1966-12-08

Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce, with some satisfaction, that a problem that has confronted Canada for the past several weeks seems to have been resolved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I might add that it has been resolved only within the last five minutes. The tie-up, which has paralysed the ports of British Columbia for the past several days and which is now having such far-reaching adverse affects, has not only been a matter of serious concern to members of this house but also one of serious concern to the stevedoring companies and to the union employees involved. Each of them state that they have a certain position to maintain. But in view of the tie-up of grain, lumber and other forest products, and of other water-borne products, in response to an appeal that I made on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and which was concurred in by the premier of British Columbia, they have agreed to an acceptance in principle of the formula which I proposed to them over the week end, with one further condition, namely that the Minister of Labour will set up an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into the cause of this work stoppage, with a view to making recommendations that might prevent further stoppages of this nature, including the undertaking that one of the parties has agreed upon and which is acceptable to the other side. In addition the undertaking on the part of the employers concerned will be one of the items that will be considered by the industrial inquiry commission.
I have received a proposal in writing from one side. I have received an answering wire from the other side, but certain supplementary clauses have to be added to that wire. I understand it will be dispatched within the next few minutes, but it is expected that work will resume in all west coast ports within a matter of hours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is natural that all of us are very pleased with the result. Whatever contribution the minister has made, in co-operation with the premier of British Columbia, to bring about this desirable objective, certainly is worthy of commendation. It is too bad this action had not been taken earlier.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, there are many points in the minister's statement which require clarification. I hope that later on an opportunity will be provided so that he can give further details. However, if I understand the minister's statement correctly, I take it that the B.C. Maritime Employers Association has now agreed to accept and sign the memorandum of understanding which the minister submitted to the union at the beginning of this week and which they signed as an acceptance of the compromise proposal. If the employers association has agreed to sign this and accept the compromise proposal, then of course this opens up the possibility of resumption of work at the ports.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If that was intended as a question to the minister, I can only say that I do not think I should go into the details at this time. I can say, however, that for the past two days at least there has been general agreement that there did not have to be any signing of an undertaking. Based on the principles enunciated in what one might call the Nicholson formula, it has been agreed that a certain undertaking might be given and that there could be modifications. There have been modifications in the formula which are acceptable to both sides.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the modifications are acceptable to both sides, I assume they will be satisfactory. I assume also that the inquiry which the minister proposes to set up can be very useful in respect of giving us further information, so as to prevent a repetition of this unfortunate tie-up of the west coast ports. I can only say to the minister that while we are very happy that the unfortunate
10856	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute lockout has been brought to an end, I do think such an inquiry might have been instigated some time ago. This trouble with regard to the B.C. ports has been going on now tor three weeks. Since a week ago last Monday there has been a lockout by the stevedoring companies. It was only during the last week end that the minister finally took the situation in hand, and it is only in the last few days that the government decided to appoint an administrator over the longshoring companies.
I would hope that in the future there would be more prompt action in grappling with an emergency of such vast importance as this one. After the delay, and the costs incurred by grain shippers and the people of British Columbia, we are delighted that now at last a solution has been found and the ports will be operating in the course of the next few days.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the minister tell us that the problem in respect of the British Columbia ports has now been solved. Of course one can always find room for criticism. I can only say, however, that on this one occasion I think the minister did a very good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: One often hears the expression that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; but you have to have that prevention beforehand. Under the circumstances, and considering that the minister was, so to speak, walking on a tightrope, I think he did a good job.
The over-all effect will be that in future we will be able to prevent such situations developing. It seems that at this time the problem has been solved to the mutual satisfaction of all concerned. We realize that certain loose ends will have to be tied because nothing is ever perfect. For my part and on behalf of the members of this group I can say that we are happy this problem has been settled, and we believe that the minister deserves our thanks for his part in this settlement.


Mr.  A. B. Pailerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, we join in the expression of satisfaction that this situation on the west coast has been resolved, and that the ports will be open once again to shipping. Yesterday I said there were fundamental problems involved in this particular issue. I hope the government will give consideration to these matters in order that they may be clarified.

DEBATES	December 8, 1966
I cannot accept the statement that there has been a lockout on the west coast, because that is a misrepresentation of the facts. We believe it is important that a set of procedures be established in order to safeguard the national economy by preventing a repetition of these situations which have taken place, first in respect of railways, then Air Canada and then shipping. Some procedure must be established which will remove the threat to our economy as a result of strikes in these essential services.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, because of, among other things, the large scale back-up of wheat and other grains on the prairies as the result of the strike in Vancouver, and the importance of moving it to markets with all possible expedition, now that the labour difficulties have been resolved, I wish to inform the house, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and myself, that the Pacific grain transportation committee will be reconvened.
The government is pleased that the committee will once again meet under the chairmanship of Mr. William Riddell, former assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, who acted so successfully in this capacity for several months early this year.
The function of the committee will be to co-ordinate the movement of grain to ensure that shipments are put back on schedule as quickly as possible. The Minister of Transport and I are confident that all of the companies and the many workers involved will play their part in ensuring a maximum movement of grain. I have no doubt that this co-operative approach to a challenging task will once again be successful, and that the Wheat Board's commitments from the west coast will be fully met.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question regarding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time for questions. The minister has made a statement, and according to the rules a reply can be made by spokesmen on behalf of parties in the opposition. Perhaps that is what the hon. member wishes to do.
December 8, 1966


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I now appoint myself as spokesman -but I do not know whether that is acceptable to the party. I should like to draw the minister's attention to a statement he made yesterday in which he referred to labour problems. It is the understanding of members of this house that management was responsible for this tie-up. I call his attention also to the use of the word "strike". The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) during the past week or so could not make his mind up as to whether this was a strike or a lockout. There has been a definite slant to remarks placing the blame on labour in this country, in spite of the understanding that management was at fault on this occasion. The use of words such as "labour" and "strike" is not in keeping with government action of recent days.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now in a position to confirm or deny information which has appeared in the influential press regarding particulars of the areas and commodities involved in sanctions which are to be applied, provided the request of the United Kingdom is accepted? Is oil among those commodities? Also, would the minister comment on the suggestion that South Africa will not be included among the countries to which sanctions will apply?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last portion of the question, we will have to await the reaction to the resolution which at five o'clock today will be proposed by the British government in the Security Council through the foreign secretary. I will be having a meeting at 3.30 this afternoon to discuss the terms of that resolution. Until I have had an opportunity of seeing all its provisions, I am not in a position to make any further comment.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister tell the house whether in the meeting of the Commonwealth ministers on this subject it was the consensus of those who met that oil would not be included, and that South Africa would not be a country to which these sanctions would be made applicable.
Would the minister at the same time let the house know whether there is any basis for the Associated Press report from Beira, Mozambique, that more troops were moved into this port as the Security Council began consideration of Britain's demand for intensified sanctions against Rhodesia, and the South African Press Association said that what was being done was precautionary against the possible entry of foreign warships?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should remind my right hon. friend, of course, that the resolution he mentioned and on which I have commented is one that is being

December 8, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry put forward by the British government. It is not in any sense a resolution under the auspices at this moment of any other government. It is a resolution that will be discussed in the Security Council. Canada is not a member of the Security Council. I do not see how we would further this situation by discussing a priori situations that are not fully before us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask one more supplementary question: Are we to get our information as to what happens through observations to the press from the lips of Hon. Lionel Chevrier and be denied the information in parliament?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend apparently feels that the best sources of information are through reported statements that appear in the newspapers. As far as the government of Canada is concerned, we get our information through the governments with whom we deal, and through our ambassadors and heads of missions in whom we have full confidence.



RHODESIA-SUPPORT BY GOVERNMENT OF PRINCIPLE OF MANDATORY SANCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question? Can he inform the house whether the recent meeting of representatives of members of the Commonwealth was unanimous in its decision to support any British resolution before the Security Council for the imposition of mandatory sanctions, and whether Canada gave that assurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the meeting of the sanctions committee the day before yesterday received representations from the secretary for commonwealth affairs on behalf of the British government. On November 24 the Canadian Prime Minister announced in this house that we would support the principle of mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII, and that continues to be the policy of the government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry? Last Tuesday I asked him what plans the government had to deal
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
with the situation in Cape Breton in connection with 800 men who have been laid off by Dosco in the steel industry which, coupled with the phasing out of the coal industry, is causing considerable distress in that area. The minister said that some plans had been made but he was not able to say which one would be applicable to this area.
I should like to ask whether either the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration could tell the house what immediate steps the government intends to take to relieve the present distress, and the distress it is expected will be suffered this winter as a result of these extensive layoffs?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have ascertained the causes of the lay-off which involved a smaller number of men than was suggested by the hon. member. I am told that the total number of men laid off currently is not 800 but only some 300-which is still a substantial number I admit-of whom some 120 no longer can find profitable employment by reason of the modernization of material and of handling facilities. The balance are being laid off as a consequence of a general reduction in the demand for steel and steel products in Canada, and perhaps in particular because of a lessening of demand from the Dosco operation as a consequence of the strike which is presently taking place. The government is considering special measures which may be necessary in the Cape Breton area as a consequence of the difficulties in the steel industry and, more particularly, in respect of the coal mining operations. I can assure the hon. member that these will be announced shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that an additional 400 men have been notified that they will be laid off in the next few days, and that one of the two blast furnaces is to be banked this week end and will remain banked until the end of February?
May I ask the minister whether he or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration have any immediate program, apart from the coal program, to provide employment for these steel workers or to ask Dosco to freeze any lay-offs until the government can implement an industrial program to absorb these men?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is a problem to which both I and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) are addressing ourselves urgently.
December 8, 1966


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether one of the reasons for the lay-offs in the Sydney steel operations was not found to be the program announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to deliberately slow down the economy, which is not only affecting the steel industry in Sydney but is affecting the steel industry throughout the country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the assumptions made by the hon. member are completely unwarranted, false and unfounded.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The assumption that I have made is entirely based on the statements which were made by the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mcllraith:: You must obey the rules.


Mr. Starr:: Why should he when you don't?


Mr. Speaker:: We must have order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor on a question of privilege, and he should be given the opportunity to state what his question of privilege is.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry stated that the assumption is false.


George James McIlraith: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would not advise the house leader to applaud that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
house leader is the last one who is in a position to applaud remarks like that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we would make more progress if the hon. member stated his question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: My
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not think anything which I say in this house should be referred to as false when I am only making a statement which is in line with statements made by the Minister of Finance. I will accept the remarks of the Minister of Industry in answer to my statement, which he said was false, provided he also applies his
Inquiries of the Ministry remarks to his own colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a question of privilege.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister of manpower in a position to reply to my question of yesterday?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I had a report from our manpower centre at Sydney in regard to the unemployment situation at the Dosco steel plant which indicated that 160 workers are going to be laid off before December 11 and that another 350 workers will be laid off before December 31. Of course, our manpower centre service is going to intervene to try to find job opportunities for these workers. We are going to use our mobility programs and will do everything we can to help the workers find new jobs.


Malcolm MacInnis: May
I ask a supplementary question which I will direct this time to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not think that 14 months is long enough even for this government to make up their minds with respect to the coal industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister what action is being taken in reply to the appeal he has received from Mr. Martin Werner, president of local union 1064 of the United Steel Workers of America, urging the government to take the necessary action to provide winter works projects in order to alleviate the serious unemployment conditions existing in the Sydney area as a result of large scale lay-offs at the Dosco steel plant.


Robert Muir: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to reply to the question I posed a few minutes ago with regard to the appeal he has received from the president of the steel workers union at Sydney?
10860	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Yes, I have received that telegram. Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to check and give an answer tomorrow.


Robert Muir: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister of manpower with reference to his answer that this situation is covered by the manpower mobility program, which is a one-way ticket out of the maritimes? Will his assistance also include the highly-touted counselling in depth, which produces no action as far as jobs are concerned?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the noon hour a news release was carried over television to the effect that President Johnson had announced that an agreement had been reached between the United States, the Soviet Union and I believe one or two other nations regarding the banning of nuclear weapons in outer space. I wonder whether there is any information to be given to this house regarding this announcement.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are very hopeful that an arrangement of this kind can be made shortly, but we have no information at the moment to confirm the report to which my hon. friend refers.
XTranslation]



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
1 On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
In view of the threatened strike of the 350 employees of Rod Services Limited, in Montreal, which would endanger the postal operations in the Montreal area, could the minister tell us if he has taken steps to prevent that strike?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet heard that a
[Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).]
DEBATES	December 8, 1966
strike vote had been taken among the employees of Rod Services Limited, but I can tell the hon. member that since last week two officials of my department have been trying to solve that problem, that today the Minister of Transport has detached one of his officials and that negotiations will continue today, tomorrow and throughout next week, if need be.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the decrease of 134,000 jobs during the last month as reported by Dominion Bureau of Statistics in this morning's newspapers, would the government give consideration to reversing its tight money policy and thereby making it possible to expand employment opportunities and provide the jobs for Canadians that are so obviously needed at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is of very general nature and cannot be asked in this form.


George Harris Hees: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that my first question was ruled out of order. Perhaps I can rephrase it in a more acceptable form. In view of the serious decline in the number of those presently employed in Canada, would the minister give consideration to introducing changes in monetary policy in order that expansion can be carried on more rapidly, with the result that jobs will be available for those who so urgently need them at this time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: As the hon. member should know, there has been a substantial increase in the money supply in recent months. The reason interest rates remain high is the unexampled desire for funds to enable the Canadian economy to continue to expand.


George Harris Hees: In view of the startling figures contained this morning in the Dominion Bureau of Statistic's press release, disclosing that there had been a decrease in the number at work amounting to 134,000 in one month, does
December 8, 1966

the minister consider that the steps he is taking at this time are satisfactory? Does he intend to do nothing further?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I shall, of course, be bringing down some financial measures. The government has the situation under review and appropriate changes will be made in policy and announced from time to time in order to maintain the steady expansion which has taken place over the last six years, and which will, I hope, continue for a long time to come.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has called the attention of the Minister of Labour to the serious increase in the number of the unemployed?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has brought to my attention the fact that there are more people employed in Canada at the present time than at any time in Canadian history.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer yesterday of the Minister of Labour that steps have been taken to set up some form of machinery to end disruption of industry by management and labour disputes, has the Prime Minister anything to say at this time, in view of the end of the dock strike in Vancouver?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the government has set up a task force under Dean Woods of McGill University to inquire into these far-reaching and important matters and to report to the government as quickly as possible so that the government will be in a position to decide what action should be taken to deal with these longer range problems.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the members of that task force have yet been appointed, and if so who are they?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the names before me but appointments have been made. There is also to be appointed a consultative committee representing various aspects of our national life. I am not sure whether all members of the consultative committee have been appointed but I will make the announcement to the house as soon as I can.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, one which I posed to the Solicitor General yesterday. Could the minister inform the house of any progress regarding the extradition proceedings against Hal Banks?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General brought the hon. gentleman's question to my attention. There is little that I can report to the house on this matter, except to say that the local crown attorney is studying the matter very actively. As soon as there is any useful information that I can give to the house, I will be happy to do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of external affairs.
Now that it has been decided to suspend air bombings in Viet Nam for the yuletide season, has the Canadian government made any representations to extend the period of the moratorium?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to discuss these matters during my visit to Poland and Moscow; I met the American Secretary of State ten days ago, and the hon. member can rest assured that the Canadian government acted to make its views known on this problem which is so important.

December 8, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he inform the house why the government has not yet found a way to increase family allowances?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this question could be very interesting at 10 p.m.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Finance. I believe he is going to give me an answer today to my query yesterday concerning the present status of the proposals for deposit insurance.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Justice has prepared a draft bill which is now being discussed with my officials. Therefore I expect to be able to bring the resolution forward. I might add that the principle of the bill was approved by cabinet some time ago and it is now only a matter of drafting.



SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
WINTER NAVIGATION ON ST. LAWRENCE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does the minister intend to take the necessary steps to keep the St. Lawrence river open, especially between Quebec and Montreal, throughout the winter?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I have made some inquiries and I am informed that the port of Montreal was closed for one day in the year 1965, and that was New Year's Eve.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Would the Minister of Transport repeat to members of 
the House of Commons the assurance which he gave in Halifax, that he would not accede to the type of pressure we have witnessed here in the house in the last 24 hours?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am happy to repeat what I said in Halifax-and what, I think the hon. member will agree, was received very well -namely, that as Minister of Transport I did not propose to take extraordinary steps to accelerate winter navigation in the St. Lawrence, and I did not propose to take any steps to impede it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What steps do you propose to take, then?


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether the minister would correct that statement. The two words he used in Halifax were "any procedures"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member is not asking the minister to tell us all that he said in Halifax.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege; the hon. member has questioned the accuracy of my report to the house. I think perhaps I did not use the word "extraordinary". What I implied was that nothing more would be done in this field than has been done in the last few years. The incidental advantages of icebreaking are there, of course, and the evidence of their effectiveness lies in the fact that the port of Montreal was closed for only one day in 1965 and for only ten days in 1964. There may be those in Vancouver who are envying that record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question about winter navigation on the St. Lawrence.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether he will assure the shipping companies that ice-breakers operating on the St. Lawrence will not be used exclusively to prevent floods, but that they will also help any ships venturing on the river?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The policy which has been followed in the past few years will continue to be followed, and the hon. member knows just as well as I do that it has been of very great assistance to the ships which chose to use the channel.
December 8, 1986



SUGGESTED CHANGE IN RULES TO PROHIBIT OBSTRUCTION BY SINGLE MEMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Vicloria (B.C.)):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister following the answer just given. Will the government give immediate consideration to bringing in legislation to change the rules of the house so that a single member can no longer hold up the work of this house in connection with important and immediate national issues?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the minister to have the regular December old age security cheques mailed prior to Christmas rather than at the end of the month, so that our senior citizens might have a merrier Christmas?


Michael Starr: With what?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall be glad to consider that suggestion. If it can be done I can assure the hon. member I will see that it is done.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING APPLICATION IN SHIPPING INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has any announcement to make about meetings between the shipping industry and unions organized therein with respect to the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to the shipping industry?


Mr. Bryce S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I am
pleased to announce to the hon. member, who has shown a tremendous interest in this question, that a meeting has been arranged for December 15 and that all parties have been notified.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



APPLICATION OF INCOME TAX TO PROFIT SHARING PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: May I ask a
question of the Minister of Finance? In his budget speech of March 29, the minister proposed substantial amendments to the Income Tax Act related to deferred profit sharing plans, and introduced three resolutions in respect of them. When these resolutions were not included in the income tax bill the hon. gentleman gave an assurance that he would proceed with	them-and	I use his
words-"when the house resumes in the fall." Would the minister indicate what his intention now may be with respect to these deferred profit sharing plans?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my intention to bring forward a bill in due course, since the resolutions preceding it have already been approved. The bill is now in draft form and I expect it will shortly be presented to the house.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: wish to ask the Minister of Industry a question of some importance to employment in the maritimes. Is he in a position to give us any information about the examination of tenders for the two operational supply ships for the Royal Canadian Navy? Tenders were opened two months ago.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The tenders were very complicated indeed and they are currently under assessment by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production. As soon as this assessment has been completed, an announcement will be made.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Since the announced 15 per cent increase apparently applies only to the basic disability pension rate, when will the minister announce increases in

December 8. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry the married rate and the rates tor dependent children, dependent parents and orphans?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear when I made the announcement that this is an interim adjustment, and until we have the information I mentioned it is not possible for me to make any other statement.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, can the minister explain why there should be an interim increase in the basic rate and not to the rate applying to these others, whose need is as great, if not greater?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a point for debate.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When does he intend to refer the third annual report of the Economic Council of Canada to the joint committee on consumer prices?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe that has been done, Mr. Speaker.



BANKRUPTCY

[Stage Direction]
. REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PBOGRESS IN NEGOTIATIONS
On the orders of the day:
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Justice.
Would the hon. minister be kind enough to inform the house about the negotiations with respect to bankruptcies in Canada?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the matter of bankruptcies is a responsibility of the Registrar General but, in any event, I am in a position to say that the committee to which the matter has Seen referred is sitting continuously and a report is expected shortly.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.

Has the government received a report from the ministerial committee which is considering the status of negotiating units and the merits of the C.N.T.U.'s grievances, and can the house expect a statement very shortly in this respect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
Third reading of Bill No. C-227, 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-Mr. MacEachen.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Bill C-227 was amended in the committee stage in many particulars and the reprinted bill has not been distributed to members of the house. It would, therefore, be impossible to go ahead with it today.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that it is not customary to make distribution of reprinted bills. This is the advice I received, but in any event we have the reprinted bills on the table at the moment and they are being circulated now to hon. members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On that point, that it is not customary to distribute reprinted bills may I point out that my experience has been the opposite. When extensive amendments have been made, members of the house should have an opportunity to see if the reprinted bills correspond in every particular to the amendments that were made in committee. That opportunity has not been afforded to us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I add one point to that. The reasoning behind the house rule that a bill shall not be read the third time on the same day after it has had amendment, is for the precise purpose of printing the amendments and acquainting the members of the content of the bill as it was approved on second reading. If the bill in this case has not been printed and has not been distributed to hon. members, then it is a clear defiance of the rule and the purposes of the rule.
December 8, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: This is the interpretation that the hon. member places on the rule. It is an interpretation with which I would not quarrel, but I understand from the advisers to the Chair that the usual procedure has been followed in this case. In any event copies are available to hon. members now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think we should see them before debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the house. If the house does not want to proceed, the question will not be put. It is open to hon. members to consider the matter at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is rather unfair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have just two questions to ask. Is each member of the house now in possession of the reprinted bill, and is it available in both English and French?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The same questions were asked on previous occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the advice I again receive confirms the impression I have that there may be an order made by the house for the reprinting of a bill, but even that is not essential.
Hon. members know that according to the rules and the tradition, the proper conduct in the. study of a bill in the house is that there is actually only one bill before the house. The original bill is moved on first reading, advances to second reading, goes before committee where amendment is made and eventually this bill is brought back and reported, but it is always the same bill that is before the house. Eventually this one bill, this one original copy, is the one which is submitted to the house for approval on third reading.
I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members citation 415 in Beauchesne's fourth edition which says in part:
The motion for third reading is debatable under S.O. 32. Or the bill may then be ordered to be reprinted or committed to a select committee.
Hon. members of the house may at this point, by way of amendment, order that the bill be reprinted, but I suggest to hon. members that I cannot refuse putting to the house the question which I have before me now. I can only tell hon. members that there are copies of the reprinted bill available on the table, in both English and French.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to belabour the point, and without wishing to quarrel too much with Your Honour's view,
Medicare
may I indicate that in the past hon. members who now occupy the treasury benches were very careful in pointing out to the government of the day this particular practice, and loud were their cries of protest in regard to it. I may say, and I think Your Honour will agree with me, that the purpose of the rule which says that a bill cannot be read the third time the same day, except by consent, after amendment, is for further examination of the bill. Otherwise, and I put this strongly to Your Honour, there is no purpose to such a rule. It may not be that there is a definite, clearly written undertaking that a bill shall be reprinted, but I suggest to Your Honour that that has been the practice and the courtesy of the house over many years, and was insisted upon by hon. members opposite.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we should prolong the point of order. I may tell the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that during the last few days I have considered this very point in connection with another bill on which I thought there might be some difficulty. I was thinking of the railway bill, knowing that possibly we would have the same type of difficulty. My understanding of the rule or practice about third reading not being taken the same day is that it is for the purpose of giving hon. members an opportunity of considering the amendments, and not necessarily the amended bill. It is to give hon. members an opportunity to consider the amendments as reported in Hansard. This is one interpretation.
I mentioned a moment ago that I appreciate the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West, but I am assured that we have done in this case what is usually done in similar circumstances.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the third reading of Bill No. C-227, 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.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion for third reading-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) also wishes to speak on this subject. The hon. member for Simcoe East.

December 8, 1966
Medicare


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say in respect of Bill C-227. I think the discussion in the house on this medical care bill was very fruitful. It brought out ideas, particularly in the field of paramedical services, by pointing out the role played in the field of medical care by optometrists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists and other allied services. I think this was very beneficial. I believe the minister would be the first to admit this.
I do not intend to dwell too long on this point. The minister, introduced an amendment which indicated that he was not entirely averse to suggestions made to him by this party. We appreciate this co-operation. As the house will recall, I moved an amendment to the effect that there be at least a partial medical care plan effective July 1, 1967, which would cover at least 30 per cent of the people across this land who are not otherwise covered and who have difficulty in respect of their medical bills. Having said this, I find myself in a quandary and in a very difficult position with regard to the delay in the date for implementation of this bill. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) says that it is a question of priorities. So far as I am concerned, those priorities were not fully defined.
How in the world can the minister say to the house now that he will not be in a position to implement this measure on July 1, 1967 but come what may he will be in a position to do so on July 1, 1968. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a positive type of thinking. How in the world is he going to know more about the economy on July 1, 1968, than he will know on July 1, 1967? I think this puzzles every member of this house. Here we are, after five years of unprecedented prosperity. We have had the largest wheat sales in the history of this country. These sales amounted to over $1 billion last year. Our pulp and forest production is at an alltime high. How in the world can the minister tell us what the situation will be on July 1, 1968? How can he make such statements now, after we have had five years of prosperity such as this country has never known before? I reiterate that surely he knows his position better in 1967 than he will know it in 1968.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand):
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that consideration be given to amending it by striking out "1st day of July 1968" in line 9 of paragraph 2(b) thereof, and substituting "1st day of July 1967".


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it will be no surprise to Your Honour or to the house when I say that when I sought to catch your eye a few minutes ago it was for the purpose of moving an amendment with the identical effect of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). Just so that it will be on the record, I might indicate the wording I had intended to use.


John George Diefenbaker: No; do not do that. Do not
spoil the record.


Michael Starr: We will accept your word.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am receiving so much advice, some of which is conflicting, that at the moment I am floored. However, the advice I will accept is that of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) to the effect that he and the members of his party will take my word for it that it was our intention to move that the bill be referred back so that the contribution commencement date as set out in clause 2(b) could be reconsidered, for we believe that date should be July 1, 1967.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Simcoe East has pointed out we had a very good discussion on Bill No. C-227 in committee of the whole. I think it will be agreed by all parties in the house that improvements were made to the bill because of the persistence with which those points were pressed. There is no question but that the bill as it stands now before us is a better bill than it was when it was introduced.
I suggest that this house should carry on with its good work by improving this bill still further and that the government should pay the same attention to this request, that the act come into force on July 1, 1967, that it paid to some of the other matters presented to it from this side of the house. At first, the minister resisted the requests from this side of the house that the scope of the coverage be enlarged, but in due course he not only agreed to that idea but also had the pleasure of introducing an amendment to that effect. I suggest he should take the same attitude in respect of the matter which is before the house now. I consider we are doing him a service in giving him an opportunity to go back to the date originally planned, namely, July 1, 1967.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), in speaking to this matter of the date
December 8, 1966

when we were in committee of the whole on the bill, made what I am sure everyone recognized as an excellent case against the arguments advanced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) for postponing the adoption of medicare by one year.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, all of the arguments that the minister used really have no weight. One must consider the fact that medicare does not involve a great increase in the total amount of money to be spent by the community as a whole on medical costs. To a large extent it involves a rechannelling of the moneys that are already being spent. It is also true that some of the provinces may not be ready to come in right at the start. Therefore, when one adds all these factors together it becomes clear that to bring this legislation into effect on July 1, 1967 would not have any appreciable inflationary effect.
That argument having been squashed, it seems to me that the government ought to reconsider its position. If there is a recorded vote on this amendment and the government resists it, in those circumstances if it is carried there will be a parliamentary crisis. But the government does not need to take that position. The government has already accepted suggestions from the opposition side of the house. I suggest, therefore, what it should do now is to accept this last minute suggestion that we go back to the date which was originally promised by the government.
Let me point out also that the need for medicare in this country is very real and that there are many people week by week and month by month who are faced with medical costs or needs they cannot have attended to because of the cost. We are being unfair and inhuman in postponing a plan, the principles of which we have accepted. For the sake of the people of this country and their needs, if we have something here that is good and we all now agree in that regard on all sides of the house, let us not postpone it for another 18 or 19 months when it is within our power to have it come into effect on Canada's 100th birthday, next July 1.
Another point I wish to refer to is the fact that I still think there is importance in political parties keeping their promises. There is no promise better known to the Canadian people, because it has been around for such a long time, than the promise of the Liberals in 1919 to bring in health insurance or medicare. Despite the fact that that promise, over several decades, was not implemented, the same
Medicare
party-the Liberal party-in the election campaign a year ago called on the Canadian people to believe, in spite of all its failures in the past, that this time it was serious and would keep its word. The Liberals asked the people to believe that medicare would be brought into effect on the date of that promise, July 1, 1967.
We play fast and loose with the whole political and democratic process when these promises are so lightly set aside. I feel, therefore, that instead of the government making it necessary to have a prolonged debate and making it necessary for this issue to be decided by a recorded vote-if it is not accepted we will have a recorded vote-it should do as it did on the question of extending coverage, agree that this is a good idea and accept this amendment so we can go back into the committee of the whole to improve this bill in this one more particular.
I commend the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) on producing this amendment. As I said, I had one worded in a slightly different fashion but for the same purpose. I hope the house as a whole will agree with the two of us who have already spoken, that we should now complete the job of making this a good bill by making its effective date July 1, 1967.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a moment about the financial aspects surrounding the introduction of this bill on July 1, 1968. The effective date of this measure has been put off for one year, but not for any medical reason. We all know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was most anxious that it should be effective on July 1, 1967. It is being postponed because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) suggests the country will be better able financially to implement this measure one year later.
I disagree very strongly with the Minister of Finance, because it is my belief we will be far better able from a financial point of view to implement this bill on July 1, 1967 than a year later. I believe that for these reasons: It is easy to see by examining the financial and economic conditions of this country at this time and comparing them with the circumstances which existed ten years ago this month that the circumstances are the same.
In December of 1956, we were reaching the end of six years of unprecedented prosperity. At that time the government became alarmed about the effects of inflation, as it is today,

December 8. 1966'
Medicare
and imposed a tight money policy upon the country. Six months later in spite of a strong warning by the government economic adviser, Dr. Firestone, the country was plunged into a serious recession, and it took three years to pull the country out of that recession.
The country is in exactly the same position today and all one has to do to understand that is examine any of the economic indicators which reveal our economic health. A tight money policy was imposed on this country about one year ago. Dr. Firestone advised the government a number of months ago that if it did not change its monetary policy the same thing which happened ten years ago would happen again.
Obviously the government has paid no attention to its adviser, and from the answers given by the minister today the government is perfectly satisfied with the situation which has resulted in there being 134,000 fewer people working in Canada today than just one month ago. The minister says all is well and the government is satisfied with the way things are going, so no changes will be made in monetary policy. The government apparently is not going to ease its tight money policy to make it possible for producers to expand production to provide more jobs and keep our economy moving. The government has decided to do exactly what it did ten years ago this month. Conditions in a year and a half will be much worse than they will be next June. If the government does not reverse the disastrous policy it is following today, conditions in this country will be a great deal worse than they are at the present time.
It is obvious that this government is not putting off the introduction of this measure because of fiscal or monetary policy, or monetary needs or anything of that kind. It is putting this off for one reason, and one reason only. This government intends to go to the country in the spring of 1968, and once more-for about the twenty fifth time-with the promise of health insurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman, in his statement of gloom and doom, predicting with certainty that this government is going to be in office until the spring of 1968? If that is so, I thank him for his presage.


George Harris Hees: That is a very easy question to answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you want politics, you can have them.


George Harris Hees: I will give you an answer if you will just listen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just gloom and doom.


George Harris Hees: The hon. Minister of Transport likes to ask questions but he does not like to listen to answers.
As long as the government continues to receive the support of various members to our left, it is doubtful that there will be an election before the spring of 1968, desirable though one may be.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
That is what the government intends to do. We intend to defeat the government before that time. This government intends and hopes that it will be able to put off an election until the spring of 1968, and at that time once again offer this measure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will now return to the consideration of the bill before the house.


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to return to it, Mr. Speaker. I am a very peaceful person, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has a way of making it very difficult to stick to the main theme. All I say is, let the government be honest about this thing; let them say that it is for a political reason and a political reason only, that this measure is being put off for a year, namely; so that once again they can promise it in an election portfolio. Let them say it is not being put off for any financial reason.
For that reason, I endorse 100 per cent the very able and cogent remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) who has played such an important part in this debate. That is why this party is going to support very enthusiastically the amendment which he put forward.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman who has just spoken a question. Would he like to become one of the real experts and be a member of the Economic Council or perhaps take over from Dr. Deutsch, whose views I understand are a little different from those of my hon. friend.


George Harris Hees: This is a very generous offer, Mr. Speaker. I would not like to take Dr. Deutsch's place at the moment, but I do accept the minister's invitation to become a

December 8, 1966

member of the Economic Council. I will hold him to it and will expect the invitation to become a member of that council to arrive in my mail within the next few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: And I will accept.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will lose your seat in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. member has completed his speech. I thought the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was taking part in the debate, but it turned out that he wanted to ask a question. It would seem that the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) has completed his contribution to the debate, and I now recognize the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to enter into anything of a controversial nature-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -but in respect of the offer being made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), I would not be so quick as the hon. member for Northumberland to accept the invitation. He would find himself in the position in which some members on the government side of the house now find themselves. I refer to those hon. members who accepted payment from the C.B.C. and wish they had not done so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The acceptance of any fee, even expenses, brings about the unseating of the member; and we do not want the hon. member for Northumberland, with his great knowledge of matters of finance and the like-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -to be removed from the house because of any invitation extended by the Minister of Finance.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that my leader has raised this most important point. Naturally, as applies to all Conservatives, we are only too glad and willing to make our services available free of charge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Medicare


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question has now been determined and we look forward to the minister carrying out his undertaking.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that the result of doing so will be beneficial because the hon. member, with his experience as president of the Montreal Stock Exchange, will be able to view these problems with a capacity that the Minister of Finance has not shown up to the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not have taken part again in this debate had it not been that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) found it necessary in the course of his remarks some time ago to quote my words. I shall read what the minister said, as reported at page 9109 of Hansard:
In this connection-
He is referring to the amendment moved on second reading by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
-I would quote from an important columnist in the Conservative party, from an article he wrote two days before the last federal election. The quotation is as follows:
"The Progressive Conservative party will institute a system of medicare, based on a universal, comprehensive program of medical and health services for every Canadian, as outlined in the Hall commission report."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That statement, Mr. Speaker, Is from a by-lined article in the November 6, 1965 edition of the Toronto Star, and the author is the right hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I do not want to credit the minister with any desire to deceive or delude the house, but that is what he did. He quoted a portion of the statement; he omitted the material, additional portion of that statement. I can only conclude his reason was that he was going to make a debating point by stating a half-truth. I want to clarify now what was said. The minister identified the article, which I have before me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't you remember it?


John George Diefenbaker: The article reads in part as follows:
The Progressive Conservative plan will include mental and tubercular patients-left out of the Liberal government's offer-and will be implemented on a step-by-step basis in consultation with the provinces, rather than on the "take-it-or-leave-it" basis offered by the Liberals. We will preserve

December 8, 1966
Medicare
freedom of choice as between patients and doctors and will avoid the features of regimentation implicit in the Liberal plan.
The minister omitted the material words. While it is not permissible in the house to say it was done deliberately, it is proper to say that it was done, although perhaps without the intention of deceiving the house. It was untrue, and the minister must have been aware of that when he said it. He must have been aware that he was placing before the house a complete misstatement as to the viewpoint of the Conservative party. The minister did this in order to answer the amendment that had been moved by the Conservative party on second reading of the bill. This amendment, which is to be found at page 8618 of Hansard, was moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: You
have not been recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has risen on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. An hon. friend of the right hon. gentleman moved an amendment. That amendment has been voted on and it is my understanding that when the house has made a decision on a question, debate on that question cannot be re-opened.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am always greatly impressed by the hon. member. Whenever he rises, his views are of such potency that they naturally cause me to wonder whether in fact they are advanced seriously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am just pointing out the rule.


John George Diefenbaker: This is another example. The minister has about him a kind of effulgence-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that we

return to consideration of the bill and the amendment before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you allowed the interruption that has no basis whatsoever in fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a serious point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am asking-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The comments that were being made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition were directed more at the minister than at his point of order. I think it would perhaps be simpler, and we might make more progress, if we returned to consideration of the substance of the bill and the amendment before the house.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with great deference may I say that if you found the same grounds to object to an interruption as inane as this one, I think you would be very well justified. I was quoting the amendment that had been moved, not commenting on whether or not the house voted on it. I was simply quoting the amendment to indicate that it was entirely in keeping with the policy declaration which I made on November 6, 1965.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will raise my point of order once more and ask for a decision of the Chair as to whether the debate can be revived.


Mr. Speaker:: It certainly cannot be revived. I was listening to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with interest and I thought that his argument made sense. It seems to me I should give him an opportunity to continue.


