $8,400.


APPEAL RESPECTING INDIAN HUNTING RIGHTS
Mr. Schreyer: Has the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration taken any action toward appealing a recent decision of the Manitoba

Questions
court of appeals respecting treaty Indians and their-off-season hunting rights as they relate to the Migratory Birds Convention Act?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. In the case of Her Majesty the Queen v. Paul Daniels (Manitoba Court of Appeal) counsel for Daniels was informed May 13, 1966 that the government of Canada would provide assistance in respect of fees and disbursements to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Assistance was also given in the proceedings before the Manitoba Court of Appeal.


ASSISTANCE TO INDIANS ON FISH AND GAME CHARGES
Mr. Schreyer: Has the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration provided any legal or financial assistance to treaty Indian residents of Indian reserves in cases where such persons have been charged with violations of provincial game and fish laws?
June 29, 1966
3.
	Indictable	Breach of
	Offence	Parole
1960	59	571961	75	1051962	74	791963	101	871964	81	741965	121	1094.	1960, $421; 1961, $420; 1962, $430; 1963, $437; 1964, $450; 1965, $465.
Note: No complete figures are available. Amounts quoted were paid to aftercare agencies.
5.	1960-61,	$2,293.85;	1961-62, $2,424.71;
1962-63, $2,753.83; 1963-64, $2,743.98; 196465, $3,074.51.


MUNICIPAL TAXES PAID BY CROWN COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,501-Mr. Caouetie:
Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, financial assistance was given to counsel for the Indians in the following cases; Prince and Myron v. Reginam (1963) 46 WWR 121 (Supreme Court of Canada); Regina v. Sikyea (1964) 49 WWR 306 (Supreme Court of Canada); Regina v. White and Bob (1965) (Supreme Court of Canada) SCR VI.; Attorney General of Canada v. George (1966) April, (Supreme Court of Canada); The Queen v. Paul Daniels (1966) (Manitoba Court of Appeal).


PAROLED OFFENDERS
[Stage Direction]
Queston No. 1,467-Mr. Orlikow:
1.	How many men were released on parole from federal prisons in each year from 1960 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	How many men in each year from 1960 to 1965 inclusive, violated conditions of their parole and were returned to prison?
3.	What types of offences were committed by the paroled men who were returned to prison?
4.	What was the cost for each of the years 1960 to 1965 inclusive of supervising every man out on parole?
5.	What was the cost in each of the years 1960 to 1965 inclusive of keeping one man in one of the federal prisons?
Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solictior General):: 1.	I960, 1,192; 1961, 1,005; 1962, 885; 1963, 663; 1964, 653; 1965, 822.
2.	1960, 116; 1961, 180; 1962, 153; 1963, 188; 1964, 155; 1965, 230.
(Mr. Schreyer.]
Over the past five years, what were the annual sums paid to municipal corporations in lieu of taxes by the following crown companies (a) C.N.R. (b) Air Canada (c) Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (d) C.B.C. (e) Polymer Corporation Ltd. (f) Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Transport, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Departments of Industry, and Mines and Technical Surveys as follows:
(a)	C.N.R. 1961, $399,718.71; 1962, $573,273.17; 1963, $591,185.73; 1964, $587,131.11; 1965, $592,402.95.
(b)	Air Canada. 1961, Nil; 1962, Nil; 1963, Nil; 1964, Nil; 1965, Nil.
(c)	Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. 1961, $80,559; 1962, $81,381; 1963, $81,976; 1964, $80,848; 1965, $87,460.
(d)	C.B.C. 1961, $302,503.81; 1962, $330, 192.14; 1963, $348,914.66; 1964, $438,852.71; 1965, $482,786.38.
(e)	Polymer Corporation Ltd. 1961, $472,837; 1962, $517,821;	1963, $582,099;	1964,
$615,885; 1965, $650,313.
(f)	Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd. 1961, $282,743; 1962, $288,649; 1963, $277,658; 1964, $360,598; 1965, $360,239.
The above amounts consist of payments in lieu of taxes. In addition the C.N.R. and Air Canada, which are not agents of the crown for all purposes, make payments to municipalities which are considered to be taxes rather than grants in lieu of taxes.
June 29, 1966

Questions


UNION STATION, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	On what date is it now expected that the new railway station in the national capital will he put into regular service?
2.	When is it expected that the railway tracks now leading to the existing Union Station in Ottawa will be lifted?
3.	What are the present plans in respect of the existing Union Station and when is it proposed they shall be carried out?
4.	What is the proposal for the utilization of the railway right-of-way leading to the existing Union station and what is the time schedule for its commencement, and completion?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. It is expected that the new railway station at Hurdman will commence regular service in July 1966.
2.	It is expected that the railway tracks leading to the existing Union Station in Ottawa will be lifted in the first week of August 1966.
3.	The plan is for demolition at an early date, but at present the definite date has not been fixed.
4.	The right of way leading to the Union
Station will be utilized as a route for a new N.C.C. driveway linking up with Colonel By drive, at Main street.


EXPENDITURES ON EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How much money is spent annually by all departments of government on external aid?
2.	What are for each year the names of the countries to which aid is provided?
3.	What is the total amount in goods, money and services provided annually to each country?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. Aid allocations by the government of Canada have varied from year to year. In the 1965-66 fiscal year $223.1 million was made available, exclusively of military assistance. In 1966-67, approximately $300 million will be available for aid purposes.
2.	See No. 3 below.
3.	$31.6 million was in the form of cash grants and subscriptions to UN agencies and other multilateral institutions. The remainder was allocated to provide Canadian goods and services to developing countries and distributed as follows:
South and Southeast Asia India Pakistan Malaysia
Economic and technical assistance $32.0 million
20.0	"
3.0	"
Ceylon	2.5 million
Others, including Vietnam,
Laos, Cambodia, Thailand	3.5	tt
Africa		
Nigeria	6.5	ttGhana	2.0	"East Africa	5.0	wFrench speaking States	7.5	ttOther African countries	1.5	ttCaribbean	Jamaica	3.0	ttTrinidad and Tobago	3.0	ttBritish Guiana (Guyana)	1.5	ttBarbados, British Honduras, Leewards and	Windwards	2.5	ttLatin America	10.0	ttCommonwealth scholarship	plan	1.2	ttContingency fund	2.5	wTotal	$107.2 million
Food aid
India	$25.0 million
Pakistan	4.0 "
Ceylon	2.0 "
Burma	.4 "
Dominican Republic	.3 "
UN Food Programs	3.3 "
Total	$35.0 million Export credits
Pakistan	$30.0 million
Mexico	9.9 "
Argentina	.3 "
Taiwan	5.0 "
United Arab Republic	4.1 "
Total	$49.3 million


DEEP WATER HARBOUR, ST. VINCENT ISLAND
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Did the Canadian government build, or assist in building, a deep water harbour for the Island of St. Vincent?
2.	If so, what was the total cost of this project to the Canadian government?
3.	Has the harbour and any facilities constructed in conjunction with it been turned over to the government of St. Vincent?
4.	If not, in whose custody is the harbour and its facilities?
5.	Was any agreement entered into between the Canadian government and the government of St. Vincent as to the future use of the harbour and its facilities?
6.	If so, what are the terms of that agreement?

June 29, 1966
Questions


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate tor External Affairs: 1. Yes.
2.	As at this date, Canadian government expenditures toward the total cost of building a deep water wharf with warehousing facilities in Kingstown, the capital of St. Vincent, total $1,005,364.01.
3.	Yes, on July 11, 1964.
4.	N/A
5.	No.
6.	N/A.


SEIZURE OF STILL
Mr. Godin: 1.	In the case of the seizure of a still, who must pay for the costs of the investigation and trial?
2.	Does the law allow the disposal of the seized goods before a verdict of guilty is delivered against the accused?
3.	How are the seized goods disposed of?
4.	If the seized goods are sold, who takes possession of the proceeds?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.
Investigation expenses are borne by the R.C.M. Police. Crown counsel is paid by the Department of National Revenue. If trial is by way of summary conviction and the accused is adjudged guilty, trial costs are assessed against the accused; if the accused is adjudged not guilty trial costs are borne by the R.C.M. Police. If trial is by indictment, costs up to and including the preliminary hearing are paid by the R.C.M. Police and subsequent costs are paid by the province.
2.	Yes, but subject to the right of the person concerned to make a claim therefor and have the forfeiture adjudicated by the Exchequer Court.
3.	Seized goods may be disposed of by release to a claimant, sale by tender or, destruction, if they have no commercial value.
4.	The Receiver General of Canada.


SHORT WEIGHT SALES OF MEAT
Mr. Salisman: In the period from April 1965 to April 1966, were any complaints regarding short weight selling of meat at the retail level received by the government and, if so (a) how many (b) how many of these complaints were placed by consumers (c) how many were placed by government officials and inspectors (d) what action was taken in regard to these complaints?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes: (a) statistics are not maintained on the number of complaints, nor on individual commodities; (b) see (a); (c) though not categorized as complaints, departmental inspections for short weight infrac-

tions of all commodities, in the calendar year 1965, were made at 14,398 retail outlets; (d) all complaints from the public, or problems evident from the department's own program, are investigated and, where indicated, appropriate corrective action is taken by warning, and if necessary, prosecution.


WEIGHT INSPECTIONS OF MEAT SALES
Mr. Salisman: In the period from April 1965 to April 1966, were any inspections in regard to accurate weight of meat products sold at the retail level carried out by the government and, if so (a) how many (b) how many infractions were noted (c) what action was taken in regard to these infractions?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes:	(a) statistics on individual commodities are not maintained; a sampling of all short weight inspections projects approximately 171,000 meat packages were inspected; (b) a similar estimate would indicate approximately 10 per cent beyond tolerance; (c) such infractions are brought to the attention of traders, and follow-up shopping is done; if appropriate corrective action is not indicated, prosecutions are launched. In the calendar year 1965, 1641 retail outlets were shopped resulting in 115 prosecutions.


CENSUS OFFICIALS, SHERBROOKE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Allard: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the census commissioners who have been appointed for the constituency of Sherbrooke?
2.	Who recommended these commissioners?
3.	Who was invited to nominate the commissioners in the constituencies?
4.	What instructions were given to officials of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics concerning the appointment of commissioners?
5.	By whom were said instructions given?
6.	Have officials of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics called upon the public in each constituency, through the press, for the choice and the nomination of census commissioners and, if not, for what reason?
7.	Who is responsible at the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the census for the region to which Sherbrooke belongs and what is the address of his office?
8.	Which officials of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics give instructions to the census commissioners and other census appointees for Sherbrooke and what are the addresses of these officials?
9.	What are the employment requirements of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the census commissioners for the next census?
10.	What are the salaries of the census commissioners and the people they employ?
June 29, 1966

11.	Has the Dominion Bureau of Statistics appointed students and eligible unemployed people as commissioners and those who work under them and, if not, for what reason?
12.	Who gave the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the list of names of the five commissioners for the constituency of Sherbrooke?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. The Census Commissioners appointed for the Constituency of Sherbrooke are:	Mr. Leon Lefebvre, 226-9th Avenue
South, Sherbrooke; Mr. Pierre Lorrain, 1420 Joliet Street, Sherbrooke; Mr. Denis Proteau, 1493 Lalemand Street, Sherbrooke; Mr. Andre Charpentier, 1071 Prospect Street, Sherbrooke; Mr. Claude Gingues, 1348 Cherbourg Street, Sherbrooke.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 12. The Bureau of Statistics defined the requirements for the position of Census Commissioner and the appointments to the five Census Commissioner positions were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce following recommendations and interviews by the regional office representatives of the Bureau. The press was not used to solicit applications.
7.	Mr. Pierre Gadbois, Regional Officer, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Suite 830, 1165 Bleury Street, Montreal 1, Quebec.
8.	For the Census Commissioners of the Constituency of Sherbrooke, classes were conducted in April and May at the National Employment Service Office, 299 Olivier Street, Sherbrooke by Regional Office Representatives who had been trained by specialists from Ottawa. The Census Commissioners, in turn, trained the Census Enumerators.
9.	Plans for the 1971 Census of Canada have not yet been made.
10.	Each Census Commissioner will be paid $1,100 when the field work in his Census District is completed to the satisfaction of the Dominion Statistician. Census Enumerators will be paid on the number of forms completed accurately; a basic rate of 8c. for each person enumerated; $1 for each farm holding enumerated; 15c. for each merchandising establishment listed and from 5c. to 8c. per dwelling listed. In addition, if Census Enumerators require instruction regarding both Population and Agriculture, they will receive $22.00; but if instruction regarding Population only is required, Enumerators will receive $12.00.
11.	Yes; in addition to field work, many students and unemployed persons, who were successful in the qualifying Civil Service examination, are employed in processing the
Questions
completed Census forms at the head office and regional offices of the Dominion Bureau of
Statistics.


C.N.R. PURCHASE OF LARGE HOPPER CARS
Mr. Walson (Assiniboia): 1.	Has the C.N.R. any plans to purchase large hopper cars capable of carrying approximately 4,000 bushels of grain, the same as the cars being used in the United States for exclusive grain train use?
2.	If not, will the Minister of Transport discuss this with the C.N.R.?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Not at present.
2.	He has already done so.


WHEAT IN STORAGE, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Diefenbaker: What is the estimate of the number of bushels of wheat in storage (a) on farms (b) in local elevators, as to this date in each of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba?


Robert Henry Winters: (a) There are no current data available with respect to farm stocks of wheat. The most recent estimate, as at March 31, placed farm stocks of wheat in each of the prairie provinces as follows:
millions of bushels
Manitoba	39.0
Saskatchewan	307.0
Alberta	99.0
(b)	Stocks of wheat in country elevators as at June 1, 1966 were as follows:
millions of bushels
Manitoba	13.0
Saskatchewan	86.5
Alberta	46.0


BUSINESSES QUALIFIED UNDER DESIGNATED AREA LEGISLATION
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	Have any businesses qualified to receive taxation certification under the designated area legislation administered by the federal Department of Industry and if so (a) how many (b) how many of these industries are in Ontario (c) how many of these industries are in Quebec (d) how many of these industries are in the rest of Canada?
2.	What was the approximate amount of tax relief enjoyed by these certified companies in the year 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	In the period December 5, 1963 to May 31, 1966, 290 new businesses declared their intentions of establishing new manufacturing or

June 29, 1966
Questions
processing operations in designated areas in order to qualify for the benefits under section 71A of the Income Tax Act. Of these, 89 new businesses have been issued certificates confirming the dates on which the firms have achieved acceptable levels of commercial production. Ontario, 53; Quebec, 22; remaining provinces, 14.
2.	Disclosure of details of income tax returns by individual businesses is not permitted under the Income Tax Act.


VISIT TO PUERTO RICO BY B AND B COMMISSION STAFF
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Have any employees of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism visited Puerto Rico on commission business and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the purpose of these trips (c) what was the cost involved?
2.	Is there any connection between the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and Puerto Rico and, if so, what is that connection?


Mr. P. E. Trudeau (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the royal commission as follows;
1.	Two commissioners and one staff member joined HMCS Bonaventure on its recent exercises in the Atlantic, to observe the ship in action and discuss with the officers and men questions relevant to the commission's mandate. This experience was judged desirable by the Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the royal commission as providing essential background and first hand experience of actual operating conditions for the further research information on the armed services being prepared by the commission's research staff.
The staff member accompanying the commissioners is a research employee in the commission's armed services research group, and was responsible for travel arrangements, liaison with the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Navy, and for recording appropriate information on the experience. Costs were as follows: 2 commissioners, $463 air fare, $94.50 expenses.
1 staff member, $152.70 air fare, $126.95 expenses.


An hon. Member:: What about high school?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will have to speak louder; I did not hear him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand these remarks. Hon. members should

speak up if they wish to appear on the record. I cannot hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Neither could anybody else. Please continue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am in no hurry. I cannot understand the hon. member, and I do not think he can understand himself.
2.	The commission team joined HMCS Bonaventure in Puerto Rico where it was at harbour on March 20 and debarked at Halifax March 25 when the ship completed exercises. Otherwise there is no connection between the commission and Puerto Rico. The commissioners arrived approximately two hours prior to boarding, while the staff member arrived two days in advance to arrange administrative details.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. Coates: 1.	From what date will the proposed Canadian assistance plan be applicable to assistance schemes implemented by provincial governments?
2.	What prior approval is necessary from the Department of National Health and Welfare in order for the provincial governments to qualify?
3.	Have discussions been carried out by officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to the proposed Canada assistance plan and provincial schemes that would qualify for assistance and, if so, in what provinces and on what dates were the provincial schemes passed by the legislatures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. April 1, 1966.
2.	The plan will provide for federal-provincial agreements under which the federal government will contribute to the costs of assistance and welfare services provided under provincial legislation listed in the agreements. The provincial programs covered will be those that provide for assistance and welfare services under term and conditions consistent with the Canada Assistance Plan.
3.	Yes. Some provinces have legislation of the kind that the plan foresees. The Ontario legislature has before it legislation amending a number of welfare acts. The following provinces have adopted new legislation: Prince Edward Island: Welfare Assistance Act, Royal Assent, April 7, 1966. New Brunswick: Social Assistance Act, Royal Assent, June 10, 1966. Quebec: Medical Assistance Act, Royal Assent, March 31, 1966. Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Assistance Act, Royal Assent, March 11, 1966. Alberta: Act to
June 29, 1966

Amend the Public Welfare Act, Royal Assent, April 7, 1966. The Preventive Social Services Act, Royal Assent, April 7, 1966.


STAFF APPOINTMENTS, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	Have any new appointments to the staff of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration been made since January 1, 1966, and, if so (a) how many (b) how many of these were new appointments not previously with the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	Do any vacancies now exist in the Department and, if so (a) how many (b) in what fields are these vacancies?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes. (a) 533; (b) 488.
2. Yes. (a) 1429; (b) Senior managers, 4; Employment service officer, 588; Administrative officer, 182; Technical officer, 24; Economist, 25; Managers, 8; Chief statistician, 1; Management analyst, 7; Chief special programs, 1; Personnel administrator, 19; U.I.C. inspector, 6; Public information officer, 10; Immigration officer, 95; Translator, 7; Assistant (U.K.), 74; Draftsman, 2; Electronic data processor, 2; Cleaning service man, 2; Administrative support, 372.
DISPOSAL OF HEATING EQUIPMENT, OTTAWA Question No. 1,645'-Mr. Keays:
1.	Has any heating plant equipment been sold or otherwise disposed of, as a result of the conversion of the central heating plant on Cliff street in Ottawa, except to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
2.	If so (a) what equipment, new or used, was sold or otherwise disposed of and to whom and for what price in each instance (b) who authorized the sale or other disposition of such equipment in each instance and were public tenders invited before such sale or disposition (c) who was the chief engineer at the central heating plant at the time of the sale or other disposition of such equipment?
3.	What equipment, if any, was sold or disposed of by C.A.D.C., to whom and for what price in each instance and were public tenders called in respect of such sales or dispositions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and Public Works as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) No new equipment was sold or otherwise disposed of. Certain coal firing equipment and accessories which had to be removed to make way for new firing systems became the property of The Consumers' Gas Company, contractor for the conversion work, under the terms of the contract and was removed from the site by the company.
Questions
Certain materials held in stock by the department for use as sapre parts for the coal handling equipment was declared surplus to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
After the conversion was completed, as a part of plant maintenance and clean up, it appears that a quantity of spare parts may have been irregularly disposed of. This is under investigation by the R.C.M.P.
(b)	The contract for the conversion with The Consumers' Gas Company was authorized by the Treasury Board.
The disposal of the surplus material to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation was authorized by the superintendent of government buildings, Ottawa.
The plant clean up was authorized by the assistant chief plant engineer.
(c)	The chief engineer at the Central Heating Plant at the time was Mr. John L. Hanlon.
3.	Nil.


SASKATCHEWAN-COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR RABIES LOSSES
Mr. Souiham: Has the government of the province of Saskatchewan made application to the federal government to set up joint legislation similar to that now in existence in Ontario and Quebec under the Federal Provincial Contagious Diseases Compensation Act to provide compensation for those farmers in Saskatchewan who have experienced losses in their herds due to rabies?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: No.


POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF CENSUS COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Enns: 1.	Is there a limit or restriction on the political activity of census commissioners?
2.	If so, does this restrict such persons from nominating a candidate for a political party or acting as an official agent to a candidate in the provincial election campaign?


Robert Henry Winters: 1 and 2. Census commissioners are not appointed by the Civil Service Commission but are appointed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce under section 5 of the Statistics Act. Neither the Statistics Act nor the oath of office administered to census commissioners limits or restricts the political activity of census commissioners. The only restriction would be the practical one that the political activity did not interfere with the work or effectiveness of the census commissioner in performing his duties in connection with the taking of the census.

June 29, 1966
Questions


EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION, 1960-65
Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many people left Canada for permanent residence in the United States in each of the years 1960 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	How many people arrived in Canada from the United States to take up permanent residence in each of the years 1960 to 1965 inclusive?
3.	How many people left Canada to take up permanent residence in all other countries except the United States in each of the years 1960 to 1965 inclusive?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Citizenship and Immigration as follows:
1.	Immigrant aliens admitted to United States whose last permanent residence was Canada: Calendar Year; 1960, 48,682; 1961, 45,209; 1962, 47,579; 1963, 51,512; 1964, 49,995; January to June 1965, 22,277.
Source: United States: Immigration and naturalization service, Department of Justice.
2.	Immigration to Canada from the United States
Year	Total
1960	11,247
1961	11,516
1962	11,643
1963	11,736
1964	12,565
1965	15,143
73,850
3.	Estimated emigration from Canada to all countries other than United States: Calendar Year; 1960, N.A.; 1961, N.A.; 1962, 24,000;	1963,	26,000;	1964,	28,000;	1965,
26,000.


INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, ROBERVAL CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Gauthier: Has the Department of Industry spent any money in aid to new industries in the constituency of Roberval in the last four years and, if so (a) how much (b) in which municipalities?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The National Employment Service areas of Dolbeau and Roberval, parts of which comprise the Constituency of Roberval, have been designated under the Area Development Program. Seven firms have declared their intentions of establishing or expanding manufacturing or processing operations in the areas in order to qualify for the benefits of the Area Development Incentives Act of June 30, 1965, as follows:

No. of	Invest-	DirectArea	Projects	ment	EmploymentDolbeau	2	$ 359,000	70Roberval	5	1,297,000	99Totals	7	$1,656,000	169
As none of the projects are yet in commercial production, no payments of capital grants have been made to date.


* ANTI-CIGARETTE CAMPAIGN
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How much money has been spent by the government on the anti-cigarette campaign (a) in the schols (b) in the press (c) in other media?
2.	What are the results to date in the prevention of cigarette smoking or in stopping the habit?
3.	What further procedures are planned in prevention?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Because of the length of the reply to starred question 1,687, Mr. Speaker, the answer is being printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The text of the reply referred to above is as follows:]
1.	(a) A total of $220,074.79 was expended by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the Canadian smoking and health program up to March 31, 1966. It is impossible to determine what proportion of this was used for materials for schools because some items are for the use of the general public as well as schools and we do not know the distribution within individual provinces, (b) $3,267.60 was spent for an experimental series of display advertisements in a national monthly publication, Canadian High News, directed to high school students across the country, (c) Expenditures in other media totalled $151,953.60. Research expenditures totalled $64,843.59.
2.	We have recognized from the outset that we are involved in a long term program of health education regarding the health hazards of cigarette smoking. The first objective of the program is to inform Canadians about the health hazards of cigarette smoking. Following that, ultimate success will depend upon changes in public attitudes regarding the habit. A survey conducted for my department between November, 1964 and January, 1965, showed that 90 per cent of Canadians were aware of the harmful effects of cigarette
June 29, 1966

smoking and 60 per cent of them believed that cigarette smoking is a health hazard. The second survey of smoking habits of Canadians 15 years of age and over which was carried out for my department by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showed that, in general, the proportion of cigarette smokers was about the same in September, 1965 (42.8 per cent regular smokers) as in August, 1964, (42.0 per cent regular cigarette smokers). A report of the second survey is being prepared in the department.
3.	In co-operation with provincial departments of health and education and various voluntary and professional organizations my department will continue the Canadian smoking and health program to inform the public about the risks to health of cigarette smoking; to encourage smokers to discontinue the habit; to dissuade non-smokers from acquiring the habit; and to promote research. By this fall we expect to have a comprehensive collection of new Canadian materials for use in schools as well as new materials for the general public. The desirability and feasibility of further procedures are under consideration.


REQUIREMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
Mr. Danforth: 1.	What is the number of additional agricultural workers that it is estimated will have to be brought in for planting and harvesting, particularly in the counties of Essex, Kent, Elgin, Norfolk, Lambton and Middlesex, in Ontario?
2.	How many applications were made for labourers from Jamaica (giving numbers by county of persons requested) ?
3.	How many labourers are estimated as available from Indian reservations, from local areas in other provinces stating locations, from the U.S.A., and from immigration?
4.	What emergency measures are contemplated by the government, other than encouraging students and housewives, should present measures prove inadequate to harvest 1966 crops without loss of quality or quantity or both?


John Carr Munro: 1. Information is not available by county; however, estimates of additional agricultural workers required for planting and harvesting by general area are as follows: Southern Ontario, 3,600; Niagara peninsula, 2,500; Other Ontario areas, 9,000; Total: 15,100.
2. Information is not available by county; however, by office areas in the counties mentioned, applications for Jamaicans on file, as of June 16, 1966, are as follows: Newmarket local office area, 50; Leamington local office area, 8; Windsor local office area, 5; Simcoe 23033-444
Questions
local office area, 27; Oshawa local office area, 10; St. Catharines local office area, 4; Total 104.
3.	Estimates of workers available and the sources are as follows: 800 from Indian reservations; 600 from Atlantic provinces (Information is not available); 900 from Quebec (by local areas in the Atlantic and Quebec provinces); 2,200 from U.S.A.; 540 from immigration. In addition, it is expected that the demand areas of Ontario will supply approximately 7,300 workers and other areas in Ontario 3,000, for a total estimated supply from all areas of 15,340.
4.	A planned recruitment program is functioning which includes an increased number of employment officers presently engaged in recruitment in supply areas of Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario rural areas.
A number of employment officers from Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario were in demand areas of Ontario last week, meeting growers and surveying manpower requirements. Arrangements have also been made for day haul service from urban centres within commuting distances. The payment of transportation both ways has been arranged under the Ontario Federal agricultural manpower agreement.
The admission of seasonal Jamaican workers was approved as a further means of averting a manpower emergency situation.


MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM, P.E.I.
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Under the manpower mobility program, how many persons have been assisted in their transportation expenses from Prince Edward Island for employment?
2.	Under the manpower mobility program, how many persons have been assisted in their transportation expenses from Prince county for employment?
3.	Under the manpower mobility program, how many persons have been assisted in their transportation expenses to Prince Edward Island for employment?
4.	Under the manpower mobility program, how many persons have been assisted in their transportation expenses to Prince county for employment?
5.	Under the manpower mobility program, what has been the expense of this program in transporting people from Prince Edward Island?
6.	Under the manpower mobility program, what has been the expense of this program in transporting people to Prince Edward Island?


John Carr Munro: 1. From 28 December 1965, the effective date of the manpower mobility program to 10 June 1966, loans have been authorized for seven

June 29, 1966
Questions
workers and grants for six workers to move from Prince Edward Island to other places in Canada for employment.
2.	From 28 December 1965, the effective date of the manpower mobility program to 10 June 1966, loans have been authorized for six workers and grants for five workers to move from Prince county, Prince Edward Island, to other places in Canada for employment.
3.	Statistical data required to answer this question is not available.
4.	Statistical data required to answer this question is not available.
5.	From 28 December 1965, the effective date of the manpower mobility program to 31 May 1966 the amount paid to move workers from Prince Edward Island to other places in
Canada was $1,468 for those receiving loans and $1,210 for those receiving grants.
6.	Statistical data required to answer this question is not available.