John George Diefenbaker: The fact that it does make sense indicates that the argument advanced by the hon. gentleman does not.
I was quoting the amendment which we moved. It reads further:
This house, while of the opinion that provision should be made for medical services to be available to all Canadians at an adequate level on a prepaid basis, is nevertheless of the further opinion that no legislation for the provision of insured medical care services in Canada will be satisfactory unless it:
(a)	secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada;
(b)	recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual;
(c)	makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel, and;
December 8, 1966

(d)	Immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
So, the amendment we moved came within all four principles of the enunciated policy. The government found it necessary to change the undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). For 47 years, the Liberal party promised health insurance. For 47 years, during every election, it undertook to bring the legislation into effect. The Prime Minister gave a clear undertaking to the Canadian people when he stated that this legislation would be brought into effect on July 1, 1967.
That the excuse for the postponement is the inflationary trend in this country has been answered by hon. gentlemen who have spoken. There is no possible excuse for the government to flout its undertakings. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) is one to which the minister, if he were true to the principles he enunciated before the rug was pulled from under him by the Prime Minister, could give complete support.
There are many people who need medicare. There was a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) which was entirely applicable to the situation. To use his words: "Too many Canadians live in the shadow of the fear of crushing medical expenditures". These numerous Canadians will be asked to wait a further year from July 1, 1967. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) has expressed his idea of the reason for this unexplained and grossly improper repudiation of the pledged word of the Prime Minister and all with whom he is associated.
Parliament has been criticized. It should be criticized when ministers and leaders of parties make promises and undertakings, and then openly and without shame depart from them. The undertaking was clear and unequivocal. Our attitude was that the promise would not be carried into effect. It was a departure from many of the principles of the Hall commission and, in addition, was based on a declaration by the government that either the provinces accept the four principles enunciated by the Prime Minister or there would be no medicare available to them.
This matter falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In the debate that has taken place, tribute can be paid to many hon. members but I think there are two or three who deserve special mention: one is the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), who moved the amendment in question today,
Medicare
the other is the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), and the third is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), not to mention others. The three hon. members I mentioned devoted themselves to bringing about changes in the government plan which the government finally found necessary to accept.
This is the purpose of parliament. Ministers who take the position of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), and who stubbornly oppose amendments without regard to the benefits which flow from them do not understand parliament. However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) did and he accepted various suggestions which were first regarded as essentially heretical. As the debate went on for five or six days, the government was forced to bring about changes. Public opinion enjoined the government to change its attitude and take account of the views expressed by Canadians in every part of this country, particularly those in the dental and medical professions, the optometrists, chiropractors, and so on. If the legislation had been rushed through in a couple of days, none of the ancillary professions would have received any consideration and none of the changes which have been brought about would have been achieved. This was parliament at its best. Hon. members should stand up and speak up, regardless of the stubbornness of the government in refusing to make changes.
I do not think that some of the amendments go as far as they have been interpreted. I think many of these professions to which I have referred, ancillary to the medical profession, will find in the implementation of the amendments agreed to, there are loopholes which will deny them the consideration which they expect. The matter is left to the provinces. It is the provinces which should determine which professions shall come within the ambit of medicare. Again, may I repeat that while advances have been made through the arguments which were placed before the house there is a possibility that the amendments agreed to will be found, on examination and implementation, to be not as comprehensive as some anticipate.
The amendment which we now move strikes at the heart of the problem which faces Canadians today, namely, respect for parliament. How can there be respect if a government commits an undertaking, advertises it and then produces a specious excuse to postpone the implementation of the promise? The reason which the government advances

December 8, 1966
Medicare
for the postponement is the inflationary trend. The fact remains that the government departs from its undertaking.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Even yet the government might show that it recognizes implicitly the meaning of solemn undertakings given both during an election campaign and for a long time prior thereto. There may be hope, even yet, for redemption on the part of this government. I would go so far as to say that if the minister would permit a free vote on this question, allowing members who sit behind him to cast their vote free of the whip on the understanding that any adverse vote would not be regarded as a vote of non-confidence, he would find that members who speak their views outside the house would join with the opposition in bringing about the attainment of this legislation without making the people of Canada wait for 18 or 19 months.
I can only believe, Mr. Speaker, that the reason, or one of the reasons, for this postponement is that the government knows the plan will not work in its present form. Three provinces only have undertaken to apply it in its present form. The government is assured that the provinces will not accept direction by the federal government as to what they should do in matters peculiarly within their own jurisdiction. That being so, the government would postpone the date of implementation hoping that in the meantime something will happen to make it possible for them to alter the present bill and in co-operation with the provinces bring about legislation that will be effective.
In this way, Mr. Speaker, instead of this legislation merely being placed on the statute book as a postponed declaration of intention, it will be carried into effect.
The acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East will be widely approved in every part of the country. This is what the people want. They want legislation that is effective. As far as the present legislation is concerned, I predict the government knows now that in its present form it cannot be effective. It might be had there been fuller consultation and agreement with the provinces. If this legislation were made effective now Canadians as a whole would realize that the government believes in carrying out its solemn undertakings, and that the flouting of its pledged word will not be tolerated by its supporters.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to see a free vote. A few weeks ago the minister

experienced unusual discomfort. He had declared that the legislation would become effective on July 1, 1967. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) then came along and said no, it shall not be. This is not equality between ministers. However, the discomfort suffered by the Minister of Health and Welfare will disappear and he will triumph in this House of Commons by having the members, not only on the opposition side but on the government side as well, standing firm and saying they will not tolerate such unseemly treatment of a minister of the crown.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we continue, I might perhaps say few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). Although I have accepted it, I think I should offer a word of caution in this regard. The question was raised previously whether or not an amendment can be moved on third reading which would make a specific direction such as this to the committee of the whole. I have taken into account the fact that this amendment instructs the committee to restore a provision which was in the original bill. In view of this particular aspect of the amendment, I feel it should be accepted and considered to be in order.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will not keep the house long because, in company with other members, I had occasion a few days ago to express my views in connection with the alleged economic reasons of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) for the amendment moved by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) at the request of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). The more I study the statement made by the Minister of Finance the other night the more I am persuaded that there is some other reason for the postponement by one year of the effective date of this legislation, a reason that the Minister of Finance has simply not disclosed to parliament.
Every reason that the minister has given, Mr. Speaker, does not stand up to analysis from any point of view. As a matter of fact, the statement he made today that the money supply in the country has just been increased is surely the clearest indication that the Minister of Finance has joined the economic council in the belief that we are more in danger of a levelling off, or indeed of a going down, of our economy than we are of inflationary pressures at the present time. There
December 8, 19G6

is, therefore, no excuse whatever for the postponement by a further year of the implementation of the medicare plan.
When 1 spoke on this matter the other night I aroused the ire of the Minister of Finance, as hon. members who were present will recall, when I suggested that I thought the Minister of Finance had responded to pressures from lobbies with special interests rather than sticking by the promise of his government to the Canadian people. I have studied economics throughout my life and I cannot see the slightest validity to any of the alleged reasons given by the Minister of Finance for postponing this legislation.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are running the risk of the contrary happening. If it is true, as it obviously is, that the rate of growth of the economy is levelling off and the probability is that there will be some sort of dip-I hope a very small dip-in the expansion curve, the likelihood is that the implementation of this plan in 1968 will be a great deal more difficult than it would be in 1967.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There is certainly nothing in the economic picture which would justify the government in saying it would be easier to implement this plan in 1968 than in 1967. On the contrary, I urge the government to see that a tax, or whatever is necessary to raise revenues in order to implement this plan, would be acceptable. A tax imposed for a specific and definite purpose from which everybody in Canada would benefit is not a tax which the people would resent or oppose. As one member of this house-and I speak for all the members of my party-I believe that honesty impels us to say that the introduction of a medicare plan of this sort will mean raising the necessary revenues, federally and provincially, by various tax measures. Nobody in Canada expects to get these benefits for nothing. We do not expect the minister to supply them for nothing. The people of Canada are prepared, however, to transfer the payments which they presently make directly to doctors or group plans, to another fund through the medium of tax payments.
There would be an important difference. Instead of people having to pay their medical bills when they are sick, and can least afford to do so, their bills would be paid automatically; and instead of the payments being made initially on the same basis by the poor as by the rich, the graduated scale of income tax, which I hope would be used as a means of raising this revenue, would mean that those
Medicare
who could afford to pay more would do so in order that poor people would get a medical service without having to pay as much for it as would otherwise be the case, or, indeed, without having to pay anything at all.
This is as easy to do in 1967 as it is likely to be in 1968. Indeed, if the economic situation should take a downward turn, 1968 might easily be a more difficult year. The Minister of National Health and Welfare had, if I may say so, the intelligence and the graciousness to accept urgings from this side of the house that he should give himself a greater degree of flexibility to expand medical services as the provinces expand them, on the authority of the Governor General in Council. This was what my leader, the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) suggested in an amendment he moved some days ago.
I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) without, I hope, any partisan undertones or overtones, to look at this amendment in the same way. Even if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) honestly believed in September last that the Canadian economic situation required a postponement-and I just cannot accept that he could have believed it-I say to the minister and to the government that the advice of the Economic Council, the indications of every economic index one can read, and even the evidence of the Minister of Finance today that the money supply has been increased, underline the fact that there is no longer any reason for postponement, even if three months ago there was one.
I think it would bring to the government of the day, as well as parliament itself, a great deal of credit if hon. gentlemen opposite were flexible enough to accept this amendment and were prepared to carry out the promise which they originally made. The other night the Minister of Finance talked about priorities. He had the new old-age supplementary assistance law to deal with; he had the Canada assistance plan to deal with. He intended to do these things one year, and the other things the second year.
I do not follow that logic at all. First, it seems to me a cynical admission that the statements which the Minister of Finance made in my presence in October and November, 1965, during the election campaign were not honest statements. I refer to the promise made by the Minister, and by other members of the government including the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), that these laws would all be passed and implemented immediately. If one sees

December 8. 1968
Medicare
around Canada today, as every member of this house sees, a great deal of dissatisfaction among our people with the performance of this great institution; if one finds a great deal of cynicism and apathy among the people of Canada, I suggest with all the force I can that one of the reasons-not the only reason-is the callous way in which promises made at election time are disregarded, ignored and betrayed in action. Nothing can do this institution greater harm than the sequence which has occurred in the case of this law. Let us consider what has happened.
First, we had an election in November, 1965, in which the most solemn promise was made that there would be $105 per month minimum income provided for elderly people and that a medicare plan would be introduced immediately. Both these things were promised by July 1, 1967. Either the Minister of National Health and Welfare has to admit that he had no intention of introducing supplementary assistance for the elderly people until the opposition, the Conservatives and the New Democrats, forced him to do so by argument on the floor of this house, or he has to say he intended it anyway; and if he intended it anyway he must have intended it when he brought down the medicare bill and set the date, July 1, 1967 for its implementation.
He and his colleagues, including the Minister of Finance, must have known that the government intended both pieces of legislation to come into effect in 1967. Why the sudden change? I am not saying this in an effort to put the Minister of National Health and Welfare "on the spot", though I do not say it is wrong for a member sitting on the opposition benches to try to do so, but, I am certain in my heart that the minister is as unconvinced by the reasons given by the Minister of Finance as is every member on this side of the house.
I challenge the hon. gentleman to deny this statement. He has not taken part in the debate on this issue. I challenge him to rise and say he agrees with, and accepts, the reasons for postponement put forward by his colleague. I am sure he does not. I am sure, as I said the other night, that the Minister of Finance who is following traditional, reactionary practices in the field of finance, has imposed this postponement on him as he is trying to impose it on this parliament and on the people of Canada. I appeal to the government, as genuinely and as strongly as I can, to reconsider its position.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If the people of Canada are to be persuaded that members of this house, and particularly governments, intend to stand by their promises and do those things which are logically and economically possible, and if the minister himself wishes to wipe off the tarnish which this postponement has placed on his record, then he should urge the government to change its mind on this point, as it changed its mind on the area of coverage. There is not any economic reason for this postponement; there is not any social reason for this postponement; and certainly there is not any political reason for this postponement. There is nothing but obstinacy and reactionary financial considerations that have no relevance to Canada's economy or to the welfare of the country.
I appeal to the minister who, as I said the other night comes from Atlantic provinces, to agree to accept the amendment and go back to the original date, because the one part of Canada that will suffer most from this postponement is the part from which he hales, and the province from which he comes. It is the four Atlantic provinces that can least afford to introduce any medical plan without assistance from the federal treasury, and the minister is condemning those provinces to a further delay of 12 months.
The people of those provinces are among those who earn least in Canada. The per capita income of the people of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick is away below the per capita income of people in B.C., Ontario and the prairie provinces. Those people, if I remember correctly from the Hall commission report indices and tables, are the people who are covered to a lesser proportion than any others throughout the country so far as present plans are concerned. The minister representing those people is, I am sure unwillingly and with broken heart, betraying them by condemning them to a further 12 months without the assistance from the federal treasury which would enable them to have medical plans, at least to the extent that such plans exist in other parts of the country.
We, Mr. Speaker, from this side of the house are trying at this final reading of the bill to see if we can persuade the government again to change its mind, but this time in the right direction, as it did in the amendment to clause 4 of the bill the other day. But I would judge from the fact that the Minister of Finance left the chamber when this debate was under way, and from the sad look on the
December 8, 1966

attractive face of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that our pleas are probably for naught.
Let me say in conclusion to the government that some of us in the house are determined the people of Canada will not forget this betrayal, and that for years to come the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be haunted by the fact he was unable to maintain his position; that his government forced postponement which is unjustified in logic, unjustified in terms of decent behavior by a government, and harmful to this parliament and to Canada as a whole.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). If he had not moved it then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or almost any one of several dozen members of the house on this side would have done so. If they did not, perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) would have had a last minute prick of conscience and done it himself.
In dealing with medicare, many of us have had the problem of declining in our own minds on the voluntary versus compulsory aspects of the scheme. I settled this issue in my mind with the thought that we were putting contributions from all the taxpayers of Canada toward a plan to ensure that every Canadian had at least minimum health services upon which they could rely. This, to my mind, made the compulsory aspect of the scheme attractive. I could solve the problem in my own conscience because nobody would be denied the benefits of good medical services on the ground that they could not afford them.
The argument that is being advanced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), with the Minister of National Health and Welfare as the unwitting Charley McCarthy bouncing up and down on his knee and saying what he is told to say, is that medicare has to be postponed for a year because it is inflationary. What crueller jest was ever perpetrated on the poor people of Canada, some of whom for 50 years have looked to this parliament to do something about their health needs.
For most Canadians, including the members of this chamber, there is no problem of inflation involved in health services. We either pay directly to medical doctors or we pay through group insurance plans. Either way, the payment is made and we receive health services
Medicare
in return for that payment. Under a medicare plan, if we adopt some different method of payment, in this case by payment of taxes, it would be a substitute payment for that which we have been making previously. How can anybody say that this is inflationary?
Approximately the same amount of dollars would be involved. They just go through a different economic channel than before. No flood of new money is created through this method of making payment for medical services. What might be considered inflationary by the Minister of Finance-although I really do not see how he can justify it in his conscience, or how anybody in this house could be allowed to justify it in their conscience-is that somehow we would be extending medical services to poor people who could not otherwise afford them and that this, in effect, constitutes inflation. Mr. Speaker, surely if we have one obligation as members of parliament, no matter to which party we belong, it is to provide the protection and help that society can give to people who cannot get that protection and help themselves. There have been great careers in the House of Commons dedicated to that proposition. Nobody, for example, will take from the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) his concern for the poor and helpless of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: But these, sir, are attitudes of heart and conscience that are shared by all of us in this chamber, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, I suggest, the Minister of Finance as well. But his argument is that we must postpone this plan for a year because he thinks that somehow the economic climate in 1968 is going to be favourable but it is not going to be favourable in 1967. How he can guess what life is going to be like a year and a half from now when, from week to week, the government does not know where it is going financially is beyond me, but maybe they have long range Cassandra-like qualities and none in the short range.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Long range crystal ball.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A long range crystal ball, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) points out; but I make this point again in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe East, that the argument that somehow a process of inflation is

December 8. 1966
Medicare
involved is a shallow argument, a sham argument. The very most medicare could possibly amount to is that we would be giving some help to people too poor to be able to afford medical services for themselves at the present time.
If that is inflation I suggest it is a minimum of inflation. But even if it were, surely it is our bounden duty, consistent with the principles of this country whose servants we are in this place, to try to give a proper health charter to all Canadians. Sir, I reject the argument of the Minister of Finance and his government. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will put some more starch in his spine and threaten to stage a walk-out, or something like that, to bring the members of the government to their senses so that we can all support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at great length on third reading of Bill C-227, an act 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. I made known my views on this legislation during second reading of the bill. Nothing has happened in the interim to change the opinion I expressed on October 18. I believe, however, that I should review the statements made by the minister when he moved second reading of this legislation on October 13. At page 8612 of Hansard he is recorded as saying:-
I do not propose to go into the reasons for this change-
The date of implementing this legislation.
-the necessity for which I greatly regret, as do my colleagues in the government.
A little further on he stated:
The decision to defer the starting date of medicare was based and continues to be based on the government's assessment of the situation as related to economic conditions in the country. If the government had to make the decision today it would be the same decision, but we are determined to proceed not later than July 1, 1968.
These are the minister's words. But 1 ask the minister, in all common sense, why he said what he did when he was speaking in Truro, Nova Scotia, as reported by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of November 10. I hold in
[Mr. McCleave.l
my hand a press clipping which is a report of that meeting. It reads:
Hon. Alan MacEachen, Minister of National Health and Welfare, guest speaker at the meeting, told the Liberal supporters that Nova Scotians benefited richly from the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa last week . . .
But the minister criticized parliament for its slow pace. He blamed this slow pace for the delay in Canada's medicare program. He said the opposition was critical of proceeding with medicare at all, and now that it-
The reference is to the opposition.
-has succeeded in deferring the medicare bill for at least one year, it is critical of the delay. Mr. MacEachen said that the government opposition lacked a consistent policy in the medicare matter. "They don't know whether they stand for or against it," he said.
The minister deliberately blamed the Conservative party for his own delay in implementing medicare. I ask the minister, frankly and fairly, why he conveyed this impression to the people of Nova Scotia.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You may answer when I am finished.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I made no such statement in Truro, in the House of Commons, or in any other place.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the minister's comments. This newspaper clipping is dated November 10, 1966. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first denial of this statement which has been made in this House of Commons or in public anywhere. The obvious truth is that the minister attempted in Nova Scotia to throw the responsibility for his actions on the shoulders of the Progressive Conservative party. This is nothing more than hypocrisy in high places. If we cannot look to the cabinet ministers, who are the leaders of the government today, to provide us with the truth, where are we to look for the truth?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The statement attributed to me in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald is incorrect and was never made. The hon. gentleman must accept that statement which I make on my honour as a member of this house. It ought to be a closed issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am quite sure the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg is familiar with the fact that when a member of this house rises in his place and makes a
December 8. 1966

statement on his honour that statement must be accepted.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, naturally I accept the explanation and the statement given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I only regret that he did not see fit to make this statement at an earlier date.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have never seen the report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In Nova Scotia we are very much accustomed to this type of Liberal politicking, especially during election compaigns. The Liberal party, however, now is the government of this country and I must say, quite frankly, that we look for better things from them while they hold this position. If the hon. member was not reported correctly at Truro-and he states this is so-I urge now, in view of the amendment that has been placed before this house, that he rise in his place and support the amendment. By moving this amendment, we have indicated that we in this party support the principle of medicare. We have asked for its early implementation by July 1, 1967. Now is the time for the minister to make his position clear and to get his members to support the early implementation of this program to which we on this side have given our support.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments which I should like to make in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). There will be no argument with the words I quote here if I refer to the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). I wonder whether he recalls the words he used, as reported at page 7548 of Hansard, in respect of bringing the medical care measure into being on July 1, 1967. A good deal was said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) concerning the fact that it was impossible to afford this plan at this time. At page 8217 of Hansard the Minister of Finance is recorded as saying:
Obviously this decision on medicare was a difficult one for this government to make because we have been, and remain, so strongly in favour of this major social reform. We feel, however, that the delay will help to meet the immediate-
I underline the word "immediate"
-financial problems of both the federal and provincial governments and contribute to the ultimate success of the program.
Medicare
Now, the Minister of Finance has made this statement about immediate problems. We have a bill which will not come into effect until July 1, 1968. The minister has said that by delaying this program we will help the immediate problem. Who is right? Is the Minister of Finance right or is the Minister of National Health and Welfare right? At page 7549 of Hansard the Minister of National Health and Welfare, referring to the financial problems and the principles of the bill, is reported as saying:
The response from the provinces has, I must say, been most encouraging. Some provinces have already indicated their readiness to proceed by our target date of July 1, 1967. Others have not been in a position to commit themselves, although some of these pointed out that they would be able to change existing plans to meet the principles described above.
This refers to the guide lines in the bill.
I should like to state that no province has stated that it will definitely not participate although, as hon. members are undoubtedly aware, the premier of Alberta has expressed criticism of the proposal.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Surely the important thing is that some provinces have already indicated their readiness to proceed. According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) no one is in a position to proceed because we do not have the money. There may be some truth in that, but how much money will it cost to implement this plan next year?
The minister made a great deal, about the situation before the bill was deferred when he said that we were really not going to spend a lot of extra money, we were just going to redistribute what is now being spent on medical care. I suggest they cannot have this both ways. The Minister of Finance cannot say that we are going to tax extensively in order to provide this kind of care when the minister of health says we will not have to tax to any great extent because we are just redistributing what is being spent. Let me quote the minister's words from page 7548 of Hansard. He is recorded as having said:
If such a program were to be provided in all provinces next year, it is estimated that the cost to the federal treasury for a full year would be $340 million.
He then went on and qualified that statement:
It has been estimated that approximately $600 million would be spent next year on physicians' services if no change were made in the present methods of providing these services. I would ask hon. members, therefore, to compare the estimates on which we are basing public expenditures for public programs covering the whole population if

December 8, 1966
Medicare
these go into effect next year, namely, a total of $680 million including the provincial share of half the costs. Thus, by redistributing the estimated $600 million and adding another $80 million, all residents of all the provinces of Canada will have physicians' services available to them.
Admittedly these are estimates, but I am sure they are accurate ones in view of the excellent staff the minister has available. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of these figures. There is a great deal of truth in what the minister said earlier, but how do his words jibe with the words of the Minister of Finance? Surely, one of these ministers is wrong; is it the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen)? As I said before, they cannot have this both ways. The people of Canada do not know what to think. They hear, on the one hand, that we cannot afford this program and, on the other, that we are not going to spend a great deal because we will be redistributing certain moneys.
We are being asked to give top priority to this bill which will not be put into effect for a year and a half. I thought the minister's statement which appears at the bottom of page 7549 of Hansard was rather good. It reads:
It is our hope it will result in the commencement of provincial medical care plans covering all Canadians on the 100th birthday of confederation, July 1, 1967.
I agree with that sentiment, and that is why I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). We are trying to help the minister celebrate this birthday in the manner in which I know in his heart, he thinks it should be celebrated.
So far as the $40 million which the government will have to spend is concerned, I can think of a number of projects which could be dropped immediately and thereby save the government at least that amount. We could defer the construction of a C.B.C. building in Montreal. One has already been built for Expo '67, but it will be used only temporarily. We are now going to build another one for $70 million. Surely, the C.B.C. could use the one which already exists.
We could also scrap the executive jet program which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said will cost $87 million. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) corrected him and said this program would cost only $67 million. Surely, it could be scrapped in order that we would have the $40 million needed.


An hon. Member:: What about uniforms?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Yes, a great deal of money will be spent on uniforms. We could forget about that project for the time being because all members of our forces now have uniforms. There are many places where this money could be saved.
I should like to see every member of this house vote for this amendment so that those people who cannot wait until 1968 for health services could be assisted in meeting these expenses. In this way, Canada could show that it is a country interested in the people as well as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, aircraft industries and a few clothing companies, all of which will benefit from certain expenditures by this government.
The minister is well aware of that group of people in this country represented by the cystic fibrosis association which has pointed out the sad lack of funds available to look after these unfortunate children. A tremendous expense faces the families who must care for these children in order that they may just grow up, and this was not even possible a few years ago.
It is encumbent upon every member of this house to do everything possible to make funds and facilities available as soon as possible to provide care not only for children suffering from cystic fibrosis, but for every one who needs medical assistance. I urge the minister to vote for this amendment. It is unlikely that he will do so, but I am sure if he could vote with his heart he would vote for it. It is my wish that every member of this house will have the opportunity to fulfil the minister's hopes as expressed in that statement which I read from Hansard. The minister said at that time:
It is our hope it will result in the commencement of provincial medical care plans covering all Canadians on the 100th birthday of confederation, July 1, 1967.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for me to say anything that has not already been covered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand). I should like, however, to emphasize some of the points referred to by those hon. members.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the government's promises in respect of medicare since 1919, and the fact that now the measure had been put before the house it was being postponed. One minister contradicted
December 8, 1966

another as to the reasons for this postponement. Let me rern.nd the government that this is not the only promise the government has broken. I recall reading not long ago in the Halifax paper referred to a few minutes ago a comparison of the arguments put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). It is understandable that Nova Scotia would support the Minister of National Health and Welfare but, as I said before, who other than the Grits, could make a victory out of a broken promise.
Let me also emphasize what the hon. member for York South said in respect of the need for this particular program in the Atlantic provinces. Let me direct the minister's attention to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) on a recent visit to Nova Scotia. He referred to the severe poverty throughout this country. His remarks preceded those of Mr. MacLean, the M.L.A. for Inverness who stated that the situation in Inverness was worse than anywhere else in the country. There is a tremendous need for a health care program in the Atlantic provinces, and particularly in that constituency represented by the hon. M.nister of National Health and Welfare. I hope he will keep this in mind when the members of this house are given the opportunity to vote. I am sure if a free vote were permitted the hon. minister would be del.ghtfully surprised by the support which would be forthcoming from his own backbenchers who cannot make up their minds Without being told what to do.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
When I say that, I think of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart), who sits here day after day and does not make any representations on behalf of his people in Nova Scotia. I ask him to repeat what he has said outside the house about the medicare plan. I invite him to make his views known in the house as well as outside it. I would also emphasize the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax, who indicated that, upon examination the arguments put forward by the Minister of Finance are found to be ridiculous. How can anybody justify the minister's arguments. How can he justify them himself? The final compromise which was arrived at, according to the Minister of Finance, was that this plan would be put off until 1968. This compromise was made so that the plan could be brought in when economic conditions permitted its introduction. But the original intention of the minister was to slow down the 23033-688
Medicare
boom. If that is the case, how can any government that has not a crystal ball, which they may have inherited from another age, say: "We will bring in this plan when the economy permits", and put a specific date on its introduction? This is most ridiculous.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that he has been pushed into a corner, despite his threat to resign. Perhaps if he had been a little stronger in his intention at that time he would have won the v.ctory, as has been pointed out in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, and the Minister of Finance would have been the loser. I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand). The hon. member referred to the excellent staff of the minister. I cannot imagine the minister's personal staff overlooking the speech he made in Truro. In my opinion, this would be most unlikely. The minister maintained he had not seen these statements before. The rules make us accept the statement made by the minister with regard to that speech; but in spite of all the rules that we must accept his statement, this does not necessarily mean we believe it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Malcolm MacInnis: The former minister is saying "Shame". When you consider why he is a former minister of this house, I think he has a great deal of gall to say "Shame".


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-*


Mr. Prud'homme:: A question of privilege has been raised. Sit down.


Malcolm MacInnis: -referring once again-


René Tremblay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


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


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to ask the hon. member to apologize for ascribing to me words which I

December 8. 1966
Medicare
did not say at all. In addition, I should like to ask him to recant what he said after accusing me.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member mind repeating his question of privilege? I missed it.


René Tremblay: I will say it in English, Your Honour.


Some hon. Members:: No.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member to withdraw what he said. First, I did not say "Shame" at all; second, the hon. member referred to me as a former minister who should not raise a question like that in the house. Those two statements are completely wrong, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his words.
circulated freely. The minister has accepted this reason. I say to the minister that it is a poor reason and is one that should make him turn to his colleagues, especially the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, and say; We should support this amendment because it is very worth while.
The people of Nova Scotia need this plan; the people of Inverness are in dire need of it. The minister is a Nova Scotian whose home town is Inverness, and for that if for no other reason he and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough should support the amendment. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough does not have the gumption to repeat in the house what he has said outside about the delay in implementing medicare and the medicare program itself. He and the minister should support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has stated his objection to what was said. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton South should now be allowed to continue.


Rémi Paul: What a contribution.


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


Rémi Paul: Withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would probably give the Minister without Portfolio an opportunity to withdraw his remarks, too, if he were to rise on a question of privilege. Is he going to deny it also? The Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated that now, for the first time, he has become aware of statements credited to him by the Halifax newspaper following a meeting he had in Truro.
As the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) has pointed out, it is very strange that it has taken this long for the minister to become aware of what he was reported to have said and to make his first denial at such a late date. I would call the minister's attention to another bit of publicity that circulated around Nova Scotia. This statement has been drawn to his attention on a number of occasions, and he has never taken the opportunity to deny it. It is too late to rise now in the house on a question of privilege because this matter has been raised here before and the minister has never denied it.
Why did the minister not deny the publicity that circulated around Nova Scotia to the effect that the reason the Minister of Finance stopped the medicare program coming into effect on July 1, 1967, and put it back to 1968, was simply to stop his bid for leadership within the Liberal party? This publicity has been


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was paired with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson). Had I voted I would have supported the motion made by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard).


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege which I would draw particularly to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). What sort of precedent has been established here this afternoon when we find the Liberal government and its supporters voting against their own promises?
Addison	Haidasz
Allmand	Harley
Andras	Honey
Asselin	Hopkins
(Richmond-Wolfe)	Hymmen
Badanai	Isabelle
Basford	Johnston
Batten	Lachance
Bechard	Laing
Beer	Lamonta gne
Benson	Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Berger	Leblanc (Laurier)
Blouin	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Boulanger	Leboe
Brown	Lefebvre
Byrne	Legault
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Lessard
Cameron (High Park)	Loiselle
Cantin	Macaluso
Cardin	MacEachen
Cashin	Mackasey
Chatwood	Mcllraith
Chretien	McLean (Charlotte)
Clermont	McNulty
Comtois	McWilliam
Cote (Longueuil)	Marchand
Cowan	Martin (Essex East)
Crossman	Matte
Deachman	Mongrain
Drury	Munro
Emard	Neveu
Faulkner	Nicholson
Forest	O'Keefe
Foy	Otto
Gendron	Patterson
Coyer	Pearson
Gray	Pennell
Groos	Pepin
Guay	PickersgiU
Habel	Pilon


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, again I was paired with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), he not having returned between the first and second votes.
Bill read the third time and passed.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. MacEachen.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I r.se on a point of order? In v.ew of the fact that it is ten minutes to s x o'clock, I wonder if we could have agreement to recess for the d.nner hour?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think the min ster would I ke to get started before s x o'clock. I do not know what the opposition house leader wishes to suggest about the other business. There is private members' hour today, and if we could go on until six o'clock with this order, I would speak to him to find out exactly what he has in mind.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the second) reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the bill
before the house represents an important development in the structure of social security in Canada. It is a measure that will take its place bes de the Canada Pens on Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, and w thin the old age security program to give this country one of the most advanced and most complete systems of income maintenance for its retired citizens. Briefly, the bill before the house proposes to amend the Old Age Security Act to ensure a guaranteed income of at least $105 a month to those old age security recipients who were born in 1910 or earlier.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
++NAYS
Messrs:
Johnston	Thompson-2.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. 
It is a 40 per cent increase in the old age security pension. It encompasses only those born in 1910 or earlier, or those who now are 56 years of age or over. Because it is a transitional measure which will operate while the
December 8, 1966

contributory retirement pension program is matur.ng, it will therefore be payable only to those current and future old age security recipients who, by reason of age only, will be unable to benefit substantially, if at all, from the provis.ons of the Canada or Quebec plans.
Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding this b 11 was before the committee I tried to give members a fairly detailed account of the main prov sions and principles of this program. I will not try to delay the house by go.ng over the same ground, but there are a few points I should like to make. These points have to do with the distribution of benefits under the program, the cost of the program, the determination of benefits and also the appeal procedure in the bill.
During the debate a few days ago hon. members opposite from all parties renewed their demand for a flat rate increase in the present old age security pension. Mr. Speaker, I readily admit that as a political gambit this approach has a certain simple, surface appeal. But, I ask, is it the most effective way to provide adequate income to Canada's older people who need help most, and is it the most respons-ble and conscientious deployment of the government's financial resources? On both counts, I suggest the answer is a clear and definite no.
Under the guaranteed income program, we est mate that between half a milion and 600,000 old age security recipients will be entitled to the whole $30 a month. This, with the present $75 a month universal pension, will give them a guaranteed income of $105 or $1,260 a year. For married couples, where both are receiving old age security, the monthly income will be $210 or $2,520 a year.
Under the alternative proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker), half a million or more of Canada's old age pensioners would get $60 a year less than they will receive under this new guaranteed income program. As a group, these older people, under the opposition formula, would lose out on at least $30 million a year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If you want to say that this program-the guaranteed income program-is slanted in the direction of the less well off, then I accept that description. But it is strange, indeed, to see hon. friends opposite, particularly those in the para-corner to my right, wax so eloquent and emotional about a program which would deprive the less well off
Old Age Security Act Amendment so that the relatively better off can have more. Such a stance ill suits their rigid dogmas of yesterday.
When hon. members of the official opposition rose in their places Monday night to vote against the introduction of the resolution preceding the bill, they voted to deny at least an additional $30 million a year to at least half a million elderly Canadians.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is unexpected behaviour indeed from a party which has put itself forward so assiduously and so consistently as the champion of the country's senior citizens. I can conclude only that hon. gentlemen opposite did not fully understand the terms of the program when they took this position. I can only repeat to them the advice which I have received from them so frequently in the last few weeks and ask them to re-examine their position, not to be stubborn in this mistake, and to abandon the stereotypes which were reflected in their vote of the other evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If hon. members opposite, and members of the New Democratic Party, will see that by adopting this proposal they are putting additional millions of dollars in the pockets of pensioners who need help most, then I will say, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that this is parliament at its best.
No doubt it would have been simpler in the short run to have raised the old age security pension to $100 a month for all the recipients of old age security-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Without a means test.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but I suggest that the use of the contemporary guaranteed income approach makes for better use of federal financial resources and gives more help to those who are trying to get by on limited means.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me illustrate. Under the opposition proposals, incorporated in an amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, some 54 members-over half the population-of the other place and some 16 members of this chamber would qualify for the $25 monthly increase. These persons all have reasonably good incomes-$12,000 a year
December 8, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment or more at least-and, of course, will not qualify under the guaranteed income approach; or, at least they will not qualify so long as they are members of this parliament and are drawing salaries.


Mr. Soulham:: A red herring.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are able to do more for those of lower and modest incomes because we provide no benefits for such groups. I make no apology for the fact that we have not included such income brackets so that we can give more to the more than half a million Canadians who have no income other than the $75 a month flat rate pension.
In my view a government has responsibilities toward all sections of the population, but it is not always easy to balance judiciously these responsibilities. Clearly, we owe it to our older people-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, Mr. Speaker, one member is not going to hold up the work of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Transport wants to break the rules. The rules say "Six o'clock".


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to you, sir, I request that every member of this house be treated alike. I see no reason why the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who consistently talks about rudeness in this house, should be permitted to rise-not in his own place and out of order -to make an interjection in this house. Furthermore, he has done so without recognition from the Chair, and has continued to do this.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Monteith:: The Speaker is in the chair, but he would not know that.


Robert Muir: He continually ignores the Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor on a point of order, and I suggest the house should give him an opportunity to conclude his remarks.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Minister of Transport continually ignores the rules of this

house, yet he is very quick to use the word "rudeness" in respect of other hon. members. He has today completely ignored your jur.s-diction. He has spoken from a place other than his own, though I suspect he would probably like to occupy that seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He would rather be in the seat next to the one in which he sits.


Robert Muir: He would love that.


Malcolm MacInnis: That
hon. gentleman expressed some worry this afternoon about whether his government would be in power in 1968. With all due respect, it is time the Chair disciplined the Minister of Transport. He should not and cannot be allowed to get away with this type of behaviour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Send him to the Senate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would appear that the house is in agreement.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request you to point out to the Minister of Transport that he was out of order. I do not think I am going beyond my privilege in this house in asking the Chair to put that minister in his place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I can safely assure the hon. member for Cape Breton South that any member who speaks from a place other than h;s own when the Speaker is in the chair is out of order.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to a consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions and public bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard), Canadian economy-imposition
December 8, 19G8



of ceiling on food prices; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), National defence- substitution in descriptive wording on aircraft; the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), Parliament hill-request for debate before alterations or additions.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, before you call private members' business, I wonder whether there could be some agreement and an order of the house to the effect that we consider the first bill on the order paper, S-25, then adjourn for an hour for dinner. I make this suggestion in view of the fact the second bill is h ghly contentious and would, in any event, take up the whole hour.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: With reference to the suggest.on of the hon. member for T miskam'ng, let me say that I am the sponsor of the second bill on the order paper. In view of his suggestion, I would be glad to have that bill stood so that we can proceed with the others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I understand it, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has suggested that we consider Bill S-25, and after it is given second reading we suspend our sitting.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I suggested that an order of the house be made to the effect that when we have given second reading to Bill S-25 we suspend our sitting for an hour for dinner.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: My suggestion is that we do not adjourn but that we stand the second item on the order paper and proceed with the th rd and so on in order that we can use the private members' hour to the best advantage.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps we could adjourn from seven until eight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could the latter part of the hon. member's suggestion be accepted, that whenever we complete private bills we recess for an hour?


George James McIlraith: I think that would be agreeable, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to interfere with private members' business, but in view of the fact that we have asked hon. members on several occasions to forego this hour in order to deal with legislation I think it would be agreeable, at whatever time the house wished,
Private Bills
to suspend the sitting for one hour for a dinner break.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-25, to incorporate the North West Life Assurance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The North West Life Assurance Company of Canada is asking for incorporation by this bill, in order to acquire the r.ghts and property and to assume the liabilit.es of the North West Life Assurance Company incorporated by the legislative assembly of British Columbia on March 2, 1956. That company carries on business in the province of British Columb'a and is licenced to carry on business in the province of Alberta. It writes life insurance, personal accident insurance and sickness insurance in those two provinces.
Since the time of its incorporation the company has shown a growth in new business and in assets, and as at December 31, 1965 its life insurance in force was more than $55 million. The company mainly sells life insurance and the underwriting of accident and sickness insurance is only a small part of its business.
The purpose of this bill is to incorporate this company under a federal statute in order that it can take over the assets and liabilities of the provincial company. It would of course become subject to all the federal laws applicable to insurance companies. The company is under the management of officers in the insurance business and I hope that the house will give this bill second reading so it can be referred to the committee for detailed examination.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up very much of the time of the house in respect of this bill, and at the outset I want to make it clear that I am not gunning for this bill or its sponsors. I am tempted to dilate for a moment in respect of the oddity of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) is sponsoring this bill to incorporate a company which has as a provisional director an individual to whom the hon. member took strong exception when he was

December 8, 1966
Private Bills
proposed as a provisional director of a new chartered bank.
I want to speak very seriously about this continued proliferation of life insurance companies. This is something we should look at very carefully because it is causing a fragmentation of the machinery by which the savings of Canadian people are pooled. Moreover, this cannot help but increase the cost of life insurance to Canadian people because each one of these companies requires staff and heavy overhead. They all have to participate in a pool of savings of a definite and finite size.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I feel very strongly about this situation because I have heard rumours that one life insurance company to which we granted incorporation not long ago is now in serious difficulty. I would be very disturbed to think that some of these insurance companies, and I am not suggesting for one moment that this one is necessarily a case in point, may get into financial difficulty and add to the disquiet of the Canadian public at the present time regarding various financial institutions in this country. In fact, during one of the hearings of the committee of which I am a member, the committee of finance, trade and economic affairs, I took up this question of the endless addition of life insurance companies in Canada with the Superintendent of Insurance. I asked whether he felt that the addition of new life insurance companies would be conducive to providing life insurance at more reasonable rates for the Canadian people, or would it not rather, in this case, prove that competition merely increases costs to the consumer. Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance, of course had to be very careful and said he could not answer that question, but he did say, and this will be found in the record of that committee, that his department was beginning to ask itself whether we needed all these new life insurance companies.
I suggest that the government seriously consider sett'ng up some form of inquiry, whether it be a royal commission or some other board of inquiry, into the operations of the life insurance industry of Canada to see in which way the needs of the Canad'an people can best be served. I have expressed the view several times that when we set up the Canada pension plan we should have had this in mind. That pension plan should have been extensive enough to offer alternative programs above the basic pension to various people in Canada. Those who wished to invest more in it by way 
of making larger payments into the fund in order to increase their retirement pension should have been allowed to do so, with the hope that eventually most of the life insurance of the Canadian people would be in the hands of the public authority. I am convinced that if we incorporate many more of these insurance companes, the government will have no alternative but to proceed along these lines. I suppose from that point of view I should welcome each bill that comes before us; but I am seriously disturbed, in view of the very dislocated developments in our financial institutions in recent months, about this cont'nual addition to the already innumerable life insurance companies in this country.
I hope the government and the Department of Insurance will look into the whole question and at some time be able to g ve us a report on the costs of providing life insurance for the Canadian people, and in what way those costs are affected each t:me a new insurance company is established with its own staff of com-m'ssion agents and other employees, all of whom have to draw their revenues from the same pool of savings. I cannot see that this can have anything but a deleterious effect on the provision of life insurance to the Canadian people. I hope we will soon see the last of these endless bills to incorporate life insurance companies in th's country.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, for some time we have been concerned about the incorporation of companies, and we are very pleased with the work the house leader and the government have done in respect of many private bills. But we are exceedingly perturbed by the fact that we have so many bills put before us asking for the incorporation of insurance companies. It is quite true that some companies ask for much less than incorporation. In many cases they ask for only a change in name to give legality to the name in the other language. But many of these compames come under the terms of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and apply for incorporation that will allow them to provide a wide coverage of insurance, including life insurance, personal accident and sickness.
Obviously, many of these companies are of the opinion that legislation will be enacted that will enable them to get a running start in th's field. It is interesting to consider, in connection with this bill, the bill we were discussing a few weeks ago. At that time we were speaking of the provincialism of certain
December 8, 1966

people in relation to the Bank of British Columbia. One of the executives of the insurance company named in this bill appears to have the same name as a director of the Bank of British Columbia. He is a director of the bank, and it is proposed that he be an executive of this insurance company. This is an ind'cation, in my opinion, that in their sponsorship of this bill, the Liberal party is joining hands much more openly than has been apparent in the past with the Social Credit party, which always votes with them. It appears that they are now joining hands financially in ass sting the establishment, first of a bank that is not going to do what they thought it would do, and second in the establishment of an insurance company that will be able to take advantage of a bill which will allow for the establishment on a provincial basis of private carriers in the health insurance field.
I suggest that perhaps this company believes it can get off to a runmng start from a small beg nning because its capital stock will be only $1 milbon divided into $10 shares. Of course, when the company has raised l'ttle more than half that amount of money it will be in business. If it got the nod from the government of British Columbia that it would be the carrier for the Brit sh Columbia medical insurance plan, receiving federal support, the company would be extremely valuable in a very short period of t'me. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate this part'cular executive officer, who is also a director of the Bank of British Columbia, because he does not seem to have missed any bets. He is a very pohtically-minded person in that he has always been able to take advantage of any situation that m'ght arise.
This is not necessarily what the N.D.P. has had in mind for years with respect to the establishment of this type of private company. This company is obviously designed to operate in the publ:c field. In th's case, it seems there will be an opportunity for the company to be a dummy corporation of the government of British Columbia, and that government will have more success in turning this carrier to the health insurance field than they have in turning the assets of the province over to the bank. In both these bus'nesses the same gentleman is involved. I believe this raises a problem which we do not appear to be capable of handling. The information supplied in committee reports in respect of these bills does not indicate any necessity for the provision of additional insurance companies. The
Private Bills
fact that this company has its headquarters in Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, is an indication that it will be providing in that province a service that is not already being provided. If this is not so, what is the reason for a certificate having been granted to this company by the Department of Insurance to establish in a field in which they are not now concerned? I have mentioned one gentleman in connection with the company, but it is impossible for me to tell whether all the other executive officers are oriented in the same direction. This may not be the case. However, the point I make is that we do not know whether they are. It is a fact that that we are frittering away a great deal of the money that should be used for the development of our nation.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I think this is exemplified by the recent application made to the National Energy Board in which the government indicated that the trans-Canada pipe line should go through Canada because that was in the national interest of the country, and that Canadians should control this particular company. Yet in the same breath the government said it was impossible to raise $200 million because such a sum was not available in Canada for the building of that line. I suggest it is not available because it is tied up in small amounts of $10. It would not be possible for th:s company to gather together 60,000 people with $10 shares which would be necessary to start the operation of the company. The government does not have a method of raising such money and a company which is operating in the public utility field is not capable of raising the sum of $200 million. Yet, we have incorporated a sufficient number of companies in the insurance field this year to assemble $200 million. I suggest that, because of the size of this sum, we should make it our business to look into what the insurance companies are doing. I am not opposed to insurance companies but I am in a poor position as a legislator to decide whether or not we need more insurance companies.
I think any kind of insurance can be bought in Canada. By underwriting with Lloyds, it is possible to buy any insurance that is available anywhere else in the world. There are many carriers available here and the type of insurance which is being provided by the company which is requesting incorporation under the bill before us is being provided by many other agencies. Unless there is some ulterior motive in incorporating these companies, I really

December 8, 1966
Private Bills
think there is no justification in doing so. Surely, we are not interested in the creation of these companies for the simple reason of dividing the amount of money that is deposited by the people who are being insured so that it is not available to the Bank of Canada or to the Canadian public in the form of loans. These large sums of money are being tied up, and yet many institutions which wish to borrow money, such as schoolboards and other agencies of importance to our nation, have to turn to the government for financial assistance.
There is another reason we are opposed to the incorporation of these companies, and it is even more cogent than the reason I have just mentioned. We are of the opinion that a number of these insurance companies are being used by very unethical operators. We have some information that one company which was incorporated by us the other day is controlled by a group whose reputation would certainly not withstand any scrutiny, and yet a member of this house was willing to sponsor this company. It is also a fact that other companies with which he is involved are rumoured to be very close to bankruptcy. The particular company to which I have referred has changed its form of insurance for the sole purpose of diverting money into the field of insurance so as to provide a guarantee against the bankruptcy which is facing a number of other institutions, all of which will cause a great disruption in our nation.
Therefore, I think that hon. members who introduce these bills have a responsibility and so do the parliamentary agents who represent us. I think the standing committee which considers these bills has a responsibility which it has not been able to exercise in the past. The members of this committee are not capable of doing so because they do not have the necessary mach'nery to investigate the reasons behind the creation of these companies.
I am in complete agreement with a number of hon. members who have suggested to me that we should not issue letters patent to these insurance companies but that we should keep some control over them. They have used the argument that if these companies were placed under provincial jurisdiction, as are many of the other institutions, we would find the same problems arising as have already arisen in the case of the other institutions which are operating under provincial letters patent. I agree with this argument but I also think that we have been very lucky we have not had more disasters among the financial institutions of Canada because we are really not exercising

the type of control over these companies which is required. I think it is rather ridiculous to allow people to buy insurance from a company from which we have not demanded a guarantee before allowing it to be established. We are asked, and we probably will grant the North West Life Assurance Company of Canada a licence, but we do not in any way protect the people who might be abused by the permit that we intend to grant.
We have not decided who are to be the shareholders. We have only said that the company shall not commence any business of insurance until $600,000 of the capital stock has been subscribed. Why are we asking for such a large amount of money to be subscribed? Why should somebody wish to subscribe to an insurance company, and to this one in particular? We should require that 10,000 subscribers come forth before we issue a licence to form this company. What we can do in this particular case is to have Mr. Gunderson, and several of his associates, put up the whole sum of $600,000 after which they can go into business. As soon as they collect a sufficient amount of money they can take their $600,000 out of the company. The hon. member shakes his head. I suggest that shares should be bought from the money originally deposited, and certainly there are indications that this has been the procedure used by some companies. The people who originally put up the money subsequently controlled the company and transferred the money to some other institution. This reminds me of the gentleman who was telling me of a stock transaction which he made. He thought it was a good idea to buy stock in a certain company because he was told that this small company had assets amounting to $300,000.
What happened was that the fellow who walked off with the $300,000 which was in the treasury of that company left a note, which he had no intention of ever redeeming. This note was legitimately listed in the auditors' report as an asset of the agency against which the stock was being sold.
I suggest that members of parliament should give serious consideration to this in the light of what happened to the Bank of British Columbia. It appears that what these people were not able to do in one field, the British Columbia government decided to do in another field. I suggest that this might be what has happened in this case. If that is so, then I wonder whether the members of this house would be willing to set up a company for the Social Credit government in British Columbia
December 8, 1966

which would be established solely for the purpose of operating its health insurance program on federal moneys. I suggest that if one person put up the majority of the stock it would not be unreasonable to assume that Mr. Bennett would control this insurance company and all the money going into it, and that the insurance company would really be an agency of that provincial government.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this is what they want, and whether the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill would be prepared to set up that kind of company. I also wonder whether h's colleagues would be willing to join him. I wonder what price they would pay for supplying the British Columbia government with an agency to operate a health insurance program s'milar to the one we have just passed. I suggest that this would be the fastest capitalization of a company for many years. It might only take a few weeks after royal assent before the company would be in a position to handle all of the insurance in British Columbia. I suggest to hon. members from British Columbia that they should think about whether or not they want this kind of arrangement in their province.
I may be doing a great injustice to this company and the men and women listed in the bill, but it is interesting to note that the bill asks that the company be given a French name as well as an English name. For this reason, I suppose we can assume that the activities of the company will not be limited as they have to date. But it does make me rather suspicious, knowing full well the history of the preceding bill, when I see the same gentleman's name turning up again, especially since attempts were being made at that time to have the Bank of British Columbia operated by the provincial government, to the advantage I am sure, of the government of British Columbia. To me this is an indication that there may be a similarity between these two bills. If this is the case, then the Liberal party will have to answer for the bill and may find the situation much more difficult than was anticipated.


Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) when he introduced this bill for second reading, the bill in effect is similar to a number of other bills with respect to insurance companies which have been 23033-6891
Private Bills
before this house during this session of parliament inasmuch as it is a company which has been provincially incorporated and now seeks to extend its field of operation through the acquisition of a federal charter.
Since it has been a British Columbia company, I find myself perusing, with perhaps more interest than on previous occasions when we have been considering similar bills, the names of the people who are listed as the directors and shareholders prior to incorporation of the company.
I might say that one of the things having this bill before us accomplishes is that we find out the full names of various people. I am intrigued to discover that the full name of a certain well known person in British Columbia, who is described in the bill as an executive, is Einar Maynard Gunderson. Quite frankly, I had not heard about the Maynard part of that name before. Another quite well known person, who was considerably active in the field of shipping in British Columbia, is listed here as an executive under the name of Captain Harold John Cameron Terry. I am not going to spell out the names of all the other persons listed. Some of them are from outside the province of British Columbia, from the city of Calgary, the city of Lethbridge, two from the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario. These names have hitherto been unfamiliar to me.
Like my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), I was intrigued to discover that Einar Maynard Gunderson was one of the directors of this company cited in the bill that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was apparently pleased to sponsor. This was especially true in view of certain discussions which took place in connection with another bill which my colleague mentioned, namely that concerning the Bank of British Columbia.
I am not sure whether my colleague from Timiskaming is expressing well-grounded fears when he suggests that this company, under its terms of incorporation and in view of the personnel involved, will immediately move into a preferred position in the field of sickness insurance in the province of British Columbia. In view of the kind of interest occasionally expressed by the premier of British Columbia, the hon. member and other hon. members should be concerned that perhaps this is a sinister plot to move eastwards from British Columbia and take over the entire insurance field in Canada.

December 8, 1366
Private Bills


Frank Howard: It would do it a lot of good.


Mr.   Barnell@: My colleague from Skeena suggests that this might do it a lot of good. This might be a debatable point in some people's minds, but like the hon. member for Skeena I can assure the house that I am a very proud and loyal resident of the province of British Columbia. Indeed, I feel it does have much to offer for the emulation of the rest of Canada. If I may say so, I do not refer in this connection to the kind of government administration we have there at this particular moment in time.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I think it has become obvious from some of the discussions which have taken place in connection with incorporations, reincorporations or ex-tentions of insurance companies which have been placed before us that some of us are much concerned over what has become a very evident trend in Canada at the present time. As my colleague from Timiskaming suggests, we are beginning to wonder, if the charters of all these new insurance companies were stretched end to end, whether we would have a paper sidewalk extending from one end of Canada to the other. However, we have indicated that our concern over what is happening in the whole field of investment of funds in Canada is deep and real.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We regard this rash of bills designed to expand and multiply the operations of private insurance companies as being a reprehensible step. Some hon. members have suggested that this is a right under what we call a free enterprise economy. We have tried to explain that while we have some recognition of the value of competition in productive enterprises, our view is that insurance companies as they have operated in the past and as they are operating now, are not really competitive and are certainly not productive of new wealth in this country. We believe their effect is to deflect the savings of Canadian citizens in certain directions, and our position, as is well known, is that it would be more desirable if the savings of our people were channelled in directions which would ensure that the flow of investments would be in a correct proportion according to the needs of the economy and the Canadian people as a whole.
The net effect of the proliferation of these companies is to reduce the flow of investment funds available in Canada at a time when we are in dire need of investment capital. We believe the multiplicity of overhead charges involved in the kind of expansion of which this

bill is an example simply reduces the residual amount which is available for capital development in this country in any direction, leaving aside the question of whether or not a greater proportion of available savings should be directed in such a manner as to come under public control. It seems to me that these repeated proposals for the incorporation of life insurance companies should cause us particular concern in the light of certain of the discussions which have taken place in this chamber in recent weeks, and of statements of the kind made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) about the inflationary pressures on the economy.
There has been a good deal of talk about tight money. I am suggesting that if we continue to permit the multiplication of insurance companies which will siphon off more and more of the savings of the Canadian people, the fears expressed by the Minister of Finance and others about what some people call "tight money" will become increasingly well founded. I draw the attention of the house to the superfluous overhead expenses brought about by a multiplicity of office operations which shift more and more Canadians into what I deem to be useless and unproductive occupations.
So it is with regret and concern that I see these bills being introduced one after another, particularly when in this instance, as in others, the sponsor, the hon. member who accepts responsibility for introducing these measures into the chamber, has completely failed to justify his action in the terms set out in the preamble to the bill where it is stated: it is expedient to enact this legislation. My basic argument is that it is not expedient to do so and for this reason, as far as I am concerned, this proposal, together with similar proposals, should be rejected by the house.
My contention is that the house should turn its attention to much more fruitful ways of ensuring that we enjoy an expanding economy in which the net savings of the Canadian people can be devoted to useful and constructive purposes.


Frank Howard: I have only a few minutes at my disposal before seven o'clock. The remarks I have to make about the bill may be extensive and in the normal course would run beyond that time. However, I will curtail them and continue, perhaps, on another occasion.
What I have to say relates not only to the bill presently before us but to another bill,
December 8, 1966

one which the house passed last week. I wish to deal with one financial interest in particular wh.ch is involved with a variety of companies in the insurance field, the loan and trust field and the like.
The house may recall that a couple of weeks ago I inquired whether or not Aetna Casualty Company, which seeks to be incorporated by a bill which is set down on our agenda immediately after the one we are now considering, had any connection with the Aetna Investment Corporation. I was surprised to be told by the sponsor of the Aetna Casualty Company application that there was no connection.
However, as I recited at the time, Aetna Investment Limited, whose headquarters is in Vancouver, had engaged in a financial relationship with Cowichan Copper, a mining company on Vancouver Island. It juggled its financial relationships in stock purchases and sales on the stock market in such an unscrupulous way, I submit, that a few of the fellows in the know in Aetna Investments Limited made a few hundreds of thousands of dollars profit. The other shareholders of Aetna Investments came off with nothing. Cowichan Copper got scuttled in the deal, and the people who work for that company together with those engaged in small businesses in or around that community are on the verge of going bankrupt because of these unscrupulous activities by Aetna Investments.
The controlling principal in Aetna Investments is a man by the name of Mark Tanz. He is also a prime operator, both directly and beh nd the scenes, in a company which this house incorporated a week ago today, Canada Health and Accident Assurance Company.
I think that when we are confronted by a person with as unsavoury a reputation as Mark Tanz, bearing in mind the things he has done with Aetna Investments Limited and his controlling interest in Canada Health and Accident, the sponsor of this bill is placed in an awkward position, inasmuch as companies which operate in the fashion I have indicated place the sponsor of any bill in an extremely awkward situation. If the company intends to operate this company in an unethical way as, certainly, Mark Tanz and his associates do, they would certainly not apprise the sponsor of the bill of that intention.


Mr. Wahn:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member be prepared to repeat those slanderous remarks outside the privilege of this house?
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: My hon. friend should know that it is not necessary to ask me a question of that sort because of the repeated words I have used just to that effect on this and on other occasions. I have not at any time used my position in this house to say things I am not prepared to say also outside the house. I say again that if companies are engaged-and all companies are not pure, regardless of what the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) might think-in unethical financial and corporate practices, then the likelihood is that they are not going to apprise the sponsors of these bills of their real intentions.
Consequently, the sponsor of a bill comes into this house, doing his level best as a responsible and honourable member of the house, promoting the interests of the company which seeks to be incorporated, and he is placed behind the eight ball because if anything untoward happens he feels that he has been a bit left out of the picture. I am sure that any hon. member who would sponsor the incorporation of a company in this house in all good faith, later to find out that the company did not operate according to the dictates of good taste and ethics, would feel a bit embarrassed by it.
I am sure that the hon. member for St. Paul's, with his desire to promote the incorporation of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company in this house, would realize just the degree to which an hon. member might feel a bit embarrassed.


Ian Grant Wahn: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member just desist for a moment? I said at the outset of my remarks that there are only a few minutes left and I do not want to take up all the time answering questions by the hon. member for St. Paul's. If there is sufficient time at my disposal at the end of my remarks, I would certainly be glad to answer him. Mark Tanz and his associates are also involved in another fairly large financial institution in this nation, called Commonwealth Savings and Loans Corporation, one of the near banks. It is one of the companies engaged in giving large amounts of interest on the investments it receives.
It is not too difficult, with an interlocking control of a finance company, of a health and accident company which just last week got the approval of this house to issue life insurance policies as well, and with an interest in a

December 8, 1966
Private Bills
savings and loans corporation, and in another company called Commonwealth Insurance Company-especially when there is a declared history, in such a delightfully responsible publication as the Monetary Times, of an unsavoury and unethical corporate practice between Aetna Corporation and Cowichan Copper, which has Mark Tanz' hands in it too-to draw the conclusion that it is possible to juggle the finances of one of those companies to suit the purposes of another.
We have had two recent examples of two finance companies not playing the game in administering their affairs in an honourable way. I refer to Atlantic Acceptance Corporation, and another company in Ontario which went bankrupt just a little while ago, whose name escapes me, but which was subsequently taken over by Victoria and Grey Trust Company.


Mr. Cowan:: British Mortgage.


Frank Howard: Yes, British Mortgage; I
thank the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) for reminding me of the name.
It is not too difficult, with a history of two otherwise soundly based companies having played hanky-panky with their investors' money, and having run affairs to suit the convenience of a few selfish individuals within those companies, to look at the interlocking control that exists over the four companies I have just mentioned and to see in all likelihood that the next company to go down the drain may be Commonwealth Loan and Savings Corporation. I would not put it past the three principals in this company to start drawing money, if they have not done so already, out of Commonwealth Loan Company and putting it into other companies in order that people in the know in Commonwealth-and again I refer to Mark Tanz and his cohorts-the directors and others of their friends may gain an advantage.
I am not saying that there is anything untoward so far as the bill before us is concerned, although some of the people who are listed as directors have not had too healthy a record in contributing to campaign funds and getting concessions from the previous Conservative government and from the present Social Credit government in British Columbia. But I put these remarks on the record in the hope that during subsequent discussions in committee stage, the principals behind all these bills that may come before parliament may be put to a more extensive and intensive examination than we are able to do at the moment.

When they come to parliament and say, "We want to be incorporated to conduct business," I submit parliament is ill equipped to conduct the necessary inquiries into the proposed operations of companies and into their intercorporate relations in order to decide whether it should give its stamp of approval to this sort incorporation.
In closing, I just wish to say that last week I did not know of the interconnection between Canada Health and Accident Insurance Corporation, Aetna Investments and Commonwealth Savings and Loan Corporation, but if I had known it last week, then this sort of debate would have taken place on the particular bill. Then, that bill probably would not have reached third reading, because there are too many unsavoury and awkward features about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Pursuant to standing order 105 the said bill stands referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired, and by consent earlier it was ordered that when the consideration of private member's bills terminated, the proceedings of the house would stand suspended for one hour. Therefore the house will re-assemble at eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
December 8, 1966	COMMONS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before private members' hour I was attempting to explain to the house the reason the government had sought this particular way to deal with the problem of the old age pensioner by providing for a guaranteed income program as the most effective way to give maximum support to old age pensioners on low or modest incomes. I contrasted this approach to the approach put forward by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) namely, a straight increase of $25 per month in the flat rate pension. Possibly the impact of this particular proposal was not clearly understood at the resolution stage, but the fact is that the alternative scheme put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would represent $60 less in income support per year for the more than
500.000	recipients of old age security in Canada today who have no income other than their old age security pension. The effect of the alternative proposal, in comparison to the government proposal, would take away at least $30 million from those on low or modest incomes and redistribute that amount of money among the higher income groups.
I illustrated the effect of this proposition by one example which was used merely to show the difference in the approach espoused by the government and that espoused by the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that by not providing income support over the whole range of the spectrum of incomes received by recipients of old age security we are able to do more for those on low and modest incomes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the minister accept a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On December 5, at page 10707 of Hansard, the minister made the following statement:
Approximately 900,000 senior citizens now on modest incomes will benefit from this program in 1967.
Would the minister explain why he now limits it to just 500,000?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The explanation is that
900.000	recipients of old age security will benefit either from the full supplement of $360 a year or from a partial supplement depending upon the amount of other income in addition to old age security. The figure of 500,000 is an estimate. These figures can only be estimates. The estimated number of old age security recipients who have no other income except
Old Age Security Act Amendment old age pension is between 500,000 and 600,000. That explains the difference between the
900.000	figure representing those who will receive full and partial supplements and the
500.000	approximation of the number who will receive the full supplement of $30 a month.
I should like to go on to say that in my view the government has responsibll.ties toward all sections of the Canadian population. It is not always easy to balance these respons.bilit.es jud.ciously. Clearly, we owe it to our older people, who have borne the burdens of the past half century, to ensure that they have a decent and adequate income for their retirement years. But we also have an obligation not to impose undue or avoidable taxation on those who are now earning and who are trying to provide for themselves and their families.
In our view the guaranteed income approach is the best and fairest way of balancing these obligations. It will provide maximum help to those on low and modest incomes while keeping tax increases or the tax burden to a minimum.
I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has made the point, and is likely itching to make it again, that there is a current surplus in the old age security fund. But the hon. member has carried on this fict on long enough. He is sufficiently intelligent to know that when the taxes for this fund were increased it was intended to meet the $10 increase in the old age pension and to meet in addition the cost of lowering the eligibility age of the pensioner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was an afterthought.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Between 1966 and 1970 some 100,000 additional pensioners a year will be brought into the program, so that while there is a surplus in the fund at the present time, and it may continue for some time, the additional burden on the fund caused not only by the .ncrease in the old age pens.on but also caused by the extra numbers who w.ll be in receipt of the pension w.ll mean that at some po.nt there will be an approximate balance between income and disbursement. It is not right, therefore, to say that there is a surplus in the fund now without projecting the condition of the fund over a period of years to see how the d sbursements from the fund relate to the obl'gations expected to be borne by the fund caused not only by the increase in the pension but also by the additional numbers who will receive the pension.
10894	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
As hon. members know, additional funds will be required to finance the guaranteed income program. There is only one source for these additional funds, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has already indicated his intention to introduce a budget at least in part for this purpose. An increase in taxes is never a pleasant occurrence, but I suggest such unpleasantness would be considerably more extensive if the opposition proposal were put into effect.
I am sure the people of this country want to see a decent and adequate retirement income for our older people and are prepared to accept a redistribution of income for this purpose. I am also sure that they expect the federal government to effect this redistribution in a way which will make maximum use of the nation's financial resources at this stage of our development and in view of present demands upon our economy and resources. This the guaranteed income formula does. It will place those on low or modest incomes above the $100 a month standard proposed by the official opposition without diverting revenue into some pockets which are already prosperous pockets.
A comparison of the cost of the guaranteed income program and the $25 a month increase shows the validity of this argument. Current estimates are that the income supplement will cost between $260 million and $280 million in its first year. This is approximately $100 million less than the cost of a $25 a month increase in the flat rate pension. The cost of a flat rate increase would go up each year so that by 1970 the extra burden on the federal treasury would be something in the neighbourhood of $200 million a year more than the cost of the guaranteed income supplement. At the expense of being repetitive I should like to reiterate that the benefits of this program will do more for pensioners who need it most at less cost to the Canadian taxpayer than the scheme advanced by the opposition parties. There was a time when the "what's a million?" taunt was a favourite comment by the opposition. Well, "what's a million" is peanuts compared with their cavalier disregard of the $200 million differential between the cost of financing this income program and a flat rate increase of $25 a month.
In the long run, costs under the income supplement program will decline as more and more people become eligible for higher and higher benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans. This program is designed to fill
[Mr. MacEachen.l
DEBATES	December 8, 1986
a specific, identifiable gap in our retirement income spectrum, the situation faced by those who because of age cannot benefit or will benefit only in part from the Canada and Quebec pension plans. Let me remind hon. members that the joint committee of the house and the Senate which studied the Canada pension plan recommended that the government take further steps to improve the position of pensioners who because of age could not benefit or could only benefit in part from the Canada and Quebec pension plans. The income guarantee program does just that. We believe that eventually most Canadians will be eligible for full benefits under these contributory plans. Hence the guaranteed income supplement is concerned only with those individuals born in 1910 or earlier. It is, therefore, a transitional program, and the cost to the treasury will diminish sharply once the contributory pension plans become fully operational in 1976.
If we were serious in setting up the Canada Pension Plan then it must have been the intention of the parliament of Canada that this contributory plan should bear a large share of the burden of providing retirement income for the retired people of Canada. The flat rate increase, on the other hand, is a commitment in perpetuity. Once in effect it cannot be withdrawn, even though the present flat rate pension along with the Canada and Quebec pension plan benefits will by 1976 be providing Canadians with one of the most generous retirement incomes in this industrialized world. Clearly, then, a $25 a month flat rate increase would commit future and, indeed, present wage earners to taxation without justification. That is why, along with other reasons, we have geared this program to meet the recommendation of the joint committee of the house and the Senate.
I suggested earlier, wistfully and wishfully and vainly as it turned out, that members not attempt to inject irresponsible and partisan political considerations into a program which is so vitally important to Canada's older people. Members opposite, nevertheless, have leaped to the means test windmill. A statement was made earlier by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) which I would repeat and endorse. Anyone who equates the means test with the norms set out in this program is either stupid or dishonest. What we are providing is not a means test such as has been administered in any province in Canada. I should like to take some pains to point out to hon. members how this test differs from the means test.
December 8, 19GG	COMMONS
The means test can best be described by examining what it includes. The list is a long one and involves assistance payments to one's spouse, any gifts or donations, the value of any free rent or board, workmen's compensation payments, the portion of an annuity or pension which represents a return on capital, unemployment insurance, war veterans disability benefits, imputed income from real or personal property, money in bank accounts, savings, bonds, and so on, the ownership of a home and the ability of relatives to contribute to an individual's support. All these elements are included in the computation of income when a means test program is administered. Every single one of these is taken into account before assistance is rendered under a means test program; yet none of them are taken into account when determining benefits under the proposed guaranteed income program.
Let me give one or two illustrations to back up what I have said in connection with the comparison between a simple income test such as we are proposing here and a means test. For example, the sale of real property has no effect on eligibility for a supplement under this guaranteed income approach, since the proceeds are not part of income. However, such a sale could have an adverse effect on any allowance under a means test, since personal property would suddenly be increased and when liquidated over a five year period might yield an income in excess of the ceiling.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Let us take, for example, the question of real property, and this is the only additional point I will make because there are so many differences between this approach and the means test approach. In the case of real property, a recipient of the guaranteed income supplement who lives alone in a house assessed at, say, $5,000 would have no rental income to declare under the guaranteed income approach. But under the means test he would be regarded as having $250 in imputed income from rents. Under a means test program such as old age assistance the regulations require that certain amounts be included as income for recipients owning real property. The provinces have some discretionary powers in determining the amounts. However, the following methods are adopted by most provinces: Property used as a residence by the recipient and from which no revenue is derived, 5 per cent of the assessed value is included as income; property used as a residence by the recipient and from which revenue is derived, 5 per cent of the assessed
Old Age Security Act Amendment value, plus the net revenue, is included as income; property not used as a residence and revenue bearing, net revenue is included as income. And so on, Mr. Speaker. I think this proves the point that under the income guaranteed program recipients have only to fill out a simple income declaration form listing income as defined under the Income Tax Act. That is all. They will be sent a simple form and will be asked to-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -to prove.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -list the items of income that are regarded as income under the Income Tax Act. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has described this as a Scrooge program with a thousand other little Scrooges helping the big Scrooge to admin.ster the program. That is the word that has gone out to the old age pensioners of Canada. If there is any anxiety or confusion, it is understandable. But all the pensioners will be asked to do is fill out a form listing those items of income that are regarded as income under the Income Tax Act. That is a far cry from the means test as it has been administered in any province of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question at this point?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In terms of defining a means test, what is the difference between having a percentage of revenue from property regarded as income and having a percentage of your cash income regarded as income? Is it not just a difference in severity? Is it not still a means test?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not a means test, of course. Perhaps there will be a few people like the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who will insist on regarding it as a means test.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the hon. member for Brantford.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But it is not a means test such as has been administered in any province in Canada. To suggest that there is some loss of self-respect, loss of d'gnity or pride on the part of the old age pensioners is so much nonsense and rubbish. This suggestion will not be accepted by the recipients of old age security once the program is in operation.
December 8, 1366
10896	COMMONS DEBATES
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was kind enough to tell us on this side of the house that this was bad politics, that it was a political mistake. I am prepared to take the judgment of the recipients of these benefits on whether this is a good or a bad program, on whether it is good or bad politics. I am confident that it will be administered in a way that will meet the requirements of a humane program, giving help to those persons in the income spectrum of the aged who need help most. People Will not have to provide any information or go through any procedure that is not requested of any taxpayer in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They will not suffer any indignity, if this can be called an indignity, and I do not think it is. They will not be asked to do anyth.ng that a corporation president is not asked to do, or any other person in the country, in the way of providing information with respect to income or having the accuracy of that return checked. So to suggest that there is indignity and a demeaning process here is false. The program might be attacked on some other ground but not on this one.
Hon. members of the New Democratic Party place great store, as indeed they should, on the views and comments of the Canadian Welfare Council. The council, in my opinion, is one of the foremost voices in the social welfare field and can usually be found in the vanguard of contemporary thinking in this area. The hon. member for Vancouver-K ngsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) quoted a number of comments and statements by Canadian Welfare Council spokesmen. For her benefit and for those who think so highly of the Canadian Welfare Council, I would also like to put on the record a statement from the same source. This is from a commentary on the guaranteed minimum income, which appeared in the October issue of "Public Welfare", the bulletin of the Canadian Public Welfare Association, a division of the Canadian Welfare Council. The bulletin reads in part as follows:
The federal government's announcement that . . . persons 65 years of age and over-
We d d not say that. We said, recipients of old age security.
-will receive a guaranteed minimum income of $105 a month . . . marks a positive step forward over the universal pension we have had up to now, -which is inadequate for a number of pensioners.

Eligibility will probably be established by means of a declaration (like that used for income tax returns) and will eliminate the odious means test-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the Canadian Public Welfare Association, a division of the Canadian Welfare Council which was quoted as an authority by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, at the resolution stage.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This division of the Canadian Welfare Council says that eligibility will probably be established by means of a declaration like that used for income tax returns. That is our means of establishing eligibility. The council goes on to say that it will eliminate the odious means test. That is the judgment of the Canadian Welfare Council.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to clarify for the benefit of the house-


An hon. Member:: That is no point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton South would state his point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: My
point of order is simply that the minister has now quoted from a bulletin of the Canadian Welfare Council-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: -a
statement which he himself disagreed with.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point of order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The same article goes on to say that the guaranteed income program will fill "the gap between the universal pension... and the actual needs of recipients". Then the bulletin continues:
This approach is much more humane and less mechanical; it constitutes a genuine system of social security and not merely a way of redistributing the national income.
December 8, 1966

I stand by the comments of this division of the Canadian Welfare Council because I believe that when the procedure which we propose to follow is examined it will be seen to be a procedure which does not in any way take away the self-respect or the dignity of any recipient of old age security. This is the proposal that I am making to the members of the House of Commons and I invite them to consider the matter on its merits because I believe that if it is done on that basis they will come to the same conclusion as we did.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made another statement which I should like to set stra.ght. In her speech she stated that a subcommittee of the Senate committee on aging had recommended that a single person living alone required $139 a month. Neither the committee nor any subcommittee made any such recommendation. I have attempted to find any recommendation made by the Canadian Welfare Council or the conference on aging


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I correct the minister? My quotation is from the Globe and Mail of January 28, 1966. It reads as follows:
An elderly person living alone needs a monthly income of at least $138.96, a committee of the Canadian conference on aging decided yesterday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have taken pains not to consult the Globe and Mail but to consult persons who attended this conference.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
may also say that I have-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have done my best to check the record of the conference itself and to question persons who attended it and I have found that neither the Senate committee nor the conference on aging made any recommendation with respect to any amount which should be set. Certain figures were mentioned.
Maybe this might be a good time to ask the members of the New Democratic Party whether they recommend now that the amount to be paid under the old age security program should be $139 a month, or was this figure merely mentioned in passing? The point I wish to make is that no basic figure has been put forward.
The basic figure in this program has been drawn from the recommendation of the Senate committee on aging which recommended it as an interim measure, until a study can be

Old Age Security Act Amendment made of a national budget upon wh.ch a program of this kind could be based. However no such study has been made and it is a matter of doubt whether a national budget could be established to meet the varying and individual requirements of old age pensioners throughout Canada.
What this program proposes to provide is a basic guaranteed income of $1,260 a year to every recipient of old age security, providing a full supplement of $360 a year to those with no other income except the old age pension and varying partial supplements on a reducing scale up to an income level for single persons of $1,620 per year. Of course this is doubled for married old age pensioners. You can examine the retirement system in any country in the world and you will not find any country with a more generous proposal than the one contained in this bill or any proposal that does as much for those in the modest and low income group who need it most.
I wish to make one final point with respect to appeals. Section 16 of the act makes provision for the right of appeal to appl. cants for, and beneficiaries of, old age security benefits. Some hon. members, in their comments on the resolution, complained that this was a new element which was being introduced into the administration of programs in Canada. It is the view of the government that social security leg'slation should include a right of appeal for applicants for benefits under the program and for beneficiaries. Where a difference of opinion arises between the administrat.on on the one hand and a dissatisfied person on the other as to the amount of benefit being pa;d or the eligibility of the applicant there should be a means whereby an inexpensive and impartial review and determination of the question can be carried out.
The unemployment insurance legislation passed by parliament more than 25 years ago made such provision. The Canada Pension Plan passed by the house last year and the Canada Assistance Plan passed earlier this year each contain a provision to ensure the right of appeal. We believe it is important that th;s basic right be included in the program. This is all that is involved in the provision of the right to appeal. It is in accordance with the practice imbedded in the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Assistance Plan. Now it will be applicable to the Old Age Security Act.
The old age security regulations now provide for the establishment of tribunals from
10898	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment time to time to whom the minister may refer for final decision questions arising as to the age of an applicant or pensioner. We are not importing anything new into our social security system. We are following a practice which has been followed for a long time in the admin stration of our programs.
I will conclude by repeating the justification for this program. This program is intended to give help where it is needed most to persons on low or modest incomes. It is superior to a flat rate $25 a month because it provides $60 a year more to those who have no other income except old age security, and it redistributes in their direction $30 million or $35 million more than would be the case under the alternative scheme advocated by the Leader of the Opposition. On this ground I believe it is a superior program and I believe it will be regarded as such by those old age pensioners who are living now only on old age security.
The second point about this program is that it gives help where it is needed most by redistributing income in this direction. It does it by placing the minimum possible cost on the taxpayer both now and in the future because at present it saves the treasury $100 million a year in comparison with a flat rate increase. It does so in the future because it is a transitional program which places a reducing burden on the federal treasury owing to the fact that it will gradually work its way out of existence as the Canada and Quebec pension plans come into full fruition.
We are doing this without the application of the much dreaded and odious means test. There is no possible comparison between the simple declaration which must be filled out merely asking applicants to list items of income under the Income Tax Act, and a means test. If the program embodied a means test in the way in which it has been administered in the provinces I would not be recommending it to the House of Commons. This is not a means test. It merely asks the old age pensioners to fill out a simple form listing the items of income which they would normally list if they were filing an income tax return. I see no indignity or loss of self-respect in the process. That is what we are standing on. It is a humane test, admitted as such by the Canadian Welfare Council. We recommend it further to the house because it does provide at this time a realistic, responsible and conscientious way to meet the problems of the older citizens of Canada and to give them maximum support at a time when the resources of the
[Mr. MacEachen.l
DEBATES	December 8, 1966
country have so many demands placed upon them.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a matter of privilege which will only take a minute. I did not want to interrupt the minister but during the course of his remarks he implied that anyone who considered or stated that a means test was involved in this legislation is either stupid or dishonest. I think he quite unfairly made an attack on the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), and on his behalf I now ask the minister to apologize to him.


Mr.   R.-E. Regimbal@Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes: Mr. Speaker, whenever I rose to speak in the house during my very brief experience as a parliamentarian, I always made it a point of honour and principle to see the positive side of the debate.
In this instance, however, I can only speak against the bill, for there is nothing in it for me to approve except the fact that our old people will receive-even if one year late- an increase in their sustenance income. If, by opposing a bill, one reveals a negative attitude, then mine must be negative.
I will endeavour to prove that what added welfare our older citizens will receive will have cost principles and fundamental rights to our citizens, while the means were available to give them the same well-being while respecting their freedom, pride, dignity and peace of mind.
Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that this measure which will become effective in January 1967, but whose effects will not be felt until several months later, is already a year late, and if the Quebec government had not announced its intention to take over the field of old age security, who knows how many more months we would have had to wait. For months the government had been using that bill to blackmail more or less the opposition, to get it to pass badly drafted bills-such as the one which ended the railway strike-and to put an end-


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend a question?