EXPENDITURES UNDER WATER CONSERVATION ACT
Mr. Davis: What is the total amount of money expended annually and by province under the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act since its adoption in 1953?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Federal contributions under the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act from its passage in 1953 to April 30, 1966, were all in the province of Ontario and were for the following projects:
seal Year	Upper Thames	Metro Toronto	Ausable river	Total1961-62	$ 34,931	$ 121,080	$ -	$ 156,0111962-63	269,443	883,117	-	1,152,5601963-64	367,150	1,118,000	23,834	1,508,9841964-65	500,000	896,521	67,980	1,464,5011965-66	1,204,191	736,624	12,843	1,953,6581966-67 (April 1966	56,816	218,389	-	275,205only)	-	-	-	-Total	$2,432,531	$3,973,731	$104,657	$6,510,919


CAMP BORDEN
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is it planned that camp Borden shall be a combined army training camp (armour, artillery, engineers and infantry) with only two messes being retained?
2.	If this plan is carried out. what plans are made for (a) Royal Canadian Armoured Corps museum
(b)	Royal Canadian Armoured memorial suite in the existing Royal Canadian Armoured Corps mess which was furnished by various regiments (c) the disposition of the Washington park program, and (d) how will the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps school be integrated into the plan?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Canadian forces base Borden is part of training command and any proposals for modification of the command organization will be made by the commander training command. The feasibility of amalgamating certain training establishments on the base is being examined but no plan has been submitted yet. In the interests of efficiency, four messes in Canadian forces base Borden were closed recently. One was the headquarters officers' mess. The others were two sergeants' messes and one men's mess
[Mr. Munro.l
hall. There are no immediate plans for closing any of the remaining messes.
2. Not applicable.


ATTENDANCE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS AT PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What is the policy of government departments in regard to the attendance of professional men and women, in federal employ, at the meetings and conventions of associations pertaining to their professions?
2.	Are the expenses of transportation, registration, room accommodation and meals paid from the public treasury for such attendance?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisler of National Revenue):: 1. Government departments require a sufficient number of professional public servants to attend certain of the more important meetings and conventions of associations pertaining to their profession to ensure adequate official representation and participation, and to exchange information necessary to the conduct of government projects and programs.
2. Yes.
June 29, 1966


MINK PRODUCTION
Mr. Tucker: 1.	How many mink were raised in Canada in 1965 and what was the total value to mink farmers?
2.	How many were raised in each province?


Robert Henry Winters: 1 and 2. Information is not available for 1965, but data for 1964 are as follows:
Mink Production on Fur Farms, 1964
	No. of Mink	Fur Farm Mink	
	on Farms at	Pelt Production	
Dec. 31, 1964	Number	Value $ 444,959Nfld.	11,003	30,244	P.E.I.	1,416	3,222	46,625N.S.	38,470	78,770	1,154,327
Questions
N.B.	3,195	5,322	79,019Que.	46,919	92,769	1,346,480Ont.	202,610	407,085	5,991,945Man.	89,291	205,513	3,111,309Sask.	36,707	91,742	1,385,741Alta.	67,331	186,181	2,789,274B.C.	144,876	317,520	4,815,645Canada	641,818	1,418,368	21,165,324


GRAIN SALE PRICES
Mr. Godin: What was the average sale price, per 100 pounds, for the following grains sold by the Canadian wheat board during the months of July 1963, October 1963, February 1964, July 1964, October 1964, February 1965, July 1965, October 1965, and February 1966, in the case of (a) oats No. 1 (b) oats No. 2
(c)	oats No. 3 (d) barley No. 1 (e) barley No. 2 (f) wheat No. 4 (g) wheat No. 5?


Mitchell William Sharp: MONTHLY AVERAGE BOARD ASKING PRICES FOR DESIGNATED GRADES OF WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY In Store Fort William/Port Arthur
Oats	Barley	Wheat1 Feed	2 Feed	3 Feed	1 Feed	2 Feed	4 Nor.	No. 5July, 1963	
223|	214f	(cents per 100 pounds) 205) 2321 227)	306}	297}October, 1963	
222|	214	2051	234J	2321	312}	302}February, 1964	
2154	2061	1971	2301	2281	325	315July, 1964	
223)	214f	2051	238	236	324}	313}October,1964	
232	223J	214f	252|	2491	323}	312)February, 1965	
232|	223)	2141	259}	256}	289}	287}July, 1965	
236|	227f	2181	2571	255}	297)	289}October, 1965	
242)	233)	224f	266)	264)	296}	288}February, 1966	
2571	248)	240)	2781	276}	307}	299


INCOMES OF CANADIANS OVER 70 YEARS OLD
Mr. Scott (Danforth): In the latest year for which figures are available, how many Canadians aged 70 years or more earned (a) under $1,000 (b) between $1,001 and $2,000 (c) between $2,001 and $3,000 (d) between $3,001 and $4,000 (e) between $4,001 and $5,000 (f) between $5,001 and $6,000 (g) between $6,001 and $8,000 (h) between $8,001 and $10,000 (i) over $10,000?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Trade and Commerce):: The latest information on the income distribution of persons aged 70 years and over originated in the 1961 Census and refers to the period 12 months prior to June 1, 1961, and is restricted to the non-farm population.
Distribution of non-farm individuals aged 70 years or more by income groups,* Canada, 1961
Income group*	Number	Per centNo income	7,919	1.1Under $1,000	425,446	58.3$ 1,000-$1,999	158,501	21.72,000- 2,999	60,998	8.43,000- 3,999	30,825	4.24,000- 4,999	15,707	2.25,000- 5,999	9,076	1.26,000- 6,999	13,029	1.810,000 and over	8,207	1.1Total	729,708	100.0
* Classified by size of total income (includes income from all sources).

June 29, 1966
Questions
Information about the distribution of older persons by size of their earnings (i.e. wages and salaries and net income from self-employment) is limited to those non-farm individuals who were labour force participants at the time of the 1961 Census and excludes approximately 20,000-25,000 individuals aged 70 and over, who had received some earned income during the past twelve months but had left the labour force by June 1, 1961. No statistics are available on the distribution of these individuals by the size of their earned income.
Distribution of non-farm individuals aged 70 years and over in the current labour force by earned income groups,* Canada, 1961
Earned income* group No income Under $1,000 $ 1,000-$1,999
Number Per cent 5,296	8.6
14,695	23.7
12,370	20.0
2,000- 2,999	10,665	17.23,000- 3,999	7,539	12.24,000- 4,999	3,649	5.95,000- 5,999	2,087	3.46,000- 9,999	3,298	5.310,000 and over	2,316	3.7Total	61,915	100.0
*Wages and salaries and net income from self-employment.


C.M.H.C. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOANS, TORONTO
Mr. Scot! (Danforth): 1.	For each of the months of January, February, March, April and May, how many housing loans were issued by the Toronto area office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for single family dwellings?
2.	How many of such loans were direct loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as distinguished from loans by conventional National Housing Act lenders?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	and 2.


GROSS NHA LOANS APPROVED FOR SINGLE-DETACHED DWELLINGS IN TORONTO FIELD OFFICE AREA
[Stage Direction]
Approved Lenders	CMI1C	Total NHANumber Number	Number Number	Number NumberPeriod	of Loans of Units $ 000 of Loans of Units $ 000 of Loans of Units $ 000January	
-	-	-	143	143	2,491	143	143	2,491February	
7	7	123	1	1	16	8	8	139March	
Ill	111	1,975	9	9	129	120	120	2,104April	
114	114	2,041	11	11	168	125	125	2,209May l1]	
151	151	2,622	6	6	96	157	157	2,718Total	
383	383	6,761	170	170	2,900	553	553	9,661
['] Preliminary

Mr. Slanbury: Will the government ensure that joint initiatives in immigrant education are included on the agenda of next autumn's federal-provincial conference on manpower?


John Carr Munro: There is no federal-provincial conference on manpower planned for next autumn.


DRIVING OF LOGS ON STELLAKO RIVER, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1. Upon what date did the government of British Columbia begin to drive logs on the Stellako river?
[Mr. Cantin.J
2.	Upon what date did (a) the Department of Fisheries (b) the Minister of Fisheries, hear that such work had actually been undertaken?
3.	Did (a) the Department of Fisheries and/or (b) the Minister of Fisheries, have any knowledge that this activity would take place before it did and, if so, upon what date were the department and the minister aware of the intended activity?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. June 14, 1966.
2.	June 14, 1966.
3.	June 10, 1966.


HUNTING ACCIDENTS
Mr. Allmand: 1. How many persons were killed in Canada during the last five years as a result of hunting accidents?
June 29, 1966

2.	How many of these deaths were subject to a coroner's inquest?
3.	In how many was there a coroner's verdict indicating criminal responsibility?
4.	In how many were criminal proceedings taken?
5.	How many resulted in criminal convictions?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Statistics are not available on hunting accidents as they are not separately classified. However, the following information on deaths due to accidents caused by firearms may be helpful.
Deaths due to accidents caused by firearms, Canada, 1960-1964
Year	Number	Attended by Coroner*1960	216	1451961	176	1191962	189	1371963	150	1091964	180	135
* Data on inquests are not available.
2, 3, 4 and 5. Information requested is not available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: What are the names of the census enumerators appointed by the three census commissioners in Cumberland county. Nova Scotia, and what are their addresses and their occupations?
Return tabled.


IMMIGRATION, 1955-65
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the total number of people immigrating to Canada in each of the years 1955 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	From what countries did they emigrate and what were the total numbers from each country in each year?
Return tabled.


Mr. Forreslall:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering if, in view of the hope that the house might adjourn shortly, I might receive answers to one or two of the questions I have had on the order paper for some time. I wonder if they might be dealt with or if it is the intention of the government to allow them to stand. They are questions Nos. 1,162 and 1,534.


Mr. Brand:: On a similar point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have had question
Orders for Returns
No. 1,500 on the order paper since May 16 and question No. 1,588 since May 31, as well as question No. 1,613 since June 3. I was wondering, in view of what has been said, if these questions may be answered.


Mr. Noble:: I have a question which has been on the order paper for three months, and I think it should be answered.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: What number?


Percy Verner Noble: It is No. 1,156.


Mr. Caouelte:: Mr. Speaker, in turn, I rise on a point of order.
This concerns question No. 910, which has been on the order paper since March 1, that is exactly four months. Now, there is no doubt that, in the last four months, all the civil servants concerned have received their pay cheques, and it does not take four months to distribute pay cheques. Then, how can it be that, in four months, the government is not able to provide an answer to this question concerning the extension of bilingualism in the civil service?


George James McIlraith: I think the attention of hon. members should be drawn to question No. 910. An examination, without taking the time to develop the subject, will indicate to the house that in its present form the question will probably require a great many more months to answer. It is one of those questions about which I have grave doubts as to it being in order. Some parts are in order, but in its present form it is obviously going to take many months, perhaps some years to get the information.


Mr. Starr:: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I think the Minister of Public Works is not quite honest in his answer, because when a senior official joins the civil service-
TEnglish]


Michael Starr: I quite agree with the house leader that when you have questions of that nature they may be difficult to answer, but most of the questions that have not been answered could be answered very quickly. For example, my own question of June 14, two weeks ago, No. 1,692, surely could be

June 29, 1966
Orders for Returns
answered in a matter of minutes. I hope the government will try to answer these questions and not use the difficulty of one question as an excuse for not answering any of them.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I
might say that this is not a question of the kind to which the Minister of Public Works has been referring, but I ask the government if they are aware that question No. 1,284 has been on the order paper since April 6 and has not been answered. The failure to answer this question is just a matter of ignoring information sought by the constituents of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
fTranslation]


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the minister's attention to the fact that starred question No. 1,283 has been on the order paper since April 6, while questions Nos. 1,354 and 1,385 have appeared there since April 26 and 28 respectively.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to-


George James McIlraith: Dealing with 
question No. 1,283-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister replying to the specific point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With specific reference to question No. 1,283, it will be seen that by the form of the question the hon. member has made it necessary for each department and agency of government to check each employee in the whole of the government service, involving some hundreds of thousands of persons. If he had taken the time to work out the form of the question with a little more care I am sure the information which he desires, and to which he is entitled, could have been obtained in a way that would have met his request for a more speedy answer. My remarks are limited to the point raised by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in connection with question No. 1,283.


Michael Starr: I am speaking to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of this technicality which the house leader has brought to our attention, instead of allowing the question to remain on the order paper since April 6 surely the government could have brought it to the attention of the hon. member and

had the question reworded. By allowing it to stand for so long the government gives the impression they are not prepared to answer
questions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On the same point of order, I
want to inform the house that I have reworded my question, but it does not seem to have brought me any more success.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I should like to call the minister's attention to the following fact: whether they are American or Canadian officials, every civil servant is required to complete an application form under which-
TEnglish]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a point of order, but I do not believe we should embark on a debate on each one of these questions.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As a change of pace, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order and ask that question No. 1,548, which is a starred question, be withdrawn?


Michael Starr: You cannot get an answer, so you might as well withdraw it.


Mr. Flemming:: I wish to remind the appropriate minister that I have had question No. 1,424 on the order paper since May 5, and I would certainly appreciate an answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: Coming back to my question which has been standing since April 6, No. 1,284, I should like to ask The Minister of Public Works if he will do for me what he has done for several members; that is, since an answer cannot be provided will he give me an alibi?



MOTION FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Would your Honour call notice of motion No. 145?
I ask that the others be allowed to stand. [English]



CORRESPONDENCE TO, FROM AND RESPECTING A. G. HEAKES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 145-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of (a) letter of May 19, 1963, from A. G. Heakes to the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, Minister of Justice together with its covering letter of May 21, 1963 (b) letter from Miss Marguerite Ritchie, executive assistant to Hon. Lionel Chevrier of July 16, 1963, acknowledging the said letter from A. G. Heakes
June 29, 1966	COMMONS
of May 19, 1963 and its covering letter of May 21, 1963, to Mr. Chevrier (c) all other letters listed in Miss Ritchie's letter of July 16, 1963, to Mr. Heakes
(d)	complete dossier of court records relating to Mr. Heakes' proposal No. 37-1955 SCM as held in Department of Justice and in particular (i) original proposal of February 7, 1955 (ii) amended proposal of May 31, 1955 (iii) report of the debtor's proposal of September 14, 1955 with its attached record of creditors' meetings and minutes of said meetings (iv) judgment of November 22,	1955
ratifying said proposal (v) petition of Trustee Dansereau of June 3, 1958, to cancel proposal (vi) judgment of June 9, 1958, cancelling proposal; also attached envelope addressed by registered mail and returned as evidence that Mr. Heakes had moved from his place of business (vii) trustee's motion for discharge of July 2, 1959 (viii) trustee's petition to cancel unreinstated proposal of August 8, 1963, together with its attached exhibits of minutes of creditors' meetings held on March 8, 1955 and April 15, 1955 (ix) judgment of September 11, 1963, cancelling the unreinstated proposal for a second time (x) judgment of September 12, 1963, discharging trustee (xi) notice of discharge hearing on September 12, 1963, if any (e) correspondence covering arrangements for postponement of discharge hearing as referred to by the Hon. Davie Fulton in Department of Justice estimates of June 9, 1961 (f) reports by Registrar Gerard Deniger to Department of Justice re cancellation of proposal including all correspondence with and/or reports on other contacts with Registrar Deniger (g) all correspondence and/or other communications with Trustee J. Alexandre Dansereau and/or reports on same (h) report on investigations into cancellation as recorded in speech by the Hon. Davie Fulton in Department of Justice estimates of June 9, 1961 (i) telegram of October 15, 1959, from Mr. Heakes to Mr. Favreau requesting production of papers relating to proposal (j) letter of February 4, 1965, to the Hon. Guy Favreau, Minister of Justice, together with its enclosure of letter of February 2, 1965, to the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson (k) all letters to Mr. A. G. Heakes from officers and Ministers of Department of Justice and in particular (i) letter of February 5, 1960 from Assistant Deputy Minister Favreau (wrongly dated February 5, 1940) to Mr. Heakes (ii) letter of July 16, 1959, from Supt. Larose to Mr. Heakes (iii) letter of November 9, 1959, from Miss K. Kierans, Secretary to the Hon. Davie Fulton to Mr. Heakes (iv) letter of the Hon. Davie Fulton, referred to in said letter of Miss Kierans, to the Hon. George Hees (v) all other letters from officers of the Department of Justice and Ministers of Justice to Mr. Heakes (1) letters of July 14, 1959, and July 15, 1959 to Supt. Larose (m) letters and other communications from Mr. Heakes to officers of the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice listed in the said letter of Miss Kierans of November 9, 1959 (n) letter of August 20, 1963, from A. G. Heakes to Justice Minister (o) copy sent to Mr. Chevrier of telegram of August 25, 1963, from A. G. Heakes to Associate Chief Justice, George Challies (p) copy of brief submitted by A. G. Heakes dated September 1963 to House of Commons standing committee on banking and finance, re proposed amendment, Bill C-5, to Bankruptcy Act (q) all letters and other communications from A. G. Heakes to Prime Minister Pearson in 1963, 1964, and 1965 and in particular (i) letters addressed to him in January 1964 (ii) letter
DEBATES	7017
Inquiries of the Ministry
of December 20, 1965 (iii) letter of December 22,
1965	(iv) telegram of December 25, 1965 (v) letter of January 1, 1966 (vi) letter of January 17, 1966, with its enclosure of a letter of January 11, 1966, to Pierre Elliot Trudeau, M.P. (vii) letter of January 18, 1965 (vii) letter of January 24, 1966, with its enclosure (ix) letter of February 6, 1966 (x) letter of February 8, 1966, with its enclosure (xi) letter of February 9, 1966 (xii) letter of February 12,
1966	(xiii) letter of February 14, 1966.
Mr. Cardin:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow this motion to stand.
Motion stands.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 118 was accepted on April 27 and I have not yet received an official answer.
I ask the hon. minister to kindly speed things up, so that I may get a reply as soon as possible.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as we believe we are approaching adjournment a few days hence, I would ask the Prime Minister to advise the house whether, in addition to the Canada Assistance Plan, the government will present to the house legislation to increase pensions from $75 to $100, and will do this before the summer recess, in view of the continued rising cost of living and the grave difficulties in which the old age pensioners find themselves.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, not before the summer
recess.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the news which has just reached Ottawa of the bombing by United States forces of Hanoi and Haiphong, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether any action will be taken by his government. This bombing of the capital city of North Viet Nam will undoubtedly have the effect of escalating the war to the point where the
June 29, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry peace of the world will be endangered. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider making a protest to Washington, as any escalation of the war will nullify all of the efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should put his question now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was simply asking the Prime Minister, in view of the efforts put forth by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Chester Ronning being nullified by an escalation of the war, whether the Prime Minister is planning to make an appeal to Washington.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our efforts to bring about peace in Viet Nam through negotiation-in so far as we are able to pursue those efforts-will not be nullified by any action which has been taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In
view of the fact that an escalation of the war does endanger the peace of the world, is the Prime Minister planning to make any representations to the government of the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with this point which has been raised, my understanding, which is based on the preliminary reports I have received, is that the United States government does not regard the bombing of oil storage installations in the vicinity of Hanoi and Haiphong as any indication of a change in their policy of confining the bombing to military targets directly associated with North Viet Nam's involvement in the south; and that there is no intention to direct bombing to the populated areas.
Nevertheless, this does not alter the government's position concerning this matter of bombing, which is well known to the house. We have always held-and I think this was made quite clear by me in a statement I made in April last year-that a let-up in the pattern of air strikes against the north seemed likely to be one of the major elements in arranging or approaching a peaceful settlement. More recently, when the pause in bombing of North Viet Nam came to an end in late January, we made it clear that it was a matter of regret to us that it was found necessary to decide upon a resumption of the bombing.
[Mr. Douglas.!
I am sure that we would all be glad to see the bombing stopped, and we would all be glad to see the intervention of northern troops into South Viet Nam stopped. We would also be glad to see unconditional negotiations for peace begin.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a spokesman for the defence department of the United States has stated that this bombing of Haiphong and Hanoi does constitute a further escalation of the war.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to any such statement. I will be glad to look into it.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the statement of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is accurate that the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong have been bombed. Have the civilians in those cities been bombed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has just indicated, his understanding-and my understanding-is that the targets did not involve any direct intention to attack the population.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the confusion in Canada and outside, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us whether the government of Canada is aware that Chinese troops or Russian troops are taking part in this war in North Viet Nam against South Viet Nam thus becoming aggressors against other aggressors called Americans. Are the troops actually there, physically?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have no information that Russian or Chinese troops are taking part in this war.



NATO-VISIT TO WASHINGTON BY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sfoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
June 29, 1966

Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any comment to make on the visit to Washington of his assistant under secretary, and the discussions held there on the future of NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Basil Robinson, one of the assistant under secretaries of state, did go to Washington after the Brussels meeting of NATO ministers, for the purpose of continuing our discussion with the United States on NATO questions.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question. Is Canada being urged to strengthen its NATO forces in Europe in order to free United States forces for activity in Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of privilege with regard to which I have been trying to get the floor. My question of privilege relates to the bill introduced earlier today by the Minister of Labour. I submit that with the introduction of this bill, once we have discovered what its contents are, the minister is guilty of having misled the house on the 14th day of June-and I say deliberately misled the house-by the omission of certain pertinent information in his statement on that day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena knows that he cannot accuse another member of deliberately misleading
the house; that is against the rules.


Frank Howard: Then, Mr. Speaker, if the
word "deliberately" is offensive and contrary to the rules, I will confine my question of privilege to the minister having misled the house on June 14.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rules in this regard. There is a distinction, of course, between misleading the house and deliberately misleading the house. A minister or a member can unintentionally mislead the house, and I assume this is what the hon. member has in mind.


Frank Howard: Yes. On June 14 the Minister of Labour, in making his announcement with
Inquiries of the Ministry respect to the settlement of the longshoremen's strike, said that a commission would be established under and pursuant to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. He said that clearly and without any equivocation.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member's point, but I suggest to him that there is no question of privilege involved here. There may be a question for debate when the matter comes up for debate in the house, but I respectfully suggest to him that there is no question of privilege at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, Your Honour has not heard the key point as to whether or not there is a question of privilege here. On June 14 the minister told us one thing, and today he has run completely contrary to his former statement and has introduced a bill which provides within it, fully, the principle of compulsory arbitration. This is contrary to what he told the house on June 14, and I contend-if I have to revert to the expression-that he deliberately misled the house on June 14.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot do that. He cannot revert to what he said previously. He knows that there is no question of privilege at all involved. There may be a subject for debate, as I said. Whenever the matter comes up for debate in the house he can at that time, if he wishes, argue this point; but I would seek his co-operation in agreeing with the Chair that at this time he cannot raise the matter as a question of privilege.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the bill he introduced earlier, and ask him to tell the house whether he informed the union or the shipping federation at the time the settlement was reached of his intention to introduce compulsory arbitration of the issue of productivity, following the appointment of a commission of inquiry.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: most certainly did, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: I wish to make sure of this. Did the minister inform both the union and the federation, or just one of those organizations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, both the unions and the federation were informed of the government's intention.
June 29, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



MILK-REPORTED FAILURE TO PAY AVERAGE PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to ask the minister whether he intends to fulfil his promise of $4 per hundredweight for milk to the producers of manufactured milk and, if so, when?


John James Greene: If the hon. member will read the statement which was made in the house and the release which was published at the time the policy was declared, whereby we directed an amount in the neighbourhood of $90 millions toward manufacturing milk and raised the price for the first time to a national weighted average of $4-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I think he will see that we have fulfilled every word of that statement. And in the Ottawa Journal today he will see that even this good Liberal paper commends our policy.


Mr. Winkler:: I recognize the verbal ability of the Minister of Agriculture, which is almost equal to that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-though not quite. I should like to put a further question to him. Does he realize that the producers of manufacturing milk are not in fact receiving the return he mentioned, and that it is his responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is now an argumentative one.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: My question is supplementary to those asked earlier about milk prices. Does the Minister of Agriculture accept responsibility for ensuring that farmers will receive the $4 price announced for milk?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order. The hon. member knows that on the orders of the day he cannot ask a question-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I just want the minister to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member would allow me to finish. I am suggesting it is not in order to ask the minister at this time whether or not he accepts responsibility. It is not a proper question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order. The minister makes a statement that farmers will receive $4 per hundredweight for milk. Surely he can say whether or not he feels it is his responsibility to ensure that farmers receive it. Let him say yes, or no. That is all I want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the question is
argumentative.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a question of privilege. I, too, would like clarification of this matter. I hold in my hand a copy of the Canadian Farm Economies Report dated April 1966 wherein, on page 11, is set out the jurisdictional division in the dairy industry, and the areas of responsibility. It shows clearly that responsibility with regard to subsidies and to manufacturing milk is that of the federal government. The Minister of Agriculture cannot therefore rid himself of this responsibility in any way.


An hon. Member:: Let him answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now making an argument; he is not asking a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that most farmers are not getting $4 per hundredweight of milk, could the minister tell us whether the farmers should get in touch with him in order to receive their $4 per hundredweight of milk?


John James Greene: I can appreciate the concern of hon. members opposite to get their political friends off the hook.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: As stated earlier, our policy is clear and unequivocal. As a result of that policy, in three years we have raised the national weighted average of manufacturing milk from $2.80 to $4.00.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lapointe wish to ask a supplementary question?


Gilles Grégoire: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the same question. Since the

June 29, 196S

Minister of Agriculture has answered anything but my question, could he answer it this time? Can the farmers get in touch with him if they do not get their $4 per hundredweight of milk?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce on a question of privilege.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise for the second time on a question of privilege because I did not receive a reasonable answer to my first question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is fine. Go ahead and holler. The farmers will know this, too.


An hon. Member:: They know it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They don't care about the farmers.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wish to ask the minister once again: Does he wish to accept the responsibility? He does not have to worry about my political friends; he should accept his own responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege. It is still an argument.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the consideration he is giving to the price of milk, and in view of the announcement that the price of milk is to go up in the Ottawa and Toronto areas by 2 cents a quart, will he investigate this increase to see whether it is necessary?


John James Greene: The hon. member knows that this is pertinent to fluid milk, which is exclusively a provincial matter. If consumer prices are going up in those areas, the province of Ontario has to assume its responsiblity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: When the minister announced a price of $4 per hundredweight for manufactured milk, was it his intention that the farmers should receive those four dollars? Was that his intention, when he made this announcement as a matter of government policy?


John James Greene: As I said earlier, the policy speaks very clearly for itself. It has been lived up to, to the letter. The province of Ontario has the right to fix the price by 23033-445|
Inquiries of the Ministry reason of the measures taken. We have made it possible for them to fix the price at $3.25, and they can take account of any other factors they wish with respect to the cost of trucking-this does not fall within the constitutional area of the federal government, in connection with price. I hope hon. members opposite are not urging this government to step into a provincial area of jurisdiction.


Michael Starr: I shall repeat my question and ask the minister to answer it this time, not beat around the bush.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked a question. He may not be satisfied with the answer the minister has given him-and I am not clear myself whether the minister did answer the question-but as the hon. member knows, that is as far as he can go, even if he is dissatisfied with the reply given to him.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of Agriculture. I was delighted to hear him say that we in the opposition were trying to get our political friends the farmers off the hook.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received representations from Ontario, Quebec and other provinces to the effect that the dairy producers of Canada are not receiving the minimum of $4 per hundredweight for milk?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to see the farmers are such friends of the hon. member's political friends that they are taking their tractors out on the highways to show their friendship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: I have received representations that some of the farmers, because of the failure either of provincial governments or of producers associations to fix the price at the factory, or because some of the plants have increased the cost of trucking to the farmers themselves, are not receiving $4 per hundredweight.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
The minister is trying to be smart by asking us to believe that there are federal
June 29, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry and provincial cows, but we feel that we are entitled to clearer answers from him. We say that the farmers are not getting at present $4 per hundredweight of milk. Is the minister in a position to guarantee the farmers $4 per hundredweight of milk. That is all we want to hear, not tall tales.


Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege raised by the hon. member is out of order.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway also has a supplementary question.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: No,
it is not supplementary.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that we have a very short question period today. I realize this is an extremely important matter, but still I would invite hon. members to consider that other bon. members may have other questions that might be important also. The hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: I again ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would shed his cloak of arrogance and try to explain the federal policy with respect to manufactured milk, and why the farmers are not receiving the $4, as he promised them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this is a repetition of the question that was asked previously. As I indicated to the hon. member for Ontario a moment ago, while possibly he is not satisfied with the reply given to him, I do not think he is entitled to repeat the question at this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we shall leave the subject of milk for a moment and go to another field. I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether the views expressed on national television by one of Canada's fiction writers are correct, that the C.B.C. board of directors at their last meeting instructed Mr. [Mr. Villeneuve.l
Ouimet to get rid of Mr. Walker, who is vice president and general manager of the English network, and that Mr. Ouimet has defied the order of the board of directors.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I think I know to what my right hon. friend refers, and I must agree with the adjective he used with respect to the particular writer, but I do not happen to know in this particular case whether or not it is another essay in fiction.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, will the minister find out whether in fact Mr. Ouimet has defied the board of directors, and report to the house before the recess?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would think, Mr. Speaker, that if the president of the C.B.C. had defied an order of the board, the board would at once communicate that to me; but I shall be pleased to put this question to them as requested.


Mr. Arnold Pefers (Timiskaming):: On a
supplementary question, while the minister is making inquiries in this regard would she also make inquiries as to whether a similar announcement, giving the same information as carried in a number of Toronto newspapers yesterday, was on the seven o'clock news broadcast, and what influence was used to see that it was not mentioned in any other newscast last night.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I can only imagine that they probably followed the truth.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the demand made yesterday in Toronto by 32 national organizations, representing nearly half a million Canadian women, will the government appoint a royal commission to study the status of women?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I would sooner look into.


Mr. Fairweather:: Federal or provincial?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of
June 29. 1966

Transport. Can the minister say what his department is doing to meet the requirements of safety in the manning of ships in the great lakes and St. Lawrence river systems?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have received what are represented to be urgent representations on this subject from the president of the S.I.U. I am writing a detailed reply to his letter today, and I shall be pleased to table it tomorrow.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, may I ask the minister whether it would not be more worth while to take some definitive action and promulgate some regulations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of action has been taken, is being taken, and is going to continue to be taken-


Frank Howard: Nuts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if we deal with facts we will get a lot further than if we deal with allegations.


Frank Howard: You are not telling the truth, Jack.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a suggestion by hon. members that a remark I did not hear should be withdrawn.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I used in response to the minister's statement were, one, that it was nuts and, two, that he was not telling the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the second time today that the hon. member for Skeena has come very close to infringing the rules of the house. I believe the rules are made for all members of the house, and no one is exempt from them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I really do not think the hon. member can say that in replying to a question the minister is not telling the truth.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am the first one to agree that the rules apply to everyone, and I wish they applied to the Minister of Transport as well-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: Keep your shirts on. If the rules are such that they require that I withdraw the allegation that the minister is not telling the truth, then I will comply with those rules, but it has no bearing on the facts as I know them.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to suggest that you enforce the rules in the case of the hon. gentleman. His record and my record are both well known to the house, and I am quite happy to leave it there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: As my final word I would ask the co-operation of the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I would agree, and I don't
want to mix the two records up.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There is no danger of that.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a supplementary question, will the promised action by the minister also take into consideration dismissing Mr. McLaughlin from the S.I.U., who was improperly allowed to run for office by the seaway trustees when he should not have been allowed to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is not within my responsibilities, and I always stay within my own responsibilities.



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING TELEVISING OF DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in relation to a statement he made in Montreal yesterday. I would like to ask the minister whether he was indicating government intentions when he stated that all house debates should be televised on a special high frequency channel?


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know any one in the house who could bring parliament home to the people better and in more dramatic fashion than the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house whether, on a statement as
June 29, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry important as that, he was speaking for the government and indicating government intention in that regard?


John Napier Turner: I was speaking personally, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask another supplementary question. Can ministers speak personally on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only a few moments left, and the Chair recognizes the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I should like to ask is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the substantial criticisms of C.B.C. management contained in the report of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, is the government going to give consideration to an immediate change in the top management of the C.B.C.? Will the government assure us that the C.B.C. management will be required to review the handling of the case of "This Hour Has Seven Days"?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the report was tabled only an hour ago and I have not yet had an opportunity to study it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In the light of the report of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, will the minister convey to the corporation the information that a large number of Canadians would welcome the return of the program "This Hour Has Seven Days", unrevised and unrepentant?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have a woman's intuition, if you want to call it that, that they may already know this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the question period now has expired.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need, and the amendment proposed thereto by Mr. Knowles.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Megantic had the floor when the house adjourned last night.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor last night, but just a few minutes before I took the floor the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) presented an amendment to this bill. At that time Mr. Speaker said he would take it under consideration to see whether or not the amendment was in order. I did not speak last night. I merely rose and called it six o'clock. Then we proceeded to private members' hour. Before I speak today I am wondering whether the Chair is in a position to decide whether or not the amendment is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to hear argument from hon. members in respect of the regularity or legality of the amendment which was proposed last night. I understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) had indicated his intention either to support or to oppose procedurally the amendment. If any hon. members have a contribution to make in this regard, this is the time to do it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the amendment-


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order; before the hon. minister speaks, I should like to ask whether or not the hon. member who had the floor will lose his position.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Megantic (Mr. Langlois) has relinquished his priority to speak in the debate at this time to allow the Chair to hear argument on the point of order and to make a decision, after which the hon. member for Megantic will be allowed to make his contribution to the debate.
June 29, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in a sense is a multiple choice amendment, because the way the amendment itself is drafted it presents a variety of courses to show that it does not fall within the standard rules of the house on motions which are admissible, or amendments which are admissible on the second reading of a bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I first refer to the necessity that any amendment moved on second reading must be strictly relevant to the principle of the bill. It is not sufficient that the amendment be connected with the bill or in the same general field; it must be strictly relevant to the principle of the bill. The principle of this bill is to provide public assistance to persons in need in Canada. The amendment moved by the hon. gentleman proposes a separate and a new scheme that is not strictly relevant to the principle of the bill. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that there is a provision in this bill by which assistance may be given to older citizens who are in need; but if that permits the hon. gentleman to have this amendment accepted, then it could be permissible for another hon. gentleman to get up and suggest that the house consider immediately an alternative scheme for the provision of increases in family allowances, because there is a provision in the bill by which assistance can be given to children in need.
There is also a provision in the bill by which assistance can be given to unemployed persons if they are in need. If the amendment moved by my hon. friend is in order, then it would be proper, through the method employed by him, for another hon. gentleman to move an amendment that an alternative scheme be brought in amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the extent and duration of benefits. What I am attempting to illustrate is that the amendment is not strictly relevant to the bill itself, because if this amendment were accepted it would open the door for a series of further amendments affecting every social welfare scheme on the statute books of Canada.
I should also like to refer to the fact that already this session the house has dealt substantially with the question proposed by my hon. friend. May I refer to citation 163 at page 137 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will
Canada Assistance Plan not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session.
The first amendment moved when the house resumed was an amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) regretting that Your Excellency's advisors 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.


Michael Starr: On what date was that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: January 20, 1966. While there are minor changes in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, its object is substantially the same as the object of the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The house already has taken a decision on this question early in the session. The rule exists in order to avoid the house, in a single session making contradictory decisions.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We have already dealt with this question and the house has made a decision. Therefore I submit it cannot be posed again on this occasion. I say that for that reason, and for the reason which I earlier stated, this amendment itself is not strictly relevant to the provisions of the bill.
Let me summarize the two grounds for arguing that the amendment is inadmissible. First, it is not strictly relevant to the principle of the bill and, second, the house has already taken a decision on the question posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and it is not proper to ask the house again to render a decision on this same question, because the decision could be contradictory to the one already taken.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it was January 12 when the Liberal party voted against an increase in old age pensions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the first argument advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) I suggest that it is a matter of judgment, and this is where the responsibility of the Chair comes into the picture, as to whether or not the subject matter of my amendment is relevant to the principle and the purpose of the bill. I submit for Your Honour's consideration the fact that the bill

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan has in it words which state that its purpose is to assist people who are in difficulty because of a number of reasons, one of them being age. There are various provisions in the bill with respect to the needs of older people and I submit, therefore, that an amendment which proposes to deal with those needs of older people in some other way than is proposed in the bill is relevant to the principle and the purpose.
The minister argued under this general heading that there are a number of other categories of people alluded to in the bill, and that if this amendment were in order it would open the door to a series of amendments. I submit that is not a basis upon which an amendment should be ruled out of order. If an amendment that is in order makes it possible for one, two or a dozen other amendments to be moved, that is not an argument against the validity of the first one.
In my submission we are dealing with the problem of needs, and we are dealing with those needs on a broad basis. The bill specifically refers to the needs of older people and age is specifically mentioned. It is my submission, therefore, that an amendment dealing with the amount of pension that we make available to our older people is relevant to the purpose and principle of this bill and, therefore, it should be allowed as being in order.
The minister raised as his second argument the fact that early in this session there were votes in this House of Commons on the question of raising the amount of the old age pension and lowering the age. He therefore suggested that this amendment runs counter to the rule that one cannot again in a session ask for a decision on a matter concerning which a decision has already been taken. Let me remind the house that we did our best during that earlier debate to make the point that the issue was in respect of the amount of old age pension, and we appealed to members to vote on the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), on the basis that the issue of the pension amount was before the house. We were told then by hon. members on the other side of the house, and in another corner, that that was not the question before us and that we were not voting on old age pensions, but voting on a matter of 
confidence or non-confidence in the government. We have been reminded of that fact at least a dozen times during the course of this session.
The government and others who took that position cannot have things both ways. They cannot argue in January that what was before the house was not a question of old age pensions-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why do you not read the amendment? That is what was before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not accept my proposition that he cannot have it both ways. He is in power, so he is going to have it both ways. He and his colleagues, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), argued in January that what was before the house at that time was not the old age pension question, but a question of confidence or nonconfidence in the government. That argument has been repeated time and time again. I submit that, morally, they cannot have it both ways; they cannot argue in January that the motion then was one of non-confidence and not on the question of pensions, and now say that this matter has already been decided.
It is my submission that if on the earlier occasion we voted on a motion of confidence or non-confidence in the government, this is in fact a different motion we are now raising in respect of an increase in the amount of pensions and the lowering of the age at which the pension is to be paid, not in the context of confidence or non-confidence in the government, but in the context of the issue which has been brought before us by a piece of government legislation dealing with the whole question of the social needs of our people.
Incidentally, the citation from which the minister read, and this often happens with things that he reads, had another sentence. He read citation 163 which consists of two sentences, although he read only one. The other sentence of that citation reads as follows:
It is possible, however, so far to vary the character of a motion as to withdraw it from the operation of the rule.
The wording of my amendment does differ from the wording of the amendment proposed in January, but I am not arguing that the difference in wording is sufficient to withdraw the motion from the application of the rule. I submit, however, that the character of
June 29, 1966

the motion is so different from the character of the motion moved in January that it withdraws it from the operation of the rule which is set out in citation 163 and citation 200, as well as the rule set out in several other authorities. I am quite familiar with that rule.
I contend that this house cannot regard a motion one way in January and another way in June. What we had before us in January, so this house decided, was a motion of confidence or non-confidence in the government. If that was the case, let it stand that way. We now have a motion before us having to do with the amount of the old age pension.
There is a third argument I thought the Minister of National Health and Welfare would use. I did my homework and I was ready for it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are several more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I will be told that since the minister did not raise this argument I should not set forth an answer to it, but I raise it because it is an argument which I think is on our side of the case. I refer to our rights in moving an amendment on second reading of a bill. This is set out in several places, but succinctly in citation 382 at page 277 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. This citation has been put in Hansard on a good many occasions, but perhaps I should put it on the record again. It reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
The latter part of that has no relevance at this time, but I do not like to read a citation without putting all of it on the record.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that in reading that citation I tried by my tone of voice to emphasize the number of places where the word "or" appears. This citation does not say that an amendment on second reading has to do all these things, or even any two of them. It says it can do any one of several things. My amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-207 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this
Canada Assistance Plan house the government should give consideration to the immediate introduction of concurrent legislation providing for an old age pension of $100 a month, without a means or needs test, for all persons 65 years of age and over.
I submit that this comes within one or more of the rights set out in citation 382. The amendment suggests that I am opposed to proceeding with this bill in its present form until the house has had the opportunity to declare that in principle it believes there should be concurrent legislation dealing with another matter, namely old age, by raising the pension to $100 a month.
There are several things that can be done in such an amendment. It can differ from the principle, policy or provisions of the bill. My amendment differs on one point, on the point of how to deal with old age. It can express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction of the bill. That in the main is what my amendment does; it objects to the Canada Assistance Plan being presented to us without our being given at the same time-and I welcome the support of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbakerl in the question asked on the orders of the day today-legislation dealing with the need to raise the old age pension to $100 a month.
I am not opposed to Bill C-207 per se; I am not opposed to the bill itself; but I am opposed to its being proceeded with, without there being at the same time legislation-my amendment asks for concurrent legislation-to increase the old age pension to $100 a month. Therefore, because it seems to me that I have been able to give effective answers to the two points raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because I have been able to establish our right to move such an amendment by relying on citation 382, I trust that Your Honour will find the amendment in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go over the various points raised by the hon. member who preceded me. Suffice it to say that in January, when the amendment was moved by me to the Address in Reply to. the Speech from the Throne, the stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was that his opposition to it was based on the fact that it was a vote of non-confidence. At page 59 of Hansard the following appears:
I will explain to the house why we on this side, cannot accept this vote of non-confidence.
The right hon. gentleman-
That was referring to me.

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
-made a very strong appeal indeed to other opposition parties to support him. Whether he will get that support I do not know. Of course it is a vote of non-confidence and the consequences of the defeat of the government on a vote of non-confidence are obvious under our parliamentary system.
Throughout his argument he took the stand that no matter how desirable it might be, there was a question of priorities that had to be considered, but always returning to one argument, namely, that the motion moved, to which reference has been made, "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," was a vote of non-confidence.
I must say that I find it very difficult to understand why the minister on behalf of the government takes so strong a stand against this amendment. The rules are made, not to bind parliament; they are made for the purpose of assuring that parliament operates efficiently and effectively, and indeed that parliament carries out the will of the nation. That will and desire has been expressed over and over again.
I had hoped, when I asked the question today of the Prime Minister, whether action would be taken before the adjournment, that the answer would have been in the affirmative. However, it was not. If the argument of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is accepted, parliament is to be emasculated, parliament is to be denied the opportunity to vote on something which was not the matter for consideration in January when the amendment was moved. At that time the government took the stand that it was a vote of non-confidence. Today it endeavours to rely on the argument that this is the same matter that was previously decided.
Sir, there have been tremendous changes in the intervening months. According to the record the receipts of the fund exceeded by some $240 million the payments during the first year that ended on March 31, 1966.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that it is always with great hesitation that I interrupt him, and this is the situation at this time. But I do think we should try to limit the discussion at this time to the point of order. The arguments that are being made now may be most interesting, but I think they are directed more to the substance of the bill than to the point of order.
[Mr. Diefenhaker.l


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying very hard to keep within the rules. I thought that any ancillary remarks that might be placed before you in order to dissociate the amendment of January last, moved by me on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, from the amendment that is now before the house would be matters that deserved consideration. I will put it in a very simple way. I support the argument that has been advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and hope that even now the government in its wisdom will withdraw its strong objection to this amendment and give parliament the opportunity to vote on a matter which ought not to be prevented on a technical objection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal directly with the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and I will endeavour to keep strictly to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition said that the rules were made, and I agree with him, for the proper discharge of the business of the house. It is of course well known that an amendment of this nature, or indeed of any other nature, to the second reading of a bill kills the bill. In other words, what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is doing is preventing parliament, if he is successful in getting this amendment before the house and getting the house to vote for it, from dealing with this measure; he will kill the Canada Assistance Plan and interfere with the orderly progress of the business of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is absolutely true, and the hon. member knows it perfectly well. But it is for Your Honour to decide, not the hon. gentleman. The second point is that the orderly business of the house cannot be conducted if we are to have endless and repetitive debates on the same subject in the same session, when the subject has once been disposed of by the house. An amendment to the second reading of a government measure on which the government has staked its life is just as much a vote of confidence as an amendment to the address-and the right hon. gentleman knows that full well.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question? Is is not possible to move a series of votes of non confidence and stay within the rules?
June 29, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, so long as they deal with different subject matters. That is the essence of the rules. I do think, to repeat what my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already said, that a vote of want of confidence on this subject has already been rejected by the house in the present session of parliament and therefore, if we are to deal with all the business that has come before the house under our rules, this subject should not be brought up again, especially by an experienced member who poses as one of the greatest authorities on the rules of the house and as one of the greatest humanitarians. May I say to him that perhaps inadvertently he is trying to kill the Canada Assistance Act by this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whatever his intentions may be, that will be the effect if he is successful.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Those are cheap remarks from a cheap politician.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say to the minister that at least I do not distort the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows that if this amendment is carried the bill will no longer be before the house. A different proposal would have been accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question? Does he not recognize that if this amendment is carried it will be an expression of opinion by this house that the government should bring in concurrent legislation on old age security? In other words, it will be an expression of the opinion of this house that we want both the Canada Assistance Act and a $100 old age security pension.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentlemam and I could conduct a seminar on this subject.
I am quite sure that when Your Honour has read the authorities on the rules it will be found that all of them indicate perfectly clearly that when an amendment such as the one moved by the hon. member is accepted by the house on second reading of a bill, it kills the bill. That is one of the procedures of the house which is known perfectly well to the hon. member.
I am not seeking to distort the facts. I am seeking to remind the hon. gentleman of some of the lessons he used to give to hon. members when I sat up in the gallery and he was a member here long before I became one.
Canada Assistance Plan The essential point is that here we are faced with a vote of want of confidence on precisely the same subject as the one on which the house has already made a decision in January. As my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already pointed out, this motion is not strictly relevant to the matter before us and therefore is not a true amendment. It seems to me that on both these counts it is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened carefully to the arguments put forward by both sides.
I am somewhat surprised at what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) just said. According to him, if the amendment is accepted, the bill will be put off indefinitely and consigned to oblivion.
Well, this is another matter. What we should like to know now is whether or not the amendment is in order. If it is in order, it must be accepted by the Chair.
If the Chair accepts the amendment and the question is put, then the government will have to convince us that by voting for the amendment, we shall kill the bill. We might then take the opposite view.
This is not the matter to be settled today, but whether or not the amendment is in order. If it is in order, it must be accepted. Afterwards, we shall decide how to vote on the amendment.
I make no secret of the fact that if such an amendment were accepted, with the result that the bill under consideration would be killed, I would probably hesitate to vote for the amendment, so as to prevent the bill from being killed.
But would the amendment have this effect? This is another matter which will come up later. At present, the matter to be settled is as follows: Is the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in order or out of order?
The question is not whether the amendment will kill the bill, if passed, but whether the amendment is in order. On this point, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has brought up two arguments.
The first, or rather the second, is that the same problem has already been discussed, or at least that we have already been called upon to make an identical decision since the beginning of the present session.

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
On this point, Mr. Speaker, I am completely in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that is it not, in any way, the same decision we have to make.
In January it was a non-confidence motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a non-confidence motion because such a measure had not been taken.
For a week, we were repeatedly told by the members on the government side that the issue involved was a question of non-confidence and not a question of increasing old age pensions.
When we told the members of the government: You will be voting against old age pensions, they replied: No, we will be voting confidence in our government.
That is what the members of the government were suggesting in January. We did not quite believe them and we voted for the motion, thinking it was a vote to increase old age pensions.
Today, we are told that it is not so. We are told just the opposite of what we were being told at that time. At the time, the motion was, in fact, written in such a way as to express non-confidence in the government because the old age pensions had not been increased.
Today, the amendment is asking rather that the bill be not read now for a second time but be referred to the committee in order to include in the bill an increase in the old age pension, which is quite another thing.
We are not asked to vote on the same thing at all, the wording is not the same. First, the text is not written in identical words or sentences. Second, there was in the first motion an idea of lack of confidence which is not found in the present motion. You will admit it.
There was not, in the first motion, that idea of increasing the old age pension, whereas there is in the second amendment that idea of introducing a bill to increase family allowances. Therefore, we are not asked to vote on the same thing at all.
Second, the Minister of National Health and Welfare tells us that the amendment does not agree with the principle of the bill now under consideration. But, in that regard, I am in full agreement with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said to the effect that the amendment is directly related to the bill which we are now studying.

The old age pension, Mr. Speaker, is a social security measure and what we are studying now is a series of social security measures.
Some are related to social welfare itself, social welfare services, general assistance, the blind, the needy mothers, the disabled. There are, in the same bill, other clauses which deal with social welfare for Indians. Others in Part III are related to work activity projects.
It is therefore a bill which includes a group of social security measures. Well, increasing the old age pension is also a social security measure. It is directly related to the bill now under consideration.
For those reasons, I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite in order. There is no doubt at all in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is acceptable and I have not heard from the Minister of Transport or the Minister of National Health and Welfare a single valid argument to the effect that it is not.
However, as I said at the beginning, I heard a valid argument from the Minister of Transport to the effect that if the amendment is passed, the bill might be postponed indefinitely, but that argument has nothing to do with the amendment being in order or out of order.
When the time comes to decide whether the bill should be given the six months' hoist because the amendment has been passed, we may then change our minds, because we do not want that bill postponed indefinitely, we do not want it to be shelved. On the contrary, we want it passed, preferably with an increase in the old age pension, for that increase has been discussed for a long time. We want the bill passed with the increase, but if the Minister of Transport manages to convince us that by accepting the amendment the bill is killed, then we shall vote otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, without a doubt the amendment is in order; the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Transport have not argued that the bill would be out of order.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: I should like to speak to the point of order, beginning with the argument
June 29, 1S66

so ably adduced by the Minister of Transport. May I say that if Your Honour should admit the amendment, which I want to submit is not in order in any event, then the effect of such an amendment would be to kill the bill.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that when-


Mr. Speaker:: We are now on a point of order. We cannot consider two points of order at the same time.


John Napier Turner: As I say, the effect of the amendment, if it were admitted, would be to kill the bill. I should like to cite, for the benefit of Your Honour, from a parliamentary dictionary written by Abraham and Hawtrey, and I refer Your Honour to page 34 of that dictionary where it is stated that on second reading, if a member moves that the bill be read a second time upon this day six months hence, or if he moves a reasoned amendment giving reasons why the bill should not receive second reading, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has done in a particular instance, and if such an amendment is agreed to, the bill is rejected. This is quite clearly a parliamentary principle, and the citation in this little dictionary goes on to the same effect.
I want to submit to Your Honour that the amendment is not in order and should not be received. I know that you probably have had an opportunity to reflect upon these citations, but I should like to bring a certain citation to your attention. It is a ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener which is found in the Journals of the House of Commons, No. 70, for January 23, 1958 and relates to an amendment which read:
That Bill No. 237 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing at this session legislation making definite and statutory provisions for parity prices for agricultural products at levels that will assure to producers their fair share of the national income.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was that amendment moved by the Minister of Transport?


John Napier Turner: No, this amendment was moved by Mr. Zaplitny and seconded by Mr. Schulz. This type of amendment is on all fours with the amendment now before the house in this sense, that it rejected the bill at second reading by stating that it should not now be read a second time, and giving an
Canada Assistance Plan alternative avenue for the expenditure of public money, in this case parity prices for agricultural products, whereas in the case of the amendment now before the house it relates to old age pensions of $100 a month.
Now, Mr. Speaker Michener, in referring to the first part of the amendment said that this part, by itself, was out of order because it was a denial of the motion before the house that the bill be read a second time, and the way to dispose of that would be by voting against second reading. So far as that part of the amendment is concerned, by itself, it would not be in order.
Then, he deals with the reasoned amendment, the tail that has been added to it, and here is what Mr. Speaker Michener said:
In so far as the remainder of the amendment is concerned, it does not propose that something be done with this bill and that is what gives me some difficulty. On the contrary the previous amendment proposed that the bill be referred to a committee-
That was a previous amendment that had already been dealt with by the house.
-and that is quite in order. If the principle of the bill is opposed, and some other proper disposition of the bill is moved by way of amendment, then that is in order. But this amendment does not seek to dispose of the bill at all. It simply calls upon the house to start, de novo, with some other proceedings-
In this case, to start proceedings to raise the old age pension.
-presumably to consider bringing in another bill. This would have to be done at the instance of the government and, being a money bill, would require a fresh resolution and the institution of fresh proceedings. Therefore, from that point of view, I am not considering the latter part of the amendment as an amendment to the principle of the bill at all, but as proposing something that is quite extraneous to the matter before the house and something which would be introduced by a motion on the order paper at any time but in my view could not be stated by way of amendment at this time.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker Michener went on to rule the amendment was not in order. I refer Your Honour to that citation because it clearly relates to presenting amendments with the idea of introducing alternatives, or what the Speaker called a reasoned amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not an alternative, it is concurrent.