Mr. Regimbal:: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the hon. member if he intends to vote against the bill.
December 8, 1966	COMMONS


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Saint-Denis has just asked me a silly question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Roger E. Régimbal: -because one would assume that any intelligent person would wait until the end of a text to find out what conclusions will be arrived at.
As I was saying, for months the government had been using the preparation of that bill to practise some kind of blackmail over the opposition, to put an end to embarrassing debates, such as those on national defence, the pipe-line policy and interim supply.
True to its established policy, the government floundered in inaction and indecision until a crisis broke out, for we have gone from crisis to crisis for the last year, and it is only in times of crisis that the government succeeds in taking some precise but tardy step. And as is bound to happen under such circumstances, we are faced with opportunist, make-shift solutions the only lasting effect of which is to give rise to a new crisis and new problems. That is what I would try to prove in this case, in the next few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, my objection to this legislation is based on matters of principle and on facts.
First, if you will allow me, I will deal with matters of principle.
First of all, this legislation has no justification, for we already have since 1951, an Old Age Security Act, the only purpose of which is to provide such security. The only thing added in this case is the faint notion of a minimum guarantee which is already established in the existing act. It is just a simple matter of adjusting this minimum to the realities of today.
Under the circumstances the establishment of a simple mathematical formula, a simple rule of three was all that was necessary to meet contemporary needs.
As a matter of fact, in 1952, after a great deal of study, research and discussion, the pension was set at $40 a month, while the gross national product was about $22.36 billion. In 1965, the gross national product climbed to $51,996 billion, which means that, everything else being equal, the $40 pension paid in 1952 should have been raised to $95 in 1965. Taking into account the fluctuations of the purchasing power as well as the facilities more readily available to
Old Age Security Act Amendment everybody today, the pension could be reasonably set at $100 or even $105 a month, with no strings attached, by strictly applying the principle already established. As a matter of fact, a comparison between the annual salaries paid in 1952 and 1965 would produce the same result.
In other words, if, in the same spirit and with the same social concern which inspired the legislators in 1952, such legislation were, for the first time, introduced today, the old age pension would be $100 or $105 a month and, as I said, with no strings attached.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Therefore, in principle, the adjustment should be automatic and mathematical. The only thing required would be a simple amendment to the existing act, providing-


Rémi Paul: Oh, oh.


Roger E. Régimbal: I am so anxious, Mr. Speaker, to hear my friend from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) make his maiden speech.
The only thing required would be a simple amendment to the existing act providing for a review, every ten or 15 years, to take into account the fluctuations which would have occurred in the meantime. A new bill would not be required.
If the principle of this bill is accepted, it should be borne in mind that, 15 years from now, another bill will have to be introduced to solve the problems which normally build up over the years.
The act as it stands already provides all the necessary means to do so. There is absolutely no need for a new act or complementary acts, each one of which adds new conditions or new restrictions.
Therefore, that point cannot possibly be justified logically. Principles stand unalterable, must always apply. If there must be financial adjustments no one, I am sure, will raise any objection to higher taxes. The need to be met is real and surely all the arguments required will be found to justify higher taxes. I do not know a single Canadian who would refuse to pay taxes intended to satisfy the basic needs of our older citizens.
In the second place, by establ shing the principle of an income test, a new formula to replace what is called the means test or the needs test, this legislation is definitely retrograde, a move backward, from a social development point of view. We had finally
10900	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment managed through the years to free old age pensioners from any restraint and any humil ating subjection. This leg slation immediately puts them back into force and compels us to resume our liberalization efforts, because irrespective of the level of income to which it applies, the principle of bureaucratic scrutiny is restored, the door is opened to investigations, inquiries, charges, faking, patronage, influence peddling, the most inhuman humiliations, whence this second basic objection.
Third, this legislation is inconsistent and arbitrary in principle, because it lays down the principle of a test, whatever it may be called. But the test will only apply, mind you, to the present pension of $75 which becomes the basis that cannot be changed.
I believe that in laying down a principle, the reasons for setting the basic rate at $75 should at least be defined; why not $60, $80 or $50? The figure of $75 is chosen arbitrarily, without further explanation. Therefore, no attempt is made to set forth any reasons or basic principle to justify that dividing line.
Fourth-this has already been mentioned but is worth repeating-this legislation lays down the principle of taxation without benefits. As a matter of fact, everybody will be taxed indiscriminately, but the distribution of benefits is discriminatory. There seems to be in this case the same principle of taxation without representation which had already been corrected in the past, but at the cost of bloody battles and revolution. Apparently, the government has learned nothing in this respect: taxation without any resulting benefit.
In the fifth place, another principle at stake in this bill-although of minor importance, it is none the less basic to our system of private enterprise-is the encouragement of individual effort or, if you prefer, incentive.
Indeed, by subtracting from the pension supplement one of every two dollars I earn over and above the guaranteed minimum, I am not being encouraged to additional effort, or to produce anything with which I might be able to help my community through the services I perform. On the contrary, let us figure this out, and I quote the example used by the minister himself, as reported on page 10710 of Hansard:
If an old age security recipient has a small private pension of $120 a year as his only income other than old age security, the maximum supplement of $360 is reduced by one half of the $120,
[Mr. Regimbal.l
DEBATES	December 8, 1966
leaving a partial supplement of $300. In this example, the pensioner would have a total income of $1,320, consisting of $900 basic pension, $300 income supplement and $120 from the private pension.
Reference is made to the total income. Let us look at it another way, for a moment. Let us suppose I am 68 years old, receiving a $75 basic monthly pension, and I have a part-time job at which I earn $60 a month. My total income, therefore, is $135 per month. The minister tells us, as reported in Hansard that under this bill the $360 supplement will be reduced by one half the amount of the additional income. Therefore, $60 a month represents $720 a year; half of this is $360. We subtract $360 from the maximum supplement of $360 and what have we left? Absolutely nothing. Because I have the heart, the energy or the will to work, the government will only give me $75 per month.
On the other hand, if I am not willing, if I am not strong enough, if I do not have this incentive to work, to make it short, if I stay home by the fire, the same government will give me $105; and this is what we call encouraging one to do one's best. It is in this sense that we consider that the bill is a step backward.
So much for the principles; let us now consider the facts. We will soon discover the unprecedented chaos which the government is asking us to accept-and enthusiastically, at that.
First, although the money which will be necessary in order to bring pensions up to modern requirements could be collected without a new law by means of a simple increase in taxes, which every citizen would understand, the enactment of the legislation brings about the creation of a completely new collecting system: new investigation department, new staff, new investigators and supervisors, new legal procedures, stationery, forms, offices, all completely unnecessary administration costs which could amount to thousands of dollars, if the principle is wrong from the beginning, if the law is unnecessary.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), in his speech at the resolution stage, placed that under the new approach heading. I would venture to say that this new approach is one of division, discrimination and discontent, which does not even have the merit of being new, since the government is unceasingly applying it.
As a second fact, the minister did not mention that, from now on, all old people, men and women, must fill out income tax returns,
December 8, 1986

simple as they are, to justify payment of the supplementary amount; if they fail to do so they will continue to get only $75 per month. I believe that this must be announced, because the minister a while ago put on the same basis the 68 year old person who cannot read or write, who may be a little sick or disabled; the minister placed such a person on the same test basis as a corporation president.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It must also be anticipated, in the case of elderly persons who may be handicapped, besides this new requirement of filling out forms, the possibility of making errors, the delays for correction, the costs of consultation, the personal difficulties, the travelling inconveniences, in brief what the minister ascribed to friends, neighbours and relatives the other day. Delays in the payments which those errors will involve, penalties, the necessity to resort to arbitration, representations, travelling inconveniences, claims for overpayments-because there will be some-year-end adjustments, waiting for retroactivity, uncertainty concerning real income, those are the many difficulties anticipated which will complicate their lives and make them dependent, as the minister said, on friends, neighbours, relatives and on civil employees. And this in the cases where only the minimum guarantee can be applied.
What about the unfortunate ones who will perhaps have the heart to work ten months a year and would deserve this basic $120? Because of this additional income they will have to fill out forms twice as complex, and the delays and personal difficulties will be multiplied by as much.
Third, a postponement of at least three months was announced at the very outset. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the delay will never be less than three months, if we consider that the minimum adjustment will have to be done every year. In fact, it is only at the end of the year that a report will be made on the actual situation of our senior citizens. They will then have to make an estimate of their income and correct it at the end of the year, in the light of the facts. Forms. Complications. Further delays are already anticipated concerning settlement of estates, however small they may be, and the smallest insurance policies, because one could not proceed before those pension systems were
Old Age Security Act Amendment calculated, before the fair and actual income was calculated. This will be submitting our elderly citizens to the jungle of bureaucracy.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, how many of our elderly citizens will have to resort to this famous appeal court mentioned by the minister. How many of our senior citizens will have to drag themselves before this court, perhaps for the first time in their lives, for the only crime of having grown old and contributed for years to the development of their country, and to be condemned, as a reward, to the jungle of bureaucracy which I just mentioned. I think those are the real difficulties which will complicate the lives of these people.
Fifth, the minister said to us in all confidence and frankness that the income from the sale of a property would not count for the minimum pension. I think he was speaking of the existing situation. But I also think that the situation will become so complicated, as it already is, that many of our pensioners who got their houses through hardship and effort, will have to sell them, because they will be too expensive to run. The minister tells us that there is absolutely no danger of that, that the proceeds from the sale of a house-which are already meagre enough as such-will not be considered as income in the determination of pension supplements. I am quite prepared to accept that assurance until the day when a government, any government, will levy a tax on, let us say, capital gains, which will then be considered as income.
I think that the minister will admit that what he is referring to are conditions which exist at the present time. But, as far as future conditions and new taxes are concerned, I do not think that he can predict that any more than I can. In other words, can he assure us that, in fact, capital gains will never be taken into account.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of my remarks, the alternative suggested by the opposition does not give rise to any of the objections in principle or in fact, which have been mentioned. It is but a simple rule to extend the application of a single principle already studied and accepted, already tested, to provide a guaranteed income of $100 or $105 a month, to which nobody would object.
Why, then, this innovation, this step into the unknown, this experiment whose exact cost, even, is unknown? I do not think my arguments on this subject can be refuted.
10902	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The other day I heard one of the hon. members opposite say that he had canvassed the elderly people in his riding with regard to this new plan, and that all approved of it. I think this is being naive. It means absolutely nothing except that these poor people are hungry, needy, and will accept anything at any price, even at the price of hardship, humiliation, freedom and peace of mind, for the simple reason that they are in need.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members will be ashamed to explain the chaos into which this legislation and this government are leading us. I certainly do not envy the hon. members opposite who, at Easter, were hesitating to go back home because there was no bill such as this. They were afraid to face their old people then.
I do not envy them when they visit their ridings at Christmas, for they will have to face the same situation.
This legislation can only multiply the problems and increase the misery of those who deserve a better fate. For all those reasons, both practical and involving principle, the government would be very wise simply to withdraw the bill and to follow the simple suggestion of increasing the present pension of $75 to $100 or $105, unconditionally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in his speech this evening on second reading of Bill No. C-251 the M'n'ster of Nat'onal Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) made one request w:th wlv'ch I am happy to comply, namely, that we discuss thTs bill on its merits.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Mimster of Transport (Mr. P'ckersgill), even though he has not been recognized, chimes in, "hear, hear". I suppose it would be unfair for me to take note of the fact that the request for d:scussion of the bill on its merits was made by one who called us either stupid or dishonest and suggested we were more concerned about extra money for senators than we are for the needy, elderly people of this country. I will overlook that and come to the points of this important piece of legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was less offensive than being called Scrooge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear the minister objecting to having been called Scrooge.

DEBATES	December 8. 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I said that what I said was less offensive than being called Scrooge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite true that I characterized the minister the other day as Scrooge but I did not say he had a thousand other Scrooges. I th nk he is Scrooge enough in what he is doing in this measure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is this on the merits?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the first point I should like to make clear is that even if we are not able to win improvements in this bill there is no question as to how we will vote on it. We will not be caught, as I think some hon. members were the other day, if a vote is called on the bill. Even in its present form it will give money to the tune of $360 a year to each of half a million old age pensioners and we would regard it as irrespons ble on our part if we cast any votes the effect of which could be to deny this extra money to these people.
We are going to do our best to get the improvements in this bill that we think ought to be made in it, and I say to the mi nister, to the government and to the country that if we do not win them during the course of this debate we shall go on fighting for those improvements until we do win them. Meantime we want to see the money that w 11 be available to our sen or citizens because of this legislation get to them as soon as possible.
The second point I want to make clear is that what we are asking for is that the old age security pension be now set at not less than $105 but that it be without a means test. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to make that clear of behalf of this party because the M nister of National Health and Welfare, in that non-partisan speech he made, accused only the Conservatives of wanting to pay the old age pensioners less than the government is prepared to pay. He recogn'zed that we did not like the $100 figure that was in the Conservative amendment proposed the other day. In fact, I made it clear that we thought it should be $105 a month. That is our position in this matter.
We are impressed by the budgets that have been produced by social work bodies in Toronto and other places and by the age and opportunity bureau of Winn'peg, which show that old people need much more than $105 a month to live on, but at any rate that is the figure we have got the government up to and it is our concern that we get that figure into leg'slation but without a means test.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Millionaires too?
December 8, 1966

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Transport, again without being recognized by the Chair, has made an interjection which, by some seventh or e ghth sense he has, takes me to my next point. The M nister of National Health and Welfare, in that delightful and clever way of his, referred to some senators who are at a pensionable age and to some members of this house. He did not name them but he might have named the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson); he might also have named Mr. St. Laurent and other persons. In going to the length he has gone he might as well have gone all the way and put the names on the record. He ment oned these people and suggested that somehow or other we are more concerned about getting extra money for senators than we are about the needy older people.
Let me say clearly and straightforwardly to the minister that, first of all, he seems to be ignoring completely the extra taxes that these people will pay on any increase they get in their pension because of the fact that their pension is an increment on top of what they are getting already. Those senators do not live just on the $12,000 they receive. They are in the h'gher income tax bracket and would pay back a very large proportion of the increase they would get if our proposal for no means test were accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I also remind the minister that when one looks at the position of the so-called wealthy people, those people who do not need the pension, one should look at the total picture. People who are wealthy do not acqu:re the:r wealth just in their old age. People who are wealthy have done fa'rly well throughout their lifetimes. Under our law as it now stands-I was a member of the old age security committee in 1950 which produced this legislation and I know its details fairly well-a wealthy person in the course of h's lifetime, considering the income tax he pays before he goes on pension, considering the sales t^x he pays and his portion of the corporation tax, because that is where the wealthy people get caught as well considering the various taxes he pays after he goes on the pension and the proportion he pays back in taxes, pays into the treasury throughout his lifet me more than he gets out by way of pension.
I think it is a good idea to have a scheme under which everybody receives the pension
Old Age Security Act Amendment so that on the other side of the coin we can expect everybody to pay. If the minister would really go into the economics of it, I suggest he would find that in the long run it is better to pay the pension to everyone and to do any collecting back which is necessary by making adjustments in the income tax.
There is another thing I should like to say to the minister in respect of his little aside about senators. I should like to say this also to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) because I noticed his enthusiastic applause at that point.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he will be a senator one of these days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not know where he is going when he leaves us, but we shall miss him.
These ministers are reflecting on the basic policy of paying the pension to senators and other wealthy people. This reminds me of the statement Mr. St. Laurent made from those benches in the early part of 1950 before we persuaded the government to go forward with the abolition of the means test. I think his words can be found in Hansard for February, 1950.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit one very simple question? Does he not think that the situation in respect of this leg'slation is entirely different from that situation and that the difference is created by the existence of the Canada Pension Plan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Min:ster of Transport has a seventh or eighth sense; he is just a step or two ahead of me in my speech. I will deal with this point in a minute. I am glad that he is following this aspect of the matter. First may I point out that if the ministers over there are going to be critical of paying an increased amount to those who are in the upper brackets, they are in effect criticizing the paying of the pension itself to people who do not need it.
In 1950 Mr. St. Laurent took the position, why should he about to be 70 in a year or two with the money he had, get the pension? I trust he now receives the pension, and he will be paying taxes in accordance with his total income and I suppose he pays back into the public treasury a very large proportion of the pension he receives. Because wealthy people generally pay back a large proportion, we have the moral justification to pay everybody
December 8, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment the old age security pension. I say that if we are to charge everybody we also have the obligation to pay the pension to everybody. I believe the government is making a drastic mistake in departing from that procedure.
I was a bit shocked today to see Liberals who agreed to the old age security plan say that there is something wrong about giving the pension to people who are in the income brackets of members of the other place and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What was said was that it was preferable not to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government thinks it is preferable not to give the $30 a month increase which we are asking to senators, then the thing to do is to take away the $75 which is now given to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit an even simpler question than my previous one? Does he think that the amount of money which can be collected from the taxpayers of Canada to be used for old age security is unlimited or, if it is not, does he not think it is important to have priorities?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course I think it is important to have priorities. I also think it is important to use for old age pension purposes the money which is collected for old age pension purposes. I will come to that in a moment. The minister was afraid I might not make some reference to the fund, but I will. My speech is being made for me over there.
Let me get back to the question the Minister of Transport asked me concerning the situation which has arisen because we have the Canada Pension Plan. In my view it is in this area that the government is making its major mistake. It is here that we have the fundamental fallacy in what the government now is doing. The Minister of National Health and Welfare a couple of times read one of the recommendations from the report of the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan, the one which called upon the government to do something about people who would not be drawing from the Canada Pension plan because of age. That recommendation can be found on page 1039 of Volume CXI, 1964-65, Journals of the House of Commons. But on page 1038 of the same volume there appears another recommendation made to this house
by the joint committee which reads as follows:
The level of combined benefits available under the Canada Pension Plan and old age security should represent a high proportion of the previous earnings of those people whose income does not permit other adequate provision for their retirement.
Le us look squarely at the situation. The whole justification for the Canada Pension Plan-and nobody supported it more strongly than I did and still do-was that by a combination of a flat rate pension under old age security and an earnings related program under the Canada Pension Plan, we could produce a total pension benefit that would be adequate for the people of this country. I remind the house that the amount a person can get under the Canada Pension Plan is only 25 per cent of his income up to the $5,000 ceiling. If the $5,000 ceiling goes up over the years, 25 per cent becomes more dollars but it is still only 25 per cent.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This will mean that an individual will be able to get by way of a pension under the Canada Pension Plan 25 per cent of total income adjusted over a lifetime. At the present time 25 per cent of $5,000 a year works out to $104 per month, yet the most that one can get under the Old Age Security Act at this time is $75 per month. If an individual can get $104, which is 25 per cent of his income, then $75 is less than 25 per cent, so the two put together make up a pension package of less than 50 per cent of income under the ceiling.
Hon. members across the way like to boast from time to time about our pension provisions being so much better than those of other countries in the world, but there are other countries of the world which pay pensions at retirement to the extent of two-th'rds of the average or adjusted earnings of the working people during their working years. This Canadian package will not provide that; it will provide much less than 50 per cent.
While it is true that the Canada Pension Plan benefits, though they are fixed at 25 per cent, will in absolute terms go up because the $5,000 ceiling can go up, the whole phdosophy is thrown out of gear if the $75 flat rate is frozen. This plan has justice on its side and it is rational only if there is a provision for both elements of the package to go up. The minister may tell me that there is a provision-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could ask the hon. member another question. Is it not true that the flat rate figure goes up as a result of an accelerated cost of living factor?

December 8, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has done it again, but I was in the middle of a sentence this time. It is true that old age pensions will go up according to increases in the cost of living.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Transport says "exactly", but the Canada Pension Plan is geared not to the cost of living but to the wage index. The Minister of Transport may not know it, but over the last 40 years the wage index has risen about four times as fast as the cost of living index.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know that very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we were discussing the Canada Pension Plan we agreed that it was desirable to have pensions under that plan related not just to the increase in the cost of living but to the increase in productivity and the increase in wage levels. I submit that if the total package of the Canada Pension Plan and old age security is going to be the kind of package it ought to be both aspects have to go up in accordance with the increase in productivity.
In spite of the fact that in discussions about the Canada Pension Plan we were assured by the former minister of national health and welfare that there was no barrier against the amount by which old age security pensions could be increased, this minister now brings in a measure under which he in fact says, apart from these escalations due to the cost of living, which can be in the amount of 75 cents *or $1.50 per month over a year, there are to be no increases in the flat amount of old age security. He did not say much about this the other day, but he has emphasized the point today that this is a transitional measure. If you are 56 years of age or over you can look forward to the possibility of getting a supplement when you reach the pensionable age of 65 or over, but if you are under 56 you will have no such chance. In other words, from 1975 no more new people will get the supplement and in the course of time as older people die off it will disappear.
The minister has made it clear that this is a temporary, provisional, interim measure. It is also one of a welfare nature, 1 may say in passing. He has also made it clear that he is not increasing the basic amount of the old age security pension.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is 40 per cent.
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, on a transitional basis. It will be 40 per cent in the way of an available supplement to people who are now retired if they meet the means test, or people who are 56 years of age or over when they reach 65, but it will disappear for people who are now under 56. In other words, when that time comes that 40 per cent will disappear and the flat rate will be back to $75. I am quite confident that when 1975 arrives the $5,000 income ceiling will have gone up and that the amount people can get under the Canada Pension Plan will also have gone up from the present $104 a month to a higher figure. If, when that figure goes up, you freeze the flat rate at $75, not only do you throw these two things out of balance, you produce the result that the total pension Canadians can receive will be a lower percentage of their incomes than is the case now.
The minister should not sit over there and laugh about this thing because it is very serious. He is changing the concept which was presented to this country when the Canada Pension Plan was brought into being. The minister suggests that we should not be political. I am prepared to be so far from political that he might not recognize what I mean when I say the Canada Pension Plan was a good proposition. I supported it and I still support it, but unless you match it with a flat rate pension that is also capable of increasing according to the increase in productivity you are destroying the whole basis of this joint plan which was put together a couple of years ago.
The admission by the minister that his so-called 40 per cent increase is transitional and temporary, and will start to fade out completely by 1975, is an admission that he is not increasing the flat rate of the old age pension, and this is wrong for the reasons I have indicated.
In th;s same connection I should like to sav, in terms that hon. members might regard as a l.ttle more simple, the th.ngs that are being said to me in the letters I receive every day in my mail. Elderly people are wondering why it is that increases in incomes seem to be possible for everybody else-as my correspondents put it, for workers and all kinds of people in various walks of life-but there can be no increase for old age pensioners. The point they make is well taken. If there has been an increase in productivity, an increase in affluence and an increase in our standard of living it is all right for workers and others to share in that increase, but so should the

December 8, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment old age pensioners have a right to share in it. That is why we are now asking that there be a flat rate increase.
The minister is failing completely to see the point if he thinks this is just a temporary measure and he can put aside our arguments by simply ridiculing the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to provide $100 a month without a means test as an alternative to the $105 now suggested. The minister is throwing this joint package out of gear. Instead of reaching the point where people can get 60 per cent or 70 per cent of their lifetime earnings as a pension we are moving to a position where it will drop to 40 per cent or 45 per cent. As one element goes up the other goes down.
Let me suggest to the minister that our belief in a basic, genuine and honest increase in the flat amount of old age security pensions is not just a political belief for the moment; it is a bel'ef in a plan that will really stand up over the years.
When we were considering the resolution I pointed out that there were a number of points in connection with the scheme brought forward by the minister which produced elements of unfairness and discrimination. The minister likes to make the point that there is no means test applied as means tests have been described. He also likes to make the point that this whole thing is very s:mple. I have read the bill but I do not th;nk it is quite as simple as he suggests. Let me repeat the question I put to him when he was making h s speech this evening. I agree without hesitation that, as a means test, the test provided by this bill is a lot less severe than any means test provided by any legislation in this country, but it is still a means test.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
If a person, in order to get this benefit, has to report his income, and if a percentage of that income, is counted against his getting the benefit, is that not a means test just as much as if he had to report a percentage of revenue from property and these other kinds of things? I think the minister would get along far better and would run less risk of being accused of misleading the country if he would admit that it is a test, a means test or what have you. But he should claim for it only what he has the right to claim, namely, that it is less severe than other tests.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member another question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope I get 50 minutes tonight instead of 40, to make up for all these interjections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman would rather illuminate the house in 40 minutes than leave us in darkness in 50 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for the minister's state of darkness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this: Does the hon. gentleman consider that a person with an income of $2,500, who has to fill out an income tax return, is being subjected to a means test?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this is over I will send to the minister the scratchy notes that I have here just to show him how many of his questions I have written down. At least we are on the same wavelength, even though we may be broadcasting different tunes. I th'nk these is quite a difference between having to report your income because it is the law and pay tax on it and reporting your income as something you are required to do in order to get a benefit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with the hon. gentleman, but I cannot think it is any more humiliating to report your income when you are getting something from the treasury than it is to report your income for the purpose of contributing to the treasury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister is a couple of years older than I am, or maybe more. Surely he remembers wh?t it means to those people who had to report their income to get the pension under the former Old Age Pensions Act. Merely to make it less severe does not take away from the fact that it is a means test. I see the minister is talking to his colleague behind him. I am sorry if I am disturbing him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can take the competition. I hope the hon. member can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the last 15 or 16 years people have had a sense of pride in being on the old age pension. It was something one could boast about and say, "I am a pensioner",
Decembci 8, 1966

because it carried no suggestion that there was any poverty involved or that one had to go through any kind of test to get it. But from now on, if one says he is a pensioner the question will be asked, what kind of pensioner is he? Is he one who gets only $75 because he is a senator or has other revenue and does not need the supplement, or does he get the supplement because he is poor and has gone through this business of reporting his income on a simple income tax form which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) has worked out?
I see the minister nodding his head. We will see how simple that form and the process are when the time comes. As I pointed out the other day, if it is so simple it is strange that it will take to the end of March before any payments are made and to the end of April before some are made. All this delay could be avoided by a simple increase to $105 a month. It does not take much to change the machines that print these cheques; they could easily be changed to print the cheques to read $105 a month instead of $75.
Mr. Speaker, at times I am diverted by my hon. friends across the chamber. The point I was trying to make was that when you have to report your income you immediately get into a situation where different pensioners with about the same amount of income will find that in one case one will get the supplement and another will not. Let us take the case of war disability pensioners. They do not pay income tax on their war disability pension. Therefore I take it they will not get the supplement. But the war veterans allowance recipient, even though he does not pay income tax on his war veterans allowance, and even though the minister says he will give that person the supplement, is under a means test as far as the War Veterans Allowance Act is concerned. So what you give him with one hand is taken away with the other.
You will have the same problem with the provincial supplements. The minister stands up in all his Scroogian generosity and says provincial supplements will not be counted; people can still get this supplement even though they are getting the provincial supplement. But some of these people may find that the province in which they live has a means test ceiling on the supplement. Therefore they get the supplement from the Minister of National Health and Welfare but lose the supplement they are getting from Mr. Bennett or some other provincial government.

Old Age Security Act Amendment


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is up to the provincial government. We respect the rights of the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister respects the rights of the provinces but takes away with his hand what they are giving with theirs. Yet the minister tells us that having given this program to the old age pensioners he is prepared to accept their verdict on it. I too w.ll be prepared to accept their verdict on it. The minister will find that hundreds of thousands of these people will be astounded at the effects of this means test on their arrangements, especially after the publicity the minister has given to the plan that it is simple, it is easy, that it is not a means test after all.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am only doing what everybody else does. I am conscious of the mail that I am getting. I am getting letters already which play up these differences. I am receiving letters from people who ask me, "Will I be able to get the supplement?" I have looked at the legislation as best I can, and in some cases I say, "Yes, I think you will", but to other people I have to write and say, "I am sorry; the amount of income you have is such that you will not get this supplement." This will go on right across the country and create a situation which, as the last speaker said, is a retrograde step from the very healthy, wholesome, decent attitude we have had toward our pensioners for the past number of years.
I have already referred to the fact that we will have two different groups of people when this plan goes through. You will have first-class and second-class old age pensioners. The situation we have had, under wh'ch people have enjoyed the dignity of being on the pension, will be changed by the fact that no one will ever know whether a pensioner is receiving his pension as a result of the means test or otherwise.
The minister had his little fun, of course, reminding me that I like to refer to the surplus in the old age security fund. I do not mind him putting it that way, although that is not the way I have been describing it for the past number of months. At least, I have not been describing it that way since the federal government moved a few hundred million dollars out of the old age security fund last summer. We were telling the government last June and July about this unused surplus in the fund, so in the summer the government moved some of that money out of the fund into the consolidated revenue fund. I recognize that is legal. I am not suggesting this is a
December 8, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment case of refilling Benson's sock. I know the government has to put money into the fund if it is short and can take money out if the fund is in a surplus position. The point I have been making, and at the minister's invitation I make it again, is that during the last three and a half years this government has collected by way of old age security taxes almost $400 million more than it has paid out in pensions. Incidentally, that does not include the extra money that it has collected in income tax from senators and those other people who get the pension although they do not need it. That money does not go into the old age security fund.
There is a credit of $400 million in the fund over the last three end of half years. Granted, the day may come when intake and outgo may be in balance and some change in taxation may have to be made. But why make it a year or two in advance? I use that figure in the light of what the minister said the other day.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
He made one slight misstatement tonight when he said that when taxes were increased in 1963 for old age security it was for the purpose of paying the extra $10 and to lower the eligible age. If he will check back he will realize that in 1963 when the tax increase was put through it was just for the purpose of paying the $10 increase which was provided in 1963. At that time no public statement was made by the government of any intention to lower the eligible age. However, when in 1965

I think it was in February after the committee on the Canada Pension Plan had recommended that we do something in this field-the government announced that the eligible age would be lowered, we were told on the floor of the house that the government had discovered that the fund was doing very well, that there was more money than was anticipated, which was credited to a buoyant economy, and therefore it was possible to lower the eligible age without increasing taxes. My whole point is that this is exactly the situation which we are likely to face now. This admission underlines the fact that in 1963 the increase in taxation was either too high or was unnecessary, and I say therefore that the government should not at present levy a tax while it has this surplus credit until it sees whether it needs it.
We can discuss what kind of taxes should be imposed when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) makes his proposals. I think the first

thing to do in this field is to raise or remove the $3,000 ceiling with respect to the old age security tax. At any rate my whole point is that the minister cannot argue against our proposal for a flat increase without a means test on economic grounds. Even he admits that the difference between his program and ours is only $100 million in the first year and $200 million later. The Minister of Transport waves his hand as if he wanted to say "What is that?". There are plenty of places in which this amount of money could be saved quite easily and readily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I should like to ask the hon. gentleman just where we could save $100 million out of this year's budget? I am sure the Minister of Finance would be glad to have his recipe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could save it from the estimates of the Department of National Defence.
I see that my time has just about expired, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to say to the minister again that his assertion that this is not a means test will not convince the people who have to report their income to get their pension, and all the applause on the other side of the house over the fact that this is a new approach to things is just so much whistling in the dark. Hon. members on that side will find out when they get home what the people think of this.
I come back again to the point I tried to make earlier and which I regard as the most important point I have been trying to make tonight, namely, that what we should be aiming at is the full fruition of what was involved when we accepted the joint program of the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security plan. The idea was that between these two schemes, part flat rate and part earnings related, we would build up pensions which, as our committee's report said, would represent a high proportion of the previous earnings of the people of this country. This cannot be done if, as earnings go up and the Canada Pension Plan benefits increase, the old age security figure remains constant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not going to stay where it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister saying that it will be raised to $85?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am saying that there is a built-in increase.
December 8. 1966	COMMONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, a built-in increase which provides for escalation if there is an increase in the cost of living, but it cannot go up more than 2 per cent in a year, that is, $1.50.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It cannot go up more than the cost of living; that is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the same time the wage index is going up three or four times as much as the cost of living and our productivity is increasing at a similar rate, but it will take ten years, at a maximum of 2 per cent a year, to get an increase of even $15 in the amount of the old age security pension on that basis. I am as sure as I am that I am looking at the Minister of Transport that in those ten years the wage index and productivity levels will go up considerably more and the amount available under the Canada Pension Plan will go up that much more.
I ask the Minister of Transport to try to see my point. The government is decreasing the percentage of lifetime earnings which is represented by the total pension package. What I am concerned about, and I think I am speak ng for all hon. members on this side of the house, is that in the first place we should meet the immediate needs of our people, which is for more dollars, and also to allow them to preserve their d gnity. Hon. members on the other side can talk all they want about it not be ng undignified to have to face this test. The fact is that it is. We are also concerned about the long-range needs, namely, the need for a pension package which will be defens ble through the years. It has been said often that the matter of pensions should be taken out of politics. I have never said that because I do not feel that way about politics. I th nk that any issue which affects the wellbeing of the people of this country is a good political issue, but if you wish to take the matter of pensions out of partisan politics, then for heaven's sake present us with a plan that is defens ble. I would say that a plan which contains the Canada Pension Plan and old age security, which provides for an increase up to 60 to 65 per cent of lifetime earn'ngs as a pension package, would be good.
This is not achieved when you decrease the percentage which old age security represents in the total picture. This is why I want to see the $75 increased, not just for immediate needs but on a long-range basis. Let me make our position clear. We will vote for this bill, even as it stands at present if we cannot get it improved, because we want to see this money reach the people who need it.
Old Age Security Act Amendment


An hon. Member:: If they survive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If they survive until the end of March to get it. I am not being facetious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would let me ask him a question?


An hon. Member:: Has the speaker recognized the Minister of Transport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman forgotten-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Minister of Transport if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will allow a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will do so gladly. I have enjoyed doing so all evening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman not admit that if this bill is passed and comes into operation it will represent for those in real need in th's country in the ten years since 1956 an increase in old age security of 162.5 per cent, which is not bad?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is quite a comment on the level of living which these people had to endure ten years ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At a time when you boasted about the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre realizes that his time is elapsing?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just finish my sentence? Yes, I boasted of that legislation even though I did not like the $40 because in 1950 and 1951 I thought that the important thing to do was to get rid of the means test even if the amount was less than it ought to have been. Once that was done we went after increases in the amount. But this is why I am so disturbed and unhappy at the thought of the return of the means test. We have made progress by getting rid of the means test. Let us not spoil it. I urge that the government consider the whole package further and try to give parliament a chance to come up with a plan wh ch will really meet the needs of our people today in terms of both cash and dignity and also will meet the needs of Canada in the pension field in the long run.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in
December 8, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment this great and fine discussion about the increase in old age pensions.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that we are now discussing and complicating the financial situation of the aged. The situation is getting more .complex as we go along. Our older people bave a right to expect something better than the shabby policy we are advocating and the pettiness we are showing in an attempt to Improve this legislation.
I say to the minister that this legislation is merely red tape and that the more we move forward in an economy which should be sound and free while providing for a decent living, the more we are mistaken and the more we complicate matters.
Mr. Speaker, this improvement to the Old Age Security Act is so complicated that it is hardly understandable.
The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal) explained the situation quite well. He went into all the details of that set-up; as it is now, I think that we would be better off without any at all. Why act like a Scrooge when it comes to allocate the country's production in a country which is bursting with wealth?
Mr. Speaker, do the old people clothe themselves with dollar bills? Do they use dollars for food? Is it dollars that they will use for medicine and for fuel? It is the production of the country which they need, on their table and in their closets, and that production exists and is easy to allocate. But, instead of feeling compassion for their fate and admitting that our country produces abundantly, we feel compassion for the fate of money. We want our old people to partake of this abundance on the basis of the money available and if we do not find the required amounts through taxes and taxation increases, we are very cautious not to specify that an increase in pensions, will automatically trigger an increase in all kinds of taxes, so that the [DOT]old people may avail themselves of the commodities already produced.
The minister knows fully well that in 1966 our production was worth $56 billion and that only $38 billion were distributed. He should .also know that there is enough left for our old people to live decently and that this [DOT]distribution must take place.
Money, sir, is only a symbol. It is but an instrument of barter to obtain commodities, to produce, to fulfill needs. And if, in fact, production does not fulfill the needs, then the *economy is in a state of turmoil.


Instead of reforming the economy, they talk about reforming our older people. They talk about establishing a system and having the aged adjust to the new system. Any system must be developed to be used. Everything which exists is meant to be used. And all those instruments serve no purpose; so if they do not help fulfill the needs, then it is useless to try and distribute anything or do anything better.
Strangely enough, money can never be found to enable the people to live decently, when it would be so easy to do. Yet, all organizations or institutions are allowed to increase their interest rates, for instance. Large institutions are allowed to make more and more profits, to build up reserves and to conceal them and the minister is even forbidden to interfere in that respect. The minister is prevented from meddling with those reserves which are not declared for income tax purposes, without any regard for the economy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, our economy is quite unbalanced. And instead of trying to stabilize it and give it new impetus, it is being thrown still more out of balance.
Mr. Speaker, such stinginess is unwarranted. It is wrong to be stingy when it comes to our old people and the means to give them what they need. The way the minister has presented his bill, and the improvements he wants to make, none of that suits the taxpayers, or the old people.
Subject old people to regulations, income tax inspectors and all kinds of investigations, well, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the minister that it would shorten the life of all the old people. What we want in this country is freedom. And we can give a minimum of freedom to Canadians, to our old people as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others.
And I feel that old people should be granted that pension without any restriction; it should be given directly, without restriction, without inspection and without any automatic control by the bureaucracy. That red tape, Mr. Speaker, grieves our citizens. Canadians pay dearly for it. The red tape to be inflicted upon the aged will cost more than the supplementary pension you want to give them.
Therefore, I ask the minister to reconsider his policy. We are not opposed to increased pensions to the aged. We are in favour, because we know that by giving them more money there will be more purchasing power in Canada. And that is what we need. If
December 8, 1966	COMMONS
there was sufficient buying power in Canada, there would not be any unemployment such as we have at present.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, 3 per cent of the population are now unemployed, apart from those not registered on the lists, those receiving social assistance benefits and those being robbed to keep the unemployed alive. And to show that the present economic conditions do not solve the problem of any citizen, the old age pension has been raised over the past several years. It has been raised several times-
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order?