Howard Earl Johnston: I would hesitate to attempt to instruct Your Honour on the rules of this house, having been here such a short time. I would suspect that there are a variety of

June 23, 1366
Canada Assistance Plan grounds upon which an amendment could be ruled out of order. If the minister had other reasons to give, I wish he had given them, instead of saying that we had dealt with this matter on the first vote of confidence at the beginning of this session. I refer him to the words used by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) in his speech at the resolution stage of this measure. At that time the hon. member set forth clearly the results consequent on a defeat of the government. He set them forth more clearly than I would have been able to do. The position of Social Credit then was very clear. We said we would vote against the motion of non-confidence; that we did not have a piece of legislation before us, and what this country needed was a parliament in session to begin working on legislation. I regret that the minister chooses now to assume that we had, in effect, joined the government in removing any possibility of an increase in the old age pension during the life of this session. To argue against the amendment on that ground is perhaps not the unkindest cut of all, but rather a sharp one.
The Canada Assistance Plan will have the result of increasing the security pension for some pensioners across this country. I should like to discuss this aspect more fully on second reading, but our regret is that it does not go farther.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I want to restrict my remarks exclusively to one aspect of this point of order, namely that because the subject matter of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is in the form it is it constitutes a request by this house to deal with a matter which has already been disposed of by the house on January 20. I should like, first of all, to invite Your Honour to make a distinction with regard to the suggestion made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner). As I read the words of the amendment upon which Mr. Speaker Michener ruled, and the wording of the present amendment, I would point out that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre calls for the immediate introduction of concurrent legislation. It is quite obvious, then, that he is not asking the house to do away with the bill which is now before the house; he is simply suggesting that we take a certain course of action with respect to another matter which shall be concurrent to proceeding with this measure as well.
tMr. Johnston.]
I think there is a clear indication there that this bill will not disappear. The intention of the hon. member is not that this bill shall disappear, but that its future terms shall be regarded as being correlated to and concurrent with another measure. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you can distinguish this particular matter from the precedent cited by the Minister without Portfolio.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I want to go a step further. The wording of the present amendment which is before the house includes the phrase "the government should give consideration". This is a device well utilized and hallowed by generations of practice in this house. It is not a demand that the government shall express its opinion as being in favour of a specific proposal, in this case an increase in old age pensions. The wording of the want of confidence motion on January 20, as reported at page 58 of Hansard, is as follows:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have omitted to provide for an immediate increase from $75 per month to $100 per month-
That, Mr. Speaker, is a concrete and specific expression of regret that the government has not done something.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is suggesting is that the government should give consideration to a certain matter. I think this is a type of wording which Your Honour must take into account in arriving at a decision. The amendment says that the government should give consideration to the immediate introduction of concurrent legislation. I think this is important.
Having in mind the practice in this house, if the point of order raised by the minister is to be given effect to, then it will mean, if we cannot make such a distinction as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sought to make, that during the course of this session, which may last a very long time, this house will be precluded under any circumstances from dealing at any time or in any way with an increase of pensions under the Old Age Security Act from $75 to $100 a month.
We can take it, then, that the government has sought to use this procedural device of putting the matter out of the path of parliament at any time during the course of this session. I think that from that point of view the ruling of Your Honour on this aspect of the matter is of some considerable importance.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, you have already received a good deal of advice on this matter,
June 29, 1966

but it is one of such tremendous importance, it seems to me, that I will try briefly to put to you one or two extra points which I do not think have yet been made.
There are three objections which have been noted. The first is that it is said that this house has already dealt with the matter and disposed of it on January 20. Such an argument does not depend, I submit, on the precise words of the motion that the house dealt with at that time as compared with the motion that the house is asked to deal with now. If the context has substantially changed and the circumstances have changed then you are not, I submit, dealing substantially with the same matter.
Citation 194 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which deals with this question, is as follows:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided-
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that on January 20 this house decided that it would not increase old age pensions to $100 a month. I want to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that in all common sense the situation has substantially changed since then. Things do not remain at a standstill in the country for six months. There has been an increase in the cost of living, a fact well known to all members of the house. The Minister of Finance also brought this fact out in his budget; and there is the threat of inflation. There is no one more clearly the victim of this than those to whose interests this motion is directed.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as the cost of living and the cost of housing and shelter rise a new situation entirely presents itself today, in June, which is different from the situation to which the previous motion in January was directed, and of which the house disposed. It seems to me that this is only common sense and it fits in with what was said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
Is it to be said that because we dealt with this matter verbally in January-and this is quite apart from the argument that in January a vote of confidence motion was moved, whereas this is a different sort of vote; I am not talking about the change in any verbal sense in context, or about the precise way in which the house dealt with the matter then-that today, when circumstances have altered, the elderly people to whom reference is made in this amendment are in substantially the same position, and that an amendment at this stage would be out
Canada Assistance Plan of order? If necessary, I will be prepared to call as a witness the Minister of Finance, who would testify to the fact that the danger of inflation has grown and that the cost of living has increased, particularly in relation to the cost of food and rent, thus affecting the people to whom this motion is directed.
The second argument that has been advanced is that this motion is not relevant. Surely that argument is impossible on two counts.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Strictly relevant.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Strictly relevant? Surely that argument is incorrect on at least two grounds. The first ground is that it is contrary to ordinary common sense. The Canada Assistance Plan has been put forward by the government as its answer to the problems of the elderly people. Some members of this house do not believe that it is an adequate answer. Surely when the government brings forward for second reading a measure which it says, in part at any rate, is designed to meet the needs of the elderly people of this country, it is relevant for the members of this house who happen to differ from that opinion to express their views on the matter.
Apart altogether from that, how can it be argued that a matter which falls, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, precisely within what a member is entitled to do on second reading of a bill, is irrelevant? I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, once again of citation 382 of Beauchesne which is as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction-
This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is certainly directed to, and connected with, the circumstances of the introduction of this bill. When the citation to which I have referred specifically states that this type of amendment can be introduced at this time, how can it possibly be argued that it is irrelevant? I have often been amazed in this house at the width of the rules of relevancy extended from time to time; but on this particular occasion, for the reason that it is embarrassed by this amendment, the government is trying to put before us a ruling as to relevancy which runs strictly contrary to the established principles in this house.

June 29. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to repudiate the suggestion that the effect of this amendment is to kill the bill. It is clearly worded to have the contrary result. If this house accepts the motion, the motion clearly states that the government should give consideration to the introduction of concurrent legislation. In no sense does this motion kill the bill.
If by some technicality it means, Mr. Speaker, that we have to stay here a little longer while the original bill is reintroduced [DOT]and, in accordance with the amendment, a [DOT]concurrent piece of legislation is brought in to provide for an old age pension of $100 a month without a means test or a needs test for all persons 65 years and over, we in this [DOT]corner of the house-and I think I speak for all members of the house-would be glad to wait here as long as necessary until these measures are brought in; and they should be brought in quickly.
I realize we are now dealing purely with the interpretation of the rules, but in the name of common sense and the ability of parliament to do so, I ask before we recess that we be allowed to deal with the principle which is embodied in the amendment, which deals with a matter of tremendous importance to a very large section of the people of Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. member for Greenwood a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly. I do not know whether I can answer it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think that if this amendment were ruled in order, and the house accepted it, it would be mandatory upon the government to bring in the concurrent legislation referred to?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Oh no. I do not suggest it would be mandatory that they do so. But I think that if the house passed such a resolution and the government refused to carry out the will of parliament, then it should either resign and make way for another government or reconsider its policy on this matter.


Mr. Gray:: May I ask the hon. member a further question? The first line of the amendment contains the words "That Bill No. C-207 be not now read a second time". Can he tell the house what will happen if the amendment is passed? Aside from the balance of the amendment, what would happen to the bill before us?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, If the hon. member for Greenwood wishes to answer the question-


Francis Andrew Brewin: The hon. member is proving himself an apt pupil of those who read only part of a resolution and not the whole thing. Even if this were passed, and the bill was defeated for some technical reason, it would be perfectly simple for the government, if it had the will to do so, to introduce this legislation again and to introduce the legislation contemplated in the resolution. As far as we are concerned we would facilitate this being done expeditiously. So that problem would be dealt with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We would do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other contributions to the debate on the point of order, hon. members may wish me at this time to express an opinion on the many interesting arguments which have been advanced.
Since this amendment was moved last evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I have had an opportunity to look at it and, in the same way as other hon. members have done, I have proceeded to study the authorities and the precedents. I thought I had covered every possible argument either for or against the proposition in my study, but I can see, having listened to the opinions expressed today, that there are a number of aspects of this problem which I had not even thought might exist.
I do appreciate the suggestions made by all hon. members, both for or against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and seconded by Mrs. Maclnnis. Perhaps I might put the amendment on record at this time, since we have been considering the point of order for over an hour. It was in the following terms:
That bill No. C-207 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the immediate introduction of concurrent legislation providing for an old age pension of $100 a month, without a means or needs test, for all persons 65 years of age and over.
I should mention immediately that one of the arguments considered by several speakers was the suggestion that if this amendment were carried a certain consideration would ensue and the bill would be killed. I had the impression that this was not a relevant argument. I do not think it is part of the procedural argument that if an amendment is accepted something else will follow, and I would
June 29, 1966

be inclined not to consider either the arguments in favour of that proposition or those made against it.
Of course, if this motion can be considered at all, it is-as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

as being a reasoned amendment by virtue of citation 382 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.
I am not going to comment on the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this respect. I gather his objection had to do with the possibility that someone might argue that the amendment was not in opposition to the principle of the bill. But, as he himself recognized, that argument was not advanced and his view of this matter should therefore not be considered.
Reasoned amendments, as hon. members have argued, are still subject to the general rule of relevancy. Page 527 of May's seventeenth edition states as follows:
The following rules govern the contents of reasoned amendments:
(1) The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must "strictly relate to the bill which the house, by its order, has resolved upon considering".
The point has been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there is a requirement that the amendment should be strictly relevant. I have some doubts myself on this point; it should be noted that the words of the citation are exactly as I have quoted them. There must be strict relevance to the bill. A strong argument has been advanced by the minister to the effect that this reasoned amendment is not strictly relevant to the bill itself, in that it goes beyond its scope. I believe the amendment might well be ruled out of order on this ground alone.
However, there are a number of other difficulties which I am sure have not escaped the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others who have taken part in the debate on the procedural aspects. For one thing, the rule of relevancy implies that a proposed amendment should not impose a condition on the proposal which it seeks to amend. This is, perhaps, an aspect which has escaped most hon. members; at any rate, if the argument
Canada Assistance Plan was put forward it escaped me. The hon. member proposed in his amendment that Bill No. C-207 shall not be passed unless, to use the wording of the amendment, concurrent legislation is introduced.
According to citation 94(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, this would appear to be out of order. The citation reads as follows:
The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every proposed resolution, which, on the second reading of a bill, must not... attach conditions to the second reading of the bill.
As I understand it, the purport of this motion is that the bill will receive second reading, provided other parallel or concurrent legislation is introduced. This clearly, to my mind, and in my humble judgment, is attaching a condition to the second reading of the bill which is now before the house.
The third argument which was considered by all hon. members who took part in this very interesting discussion related the admissibility of the amendment, bearing in mind certain citations, in particular 148(1), 148(2) and 200(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which I should like to read. The first reads as follows:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
Citation 148(2) says:
It is irregular to reflect upon, argue against, or in any manner call in question, in debate, the past acts or proceedings of the house, on the obvious ground that, besides tending to revive discussion upon questions which have already been once decided-
Substantially, it repeats the principle enunciated in 148(1). The other citation, again from Beauchesne's fourth edition, is 200(1):
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house."
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Hon. members have suggested that there is a substantial difference between this amendment and the one which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the Throne Speech debate. I do not agree. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) suggested that things have changed in the interim, between that time and now, a period of six months. That is quite possible; but what the Chair has to consider is the amendment itself and the amendment moved

June 29. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan then. The amendment moved then was substantially the same as that now moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) referred to a judgment given by Mr. Speaker Michener, and which makes sense, but perhaps not in the same way as it was referred to by the minister. I would like to quote a different part of that judgment which was reported in the Journals of January 23, 1958, at page 366:
If the principle of the bill is opposed, and some other proper disposition of the bill is moved by way of amendment, then that is in order. But this amendment-
The Speaker was referring to an amendment moved at that time which, in my view, was very similar to the one we now have under consideration.
-does not seek to dispose of the bill at all. It simply calls upon the house to start, de novo, with some other proceedings, presumably to consider bringing in another bill... Hence in my view the amendment is not in order as it stands.
In view of these arguments I have no alternative except, with great regret, to refuse the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and to say that on procedural grounds it is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I share your regret, sir.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, now that all these points of order have been disposed of, we have probably lost more time than if we had discussed the amendment. Even though our procedures did not permit the amendment to be moved, nevertheless that does not remove the urgent need for such a piece of legislation to be introduced.
This bill, No. C-207, concerns one of the main principles of any society, the basic human rights of the individual. I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said yesterday, that the Liberal government has the ability to introduce legislation which flatters you on one side, and on the other hand more or less slaps you on the back of the head. This is a typical example, concerning our aged people and their needs for a higher pension to cope with the rising cost of living.
There are good points in the bill, and some points that should have been developed more. It should include greater protection for individual needs. I also agree with what the

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said yesterday, that all people in this country have the same equal rights to live. This applies to children as well as to the aged, to needy mothers as well as veterans. Each individual has a basic right to live, but to live he must have the necessary means and income.
There are three basic categories in this country, those who earn the means to live by their labour, those who live on the interest derived from capital investment, and a third group who have neither the capacity for labour nor enjoy he privilege of living on capital. What is this third group to do? These are the people covered by this bill, and the aged are included in them. Under the terms of this bill the government is now placing them under public assistance. This is a public assistance act.
fTranslation]


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Raymond Langlois: Certainly.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Does the hon. member believe that people aged 70 with a $10,000 annual income should have their old age pensions increased at this time?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, that is not the problem which I referred to. Perhaps the hon. member gave another interpretation to my remarks, but, in any event, I said that there are different categories of people: those with income derived from a job; then those with income derived from capital investments.
Then, the example just given by the hon. member is included in those categories.
I refer to the aged citizen who cannot earn a living for himself either through work, or through capital investments. He has nothing left but old age assistance.
And Mr. Speaker, I do not like the inclusion of the old age pension, which is a right. I do not like it when those people who gave the best of their lives for their country are now to be included in an assistance plan. Out of respect for them, they should be granted a special status in Canadian legislation.

I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Not yet.


Raymond Langlois: I thank hon.
members for not seeing the clock. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
June 29. 1966

pointed out that the first duty of a government is to see that each individual has the necessary means to live honestly and adequately. That is stipulated in the Bill of Rights which was introduced in 1960, and was included in the universal bill of rights discussed by UNESCO. But when this principle is ignored the government's objectives are wide of the mark and completely useless.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I do not agree with the suggestion made today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was trying to be a politician when he moved his amendment. This was the interpretation I took from the words of the minister. If he has any corrections to make on that, he may get up and say so and I will gladly accept his version of it. That however is the understanding I had of his words. The Minister of Transport constantly suggests that such amendments are political, and that we act as politicians in bringing them in. Where does the category of statesmanship come in? For my part I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when making this amendment yesterday and when speaking on his amendment, spoke like a statesman; he spoke honestly. If hon. members in this house will take the time to read his speech, I think they will recognize this, all the way from A to Z. He mentioned the Bill of Rights that was presented in this house in 1960. If there are any members who wish to say that that Bill of Rights has anything wrong with it, it is up to them to say so now. He was talking about principles; he was not talking of election platforms. I can remember what some of the members who are mumbling over there said during some of the recent election campaigns. I do not know whether or not they said the same things before, because I was not around then; but they made promises that they would implement an increase in the old age pension to $125.
I heard these things in the 1963 campaign. They forgot about it between 1963 and 1965 and then remembered it in the 1965 campaign. The only difference in the two platforms was that a new hole was cut in the one in 1965, and that probably was because they lost some cabinet ministers in the shuffle. Then they forgot about it after 1965. It is funny how they can remember, and then forget again. I am not making a political
Business of the House
speech; I am a layman. God knows that sometimes the truth hurts; and if it hurts, fine, because I am going to speak the truth. I am sure the government does not want to pass a piece of legislation while members sit quietly and do not say a word about it, and then expect to finish the following night all the legislation they have on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps this is a good time for the Chair to call it five o'clock.


Raymond Langlois: I started at five minutes to five, Mr. Speaker, and I will gladly sit down if I have assurance that I will be allowed to continue my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the debate is resumed the Chair will permit the hon. member for Megantic to finish his remarks.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion on the point that tonight we might forgo the private members hour, and that rather than sit tomorrow night until ten o'clock, we sit tonight. It has been suggested that we adjourn tomorrow night at six o'clock instead of ten o'clock. Since this discussion, a suggestion has been made that tonight we might wish to rise for the dinner hour from six to seven, and then sit from seven until eleven so that there would be no loss of time. If this suggestion were followed, hon. members would be able to make their travel arrangements for tomorrow night after six o'clock.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for a little clarification of this proposal. If we are to adjourn tomorrow night at six o'clock, then the presumption behind it is that there shall be no private members hour tomorrow. Am I correct?


George James McIlraith: I had not dealt with the point of private members hour tomorrow. If the hon. member has any views on this, I would be glad to hear them.


Frank Howard: If we do adjourn at six o'clock tomorrow, there will be no private members hour; we cannot do anything about it and . there is no disagreement on my part. It is agreeable, so long as the understanding is clear and it is made an order of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My colleague spoke about one aspect of the proposal with respect to the hours of sitting for today and tomorrow. As I under-

June 29. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan stand it, the proposal is that we sit until six o'clock this evening, then sit again from seven until eleven, and that we adjourn tomorrow at six o'clock. If it is proposed that this be made an order of the house, we agree.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: The suggestion, Mr. Speaker, apparently meets with almost unanimous approval and I would not like to say I am not in agreement. I should like to call attention to the fact that this does do away with private members hour today and tomorrow. In giving jny consent I wish to make clear to the house that I think more consideration should be given to the rights of private members who have things which they wish to discuss in the hour reserved for private members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is it agreed that the house dispense with private members hour at this time, and proceed until six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be a recess for one hour and then the house will proceed from seven o'clock to eleven o'clock, and tomorrow the house will adjourn at six o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-207 to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to some of the past election promises which have been made. Well, at least I thank them for the promise. The only thing I am not happy about is that they did not hold to their promises. Perhaps they would argue the point that we do not have the money to give out; but what about the other possibility, the means of the people who need it? Do they have the means to wait for it? That is the first thing we should consider. This brings me back to the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he pointed out that
[Mr. Knowles.)
regardless of who it might be, it is our duty as a government to see that each individual in this country receives enough for his basic needs. The minister in his bill stated this very well. He has considered pretty nearly all the aspects of this, but he has not considered it necessary to give them enough to fulfil these needs.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The government might be worried about where it is going to find the money, but let me tell them where they should begin looking for it. The country lost $130 million as a result of questionable bankruptcies and income tax evasions. The government should take a look at the amount of interest that is being paid in this country-millions and millions each year-with a view to saving some money in that regard.
In this country we have a gross national product of $56 billion and a population of only 20 million. If you divide that equally it would amount to approximately $2,800 per person. What share do the people get of that production? A great many of our laws must be changed. We do many things in the way of aid at the wrong time and in the wrong areas. We must do things right, at the right time and in the right places.
There are many needy widows in this country who have two, three, four or more children to support, yet they receive $10 per child, and a basic allowance for the mother, in order to exist. No mother can see to the needs of her children on $10 a month. When a mother finds herself unable to provide properly for her children, they are taken by the government and placed in foster homes and the foster parents receive from $35 to $65 per month for their welfare. I know of some orphanages that receive up to $120 for the support of children who are over 16 years of age. If foster parents require $65 per month to support a child, and orphanages require $120 per month per child how can anyone expect needy mothers to look after their children on $10 a month per child? The government must have some consideration for the needs of these people. If provincial governments do not respect that need in an appropriate way, this government should force them to do so. Children are much better off living with their own mothers, rather than in foster homes or in orphanages.
I know of cases where husbands have died leaving older houses to their widows. These houses are worth in the neighbourhood of
June 29, 1966

$3,000 to $5,000. Under the provisions of welfare the value of a house is considered as income, under means tests, and a needy mother cannot obtain assistance until such time as she has sold the house and used up the money she has received for it. These people must rid themselves of all their possessions and place themselves and families out on the street before help is given. Some of these widows have as many as eight children to look after and they have difficulty enough in finding a place to rent. It is downright inhuman to ask a widow to sell her house and possessions, and put herself in a destitute position before giving her assistance.
Let me refer to one example which occurred in my constituency. This woman was left a house by her husband when he died. She was sick and required assistance. She had a 22 year-old daughter who was earning $35 per week. She was told that her daughter could help support the family and that before assistance would be provided she would have to sell her house and use up the money. I advised that woman to sell the house to her daughter and then rent it from her for $45 per month. She did so, and now receives assistance because she does not own any property.
That is the kind of thing that was revolting to the people in the 16th and 17th centuries; yet these things are still taking place here in Canada. In view of the basic rights of people, as outlined by our Bill of Rights, these things should be prevented by this government. I may be reprimanded for the advice I gave the woman to which I have referred, but in view of present circumstances I would do exactly the same thing again.
Some of the legislation we pass in this house is based on common sense, but a good deal of it is not. I deplore that fact and suggest that it is up to us to correct it. We must provide our elderly people, the people who built this country, with some social security in the last years of their lives. We are too prone to forget the efforts many of the people of this country have made, when we come to passing out assistance. The veterans of his country are very often forgotten. In the 1940 to 1945 period they were considered as heroes, but today they are considered as zeroes. The war is now over and we are relatively safe so we can forget easily the fact that these people risked their lives and spent five, six or seven of their best years fighting for this country.
Canada Assistance Plan
The government must pass legislation in order to control monetary policies if it cannot control them under present legislative provisions. I cannot understand why a country like Canada should still have great areas of poverty and misery. There is a difference between those who conditions. One can be poor in spirit and in a great many other ways, but economic misery is something that cannot be tolerated; and it should not exist in Canada. This is a country that is capable of supporting 200 million people, yet we have only 20 million, many of whom are in desperate economic need I refer to needy mothers, the blind and disabled. I can show you areas in cities like Montreal, Toronto and Quebec where the people live in such poverty that the children of 10, 14, 15 and 16 years of age leave home. I am sure after doing so they never again would like to live in conditions such as they left.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
You do not have to go very far; you will find them in the slums that exist in every city in this country. I am glad the minister has included in the bill a provision to try to get social workers in greater number and with greater competence who will find out exactly what are the needs of these people. Perhaps in this way they will be able to obtain some relief. These social workers will be able to help those people feeling the effects of the high cost of living when they are receiving low incomes or perhaps have no income at all. Perhaps one day we will be able to enact a piece of legislation that will at least satisfy the basic needs of the people of this country. I certainly hope so, because if we forget these needs, and the human rights included in the Bill of Rights passed in 1960, our being in this house is completely useless and without reason.
We are here to maintain these privileges, to fight for these rights. I think it is high time we stopped talking politics and promising various things during election campaigns. We put ourselves forward to the people as shining, bright stars and give a glowing over-all picture which, in the back of our minds, very often we have no intention of implementing if we form the government.
The government started a war on poverty. I do not say the whole program is not good, because it does contain some good points. This is a start. But in this connection there are two points that should have been considered right from the beginning. I refer to a

June 29, I960
Canada Assistance Plan pension being provided to the aged that is sufficient to meet the cost of living today. Also, family allowances should be higher so that parents will have the means with which to send their children to school, dress them decently and feed them properly. These are two factors in our society that must be provided for, namely the children and the aged. They are not on the labour market, perhaps some of the aged have the capital necessary to live on, but they are not on the labour market.
A great many of these people fall within the category of having to depend on public assistance. These people have helped us enough in the past. In many cases they have sacrificed their lives for Canada. I would ask hon. members to think of the pioneers who moved west in this country. They sacrificed themselves and their families in order to build for us a better country in which to live. Therefore it is about time we gave them a little thought. We should see that they have the means with which to live properly, and to make things a little easier for them in their old age.
I do not mean we should do what Mr. Lesage did in the province of Quebec. I should like to remind the Liberals what happened in that province. When the federal government gave the last $10 raise the old age pensioners were receiving $75 in the province of Quebec. Those who lived at home and those who lived in the old folks homes received this amount. Immediately after the federal government gave this increase, those living in their own homes received the additional $10, but those living in the old folks homes were deprived of this $10 because the provincial government took it back. Therefore those living in their own homes received $85 a month while the other group received $75. They are all old people and I do not think there should be this type of discrimination.
I am glad that in this measure the minister is providing a home service for our aged people. In many cases all they have left is a wife or husband, and they are living together. About the most inhuman act you could possibly commit would be to take one away from the other, put one spouse in one corner of the province and the other in another. We should remember that they have lived all their lives together and we should not separate them in this way. Marriage is till death do us part, not till the federal or provincial government decides otherwise. There is a great difference.

With the provision to provide these people with certain help in their homes we will be able to make them a little happier in their last days. I believe that one of the greatest things the government could do to make them much more happy would be to raise the pension to $100 a month for all the old people in this country.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on the resolution stage of this bill I spoke at some length and discussed the guaranteed annual income. I noted that there was a certain reaction to my remarks, particularly in the Vancouver papers. In that city a conference on welfare was being held. In one newspaper there appeared an article with the dramatic title, " 'Don't scuttle aid plan', welfare boss pleads". Then the article says that this man lashed opposition threats to scuttle the plan, unless it included guaranteed minimum incomes for the aged. I do not know whether he was basing his words on my remarks entirely, but if he woud re-read the speech that I made I think he woud find that there was no intention, expressed or otherwise, to scuttle the Canada Assistance Plan. There was only a regret that the government had failed to act promptly and energetically on the Senate report on aging. The speaker quoted in this article was Reuben Baetz, who has already been referred to in this debate. He said, when speaking of the aged people, that their needs can be adequately met under the Canada Assistance Plan if it is implemented in an enlightened way. Then he said:
Already we have old age security giving the aged $75 a month and soon the age of eligibility will he reduced to 65. We also have the Canada Pension Plan which will help our future aged.
Under the assistance plan, the unmet needs of the aged will be made up to them on an individual basis-so why do we need a fourth measure like guaranteed incomes?
I do not know how much Mr. Baetz was acting as an official apologist for the Liberal government and how much he was expressing his own opinions on this issue, but it seems to me that in spite of what he says there are still reasons why we could do with a guaranteed annual income, and I will come to them a little later. I lack the confidence of Mr. Baetz when he says that the unmet needs of the aged will be made up to them by the Canada Assistance plan.
I have been interested in the last few days in reading articles such as the one which
June 29, 1966

appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Saturday, June 25, which reads in part as follows:
Elderly Prince Edward Islanders will find an extra $75 in this month's old age pension cheques-
The article goes on to say:
A $25-monthly increase "has already been implemented, retroactive to April 1", the premier said in an interview.
I think this is a most forward-looking step. The minister was questioned in this regard in the house by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), who suggested that he relent somewhat in regard to his position on old age security pensions. At that time the minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the premier of Prince Edward Island is made possible or will be made possible through the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
I would congratulate the minister on his forthrightness.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think he might give the house a little additional information on this matter. Is the article correct when it implies that all the old age pensioners in Prince Edward Island obtained a $25 increase; was it made retroactive for all of them and is this the pattern that will be set through the Canada Assistance Plan throughout all the provinces? I hope it is so and I hope, although it is not spelled out in the plan, the needs of the old age security pensioners will be met through the plan, as was suggested earlier and as was also suggested during the election campaign in Prince Edward Island.
Many people have been concerned about the gap in time that will occur between the passing of the legislation, and the time needed for consultations with the provinces prior to its actual implementation. However, we wonder whether every province will be able to put all of its old age security pensioners in the category of those in need. I think it would be very much to the advantage of each province to move rapidly in this regard, to receive assistance from the federal government and to have it made retroactive to April 1 across the country. It does strike me as a most humane and enlightened way of implementing the Canada Assistance Plan, as Mr. Baetz suggested in his speech.
I wish to make one or two other points about the need for some sort of guarantee of old age security payments. Several articles
Canada Assistance Plan have appeared recently in Ontario newspapers concerning people such as David Freeman, 21 years of age, an enterprising cerebral palsy victim whose disabled pension was docked because he sold a $400 magazine article; and Robert Hannah, 24, an ex-soldier crippled for life in a car accident, whose pension was stopped because his sweetheart married him and brought home her $38 a week calendar factory pay. These stories dealt with young people who ran into a less than enlightened treatment of their disability pension.
A case has recently been brought to my attention in my own constituency, and I wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) regarding it. This concerns an old age security pensioner who is not getting his $75 a month war veterans allowance, but only $65 a month because he married very late in life and the district office discovered that owing to the way in which the plan had been administered for some time he had been receiving an overpayment. Although he received a letter from the district office admitting that it must accept responsibility for having made such an overpayment on his war veterans allowance account, he has been assessed the task of repaying that money.
The old age security pension which he is receiving is his only source of income, which makes the repayment very difficult for him. This case illustrates the fact that even the $75 that pensioners are receiving is not a guaranteed sum. I really do not see how a department of the government dealing with old age security pensions can be held responsible for the errors made by another department. I suggest there is a great need for some guarantee against the subjection of old age pensioners to this type of harassment where a mistake has been made by one of the government offices, which then has to be corrected by the old age security branch of the government.
I am also concerned about Mr. Baetz' comment that the plan will work if it is implemented in an enlightened way, because there have been too many examples-and the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) has spoken of some-showing that the present plans have not been administered in a particularly enlightened fashion. In administering his new plan the minister will have to use the same personnel even though he will be augmenting their number. I believe that in some cases the need will arise for some action

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan similar to an open-heart surgery on a scale greater even than that suggested by the proponents of medicare.
There may be need for a radical revision of the attitude taken toward the problems of people who are receiving social assistance. I think this will be one of the very real challenges to the minister, and one for which only he can be responsible as head of the department, to set a tone that will be followed throughout the department in the administration of the Canada Assistance Plan.
I wish to say that I am not opposed to the plan, as I think I pointed out at the resolution stage of this bill. We in the Social Credit party are not opposed to this plan. As has been pointed out it proposes a great many things that are absolutely essential and which will give to the welfare services of the entire nation a tremendous impetus. However, this plan will need a most careful administration. The provisions I like in particular are those which deal with assistance to people who are close to the level where welfare is necessary, but who, with some help from the welfare departments, can make their own way. I am glad to say that these people are covered by the plan.
As has been suggested in the article which appeared this morning in the Globe and Mail, consideration should perhaps be given to extending this plan to cover programs in schools where potential problems may exist. I know, and I am sure every school teacher in the country knows, how frequently problems develop about which nothing can be done until they reach such severity as to demand drastic attention. Once that point is reached, then attention is given when, in fact, earlier action could have prevented the problems from developing in the first place.
I congratulate the minister on his plan and I urge that it be administered in the enlightened fashion which I am sure Mr. Baetz anticipated. I trust we can find in the example from Prince Edward Island a basis on which the older people of this country can hope to receive assistance from this plan.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying last evening, before we got diverted to other matters, I am pleased at having an opportunity to speak on this particular piece of legislation. I may say, when the events of this day are viewed in the perspective of this entire parliament, that we shall probably come to the conclusion that today we saw a singularly gross example of 
partisanship and a greater disregard for the needs of the people of tnis country tnan has been shown by any political party for a long time, namely the very surprising and shocking action taken by the New Democratic Party. As we all know, the effect of that amendment would have been to kill this legislation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Perhaps some impartial observer sitting above parliament and viewing our deliberations might have anticipated or at least might have found it more understandable if such action were taken by the Conservative party, because it may be said that one does not expect Conservative parties to have that same avant garde understanding of the complicated nature of the war on poverty. One would have expected that those who hold forth on idealism, who fill the pages of Hansard continually with pleas for the little man in Canada, that those people who have held themselves up as knights in shining armour, as the statesmen who have tried to save parliament, would have rapped the knuckles of the Conservatives if they had done this. It would have been suggested that the Conservatives acted irresponsibly. The two old line parties would have been ridiculed.
What did we see in the day's events? It would have been reprehensible but more understandable if the Conservatives had done this, but they chose not to do so. I do not believe one has to congratulate them for acting in that way: they merely acted in a responsible fashion. Certainly the action taken by this group, and particularly by the individual member who introduced the amendment, I think was shocking. I believe the people of Canada should know an attempt was made to play politics with the widows, the orphans and the other needy people of this country, many of whom form the real hard core of the poor, by the New Democratic Party. I think, Mr. Speaker, if there is any suggestion about partisan politics in parliament during the course of past sessions, it ought to have been made clear to all observers that, although we are all sometimes guilty of this offence, the group in this house most guilty has been the same New Democratic Party.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member who introduced the amendment had to do this, because over the past quarter of a century I suppose he has assumed unto himself the title of defender of the little man. Certainly his
June 29, 1966	COMMONS
word had a hollow ring and, certainly, at the very best he was no better than the worst insinuations he has made about members on this side on many occasions. I suppose we have to be a little charitable in dealing with this group because they have never had the responsibility of governing this country. The action that they took today indicated they would never really deserve the trust of the people, because heaven knows what they would do with that responsibility. However, all this is conjecture, because it is most unlikely to happen.
I must say that I have followed the debate closely today because I have found it interesting. I have followed many of the observations made about the Canada Assistance Plan outside parliament. I have found that there is perhaps a misunderstanding of the import of this legislation and what it is trying to do, of its vital necessity as a fundamental ingredient of our whole approach to social security. I might say that, surprisingly enough, in reading the speeches in Hansard, it seems that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) and the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), showed more understanding of this plan than those members of the New Democratic Party who hold themselves out as our saviours.
I was quite shocked and alarmed myself, because it seemed to me that this group which has advocated that we do novel, imaginative things, that we break new ground, who are always planning and always criticizing by saying that we are not moving fast enough, would have welcomed this measure with much more enthusiasm than they have. They have certainly shown their colours by their action today. This misunderstanding has existed, I think, because of a misconception of our whole approach to welfare. Over the last 30 years we have been building in this country a body of laws under the general heading of social security. Those people who were charged with administering these laws, groups such as the Canadian Labour Congress or the Welfare Council, and others who have taken an interest in a more direct way in welfare in this country, have been agitating for a long time that what this country needs is a sound, comprehensive philosophy of social security. In the past, our approach has been a patchwork and this has created many anomalies.
I might say that our approach falls into three separate categories. First, and I am not taking them in order of development, there is
DEBATES	7043
Canada Assistance Plan our social insurance program such as the Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance. This is one aspect of social security. There is another aspect that perhaps may be under the general heading of welfare and that is now disposed of on the basis of a means test. The third approach would be those payments that are made in respect of a category. Within those three prongs of our approach to welfare over the past 30 years, there has been one very basic neglect, and that is particularly in the case of the categorical payments of such as old age pensions and the payment of social assistance on the basis of a means test. What we have been doing really has been to attempt to give to those people a supplementary form of income. We have had a restricted approach because of the nature of the means test. This has happened because in dealing with the categories we have been restricted, because up until now it has been impossible to make a payment in a category that will meet the needs of all those in that category.
I think those who have studied this matter have suggested rightly that what has been needed, if you will, is a philosophy of social security that would embody the principle of prevention and rehabilitation. Up until now, little or no effort has been made in this direction. It is in this area that the Canada Assistance Plan breaks new ground, because not only does it give an opportunity to the provinces to bring all of their related programs into one, but it gives them more flexibility and more scope in dealing with those areas that require attention. There has been a suggestion, even from the enlightened ones in the New Democratic Party, that the means test and the needs test are the same. I have even listened to leading individual newspaper personalities make great pronouncements on this. It would seem from what they have had to say that many of the people who have been talking about this measure are, to say the least, misinformed. There is certainly a distinction, subtle, but a distinction, between the means test and the needs test.
The latter gives those agencies charged with this problem more scope and more flexibility. I think many members of parliament have come across deserving people who could not be helped by any of the existing approaches in our general welfare schemes in Canada. The reason for this has been that the problems with which we were confronted could not be solved by any social insurance

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan program or could not be solved by any payment to a category such as old age pensioners, and could not be solved by a means test because of the particular nature of the problem. For example, there are many receiving social assistance in various areas of Canada who may have an opportunity from time to time to earn some additional income.
I have come across this problem quite often. I find that if one member of the family, say the son of a widow, is able to find employment, his social assistance allowance accordingly is diminished or perhaps cut out, even though the young man needed the income, independent of his mother's income and was hoping to use it in order to get himself a start in life.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There are many such examples of where our approach to social security has failed because we have really lacked a sound and reasoned philosophy of social security that sees the problem in the light of rehabilitation and prevention. I think that these are the main areas which are attractive about the Canada Assistance Plan.
The minister gave us quite a lengthy discourse on the features of the plan. I noticed that one of the earlier speakers today was making reference to children. Again this matter can be covered in the Canada Assistance Plan, and the problem met.
Another feature of this plan which I believe is a major step in our war on poverty is that this plan will support welfare services which are provided as part of community development programs, in so far as these programs can be employed as a means of helping public assistance recipients, or those likely to need assistance, if such provision is not made, to achieve the greatest possible measure of self-support. This is the kind of flexibility we have lacked in our approach, up until this day, to social security.
There are a number of other features of the plan which lend themselves I think to our wholehearted support. Related to the matter I have just discussed are the provisions for work activity programs. I think there are particular areas in Canada, as Mr. Speaker is well aware, where the opportunities for employment, for one reason or another, are not as great as they are generally across Canada. Because of this, many people have been forced to seek social assistance. Some of the people have been able to move from these areas, but one of the things I have found from talking to people in such areas is a genuine desire to work.

There are perhaps many socially useful projects which could be undertaken to give these people the opportunity, in a dignified way, to earn their own income. Perhaps it would also give them the opportunity for some additional schooling or additional training on such projects which could be even more useful to them. This is something that up until now we have not been able to do in this co-ordinated way, and I think that this aspect represents one of the most imaginative features of the plan.
I know for a fact that this particular aspect appeals strongly to the Newfoundland federation of labour which, in their submissions to the provincial government, have advocated this kind of approach for some time. I also know that the provincial government of Newfoundland welcomes the opportunity to participate in this kind of program.
One could go on and talk about many examples of the usefulness of this plan. I think it is natural, when we are discussing assistance to the needy, that the problem of the old age pensioner should be brought up. However, I also think we have to recognize in the development of social security in this country that when the original universal pension was brought in in the early fifties it was not designed to provide complete support. If it was, then it has certainly failed in that particular. At best it was an income supplement.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the figure fixed upon for payments to all individuals in a particular category, there will still exist individuals in that category who will have particular needs and who will require extra assistance. It is this approach to social security that makes this plan stand out from all others, which distinguishes it as unique.
There is another aspect of the plan I should like to mention. I have heard both in parliament and outside of parliament the criticism that one of the weaknesses-politically, if you will-of the plan is that it does not do something immediately and quickly, and in one swift payment, for those who will benefit from the plan. The people who make this suggestion in my view do not understand the problem. Because when we are dealing particularly with the unfortunate people who have been for many generations living off welfare, we are dealing with a complicated problem. There is little likelihood that any
June 29, 1966

direct payments to all individuals in a particular group would suffice for all their needs. What is required is a more flexible approach.
In 1964 during the course of the budget debate the topic on which I chose to speak was the need in this country for a philosophy of social security, a sound and comprehensive approach to the needs of the people of Canada and the need for a war on poverty. There is no single piece of legislation that has been introduced in the past or, I suppose, is likely to be introduced for some time that can have more significance in dealing with those who are in real and genuine need across Canada than this.
It is because I believe that this plan is so vital to our whole structure of social security, and it is because all of those with whom I have had discussions and who are familiar with our welfare approach in Canada have felt the same, that I was so genuinely shocked that the New Democratic Party, the members of which in some respects are not too different from many of us in many ways, should have picked this particular piece of legislation for what was surely one of the most regrettable and reprehensible acts of partisanship that we have seen in this House of Commons for some time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is an excellent piece of legislation; that it represents a proper philosophy, that there is a difference between "means" and "needs"; and that when this plan is in operation in the various provinces of Canada we will have more equipment and more facilities to deal with the problem of poverty. But this is not a problem that is going to be solved by waving any miracle wand or providing any sort of instant solution. The problem has existed for many years. It is a problem that will only be beaten with imagination and with courage. This kind of plan, one which perhaps appeals to a smaller group than some others, is one that is both imaginative and courageous.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with an order of the house made this day I do now leave the chair. The house will resume at seven o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
23033-446J
Canada Assistance Plan SITTING RESUMED
The house resumed at 7 p.m.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I do not rise now in order to prolong unduly the debate in which we find ourselves engaged. However, I am disturbed by the attitude which has been taken toward the question of old age security. I certainly believe that the intention of the minister as outlined in this bill is an honourable one, but I have, however, a fear-and I believe it is justified-that a large part of his proposals may amount to nothing more than window dressing. I say this, bearing in mind the answer the minister gave me some days ago with regard to the total cost of this program, or of that part of it which is to be invoked.
It seems to me the minister must have a good script writer. He certainly made a good job of the speech the hon. gentleman made in the house when he introduced this bill on second reading. It is, indeed, a measure which might be projected as being a highly desirable one. Be this as it may, I agree with the principles enunciated, though regretting very much that the minister and the government have not seen fit to take a different stand with regard to the old age pensioners, and to do so immediately, before this house takes a recess.
Before the dinner hour the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) had the floor. I recall that on another occasion my motion for an increase to $100 for old age security pensioners was talked out in the private members hour by that same hon. member. I wonder where he stands on this question. The message comes through to me that he is one of the people in the Liberal party who is not in favour of any increase for old age pensioners, as opposed to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) who made his position clear on this issue in days gone by.
I would ask the same hon. member for St. John's West-and I regret he is not in his place-whether, if he does not favour an increase for old age pensioners, he would be favourably disposed toward the recommendations of the Croll report on aging? Would he be in favour of the amendment which was suggested in that report?
Senator Croll is a member of the Liberal party. Do his opinions not reflect the thinking which goes on today in government circles,

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan and among those on the back benches opposite who support the government? I believe they do. I believe every supporter of the government today would support the terms of that report, if they searched their consciences and gave an honest expression of opinion. What does that report recommend, in essence? In essence it recommends an increase in old age security payments to $105 a month, immediately-not at some vague date in the future.
It is the government which must bear the responsibility for delay-the government, the minister particularly concerned, and intellectuals over there, like the hon. member for St. John's West who spoke before the dinner hour in such glowing terms about what this whole program might achieve.
As I said, I am in favour of this measure. But how much of it will be implemented right away? What are the necessities to be faced in Canada today? I believe one of the tasks of our democracy, and those who have responsibilities in it, is to serve the needs of the people. I should like the minister to remember this. If he thinks for one moment that the senior citizens of this country find it easy to live on $75 a month, he had better change his thinking. He had better get down to the kitchens of these old people and see how they have to live, just in the same way as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) had better take off his stetson, get down into the barn and see what the farmers are thinking. This window-dressing does no good unless our intentions are on the correct lines. There is no use in being a legislator unless you know what the circumstances are. [DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I am not so naive in political things as to think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) does not know what the needs of senior citizens are. A few days ago, on June 27, I asked the minister a question, which I did not follow up in any way because I wanted to know exactly what he thought, if he were going to follow the example of the premier of Prince Edward Island and, as recorded at page 6872, of Hansard the minister replied:
The position taken by the premier of Prince Edward Island is made possible or will be made possible through the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
If this is the case, and if he agrees with the action taken by the premier of P.E.I., why does not the minister take the same position with regard to the same group of people in
IMr. Winkler.]
the rest of Canada? Or are we to take it at this stage that the government is prepared to move out of the field of old age security, on a partial basis, and let the provinces assume some of the responsibility? If that is the minister's intention then he is abdicating the position of Minister of National Health and Welfare for the Dominion of Canada. There is no question about that in my mind, and the minister will have to answer to the senior citizens for the position he has taken in this regard.
Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) if he anticipated taking any action under the old age security program to increase old age pensions to $100 per month. Not only did the Prime Minister say no, but so far as I am concerned he said no in derisive terms, and as a result our senior citizens must know precisely where they stand and how the government feels about them.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, what about backbenchers in his own party? Through you I am suggesting to him, to the house, and to the whole country that Liberal party members had better beware when they go home during any summer recess. If they are frightened to go home and face their constituents on the basis of their refusal to help our senior citizens, then I can tell them they have allies on this side of the house who will agree with them. All they have to do is recognize the need that exists.
Today I received a letter in the mail which I think is worthy of being put on the record. I know the minister and all other members of the house received this letter. It is from the Senior Women's Committee for Pension Increase, and emanates from Madison avenue in Toronto. Actually it is a copy of a letter addressed to Hon. A. J. MacEachen and dated June 27.


An hon. Member:: Hon. Allan Mac-
Eachen?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I refer also to the former
minister from the province of P.E.I. He knew what the score was. He said that when the Conservative party went out on the hustings during the last election and promised an old age pension of $100 per month, it was that which caused his defeat.
Our record is clear in this regard. Right after this session of parliament was convened we moved to demand from the government
June 29, 1966

that it pay senior citizens $100 per month. But what happened? The Liberals stood up, row after row of them, and voted against us. Further, they will do that again if need be.
However, the warning is sharp and clear. Some of the government's backbenchers will no longer support it on this position. The minister had better take cognizance of this fact. With the increased cost of living that is abroad in this country today, and the government's failure to recognize the needs of the people, though it spends millions of dollars in other fields, this all indicates that the government no longer has the interests of the people at heart.
I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will take note of these words and act accordingly. We will do everything in our power to assist him if he introduces legislation to increase the old age pension. Our record is clear on that. We stood up and voted for it at the beginning of this session. At innumerable times we have pressed the government to come forward with such legislation. I myself moved a motion during private members hour pleading with the government to do this. I did not do so for any political purpose, and I am not doing so for any political purpose tonight. As I said earlier, if we recognize the basis of our democratic responsibilities in the House of Commons we will act on this, and act on it at an early date. The minister has my assurance that the members of this party will support him, and support him quickly. He can introduce legislation any time he wishes, and by the way we act we will show that we agree with it.
I shall now quote the letter to which I referred earlier. It reads:
Thank you for your letter of June 21st in answer to our telegram.
You say "you know of no basis for the statement that the government has rejected the recommendations of the Senate committee on aging." It was reported in the Globe and Mail of recent date that, "the government studied the proposal of the Senate committee on aging to guarantee a minimum income of $1,260 a year for single person and $2,220 for married couple but decided it was administratively unworkable."
But the Prime Minister is not prepared to consider this, and the government does not want to have anything to do with it, The Croll report recommended an additional $5, making a total of $105, but at this stage we would settle for the $100. The letter continues:
In your address at the Canadian Conference on Social Welfare held in Vancouver you are reported as saying "the problems of poverty can't be wiped
Canada Assistance Plan out over night... the keys are education and rehabilitation." How would you educate and rehabilitate people over 69 years of age? What sort of education do they need other than how to live without food and clothing?
That is a very good question, Mr. Speaker-a very good question, Mr. Minister.
The Canadian Welfare Council report states that study was needed first of the priority to be given the economic needs of the aged and the rest of the population. Some of the welfare workers told our committee that if it weren't for the people on welfare they wouldn't have a job. Apparently the government is trying to bring the senior citizens under welfare which would make them charity cases.
This is the difference between a means and a needs test, although to my mind they are precisely the same thing.
You spoke of the shortage of welfare workers and said, "The Canada Assistance Plan contained provision for federal contribution toward the cost of staff training." This would have to be a permanent school and when the cost of training and the salaries of the army of investigators needed were paid, the cost would probably be more than the increase would be.
This training plan is as unrealistic and as sensible as the student loan. We know of both men and women who took courses for which they were paid $30 a week and they had no intention of using the training.
The Senate committee plan would be very simple. The government has the list of old age pensioners. A simple income tax form could be mailed out, to be returned immediately and those with less than the guaranteed income would get an increase. This could be implemented in July of this year.
We wish to emphasize that most of the trouble and illness among the elderly people would disappear if they had no worry, if their food, clothing, shelter, medicine and money for recreation were assured.
We understand there is trouble in the Liberal party over this.
And I understand the same thing.
Almost every family in Canada has one or more senior citizens and the resentment towards the discrimination against them is growing fast.
That is a very true statement, Mr. Speaker.
People do not understand the stand the government has taken because they know it is now an increase is needed, not ten years from now.
We know you have influence in the cabinet and we urge you not to allow this matter to be held over until fall.
Even though the matter is this important, we all heard the Prime Minister's answer today. Not only will it be held over till fall, but nothing may be done at all.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
The letter ends with these words:
What the government does now before it adjourns will determine our next step.

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
That may seem to be a little political pressure, but they do not mean that. I think the need is there and it is very clear. There may be other portions of the letter with which I do not agree, but I think it explains the position of the senior citizens. I agree almost entirely with the terms of this letter. On June 14 I also spoke in this house in regard to the same matter. I placed on the record some figures which were made available to me by departmental officials in respect of the sum of money in the old age security fund and the amount anticipated to be in the fund by the end of the next fiscal year. That total sum is $445 million. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the moneys in this fund deserve to be protected, but they also deserve to be used for the benefit of the people for which the fund was set up.
I suggest to you that, on the basis of the growth of this fund, almost the whole problem with which the minister is faced, and which is not great financially to the federal government, could be financed or at least started out of this fund. I believe the provinces would be inclined to agree to a partial responsibility in this particular area. The important factor is that everybody realizes the need-everybody except the government. The government has said no from last January until today, when they have said it more emphatically than ever before. The old age security recipients in Canada today can expect less from this government than they could six months ago. The government wavered a little then, but today it is no. When the Prime Minister says no, as he did today, you can be sure that row after row of government members will stand up and support this stand, even though they may know it is wrong. I could mention persons such as the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh), if he were here. He knows the need. He recognizes the need of other people in this country, and that is all the minister has to do this evening.
Once again let me tell you on behalf of the Conservative party that our position is clear. Last January and ever since we have stood up in this house and supported these senior citizens. The need is greater now than then and I humbly ask the minister to take up his responsibility in this regard and act at a very early date.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if there are members in this house who would like to see this bill
killed or who would oppose it, I am not one of them. I am inclined neither to attack the bill nor to brush it aside as inconsequential. Ever since there was word of this bill I have made it my business to find out all I could about the principles underlying it. I have made it my business to talk to social workers; I have read practically everything I could get my hands on. I have read the information the minister has sent us and I have read in the newspapers what he has said. I went to Vancouver last week where I attended the social work conference of the Canadian Social Council. I did this for the express purpose of listening to the different government officials outline the social legislation which has come before this house this session. I also wished to hear the welfare people, including the experts from Great Britain and the United States discuss this and related matters. I have made what study I was able to of this bill.
During the week I was in Vancouver I spoke with social workers from all across Canada, including the two gentlemen who were mentioned last night as being controversial figures in this debate. I feel that the social workers in this country favour the bill. They want it, and they believe it will give them a somewhat wider scope than they have had before. I want to say, however, that I think it should be made perfectly clear that this bill is not a great new boon for social security. As a matter of fact in discussing this welfare question before the welfare council of Ottawa and other places, the minister himself has stated, and I quote his words, "The plan does not involve any great new program". He went on to show that what this bill does is to put under one heading four programs of federal-provincial assistance. These are the programs which concern the aged, the blind, the disabled and the unemployed; these have been combined into one single program with the advantages which are to be gained from co-ordination. Certain new features also have been added to them.
I think we should start out with a realization that this bill is not going to be the be-all and end-all of the ills with which the social worker is faced, or that it is going to end poverty in Canada by itself or do anything else like that. It is a housekeeping measure, a tidying-up measure. Although there are several reasons, this is the first reason I think the bill is an advance over what we have had. I am not going to say the bill is all that we desire. It is not; but it is an advance over

June 29, 1966

what we have had. First of all, it co-ordinates these already existing systems. Second, I think it is going to help provide new services along some lines which are vitally necessary in this country. I am not going to go in detail into the new services, but there are such things as child care, homemaker services, provision for nursing in the home, and other forms of health care which are badly needed and which the people in the field realize are badly needed. In the third place, I think this legislation will give social workers more scope in preventive and rehabilitative work than they have had heretofore. Instead of having to wait until the families and individuals are in a very bad way they will be able to step in at an early stage of distress and difficulty.
The social workers will have much more scope to do preventive work and also to pioneer along new lines of rehabilitation. In the fourth place, I think undoubtedly this legislation will help secure more and more highly trained social workers. This is important in an age like ours, where training is very necessary. In the last place, I think it is going to be very valuable because it will include the Indians under the same provisions as other people. I think this is a very essential and long overdue form of restitution which we are making to some of the native people in this country.
Having said this, I should like to say that for what the bill is, I welcome it; I think it is an improvement. However, this bill is not doing the whole job which needs to be done at this time. It is in going beyond that that I wish to make my criticism. Mind you, the social workers have very serious reservations. More than one of those with whom I spoke has told me this.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The new legislation is going to create a great deal of confusion, and as a result of complete jurisdiction being given to provincial governments there will be a lot of hurdles to meet. The provincial governments are now going to be responsible for deciding the definition of needs. A good many social workers are worried about this situation, and how this will be worked out in a number of provinces, including my own province. Not only is the interpretation of the needs provision going to be dependent upon provincial governments, it will be dependent upon the ability, discretion and farsightedness of the individual social worker. Many social workers have told me that they are sure it will be just
Canada Assistance Plan as hard for individuals to get what they require under this needs test as it was under the means test. Social workers are going to be faced with difficulties at both the local and provincial levels, and this is something that should be considered carefully.
I should now like to outline my real criticism, because this is a criticism I made earlier in connection with another measure. The downfall of this government will not relate so much to its sins of commission as to its sins of omission. This bill makes no provision whatsoever to look after the retired people of this country on an equitable or comparable basis in relation to-and do not start writing now, Mr. Minister, because I have not finished my sentence. This bill does nothing on a comparable basis for the older people of this country. I know there are references in this bill to that category of citizen, but those references are included with references to indigents. There is no provision in this bill for the older people on a basis of right. Surely they are entitled to at least that much.
Last night and today the minister took refuge, when dealing with points of order, in the suggestion that this bill was not the means by which old age pensions should be increased to $100 per month beginning at age 65 without a means test. He said this legislation was not the measure within which to accomplish that.
Since this session convened in January we have been waiting for the introduction of a measure which would increase the old age pensions to $100 and reduce the eligible age to 65. However, as far back as January 20, as pointed out by hon. members to my right, the government indicated its opposition by voting against a proposal which would increase old age pensions to $100 a month at age 65 without a means test. Let me make it abundantly clear that at that time the government did not make it definite that it intended to do nothing for the senior citizens of this country before the end of this session. This government has kept the older people of this country dangling on the hook, waiting for What they believed this government was going to do to increase their standard of living.


An hon. Member:: They are still waiting.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, they are still waiting. I was extremely shocked today when I observed the vigour and ability with which two ministers of the crown jumped to their feet to assist the Speaker to find grounds upon which-

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member suspects that her remarks are not in order. A ruling was made by the Chair and I do not think hon. members should argue that ruling at this time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: am not arguing your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out the efficiency with which those ministers assisted the Chair. I am not criticizing your ruling and I am quite sure that it was a good one, but those hon. gentlemen did not need to show so much zeal in helping to have the motion ruled out of order. They should have left that chore to other members.
The point I am trying to make is that the older people of this country trusted this government because it said it intended to increase the old age security pension. I was astonished when the minister said yesterday quite clearly that nothing of this kind was to be done this session. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said today very definitely that nothing would be done. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made one last attempt to do something for these people by proposing an amendment to this bill, simply because there is apparently no other way of forcing the government to do something.
During this session the government has thrown up barriers to any increase in old age pensions and now it has banged, bolted and barred the door in the face of all the old people of this country. This government has now eliminated any hope that they will get an increase, and hope is all that many of them have been living on for the last while. All hope of action this session has been removed, and removed by the very individual who should have been the guardian of the welfare of the older citizen. I refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen).
This whole situation is not new to me. I remember the session of 1926 when, over the protests of a great many people in this country, including members of the other place who have now had a change of heart, the first piece of social security legislation was placed on the federal statute books. At that time pensions of $20 a month for individuals aged 70 and over were introduced on a means test. I was not here on the floor at that time, but up in the gallery. A handful of farmers and labour people led by J. S. Woodsworth

succeeded in forcing a reluctant government headed by the late Mackenzie King into passing that legislation.
It may be hard to believe, but I am sure that if hon. members read Hansard of some years ago they will find that the leader of the opposition in 1926 said that this measure was forced upon a reluctant government by the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, J. S. Woodsworth, at a time when the government and the opposition were nicely balanced. The older people who had been living with indignity felt that for the first time, when this legislation was passed they did not have to crawl for charity. I remember those days when many old people had to take their children to court and have them declared as being unable to support them, before being able to obtain charity from the municipalities. I remember those days very well, and the fighting years of the 1930's and the 1940's when step by step by step old age pensions were increased, and the means test gradually eliminated. I remember the long fight which ended with the adoption of the universal old age pension of $40 per month at age 70. This happened in 1951. At that time the means test was eliminated.
In 1957 the old age pension was increased to $46 and then to $55. There were two increases that year, but they were too little and too late. In 1962 the pension was increased to $65, and in 1963 to $75. What has happened to the cost of living in the last 12 years? It has gone up nearly 6 per cent, yet there has been nothing done to improve the old age security pension during those intervening years.