Mr. Fulton:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is rising on a point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
That pursuant to standing order 6 (2) the house
continue to sit until eleven o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely this is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who was speaking had the floor and the minister rose on a point of order in order to move a motion. Surely that is not permissible.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding of the rules is that no member can move such a motion on a point of order. He has to have the floor before he can make a motion of this sort. It is an ordinary motion which cannot be made on a point of order.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that it is ten o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I make my motion now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: If anybody has the floor now it is the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac and he does not appear to want to move the motion on behalf of the minister.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the hon. members of this house for giving me an opportunity to explain the question I put, on Thursday afternoon, December 1, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). For the benefit of the minister and of hon. members, the question was as follows:
Has he considered the possibility of imposing a ceiling on food prices in 1967?
The reasons which urged me to put this question to this government are many; I shall limit myself to listing a few.
There is serious concern among the Canadian people on the eve of Expo, as evidenced by this press report, from Le Soleil of last November 29:
The Canadian Restaurant Owners Association will present a brief to the federal government on or about December 10 asking for the establishment of a board to place a ceiling on food prices in 1967, such as the government imposed during the war. According to Mr. Cova, the co-ordinator of the association for the province of Quebec, the price of food is fixed according to the stockmarket demand, "which is ridiculous".
The request of this group has been made because, according to Mr. Cova, the federal government took no steps to reassure the population when a fantastic increase in the price of meat was announced for the following year. In this respect, the coordinator said that he thought the price of meat would not double, much less increase threefold.
The Canadian Restaurant Owners Association, whose chairman for metropolitan Quebec is Mr. George Tcharos, noted the present scarcity of foodstuffs which will last until Expo 67. The wholesalers, said the restaurant owners, are stocking their warehouses with foodstuffs which they will release only in the spring, when there will be a very great demand.
Already foods such as green peas and turkeys are becoming scarce, because they lie in warehouses. According to Mr. Roger Dulude, all the Montreal warehouses are full.
Mr. Speaker, there have always been profiteers, speculators, people who have no scruples in making exorbitant profits particularly on occasions such as the one we are getting ready to celebrate in 1967.
10912	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It would be utopic to request from the established authority absolute control of these insatiable leeches; I think it is the duty of the government to take the necessary steps to protect the population from the tentacles of these vampires brought forth by the big financial enterprises.
Moreover, we are told with emphasis that the Canadian income from the tourist industry will reach $1 billion next year and that this is expected to double in the next decade. In fact, I think it is plausible to endorse these expectations, because our country will be invaded by a host of visitors who will attend the Expo and take this opportunity to visit our country from coast to coast. In my opinion, exploiting the tourists would be giving them a very bad reception.
On November 28 last, the federal-provincial conference on tourism opened in Ottawa. The purpose of that meeting was to find out how tourism could remain an economic enterprise after the centennial in 1967. Provincial, federal and regional representatives attended the three-day meeting and reviewed the main problems now facing the tourist industry.
In the light of the reasons I just mentioned,
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) what policy he intends to follow to check the abuses which are always possible and which could prove prejudicial to the future of the Canadian nation.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, by some magic of the process of government it appears that the problems of food prices and of the housewife in general have devolved upon me as Minister of Agriculture, so I trust the hon. member will permit me to answer the question in lieu of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). This is a change which I of course welcome. I cannot imagine a more delightful and acceptable chore than being responsible for the well-being of the housewives of this country. Therefore I will certainly do my best to answer this question.
I am very gravely disturbed by the message which the hon. member has given to us that there is apparently the fear of exploitation with respect to food prices, and in particular at Expo and in the area of Expo. Unfortunately the question of price fixing is one which to my best understanding does not lie within the constitutional authority of the federal government.
[Mr. Simard.l
DEBATES	December 8, 1966
It is my understanding that the federal government only has authority to fix prices and wages in times of national crisis such as war. And thus even if such action were desirable it is my understanding that the federal government would not have this authority. If there is the kind of exploitation which the hon. member fears is going to take place in the ensuing year, I trust it will be drawn to the attention of the provincial authorities who, if the authority to fix prices and wages exists in peacetime, would to the best of my knowledge have such authority.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-SUBSTITUTION IN DESCRIPTIVE WORDING ON AIRCRAFT

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not detract from the excitement of the evening which I think hit its high note in that charming duet on the old age security change sung by Tweedle Pick and Tweedle Stan. My point in rising is to question an operation which went on within the Department of National Defence a few days ago when the words "Canadian Armed Forces" were painted on an Expediter aircraft, No. 236, at Rivers, Manitoba.
At the conclusion of his speech yesterday on the unification bill I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) this question, as recorded at page 10842 of Hansard:
Has anything been done by the minister, the associate minister, the Department of National Defence or the government in anticipation that the bill now before us will be in fact the law of the land?
Of course what I had in mind was that these words "Canadian Armed Forces" had been painted on their aircraft in anticipation that the house would in fact pass the unification bill, No. C-243. The Minister of National Defence, in his bland, offhand way, answered that the members of his staff are anxiously awaiting the passage of this legislation and that some of the staff were very enthusiastic and anxious to get on with the program. This is an almost laughable answer if you consider that discipline and authority should be part of the methods by which the department is operated. Is the minister now telling us that things are completely out of hand and he no longer is controlling the department? Knowing the minister, I suggest that is not the case, but he is trying to put a bright and unseemly face on things that are going on within it which are not in accordance with the law of
December 8, 19G8
the land. Section 15 of the National Defence Act provides as follows:
The Canadian forces are the naval, army and air forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of three services, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
There is nothing in the National Defence Act, the law of the land, referring to something called "Canadian Armed Forces." I do find there is a reference to something called "Canadian Armed Forces" in clause 2 of Bill C-243, but this legislation is a long way from being passed. I suggest that the minister in his brave new world of experiments will get along a lot better with parliament if he will act according to the existing law of the land and not come before us and give bland offhand answers to problems which, although they do not vex me particularly, do vex many people whose morale should be a very important consideration so far as he is concerned.



PARLIAMENT HILL-REQUEST FOR DEBATE BEFORE ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS

Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the matter which I should like to discuss this evening relates to the grounds of parliament hill and substantial permanent alterations to those grounds without the knowledge of, or opportunity for discussion by parliament. It arises out of my attempt yesterday to obtain assurance from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), who is the responsible minister in respect of this matter, that in future no such substantial alterations will be made affecting parliament hill by way of alterations in ingress or egress or by way of erection of permanent structures without the kind of notice which will give parliament the opportunity to discuss them. Unfortunately, yesterday I was unable to obtain that assurance, although I would have thought that any government which did not arrogate to itself the function of ownership of the grounds of parliament would give that assurance very readily.
If you will refer sir, to page 10811 of Hansard you will find the issue fully set out. I only emphasize once again that 1 am talking about permanent alterations and not the pinpricking type of alterations to which the minister referred such as changes in the windows of the parliament buildings or the putting up of some flags around the front entrance. My question makes perfectly clear that that is not the type of thing with which I was dealing.
23033-690J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion What was asked by way of assurance from the government was recognition of the fact that the buildings and grounds of parliament hill are the property of the people of Canada and not the perquisite of the Liberal government or any other government of the day. They are not a great preserve of one government, as seemed to be indicated by the attitude taken by the minister yesterday.
This matter is not important just because of a difference between myself and the minister or the fact that I am a Conservative and the minister is a Liberal minister. Unfortunately in the past we have seen some illustrations of very real dangers in this regard. I think particularly of the situation concerning the west block when one of the minister's predecessors, who was a member of the party to which the present minister belongs, proposed that that building be demolished. That was before 1957.
At that time we took the position that it should not be demolished, that it was one of the most historic buildings in Canada and that the whole of the parliament buildings are part of the history of Canada. Fortunately we were able to carry our point. We were able to do so only because we had notice of the government's intention. It was a substantial project and therefore notice had to be given by way of an item in the government's estimates. The matter came up in the house and we were able to block the intention of the then minister. Therefore the west block was preserved and the inside of that historic building was remodelled. When we came into office we had the honour and privilege of carrying that project into effect, with the result that one can see now that all the historic and traditional aspects of the west block have been preserved and that it is a useful and valuable part of the whole complex of the parliament buildings and the site of parliament.
I have mentioned this example, sir, because I wanted to emphasize how fortunate it was that members of parliament representing the people of Canada had notice of the government's intention and were able to debate that intention. We observe substantial alterations to parliament hill by the erection of substantial structures. Although we have not had the full story regarding the perpetual flame, it cannot be denied that it is a substantial structure. We have another example in the alteration of the ingresses to and egresses from the grounds of parliament hill, perhaps for the better but perhaps for the worse. I am not raising that at the moment as a matter about which we can do anything because it is now a

10914	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion fait accompli. But the whole point of my objection is that the project was carried out without an opportunity for members of parliament, on behalf of the people of Canada, to discuss it. I hope it will be a permanent improvement because it is certainly permanent. Provided the minister is not going to change it every six weeks we are entitled to assume it is permanent.
My point is one of principle. No minister of the government is entitled to make alterations to the grounds of parliament hill without parliament itself first approving such alterations. This is not a preserve of the Grits any more than it is a preserve of the Conservatives or of any other party. This is the property of the people of Canada. These are historic grounds which were established at the time of confederation. I submit, therefore, that it is wrong in principle for any government to arrogate to itself the right to make substantial alterations of a permanent nature without the approval of parliament on behalf of the people of Canada. This whole area and its buildings, this piece of Canadian history, belong to the people. I am only asking that the minister give us an assurance tonight that in future-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I was amazed by the remarks of the hon. gentleman since he is aware that there has been no change whatsoever in the traditional procedure used since confederation in dealing with this type of matter. What he is trying to do tonight is to put on the record again a misstatement of the facts presented during the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns regarding the west block. There was a dispute at that time regarding the best method of preserving that historical building. That dispute was as to whether it was best to take the insides out of that building and reconstitute the inner portion in a way which would utilize all the space or to follow the course followed by the government of which the hon. member was a member of spending enormous sums of money by taking the more expensive course of retaining the inside rooms in exactly the same form they were prior to the alterations.
The question asked by the hon. member yesterday had to do with a temporary structure erected for the centennial celebrations. I do not have the exact cost of that structure
DEBATES	December 8, 19S6
with me but I think it was in the neighbourhood of $4,400. He wanted to know whether such a structure could be erected without putting the matter before parliament for approval. Let me suggest it is not practical to do that. In attempting to answer his oral question, which was asked without notice, I tried to illustrate how impossible such a situation would be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What nonsense!
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Tonight the hon. member has again confused the issue about parliament hill because I think anyone in this country will agree that parliament hill must be carefully preserved and carefully treated in all respects. I must say I was amazed that, if the hon. gentleman felt this matter should have been raised, he was not here and available to raise it when my estimates were before the house and when he had notice of precisely what was being done in the way of the new opening for the entrance to parliament hill. The hon. gentleman had the opportunity to raise the matter at that time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When was that?


George James McIlraith: I think it was about ten days ago that my estimates were discussed in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For how long? Was that the day we passed $1.5 billion in an hour and a half?


George James McIlraith: No; you refused to pass them. You did not keep the agreement you made to pass them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or were they passed in three quarters of an hour?


George James McIlraith: You refused to pass them and held them back. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I should be allowed to make my reply. The point is that the hon. gentleman had the opportunity to raise this matter if he thought there was anything inappropriate about it. I will admit that it was put in hand without consulting parliament. However, it was done in accordance with traditional practice since confederation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Friday, December 9, 1966



PRIVILEGE


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege which arises from allegations made here last Wednesday night by my colleague the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and a statement he made to a newspaperman afterwards. In that last statement, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe allegedly said: Who, in the house, looks after the interests of Quebec more than I do? And, at that time, he was dealing with the matter of the harbours along the St. Lawrence.
Therefore, since I represent the riding of Trois-Rivieres, I feel that, in the statement he made last Wednesday night, the hon. member for Lapointe made openly accusations which he repeated in his statement to the press. I must add that he told some falsehoods which were later corrected in the press. He said some provoking things about the western provinces. But as far as hon. members from Quebec are concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mongrain:: -in any case, as far as I am concerned as member for Trois-Rivieres and member of the house, I feel that my personal integrity is being challenged by that statement.
I would like to be entirely free to make any request for my riding and my province when I deem it advisable to do so. But I would also like to do so with dignity and seriously, without altering the facts and causing any prejudice to anyone.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to dissociate myself from the statement made by my colleague for Lapointe with regard to the St. Lawrence ports. And I reject his accusation of carelessness or lack of interest against the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres or any other Quebec member. Since the stand taken by the hon. member for Lapointe seems to come from his separatist philosophy, I wish to protest even more strongly and ask you to assign me another seat in the house, at your convenience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is raising a point which he considers as a question of privilege. His statement was not followed by a motion. Under the circumstances, I do not think it should be ruled whether or not there is a question of privilege. With regard to his request to change seats, it will be looked into as soon as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege. The member for Lapointe considers perhaps that he can rise on a question of privilege. I do not think that he can enter into a debate on the matter raised by the member for Trois-Rivieres, because then, the ruling that I must give is that there is in fact no question of privilege. But as I said, I do not want to prevent the member for Lapointe from speaking. He will have to do so by rising on his own question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I simply want to say that if he thinks that the cap fits him-as for his request to change his seat, send the member for Trois-Rivieres

December 9, 1966
Labour Relations
with the Liberal members. He will feel at home.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



MR. GROOS-ALLEGED OMISSION IN OFFICIAL REPORT

David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to the record of proceedings for yesterday. I have only just received my copy of Hansard and I find there is an omission which should appear at page 10908. I distinctly heard what was said and I consider it of importance. At page 10908 in column 2 the Minister of Transport said:
May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I should like to ask the hon. gentleman just where we could save $100 million out of this year's budget? I am sure the Minister of Finance would be glad to have his recipe.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre replied:
We could save it from the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Walter Groos: At that time I distinctly heard a similar observation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, not once but twice, and this is not in Hansard. This is an omission I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would wish to correct.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual development when members want to insert in Hansard words which were not recorded, I said "Take it from Hellyer".
(


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members expect me to rule that there is no question of privilege. I would think that what appears in Hansard is what the Hansard reporter heard, not what an hon. member heard.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development-Mr. Whelan.

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventeenth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs in English and in French. In this report we refer to the house Bill S-30, an act to incorporate League Savings and Mortgage Company.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS-THIRD REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Loiselle.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of any standing order to the contrary, upon the adoption of this order, the consideration of the bill intituled "An act to provide for the resumption of the operation of ports on the west coast of Canada", shall take precedence of all other business, any or all stages thereof may be taken in the same sitting, and during the consideration thereof, the house shall sit continuously without interruption and without regard to the hours of adjournment specified in any standing order.-The Minister of Public Works.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission of the house to withdraw the two notices of motions standing in my name on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



SATURDAY SITTING TO DISCUSS THE MEASURE RESPECTING OPERATION OF PACIFIC COAST PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
That, notwithstanding any standing order to the contrary, on Saturday, December 10,	1966, the
House shall meet at 11.00 o'clock a.m. for the purpose of considering the bill intituled "An Act to provide for the resumption of the operation of ports on the west coast of Canada", the said sitting shall not be adjourned before the legislation has been disposed of, consideration of the said bill shall be the only item of business on that day, and any or all stages thereof may be proceeded with.-The Minister of Public Works.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
Bill intituled: "An act to provide for the resumption of the operation of ports on the west coast of Canada."-The Minister of Labour.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of recent developments
December 9, 1966	COMMONS
in this connection I would ask that the bill be dropped. I hope, however, that the house will listen to an appeal for the speedy passage of another bill now before the house concerning a matter interlocked with the work stoppages that have occurred on the west coast. I hope this bill will be introduced on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Bill dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE TIME LIMIT ON APPLICATION RESPECTING HOURS OF WORK

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-255, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Square Deal).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in part I sets hours of work at eight in a day and 40 in a week for businesses operating under federal jurisdiction. There is another provision in the act which permits the deferment or suspension of the application of those hours of work not exceeding 18 months after an application is made by any person so to defer or suspend them. Another section of the act, section 53, provides for an automatic suspension upon application.
The working together of sections 51 and 53 of the act could mean the perpetual deferment of the application of the hours of work section in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. In fact, this month is 18 months from the coming into force of the act and there are still a number of outstanding applications and consequent deferments of the application of the law.
My bill seeks to set certain time limits beyond which the deferment or suspension of the application of part I will not apply; in other words, to set a time limit beyond which they will not go. A square deal, therefore, Mr. Speaker, is a thing with which we plug a loophole.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I address this question to the Prime Minister because it deals with more than one department. Has the government received a message from the Very
Inquiries of the Ministry Rev. E. J. Nash, Dean of Catholic Clergy in Sydney, pointing out the serious situation of 425 steelworkers laid off at the Sydney steel plant in the past two months, and that 400 more will become unemployed during the next month? He says that as a result of this mass unemployment chaotic conditions are developing in that area. Would the Prime Minister not be willing now, in view of the representations from this source and from hon. members who have raised the question in the house, to agree that emergency action should be taken at once as a prelude to whatever permanent solution the government intends ultimately to bring forward?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received this telegram, to which I have replied indicating that the government is giving serious and urgent consideration to this matter. The ministers concerned have already stated in the house what is being done to deal with this problem. I cannot go beyond that at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is not the
Prime Minister in a position to say what is being done now to meet this serious situation? Has the government decided as yet whether the undertaking and promise given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare 13 months ago in respect of the $25 million will be carried out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is another question which we are considering, and meetings have been held with the government of Nova Scotia. As a result of these meetings we hope to be in a position to make a statement on this matter within a very short time, in which we will be able to indicate a far reaching plan which I believe will be of great help to the area.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: We appreciate the fact that the government is negotiating with the province of Nova Scotia, but does the Prime Minister not realize that the initiative was taken by the federal government, and therefore the least that could be done now is to make the $25 million available at once so that the Nova Scotia government can continue its planning in co-operation with the federal government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are taking steps which are more far reaching than the one my hon. friend has indicated, and this can only be done with the co-operation of the government of Nova Scotia,
December 9, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
THAILAND-U.S. MILITARY ACTIVITIES On the orders of the day:


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister tell the house whether the Canadian government has been kept informed about United States military activities in Thailand, as reported on the television news last night, and if so has the government also been informed of the purpose of these activities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I take my hon. friend's question as notice?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell us whether he intends to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to implement the report of the Gill committee presented in November 1962?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think that it has already been announced-though perhaps the hon. member was not in the house at the time-that an interdepartmental committee established by the Prime Minister some months ago has now completed its report. It is a complex and involved report which requires study in depth by the Minister of Labour. I have not had an opportunity to complete my review during the past two or three weeks. When that is done I will place my recommendations before the cabinet. I think I can assure the hon. member that no legislation can be expected at this session of parliament, however.



OMBUDSMAN-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING APPOINTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that yesterday Manitoba became the fourth province 
in recent weeks to announce its intention to establish the office of ombudsman, also in view of the fact that the last Speech from the Throne made some reference in regard to this, I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform us whether or not he intends to set up a royal commission, which was promised in the Speech from the Throne, or to bring in legislation which would establish such an office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be grateful if my hon. friend could give me a day or two to reply to this question, the importance of which we all appreciate. It is a matter which has a direct relationship to the provinces, some of which are beginning to act, and we have been discussing this matter with them. I will make a further statement as soon as I can.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Recently statements have been made by presidents of Canadian banks, and I refer specifically to one made by Mr. Louis Hebert, president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale to the annual meeting of that bank in Montreal yesterday, in which he said the following:
The current state of the economy presents a forewarning of an impending recession or at least a very serious slowing down of the growth,
In view of this, would the government give consideration to steps which could be taken to stimulate the economy and prevent what most economists in the country believe to be an impending slowing down of the economy?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot accept the statement just made by the hon. member for Northumberland. This is not the consensus of view of all economists in the country, least of all is it the view of one of the most eminent advisers, the head of the Economic Council of Canada. But I do want to say to him and to the house that the government is watching the situation very carefully, and will try to adapt its policies to the needs of the circumstances.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You did not know there was an inflation, either.
December 9, 1966


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in asking a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I reminded the house of a decision with which we were already acquainted, namely of the moratorium in the bombing in Viet Nam during the holiday season. I asked the minister whether he had made representations to extend such a moratorium into the new year. The minister subsequently informed me that on behalf of the Canadian government he had made representations, both on his trip behind the iron curtain and in the United States to senior officials expressing the Canadian point of view in this regard.
I would now ask the minister what was the Canadian point of view that he expressed to state department officials and behind the iron curtain. What Canadian point of view did he express in relation to prolonging the moratorium on bombing after the holiday season?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend fully realizes that the reply I gave him yesterday was as complete as it could be in the circumstances and having in mind the desired results.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. Did the minister express the point of view that this moratorium should be extended or not? I think it is a simple question. What point of view did he express; did it have content; was it a definite recommendation that the bombing moratorium should be prolonged?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the minister answer?



CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is celebrated in the United Nations as human rights day. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government has within the past few months communicated with the provinces with a view to ascertaining whether the provinces would agree to a constitutional amendment embodying the terms of the Bill of Rights.

Inquiries of the Ministry
At the same time, I would ask him whether he would communicate with the Queen's Printer and suggest that the action taken in not continuing the printing of the Bill of Rights is not in keeping with the demands that people on every hand are making for copies of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first question is concerned we have not in the last two months communicated with the provinces on this matter.
In so far as the second question is concerned, I should like to look into the exact situation at the printing bureau with respect to this very important document.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask the Minister of Justice a question, of which I sent him notice. Perhaps the Prime Minister or the appropriate minister can answer my question.
This question is asked in response to various inquiries that I have received from persons who are very concerned about the federal government's powers under the constitution to take effective action with respect to the increase in the cost of living, particularly since we have a committee of this house and now a provincially-sponsored committee studying this question.
My question is this. In order that many organizations and persons concerned with the cost of living will be correctly informed with respect to the constitutional responsibility of the federal government, is the minister prepared to make a statement that will clearly define the constitutional responsibility of the federal government to legislate on such matters as price control, standards, packaging, labelling, etc.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to ask the hon. member to repeat that question, because it was a long one, but I do apologize to him for not hearing it, having been engaged in very earnest conversation with my neighbour about what is happening at the printing bureau. Perhaps he would let me read it in Hansard and answer on Monday.
10920	COMMONS DEBATES	December 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
UNITED NATIONS	South Africa, or is it the intention of the
Rhodesia-USE OF force by Canada IN	British government to except and exempt
EXECUTION OF sanctions	South Africa?
On the orders of the day:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of external affairs a question. In view of the public statement by Prime Minister Harold Wilson that Britain will not use force in Southern Rhodesia, would the minister of external affairs make a similar announcement on behalf of Canada and correct his statement of the other day, when he did not rule out the use of force?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for correcting any statement that I made the other day. The government's position with regard to the use of force has been clearly stated. What I did state to my hon. friend was that I was not prepared to discuss a resolution the full terms of which had not yet been made known.
The terms of the resolution introduced by the British government are now make known. They refer to selective lists for mandatory action under chapter 7, and Canada of course as a loyal member of the United Nations will support this resolution if it should meet with the approval of the Security Council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can get a clearer answer to my original question. Will the minister now state frankly and clearly that Canada will not resort to the use of force in connection with Southern Rhodesia. That is what I want to know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will frankly state that if the hon. gentleman would look at the replies given he would see that the government's position on this question has been stated unequivocally.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is pure obfuscation.



RHODESIA-AREAS AND COMMODITIES INVOLVED IN APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister now make one of his unequivocal statements and tell us the nature of the commodities included in the selective embargo. Would he also tell whether the embargo or the sanctions will apply in


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said that I thought that all commodities covered in the British proposal before the Security Council were already embraced by the government's embargo of last January. I find that that is the case. All the commodities mentioned in Mr. Brown's resolution are already covered by the program which this house discussed last January.


David Lewis: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs make clear, if the Security Council adopts the resolution of Mr. Brown, that the means of enforcing the resolution would be up to the Security Council and the United Nations rather than to any one country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the case.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister let the house know whether South Africa is to be exempted or excepted? That is the answer I am trying to get. We have heard from the minister; we know he is not trying to be misleading, but what is the answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that that question does not have much sense behind it. Whether South Africa is included is not something that the Canadian government can determine. There is a resolution now before the Security Council providing for the imposition of selective sanctions. The British government through its foreign minister has said that it is prepared to accept an amendment to that resolution. If an amendment covering oil is presented in acceptable terms, the British government will be prepared to support it.
The means to be employed to enforce the Security Council resolution is something yet to be determined by the Security Council. For my right hon. friend to ask us now to anticipate a decision which has not yet been formulated is, I think, deserving of the characterization that I gave to his question a few moments ago.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the minister that his answer is an unequivocal collection and collation of nonsense.
December 9. 1966
1092r


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada has been asked, as a member of the Commonwealth in dealing with this question-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I beg the hon.
member's pardon, I have not heard the question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall start again. Has Canada, as a member of the Commonwealth been asked to take special measures in addition to those contemplated in selective sanctions placed before the Security Council? If so, what has Canada's response been to Commonwealth action on this Rhodesian problem?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: No, Mr. Speaker,
we have not.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace): I have a question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Has the Postmaster General anything to report about the proposed strike of postal workers in Montreal against Rod Service Limited?
Hon. Jean-Pierre  Cole@Poslmasler General: Mr. Speaker, I have not much to add to what I said yesterday in reply to a question from the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).
The only new development since then is that it seems that a strike vote was taken yesterday among the employees of Rod Service Limited. I would like to set the record straight at this point. The disagreement is not between Rod Service Limited and the Post Office Department but between the employees and the management of Rod Service Limited.
I might add that negotiations will carry on this afternoon and over the week end.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: My
question is for the Minister of Labour, Mr. 23033-6911
Inquiries of the Ministry Speaker. As this house will recess shortly for the Christmas holidays, and as farmers across Canada will make plans soon for spring operations, can the minister say what progress is being made by the government to bring farm-labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, as promised in last year's election?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the third time of late that I have answered this question. I have announced that the government has declared its intention to introduce extensions of unemployment insurance to agricultural and horticultural employees. I have already said in this house that the necessary order in council has been passed. Such coverage will become effective on April 1 of next year.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
NEW PARKS	*
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Queens):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have sent him notice of it. It is based on the press report of a recent address delivered in Halifax by one of his officials, in which that official announced that in the four Atlantic provinces a number of future national parks have been delineated. Can the minister advise the number and location of such new parks designated for development in Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question should be placed on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development was quoted as saying that the Minister of Fisheries would be making a more complete statement regarding the film in which a baby seal is skinned alive. In view of the startling comments in the article is the Minister of Fisheries prepared to make his statement now?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development said I would make a statement to the house. I have, however, prepared a statement, showing the
December 9, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry action taken by the Department of Fisheries on the sealing operation in the gulf of St. Lawrence. I can say now that the statement of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development was correct. We now have evidence that the film taken in 1964 was taken three days before the opening of the season. We have signed declarations by the participants that they were paid to perform certain operations not in accordance with regular practices in sealing.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of his statement can the minister say whether charges have been laid.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Notwithstanding the efforts made, it took the Department of Fisheries over two years to secure evidence. The persons involved would not make declarations that this operation took place before the opening of the season. The evidence came into our hands when it was too late to lay charges. We are amending the sealing regulations now to give protection in this regard in the future.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and is related to the reply he gave to a previous question. May I ask the minister whether he and his department, and the government, would give as much publicity to the information he has related to the house, and which we read was attributed to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), as we have read in recent months regarding the hunting of seals?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have prepared a complete statement on the action taken by the Department of Fisheries, and a copy of this statement will be made available to all members of the house within the next few .days,



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which arises out of a statement he made to the house earlier in the session about deferment of the reintroduction of a bill with respect to the Indian Claims Commission. Can the minister undertake to make a

statement to the house prior to the Christmas recess, possibly on motions, outlining his present intention in respect to this whole matter, and in particular its relation to the situation regarding the B.C. Indian land question?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I did undertake to delay introduction of the Indian Claims Commission legislation until such time as the Indian people of B.C. had an opportunity of laying before us certain facts about the British Columbia land question. I have told them recently that, in my view, pressures for the introduction of the claims legislation will not permit us to delay forever. They have had a number of meetings in the province of B.C. and are to have another, probably this week end, at which they are going to endeavour to say they are representing all of the Indian people of B.C., in which case we would sit down with them. But I think the hon. member has a pretty fair idea of the situation, and if I can put all the details together I will make a statement before we rise for the Christmas holiday.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister if, in his preparation of a statement relating to this matter to be delivered on motions, he would also include reference to the possibility of amendments to the Indian Act?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, this will be taken into account.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in which I am sure he will be interested, in view of the imminent appearance of his transport bill in the house. As a member of the standing committee on transport and communications I am receiving complaints concerning the lack of railway passenger accommodation. Will the minister use his good offices in an effort to have the railways provide additional passenger equipment and service for the holiday season?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do whatever moral suasion will permit me to do, sir.


David Lewis: Then you will fail.
December 9, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement he made this morning in answer to the question put to him by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Iiees), in which he stated that the government was carefully watching the state of our economy, would he not now consider it an appropriate time to eliminate the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery and building materials?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think this is not an appropriate question. The hon. member is making a suggestion. It is a question of a very general nature and I doubt if it could be asked at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare coming into the chamber and I would like to ask him a question. Since the medicare legislation was passed by the house yesterday, and since at the present time people, especially in rural and outlying areas, are experiencing a serious shortage of doctors' and medical personnel, can the minister assure us that the government has studied, or is studying short term plans to avoid a serious shortage of doctors and other medical personnel in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: Well, can the minister assure the house that he will be announcing these plans very soon, to alleviate the real worry of people in rural and outlying areas who are faced with this situation today? They call a doctor and cannot find him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) laughs. Does he find that amusing-to call a doctor when you need one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; the hon. gentleman said I laughed. I
Inquiries oj the Ministry was laughing at the fact the hon. gentleman had opposed medicare and was now pretending to be in favour of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if this should be pursued further. The Minister of Transport claims that this was a question of privilege, but certainly it was not. I would think we should go on to another subject.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The minister's statement was incorrect. The record speaks for itself: I did not oppose medicare.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister speaking in the house on housing matters, and ask him in view of the deepening housing crisis now settling in in Canada, as evidenced by the statements by his own officials, indicating that housing prices have gone up 25 per cent, and rents 12 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Reid Scott: -and in view of the very serious condition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the purpose of a question is to>
seek information and not to convey information to the house. Therefore he should ask his question.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, with great respect that is what I was attempting so to do. The minister seems to have a set of blinkers on concerning the housing crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has no question to ask we will go on to another question.


Reid Scott: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has to take account of what the Chair has said.


Reid Scott: I assure you, Mr.. Speaker, I always do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
10924	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, there is no concern on the opposite side of the house about the housing crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for Danforth once again to ask a question, if he has a question in mind.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Ask them if they will get off then-rear ends.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I hope Hansard will not attribute that remark to me. It was made by the hon. member from Nanaimo. I want to ask the minister in view of what I have said, and in view of what he must know to be a serious crisis, can we now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reid Scott: -look to the minister to come into the house next week and enunciate a housing policy for Canada that will meet this terrible, deepening crisis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question; it is a representation.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, who is dealing with this matter, may I put my question to the Prime Minister. Has the government yet prepared the appropriate motion to give to the joint committee on the public service the necessary terms of reference so that that committee can consider the question of increases in the pensions of retired civil servants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker I shall have to look into this matter and discuss it directly with the minister concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering the possibility of acting on this matter without having to send it to the committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question two or three times, to the effect that the matter is under consideration.

DEBATES	December 9, 1966



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminsler):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, notice of which I have sent to the Minister of Fisheries and to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder if either minister could say whether, in the light of the national publicity being given to the matter, they have received appeals from the public in relation to the situation of the 17 white whales which are trapped north of Inuvik and, if so, what action is being contemplated?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, while no public appeal has reached me in this regard, representations were made to me a few days ago by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories suggesting that the Arctic biological station of the research board take advantage of this incident to do further research regarding the behaviour of white whales or belugas. We assume that the natives would take a number of these whales for food. The matter is being followed very closely by the research board in co-operation with officials of the northern affairs and northern development branch at Inuvik.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether he would explain the strike breaking role of the Canadian National Railways in moving materials into a strike-bound plant on St. Clair avenue east called Canadian Line Materials, a division of McGraw-Edison of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the ordei'S of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask the minister, now that inflationary pressures appear to be easing, whether he is giving consideration to not proceeding with his intention to bring down an interim or baby budget.
December 9, 1966	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, when this house embarks upon massive and new programs of expenditure, particularly for the benefit of the people of the country as a whole, that the taxpayers should be faced with the question of paying for those benefits. I intend to bring down a message within a few days, unless the house does not deal with the question of pensions before that time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to ask the minister whether the interim or baby budget which he intends to bring down will be simply an interim budget or whether it will be antiinflation oriented as originally stated.
[DOT] (12 Noon)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night, I was speaking on the distribution of advantages to our older citizens and the unpleasant investigations to which they must submit in order to share in the wealth of our country.
As I was saying, to reduce the artificial problem of unemployment and automation, more purchasing power should be distributed. The old age pension is one way of doing it, of circulating more money, for the good of our economy, while helping each and every citizen who should have enough purchasing power to meet his material, intellectual and spiritual needs according to his nature and his daily, monthly and annual requirements.
Our government, the highest authority, the highest institution in this country is responsible for the welfare of each citizen, and not only for the prosperity of its great production, finance and business institutions. Why is it, sir, that all our big institutions are so prosperous as compared with human beings, several of whom five in hardship, destitution, insecurity, particularly when they reach old age, the age for rest, the age for retirement?
Old Age Security Act Amendment
In years past, Mr. Speaker, all our old farmers had their own farms, their own cars, their own implements, their own livestock and their own production; they passed them on to their sons, who could marry while they were young without having to rely on the government for a living at any period of their lives.
Now, Mr. Speaker, why do old age pensions, and this can be said of all sectors of the economy, have to be increased, reorganized and readjusted? Salaries have to be raised, prices go up, people go on strike and request salary increases. The economy has never been in such a mess. The economy can no longer regain its equilibrium; it is constantly out of balance. And among those who are delegated to administer the country, to keep the economy in balance, nobody seems to be able to strike and maintain a proper balance between goods and distribution of goods, so as to permit each individual to live decently, as he has the right to expect, in a country where science, progress and development in every field have been accepted, in short, in a country where scientific progress outshines even the imagination of many citizens.
In 1966, in this 20th century of science and development, everybody in Canada should have a guarantee of solvent and adequate security. But we do not have it yet. We are still discussing ways and means to fight poverty. Poverty is everywhere. However, we apply the wrong methods to settle the problem. As a matter of fact, we pass legislation and regulations impoverishing the great majority of our citizens.
How come, Mr. Speaker, that governments nowadays have to hand every individual money to provide, from the cradle to the grave, for his basic needs and essentials of life. What is the cause of this general uneasiness?
It is said and repeated again and again that goods are plentiful in all parts of the country; the only shortage is in the purchasing power of people. The source of this uneasiness, Mr. Speaker, lies nowhere else. Let each senior citizen have the necessities of life, the daily essentials, without investigation, as a matter of right as a citizen, in the name of personal dignity, by his right as a full member of the Canadian nation, and you will see a change in all this atmosphere of want, poverty, misery or concern, which stifles the joy of living in all Canadian homes, in this wage-earning class, the farmers of today.
Here, before Providence, in the Canadian parliament, and before the God of plenty, we must assume the responsibilities which befall
10926	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment us today. Our first responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that every citizen, particularly our senior citizens, are granted the joys of life, the personal dignity, along with economic and financial security as full-fledged members of the Canadian nation.
There is no poverty in Canada; there are only citizens who are cheated, frustrated, deprived of their right to live, of their right as citizens, and of their right to human dignity-


Mr. Habel:: "Vers Demain".


Henry P. Latulippe: -their right to security as private human individuals and their right to enjoy their possessions are being sacrificed under the complacent eye of blundering, incompetent or conniving ministers.
Every senior citizen would be able to live in honest comfort if he were not deprived of his true possessions, his own rights, his own land, his rights as a Canadian citizen, his rights as a full-fledged member, with whom our national prosperity must be shared fully, this prosperity to which he has contributed all his life, by his toil, by unfair and despised hardships.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if in the past our senior citizens have been dispossessed, if they have lost their possessions, if they were not able to set something aside for old age, then, this means that there is some kind of a leech in our economy which has dispossessed our senior citizens, which has taken away their possessions and their joy of life, and that is why all senior citizens today must crawl, beg for public assistance, creep before the governments to be granted the right to live. Such a situation is illogical, in a great and beautiful country such as Canada, where prosperity is so great that it spills over onto the whole world.
We can afford to help other countries by lending them money which will enable them to subsist, but for a Canadian, when it comes to finding some means by which he will be able to live decently, then, we can no longer find the money. And right away we say taxes will have to be raised, we will have to find the money somewhere in order to support our senior citizens.
Where war or the construction of war equipment are concerned, money is no problem. When national defence is concerned, any amount of money is found to stimulate the economy in order to buy war equipment.
But when the protection of human lives is concerned or supplying the essentials to keep people alive, there is no money to be found, which is illogical. And when some people talk
[Mr. Latulippe.l
DEBATES	December 9, 1966
about finding the necessary means for their subsistence, there are cries of murder, madness, utopia, and all sorts of things are said against those who try to protect life, people, human beings.
Mr. Speaker, in our modem society the state is inclined to look after, dictate and control everything and like a tidal wave, it invades every sector of public and private life, penetrating even into the conscience of the people to influence, constrain or break them by all those oppressive and paralysing methods of fiscal investigations. The state proper derives its power from the unrestricted collective strength of a nation made up of living and absolute entities.
The state only acknowledges the collective powers, with which it plays with consummate skill in order to control, neutralize and even annihilate them. But the state ignores and despises the individual, and considers him as a mere object, an insignificant thing, an official number, an entry in a record, nothing more. That is what we are doing to the human being. The modern state has thus become, so to speak, the enemy of man. But the state is just a word which is used to conceal people, ministers or administrators, governments which ignore or pretent to ignore their responsibilities. The supreme authority in a country can be neither irresponsible nor anonymous. No. Persons hold that supreme authority and exercise, in their positions, the same powers over all people as those of a small businessman in his business or a farmer on his land. No one who holds an official position can declare himself inefficient or irresponsible, especially in this era of science, of universal diplomacy, of well structured and organized institutions.
Results are either good or bad as they are meant to be. They have been planned. By whom? For whom? For whose benefit? Whom are they meant to frustrate? If planned production were followed by planned distribution, would the aged be in such unfortunate circumstances, having to go on their knees before investigators, before this or that board? Would they have to exercise themselves over red tape, that is as obscure to the mind as to conscience?
Mr. Speaker, uneasiness has reached its limit. It is a premonitory sign of an early awakening. I wish therefore that this new trend in national economic management will remove all unpleasantness from the wording of our existing old age security legislation. It is still time to improve this legislation in order to make it more consistent with present day re-
December 9. 1966	COMMONS
quirements, with science and modern day opportunities. Let us make an effort to avoid time-worn administrative routines of distribution, as we have already rejected the obsolete methods of production and capitalization.
Every human being and particularly every senior citizen, has the right to enjoy Canada's prosperity, to relish the progress to which he has contributed all his life as best he could with the talents which he applied to nature and to the techniques of his day. Must he suffer in order to enjoy all that our time has to offer? Must he live his twilight years feeling deceived, despised, suspected, spied upon and watched like an evil-doer? I visualize my own grandfather, my own father, rising proudly against all these unnecessary precautions, and claiming their right to life, dignity, freedom and personal recognition. I urge the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) as well as the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), to be ready, to be fully aware of their responsibilities and to give our senior citizens the opportunity to while away their days comfortably, feeling secure, free and at peace with the world.
[DOT] (12.10 p.m.)