An hon. Member:: Did you say 12 years?


Winona Grace MacInnis: am afraid I am a long way out in my calculation. Perhaps someone over there can give me the right answer because I am sure someone there has it.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is
a challenge for you.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
am sorry; I should have said 6 per cent in the last 12 months. What it is in the last 12 years I hardly dare hazard a guess. The Senate committee on aging has gone into this matter thoroughly. I shall not go into all the recommendations of that committee but I will draw
June 29, 1966

to the attention of the government this sentence in 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.
This is what the Senate committee on aging has set forth, and it is in line with what has been the practice in this country with the old age security pension. Yet what the minister is proposing as the only solution for the senior citizens of this country is precisely this: To subject them to a needs test and then put them on social assistance.
I suggest that it is no answer for the minister to say that, no matter if they do have an increase in the old age security pension, they will still need the supplementary benefits under the Canada Assistance Plan. I will read what the Senate has to say on that, too, because after what we have seen today I do not want to leave out anything that is relevant:
Public assistance should, of course, be available to them,-
That is to the senior citizens.
*-as to others in the population, to meet residual needs and to deal with special circumstances, but it is the committee's conviction that main reliance for meeting their ordinary requirements should be on benefits to which they are entitled as a matter of right and that the proportion of older people requiring needs-tested supplementation should be very small at all times.
That is exactly what my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg .North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said last night, that if we needed the Canada Assistance Plan for those on old age security pension, it should be for those needs that are residual, whereas the minister is proposing to make the Canada Assistance Plan the actual supplement to their pension. In other words, he is proposing, after the old people have had this long hard fight waged for them to receive their pension as of right, instead of as charity, to pitchfork them into the ranks of the indigent, those people on social assistance, whom we are trying desperately to get out of that category. He is adding to the category of poverty the one category that had escaped to the dignity of the old age pension.
We say this is not good enough. The Senate committee on aging pointed out a way in which this problem could and should be solved. As a matter of fact the Senate committee suggested that we should have a guaranteed income for those on old age security pension. This has been rejected by the government. Perhaps the minister will tell me 23033-447
Canada Assistance Plan that it has not been rejected by the government, but we have been waiting to see it appear on the order paper this session. The old people are the population group in this country that cannot wait. The young ones may have some chance of survival if they can hang out long enough for enough pressure to be built up for the government to see the error of its ways, and come through to help them. But the old people cannot wait. That is why we have to look after their needs before we rise for the summer recess.
The Senate committee on aging proposed that we have a minimum income in this country and that we begin with the recipients of the old age security pension. I should like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to send me very soon the complete text of the speech he made at the opening of the welfare conference in Vancouver in the Queen Elizabeth theatre on June 20, because I have seen only the excerpts that he has sent around. I will swear on a stack of almost any book you care to provide that I heard the minister in that speech make reference to the desirability and need of exploring a guaranteed minimum income in this country.
I would very much like to find out whether it is in the text. I will not say categorically that he did say this, but unless my ears have gone back on me completely that is what he said in the speech. I remember that there was great applause at that point, because the welfare and social workers believe that the Senate is talking good sense when it suggests that we have a minimum guaranteed income for those on old age security in this country.
The government is evidently rejecting this proposal. I have heard government officials say, in private conversation at least, that a guaranteed minimum income would be too difficult to work out administratively. One of the most interesting addresses we had at the Canadian Welfare Conference in Vancouver was that of Professor Richard Titmuss of the London School of Economics. He told us that there is now going through the British House of Commons a piece of social security legislation which in its outlines is very like the guaranteed minimum income which has been proposed by the Senate committee on aging.
It is a piece of legislation under which they calculate the income of those people on social assistance, that of the old age pensioners and those in other categories of social need. They calculate the income of these people-incidentally, they do not take into consideration

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan the home in which they live-and take account of the taxes they have to pay. They permit an allowance whereby people can earn extra money, and then they calculate an allowance that people who are receiving various forms of state assistance, including pensions, are entitled to receive. At regular intervals a cheque is sent out to these people and at the end of the year they are asked whether their status has changed.
If their status has not changed, they continue to receive the cheque. What is the cheque? It is the difference between what these people are receiving and what the government considers to be a suitable guaranteed minimum income. That is the sort of thing we should be doing in Canada if our resources permit us to do it. If our resources do not permit us to do it, I suggest that the government take another look at its social priorities, because we ought to be able to cut expenditures in quite a few places and increase the pension received by our elderly people, those people who have built this country.
The minister spoke of the needs test enabling needs to be met with dignity and impartiality. Maybe they will be met with the impartiality that people show in meting out charity; but no dignity whatever is possible when assistance is received in the form of charity and not as of right. These old people have the right to receive what they have come to believe is their birthright, namely an adequate allowance without any questions being asked, an allowance as of right.
My criticism is not of the bill directly, so far as it goes. It is that nothing is provided, except what is in the bill, for senior citizens of this country. In my view this is what makes it absolutely necessary that we make one more try to achieve our purpose. If I could only describe what the older people in this country are up against I would give a great deal. I cannot do it. But I can read to the house two or three communications that I have received from Vancouver. I did not receive them last winter, or last week, but today. I have here a letter from the Federated Legislative Council of the Elder Citizens Associations of British Columbia in my own city of Vancouver, from which I quote the following:
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
We are aware of the fact that the Canada Pension Plan has nothing in it for those already retired; also that the suggested Canada Assistance Act
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vaneouver-Kingsway) .1
holds little help for these people. We stress the need for immediate action in this regard because there are many who have already retired, and these are the people who need this now, not later.
We note that untold millions are being used for commissions of inquiry and increased government salaries in the higher brackets; also, that money is being sent overseas to eliminate poverty. At the same time many retired Canadians on a fixed income, founders of Canada, are actually in need.
Now I wish to read to you two communications which came to me this morning from people in my riding of Vaneouver-Kingsway. The first one reads as follows:
About pensions? What happened to Mr. Pearson's promise of $125 for the pensioners and help the poor program? Has it changed to pity the rich, the poor can beg? It looks like everybody won their raise in wages. The MP's and doctors just give themselves a raise without any argument. But the pensioner has to take what he gets and like it. Nearly all of them need a lot more to live on now. When the old age pensioners were growing up, wages were small and we did not have a chance to save much after paying taxes, raising families and putting children through school. Especially the ones that served in two world wars. You did not get very rich on $1.10 a day that we got in the first war. What is the government going to do about the high cost of low living? When the men get a raise it is for two or three years. But prices go up on everything every week through the year . . . Why should old age pensioners have to pay school taxes on top of other taxes when they have already paid to put their children through school? You won't get very fat off $75 per month after you pay your taxes, food, clothing, lights, gas, medical expenses, etc.
It happens my wife also has a pension and between us we get $1,800. In a country as rich as Canada $75 per month is a disgrace. Money paid in pensions is not wasted. It goes in circulation and makes more business. But money-millions of it is wasted making test planes and jeeps for army and air force-then the whole thing is junked . . . Something is wrong somewhere . . . With all the hundreds of millions to be spent on new construction across Canada, there must be a few extra dollars to help the pensioners catch up on the high cost of living.
I wish to suggest to you it is all very well to smile complacently or to think of going home for a holiday. These are flesh and blood people; they cannot eat averages. Other people may be making more on an average than they are, but it is our job to look after them.
Here is another letter which I will read to you. It says:
I am 84 years old and since last January when I got a heart stroke I was still working parttime as an expert gardener, a hobby of mine that I made my trade when I was laid off at the Canadian White Pine at 66. Having raised four children at that time, I had $50 in the bank, no debts and my little house paid for. I had to wait four years for the $40 pension at that time and my wife is seven years younger than I am. Still we have managed and made some saving.
June 29, 1966

These are not indigents or social assistance cases. These are people who have been robbed through no fault of their own by the continuous increase in the cost of living. The letter goes on to say:
When I was 70 I inquired if I may get the health insurance only, but I was told that X will be obliged to take the pension also and stop working, so I turned it down and fortunately that medicare came just handy a few months before my stroke. All these personal details are only to help you to state the case of many thousands who are penalized for working hard and being thrifty and I have a few thousand dollars savings at the bank that will take care of us to the end, but it is a matter of principle and justice.
I know the actual game just as well as yourself. The raise of the pension to $100 is fully justified and imperative right now for one-third of the pensioners in the low bracket and will cost $100 million. There exists at this time a real majority for it . . . They use the bogey of inflation and wait their own sweet time at the next election two or three years from now to buy enough votes by raising the pension to everybody and it is well known that no inflation ever occurs before an election-it is only after.
I will now suggest to you that people of this calibre, people who have been self-respecting, self-sustaining and thrifty, do not merit the humiliation and indignity of being dumped back into a means or a needs test. These are the people to whom we should give something very much better at this time.
I offer no apologies for taking the time of the house tonight because this is one of the purposes for which I came down here. This is one of the reasons for which I was sent down from Vancouver-Kingsway. The people there feel they have been getting the short end of the stick, and there are a great many old age pensioners at that short end. The very least we can do is to give them $100 a month at the age of 65 without requiring a means test.
The old age pensioners are the most defenceless of all people and the ones who have the least time to waste. We remember that it was a Liberal government who once before waited too long and then gave too little and too late. We saw the same sort of death-bed repentance exercised in Prince Edward Island by the Conservative government, or shall we call it the former government, I do not know which. This again was a case of too little and too late. We have been fighting for this measure for a long time and I do not aspire to a halo in calling for immediate action to be taken. It is part of our belief that those people who were the pioneers of this country should be able to live in dignity and peace until the end of their days. We cannot agree to adjourning parliament until something is 23033-447*
Canada Assistance Plan done for them. We are now preparing to celebrate Canada's 99th birthday with pomp, ceremony, fanfare and a brand new flag while the pensioners, some of whom have also reached the age of 99, suffer hunger, penury and loss of dignity.
Let me say emphatically that death-bed repentance is better than no repentance at all. We have still a few hours left before recessing and if the government wishes the house to wait so that they can draft legislation in respect of old age pensioners, let me tell them every party in this house will cheerfully wait for such legislation. I also wish to suggest that although death-bed repentance may not get you into heaven, it might save you quite a long term in purgatory.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, half a century ago George Bernard Shaw wrote:
The evil that must be fought is not sin, suffering, greed, it is neither monopolization, ignorance, alchoholism, war, nor plague, it is simply poverty.
Needless to say then that the bill under consideration is much to my liking. Even though it is not complete and does not meet all our wishes, I feel it will bring to the people something they need. As reported on page 6921 of Hansard, the minister said that approximately one million persons may benefit from this legislation. This is what he said:
These include some 85,000 persons still covered under the old age assistance program, 8,000 receiving blindness allowances and 55,000 receiving disabled persons allowances. Also included are 200,000 needy mothers with dependent children, 600,000 other recipients of assistance, the cost of whose assistance now is shared under the Unemployment Assistance Act, and 50,000 children in the care of child welfare authorities.
According to these figures, this makes almost one million persons, and the minister is presenting a piece of legislation designed to spend $85 million more for them. All persons mentioned by the minister are precisely those who are living in poverty, in near destitution.
So, with the figures indicated by the minister, we realize, the present government realizes, and those who rose to speak in the house as well as those who have not spoken yet realize that, all over Canada, there is suffering, that there is poverty in this country. There is no need to look for it in Africa, Asia or elsewhere. We have suffering here, at home. It is high time that we should become

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan aware of it and launch the war against that suffering, against that poverty.
But one fact remains and I wonder if we have considered in depth why we have so much poverty in Canada. We are launching a war on poverty, on suffering, but unless we stop the machine that produces the mistakes, unless we eliminate the system that brings on such an atmosphere of poverty in this country, we will be marking time, and we will always have to start all over again. It reminds me of a dog running around in circles, after its own tail. It will never reach it and the first thing that happens, the animal is panting and forced to stop. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government is not in the same situation.
Now, the figures quoted by the minister in his speech are completely different from those given by various bodies that have conducted some research on suffering, on the state of poverty in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a report which appeared in L 'Action of February 19, 1965-that is not so long ago-and which states:
-the survey on poverty in the Montreal area carried out by Mr. Emile Gosselin for the Montreal Labour Council.
Not in Canada, not in the province of Quebec, but in the Montreal area. In this report, some figures are quoted which are somewhat different from those quoted by the minister a while ago, with regard to poverty and misery. I quote:
In the city of Montreal, 423,418 persons, or 38 per cent of the total population, and, in the metropolitan area, 706,880 persons, or 33 per cent of the population, living in misery, in poverty or in want. , Another 17 per cent of the total population of the metropolitan area live a precarious or marginal existence. Therefore, a total of 1,032,000 persons, or 48.6 per cent, of the metropolitan area population live in misery, poverty, want or in a marginal state.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, according to a study carried out by those organizations, metropolitan Montreal alone numbers more than one million people who suffer from poverty, misery or want.
Then, I do think that the $85 million proposed by the minister is clearly not enough to do away with the existing evil, not only in metropolitan Montreal or the province of Quebec but throughout Canada.
Another interesting point is made a little later on in the article. Further along it is determined that there are:
Four levels of poverty. On the basis of research made on this question in Canada and the United

States, Professor Gosselin established, through four degrees of want, the following levels: any family of four people with a total annual income of less than $2,000 and any person living with a family whose annual income is below $1,000 lives in destitution; families of four with an annual income of less than $3,000 and single people earning less than $1,500 a year live in poverty; families whose annual income is below $4,000 and single people earning less than $2,000 live in hardship; families earning less than $5,000 and single people earning less than $2,500 a year live in a Marginal State.
Mr. Speaker, as written in this article published in UAction under "Presence chre-tienne":
Now that we are becoming aware that poverty does not only exist in underdeveloped countries and that there are not merely a few exceptional cases in our own country, now that we know the situation in statistics, let us try to understand the human factor, let us share their lot and their suffering. That is the next step: to know poverty not only in one's mind but in one's body.
Mr. Speaker, I think that if we came more often down to the level of the poor, saw more of them and tried to know them, lived with them to understand their situation, and above all if we went to them to find suggestions on how to help them, then, Mr. Speaker, we could bring more effective and actual solutions to the evil situation which now prevails in our country, supposedly one of the richest in the world.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that in the 20th century, in this century of progress and automation, after a 100 years of confederation in Canada, after a 100 years of administration by traditional political parties, that we should have to take steps such as this one, because there is too much misery and poverty in Canada. And we neglect to find the true solutions to those problems.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I found in the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare some points which gave me some satisfaction. For instance, as far as disability is concerned, I was happy to hear that the severe medical examination which a disabled person must now undergo to get a pension has been abolished. As a matter of fact, after such an examination, he finds that he must be at death's door, in short must be fully disabled, unable to climb stairs, to eat without help, before getting a pension. When he has reached that stage, he is considered disabled. I am happy to hear that this method of establishing the disability of a person will disappear and that when an individual is no
June 29, 1966

longer able to meet his needs through his work, his income, he will then be considered disabled.
I think that will sensibly improve the legislation and will benefit people struck by any disability, victims of accidents or any other things that may happen during a lifetime of work.
The minister mentioned another point which will also be in the bill and to which I would like to call the attention of the house, namely retarded children. We have to deplore today the fact that not enough attention is paid to that group of our society. We lack institutions to welcome those children and not a week goes by without my getting requests for help or information to find out how to go about finding a place for retarded children, children who are not completely disabled but to whom more hope could be given, in short a better life.
We notice that there are too few institutions like that in Canada, in the province of Quebec and in our localities. Therefore, I think that building institutions, schools where such children could be adapted to a normal life would be a great step in that fight against the misery which is the lot of people, children who are not to blame for what is happening to them, but who have to suffer. It is our responsibility to help them find a better life.
Mr. Speaker, another point was brought up in the course of the present debate which I too would like to stress and which has been one of the main causes of the great lengths to which the debate seems to be stretching. I am thinking of old age security pension. I do not want to dwell too long on it, but I feel that the topic is rather interesting, especially to those who are well on in years or who will soon be.
Today the government refuses to increase the old age pension, in short to adjust it to the cost of living index; it turns a deaf ear. Yet, I think that though the ministers have not taken the stand officially, though they have not spoken in favour of increasing old age pensions in line with the cost of living index, or according to the recommendations of the Senate committee on aging, I feel that they do agree the pension should be increased but do not dare say so; they do not dare take the means to do so.
Canada Assistance Plan
A few weeks ago the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) said the following before the Canadian Club in Toronto:
It was difficult for the Liberal members to vote against the recent proposal of the opposition providing to increase the old age pension from the present $75 a month to $100 a month.
The minister was referring to the amendment moved by the opposition to increase the old age pension to $100 a month.
And the minister added:
We only wish we could have done so, but in view of the fact that it would have cost $800 million a year, and also that, under the present circumstances, it is difficult to And enough revenue to cover our present rate of expenditures, this additional amount would have exerted tension on our economy which would have to be curbed.
Mr. Speaker, government members do not dare to express their opinion. They would like to but they do not dare, because it would cost, in their opinion-it is a questionable figure-$800 million a year.
But perhaps at the end of the evening, tomorrow or, at least in the fall, when the Bank Act will be considered, the same members will speak bombastically to obtain that the manufacturers, the "money-makers", the people who do not need it, and this is not very urgent, in my opinion, better capital gains, higher interests for their investments. For those people, you will hear fiery speeches, so that those who control the economic stream of the nation may have a larger income. But for our senior citizens, that has no importance. They do not dare; it will cost too much.
When money is needed to wage war, to alleviate poverty in Asia, Africa, everywhere, to make gifts of all sorts, then nothing is neglected; it is easy to find. But to help those who have been deprived for many years by taxes of all sorts, to provide them not with a luxurious but a decent retirement, at least, then they do not dare, they cannot find the necessary revenue.
Mr. Speaker, all the people of a certain age who are reduced to want today-I do not speak of those who are disabled, as a result of sickness or accident, but of our senior citizens -are in that state because of the maladministration of our old political parties, because of a system which should never have existed in our country. They have been stripped, during all their working life, of their revenue and their salary by excessive taxes. They have been stripped and, as a result, they got poor and, today, help is given to them piecemeal.

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the problem of poverty in Canada should be studied thoroughly once again. It should be reconsidered and a solution should be found, not only to alleviate poverty, but also to check its causes. That is the task to which we must apply ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the principal cause of that situation is in the present Bank Act and that is what we shall grapple with, so as to find a means to improve the present situation; you will then see that the result will be better and we will not have to come up with bills like the one now before us.
IEnglish]


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the speech of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), for whom I have the greatest admiration, I felt that perhaps he should have subtitled it, "Never look a gift horse in the mouth". I think that the particular gift horse called the Canada Assistance Plan needs considerable examination, and the longer one looks at it the more disturbing this kind of legislation becomes. Many of the reasons for the dissatisfaction with this legislation have been indicated by my colleagues and by members of other parties, although the plan has some advantages.
I was interested to see how the plan would be applied and would affect those people who are currently having difficulties and require assistance. Like all members of parliament I get letters asking for assistance which perhaps comes within the provincial field. Like all members of parliament who find it difficult to make excuses or to appear to be passing the buck, I get involved in these matters and I am given the opportunity of seeing some of the cases that come before provincial governments and some of the problems with which they have to deal.
This morning I went through my files and took out just a few of the letters that have come to my attention in order to make an analysis of these problems, based on my personal experience, to see in just what way the Canada Assistance Plan is going to be of help and whether it is the best way of providing assistance to those people who require help. A very interesting fact arises from an examination of these letters, and I suggest to all hon. members on the government side that they take a look at the letters they have received to see whether their experience is not similar to mine. I should like

to read some of the letters I have received and perhaps draw some conclusions from the problems outlined in these letters as to what is the best approach to the personal problems of many of the people of this country.
The first one begins in this way:
I am writing this letter to let you know I am now 66 years old. On September 9 I will be 67 years old and we get the old age pension for one-
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This family, Mr. Speaker, needs assistance very badly. I am not going into all the details of the letter. The husband's asthma is very bad and he will be in hospital. The key phrase in the letter is "66 years old". The implication of this and of many other letters I have received-and I will be repeating this point over and over again-is that if there were an old age pension of $100 a month at age 65 much of the problem evidenced in this letter will disappear. There is no need for provincial assistance here. There is no need for a needs test or a means test or anything else. This situation can be dealt with effectively by means of an adequate old age pension. Another letter says:
I wonder if you can intercede to get me a little more old age pension as I am finding it very hard to keep up with doctor bills and the drugs which are needed. Also, we have to keep up our home as well.
Here again, an increased old age pension would solve this difficulty. Medicare, which we are now awaiting, would take care of another aspect of this situation. Thus, two programs within the jurisdiction of the federal government would be sufficient to meet the needs in this field.
I could go on to show that in letter after letter the key words, drugs, sickness, illness, old age, keep appearing. Yet the government is proposing that we accept a short-term measure designed to fill in the interstices of a welfare program and adopt it as a solution to welfare needs.
Either the government does not understand the nature of what is happening or else it refuses to face realities. It is my opinion that a great many of the welfare cases now being handled by the provinces would disappear if adequate old age pensions were paid and a suitable medicare program introduced. If we have a choice in this country, and I believe we do, why do we propose legislation of the kind before us when legislation of he kind to which I have referred is obviously called for? It is true there will probably always be a need for supplementary
June 29, 1966

legislation in this field to deal with cases which do not fall within general categories, but surely we should not be asked to enact legislation such as this when the need for an increase in old age pensions throughout the country is so obvious.
Like many other members of the house I am concerned about the prestige of parliament. I am concerned about the loyalty of the people of Canada to their federal government. The other night I listened with interest to an amendment proposed by an hon. member on the government side and supported by the hon. member for St. John's West as a means by which government prestige might be improved. The method suggested was that we should write into all legislation providing federal assistance to the provinces a provision to the effect that a sign must be put up giving the federal government due credit for its share of the assistance and indicating the degree to which the federal government had participated.
I said then that this seemed to show a far greater concern for public relations than for doing things which would genuinely merit the affection of the people of Canada. This kind of thing is symptomatic of the legislation before us.
I say to members on the government side that they are taking a long step toward abdicating their responsibility in the field of old age assistance, and the vacuum they create by this abdication will be filled by the provinces themselves. Hon. members opposite may rest assured of that. The province of Prince Edward Island has already indicated that it recognizes the importance of making available a minimum of $100 a month to old age pensioners and intends to provide a supplement. Does the minister believe that other provinces will not take similar action? Does he not realize that such provinces will probably find a way of getting the federal government to pay a large portion of the cost in any event? Is he prepared to let a responsibility of this kind pass from his into other hands because he is unwilling to use his authority and unwilling to make a decision?
I presume that should the provinces decide to make supplementary payments to old age pensioners they could go to the federal government under the terms of the legislation before us and obtain financial assistance with respect to the supplementary payments on the basis of the percentage of the people covered. Thus the cost would be borne to a considerable extent by the federal government.
Canada Assistance Plan
The result will be that the people will look on the federal government and say: What fools they are. Why did they let this come to pass? Naturally they will be grateful for assistance, whether it comes from the federal government or the provinces. But they will see one further indication that the federal government is refusing to act in the face of an evident need.
If supplements are paid, and I cannot see how it can be avoided any longer, the money will have to be found one way or another, either within the limits of provincial taxation or in the area of federal taxation. Surely the federal government has far better instruments for taxation at its disposal than have the provinces. If this tax is to be raised at the provincial level, the tendency will be for it to come from the home owners or from the smaller people of this country.
I was interested in the emphasis placed upon the distinction between means and needs. On the surface there seemed to be a concern to explain that the needs of certain individuals would be met to a greater extent under this legislation than was possible in the past and that the old means test might be changed. Certainly the hope was expressed that the attitude toward it might be changed. But the minister gives no indication of recognizing there is any occasion for a needs test as between one province of Canada and another. Here we have a program which says in effect: If you are a wealthy province and can raise large sums of money we shall give you large sums of money but if you are a poor province, unable to raise as much, we shall only give you an amount matching whatever you can raise.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Is this the best the minister could have done, especially when he knows full well the disadvantages afflicting some areas? Could a better formula not have been devised? Is it right that a poor province should be treated no differently than a rich province? Is this the way we are going to help correct the inequities that exist? Is this not a program to freeze the status quo? It appears that that is what the legislation is designed to do, and for that reason it falls far short of what is required in present circumstances.
Sometimes the question is asked, "How are we going to pay for it"? All kinds of suggestions are made in this regard, but the impression left by government spokesmen is that we cannot afford it. Yet the record indicates that Canada, one of the wealthiest nations in the

June 29, 196S
Canada Assistance Plan western world, a nation with a standard of living second only to the United States, spends less on social welfare as a percentage of gross national product than nations much poorer.
I wish to read from a United Nations study published in 1961. Some changes have taken place since that time, mainly because of the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan, which will change the figures slightly, but the statistics in the report are startling. It shows the proportion of social welfare expenditures to gross national product in various countries. The percentages exclude education but include health, family allowances, social security and public assistance of various kinds. In the United Kingdom the figure is 11 per cent, in Sweden 10.5 per cent, in West Germany 9.4 per cent, in Australia 9.1 per cent, in France 5.8 per cent and in Canada 5.7 per cent. Our percentage is not pleasant to contemplate.
An earlier study by the International Labour Organization in Geneva, made from a different viewpoint and published under the title "The Cost of Social Security, 1949-1954", arrived at the following comparative percentages of gross national product: West Germany 19.2 per cent, France 18.5 per cent, Italy 14.7 per cent, Sweden 11.5 per cent, United Kingdom 10.7 per cent, Netherlands 9.6 per cent and Canada 9.1 per cent. On the basis of those figures I do not think anyone can say that this country has been overly generous in taking care of the social welfare needs of its citizens.
Last year I was proud to be a member of the parliament which passed the Canada Pension Plan. We in this party gave that plan our wholehearted endorsement because we realized the great value of that type of program. We have always supported, if not even sponsored, the old age security program, and we are on our way now toward building up a good comprehensive social security program provided the government does not backslide as it is doing with respect to this legislation and by not increasing the old age pension.
Once the old age security program reaches a certain level the government will have to consider seriously the need for an income related program such as suggested by the Senate committee on aging. If the government does the right thing with regard to the old age security program, the right thing being to increase the pension to $100 per month at age 65, if it uses the Canada

Assistance Plan in the way it should be used, as a supplement to take care of those instances that do not fall within the broad general cetegory, and if it then acts on the Senate committee report, the minister and the government will have reason to be proud instead of being under the gun as they have been for the last few days so far as this particular problem is concerned.
The minister has seen how deep is the feeling of members on this side of the house and I am sure he has been made aware of the depth of feeling among members of his own party about the need to increase the old age pension. He really cannot ignore this expressed feeling any longer. Quite frankly, I do not understand what he is waiting for because surely he must realize that he has to do something about old age security and that he has to raise the pension.
If the minister does not raise the old age pension, then the provinces will. Is the minister prepared to abdicate his responsibility, to sit back and say: The federal government is timid; if the provinces want to do it that is their business and we will help them out? Does he honestly believe that the Canada Assistance Plan will help the great number of older people who need assistance, taking into account the pittance he is providing under the plan for a nation of 20 million people, a pittance that is supposed to do so many things?
Helping older people is only one aspect of this program. There are all kinds of things that this program is designed to do. Can the minister stretch $80 million that far? Surely he knows he cannot, and surely he knows our older people cannot live on $75 per month. When the minister replies I hope he will say he has listened to those voices from every political party, including his own, who have pleaded with him to do something for our older people.
Everything has been done that I believe is possible to do. We have had pleas to the minister's good nature. We have had threats to defeat the government. We have had threats to sit here all summer if need be. But up to the present moment the minister has retained great equanimity in the face of all these things. If these things do not move him and he says he needs a better reason to be moved, let him search his own heart, examine the situation of our older people and then stand up and tell the house that his government is prepared to do something worth while before we adjourn this summer.
June 29, 1966