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks this afternoon I should like to congratulate the minister upon his vision in bringing in legislation providing for a guaranteed annual income. I recall that some months ago in this house I urged him strongly to do this, and it pleases me that he has. I regret in a way that he has set the figures for the proposed guaranteed annual income so low and on such a fine borderline that the advantage of it cannot be clearly seen by many of the people who will be affected by this measure.
I trust the minister will be amenable to accepting amendments that will raise the figures to a point where the tremendous advantages of this plan will become more obvious than they are at the present time, when the advantages are clouded by the paucity of the figures presented to us. While I congratulate the minister on his vision, I must take some time to say that this idea is not new in the world and is certainly not new to Canada. Many, many years ago Social Credit began urging on the governments of this country that income be provided to its citizens more directly than has been the case up to the present time.
Old Age Security A.ct Amendment
I recall that when the Social Credit movement began in Canada its founder, Major Douglas, frequently said that political action by Social Crediters would not be necessary if governments did what they should in the line of legislation. Usually, and the pattern has been repeated over and over again, governments have been so intransigent that people who have believed in Social Credit principles have had to be involved in political action in order to allow for change at all. But when change comes, as it is coming now, and is coming from whatever party happens to be in power in this country, I feel we should welcome it because of the line that has been proudly developed by Social Credit in this country for many years.
The concept of the guaranteed annual income has been explored considerably. One of the people who has had a great deal to say about it is the economist Robert Theobald. In his book "The Guaranteed Income" he makes a very fine argument for applying the guaranteed annual income to the aged. I should like to quote from that argument at the beginning of my remarks. He says:
There should be no need to justify payments to the physically and mentally ill: they cannot work and society should surely provide for them.
He goes on to say:
Some justification, however, is often felt to be required for more adequate payments to the old, for one of the most sanctified of our work myths is that older people both could and should have saved enough to provide for their old age. This is, of course, merely a cynical fiction. Those who are old today worked in an era when their income was necessarily far lower than is paid for jobs demanding a comparable level of skills and application today. They needed to spend a large proportion of their income just to cover their expenses, including the education of their children. They were therefore able to save very little, if anything, whether directly or through insurance schemes. Today's labour force, however, would not be enjoying its present level of income without their hard work and that of earlier generations who had even less to show for their toil. Any fair distribution of the nation's resources should ensure that old people be allowed to share in the wealth they created. Their labour was, in fact, wealth, and it was invested in the national economy at a time when its value was at a premium. Today this group should be collecting their "earned interest."
I think this is the soundest justification for the guaranteed annual income for the aged. The book also holds out a hope that eventually a proper application of this plan will be made and we might look forward to some of the things to which Keynes the economist was referring when he said:
When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great
10928	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
changes in the code ol morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest values. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value... All kinds of social customs and economic practices affecting the distribution of wealth and its rewards and penalties which we now maintain at all costs, however distasteful and unjust they may be in themselves... we shall then be free, at last, to discard.
We in this party have not been the only spokesmen for the guaranteed annual income, nor has the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) been the only spokesman in support of it. On February 28 last on the adjournment debate in this house the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spent seven minutes extolling the concept of the guaranteed annual income. At that time he did a very good job of presenting this concept to the house. I could not help thinking, as I listened to the hon. member then that that great prairie figure, the late William Aberhart, must have looked down and smiled to himself as he heard the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member said:
It is not exactly a brand new idea, but it is one about which not much has yet been done.
Then he went on to say:
The idea involved in the negative income tax is that we set reasonable income tax exemption levels-
I know that there is a sound argument for the hon. member that the levels set in this legislation are not reasonable, but it does not remove the value of the principle involved. The hon. member went on to say:
. Then we impose taxation above these levels, but in the case of people who earn less than those levels they receive a payment from the state to bring them up to those levels.
He continued:
The principle (is) that no one in this country should fall below certain reasonable and dignified levels of income.
If this is to be accepted as a principle, then I suggest it be accepted more than as a matter of words.
The hon. member then used these terribly important words:
Our legislation should be based on it.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I am sure that hon. members who were listening last evening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have wondered what was the reason for the change

DEBATES	December 9, 1966
in his position, when the legislation which is based, as he said, on the principle of the guaranteed annual income is now simply called the same old means test and is being damned out of hand by the official opposition and the members of the New Democratic Party.
I should like to point out some of the reasons why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has changed his mind in the short space of time between February and now. Of course one of them is that when he looked at the guaranteed annual income at that time he saw it as a levelling process which would bring every citizen to exactly the same point on the economic scale. This the guaranteed annual income does not necessarily do. There is no reason at all why suitable incentives for private enterprise cannot be built into a system of guaranteed annual income.
Another fact which has probably been perfectly obvious to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that once the guaranteed annual income process is established and put into effect in this country there can be no union check-off written into it. Knowing as we do the built-in support which the New Democratic Party enjoys in this country through the use of the automatic check-off on labour dues, one can understand the threat to their existence contained in the concept of the guaranteed annual income.
Another effect of the guaranteed annual income is to remove from labour the tremendous lever of their fear of automation. I suspect that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre read the preface to "The Guaranteed Income" only after he had made his speech in February, because in that preface Theobald expresses very clearly the point which I am now making in the following words:
Those who are pessimistic about the nature of man and who therefore oppose a guaranteed income will be joined by those who prefer to maintain present organizational patterns in the face of changing technology, for this will allow them to control their subordinates or employees and, indeed, the population as a whole through the job mechanism.
Certainly this fear of automation has given the New Democratic Party a tremendous lever of control.
Another effect of the guaranteed annual income concept is the fact that it strikes at the whole concept of the elite in the welfare state, and I mentioned this in previous speeches in the house. The idea did not originate with the
December 9, 1966

New Democratic Party; in tact it was picked up in passing by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by one or two others, but it has since been dropped because it has been taken out of their hands by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and by the government in this legislation.
The final reason, I suspect, for the change of heart on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that the proper administration in this country of the guaranteed annual income will remove once and for all from the political arena the old age security pension, a move which has been long overdue.
I would hope that what we heard last night was one of the last gasps of those who have been happy throughout the years to use the old age security pension as a political football to kick around in whatever direction suited them best.
I have received representations from old age pensioners who have been fearful of the idea of the guaranteed annual income and who want to maintain the status quo, that is the present system of allotting old age pensions. The question I asked them, and which has not been answered to my satisfaction, was: How can you depend on a system which has always left old age security pensions so far behind in the economic scale in this country? I told them they had nothing to lose in the guaranteed annual income system, and a considerable amount to gain from it.
At this point I should like to give the minister some advice, because I know that many old age pensioners are extremely sceptical of the scheme. He has a tremendous task in front of him if he wishes to sell this scheme to pensioners across this country. The word "guaranteed" must mean that the government accepts the provision laid down in the old age security pension legislation, that the old age pension cannot be attached, as is done at present by various departments of the government to collect what they call overpayments which have been made to old age pensioners.
What the minister can do is to grant a reprieve to those old age pensioners who have been forced to return the overpayments which have been made to them through no fault of their own. One case at least has been brought to my attention, and the department involved has acknowledged its responsibility for the mistake. Overpayments to the value of $400 have been paid out, and collected unwittingly by the recipient, who subsequently was presented with a bill for that amount. The

Old Age Security Act Amendment process of repayment has been going on at the rate of $10 a month for some time now, and will continue in the future; so that the old age security pension of this man has not amounted to $75 for the last year, but is only $65 as he continues to pay off the sum of money which he collected through no fault of his.
I know I am not alone in presenting such cases. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has raised this matter before in the house and argued well on it. I cannot think of any one move which would make the old age pensioners of this country more confident that the government has their best interests at heart, and is actually going to guarantee the old age security pension, than an announcement by the minister that these bills will be written off as an uncollectable debt, once the legislation is passed.
It will encourage these people to know that when the minister says the guaranteed annual income will insure that the income of the old age pensioners of this country will not fall below $105, he means exactly this. When old age pensioners fill out the form, regardless of how simple it is, they will have doubts that somehow they have not done the right thing and they have missed something. This will be a haunting fear to them because they know of the experiences of others, and they will be afraid they will eventually be presented with a bill for overpayments because of some mistake. Many of these people have not had the advantages of education which we have had.


Mr.   Paiterson@: The minister is not listening to you anyway.


Howard Earl Johnston: I am speaking loud enough and I trust he is listening. They have not had the advantages which have been ours, and they have not always had experience in bookkeeping. They can very easily make a mistake as they ponder on the rather complex problem of what is income and what is not income. I think that an assurance should be given to them that if mistakes are made there will not be an attempt, backed by the full force and power of the government, to collect retroactively the overpayments, which will then penalize them for the next ten years or so until they are either dead or have paid off the sum which might be involved.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I hope the guaranteed annual income concept, enunciated with such courage by the minister, will prove to be only the beginning; that it will be applied to other categories such
December 9, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment as widows, the incapacitated, and eventually to all citizens of this country. I also trust that the house will move speedily to pass this legislation. Goodness knows, Mr. Speaker, we and the old age pensioners have certainly waited long enough for it. The figures presented by the minister are tentative ones, but I hope he will take the advise of the Senate committee on aging, that these figures should be regarded only as rough figures until a proper review of the whole problem is made. I trust we will be given the assurance that this review will be made rapidly and the figures will be adjusted to suit the changing economic conditions of the day.
After all, Mr. Speaker, the $105 represents an increase of $30 which is only filling the gap produced by the rise in the cost of living and should not be involved in the concept of a guaranteed annual income. This should go somewhere beyond that figure to meet the conditions of today, which are certainly not the conditions prevailing when the figure of $75 was settled upon. Therefore I trust the minister will make that review and that we will have a close, careful and continued study made so that the guaranteed annual income will be adjusted automatically. That will remove this painful question once and for all from the political arena of this country.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention under normal circumstances to participate in this debate, certainly not after the very excellent speech made by the Minister of Health and Welfare last night, which I think cleared up many of the misconceptions and misapprehensions that permeated the debate at the resolution stage. However, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who I know has one eye on me and one on the clock, because he has to go somewhere else, referred to the minister as a Scrooge, I could not help compare the Scrooge of modern times with that of fiction. Dickens' Scrooge had very little resemblance to the man who, in the very short period of time that the present minister has held his portfolio, has brought in three comprehensive pieces of legislation-the Canada Assistance Plan, the medicare plan, and now these amendments to the Old Age Security Act. I think this is a tremendous record and it will be a long time before any minister in the future will duplicate it.
My motivation for participating in this debate was not, of course, to extol the virtues of

the minister-I think his talents are recognized in all parts of the house-but basically to answer a challenge offered by the premier of the province of Quebec, who suggested that members of parliament from Quebec participate in this debate and express their opinions, preferably of course to bolster the arguments of the premier that the federal government has no place in this particular field of legislation. Indeed the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) in a very short intervention at the resolution stage, echoed these sentiments of the premier of the province of Quebec; and I can only hope that he was not speaking for his party at that time.
Before I get down to the question of the constitutional aspects of this problem, I might say that I was extremely impressed last evening by a fact which was emphasized by the minister and, of course, not refuted by subsequent speakers, namely that the present plan is a tremendous advantage over the rather stereotyped plans offered by the opposition, in that it will place-I think the figure quoted was $38 million more-into the hands of these groups of senior citizens who need it the most, namely those who are living on the minimum income of $900 a year.
Senior citizens who are in the fortunate position of having other sources of income than the $75 a month will be the first to appreciate-there being a great degree of understanding among senior citizens-that this plan will put $38 million more into the hands of certain of their number who would have been denied this $38 million under the more conventional approach of raising the present $75 to $100 a month for all. This distinction appears to be the result of the imagination, initiative and good will of the present minister, and he should be strongly commended for this particular aspect of the present bill.
Certainly the argument advanced by the socialists, that part of the increase in the old age pension to $100 a month-though I might note that their spokesman from Winnipeg conveniently switched for the first time last night to the figure of $105 a month-would come back again in the form of taxes, is erroneous. There is no such thing in this country as 100 per cent taxation. If a $25 increase granted across the board to include such individuals as Senator McCutcheon, E. P. Taylor and hon. members of the house, it would not come back totally through the medium of taxation. All of us know that a substantial part of that $25 would remain in the pockets
December 9, 1966

of those senior citizens who do not need the money.
The plan now before us, Mr. Speaker, will divert $38 million into the hands of the people who really do need it, our senior citizens who barely eke out an existence on $900 a year. This is one of the tremendous features of this plan and should be emphasized over and over again.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No. The hon. member had his chance in the question period. If he will wait until I am through I will answer his questions then, because I have found that ev

ery time I have spoken and socialists have asked me questions I can go on for another half hour pointing out the hypocrisy of their stand on various matters. Therefore I do not want to waste the valuable time which I have at my disposal, and stray away from my theme.
In the what time I have left afterwards I want to point out and discuss some of the very callous arguments which are being brought forward in an effort to associate this plan with a means test, at a time when even the most anti-Liberal newspapers are emphasizing in their editorials that this is not a feature of the plan. It is ironic and perhaps amusing to note that I half expected the hon. member who preceded me, who is associated with a party which we tend to consider reactionary, to bring forward that argument; but I did not expect it from the party that prides itself on being associated with the best interests of the senior citizens.
I am beginning to wonder whether they do not try to associate themselves with all groups in Canada who they think may have cause for general resentment against society. The time has come when the socialist band has to decide precisely on whose side it is on. They cannot be the voice in the House of Commons of all the groups in Canada-labour, management, our senior citizens, our young capitalists and everybody else-in a vain and abortive attempt some day to be the ruling party in the House of Commons. They must start introducing some principles and integrity into their arguments, which seem to me to be lacking more and more as they participate in debates in this house.
I shall have to take a quick look at my notes, Mr. Speaker, because I have probably covered some of my points without reference to them. I should like to say something as a
Old Age Security Act Amendment Quebecker. First of all, it is important that I establish the fact that I am not one of those people who associate Mr. Johnson with the cause of separatism. This is important. I have had the privilege on several occasions to talk to Mr. Johnson. I met him recently less than a couple of weeks ago in fact when I had the privilege of representing the government at an affair in the city of Montreal. I had the chance to talk with and meet Mr. Johnson, and frankly I like the man.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
He is an excellent example of the fact that English speaking Quebeckers are indeed sometimes assimilated and absorbed by the French culture that has contributed greatly to the development of Canada as a whole. Mr. Johnson would be the first to express satisfaction at the fact that his father was of Irish descent and that he is a better man because of his close contact with the two founding races of this country. I submit that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is all very interesting, but I wonder if there is a connection between what the hon. member is saying and the bill before the house.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I appreciate your comment, Mr. Speaker. I think there will be a connection between my remarks and the bill.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the means test.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: My opening comments are important because in speaking on this bill and referring to the arguments advanced by the premier of Quebec, I wish it to be understood that if I differ from him, it is strictly on academic grounds.
I do not pretend to the house, or to Mr. Johnson, to be another expert on the constitution of Canada. My knowledge of the constitution is no greater or less than that of other members of the house. I have said before, and I repeat now, that I am not a lawyer. Like Mr. Johnson, I hope I am a realist; and when I interpret the constitution, when I interpret any constitution, whether it is the constitution of Canada, or that of the local Kiwanis or Lions Club, I tend to interpret it in the light of the end result the constitution was designed to achieve.
In the final analysis, when the Fathers of Confederation agreed to include all the provinces of this country in confederation under the British North America Act, they wanted what was best for the country. They wanted
10932	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment what was best for Quebec, for Ontario or for any other province of this country. For this reason I am a little puzzled by the desire of Quebec to assert itself now in the field of old age security pensions, particularly as the federal government has provided pensions to our senior citizens legally since 1952.
Most constitutional experts support the view that section 94(a) of the British North America Act does not deny the right of the provinces to provide old age security pensions. The section says, rather, that the federal government may do so also, at the same time as the provinces. Certainly I would not be thinking of the best interests of Quebec if I were to advocate that Quebec establish and finance its own plan at this late date and impose the necessary taxes to support, it. Certainly such a plan would put the senior citizens of Quebec in an enviable position, because they would receive federal and provincial benefits, but the double taxation load would be too heavy to carry. Certainly the money thus raised by new taxes could be put to better use by being directed, in my province, to the needs of education.
Speaking as a pragmatist and as one who on numerous occasions has stressed the right of the province in many areas, particularly in the field of education, I cannot understand how the aspirations of Quebec-the aim to close the financial gap between itself and other provinces; the problem of the survival of the French language; the right of French speaking Quebeckers to speak their own language at work; the right of French speaking Quebeckers to survive culturally in an ever growing mass of English speaking peoples on the North American continent-are to be helped by assuming responsibility in the field of old age security.
With all the problems existing in the province of Quebec, will the province's aspirations come closer to realization by transferring to it the responsibility and heavy financial burden of providing old age security pensions to its senior citizens? If I am not an expert on the constitution, Mr. Speaker, I am even less knowledgeable about certain areas of finance. I cannot determine what the province of Quebec would gain financially if the federal government were to withdraw from this particular field of social welfare after all these years. This point, however, is not at issue, according to press reports covering Mr, Johnson's remarks.
While claiming that Quebec contributes more to a pension fund that it withdraws, Mr. 
DEBATES	December 9, 196&
Johnson states that Quebec is willing to accept from Ottawa, provided we transfer certain financial areas to the provincial jurisdiction, just enough money to administer and finance the pension plan. If this is so, Mr. Speaker, it removes still another argument, valid or invalid. It reduces Mr. Johnson's request for exclusive jurisdiction in this field to nothing more than a request, or a statement, that after 16 years the province has decided that it is imperative that its claim to jurisdiction in this field be recognized and exercised.
There are other areas where eventual problems were not foreseen at the time of Confederation. For instance, let me refer to the off-shore minerals problem which has come up. That was something unforeseen when the constitution was created. This is an area which provinces should direct their attention to.
I am sure Mr. Johnson is interested in the plight of the senior citizens of this country, which include senior citizens residing in Quebec, who are eligible for a share of the millions of dollars to be distributed, once this bill comes into effect. Surely the senior citizens of that province have enough problems to face, have enough anguish, without worrying whether their cheques are to be cut off or postponed by an unnecessary squabble arising over who is responsible for this particular piece of social welfare. Certainly, other problems face Quebec more worthy of the attention of the legislature at this moment. As a Quebecker I can think of the problem of poverty in urban areas, of the need to eliminate slums in the big cities, of the physical expansion necessary in the field of education.
I am sure that the premier of Quebec will wish to take advantage of existing legislation once the housing corporation comes into existence in Quebec, to co-operate with the federal government in the fidld of housing. We need housing so that our senior citizens with moderate income can be granted the right, of living in dignity in homes for which they are charged a moderate rental.
I notice that Mr. Johnson is not the only Quebecker who is disputing our rule in this field. Mr. Kierans, the former Liberal minister of national health and welfare, now in opposition, lately suggested that he would collaborate with Mr. Johnson to have this field I referred to transferred to the province of Quebec. I can suggest other activities to which Mr. Kierans ought to devote priority, rather than worry about who is going to pay the old age pension. I suggest to Mr. Kierans that he
December 9, 1966

devote a little more time to establishing university status for Loyola College.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has gone rather far afield. I notice he is not following his notes. Perhaps if he would go back to his notes he might refer to a bill dealing with old age pensions.


An hon. Member:: Get back to the means test.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I always bow to Mr. Speaker's wisdom; I will look at my notes-I might add I have very few left.
I did, however, wish to suggest that Mr. Kierans should also worry about the research grant which McGill should have had, but which it lost-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should refer to the bill before the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Tell us where Lesage stands.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I prefer that other people talk about Mr. Lesage. The reason I have discussed Mr. Kierans is that we share something in common in that we represent English minorities amongst others. I simply relate that matter to this bill with the suggestion that if he minds his business in this particular area, he will have more time to devote to the two or three questions I have suggested. Thanks to Mr. Speaker, I will eliminate now the other 13 or 14 suggestions which I had.
Now, coming back to the bill, although I do not think I strayed too far from it, the thing that has concerned me and other people, particularly in view of the letters I have been getting, is the reference that has been made to a means test. I use the word callous, although I hate to use it, with regard to the people who keep referring to a means test, because, as most hon. members know, I am not partisan by nature, particularly when it comes to dealing with socialists.
I used to think that members of the N.D.P. and I had a lot in common, but many of their speeches of late have been reactionary. One of their members even referred to the Canada Assistance Plan as a hand-out. Perhaps the latest Gallup poll figures have gone to their head and as a result they have become a little panicky and lost track of their reason for existence. Perhaps they are now trying to woo Bay Street, in view of the fact that the official opposition is at loggerheads with that eminent group of people.

Old Age Security Act Amendment
It is unfair to suggest that this plan must be administered through the medium of a means test. It is unfair because our elderly people do not want to be confused. They perhaps do not have the knowledge to distinguish between political arguments and true fact. Everybody in this country knows that the phrase "means test" has a particular connotation, and when somebody in this house says that old people will be subjected to a means test, they immediately associate "means test" with the type of test we have had all too frequently at the provincial level, and possibly in earlier years at the federal level. When I say this 1 might add that I do not have the memory or the experience of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), although I do have more hair.


Reid Scott: What about brains?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When you mention means test to a senior citizen he automatically panics. He asks himself, "Should I own a television set? Have I a right to the telephone? What about the $125 I have in the bank, or the $200 I have in a savings bond?" These are the problems that are immediately conveyed to a senior citizen, and everybody in this house knows that that is true, especially in view of the letters we have been receiving. Everybody knows that this is the connotation which senior citizens put on a means test.
Everytime a politician stands up in the House of Commons and callously tries to convey here, through the press, radio and television, and through public appearances, that this plan is synonymous with a means test, he is unfair. In the final analysis, such politicians will only hurt themselves politically because one of the tremendous features of this plan is that for the first time it takes this particular act out of the realm of partisan politics. We promised to do this before the last election, and I hope that with the proper approach-


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -with proper understanding by members of the house, and not the spirit that we have seen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Danforth rising on a question of privilege?


Reid Scott: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I hate to interrupt the dramatic peroration of the hon. member but he has accused members of this party of callously misleading the old age pensioners of Canada by saying this legislation contains a

December 9, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment means test. I want to say to the hon. member that no matter how they disguise it, no matter how they try to justify it-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reid Scott: -this is a means test-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Reid Scott: -and there is no way of getting out of that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously a point of debate. I understand the hon. member wants to take part in this debate, and this is a point he will have an opportunity of making whenever he has the floor.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) that when I was talking about associating this bill with a means test I did not specify any particular member or group of the house, but if the cap tits he can wear it. I cannot put words in his mouth, and I would not want to do that. Certainly, many speakers in this debate, on resolution stage and on this stage, have tried to convey the impression to senior citizens that in order to be eligible for the benefits of this legislation they must go through a means test, with all the evil connotations that have always been associated with a means test in Canada, and this simply is not true.
Even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in one of his rare moments of humility, said that even though he felt it was still a means test, it was one of the simplest and fairest means tests anybody could devise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will recall that I said it was less severe. I did not say it was simple and fair. I said it was less severe.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, I have only a few more minutes left so let me go on to the point I am trying to make. I have here an editorial from the Toronto Telegram, a newspaper which is hardly favourable to the Liberal cause. It is a long editorial which I am going to circulate in my riding because it is very informative. I have another one from the Montreal Daily Star, which also has partisan leanings, as some hon. members opposite may wish to remind me. I quote from the editorial in the Toronto Telegram of July 7 headed
.
"Means and Needs", and I am going to omit a few paragraphs:
It is very difficult to escape the impression that the New Democratic Party would rather delay social legislation than to have it enacted under political auspices which are not its own.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, if we were to wait for the N.D.P. to come into power to help the senior citizens, they would all be dead. That is never going to happen. The N.D.P. members should realize that their role at all times is going to be limited to trying to distinguish between bad and good legislation, and to supporting the party in power when, as in this instance, it is bringing in good legislation. That is the role of the N.D.P., and the only role that justifies their existence. The main cause of socialism, and the doctrine itself, are now outmoded and applicable only to countries that are 50 years behind Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I read now from the Montreal Daily Star. I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) will not mind me associating his name with the socialists temporarily, by reading this from a Star editorial:
The pother being raised by Mr. Diefenbaker can therefore be ignored.
This is in reference to the right hon. gentleman's intervention on resolution stage.
The scheme seems an eminently fair one. No one is going to get rich, but a little dignity is going to be provided those who are poor.
That is an important point.


John George Diefenbaker: The Star is a most objective paper-in a non-objective way.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a rule of the house that editorials cannot be read with regard to a debate which is currently proceeding. To the extent that the editorial to which the hon. member is referring relates to criticism of the N.D.P., I have no objection at all. But if it includes criticism of the position taken by this party in this debate, I must raise this point of order and ask for a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I would have to take the point made by the hon. member under advisement because the rule is to the effect that we cannot quote editorials referring to other debates during the same session. We are dealing with the same debate at the moment. Actually I am not that sure that the point raised by the hon. member is correct. The impression I have is
December 9. 1966

that this has been done often enough in the past.
I remember sitting in this chair for long days and long weeks during the flag debate when many editorials were quoted, having reference to that particular debate, although perhaps it should have been my responsibility to use that rule at the time.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
I appreciate the point made by the hon. member, and I suggest that the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) keep this in mind if he feels the citation to which I have just referred applies to this case.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, with the concurrence of the house, I might be permitted to interrupt the proceedings for the purpose of asking the house to revert to motions long enough to permit the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) to make an announcement relating to wheat which I believe will be of interest and concern to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO MAINLAND CHINA

Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) I wish to table herewith a statement released by the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg at twelve noon today. It has to do with a contractual arrangement between China and the Canadian Wheat Board for the export of 900,000 long tons of wheat which will be shipped from Pacific coast ports commencing January, 1967 and through to July, 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the applause from the Liberal benches is not consonant with the view they took when the government I had the honour to head made possible credit to Communist China. They criticized this. But the heresy which we perpetrated then has now become the cornerstone of Canadian policy, and I am glad to hear the applause emanating from those who were the greatest critics of all.
Wheat Sale to Mainland China
I should like to point out one fact. The time has come for a substantial increase in the price of wheat. I do not know what the price is under this contract, but this government during its period in office cut the price of wheat 18 cents a bushel. In the last year and a half, this reduction has caused a loss of $150 million to western farmers. Now that the minister has been out west and has come out in favour of an increase in the wheat prices under the international wheat agreement, I hope that this government will be able not only to restore the 18 cents a bushel it cut off but also an additional amount.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, the announcement which just has been made I am sure will be welcome news to all Canadians, but in particular to the wheat producers on the Canadian prairies. The record of the Canadian Wheat Board in the course of the past several years has been impressive. There has been a steady growth in the volume of exports to the major importing countries. I do not propose to get into any argument concerning who should receive the prime credit for these exports


John George Diefenbaker: It was not the Socialists.


Edward Richard Schreyer: -which the Canadian Wheat Board has been able to effect. I do say, however, that in the course of the past few years it has been demonstrated that the demand for our wheat production is growing steadily. The authorities now should concern themselves with the problem of an adequate price for this product. I certainly wish to endorse the words of the previous speaker in this regard, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
We can continue to show an impressive record of wheat exports and yet still leave the western wheat producer in the unfortunate position that what he receives in return for his production is inadequate to ensure a healthy prairie economy. I certainly hope that the hon. member who has made this announcement will convey to his government the strong feeling that some definite policy adjustment must be made by the authorities with regard to current wheat prices.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I join the previous speakers in expressing our pleasure at the news that Canada has just concluded a new sale to China. This will surely be significant to the whole economy of Canada but will be of particular benefit to the western producers. I congratulate them, first
December 9, 1966

Wheat Sale to Mainland China of all, for setting up the Canadian Wheat Board which enables them to have markets scaled to their production and guarantees the sale of their production. We are proud for them. They surely cannot blame us, in the east, for trying to at least imitate them by requesting the establishment of a board to handle eastern produce.
I feel that if eastern Quebec had a body similar to the one created for the west, we could take pride in having accomplished some progress, instead of realizing, from year to year, what calamities befall our farmers for lack of markets for their farm produce. This year again, we have a typical example in the province of Quebec, and particularly in my area, where the farmers will lose 50 per cent of their produce because they are unable to sell them.
I congratulate the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) its principal agent, for, I believe, he is honorary president of the board. That alone is a big advantage. I feel they have all the advantages on their side. I do not envy them; I am proud of them. Incidentally, I ask the federal government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to find some grounds, some good reason, to help the eastern farmers as much they do the western producers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the wheat producers on the prairies of course have had a record breaking crop [DOT]during the growing season of 1966 and, therefore, any additional firm sales will be welcomed. This will move the wheat into world trade rather than have it build up into a surplus position on the farms, which we experienced through most of the 1950's.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) three or four quesitons with regard to this sale, because I think it is becoming increasingly clear not only to Canadian producers but also to producers of grain all over the world that there will be far larger quantities of wheat going into international trade in the immediate future than we have experienced in the past. In other words, the levels which we thought were normal in so far as export trade is concerned have moved up substantially. I think this has placed producers in a little more favourable position in respect of prices, as those prices relate to the cost of production.
There has not been an appreciable increase in the price of wheat for a long time, although the costs have in fact gone up. I did not hear
[Mr. Gauthier.)
the hon. member clearly when he mentioned the period during which the wheat is to be delivered. However, since this now is a firm contract for 900,000 long tons, I presume, that a firm price has been affixed to the contract whether or not the delivery period in fact does extend beyond the termination of the present international wheat contract.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
We agree with the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) that there is now a need for an upward revision of this maximum price. If there is a large part of this contract to be delivered at a firm price, notwithstanding any increase in the maximum price, this perhaps will not be advantageous to some producers.
So far as delivery is concerned, I hope that the Canadian Wheat Board and the Department of Transport have considered all the implications involved in moving this large amount of wheat to export positions, bearing in mind the other commitments which have been made. I certainly hope that a committee on transportation will take into account the enormous task involved in delivering this wheat to export positions.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether or not there is a firm part of this contract which will be delivered in the form of flour and, if not, whether negotiations were carried out by the Canadian Wheat Board to deliver some of this grain in the form of flour.
In closing let me say that we welcome this announcement and believe, as other speakers have indicated, that the time has finally arrived when there is a market condition favourable to increasing the price to the point at which it should be.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a further statement?


Bruce Silas Beer: I intended to answer the one or two questions put-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question period. Perhaps there will be an occasion when the hon. parliamentary secretary can make a statement in reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson).
Before allowing the hon. member for Verdun to resume his contribution to the debate I should like to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. December 9, 1966	COMMONS
Baldwin) who objected to the use of an editorial by the hon. member for Verdun. Since the time I have sought additional knowledge and wisdom by reading Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 157, paragraph 5 which states in part:
It Is not In order to read articles in newspapers... commenting on, or denying anything said by a member.. .within the house.
Of course the intent of this citation is clear. There is nothing wrong with referring to an article in a newspaper, or an editorial so far as it states the facts which an hon. member may want to use to bolster his own argument. Inasmuch as the article to which the hon. member referred comments specifically on parts of a speech made by an hon. member in the house, in this particular instance the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), that part of the article cannot be used in the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, lest there be any misunderstanding, let me say I have no objection whatsoever to the observations of the Star because they are sufficiently biased that they explain themselves.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as usual I bow to the knowledge of the senior members of the house, but one thing strikes me as being hypocritical, if I may use that word. I refer to the opening remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He said it was all right to circumvent the rules of the House of Commons as long as I was using the argument against the New Democratic Party but once the editorial comment referred to his party I should abide by the rules. I think everyone in the house is equal, and if the hon. member feels it is his responsibility, as an acknowledged expert on the rules of the House of Commons to bring them to the attention of the backbenchers he should be impartial, because that is how one is expected to observe the rules.
The rules of the House of Commons should not be used for partisan purposes. This is
Old Age Security Act Amendment precisely what the hon. member did when he said he did not mind the hon. member quoting from editorials as long as they were directed against socialists but the member should abide by the rules when editorials were directed against other parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order was raised by the hon. member for Peace River and a ruling was rendered. I think the hon. member should guide himself accordingly and return to a consideration of the bill now before the house.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I was interrupted by the very good news presented by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer), I was attempting to strengthen my argument that there is no means test in the application of this particular amendment. I was simply quoting an impartial observation made outside this House of Commons. Keeping in mind that these writers are not exposed to the heat of battle as we are, their remarks would certainly be constructive. They were delivered in an editorial sense and support my argument.
I am sorry to see the right hon. gentleman leaving because I always enjoy his participation in debates in the House of Commons. I know of no other member of the House of Commons who speaks so fluently, eloquently and with as much ease as the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) . I think shortly after his departure from this house, in the immediate or distant future, this fact will be recognized. No one in the house takes better advantage of editorials than that right hon. gentleman. I listened to him speak for an hour on one occasion with one editorial in his hand. Surely I cannot be blamed for trying to imitate such a past master of the art of debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He misses you too, but not very much.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to follow the Chair's advice and the advice of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) by not referring to comments regarding past debates. The fact that Mr. Diefenbaker's name appeared in this editorial was incidental. I did not want to leave it out because that would be unfair to the editorial I was quoting.
Let me read this paragraph, beginning at the second sentence, which refers to the
10938	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment scheme, obviously being the amendment before us:
The scheme seems an eminently fair one. No one is going to get rich, but a little dignity is going to be provided those who are poor. Every Canadian 68 years and over, dropping to 65 by 1970, will be guaranteed an income of $105 a month made up of $75 in pension and $30 in supplementary payments. Where there is extra income above the pension, this will be subtracted from the supplementary grant at the rate of $1 of grant for every $2 of income.
The plan which will cost between $260 and $280 million in 1967-900,000 Canadians will qualify- has been conceived with unusual sensitivity.
That is a tribute to the minister of health. It then continues as follows:
There is nothing of the poorhouse mentality about it. It is thought of as a right, earned by the recipients during their lifetime. No one is being given anything. The attitude behind it is the antithesis of the means test mentality. Possessions are left intact. Other awards an individual may be receiving for loss of life or disability or war service are not considered. The harsh antagonism, almost contempt, which marked so much of society's approach in the past is completely absent.
The opposition should recognize these facts, though of course they won't.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is waving dramatically so I better inform him that I am not participating in that show, although someone else is. I appreciate his concern.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were waiting for you.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thought I was saying something of interest and that is why you were waiting around. I apologize for my vanity.
Let me return to the subject matter and refer to another objective editorial. This one is headed "Means and Need" and appeared in the Toronto Telegram of July 7, 1966. I should like to quote part of it, but I will try to eliminate those parts which might ruffle the feathers of the hon. member for Peace River:
The assumption is that pensioners will receive from the public coffers about $105 a month after 65-if there is a demonstrable need.
Strangely enough the New Democratic Party has put obstacles in the way of the enactment of this highly advanced social legislation. In fact, N.D.P. leader, Tommy Douglas, has utilized all parliamentary devices to frustrate the intentions of the government and the acceptance by members of the house.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
It is very difficult-
[Mr. Mackasey.1
DEBATES	December 9, 1966
I think I have read this passage, but I will read it again. Nobody will mind, because it is quite objective:
It is very difficult to escape the impression that the New Democratic Party would rather delay social legislation than to have it enacted under political auspices which are not its own.
The N.D.P. bases its opposition to the Canada Assistance Act and probable improvement in the old age pension system on the grounds that the measure would require means tests or needs tests for the underprivileged.
This is not a convincing position.
Surely it is important in a distribution of our national wealth to make sure that assistance is given to those who need it most. The egalitarian concept of universality may be eloquent in textbooks, but it does not meet the practical needs of the people.
I would say this is precisely what is wrong with the socialist philosophy in general. I would also point out, to strengthen this editorial, that the legislation will put $38 million more into the hands of those senior citizens who need it most. I will not read the whole editorial, although if someone prodded me a little I would gladly do so. In view of the interruptions, and the fact that many hon. members from all sides of the house will want to pay tribute to the very imaginative and sensitive Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), I shall conclude my remarks.
I suggest that now we have taken this sensitive field out of the arena of partisan politics and have made it impossible for political parties at every federal election to run up and down the country promising more and more to the senior citizens in the way of hand-outs, and insulting them by presuming that their votes are for sale, we should try and do the same thing in the House of Commons. When we reach committee stage let us stop this petty wrangling between parties and for once unite in a common desire to do what is best for the senior citizens of this country. I know that the hon. gentleman opposite is anxious to answer that question-


Reid Scott: I want to ask a question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -but I should just like to-say that the same thing applies to the province of Quebec. This is really the theme I spoke on earlier. For the good of the senior citizens of Canada and those in the province of Quebec, let us stop worrying about who is going to administer the plan, who is going to be the paymaster. Is it really important to the French speaking man in Gaspe, or to the English speaking man in Verdun, who sends
December 9, 1966

him the cheque, as long as he gets it? Will it hurt the very legitimate cause of Quebec for her rightful place in the sun, which cause I endorse and espouse because she is one of the founding provinces of this great nation? I believe that most people in this country combine in endorsing the legitimate aspirations of that province. However, Mr. Speaker, nobody, including Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kierans, can show me how any of these aspirations are being impeded by the fact that we want to help the senior citizens of Quebec. Nor can anybody show me how the legitimate cause of Quebec would be hurt if we were to administer this plan in that province.
This plan is a unifying force in the country, and is instituted at a time when we need this kind of unifying force. As a Quebecker, I must humbly disagree with the premier of my province, for whom I have the greatest respect. I remind him that simply transferring funds from the federal to the provincial government, and simply changing the paymaster from a federal civil servant to a provincial civil servant will do nothing to hurt the cause of unity; it will do nothing to hurt Quebec reaching the goal for which it strives, and should strive, namely, closing the financial gap that exists between it and other provinces.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the suggestion of the hon. member that I might not have been quite as impartial as I should have been in discharging my duties as a member of the house. I must say to him that I was so spellbound by the soundness and eloquence of the argument he was making when attacking the position of the New Democratic Party that it was not until I heard the name of our party mentioned that I awoke to the fact that he was transgressing the rules.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I observe the rules as much as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) observes the rules. If he is being sarcastic, so am I. If he is being sincere, so am I.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, could we adjourn for lunch in order to recover from the outburst we have heard, and come back at 2.30?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has been wanting to ask a question for some time. He has been jumping up and down like a jackrabbit.

Old Age Security Act Amendment


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps after all relevant questions have been put to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) we could treat his speech as an aperitif and adjourn for an hour.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question. Now that he has spent the major part of his speech heaping mountains of self-congratulatory praise upon his government and attacking the opposition because of a lack of concern, as he says, for the old age pensioners, I wonder whether he would answer the question we asked him at the beginning. Would he kindly place on the record justification, not rhetoric, for this government's action in callously and cruelly imposing a means test on the old age pensioners?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this question, including the little preamble, points out better than I have been able to do in half an hour exactly what the editorials are talking about. In the light of partisan politics and their blind fervour to emerge as the party in power or the official opposition, the N.D.P. is quite willing to use the emotions and affections of the senior citizens and treat them as callously as they did the farmers when the hon. member's party was known as the C.C.F. A question that includes the words "cruel" and "callous" when applied to this legislation demonstrates that it is not deserving of an answer.
If there is anybody in the House of Commons who is using-and I use the word "using" in its worst sense-the affections of the senior citizens of this country, it is the socialists who run up and down the country claiming that they are the voice of the senior citizens in the House of Commons. But when there is an opportunity to support legislation and improve the circumstances of our senior citizens, legislation that is aimed at helping those who need help most by putting $38 million more into their pockets, these hon. members ask questions such as the question asked by the hon. member for Danforth. Which epitomizes more than anything I have said their willingness to be callous on such a sensitive matter.
I believe that when the senior citizens of this country realize the implications and the imaginative aspects of this bill, and for the first time realize they are not being used as pawns in the chess game of politics, they will look upon the New Democratic Party, and rightly so, as a party of false propaganda.
December 9, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, since obviously the hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, if he does we will get a long answer.


Reid Scott: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not hear my question, so I will repeat it. Instead of all the inflammatory rhetoric in which he has indulged, will he kindly justify the imposition of a means test in this legislation on the old age pensioners of Canada. Never mind all the guff, rhetoric and all the rest of it in which he has indulged: This is a means test, and we fought for decades to get rid of it. You are bringing it back. Justify it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this could go on and on. The hon. member is delivering a speech that he has a right to make on second reading, but he is making it under the guise of asking questions, as he does during the question period. This is unfortunate, because when the hon. member first came to this house he showed a great deal of promise and was a very objective member. But he is taking advantage of my willingness to answer questions to deliver parts of a speech. I suppose if we put all his so-called questions together we could say he has had his opportunity to speak in this debate.


Reid Scott: Just answer the question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I answered it, but I will repeat my answer. This is not a means test in the normal sense of that phrase. It is not a means test at all, as the socialists have been trying to convey to the people of Canada. Two editorials have pointed out their bewilderment because a party that is supposed to be dedicated to solving the problems of our senior citizens is willing to confuse, and obviously confuse, our senior citizens by creating the impression that before they can receive this assistance they must go through all the things that have been associated for far too long with the phrase "means test" in Canada.
The hon. member for Danforth should refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last evening when he said this is the most innocent type of means test that could possibly be devised.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He did not say that.


An hon. Member:: No, he did not say that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot convince them of that Mr. Speaker, because everybody in that party is past convincing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Do hon. members agree that the sitting should be suspended until 2.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Accordingly, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult indeed to follow an address such as the one made by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). I do not know just how I should refer to his talk in the house today. It seemed to be two things: first, an exercise in governmental approbation and, second, a biographical discourse. Whatever it was in actual fact I can only say that it had very little to do with the bill before the house. The hon. member made a very scathing statement with reference to what he called "the egalitarian concept of universality". Of course he was referring to the proposal to increase old age pensions across the board to $100 a month. It was strange to hear this from the government benches. I did not hear the concept of universality in the medicare bill referred to as an egalitarian concept. I wonder precisely what the difference is. In all the speeches which have been made in this debate the one thing which seemed to be in doubt was the precise understanding of what a means test is. The minister has spoken twice; once on the resolution and again yesterday in second reading. He spent most of his time pointing out that the income test suggested in the bill, is not a means test at all.
As a matter of fact he went further than that. On page 10894 of Hansard he is reported as having said the following:
Anyone who equates the means test with the norms set out in this program is either stupid or dishonest.
In other parts of his speech he refers to the attempts to make political hay out of the discussion of the guaranteed income program. The minister said it is terrible to do such a thing. He is imputing motives to us which, I
December 9, 1966	COMMONS
would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, are neither tactual nor fair and certainly are beneath the dignity of the position which the minister holds. So far as I am concerned, I do not think there is a single member in the house who does not have the welfare of the senior citizens of our country at heart. I think the house is no place for such allegations, especially when they are made by a minister of the Crown. We may disagree as to the methods which we feel should be used to bring about a proper basic income for our senior citizens, but I do not think we should use this difference to impute such motives as the minister has suggested.
In his remarks the minister seems to have attempted to pre-empt the position of purity and sincerity which has been held previously by another group in the house. It seems to me that this is exactly what he was trying to do. On the one hand, he expressed a tremendous concern-and I certainly do not doubt his sincerity in this-for the welfare of the old age pensioners, and he said that he and his government are the only ones to express this concern. However, I would hazard a guess that the people of Canada will know where we on this side of the house stand. After listening to the various remarks of the minister, I wonder whether they will know where he really stands. The position of the gentlemen on the other side of the house seems to change with the political weather vanes. I do not think there are many old age pensioners in this country who have forgotten the "six buck boys" of 1957. If we wanted to refer to changing with political weather vanes, we would have to go back a lot further than that.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
We can go back, Mr. Speaker, to 1951 when the Old Age Security Bill was brought into this house by the government of the day. In this regard, I should like to refresh the memories of hon. gentlemen opposite, though I fully realize that the present minister was not in the house at that time.
I should like to refer to page 1 of Hansard for October 9, 1951 and read a few lines from the speech from the throne of that day:
The primary reason for summoning you for a second session in the present year is to invite your consideration of a measure to provide increased security for our older citizens through payment of pensions, without a means test and as a matter of right-
In 1951 the present minister of external affairs occupied the portfolio which is now occupied by the minister of health and welfare, and he spoke most eloquently, as is his
Old Age Security Act Amendment wont, on this subject of old age security payments without a means test. He emphasized this in his speech many times. Although I do not think there is anything to be gained by reading his whole speech into the record, certainly a few of the remarks he made are very appropriate at this time.
I might mention in passing that I have read the speeches of some other hon. gentlemen who were members of the house in 1951, and I must say that the speech the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) delivered yesterday was exactly the same as the speech he made then. The only change was the figures.
I think the one thing that will become clear is that, whereas the position of the government has been changing with the political weather vanes, the position of members on this side of the house has not changed during these many years. The minister tosses his head and does not believe this; let me convince him.
As reported at page 380 of Hansard for October 25, 1951, the then minister of health and welfare had this to day:
The legislative proposals which will be brought forward following approval of this resolution are, in essence, the same proposals on old age security which the federal government advanced at that time.
He is referring to 1945.
The concept of a universal old age pension-
There is no mention here of the egalitarian concept.
-free of means test, which was first advanced in 1945, was then regarded as bold and original. Many persons, some governments included, were not yet ready to accept a proposal which broke so sharply with the traditional means test approach of the past.
At that time, family allowances,-
They are still in effect today.
-the first and hitherto the greatest of these new programs, based on similar principles, had not yet been fully accepted by all political parties, nor even by all sections of the general public.
There were those who said that the government, in its thinking on social questions, was getting too far ahead of the thinking of the people:-
It may have been then, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, the government are miles behind today.
-that the people were not ready for these new and sweeping universal programs.
Since 1945, the widest possible opportunity has been given to study the proposal for universal pensions without a means test which the federal government at that time offered to the provinces.
10942	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
A little further on in his speech the hon. gentleman said:
The fact that after an exhaustive study all parties, and subsequently all provincial governments, unanimously rallied to the support of the universal means-test-free pension plan originally offered by the federal government in 1945 is, I believe, the surest and soundest endorsement that any legislative proposal could hope to have.
They are interesting words, Mr. Speaker. The minister seems to refute them today, as do the members of his party.
Then the hon. gentleman continued as follows:
We have come to the conclusion, after the most careful study of all phases of the problem, that the so-called "universal pay-as-you-go" system of old age security, financed by special contributions into a fund established especially for the purpose, is the system most likely to meet the needs of our aged population 70 years and over, both now and in the future.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, at that time the minister did not have the ability to see into the future, though in view of the party he represents that would be a most difficult thing to do.
Then, as reported at page 382 of Hansard, the minister went on:
-benefits will in all cases be provided as a matter of right, without any form of means test.
At the same page this very interesting statement is recorded:
There will be no provisions of any kind for subsequent recovery out of the estate of a deceased pensioner, nor for any liens to be placed against his property.
Two of the provisions in the bill before the house today cause me to wonder what they mean. Do they mean that some old age pensioner will be hauled into court because he made a mistake in assessing his income? The minister says that there is no means test in this bill. As a matter of fact, as reported at page 10896 of Hansard, he said:
They-
Referring to the old age pensioners.
-will not suffer any indignity, if this can be called an indignity, and I do not think it is. They will not be asked to do anything that a corporation president is not asked to do, or any other person in the country, in the way of providing information with respect to income or having the accuracy of that return checked.
Is that a valid statement, Mr. Speaker? Does the minister mean to tell me that there are corporation presidents who are going to fill out a form asking for more money and which they will have to show to somebody else? How many corporation presidents does

DEBATES	December 9, 1966
the minister know who actually show their income tax returns to people other than those in the income tax branch or their accountant? How many corporation presidents will be affected by the provisions of this bill, in addition to the provisions for fraud contained in the Income Tax Act, which take care of those unfortunate receipients of the old age pension who may make a mistake or perhaps inadvertently submit a wrong return? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the statement the pensioners will not be asked to do anything anybody else is not asked to do is completely at variance with the facts as we in this house know them.
I do not care whether you call it an income test, a needs test or a means test, Mr. Speaker. The application of the test can vary, but the change is a semantic one only. There is no difference in fact between the provisions of this bill and a means test. The provisions of this bill constitute a means test. A means test is imposed as soon as some measure of a person's income is used to determine whether or not he or she qualifies for additional benefit. No matter what the minister and other hon. members on that side of the house say, this is the fact of the matter.
I heard the minister taking the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) to task in his speech yesterday. He questioned her facts as they related to the amount required today for a minimum standard for our old age pensioners. It seems to me that the minister does not read his mail. I want to refer him to a letter written by the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), and incidentally to all members of parliament as well.
This letter is signed by the president, Mr. Nathan W. Medd and Mrs. Marian Goddard, secretary of this federation which represents, as the minister knows, the great majority of the pensioners in this country today.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The letter reads:
Whereas: A recent survey shows cost of living to be approximately $138 per month,-
I am not taking this from the Globe and Mail. I notice the minister does not like to get things from the Globe and Mail. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) does, but then divisions in the minister's party are not unusual.
Whereas: A recent survey shows cost of living to be approximately $138 per month,
December 9, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	10943
-Our senior citizens need more than the $105 per month for a decent standard of living, and with the straight $100 per month they would be encouraged to earn the extra needed, if able to do so, which would be an economic advantage to any country.
The minister has received this letter. He knows what it says. He received many more. On November 3 he got one from the Toronto Area Retired Workers Council. They took a survey at the Canadian National Exhibition, one part of which is as follows:
Do you believe the basic old age security pension should be increased from $75 to $100 and without a means test?
Ninety per cent of those asked said yes. Who are the other 10 per cent? Liberal voters in that area, no doubt. They are followers of the minister and his philosophy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not think they had so many voters in Saskatoon.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: They have not. I am being very generous.


An hon. Member:: You are playing politics.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Oh, the minister made a very political statement. Is he one to accuse us of using this measure as a political football? I am appalled.


An hon. Member:: You look it.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Perhaps I can see the future a little more clearly than other people. Nevertheless, who are hon. members opposite to accuse us of using this measure as a political football, in view of the number of times we have asked this government to increase the old age pension across the board because the need for such action is now. The minister has the colossal affrontery to suggest that we are using this as a political football when he makes crass political statements.
Let me refer to this communication from the Senior Women's Committee for Pension Increase of January 10, 1966. This was a telegram sent to the Prime Minister, and in one part it reads:
The Senior Women's Committee for Pension Increase strongly urges you to increase the Old Age Pension to $100 per month at 65. High cost of living, especially drugs and rent makes food and clothing impossible. All other pensions and allowances have been raised. $100 per month would give a good and regular boost to industry and comfort the elderly people.
They added another little point which I shall quote, because I would not want to be thought political:
Result of election indicates concern of people.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
These are people who represent the old age pensioners of our country. Who in this house has not received hundreds of communications from old age pensioners in his constituency asking for $100 a month across the board without any means test and without any semantic change by the government.
I will read a communication which I think is a good example of the sort of thing we have all been getting. The letter is dated March 8, 1966, and it is from a pensioner. It reads:
Dear Sir,
I am a pensioner aged 74, living at 535-10th St. E., Saskatoon. My sole means of support is the federal old age pension and provincial supplement totalling $81.50.
The cost of living is now so high as well as the cost of rent for my single room that I find it almost impossible to live, and keep everything paid for.
I hope that you will take the situation of people like myself under advisement, and I suggest that $25 per month in addition to what I am now getting would make life much more bearable.


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


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: When I have finished I shall be glad to answer questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely, the minister should have more courtesy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I asked permission.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I point out that in this party we have not changed our view. I wish to refer to page 393 of Hansard for October 25, 1951, and to the speech of the then hon. member for Eglinton who subsequently became minister of finance in the last Conservative government of this country-the best government we have had for many years, I might add.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That is not saying much for the others.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: That is a typical comment from one who will never be in the position to test whether his party would make a good or bad government.
I read from page 393 of Hansard:
I can give reasons why the committee recommended universal payments. First, It was felt that in the case of those who did not need the payments it would be a simple matter for the Minister of Finance if he so chose to draw them back in the way of taxes.
Almost every member in this house knows that is true. The minister, however, does not seem to think that is true, neither does the hon. member for Verdun.
In the second place, it was thought that the administrative problem would be considerable.
10944	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The minister, I am sure, is aware of the work done in this committee as it looked into every facet of the problem. The minister might be interested to read the Journals of the House of Commons for 1950 which deal with the matter.
I continue quoting:
It does not matter what figure you choose as the breaking point between those who will receive and those who will not; you are applying a means test. It may be that it would be an infinitely more generous means test than that which had prevailed hitherto,-
Those words seem applicable today.
-but nevertheless it would involve the application of such a test. That in turn would have brought with it almost all the obiectional features of the present administration of the means test. It would mean that you would be penalizing thrift in many cases while making payments in other cases to those who have not generally practised equal thrift.
If the minister refers to yesterday's Hansard, to the excellent speech of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), he will see some interesting facts. If a person earns an extra $60 a month he receives nothing. If he receives, let us say, $58 a month he receives a cheque for 50 cents every month from the government of Canada. Is that not wonderful? It will cost the government $1.50 to send the cheque. It will cost the taxpayers $2, and the aged person will receive 50 cents. Many pensioners in this country I am sure will frame such a cheque, hang it on the wall, and do without an extra slice of bread.
It would have meant more intrusions on the part of officials into the affairs of individuals.
That is still true today:
For these and other very good reasons, not least of all being the administrative difficulty of enforcing such a test as compared with the administrative ease with which money could be taken back in taxes from those who did not need it, the committee arrived, I think soundly, at the conclusion that the simplest and most effective system was the universal system.
Those words were uttered 15 years ago and are as applicable today as they were then. They were accepted by the government of that day with approbation. Had the hon. member for Verdun been here then he too, would have approved of them with everything else he approved of today in his speech.
The problem is serious. I do not know if the minister realizes the seriousness to the people of Canada of his proposal.

DEBATES	December 9, 1966
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The minister says it will be so easy to get the relatives to fill out this income test form, or the neighbours, the social worker, or the plumber, or whoever happens to be around at the time. I do not know who is going to do it for a person living alone in a little house in Ontario, such as the one I saw depicted in the newspaper the other day. Perhaps the minister will send some of his high-priced officials to fill it out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Possibly their member of parliament?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Certainly, a good many over there would be making a more worthwhile contribution doing that than they are in the House of Commons. Has the minister really paid attention to the representations that have been made to him? Has he looked at the letters that undoubtedly he has received? Has he seen what the plight of the old age pensioner really is?
The minister has mentioned figures and says they are estimates. I agree they are only estimates. He has quoted from the final report of the special committee of the senate on aging. I wonder if I would be accorded the same privilege. I wonder if the minister realizes that on page 74 of that report it is stated that 60.6 per cent of the males over 70 received less than $1,500 in 1961, and 84.7 per cent of the females were in the same position? What about married couples, who the minister has said will be allowed the maximum amount? On page 75 of the report it is stated that 69.8 per cent of married couples are going to receive less than the maximum amount he has mentioned-69.8 per cent, almost 70 per cent of the total.
This means two things. It means that an administrative increase across the board would certainly be valid, and it means that there has been a shocking neglect of these people for far too long if that percentage of the population is below what has been referred to as the poverty line.
The minister makes a great point about the great number of old age pensioners we are going to have in a few years. Obviously, he has not read the reports or he would know that today only 4.95 per cent of the population is 70 and over. Are we trying to say that the rest of the country, the approximately 95 per cent of the people, are in no position to support this 4.95 per cent? I find this impossible to believe. It is incredible to me that we would even question that the people of
December 9, 1966	COMMONS
Canada would not be willing to pay for a proper basic income for people who have helped build this country to what it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I do wish to say much more, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to quote from a report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on old age security, to be found in the Journals of the House of Commons, 1950. It is a very complete report but I wish to take just a couple of points from it.
Referring to means test pensions, I find this in the report:
It is difficult to forecast the cost of any proposed means test program since it is not possible to predict the proportion of aged persons who would apply for the pension under any given income test.
Isn't that interesting? Is this where they got the term "income test"? But you notice that the report equates the two, means test and income test as the same thing.
Obviously, as the amount of outside income allowed under a means test scheme is increased, the number of eligible pensioners is also increased, and the cost rises correspondingly . . . The higher the income ceilings for purposes of eligibility, the closer the cost of means test pensions approaches that of universal pensions.
That is exactly what is happening now, and why shouldn't we have a universal pension, and not the income test, means test or, we will call it the MacEachen test for want of a better name?
The minister quoted with approbation-I am using that word a lot today-the Canadian Welfare Council as being in favour of the plan he is proposing. I would like to show what the Canadian Welfare Council said back in 1951 when this plan was first brought in. Quoting from page 663 of the Journals of the House of Commons, 1950,1 read the following:
The majority favoured a basic income maintenance program-
That is what the minister is proposing today, an income maintenance program.
-under federal auspices, which would provide a flat rate pension, without means test, to all persons at a certain age, although there was some divergence of opinion concerning the amount of pension and the age at which the universal benefit should commence. This approach was supported by the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association, the Canadian Welfare Council, 23033-6921
Old Age Security Act Amendment
Well.
-and the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
I could quote what each of them said but I will not take up the time of the house to do that. However, the Canadian Association of Social Workers did have something to say with regard to the means test, which I would like to quote. Incidentally, these are the people who will be going into these homes to see how these people are living and how they react to the various programs brought forward by government, benevolent or otherwise. Their job is going to be to placate these people when they are upset by such things as a means test being imposed upon them.
I quote as follows from page 657 of the 1950 Journals:
The association recommended the abolition of the means test on the grounds that, unless administered with great skill by trained workers, the test can be a humiliating and damaging experience, interfering with the management of personal affairs and undermining independence. The difficulties of effectively administering the test for the large numbers now in need of aid, unjustifiable administrative costs in proportion to the amount saved, and the serious delays incurred when persons are in immediate need, were other reasons advanced by the association to support this recommendation.
They were, of course, referring to the abolition of any suggestion of a means test, and were referring to setting up a universal across the board old age pension without a means test, without a needs test, without a MacEachen test, whatever you want to call it. Call it what you like-a rose by any other name-it is still a means test.
I can assure the minister that I am neither stupid nor dishonest, as he callously suggested some members were yesterday. I am neither, and I know he does not belong in either of those categories. I ask him to look once again at this problem, go into the actuarial figures once again to see if it is not possible, not only from the financing end but from humanitarian aspects, to increase the pension across the board. This action would retain the dignity of the individual, retain his ability to go out and earn some money for himself. It would also provide all the dignity that the House of Commons can offer to the old age pensioners of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising to ask a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
10946	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to allow it?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Will my hon. friend write to the old age pensioner to whom he referred, and whose letter he quoted, and tell him that under this program he will get $60 a year more than under the program the hon. member is now espousing?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I will be very happy indeed to write to him if I have the opportunity to read his answer in the house, more particularly when he refers to the fact he is going to have to show what income he has. .He has none, you know, but he is going to have to tell people that.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Do you think you would like to tell somebody, "I am sorry, I have no income"? I will be very happy to write to him. I am sure he will be happy to have this increase.


Roger E. Régimbal: Tell him he is going to lose $1,200 by having the increase held up for a year or two.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I should like to read into the record his reply in respect of the means test. I do not know what it will be.


Mr. Jean-Paul Maiie (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few comments on the legislation now being considered and piloted so well by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), the purpose of which is to increase old age pensions by $30 per month and, more particularly, to provide a $105 monthly guaranteed income for our needy senior citizens.
Not one member of this house, I am sure, can be against the largest possible increase in pension for our senior citizens, to whom the state owes so much. However, we cannot give what we do not have. The present government, more than any other, is prepared to provide all that it is possible to give our senior citizens, as long as it is fair, reasonable, and consistent with our economy.
Here, I would like to quote an article dated July 25, 1966, written by Mr. Marcel Gingras, parliamentary correspondent for Le Droit. I agree with his views, which should have impressed readers more, and particularly members of the opposition. The article reads as follows:
Conservatives and Neo-democrats-strange allies -are denouncing the federal plan intended to increase old age pensions from $75 to $105 per month

DEBATES	December 9, 1966
for those who can establish proof of a certain want.
According to the critics, there should be no question of adjustment but rather a general increase in pensions, so that all senior citizens might
receive $100 per month, regardless of their financial situation.
It is easy for the Neo-democrats to criticize, since they may never be in power, but the Conservatives who have governed and who will govern again some day-
This is not so sure.
.-know from experience that any social security measure must be paid for and that it is the people who pay for it. In important speeches-in the House of Commons or elsewhere-this is carefully avoided, and the people are led to believe that everything is either free or a gift of the state.
The taxpayer is reminded each spring that he pays direct taxes on his income, along with a direct tax called "old age security", which represents the amount of money necessary for payment of this pension which Conservatives and Neo-democrats avoid telling us we pay for when they ask that the pension be raised to $100 per month for everyone, millionaires included.
Though no one, to date, pays more than $120 a year directly to the public treasury to ensure this welfare, everybody pays other taxes, directly or indirectly to the treasury, which taxes constitute the ransom price we pay for benefits we think are free.
We are well aware of taxes when they are added to the price we pay for what we buy. Still, we sometimes overlook them, for often they are included or hidden in the selling price. For instance, we forget all too easily the hidden tax of 15 per cent on record-players and television sets, 10 per cent on toilet articles and jewellery, $13 per gallon on alcoholic beverages, etc.
On tobacco, cigarettes and building materials also.
All those taxes ensure us the famous free services our politicians promise us during election campaigns and sometimes give us afterwards.
One of the objections to the conditional increase of pensions lies in the means test, which critics find hateful and humiliating. "Nothing could be more miserly" writes James Johnston, national leader of the Conservative party.
Obviously, it is never pleasant to admit one's poverty, even to an anonymous civil servant one will never see again, but the line must be drawn somewhere.
The formula is very simple and not disparaging as the opposition would have us believe. What is important is that our senior citizens receive more help.
(Do we not admit our income every year when we file our income tax return?)
Were the government to yield to the objections of the critics, everyone would get higher benefits, even rich industrialists who do not know what to do with their millions. A general increase of $25 a month would cost $345 million during the current fiscal year. Indirectly, even the most destitute of our citizens should contribute toward that increase.
December 9, 1966

Limited to the needy, the $30 a month increase will be less onerous for the taxpayers and will really serve the purpose of the pension plan which, as everybody knows, is to provide a decent income to people in need.
People who have an investment income, a job or a retirement pension and are therefore, not in need, have nothing to fear since they already enjoy the vital minimum which the government will provide to those with whom life has dealt unfairly.
Government critics are therefore quite wrong, and they are perhaps far more concerned with success at the polls than with the people's welfare.
Mr. Speaker, in view of what I have just read, I do not think I need to belabour the point to show that this government bill must be implemented as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, a good many voters and citizens have asked me this: why not have increased family allowances instead of old age pensions? We are not against increasing family allowances, on the contrary, we are 100 per cent in favour, as long as the government takes it from its budget. I hope it can be done before long. The difference between the amount required to grant the increase to all old age pensioners and the amount needed to give it only to the needy should be used to increase family allowances. Opposition members should have used that argument instead of advocating an increase for all our senior citizens, even those who are millionaires.
The new scheme will permit an aged couple to receive more than what employees of a certain company used to earn; this is true despite the critical words spoken by an interested member last night. We must bear in mind that the increased pension will indirectly help those who are legally responsible for their old folks. We all have legal obligations towards our aged parents, and this increase in pensions for the aged will help families already burdened with the rearing of their own children; those families are now relieved from additional heavy expenses in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, this government has never dragged its feet regarding social matters and social welfare services. There again, it is our government who always went ahead and applied, as far as possible, the fundamentals contained in the encyclicals Quadragesimo Anno and Rerum Novarum, that certain political parties, in their own way, now try to claim for themselves.
All the existing social services in the country which do so much good were established by our government. I realize that much remains to be done, but we must proceed with what we have. The government is forwardlooking and will not fail in its responsibilities.
Old Age Security Act Amendment When it becomes possible to do more, the government will always do it willingly, to the advantage of the whole of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party is not a socialist party. The socialist system, or socialism, is not suited to Canada or to the Canadian people, or to any other country. We still advocate welfare without being socialists. The minimum annual income recommended by the special committee of the Senate on aging is already being implemented.
The project provides that the federal government will pay all citizens the difference between their actual income and an established legal minimum. It may not be such a drastic break-through as it seems, since family allowances, unemployment insurance and pensions already represent so many ways advocated by a Liberal government, so as to ensure a minimum income to certain citizens. The general interest of economy is a good reason for this government to check certain expenditures in one or two years' time, with out delaying growth, and all the more since it has undertaken to pay the tremendous costs of implementation of the legislation on medical care and the estimates for the next fiscal year will be very high.
We do not have the right to make a constitutional question out of this at the expense of our older people and thereby delay this long-expected project. Constitutional struggles do not count for our older people, but rather an amount of money enabling them to face life.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill will be passed as soon as possible, so that our older people who are in need and who appeal to us for help, and rightly so, may be sure in a few days from now, that is on January 1, 1967, our centenary year, to benefit by reasonable assistance until something better can be done when possible.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, this government has a propensity for passing pension legislation which is not only complicated but ineffective. Perhaps I should refer specifically to the Liberal governments subsequent to 1930, because the joint committee which was set up in 1950 devised a pension plan which was acclaimed by experts from all parts of the world as a most perfect and equitable form of pension plan, namely the Old Age Security Act.
During the hearings of the joint committee on the Canada pension plan almost every knowledgeable expert who came before that
10948	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment committee asked: Why do you attempt to devise such a complicated plan which will not in any case do the job? Why not simply extend the provisions of the Old Age Security Act, lower the age and make it cover widows at an early age, make it cover the disabled and blind, but use the principles of the Old Age Security Act?
This government's answer was no, partly because of its weakness in giving in to pressures from certain provinces and partly because it was invading a constitutional field in which it should not have been. The government introduced the Canada pension plan. This government also has a will, at any rate, to attempt to make the elderly Canadians in this country believe that every time they introduce such a piece of social legislation it will be the be-all and end-all of their problems.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Louis Chatterton: I will return to that point in a moment.
When the white paper on the Canada pension plan was issued in August of 1964 it contained the following statement:
The Canada pension plan Is designed to extend social insurance protection to people in retirement-
It then went on to state:
This is to establish a contributory pension plan ensuring that, as soon as is possible in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity.
I am sure the government realized that the benefits of the Canada pension plan would not be payable until 1967, and felt that during the 1965 election campaign the elderly people of Canada would not realize that none of them would be helped by this plan. In spite of promises made in the white paper, by 1976, ten years after the Canada pension plan becomes effective, two thirds of Canadians over 65 years of age will not receive one penny from that plan. These people number something in the order of 1,250,000. The Liberals went back to their old game of trying to fool the people that the plan they introduced would solve all their problems.
During the 1965 election campaign we said we would give $100 a month to people on old age security, but Liberal candidates said they would go one better and introduce the Canada Assistance Plan. The Liberal party also has a propensity for picking catchy names such as

DEBATES	December 9, 1966
the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan and now the guaranteed minimum income plan. Ask the old age pensioners in Canada today how many of them have benefited at all from the Canada Assistance Plan.
We now are faced with the guaranteed minimum income plan. Because of the advance publicity given to this plan by members on the government side, it is quite likely that a large number of elderly people in Canada, rightly or wrongly, wfll believe they will benefit. Many of them must have said to themselves: The Liberals have not helped us in the past, surely this must be their answer. This brings to mind the election campaign of 1965 when I arranged a meeting with old age pensioners in Victoria. I said to them: You are not going to benefit from the Canada Pension Plan. They then said: What; can that be true? A great number of elderly Canadians today have the impression they are going to benefit from this guaranteed minimum income plan. Let me set the record straight in this regard by enumerating those groups of elderly Canadians who will not benefit or who will benefit very slightly as a result of this plan.
First of all may I say it will not cover anyone who is today under age 68. I am not stating that the minister or anyone else on that side of the house suggested that it would cover those people, but the people of Canada generally do not understand this. This scheme is so complicated I should like to make it clear that only those who will actually be in receipt of an old age security pension can benefit by this plan.
The second group which will not benefit is made up of those people who, whether they receive old age security or not, have an income as defined in the Income Tax Act of more than $60 a month. They cannot benefit in any way from this plan.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I want to take issue with the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the third group. The minister said that some
500,000	Canadians will receive the maximum of $30 per month under this plan. Technically that is correct. But the fact is, assuming his estimate is correct, that this is a completely misleading statement. It may be true that they will receive $30 more a month from the federal government but they will lose an equal amount, or close to an equal amount, from the assistance they are now receiving under existing legislation. As a matter of fact, in British Columbia, for example, there are many old
December 9, 1966	COMMONS
age security pensioners who will actually receive less under this plan than they are now receiving. This is because in British Columbia the supplementary assistance if $30 a month, making the total $105, and a pensioner is allowed to earn another $6 a month, or and over-all total of $111. Under this plan the most he can get with the full $30 from the government is $108 a month. Therefore the statement of the minister that 500,000 Canadians will receive an additional $30 a month from this plan is completely misleading. It assumes that they will continue to receive the allowances they are now receiving under existing legislation.
When the house is in committee I should like the minister to give an estimate of how many of these 500,000 are now receiving $30 or close to $30 under existing legislation. The fact is that the only people, those who have no other income as defined under the Income Tax Act, who benefit under this plan to any material extent are those that have failed the existing tests in the various provinces. They are the only ones who will benefit materially. I would hazard a guess that less than half of those people now in receipt of old age assistance or unemployment assistance will benefit to any extent from this particular provision.
It is all very well for the minister to say, "Oh, the provinces will most likely expand their tests and raise their ceilings." There is no guarantee that this will happen. Did the minister say anywhere that he had made agreements in advance with the provinces that if he brings in this plan they will raise their standards of tests? If he made such an agreement, let him tell us so. If he did not make such agreements with the provinces, we must assume that at least for the present very few of those people now being assisted by the provinces, with, I agree, 50 per cent federal help, will benefit under this plan. The only ones who will benefit are those who have failed the present tests but pass the modified means test imposed by this government.
The minister tried to make the point that this plan is designed to help those people who need help most. My answer is that those people who need help most are being helped now by the existing legislation and this plan is merely supplanting or to some extent increasing the provisions of existing legislation. The minister seemed to have an objection, and it may be a valid one in a way, that if we increase the old age security pension now to a flat $100 a month this amount will stay with us in perpetuity. The minister is afraid, of
Old Age Security Act Amendment course, that by 1976, when the maximum pension of $104 a month under the Canada Pension Plan becomes applicable, the combined old age security pension and the Canada Pension Plan payment will amount to $204 a month. He is in effect saying, and there may be some validity in his argument, that the ratio between those now receiving old age security and those who will in the future receive old age security, and those receiving both, will remain the same.
This plan expires after 1975; in other words, after 1975 they will not get any benefit under this plan. By 1976 almost one and a quarter million Canadians over the age of 65 will receive no benefit from the Canada Pension Plan or this plan. For the next ten years it is possible to receive a pension of up to $105 a month, and with other income up to $135 a month, but after 1975 one and a quarter million people over 65 years of age will receive no benefit under the Canada Pension Plan or this plan.
The minister was not Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1950, but he must look back to that time and wonder whether we would not have been wise merely to amend the Old Age Security Act to made it the best pension plan in the world. This plan is not only complicated but it does not fill the bill. With the excellent staff the minister has at his disposal, if he did not want to institute an increase in the old age security payment that would prevail in perpetuity, surely he could have at least devised a modified plan. I am not proposing such a plan, but if the minister objects to increasing in perpetuity the old age security payment he could have said, we will use two figures only, the Canada Pension Plan and old age security, and we will say that the two combined shall not exceeed $179 a month plus any escalation that may take place in the future.
In other words, a person who retires and receives under the Canada Pension Plan $104 a month will receive $75 a month old age security pension, but those who do not receive the maximum payment under the Canada Pension Plan will receive $100, that is, all those who do not receive the maximum pension under the Canada Pension Plan will receive $100 a month old age security. Then at least those who now and for the next ten years will receive no benefit from the Canada Pension Plan will be assured an income of $100 a month without any means test, whether it be called a lesser or greater means test.
December 9, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment
I put this question to the minister now and hope he will answer it when we are in committee on the bill. If I remember correctly, the minister said that by 1967 a flat $100 a month old age pension would cost $100 million a year more than this plan. Would the minister tell me whether when he quoted the figure of $100 million a year it included the recovery by way of income tax, considering in particular that the $500 exemption which used to apply to all people over age 65 is now removed in respect of those people under 70 years of age on old age security? I ask the minister: How much of that additional cost of $100 million would have been recovered by way of income tax?
I am more convinced than ever that instead of the Canada Pension Plan the government could have instituted a much more effective, simple and efficient plan. However, the government went through with it, having passed the Canada Assistance Plan which today does not help old age pensioners. I would urge the minister to reconsider this matter and take into account the facts I have quoted. If he can say the government has reached agreement with the provinces that they will substantially expand their tests so that others may benefit, that is another matter. But all those people who qualify under this plan will be disqualified under the provincial plans. The greatest beneficiaries under this plan are the provinces. If the government has in mind assisting the provinces, by all means let it do so, but let it not use the subterfuge of misleading the elderly people of Canada by saying that the federal government will help them. I maintain that the main beneficiaries under this plan are the provinces, and the people who need help most are not being helped in the way they should be by the new pension plan.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
After studying the plan and following the statements made by the minister and by other hon. members I am more convinced than ever that the present increase, considering the fantastic increase in the cost of living since 1965 at which time we said there should be a $25 a month increase, should raise the pension to at least $105, but I am also convinced that a flat $100 now would be far better than what the pensioners have at present. If the government is afraid of the perpetuity factor in the plan, let them combine it with the Canada Pension Plan and say that no one shall receive a combined pension of more than $179 plus escalation but not less than $100 a month.
[Mr. Chatterton.J


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to confirm the position of the New Democratic Party as set forth last evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He said that we stand for $105 a month payable to all pensioners without any test whatsoever. He recalled the hard struggle which the members of this party waged in 1957 to establish the principle of universality for old age pensioners, and we are determined that this principle should remain.
Second, he pointed out that the New Democratic Party will vote for the present Bill C-251 because it would be an irresponsible action to deprive half a million pensioners of money which they urgently require.
Third, he stressed the need for a firm establishment of the principle of integration of the old age security pension with the Canada Pension Plan so that in the future Canadians will be entitled to a pension of approximately 60 to 70 per cent of their income during the best working years of their lives. According to the principle which is now being developed the percentage will decrease rather than increase.
Fourth, he pointed out that the proposed government plan is not in a true sense a guaranteed annual income program but merely a supplemental payment for a stated period to pensioners who are in needy circumstances and to whom the income test will be applied. We have stated that although the severe means test which applied in the past will not be applied to applicants and pensioners in the future, nevertheless the test to be applied is still a means test because in determining the income of a pensioner his assets must be considered.
One of the points I should like to establish is what specific people we are considering under this plan. The minister spoke in round terms of a million people. I note that on page 1 of the final report of the special committee of the Senate on aging the following statement is made:
Older people in Canada are a rapidly growing up group. Using the customary, if arbitrary age line of 65 years we find that there are now nearly 1,500,000 of them-five times the number there were in 1901.
At page 3 of the same report it is stated:
In 1961, 70 per cent of those aged 65 and over lived in urban areas, 20 per cent in rural nonfarm areas, and 10 per cent on farms. Moreover, a comparison with the situation in 1951 reveals that during the 1951-61 period the number of older people in urban areas increased by 40 per cent, and in rural non-farm areas by 36 per cent,
December 9, 1966

whereas the number living on farms declined 31 per cent, some 11 per cent more than the decline in the total farm population.
Again, on page 10 it is stated:
In 1961, 54 per cent of the population aged 65 and over, had gross money incomes of less than $1,000. Actually the percentage was higher than that. For one thing, persons reporting no income, some 8 per cent of the total, were not counted; for another the survey excluded farm residents, inmates of institutions, and persons living in nonprivate households, altogether another 18 per cent. Had these two groups formed part of the total, the 54 per cent figure would undoubtedly be higher. For all persons who were included the median income was $960: $1,440 for men and $830 for women.
Fifty nine per cent of Canada's older people in 1961 were members of families as defined by the census. It may be assumed, although we do not have adequate data, that many of these older people are better off than their individual incomes would suggest. If the husband and wife are still together, which was true in 80 per cent of such families, the wife may have had an income as well as the husband, and unmarried children, if present in the home, may have been making some contribution in support of their parents. The median income of non-farm families with the head aged 65 and over, was $2,831, which, however, was only 60 per cent of that of families with the head under 65. A further finding of considerable importance is that although older families, with the head aged 65 and over, comprised only 12 per cent of all Canadian families, they accounted for nearly one-third of the total number with incomes under $2,000. Some 37 per cent of older families are in this latter group.
If things are difficult financially for many older people having in their own families, they are much more so for those whose families are broken up through the death of one of the marriage partners and children moving out on their own. In 1961 there were 570,000 such "unattached" persons, over two-thirds of them women, and their median income on the basis of the non-farm sample was $829, with 60 per cent receiving less than $1,000 annually.
We know less than we should about how these people manage. Over 40 per cent of them, mostly on very low incomes, lived with married children or other relatives, who in many instances doubtless provided free room and board. The remainder, however, some 262,000 older persons, 63 per cent of them women, lived alone or with non-relatives and were, presumably, dependent for the most part on their own resources. Of this latter group, 53 per cent had incomes of less than $1,000. Among those aged 70 and over, 47 per cent of the men and 50 per cent of the women, received almost their entire incomes in the form of old age security payments.
At the same time I think I should put on the record not only the number of old age pensioners and their incomes but also a record of their assets and liabilities. On page 13 of the Senate report it is stated:
Although cash income is the most important single measure of the financial position of older 23033-693
Old Age Security Act Amendment people, a complete assessment needs to take account also of income in kind, such as imputed rent on owner-occupied homes, and also of assets that may have been accumulated by older people during their working years. It is unfortunate, therefore, that recent data under this head are not available.
The latest information is from a D.B.S. survey in 1958 which shows that non-farm families with heads aged 65 and over had more liquid assets and less debts than families generally. For most people in both groups, however, the amounts involved were small: 60 per cent of the older families, and 80 per cent of all families had liquid assets of less than $2,000; and 96 per cent of the former, as compared with 88 per cent of the latter, had consumer debts of less than $1,000.
It is probably true in Canada, as in the United States and Great Britain, that the most important capital owners among the aged are a small minority of the total group. This same 1958 survey shows that for the group aged 65 and over, 15.3 per cent of family units with incomes of $5,000 and more held 40.3 per cent of the liquid assets of the group. Similarly in the United States in 1960, the top 20 per cent of the age group 65 years and over, ranked by size of income, held about 50 per cent of the liquid assets.
I might also refer to the number of homes that these people owned and occupied. On page 14 of the report it is stated:
Owned homes are the principal asset that people bring with them into old age. In 1961, of 747,000 dwellings occupied by households, whose head was aged 65 and over, 77 per cent were owner-occupied. In the spring of 1959 it was estimated that over 90 per cent of home owners aged 65 and over owned their homes, mortgage-free. This means, of course, that a modest cash outlay enabled such families to remain in their own homes. However, as pointed out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in its submission to the Senate committee, the quality of the housing stock occupied by the elderly is much below average.
The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) referred to the fact that these people had experienced two wars and a depression and had attempted to rear families during that time. They have suffered from a lack of educational training and job opportunities, so is it any wonder that the Senate report gives an indication of the low level of income that these people have experienced over the years?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke last night he was quite sensitive about the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) that elderly persons need $138.96 a month to live on. This amount was culled from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail in connection with a conference on aging held on January 28 of this year. For the
December 9, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment benefit of the minister I think I should put on record part of this article:
An elderly person living alone needs a monthly income of at least $138.96, a committee of the Canadian Conference on Aging decided yesterday.
A sample budget for elderly persons was prepared by the committee and will be forwarded to the Canadian Welfare Council as a possible guide for planning future needs.
The group, headed by Gerard Nepveu, director-general of Quebec's Family and Social Welfare Department, agreed that two items in the budget, housing and health care, fluctuate from individual to individual and from region to region.
Some members also protested the sum set aside for recreation and leisure, $6, was too low.
The budget, for an elderly person living alone allowed $36.91 for food; $50 for housing which included heat and a refrigerator and stove; $2.16 for utilities such as electricity; $6.25 for household and personal supplies such as soap, toothpaste and services to keep the home operating; $3.24 for furniture on the assumption the furniture has been paid for and no major replacement is needed; $7.08 for clothing and its care; $6 for transportation which, budget presenter Agnes Higgins of Montreal said, would allow six outings a week in some areas; $12 for health care excluding drugs; $6 for leisure and recreation; $8.02 for reading, telephone and personal allowance and $1.30 for gifts and contributions including church collections.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that church receipts are down when the old age pensioners are committed to $1.30 a month?
This is the first budget for the elderly on a national scale. It was based partly on projected figures for 1963 and 1964 on personal expenditures on consumer goods and services per capita per month and partly on information supplied by experts from various regions.
Several committee members said they hoped a copy would be sent to provincial governments and to departments of welfare.
Budgets have been prepared, however, on regional or local basis. Last October, the social planning council of metropolitan Toronto told the Ontario government's select committee on aging that a single elderly woman needs about $118 a month, a single retired man $126 and an elderly couple $213.
The national budget, described as modest but adequate, allowed $223.82 for a retired couple. Mrs. Higgins said a housewife can save money by buying in larger quantities so the food costs were not necessarily doubled. She allowed rent for a one-bedroom apartment at $73, although rent for such shelter varies from $60 to $90. Most of the items such as utilities, household supplies, clothing, health care and gifts were seen as being about twice as expensive for two as one but transportation and recreation were increased only about 40 per cent because one person may stay at home more than the other-
Several committee members said they would have liked a more generous budget but that the sample one should be satisfactory for those who have resources other than the old age security benefits.
They refrained from asking the Canadian Welfare Council to implement the budget but asked that it be used as a sample and updated as the living costs vary.