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have hesitated to inject myself into this debate because I am myself concerned. Approaching as I do in a month or two the end of my 70th year, naturally I am personally involved to some extent. However, I think it is perhaps time that someone of my generation should speak on behalf of the vast number of people in Canada who have reached my age or a greater age and are left in the situation in which they have been left today by this and previous governments.
There are several ways by which the degree of civilization of a people may be measured. We may measure it perhaps by the number of cars that block our highways. We may measure it perhaps by the measure of ostentation with which a nation proceeds to celebrate its 100th birthday. We may measure it by the number of millionaires we have. There are numerous ways. But I suggest a more valid measure of the degree of civilization of any people is the manner in which they treat and consider those at both ends of life's scale.
What is important is the way we approach the situation of the more vulnerable and more helpless members of our community. I may tell you that even one such as myself who looks forward to retirement without any particular misgivings on that score, knowing I shall be comfortable enough in my last days, realizes that as one gets old one is obliged to recognize the fact that one becomes more and more vulnerable, more and more helpless and more and more dependent on the compassion, generosity and kindness of one's fellow human beings.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is a terrible indictment of the degree of civilization of the people of Canada for this government to refuse to move in this manner to give relief to those who are in the age group to which I belong and those who are older. It seems quite shocking to me that Canadian people who have never known hunger, who have never known despair and who have never known misery and poverty should, in the midst of a society which we think of as being the second most affluent in the world, be content to leave hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens in a condition of misery.
I think of the old lady in my constituency who I met casually a few weeks ago who was obliged to subsist on a diet of corn flakes for
Canada Assistance Plan the last two weeks of the month before her cheque came in. She seemed rather surprised when I expressed my shock. She said: "Oh, there are many like me; some take shredded wheat but I take corn flakes and survive until the next cheque comes in." She was rather philosophical. She thought it was rather shocking that she had been left in this condition because she had worked hard all her life, but she assumed that eventually parliament would get around to providing an income which would produce something more than corn flakes in the last week of the month.
I know we shall be told repeatedly as we have been told in the past that we cannot afford this. I know that in the editorial columns of every financial page in this country we will be warned that we must go carefully and that we cannot move too fast in the direction of the welfare state.
I know we will be asked where will the money come from. There are a number of places we could suggest. I am going to suggest one. I would suggest that if we were prepared to cut in half the hundreds of millions of dollars we have thrown down the drain, ever since I first entered this house 13 years ago, on so-called defence, we could easily care for the needs of the old people of this country. I have not heard one minister of national defence in all that time-and I have sat opposite a succession of them-tell us that with this vast expenditure of funds the security of the Canadian people has been in any way ensured. This is a prestige thing, and there is no other reason for it. Anyone who examines the situation knows perfectly well that Canada cannot make any meaningful contribution toward the military strength of the western world. But for prestige purposes we continue to throw the money away and say we cannot afford to look after our own people. That is a scandalous scale of values.
I was reminded of this the other day while speaking to a representative of one of the small Caribbean nations. I asked him whether his people had an army. He said: "Oh, no, we cannot afford an army." Then he turned to me and smiled and said: "Anyway, I would hope we would have too much sense to pretend that we could afford one." The inference was perfectly obvious. He considered we did not have as much sense as he hoped his people would have.
In my part of the country in the early days the native population on Vancouver Island

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan solved the problems of the old people perfectly simply. They had a simple method. When an old man or an old woman was unable any longer to contribute to the work and welfare of the tribe he or she was taken out to the ocean at low tide and parked there with a small package of food. The tribe then went back to the land and waited for nature to take its course. We are not quite as kind as that, because we insist on giving our old people a little money so that the tides of poverty will not sweep them away immediately and they will have plenty of time in their later years to repent the fact that they spent their lives working for the benefit of the community and Canada and trusted us to see that they would be looked after in their old age.
I would suggest that if one wishes to advance an argument there is no better argument than this to convince the government, and it seems that one has to adduce these arguments to get any action from this dilapidated and discredited government. Let no one doubt that it is dilapidated and discredited. If it is seeking some operation which will be a face-lifting operation, there is no better place to do it than to do it here by bringing in legislation which will not solve the problems of the old people of the country and will not enable them to live in luxury but which, by adding merely $25 a month, perhaps will relieve some of the poverty, misery and frustration under which they live today.
I know quite well that if the government does this it will be subjected to criticism, as I said earlier, in every financial paper in the country. It would be subjected to criticism on every editorial page in the country because the people who write these things represent those who do not wish to have further expenditures placed on them in order that the old people will be helped. It will take a certain amount of courage, I quite admit, for the government to fly in the face of these newspaper editorial writers and financial critics.
Courage unfortunately has been one quality which has been in conspicuously short supply in this government. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this government hopes to save itself then this is about the only card it has left to play. It should summon its courage and play it now today and not later when it will be revealed to the people of Canada that it has been forced to do something which it did not have the courage and decency to do on its own initiative.

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, without repetition it would be very difficult for me to add to the arguments advanced by hon. members on this side of the house in respect of this legislation. I will, however, make a few remarks about the attitude of this government toward old age pensioners and the representations made on their behalf.
I call your attention to the fact that anyone attending the House of Commons today would come to the conclusion that the only people here concerned with old age pensioners are those sitting on this side of the house. I cannot believe that is true. Since the government voted against a proposal to increase old age pensions by $25 a number of members on the government side have risen to profess an interest in the old people of this country. In view of that fact and in view of the rumours that are flying around this house I am going to put a direct challenge to the Liberal benches.
A number of members on the other side of the house have professed an interest in old age pensioners since that party voted against an increase in their pensions. If that professed interest is real let some of those members stand and speak on behalf of our older citizens. Rumour has it that the government has asked them not to speak. If they think something should be done for pensioners, now is the time for them to get up and make representations. Rumour also has it that the government is prepared to do something for old age pensioners if the backbenchers on that side of the house will hold back and say nothing about this bill. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) has on a number of occasions, since that party voted against an increase, posed questions to his government in respect of an increase in pensions. Let us hear from that hon. member now and other members of his party who have professed some concern for our older people. Let us have some action from that side of the house. Let those hon. members now show their real colours in respect of old age pensioners.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the members present in the house yesterday when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a very logical, reasoned and well-balanced presentation in respect of the bill now before us. I felt that he did full justice
June 29, 19S6

to the measure and pointed out, perhaps in a manner which leaned too far toward being fair, the virtues of the bill. On the other hand, I believe that by his motion, he presented an opportunity to rectify the basic inadequacies of the program being presented by the government, in the absence of any indication that the government intended to do anything else. However, I gather that his proposal was not allowed to come before the house for discussion.
I say that I gather that because during the course of the day I, along with certain other members of the Indian affairs committee, was at a meeting with some of the Indian people of Ontario. In that connection, of course, it comes to my mind that certain portions of this bill make reference to the situation of the Indian people of Canada. As I understand those portions of the bill and the principle involved there will be an appreciable move in the direction of recognition of the fact that the Indian people are, as one Indian spokesman said today, not merely Indians but also people. In so far as the bill moves in that direction, I for one am prepared to say that it is a step in the right direction.
Perhaps I should qualify that support by suggesting that the measure to which I referred will put the Indian people in the same position as the rest of the people of Canada in that they will have the same rights to share poverty. If that is a right to be desired, then I suppose this bill is a forward step. I presume all of us in this house have some concern in our minds and hearts for the needs of our fellow human beings. I am sure that none of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have or will participate in this debate would suggest that any member of the house is lacking in those human attributes. However, I feel it is fair to say it is evident that while the members of the present government may as individuals have some of the milk of human kindness in their breasts, they have very little human sagacity or understanding in their heads.
It is all very well for us as Canadian citizens to have our own feelings and emotions, but parliament basically is a place where we should come to use our heads. I for one submit that the members of the present government are displaying an astonishing lack of ability to use that upper portion of the human body, particularly when they try to suggest at this juncture in Canadian history that the bill now before us is the answer to the problems of the older people of Canada.
Canada Assistance Plan My colleague and seatmate, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), made reference to the fact that he had some hesitancy in speaking during this debate because he is reaching that age when he could be considered an older or senior citizen. My own feeling in participating in this debate is perhaps one of some shame because I happen to belong to another age group slightly junior to that to which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands belongs. I happen to belong to that particular age group in Canadian society which stands to benefit most from the Canada Pension Plan enacted by parliament during a prior session.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If I may express my views as a member of that particular group, I cannot help feeling some shame because those of us in that particular group, and I think that includes a great many of the members of this house, gave recognition to that measure as a forward advance in social progress but are not prepared or willing to give greater recognition to the needs of the generation to which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands belongs. That hon. gentleman said that he did not need to be too directly concerned about the implications of the level of old age security payments and the matter of providing pensions by right to the present older generation of Canadians. I am sure he would be willing to recognize that in many ways this is more a matter of chance than anything else.
Sometimes I find myself thinking about the period of time through which Canadian citizens like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) have gone. I happen to know something which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands did not mention in his speech, namely, that he was one of those Canadians who found themselves in France and Flanders at a very early age. He happened to be fortunate enough to come back. He lived through, as indeed I suppose I did, the ups and downs of a period of Canadian history that is so often referred to as the hungry 30's. This is one reason why so many of the present generation of older citizens are in a position in which they need, as a matter of right through the contributions of the Canadian economy as a whole, an income that will enable them to live with dignity and respect. As individual

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan citizens of this country they had no opportunity in their earlier days, when many of them were raising families, to provide for the necessities of life as they grew older.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is piloting this bill through the house. I often feel that we have to face the wrong minister across the floor of the house when discussing measures of this kind. Naturally I do not seek to put words into the mouth of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has taken on the job of being responsible for the health and welfare of the Canadian people so far as the operations of the federal government are concerned. But I cannot help feeling that if we could get him beyond the bounds of what is referred to as cabinet solidarity he would, because he belongs to the same age group as I do though perhaps he is somewhat my junior in years, indicate his appreciation of the inadequacies of the measures he is proposing in this bill.
I recall, as I suppose do all those who were candidates in the last election campaign, the clarion call of the war on poverty that was being sounded forth at that time. If this measure is the answer to the war on poverty I suggest that it is a pretty feeble war. It is perhaps in the same position as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested we as a nation are in the world today with regard to our very feeble defence effort. I feel that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in this position in relation to the kind of promises trumpeted by the Liberal party political machine during the last election campaign.
I wish this bill had been put before us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) because I would like to see him answering the questions being raised in this debate. In my mind he is the one responsible next to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for assessing the kind of priorities to be given to what is to be done in this country. He is the one who should have to stand in this house and explain why we have to be content with this miserable half-measure. He is the one who, so far as the policies of the government are concerned, establishes the kind of priorities that exist in our society where on the one hand we see lush and extravagant expenditures for meaningless and fruitless purposes while on the other hand, as previous speakers have indicated, we know that thousands and thousands of Canadian citizens are having to live on the verge of starvation. tMr. Barnett.]
Like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, who sometimes has in mind the customs of the native Indian people of British Columbia of another age, I am inclined to agree that we are less kind than some of the earlier so-called primitive societies. Primitive societies by and large accepted one or other of two approaches to the question of what should happen to their older people. They either took the necessary steps to bring their lives to a swift and relatively painless conclusion when they had reached the point where they could no longer fend for themselves, or they accepted fully the right of the older people in their societies to share completely in whatever measure of abundance that society as a whole was capable of providing. We in our so-called civilized, advanced, technical age are not prepared to be as kind. We are prepared to let our older people face a slow death for lack of a decent living. Sometimes I feel it would be much more honest if we were to say to them: The best thing for you is to find the nearest bridge and jump off it into the river or stream that lies below rather than seeking to carry on over a period of months or years in the way we insist you must live in the midst of abundance and plenty.
I am not suggesting that only the Minister of Finance and the government as a whole are responsible for assigning priorities in this regard. I suppose in great measure the fixing of priorities reflects the attitude that exists in the minds of many people in our society. It reflects the attitude of the people who sit in the councils of high finance.
Last evening in private members' hour we had under discussion a bill concerned with the refinancing of a certain company. There was an exchange wherein the hon. member who was sponsoring the bill took exception to certain remarks I was making and suggested that I did not know too much about good corporate practice. I admitted I was not an authority on what, in the minds of many people, is good corporate practice. However, I said I knew enough about it to realize that if the hon. member sponsoring the bill considers the proposal contained in it to be good corporate practice, then he and I will have to continue to differ on the matter because so far as I am concerned the kind of corporate practice set out in the bill would result in gouging every cent out of the consuming public of Canada for the purpose of lining the pockets of a small minority of people in our society.
June 29, 1966

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It seems to me that the attitude of the government in respect of the proposed assistance plan is typified by their attitude to what they consider to be good corporate practice. I disagree with that manner of running the government of Canada just as I disagree with the approach of the private company to which I have referred. I think this is the general issue behind such bills which the government wishes us to support.
There is a basic difference between the philosophy and attitude that we in the New Democratic Party are trying to put forward in this house and the philosophy and attitude expressed by the government of Canada. I know there are a lot of well-meaning hon. members who support the government, and if they wish to continue being the government's yes men that is their right and their business. However, I suggest that the writing is on the wall and it indicates that the Canadian people will no longer put up with this kind of exploitation and that there are enough Canadians with the right feelings in their hearts and good heads on their shoulders to see through this sham to which I have had to listen ever since I have been in this house.
What we are discussing tonight is a matter which has been discussed in every session of parliament since 1 have been a member and I know that it was being discussed for a good many years prior to my election to this house in 1953. This legislation is a challenge and if we cannot convince the members of this government then one of these days we will convince the Canadian people that we cannot continue in this way at a time when we boast about our technological progress and travelling to the moon and when those of us who are in a position to do so travel back and forth across Canada in a few hours. We will not be satisfied with a more primitive and cruel society than existed in this country before the Europeans discovered it. We could learn a lot from the Indian people in my constituency about the way to treat our older people and it would be a good thing if we could measure up to them.
I am not sure that the limitations in this bill are entirely confined to the people in the older age groups. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare was introducing this bill he said there would always be a need for this kind of filler-in assistance program. He suggested to us that no country in the world has abolished this type of assistance in
Canada Assistance Plan its social security system. I would be prepared to agree with him in certain respects but I certainly disagree with the approach that a needs test should be required forever in our society. We will have to abolish such practices before we become a completely civilized nation.
However, I agree that the most immediate and urgent action we should now take is to alleviate the situation of the particular segment of the Canadian people who are being left out in the cold in respect of any improvement in social security legislation. I say that in view of the proposal I now see on the order paper for a medical care program which we hope will bring medical health care to all Canadians along with the action we have taken in regard to the Canada Pension Plan.
I think the proposal which was put forward to increase old age pensions to $100 a month at the age of 65 is perhaps too modest. In fact, I will be most happy to challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to improve on the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, I am sure, would be among the first in this house to get up and congratulate the minister if he were to do that. I wish the Minister of Finance would come into the house right now and tell us why the government does not support the simple and immediate proposal we are making. Somehow I feel it is almost unfair of me to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to stand up and do it. He does not appear to be giving any indication of a desire to get up on his feet at the present moment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I, Mr. Speaker?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If he could give me some indication that that is what he has in mind, I would be quite happy to terminate my remarks at this point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am ready, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does the minister wish to ask me a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I accept the hon. member's invitation if he will sit down and allow me to wind up the second reading of this bill by making a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If some hon. member on the government side wishes to make a statement, we are prepared to accept it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. After all, there are other hon. members on the government side who have not yet spoken.
June 29, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I see my hon. friends have now withdrawn their invitation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This might be a good time to suggest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that he direct his remarks to the principle of the bill before us.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I freely admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am not an authority on the rules of the house but I do know enough about them to realize that in the present circumstances I can only yield the floor to the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he wishes to address a question to me. If he has such an announcement to make he could easily have one of his colleagues make it on his behalf. I must say that in spite of the evident desire of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to express some final remarks upon the bill before us, he has not given any indication that he proposes to make any basic amendments in the committee stage. If that were really going to happen or if the government had some real alternative to propose, I am sure it probably would have been forthcoming before now, if not through the Minister of National Health and Welfare then through one of his colleagues.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister said no on the orders of the day when he was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I hear that the Prime Minister said no at the opening of the session today. Of course, we have to accept the word of the Prime Minister as the final view on matters of government policy. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam apparently is not too strongly convinced that the Prime Minister always hews to a certain line when announcing policy. I would be quite happy if the Prime Minister were to change his mind.
The claims which were made prior to the introduction of this measure concerning its relationship to the so-called war on poverty and the various statements of the present administration during the election campaign mean nothing at all because the initiative is left with the provincial governments. I suppose there are some provincial governments, and the minister said he had indications from one or two, that will implement the provisions contained in this bill. It will perhaps enable them to raise their sights a little more easily so far as provincial handout programs are concerned. People in my constituency who are dependent on what is available to

them from provincial programs often come to me and therefore I have some idea of the practical effect of provincial welfare programs. I feel that this bill is completely inadequate in so far as the benefits available to the older citizens of Canada are concerned.
During the last time I had an opportunity of doing some travelling in my own constituency I encountered a family situation where an elderly gentleman was suffering from a heart condition and was unable to engage in any sort of active work. His wife had just come back from hospital after having undergone a cancer operation. This couple had a daughter whose husband had deserted her and left her with five children. She was dependent upon the provincial assistance program and, having no other place where she could find shelter, had to go to the home of her parents. It was suggested to her that she should go out to work in order to support herself and the five children, leaving the care of those five bouncing children to the grandfather who was suffering from a heart condition and a grandmother who had recently returned from hospital following a cancer operation.
This is an actual example of how the welfare approach works out in practice. When you follow this bill right through you find that all it is going to do is give a few more dollars to the provinces to carry on that kind of program. Every hon. member encounters dozens and dozens of people in similar situations when travelling round his constituency. I am sure that Comox-Alberni probably has fewer such people than many areas of Canada because by and large it is a rich, wealth-producing area. It probably has less than the average number of older people. If I encounter situation after situation of this type in travelling through my constituency, then surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare must agree that there is a serious deficiency in the principle of the bill he has put before us. A few extra dollars in the hands of welfare administrations is not going to alter these situations in any basic way. We may ease them slightly because there are a few extra dollars but we are not doing anything to correct situations of this kind.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We certainly are. Read the bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I understood the minister to say it does something but it does not correct
June 29, 1966	COMMONS
the basic human cruelty of the welfare approach. Sometimes I find it completely incomprehensible that the government of Canada, which proposes to speak for the needs of the Canadian people, should be content to ask members of parliament to be satisfied to go home after having passed a measure of this kind feeling that they have done a great thing for their constituents. Certainly I should like to go home and visit the fine people who live in the northern part of Vancouver Island. But I should like to go home and meet and talk with them feeling that I am proud to be a member of the Canadian parliament. I am not going to feel very proud if this measure which makes some provision for the senior citizens of Canada is all 1 have to go home with.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member
permit me to ask him a question? Does the hon. gentleman intend to support this measure or does he intend to vote against it?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, that is one of those ingenious questions which the Minister of Transport is so fond of asking. I am going to ask the Minister of Transport a question in return.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is your answer?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the Minister of Transport
in his heart going to be proud to go home to his constituents in Bonavista-Twillingate and say that this is the best that the Canadian parliament can do for the old people of Bonavista-Twillingate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir, I will be very proud to say that no country in the world makes as generous provision for its old people as does Canada. Everyone in this house knows it, and the hypocrisy over there is not going to conceal it either.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the statement the Minister of Transport has just made is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And he knows it.


Malcolm MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Name the country that
does more for its old people than Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will both hon. gentlemen sit down, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has risen on a point of order.
DEBATES	7065
Canada Assistance Plan


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have to support the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). The statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is untrue, because the Minister of Transport cannot go home to Bonavista.


Michael Starr: He has not got a home there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This might be the proper time to advise the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Just before the point of order was raised I had stated that what the Minister of Transport said was not true and I would like the courtesy of the house for time to say in a few words why in my opinion his statement is not true. I can do so in two minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Name the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asking for unanimous consent of the house to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I might not have risen to take part in this debate but for certain events that transpired today. Until today and during the course of today I had been quite content with the statements that had been made by members of the Conservative party in connection with our interest in this bill and our interest in having it extended by parallel legislation so that the old age pensioners of this country would also receive some assistance. But the answer that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) gave today when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked him whether he would bring in additional legislation to increase old age pensions from $75 to $100 a month brought forth from the Prime Minister a very abrupt answer, a strict "No". Had he suggested to us that he was giving consideration to additional legislation or had he said that he was going to fulfil his election promise to the old people of this country

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan during the course of this session, then perhaps we would have been content. But he brushed aside the question of the Leader of the Opposition very abruptly and I wondered at the time why he did so.
He also had in front of him for consideration an amendment which was ruled out of order by the chair but which nevertheless was an attempt on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to give the government a way out of the dilemma they are in. The amendment suggested, as I understand its intent, that in addition to the bill now in front of us there should also be concurrent legislation to provide an increase in the old age pension from $75 to $100 a month.
An olive branch was extended to the government, Mr. Speaker, by the New Democratic Party but the government turned it aside and would not accept this expression of opinion. The intent of that amendment had the support of our party. Here was a chance for the government to save face and extricate itself from difficulty by telling us that concurrent legislation would be brought forward. Quite properly, they would say that they could not accept the amendment.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It was ruled out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was ruled out of order. But suppose it had been ruled in order. The government might then have voted it down and said that it was a question of confidence. Even so, Mr. Speaker, the government should have read between the lines and interpreted the feeling of the house as it was expressed in the amendment and by the comments made during the point of order that was raised as meaning that the members of the house generally were in favour of some extra legislation which would provide for the elderly people of this country that which they richly deserve and which was promised to them by the Liberal party at election time, namely an increase in their old age pensions. However, Mr. Speaker, the government failed to interpret the will of the house and it dug in, getting a little irritated perhaps because this debate has continued.
It is for these two reasons, sir, that I decided I would participate in the debate. I want to help the government out of their difficulty. We have been doing nothing else now for the last several months. We have been helping them with their program in the house. We have been passing legislation for them

rather quickly. So far as we are concerned we are content to sit longer hours. We want them to have a good rest this summer so that they can collect their thoughts and formulate a program for the next session. We have been very co-operative.
The situation tonight is simply this. It is not right for this house to aim at an early adjournment this summer while leaving unfinished business as important as the Canada Assistance Plan and help for the old age pensioners. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to sit here all summer until we complete some of these important pieces of legislation. The government will continue to disintegrate while this goes on because it needs to have the House of Commons rise so that it will be out of the way. But if they fail in disintegrating of their own volition we shall assist them with that too.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Minister of National Health and Welfare a little while ago interrupted the hon. member who spoke just before me. He said he wanted to speak to the question, wind up the debate and also make a statement. What does he mean by this? Has he some further announcement to make which will enlarge the scope of this bill so as to take account of the plea which has been put forward on behalf of the old age pensioner? If he has such a statement, as has already been suggested, some colleague of his could get up and make it and take part in this debate.
It is a strange thing that in this debate which has been going on for a couple of days the Minister of National Health and Welfare should find himself isolated from his colleagues, who are not supporting him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is isolated from his friends on the back benches who are not supporting him on this measure. I am told there are many members of the Liberal party who would like to speak in favour of the bill in front of us and who would like also to speak in favour of fulfilling that Liberal promise to the old age pensioners. But they are being held back. I sympathize with them. I believe in freedom of speech and I believe that, no matter what party he supports, anyone who has been elected to this house should have the opportunity to present his views freely. How members from the ranks of the
June 29, 1966

Liberal party can go back to their constituencies this summer and fail to report to their old age pensioners that they have done something for them, escapes me. It is all right for the members of the cabinet. They can always say that pressure of work keeps them here in Ottawa. They do not have to face these pensioners. But private members cannot offer such an excuse. They will have to go home and face the music in their constituencies.
What will they say to the elderly people of this country? They will have to say: Once again the Liberal party has let you down. This will be very bad for the Liberal party. People in the constituencies will be saying: There are other parties in this country which would be willing to help us. Why not give them a chance? I am worried about the Liberal party and I want to help them out tonight. It is my suggestion to them that they will have an opportunity to rectify their error by making a statement tomorrow. The Minister of National Health and Welfare can make a statement tomorrow about what he wants to do to correct the deficiencies which have been pointed out, and instead of rushing away for a summer recess most of the members of this house are prepared to stay here and give the government a chance to make this correction.
Once again we come to the assistance of the government. It would have been really embarrassing to them had we quickly passed the Canada Assistance Plan legislation tonight without any modification being made in it, and they would have regretted it the next day. But we shall give them tonight to think it over. Perhaps the Prime Minister will modify his attitude with regard to the old age pensioners tomorrow and perhaps tomorrow we shall hear a statement on motions that concurrent legislation will be brought in to match this particular bill and that old age pensions will be raised immediately to $100 a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We hope you are a prophet, Gordon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I have been right sometimes on political questions in the past and perhaps I am right on this occasion.
Speaking on the resolution stage the Minister of National Health and Welfare said this particular bill would underpin the whole social security structure. I am paraphrasing his words, though he did use the word "underpin". Rounding out the social security situation in Canada sounded all right at the time.
Canada Assistance Plan
But on reflection and on re-reading his speech I have discovered that he was making a good deal out of something which was not as important as he pretended it was when he spoke on June 14. Most of these programs have been in operation for years. This bill simply undertakes a tidying-up process. We do not object to that. Administratively it appears to be a good idea. Certain assistance plans which have been operating separately for years are now being brought together. The minister has a title for it, the Canada Assistance Plan, and it sounds as though it is brand new. Unless I have misjudged the propaganda machine of the Liberal party, this will be presented to the public as something entirely original which is underpinning our whole social security program.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whole page advertisements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. Whole page ads. I hope the people will not be misled. This is just a tidying-up process and it fails to underpin our whole social security program for two reasons. First, it does not provide for our older citizens who are in desperate need of assistance at the present time and, in the second place, the amount of money being provided is rather inadequate.
The minister said it was estimated that $85 million would be required for the additional assistance foreseen under the terms of the bill. At the same time he tells us there are about one million people who require help, that is, those who are still under the old age assistance program, those who receive blindness allowances, those who are disabled, the needy mothers with dependent children and
600,000	other recipients of assistance as well as 50,000 children in the care of child welfare authorities. In all, there are one million Canadian citizens who are to be assisted by an extra amount of $85 million.
Well, $85 million sounds like a great deal of money but it only amounts to $7 a month or 23 cents a day for these people, and I cannot see that this will provide very much additional assistance. It will not provide as much assistance as the minister attempted to say it would when he was speaking about this measure on the resolution stage and on second reading. When we add together all the welfare payments and the cost of the assistance work which is being done, the new expenditure, he said, would bring the total level of federal disbursements on welfare services to more than $250 million.
He tried to impress on us that this represented very substantial assistance. I am not

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan so sure that it is. We have a population of 20 million people and we are a wealthy country which can budget for close to $8 billion in revenue in the course of a fiscal year. I am not so sure that $250 million for one million citizens of this country who are in need is anything like beyond our means.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Therefore I am not overly impressed with the picture painted by the minister of what he is doing by this plan. I know his keenness to get on with it and get publicity out of something which people may think is new but which comprises only older and useful plans dressed up under a new name. The government cannot claim that this is something new and cannot claim that it is going to underpin our whole social security structure.
This is a slow process. During the last 40 years we have experienced a change in public opinion with regard to social security. It was frowned upon in early days when people were supposed to work and save. I remember very early in life, at the age of 10, 11 and 12, walking behind my father on the day before Christmas and pulling my toboggan or sleigh laden with parcels to distribute to needy families, and at that early age I saw the crippling effects of poverty.
One family which I had to look after, not only at Christmas time but during the year, kept on increasing year by year until it got to the size of two adults and 13 junior members. Even as a small boy I rather wondered how the head of that family, who had nothing but a minor job as a caretaker, could raise such an enormous brood, but it has taken us a long time to realize that it is not possible for everybody in this country to earn a satisfactory living and save for their old age. As the years have gone by we have discovered that this is an impossibility for a great many people and that the state has an obligation on their behalf.
The wealth of a nation rests with its people, in addition to its natural resources. Unless its people are strong and healthy and have a good outlook on life, the nation suffers accordingly. I know all about the depression years. I saw their evil effects on hundreds of people. I saw their effect on a class of 40 high school boys, aged 17 and 18, whose fathers had been unemployed for anywhere from one to five years.
During the last year I was engaged in teaching those boys were not interested in school. They would have been drop-outs had

there had been any place to drop to. But strangely enough, a year later when the war broke out these young men at age 17, 18 and 19 put on their country's uniform and served in the navy, army or air force. Three of them became officers in the Canadian Army; yet they had been making no progress in school. At the time I knew them in 1938 all these lads were headed for the unemployment line, just like their fathers, to live on the dole and eke out an existence. But when the time of crisis came they served their country. They served their country well and several of them lost their lives.
It is no advantage to our country to have thousands of children living under meagre conditions. It is no advantage to us if we have 200,000 needy mothers with dependant children eking out a bare existence. These are the present and future adult citizens of our country. They deserve sufficient food to develop healthy bodies and sufficient stimulus through education of the mind so that they will be useful citizens. The mothers of these needy children should be not be ground down by toil and worry and end up in ill health. The psychological effect is, of course, even greater if a family can see no sign of life but just a grim existence stretching ahead from day to day.
It is no credit to a country to fail to give its senior citizens that which they deserve. They deserve something beyond a mere existence, and over the years we have fortunately reached a stage where our senior citizens are getting much better attention than they got some years ago.
I recall visiting senior citizens in the city of Winnipeg 20 years ago. I particularly remember three elderly men in their eighties, eking out an existence on an old age pension of $30 a month and living in squalid quarters. I asked how they managed to keep alive and how they got their food. They told me that on Monday morning they went to one of the stores and bought stale bread left over from Saturday. They were boiling a cup of tea when I visited them and I asked how much the gas cost for the ring they were using. They replied, "We are pretty smart. You watch that kettle. The minute it begins to hum we switch the gas off, the water comes to a boil from the heat still left in the ring and then we make our cup of tea." The only tobacco they had was what was given to them.
When I was a member of the Manitoba legislation in 1947-48 I was batching for one
June 29, 1966

month and I decided to live on $30 to see how the old age pensioners lived. I put $30 aside. I did not pay my rent out of it but restricted myself to $1 a day for the full 30 days. I existed on hamburg, stale bread and an egg or two. There was no steak or extra treats for me.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: And no whisky.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And no whisky. I walked instead of riding on the buses. I rolled my own cigarettes. I just got by and no more, and I did not buy clothes or pay my rent. That is the type of life senior citizens were living in those years, and many of them are still living under those conditions because they are restricted to $75 a month while over the 20-year interval the value of money has declined. When they pay rent out of their $75 they have barely sufficient left for food. What do they do for clothing and for little extras? This thing is shameful.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Our country, a wealthy nation, owes our older people some enjoyment in the later years of their life. I think that assistance should be given to them very very promptly. That is why we are urging today that the government listen to its backbenchers and to the people on this side of the house, bring in the concurrent legislation that was requested and raise immediately the pension for our older citizens from $75 to $100 a month. Let us accomplish that. We will pass the Canada Assistance Plan in no time because we are not opposed to the general idea. Then we will sit here and do the other bits of legislation and wind up.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That is a threat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite says it is a threat. It is no threat at all. I am suggesting we are prepared to sit here, continue with this and other pieces of legislation and do our proper job for our country. But we are asking the government to fulfil its obligation to our senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that the word is out through an ex-minister of the Liberal government that the minister intends announcing the implementation of a plan for a guaranteed income after the summer recess. I ask members of the house to govern themselves accordingly and restrain
Canada Assistance Plan themselves so that the minister may rise in his place and make such an announcement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A point of order has been raised and for the second time tonight-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I have attempted to respond to an invitation from the opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the minister whether he is rising on the point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to reply to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. He was given a full opportunity to present his point of order and I should like to reply to it by saying that this is the second time tonight hon. members have asked me to reply on this general subject and make a statement with regard to the intentions of the government. Twice I have volunteered and have been refused. I am waiting anxiously to conclude this debate in order that the bill will be passed and so that the house will be fully aware of the government's plans.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the night before last the minister made a speech which we took to contain the government's plans, but if the minister has something additional or if the government has had second thoughts I am sure the house would be quite prepared to give unanimous consent to revert to motions so that the minister can make his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam knows perfectly well that the orderly way to proceed with this debate is to give the minister an opportunity to wind up on second reading. No other proposal can cover up the persistent filibuster which is being carried on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot impute motives to the members of this house.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Why do you laugh?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He cannot impute motives. If the minister wishes to make any statement about a change in the government's plans we can revert to motions, but until he asks for permission to do so we can only conclude that the government is going to persist in the

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan niggardly plan which is now before the house. Neither the minister nor the government have any right to shut out proper discussion by promising to do something they have no intention of doing.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
Minister of National Health and Welfare is so anxious to speak on this matter that the backbenchers who are interested in it have been pulled back and not given an opportunity to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair assumes that this ends the discussion on the point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: If the
Minister of National Health and Welfare intends to state that the government is willing to grant the increase in old age pension, let him say so then. We will be pleased to allow him to announce it immediately. But if he merely intends to bring the debate to a close, that would not be quite honest, because I feel we have the right, the duty even, to tell the house why we are in favour of increasing the old age pension.
I can see the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois) whispering near the curtains at the back. I recall how the same member, during the last election campaign, clamoured loudly: I promise to see that the old age pension is increased. But, now, the member for Chicoutimi leaves the house; yet, he committed himself to supporting this increase. I was there when he said so; he had it printed in the newspapers and that cost him money. Today-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Chicoutimi rising on a point of order?


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: A question of privilege, sir.


Gilles Grégoire: I am glad to give him the opportunity to speak for the first time.


Paul Langlois: 
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the point of order is completed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Lapointe would now direct his remarks to the principle of Bill C-207.


Gilles Grégoire: I remember very well that, at that time, the hon. member for Chicoutimi was not saying: "I shall endeavour", as he just did tonight, but rather: "I pledge". And it took 15 minutes to list everything he pledged. Now, he has not yet fulfilled any of those pledges, including that concerning old age pension, since he voted against an amendment to increase old age pensions; he voted against, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare himself said today-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, The hon. member is now reflecting on the manner in which members in the house vote. May I suggest to him again that he direct his remarks to the principle of the bill before us.


Gilles Grégoire: The principle of the bill is social security. Now I am speaking of social security. I claim that something must be done in order to increase not only the pensions for the disabled, for needy mothers, for the blind members of I know not what constituencies-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: -but also the old age pensions. The hon. member claims we are filibustering.
No, Mr. Speaker, we are not filibustering. That is not true. We want the bill to carry completely but we want more than that to carry and we are ready, on this side, to give up our summer recess so that more than this carry and so that people aged 65 and over
June 29, 1966


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him where the members of his party are, because I can only count two in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member asked me where are our own members. There are four, that is nearly 50 per cent, who spoke in favour of an increase in the old age pension, while none-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the whereabouts of members is closely related to the principle of Bill C-207. I again request the co-operation of the hon. member for Lapointe and ask him to adhere as closely as possible to the principle of the bill now before us.


Gilles Grégoire: I replied to the question put to me and if you find that I departed from the subject matter, it is probably because the simultaneous translation does not come out well at the other end. But I think I am directly on the subject in speaking of an increase of the old age pension because it is a social welfare measure.
We ask, Mr. Speaker, that the pension be increased to $100 for any person of 65 or over,
Canada Assistance Plan and we believe that that is most reasonable. Would it be that a person who started to work at 18, 20 or 22 and who worked 40, 45 or 47 years of his life to build and develop Canada, is not entitled to $100 a month at the age of 65 or that it would not be fair to grant him that amount?
When people who have worked 45 or 47 years and paid taxes all their life reach 65, can Canada not give them $100 a month? Mr. Speaker, I say that a government which is unwilling to do that is far removed from the people and does not think of them but of the great financial interests it is trying to protect.
Mr. Speaker, a monthly pension of $100 is not much, as those who spoke before me have said. It is not much compared to what those citizens did for their country, working for years, enduring hardship and toil.
Take for example the farmers, who work from early in the morning till late at night all their life, during 50 years, and when they reach 65 they are treated shabbily; they who helped to build and develop the country are treated meanly and refused a bigger pension. They are given a scant $75 a month when a monthly pension of $100 would hardly be enough.
What do we give those old people? Toward the end of their lives, even if they are given $75 a month, they often have to pay debts incurred to raise their children, to buy a house, and so on. They still have to pay taxes like everyone else, and when comes the time to rest for those people who have worked for their country for so long, all they are given is a paltry $75 a month. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it is thanks to them that Canada is today a rich and developed country, rich enough to afford to give them a monthly pension of $100.
When one considers that Canada pays each year $1.2 billion in interests, dividends and profits to foreign capitalists, one wonders how it is that the government would not have enough heart to pay $100 a month to our Canadian citizens. Everything for the foreigners, never anything for our old people in Canada. That is the attitude of the present government in the matter now under consideration.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi is still purring. He said a little earlier that he was speaking for the second time, but today he is forgetting to take part in the debate which concerns, us, because I know that his electors in the riding of Chicoutimi are the first to request an increase in old age pension. I am ready to hold a debate in his riding, so as to let his electors know that the hon. member for

June 29, 196S
Canada Assistance Plan Chicoutimi, the riding next to mine, is against our introducing legislation to increase the old age pension to $100 a month. I am prepared to let the hon. member for Chicoutimi know, in his own riding, that he voted against that last January. He is blushing and sitting deeper in his seat, but he would blush even more in a public meeting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is the opinion of the Chair that the remarks now being made by the hon. member for Lapointe are not in order. I again ask for the co-operation of the hon. member.


Paul Langlois: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One can readily understand that I should sink deep into my chair, but the hon. member for Lapointe cannot do that, as he does not carry much weight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Langlois: As for what my constituents think or do not think about having or not having a $100-a-month pension, I consider that the constituents of Chicoutimi are surely as intelligent as those of other constituencies, that they realize it is better to give to those in need than to increase pensions to millionaires, to do a little demagoguery as the hon. member for Lapointe has been doing for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that he follow the observations of Mr. Deputy Speaker, whose place I have temporarily taken, and confine himself strictly to the principle of Bill No. C-207. Let us not have any more of this cross-fighting between Chicoutimi and Lapointe but rather let us get on with our consideration of this bill.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order of the hon. member for Chicoutimi was not well-taken and he should have been called to order immediately, since that is the second time he injects himself into the debate without having a justified point of order. If he has one, let him say so and set it out, but I know only too well that the population-
(Mr. Gregoire.]

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park): Order, please. Let me point out to the hon. member that what I said applied to both him and the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that a member should represent in the house the interests of his constituents, that he should reflect the opinions and the wishes of his constituents. We are aware that the electors of the constituencies of Lapointe, Chicoutimi or elsewhere, are anxious not only for the increases proposed in the Canada Assistance Plan which is now under consideration, but also for the increase of the old age pensions to $100 per month.
We are not satisfied with what has been introduced today. We approve it and we accept it, we have already said so. But we are not satisfied with this. If others are satisfied with it, let them have their own narrow views, their own small increases. As far as we are concerned, we want a real increase in the old age pension for persons aged 65 and over, and without a means test. We are demanding that the pension be increased to $100 for everyone aged 65 or more.
Mr. Speaker, I shall say this: Canada is a country rich enough to afford this $100 a month pension to its citizens. When, for instance, we consider the number of plants that are laying off workers because they are over-producing, I feel that if our old people had a greater purchasing power, they could buy more of such production and these plants could maintain full production or, at least, a higher production. If our old people were getting a higher old age pension, all of them would be in a position to purchase more goods and increased purchasing would mean more work for the workers in industry, our economy would be expanded still further, our large, our innumerable resources would be further developed.
When the government refuses to increase the old age pensions, I claim the government lacks confidence, or rather the awareness of the resources it should be managing, of all the resources in Canada.
If our old people get $100 instead of $75, have we to fear that our old people will suddenly start buying too much butter, too much meat, too much milk, so that others will be deprived? If our old people start getting $100 per month tomorrow, will they be
June 29, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan
buying too many clothes, so that other people will be deprived? Who is afraid of that? There is enough for everybody. There is plenty for all. So giving $100 per month to our old people will not deprive others of anything. There is enough for all, whether it is clothes, housing, food, recreation, there is some for all.
Mr. Speaker, when we try to limit the purchasing power of our old people, then we try to keep those who worked in the past to build our country in misery, to reward them for all they did to develop this country. We do not see clearly enough the merits of those who worked or came before us; when I say "we", I mean the government. The government does not see clearly enough the merits of those who worked in the last 50 years to develop our country. If I were the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Messrs. Sharp and MacEachen), I would be ashamed to introduce legislation which is good but incomplete, which does not take into account at the present time a whole sector of our population, namely those who are 65 and over.
Mr. Speaker, $100 is not much when you consider how rapidly the cost of living is increasing now. The cost of living increases faster than the allowance given to our old people, the disabled, the crippled, the needy mothers, etc. The cost of living increases even more quickly than the allowances.
Mr. Speaker, what about family allowances? They have not been increased, except for an additional $1 given to a small category of people, since 1944. Whereas everything costs more today, no thought has been given to increasing family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, to bring up one, two or three children costs more than in 1944-45 and although the government comes before us with a social assistance program, it does not think at all about increasing family allowances, just as it does not think about increasing the old age pension.
Coming back to the system proposed in that bill, to the proposed increases, there is a disadvantage for those who are admissible. It is that the investigations last too long. Too much time and effort is spent trying to find the little thing which will enable the government to refuse a pension, to withdraw it from an individual who would be eligible for his pension. Investigations, forms, inspectors and
auditors; every step is taken to withdraw the pensions that are to be given through a piece of legislation.
The act is such that officials, at least senior officials, try to cut or take away pensions whenever possible, because they show great zeal in this field. Mr. Speaker, I think that even if the increase granted today is good, it is not sufficient and the government should have implemented the promises it made during the last general election and raised old age pensions. Fine statements are all very well, but they should be folllowed by action.
I wonder why the government today is not presenting, in addition to the bill we are now studying, another act raising old age pensions to $100 for each 65-year-old citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare will consider this suggestion. I hope he will think of all the Canadians who have developed the country, who deserve from their motherland more than poverty. At their advanced age, they deserve to be given at least an adequate pension. Let the minister think about this and announce tomorrow that old age pensions are increased to $100 a month. He will then see that, all over the country, people will be happy to see that our old citizens receive what they have earned through their work, that they are given what is theirs out of the wealth of the country, that is, an adequate pension at the proper age.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, how is it that the hon. member for Lapointe speaks of pensions and federal policy when he has already announced that he would leave federal politics?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) wants to speak, he should speak louder, because I did not understand him at all on account of the distance between us.


Martial Asselin: When I have to answer the member for Lapointe, I shall be able to do so very easily, because his arguments are rather weak.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to make some brief remarks with reference to the legislation before us. I wish to say at the outset that I certainly do not want to be thought of as participating in some kind of filibuster.

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Richard Schreyer: It is my intention to say a few words only because the longer I sit in this house and listen to the responses of the government and the minister to questions put to them by members on this side as to why they will not increase the old age pension, the more I am convinced that they have given no adequate reason why this should not be done.
I should like to ask the minister to explain precisely why the government will not do something to alleviate the low income problem facing the elderly people of our country. There is adequate information at our fingertips which shows quite clearly that the absolute minimum level of income needed by old age pensioners today is somewhere in the order of $110 to $140 a month. The amount varies in the various studies that have been conducted. For example, I have before me a summary of information which emanated from the Canadian Conference on Aging.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
It is their estimate that the absolute minimum required by an old age pensioner to allow him to live the way we want him to live is $138.96 per month. The Toronto Metro Social Planning Council has estimated that $126.47 per month is the absolute minimum necessary for old age pensioners. Other studies have also been conducted in this regard. It should be obvious to hon. members on the government side that it has been adequately proved there is need for an increase in the purchasing power of our older citizens and an increase in old age pensions.
I think this is the right time to ask the minister-I am not doing this in a taunting manner as it is not my desire to taunt hon. members opposite-in view of the data collected and the studies carried out on the level of income necessary for old age pensioners, how in the world the government can sit back and allow the pension to remain at $75 a month. This amount is about 50 to 65 per cent below the level regarded as an absolute minimum by the various study groups which have looked into the matter.
It has been argued by hon. members opposite, and particularly by the minister when presenting this legislation, that it will serve to provide additional income to those people who, upon a means-needs test analysis, prove that they are eligible for it. However, surely the minister should not be so anxious to provide this additional income by means of

such a complicated and involved means-needs test system. Why enter into the thicket of red tape when it can be done with ample justification and in a much simpler way by means of a universal increase of old age pensions to $100 a month?
I am sure hon. members opposite, including the minister, may from time to time take the view that some members on this side of the house are exploiting this issue for partisan or political gain. Nevertheless I suggest to the minister that if he holds this opinion it is a very harsh one indeed. If hon. members opposite indulge in name calling and suggestions as to who is or is not hypocritical-I am now referring specifically to the charge made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that a member of our group was being hypocritical when speaking of the need for increasing old age pensions-then I point out to the minister that we on this side can indulge in the use of precisely the same kind of language.
We have been made aware of the publicity which the government has given in recent months to the war on poverty and we consider it to be hypocritical in the light of the government's attitude to the level of old age pensions today. If the government really intends to deal with the problem of poverty immediately and with the minimum amount of red tape, it can do so forthwith in the area involving old age pensioners.
Is the government refusing to adopt the request of hon. members on this side? Is the government refusing to increase old age pensions because this country cannot afford it? Is that the answer they are giving us, or are they refusing to increase old age pensions at the present time because it might have an adverse effect on the economy resulting in inflation? Is that the government's reason for not increasing old age pensions? If this is so then I will put to the minister what I consider to be a rather more obvious answer. If, in the opinion of the minister, this country cannot afford to increase pensions to $100 a month, then the government is applying a strange set of priorities because we are spending much larger amounts of money in other sectors of the economy which have nothing to do with ordinary humanitarianism and common decency toward our old people.
If that is the reason which the minister wishes to give us, then I suggest that if our purchasing power must somehow be decreased or inhibited so as to dampen demand
June 29, 1966

it is very strange that it is our older people who are chosen to bear this burden first. Let the government lower the purchasing power of those who have until now lived in the fullness of economic blessing instead of trying to take it away from those people who until now have never really had the opportunity to live abundantly. All that we ask is that they be provided with that minimum purchasing power laid down by social workers and others who have studied the matter.
It has been suggested by certain economists in the United States that that country cannot afford both guns and butter, that they cannot fight a war against poverty and build a great society at the same time as they are fighting against an enemy. This argument has been put forward rather forcefully. The answer given by the economic adviser to the president was that if a cutback in domestic spending is necessary it should be done at the expense of those who have more than adequate purchasing power at their disposal and not at the expense of the unfortunate, the school dropouts and the elderly who need better medical care, better income and better social security.
I wish to reject completely any suggestion from the other side that whoever speaks in this debate is indulging in a planned filibuster because I can look the minister squarely in the eye and tell him that I have not been approached or asked by anyone to speak on this subject.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Will the hon. member permit
a question? If what he says is true, then would he and his party sit down so as to allow the minister to make a statement?
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister will have lots of chance to make a statement. He wants to close the debate in order to gag us, and you know it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have had this hypocritical bunkum from you before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman rose to ask a question and the permission of the hon. member for Springfield to ask a question does not entitle him to enter a debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I quite understand that you were somewhat taken aback. I did ask a question which resulted in some outbursts. It 23033-448
Canada Assistance Plan has always been my observation in this house that there is no greater mournful sound than the sound of the wounded hypocrites on the other side.


David Lewis: That is doggerel. It is not even poetry.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I heard the question which was asked by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard. My answer is quite simple. I will sit down in a matter of a few minutes. As to what other members of my party may do, that is up to them. I certainly resent any implication from the other side that when we speak in this debate we are intent on holding up the business of the house. How long has the debate on this legislation gone on? Not a very long time. If the minister is anxious to make a statement to close the debate, he will have that opportunity later tonight or tomor-ow. The mere fact that the minister may have some sort of engagement or commitment for tomorrow is no reason why he should take out his impatience on us.


David Lewis: How long did he take before he introduced the bill?


Edward Richard Schreyer: In any event, if the minister feels compelled to make a statement this evening he has already been given an indication that hon. members will agree to revert to motions so that he can make that statement. This would not be an unprecedented way to proceed.
In so far as old age pensions are concerned, I should like to make a specific reference to the effect of this legislation on the elderly people in rural areas. I know from personal experience that during the past 15 years the incomes of most Canadian farmers have been much below the hoped-for level. In fact, it has been readily admitted by successive ministers of agriculture that income in the Canadian agricultural industry has been a serious problem in that the costs of farmers have been increasing and the prices they have been receiving for their commodities have been remaining static or in some cases have even declined. This has had an effect on those farm people who have come to their retirement years recently and, because they have had low net incomes over the past decade, are facing a very bleak retirement. Until such time as the Canada Pension Plan takes full effect, which is still almost a decade away, these people have little to hope for in the way of enhanced retirement pensions. Is it really asking too much of the

June 29, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan government or the minister to consider this specific aspect of the problem of universal old age pensions?
In my opinion it is partly the fault of the Canadian government that net farm income has been low over the past decade. Since it has been partly the fault of the government, it seems to me there is an onus upon the government to take some tangible, concrete step to alleviate the problem facing these farm folk who are coming to retirement age in the immediate future. I know the Canada Assistance Plan will be of some help in this regard. However, there will be this complicated, protracted means-needs test type of investigation. Many farm folk find this very awkward because a computation must be made of their net assets. The value of their old machinery must be computed and the value of the land and old buildings. This is really an administrative nightmare for a social worker or anyone taking applications for old age assistance in these farm areas and trying to determine whether or not these people have the means to meet their needs.
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude on this note. While the Canada Assistance Plan now before us is perhaps in some ways a distinct improvement over the situation which has existed, nevertheless in one important respect it is a very real disappointment. While it may succeed in providing certain improvements in our social assistance programs, it nevertheless imposes this means-needs test-I use the two words conjointly- on the many elderly people of our country. I dare say the country could well afford, and should want to afford, just a little bit better. The cost of living index has shown a substantial increase in recent months. Yet there has been no indication from the government what they intend to do about adjusting the universal old age pension to accommodate this increase. I hope the minister will not be so intransigent in this regard that he will simply not consider the request for some legislation to be introduced within a relatively short time to give our old age pensioners a level of income which at least approaches the income levels described as absolutely necessary by such organizations as the Toronto Metro Social Planning Conference, the Canadian Conference for the Aged and so on.
As a new member of the house I am actually astounded when I watch the government stubbornly refuse to admit that the present old age pension level is simply unacceptably low in the light of the cost of living. I

am astounded that the government has not been moved so far to take any tangible, direct action to deal with this matter. There is no point in my saying any more, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that if the government cannot be persuaded in a few words, with complete absence of taunting, complete absence of acrimony, then it is not likely they will be persuaded at all.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
In the meantime we can only be sorry for these people who are over 65 years of age and who have another ten years ahead of them. In fact they will never become eligible for any kind of decent pension under the Canada Pension Plan. Their future at the moment seems bleak and without much hope unless they wish to go through a complicated, and in my opinion unnecessary, means-needs test. The minister should make amends before he is condemned by the elderly people of this country.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I am not filibustering, I want to ask a question. I appreciate very much the moderate and very proper way in which the hon. member for Springfield presented his case. Like all members of the house I have a problem about which I want to ask him a very simple question. It is this. Rather than require pensioners to show a reasonable need, does the hon. member support the principle that we should pay the extra $25 a month to hundreds of thousands of people who do not require it at all?


Mr. Monteiih:: There are not hundreds of thousands.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I have asked the question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member would be glad to supply the answer.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, there is no simple, arithmetical answer to that question. In the end it is a matter of judgment, of philosophical conviction as to the position one takes on the matter. As a member of the legislature of Manitoba for several years I came into close contact with a lot of elderly people, widows between the ages of 60 and 65, who were facing precisely the kind of problem that many hon. members in recent days have been talking about. I found that in almost every case they had to go through the very awkward, complicated and unnecessary
June 29, 196$

procedure of filling out an O.A.A. and disability allowance form at length, stating their assets, the value of their chattels, equipment, machinery and so on, in order to qualify for a minimal subsistence type of pension.
I would say to the hon. member who posed the question that it is so much simpler, and I think it saves the taxpayer money, to grant this type of assistance on a universal basis and then to recover it by means of the ordinary income tax process to which all income-earning people in this country are subject. In the end, I hazard to say that in not too many years social welfare and assistance-type legislation in this country will evolve toward the kind of guaranteed annual income which will be based in turn on a sort of income tax process. Those people who are in receipt of a guaranteed annual income but who have no real need of it because of their own earned income will simply have this money turned back to society for them, and I see nothing terrible about that.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the many speeches from across the floor tonight and I noted that one speaker referred to farm families.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Filibuster.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I was born and raised on a farm and I am proud of it. I have heard that people on farms are somewhat ashamed of the position in which they are today. My mother and father still live on a 100-acre farm in Ontario and they are aged 65 and 67. They are proud to live there and I am proud to say that they are living there; and they are not one bit ashamed of their occupation. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am also amazed to hear the remarks which have been made-


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -particularly by the members of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Springfield is rising on a question of privilege.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is this. The hon. member for Renfrew North is leaving the distinct inference that other members on this side are somehow ashamed of their farming connections. If that 23033-4481
Canada Assistance Plan is the inference he intends to leave, I certainly do have a point of privilege. I repudiate that inference completely.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to that, I cannot blame the hon. member for Springfield if he has a guilty conscience. I did not name him in particular.


William Arnold Peters: I will name you tomorrow.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: But I think the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) did mention the farming population.


William Arnold Peters: And your 100-acre farms.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Filibuster.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We have heard the cry of filibuster from across the floor. I hesitate to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I feel I must. This must be another guilt complex.
I do not usually rise in this manner and I do not want to create a disturbance in this debate. All I want to say is that it does surprise me greatly that there should be so much competition from across the floor on a bill from the government side of the house which deals with increased pensions for the blind and the crippled who are in need, as provided for by the Canada Assistance Plan which is before this house at the present time.


Michael Starr: Eleven o'clock.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It also provides for widows who are in need as well as others who have inadequate incomes. I should simply like to say that the Liberal party of Canada has always been the champion of these people and as long as we are here we will continue to be the champion of these people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


Mr. McNulty:: May I have unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of presenting a report of a standing committee?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to reverting to routine proceedings?


Michael Starr: Before we agree I think it would be advisable that an explanation be given as to what is involved.

June 29, 1986
Canada Assistance Plan Mr. McNulty: I wish to present the fourth report of the standing committee on national defence.


Michael Starr: I think it could be done tomorrow or Monday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes past eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 30, 1966