This was the statement, Mr. Speaker, cited by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and about which the minister became very sensitive. I would imagine he is entitled to become sensitive because he also received a communique from the Canadian Welfare Council prepared by the executive director of the council, Reuben C. Baetz. In referring to the proposed guaranteed income plan of the government Mr. Baetz stated:
One of the main purposes of the study is to gather more reliable data for establishing adequate public social security provisions, not only for those receiving assistance under current programs, but also for those who would be included in any new programs.
Up to now, decisions on benefits have been determined by a combination of political expediency, financial limitations, and rough estimates of need. For example, the federal government's program for a guaranteed minimum income for the aged is being launched without a thorough study of minimum needs, as was recommended by the special committee of the Senate on aging.
I think this is one of the main points, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has neglected. What he should have done was this. When the house reconvened in September and we were told that medicare would be delayed for one year, he should have brought in his legislation in regard to pensions and referred the subject matter to a special committee to study the needs of our senior citizens. That committee would have had before it specialists in the needs and requirements of senior citizens. But what did he do? The minister waited until December before bringing forward his proposed legislation, sandwiched it in with medicare, and he is now attempting to pressure it through the house.
The Senate report lists the recommendations the minister is proposing to follow and sets forth the need for the creation of a competent body to ascertain the income requirements of older people so as to develop a socially acceptable budget for single persons and couples which would be adjusted automatically annually on the basis of a suitable index of consumer spending of earnings, with a review every five years to reflect changes in the relative circumstances of the working population and the retired population.
The committee suggested an amount of $1,260 per year for single persons and outlined the procedure, which the minister is now attempting to follow by saying that he will require a simplified form which will disclose a person's income. It is also noteworthy that the committee indicated there would be sample
December 9, 1986	COMMONS
checks made periodically, as under unemployment insurance, with no means or needs test inquiries along traditional lines. This is the formula which the minister has adopted, with one exception, and that is that the Senate committee on aging reported that the eligible age for receipt of the pension should be 65. That recommendation has not been followed by the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the hon. gentleman aware that we have departed in several other important respects from the recommendations of the Senate committee?


John Gilbert: Yes, I am very well aware of that, but I think the minister has used the Senate report as the basis of his formula for developing the guaranteed annual income. One might ask, Mr. Speaker, what are the restrictions with regard to this guaranteed income program? First of all, it restricts many senior citizens from working because of the financial disadvantage in obtaining the supplemental income. As has been said, not many people would be happy to work knowing that if they earned over $60 they would be deprived of the supplementary income. When they earn less than $60 the supplementary income is reduced by $1 for every $2 they earn. That is the first point. The second point is that there are insurmountable difficulties in filling out the required forms.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The minister nonchalantly referred to the ease of filling these forms. I refer him to clause 9 of the proposed bill which, under the heading "Calculation of Income", says:
For the purposes of this Part,
(a) the income for a year of a person, other than a person described in paragraph (b), in his income for that year computed in accordance with the Income Tax Act, minus-
Certain allowances.
Also set forth is the provision with regard to the calculation of income for spouses.
I have looked at the Income Tax Act to see how clearly income is defined. I notice that from pages 5 to 13 the Income Tax Act sets out what income is. At page 14 it determines amounts not to be included in the computing of income, from pages 15 to 19 it sets out deductions, from pages 29 to 33 it shows deductions not allowed in the computing of income, and from pages 33 to 40 it sets out miscellaneous rules for computing income. The minister, as can be seen, has not set the old age pensioners an easy task in determining what their income is. The minister says
23033-693J
Old Age Security Act Amendment that it is simply a matter of filling out a form. He will, first of all, have to inform pensioners as to what constitutes income. I venture to say that any pamphlet sent to a pensioner will have ten pages at least devoted to setting out what constitutes income under the Income Tax Act.
Let us take an example of how this will work. For a person to be entitled to the supplement he must file a statement showing his previous year's income. In other words, a person filling out the form in 1967 will have to show his income in 1966. Does the minister suppose that an old age pensioner who has done babysitting to supplement her income will keep an accurate record of what she has earned over the year?
Take as an example the difficulty of calculating incomes for other people. The Senate report on aging shows that over 500,000 pensioners own their own homes. Many of these home owners rent rooms to supplement their incomes. How does an old age pensioner determine the income from rented rooms? He must take the gross income, then take into account the allowance for depreciation of the building, the proportionate allowance for heating, the proportionate allowances for realty taxes, repairs and so on. It is not easy for an old age pensioner to determine the income derived from renting rooms.
Let us take into account that many pensioners have sold their homes and are living off mortgages they have obtained in selling their homes. Most mortgages these days call for, blended payments of principal and interest. Principal and interest are not separated as they were in the past. Can you imagine an old age pensioner who gets $75 per month on a mortgage trying to calculate how much of that $75 is principal and how much is interest? That presents an almost insurmountable difficulty.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has kept quiet about the options that old age pensioners have under this bill. I expect the reason is that the minister appreciates the difficulties I have referred to and the difficulties in determining what pensioners need. When the old age pensioners get a synopsis of that part of the bill dealing with options and elections they will be as confused as we all are. Let me suggest an easy solution to the problem of filling out forms. I think all members of parliament should have imposed on them the task of filling out these forms that old age pensioners will have to fill out. After most members have filled out 10, 15 or 20
December 9, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment forms they will come back and say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, For goodness sake, apply the principle of universality to this problem and avoid all the complications and administrative difficulties that otherwise ensue. An hon. member beside me says that we also ought to avoid all expenses which may otherwise result.
Can you imagine the difficult task that an old age pensioner will have in filling out a form? We do not know at the moment whether the minister will include the provision contained in other forms, such as the ones having to do with veterans allowances, that the truth of the information contained in the document shall be attested to in the presence of a notary public, minister or some other person in authority. Can you imagine somebody swearing that the declared earnings for the previous year are the actual and true amount? Difficult as such a computation is, to be forced to make such a declaration will be a humiliating experience. Also, in clause 20 of the bill the minister sets out the penalty provisions in new section 21. The word used in that clause is "knowingly". That may be an escape for some people because many people would not knowingly fill out the form improperly. In any event, the clause reads:
(1) Every person who
(a) knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in any application or statement required or permitted by this Act or makes any such application or statement that by reason of any nondisclosure of facts is false or misleading or obtains any benefit payment by false pretences- is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The bill does not say what the punishment is, but under the old act any person found guilty was liable to a fine of $500 or six months imprisonment or to both fine and imprisonment.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Maybe the minister is going to tell us what it constitutes. If I remember correctly, in the absence of any provision set forth in the Summary Convictions Act those are the limits, $500 or six months, or both fine and imprisonment. Can you imagine an old age pensioner being confronted with this type of provision? What a position to put a person in.
Another point is that the guaranteed annual income plan set forth by the minister is based on past income and not on present needs. May I give an example. If an old age pensioner has made sufficient money in the year 1966 he will not be entitled to the pension in 1967. But suppose in 1967 he runs into


a serious illness, as a result of which his savings are depleted and his assets are reduced. That is the time of actual need. This is why we are so insistent that we get away from this means test and that there should be a lump sum increase for these people. A person who in 1967 suffers such a depletion of income and reduction of assets will have to wait until 1968 before he can get any benefit under this bill. Is this the type of help we want to give our senior citizens?
One further point is that the present act does not cover people from the age of 65 to 68. The minister may say that those who are in need can apply for old age assistance in the provinces in which they live. But the minister knows as well as I do that under the Old Age Assistance Act the basis in Ontario under the Canada Assistance Plan is need, but it is need coupled with the severe means test embracing the ten items described yesterday. I would point out that the agreement with regard to the regulations in Ontario has not been signed and therefore people in this category are not getting assistance on the basis of need. We have been promised for months that this agreement would be entered into but to date no such agreement has been effected.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) said:
Estimates in the current year are that the guaranteed income supplement will cost between $260 million and $280 million in its first year. Take the median figure of $270 million; this is $100 million less than the cost of a $25 a month increase in the flat rate pension. The cost of the flat rate pension, of course, would increase annually so that by 1970 it would amount to something in the neighbourhood of $200 million a year more than the guaranteed income supplement.
Then he went on to put a nice sentence in the latter part of his statement:
It is proposed that the payments for this income supplement will be financed from the old age security fund. The tax measures required in connection with these expenditures will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance in his budget in the very near future.
The Minister of Finance is going to introduce an additional tax to take care of these problems with regard to the old age security fund. I feel certain that the Canadian people would gladly pay a slight additional amount if they thought that every old age pensioner would get a flat increase of $25 or $30. I think there is sufficient generosity within Canadian taxpayers that if the money is for the help of senior citizens they will certainly pay it. I believe that the minister should give effect to this argument and make sure that there is a
December 9, 19G6	COMMONS
flat rate increase for all Canada's senior citizens.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) jumped up when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was speaking and asked, "Where are you going to get the money?" The hon. member said, from savings in defence expenditures. This is one source where we could get it but another source is the increased productivity that we, I hope, are going to enjoy within the next few years. With that increased productivity, surely senior citizens who have contributed in the past should enjoy the fruits of the present. This is one source to which the Minister of Finance should direct his attention if he has any real concern for pensioners.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare also spoke about an appeal board. He said that there has always been an appeal board and that it is nothing new. But it is new in the sense that it is going to deal with people who appeal against the department's questioning of the amount of income they have shown in filing their forms. Can you, Mr. Speaker, imagine a person in a small centre in your riding, attempting to process an appeal? Can you imagine an old age pensioner, 67 years or over, going before an appeal board? How many appeal boards are going to be established? Will an old age pensioner have to travel 30 or 40 miles to present his case? Do you notice, Mr. Speaker, that the final clause in that provision says that the appeal board's decision shall be binding?
I would say that the plan the minister has set forth creates two classes of senior citizens categorized on the basis of income, those who have income and those who do not. What a terrible indictment of our senior citizens in view of their contribution in past years. Second, this plan will sow discord and ill feeling among pensioners. One pensioner will be asking another pensioner, "How much did you get," and when he finds out that the other is getting more he will go home and ask, "Why does he get so much and I do not get the same? He is not declaring all his income." Ill feeling will be generated.
Again I say that the bill is terribly complex from the point of view of administration. The plan runs against a proper structuring of a feasible pension combining an adequate income with decency and respect. We in the N.D.P. say that senior citizens should be given at least three things, first, proper housing, second, an adequate health plan and, third, an adequate income so that they will be able to
Old Age Security Act Amendment live decently and happily. Mr. Speaker, I can almost hear our senior citizens, when they receive this great form and the 20-page pamphlet that will go with it, giving three cheers for the Minister of National Health and Welfare-Scrooge, Scrooge, Scrooge.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, judging from recent experience on welfare measures in this house I do not think it is going to be possible to convince the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and the government of the error of their ways with respect to the legislation now before us.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However, on this quiet Friday afternoon I should like to take the opportunity to repeat a theme with which I have dealt on many occasions when welfare measures have been before parliament. I refer to the urgent necessity to bring about a more co-ordinated and integrated approach to welfare services. During the past three years we have spent a good deal of time in the House of Commons dealing with welfare measures. I think it is a fair conclusion to reach that we are no closer than we were to the achievement of a coordinated approach in dealing with what is one of the basic problems in the modern state, the problem of the social and economic needs of individuals in our industrialized technological civilization. Indeed, we have moved farther from the desired goal rather than closer to the approach which has been recommended by experts in the field, by the provincial governments which have the final responsibility for welfare measures, by social workers' associations, by the Canadian Welfare Council, and particularly by Mr. John Morgan who formerly was associated with the Toronto school of social work.
Today we have another example of a government which suffers by following a hit-and-miss approach in dealing with welfare problems rather than trying to establish an over-all comprehensive scheme. Some hon. members who are here now will recall that in 1962 parliament did move to establish this greatly to be desired integrated approach. A bill establishing a dominion welfare council, which was designed to be the counterpart of the national health council, was passed. Unfortunately that bill never was implemented. This is one of the main reasons that over the past three years we have been endeavouring to deal with urgent welfare measures, especially pension matters and the question of
December 9, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment security for our senior citizens, on this piecemeal basis. This was the basic problem which arose in connection with the Canada Pension Plan. The basic criticism of the medicare scheme with which we dealt a few days ago was the failure to integrate and tie together the various aspects of the social welfare needs of Canada at the present time.
Many hon. members who have spoken before me in this debate have pointed out the inadequacies of the legislation before us. For example, it has been mentioned that it is reaching us too late. The need for an increase in old age security payments has existed in Canada for at least a year. It is an obvious need arising from rampant inflation which has affected the economy of Canada during the past 12 months. Any member of this house who is in touch with his constituents will be aware that this is the number one issue in the field of welfare. It was for this reason that we failed to understand why the government was giving priority to the medicare scheme when it would not be implemented until July, 1968.
My correspondence, and I am sure the correspondence of other members of the house, has dealt with the growing gap in respect oi the old age security payments caused by the continuing process of inflation and particularly in respect of the high cost of food which is felt most keenly by our senior citizens. Obviously the government has been aware ol this situation because the committee on consumer credit has been dealing with this matter. Certainly it has been brought to our attention by the protest groups which have risen spontaneously across the country during the past few months. The bill before us deals with the matter too late and deals with the problem in the wrong way. It is not at all adequate to deal with it. As has been pointed out, it applies only to the recipients of old age security. It provides no benefit at all for those in the most needy group, the recipients of old age assistance. As a matter of fact their needs are pretty well taken care of by existing provincial schemes.
For the past four or five years in the province of Manitoba there has been a system of supplementary payments which is based on precisely the same formula which is defended by this government and referred to as an income maintenance scheme. It has provided those people who are in receipt of old age assistance pensions with supplementary benefits, although it is referred to as involving a


needs test in contrast to the outmoded means test.
The scheme which is before us this afternoon is not a new concept in the field of pension payments or in the field of dealing with the matter of inadequate income for recipients of old age pensions. It is borrowed directly from provinces such as the province of Manitoba which have already pioneered in this field. While the minister has indicated that this plan will in no way interfere with the supplementary benefits paid under existing provincial schemes, I am sure he will find that the scheme proposed here will be substituted by the provincial governments for the schemes they already have been operating over the past number of years.
The basic criticism I make of the proposal is that it is a backward step in respect of welfare principles in the modern state. I am aware that the Canadian Welfare Council attempts to co-ordinate the various functions and activities of the voluntary groups across the country, but I believe that if there had been a national welfare council to make recommendations in the field of policy the government would have avoided the retrograde step that is being taken in the measure before us in respect of the principle involved. No matter how hard the government tries to explain that this is a progressive step and a forward move in the field of welfare, it cannot deny the fact that this is a return to the charity concept of the 1930's.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Canada was late in coming to grips with the social problems of the modern state. We were late in coming to grips with these problems because we were basically an agrarian society up until the last 10 or 20 years. Our first welfare measures did not even borrow principles from the modern concepts of welfare which had been established in the United Kingdom, countries in Europe and the United States, because our programs were geared almost exclusively to the charity concept.
The program of income maintenance, as it is euphemistically referred to by the minister, will re-establish one of the difficulties which parliament tried to remove when it adopted the principle of universality in 1951. That principle was a new break-through in our attitude toward pensions for senior citizens. This so-called income maintenance program will aggravate one of the social problems we have been trying to avoid in recent years. It will discourage our older citizens from taking advantage of job opportunities which arise from
December 9, 1966

time to time. In other words, it will perpetuate a problem which has created one of the main drawbacks in regard to war veterans allowances.
Anyone who has had experience in administering war veterans allowances in recent years will appreciate that an attempt has been made to move away from the basic drawbacks of that program, the criteria which discourage veterans from supplementing their war veterans allowance incomes. This encourages slothfulness rather than initiative on the part of pensioners to supplement their incomes by taking on casual work. This difficulty is being perpetuated by this legislation at a time when we are trying to solve a problem in relation to the increasing percentage of our citizens who are in the senior citizen age bracket. With modern health and hospitalization care facilities more and more of our citizens are living beyond the proverbial three score and ten years. Experts in the field of health and welfare have been trying to advance the idea that rather than discouraging the use of skills acquired over a lifetime of experience we should be devising plans to provide ways and means of helping our senior citizens to maintain their position, perhaps in a restricted way, in the world of work so that these skills can be used to fill the gap in this period of Canada's development.
Quite obviously the principle of income maintenance as embodied in the bill will completely discourage any positive effort on the part of recipients of old age security to supplement their incomes by casual work because any additional income will result in a loss of additional benefit. This problem has been solved in respect of war veterans allowances by ignoring casual earnings and by allowing a certain time period during a year when additional earnings can be made by a recipient of war veterans allowances without interfering with his income from that source. There is no similar provision in this bill as I read it. Perhaps this is an oversight, but I think it is fair on this basis to argue that this is a retrograde step and to point out to the government that it is running against new concepts regarding the occupational positions of senior citizens in the modem state.
The government's philosophy in respect of this measure is similar to the philosophy often adopted by members of the Liberal party toward the field of welfare. I recall the agitation in 1957 when the Liberal government of that day decided to increase old age security payments by $6 per month, those of us who were

Old Age Security Act Amendment active in public life in 1957 will recall the disastrous consequences to the Liberal government which resulted from that attitude toward old age pensions. That move was calculated carefully on the basis of narrow concepts and was motivated by very much the same thinking which is behind the present legislation. I suggest to the minister and the government that rather than removing the agitation which has been felt by hon. members of the house over the past few months in respect of the income gap facing our senior citizens, this measure will increase that agitation. There is an aspect of camouflage and dissimulation to this bill which will be seen through readily by our senior citizens.
It is my belief that our senior citizens, particularly those who have been supplementing their incomes and thereby providing some useful service in their declining years, will realize quickly that they will receive nothing more after this plan is put into effect than they now receive under provincial schemes. Those who have been supplementing their incomes by casual employment will find that after the implementation of this plan they will not benefit from its provisions because to do so they will have to give up their casual work and earnings.
In recent years welfare workers have been endeavouring to make use of the creative ability and capacity of older persons under the principles that were established by the Old Age Security Act. The principle of universality recognized the fact that the earning capacity of these individuals is not as great as it was and that a basic income had to be provided without discouraging the useful participation of a pensioner in the contemporary work world.
The fundamental point I wish to make this afternoon is that this bill takes a backward and retrograde step in our efforts to deal with income maintenance for our senior citizens.
I have referred to the experience of the government with reference to war veterans allowance and how it got around this difficulty. In respect of the present legislation the government is falling right back into the policy that was abandoned under war veterans allowance.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is another aspect of the legislation that deserves to be criticized. Nothing specific has been said in this regard but it has been indicated that this measure will require special taxation to provide the funds necessary. This argument has been used by the Minister
December 9, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment of Finance (Mr. Sharp) as an excuse for introducing what has been variously called a minibudget, a baby budget and even a miniscule budget. We do not know when the minibudget will be presented. It was supposed to come in the latter part of November or early December. It was supposed to be tied in specifically with the increased costs that would arise from the implementation of this measure to assist our old age pension recipients. Here again we have violated the principle that was established in the excellent legislation of 1951.
That legislation was hailed as a major break-through in social policy. All of us who were in the house at that time accepted the new principle as being a desirable one in the modern state. There was to be established a special old age security fund. This was to deal with all the changing needs over the years, because nothing is static in society in the field of welfare payments. But now we are going off on another ad hoc tangent. Notwithstanding the advice received by the government and the obvious need for co-ordination and cooperation in this field, we are specifically earmarking a new budget and tying it to the fiscal needs that will be generated by this legislation. It ignores, too, the fact that need has been created by runaway inflation. I suppose it would be possible to argue that part of the runaway inflation has been created by the on-again, off-again fiscal policies of the government. The "Gordon" concept and the "Sharp" concept of fiscal policies seem to be diametrically opposed. With succeeding ministers of finance espousing different philosophies with regard to fiscal policies, it is quite understandable that in recent months inflation has tended to get out of control.
Even the government's venture into the new pension area of the Canada Pension Plan, with its increase in taxation of course, has had a significant effect on the cost of living in this country. I agree with those who have already spoken in this debate and pointed out that the government has been largely responsible for creating its own problem. In trying to solve the problem it is putting the finger directly on the group of senior citizens and saying: If we pay you this additional sum of money, we will have to raise taxes.
That is hardly a fair diagnosis, particularly when you have a scheme that in many respects is a camouflaged approach to the problem because it is dealing with an area of need that is already substantially covered by policies of social assistance based on a needs test

which have been established in the provinces across the country.
If the government had accepted the advice that has reached them from time to time from this side of the house, the present scheme would be quite unnecessary. I agree completely with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatter ton), who tried to persuade the government along these lines when we were discussing the Canada Pension Plan, that the old age security program is an excellent one, a program that fits perfectly into the modern framework of social welfare policy. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich made the point that we could have handled the need for increasing pension benefits to the important, growing segment of our senior citizens if we had worked through the legislative machinery already provided in the Old Age Security Act. But the government ignored that advice. The same advice has been given during this discussion.
We can deal with the problem, as the hon. member pointed out-this is the viewpoint of most of the members of the opposition so far as I can gather after listening to the speeches-by raising the financial benefit to $100 a month and providing payment for the program through the existing social security fund, without imposing any stigma on our senior citizens and without discouraging them from using their skills in the area of the Canadian economy which today urgently needs the skills that are theirs. This program could be carried out much more simply and much more effectively and would represent a step forward rather than a retrograde step as I am convinced is involved in the bill now before us.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I do not expect that any of us, no matter how long we discuss this theme, will be able to convince the minister of the error of his ways. I am certainly not going to prolong my remarks this afternoon because there are others who want at least to attempt to make the minister see the error of his ways in this respect. We are into the eleventh month of a long session of parliament. One of the reasons our sessions are stretching out in ever-lengthening proportions in recent years is the haphazard approach of the government in dealing with welfare measures. Let us make use of the machinery that was provided in the establishment of the dominion welfare council in 1962. Let us get a body of people, experts if you will, similar to those who operate in the
December 9, 1968	COMMONS
health sphere who will advise the government on policy so that at long last we will move toward co-ordination and integration rather than disintegration as is the case in Bill C-251.


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-251, not just nominal support by as vigorous support as I can offer for what I consider to be the most progressive piece of legislation this house has seen during my brief sojourn here.
I cannot stress too forcibly the need for this legislation, a need which has been brought to my attention time and time again by people in my riding and I am sure is felt as strongly across the country. This bill, viewed objectively, is not only a resourceful bill but a humanitarian one designed to meet a very immediate need, It is always disappointing to note the regularity with which the opposition tends to treat bills, regardless of the subject matter with which they deal or their merit, as being inadequate, ill conceived or governed by considerations other than the best ones that should be used for promulgating such legislation.
It seems to me that one of the most important features of this bill, which I hope in time will become more obvious to members of the opposition, is that it will probably end the shameless bartering which goes on amongst political parties at election time for the support of senior citizens. This bill is not so much governed by that consideration as by an assessment of the particular needs of senior citizens. It is the consideration of need more than any other that will in the future, as a result of this bill, govern the attitude of political parties to the problem of the financial needs of senior citizens.
In his remarks the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) suggested that we did not really understand the problem of the needs of senior citizens. I cannot remember exactly whether he suggested therefore that we should not do anything precipitously. However, if that is a fair interpretation of what he said I might suggest to him that we know enough about the particular needs at this point in time to say unequivocally and categorically that this bill is necessary. It seems to me to be pious to simply suggest that it is not as perfect as it might be. I am sure that even the minister might admit that no piece of legislation in its entirely is absolutely perfect, but this is one of the very best and most progressive pieces of legislation this
Old Age Security Act Amendment house has seen in a long time and indisputably it meets a need. I defy any member opposite to prove to me in language not polemical and rhetorical but on the basis of straight analysis, that this bill does not in fact meet an immediate and pressing need. I have not yet heard anything from the other side that would suggest that this bill does not meet an immediate pressing need.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the hon. member a question? Why was it not brought in at the beginning of the year instead of at the tail end?


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) used the occasion offered by this debate to complain about the fact that the Canada Assistance Plan was not in operation. The implication behind his remarks was that somehow this was our fault. The clear and undisputed responsibility and authority to implement the Canada Assistance Plan lie with the provines, and the fact that it is not in operation in the province of Ontario, from which I happen to come, and that in some areas of the province it is not even properly known, seems to me to be a serious reflection upon the province and not upon this house.
The minister in his remarks to the house on Monday night appealed to members of the opposition to try to distinguish between what we describe as a needs test and what has heretofore governed welfare schemes, namely, a means test. This was a fair appeal not only because in substance he could document and prove the distinction-it takes a very short-sighed individual who, having read the minister's speech, does not see the distinction -but also because the appeal had merit on the following grounds which are most important. There is not a shadow of doubt that the spectre of a means test is a frightening prospect to the senior citizens of this country. It is not very difficult for hon. members opposite, for reasons best known to themselves, to raise that spectre and insist that the government is trying to lead the senior ciiizens down the garden path. To argue that it is a beguiling piece of eloquence to try to draw a distinction between a needs test and a means test is wrong; yet it is perfectly possible for hon. members opposite to do that. They know they can do it but, as I say, it is a grave abrogation of responsibility to insist that there is in fact no distinction between a needs test and a means test when the truth is that the distinction is unequivocal. If the needs test, as laid
10960	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment down by the minister, is not quite what they expected, then it shouldl be dealt with on its intrinsic merits. However, I think it is a grave injustice to try to propagate the myth that somehow there is in fact no distinction and that a government motivated by deceit is trying to beguile senior citizens into thinking that in fact this is a substantially different concept when in fact it is not.
I think it is imperative that hon. members opposite, instead of just mumbling, in fact meet their responsibilities as members of parliament and explain to the senior citizens that this bill is a departure in this particular regard from all previous concepts. It is up to them to acquit themselves of this responsibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. gentleman in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.


Mr. Pilon:: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed by all the parties that we would not deal with public bills today and that we would deal with a private bill, namely, Bill S-31. It was also agreed that the house would adjourn on conclusion of second reading of Bill S-31.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that public bills not be considered today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to proceed to the consideration of private Bill S-31, No. 5 on today's order paper, and that the other bills shall stand?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think you should say, so as to clarify the order of the house, that upon Bill S-31 receiving second reading the house will adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could say to the hon. member for Skeena that I proposed to do that next. Is it agreed that items Nos. 1 to 4 on today's order paper shall stand and that the house shall consider order No. 5, namely, Bill S-31?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreed that when the discussion on second reading of the bill has been concluded the house will adjourn for today?

DEBATES	December 9, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does that mean that we will continue past six o'clock if the bill is not completed? We would not agree to that. We either adjourn when the bill is completed or when we reach six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I quite recognize the objection of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I am assuming, of course, that we do not go beyond six.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-31-an act respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as given in the explanatory note to Bill No. S-31, it is simply requested to extend to May 14, 1977, the time within which the company is allowed to complete its railway line by extending it from Schefferville, Quebec, to Ungava bay, in order to be able to provide railway service promptly as the economic development of that region may require.
I may add, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company has been operating since 1954, a 355-mile railway line between Sept-!les and Schefferville in northeastern Quebec.
This railway is a public carrier under the authority granted to the company by the Canadian parliament, chapter 80 of the 1947 Statutes. In other words, this is simply a request for an extension of time to complete this line of the railway.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question before he concludes his remarks on second reading? Perhaps I did not understand the translation correctly, but could he tell me if the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company is a subsidiary company of Canadian National Railways, a subsidiary company of some other company, or is it unrelated to any company?


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, it is a subsidiary of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, not the Canadian National Railways.
December 9, 1S6S


Frank Howard: May I put another question? Can the hon. gentleman tell me how many miles of track will complete the line to Un-gava bay and whether any construction has taken place in the last few years?


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, the distance between Schefferville and Ungava bay which still remains to be completed, according to the bill, is 282 miles. There has been no construction because there have been no developments which warrant construction at the present time.


Frank Howard: I am not indisposed to giving passage to the bill because on the surface it is a reasonable request, but I think that the house should look at one aspect of this matter. As I understand it, the original authority given to the company to build a line in this area was given in 1947, presumably for a ten year period. In 1956 the time limit for constructing the line was again extended for another ten years, which I gather expires on May 14 next. We are now being asked to grant another ten year extension, bringing the expiry date to May 14, 1977, which will be 30 years from the date the original authority was given to the company.
If I understood correctly what the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) said, the company has operated a railway between Schefferville and Sept-iles since 1954, and there are 282 miles of railway to be constructed between Schefferville and Ungava but there is no construction in that area at the moment. In other words, since the company was given authority by parliament in 1947 to extend the railway into Ungava it has only built the line as far as Schefferville, and that was in 1954. During the last 12 years no construction whatever has been undertaken north from Schefferville to Ungava bay.
The company now comes to parliament requesting another ten year extension, having exhibited not very much interest in extending the railway during the last 12 years. This causes me to take another look at whether or not we should pass this bill, thus giving the company a further ten year extension.
I only pose this question at this time, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we should delay passage of the bill or defeat it. But I do raise the question of the propriety of parliament being asked to give this company a licence to extend the railway northward from Schefferville in view of the fact that for the last 12 years it has not embarked upon any construction project in connection therewith.
Private Bills


Gustave Blouin: May I answer the hon. member at this point, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon, member for Saguenay may wish to reply to the hon. member for Skeena but we are now on second reading of the bill. The Chair has no objection to the hon. member replying if it is understood that he is not closing the debate. Is that understood?


Frank Howard: As long as I do not lose my right to the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, the original idea in asking for a ten year extension at the beginning was that Ungava bay had been chosen in 1947 as the seaport and loading point for shipping iron ore. In the meantime plans were developed to make use of Sept lies as the main seaport, which is why the company has asked permission to postpone further construction on this railway from Schefferville to Fort Chimo in Ungava. At the start Ungava bay had been chosen as the seaport, but this was the main reason for the postponement.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Frank Howard: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the bill and do not think we should delay its passage. I am merely saying that these are questions which should be asked. Should parliament be asked to give its consent to extending the time limit a further ten years to construct a railway into Ungava when the company has had a licence for this purpose but has carried out no construction for the past 12 years? We could perpetuate the extension of the authority of parliament to do this sort of thing forever. I do not think it is wise for parliament to continue to grant such extensions simply because a company has not got around to extending a railway or realizing the economic benefits which might accrue from such extension. That is all I am saying. I am sure the committee will explore this matter in greater detail. When the bill comes back to the house perhaps those who are not on the committee or not able to attend its meetings may have the opportunity of exploring further the propriety of approving certain suggestions in the consideration of this bill.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments and they will be more in the nature of questions to which the hon. member may want to

December 9, 1966
Private Bills
reply when he is closing the debate. The first question I ask is whether there is any real possibility of construction being completed within the next ten years. If nothing appears to be developing at this moment it seems that an extension for ten years is useless. From past experience I can suggest that it takes considerable time for a new development to come to completion. If another community were commenced, if further discoveries were made to the north of the present location, it would take some time for that development to be completed. It would take some number of years. If there is no apparent use for the extension of this line now I wonder what good a ten year extension will be. I am not arguing about a longer extension because that has not been asked for, but I do ask whether there is any real expectation that the company will go ahead.
Second, is there any intermediate point between Schefferville and Ungava bay which the company has in mind extending the fine to within the next ten years should it decide not to proceed the whole way?
Finally, can the hon. member advise me how long it took to construct that portion of line now being used and how long he expects it will take to complete the 282 miles still unfinished. The existing situation leads one to believe that a ten year extension is a useless exercise unless there is a real intention of going ahead within the time asked for. I am asking the hon. member whether there is any possibility of that.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word because I feel much the same as the previous two speakers about this matter. The Ungava line was started by Hollinger Mines, as it was known then. The company later became the Iron Ore Company of Canada. It built this line from Seven Islands to Schefferville, originally intending to extend it to a deep water port which, I assume, is 282 miles north of Schefferville.
We are giving the company a licence to sit on a plan. The situation, should the bill pass, cannot be alleviated even though other factors come into play. The Hollinger people, with associated companies, I assume, asked for the original licence 20 years ago. At that time nobody lived in the part of the country to which the line went. Now there is a large community there, and the aspirations of the community may not coincide with the aspirations of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. If another settlement to the north of the present

one is developed, we will be giving the company by this bill the legal right to tie up the whole area because it may not feel it is to its advantage to build this line. We must keep in mind that this company is not in the railroad business and is not interested in railroading as such. It is interested in transportation facilities to haul its products to Seven Islands.
The committee will have to consider passenger services, as well as other facilities in the area. Friends of mine working in the area say that the price of transporting commodities to the area is exorbitantly high. That the company would impose heavy charges is possible, because in wishing to carry its own commodities it might wish to discourage the carriage of other commodities and make it as disadvantageous as possible for others to use the facilities. It may be that there will be sleeping cars and a passenger service. In any event, if we allow the company this additional facility there ought to be a liability on the part of the company to treat this rail line as a transportation system rather than just as a means for bringing out its iron ore. All this may be discussed at greater length in committee. We must bear in mind that not only are we giving the company a permit to build but we are giving it a permit not to build, and that permit not to build will prevent anybody else from going into the area should further development take place in that part of Canada.
The Iron Ore Company of Canada really ought to be called the Iron Ore Company of the United States because it is United States controlled. Its interests are not necessarily the same as the interests of any community which may develop in that area. I cannot imagine that we would allow the Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, the Quebec North Shore Railway or anybody else to go in and provide a service which the company did not provide.
The situation which developed one or two years ago in Gaspe comes to mind. The Liberal and Conservative parties made a great deal of to-do about a private carrier going into Gaspe. In the end the Canadian National was asked to extend the service beyond the points serviced by the carrier, the idea being that the Canadian National would use the private carrier's line and then proceed on the Canadian National line built beyond this point. That was a totally unsatisfactory arrangement. Nevertheless, that arrangement is in keeping with the sort of licence being requested here.
December 9. 1966

I know that ten years is not a request in perpetuity, but I do suggest that the committee will have to take the responsibility of ascertaining what the response of this private railway will be to the needs of the area it is to serve and to the needs of future development that is already taking place in so interesting a way in the Schefferville area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: If the hon. member for Saguenay speaks now he will close the debate.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make. I regret that I was not here at the time the hon. member made his remarks when his bill was called. I do believe that he is right in asking for an extension. The railway in question will meet, in northern Quebec, the same need as existed between Sept-iles and Schefferville. Therefore, I think the hon. member's request is fully justified.
It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to achieve some progress in a particular area if there are no railways serving that region.
It is a fact that northern Quebec has a wealth of all kinds of natural resources, and the construction of a railway line as proposed by the hon. member, is imperative. There will probably be other points to clear up during the ensuing discussion, but for my part I shall do everything I can to assist the hon. member in achieving his objective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. If the hon. member for Saguenay speaks now he will close the debate.


Gustave Blouin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) for his kind remarks; I would like to add that, in my opinion, this ten-year extension will not prevent the company from building the railroad from Schefferville to Ungava bay, if the economic situation makes it necessary.
However, there is no necessity at all at the present time. There is no population along the 282 miles from Schefferville to Ungava bay. This is one of the reasons why the company requests this extension.
As I said, at the very beginning of this huge construction or gigantic development, Ungava bay had been chosen as the main seaport; after extensive studies, it was decided that
Private Bills
Sept-iles was a better location for the seaport.
At the very beginning, the company had requested, obviously to protect itself, the construction of the railroad to Ungava bay. I do not see what would prevent the company, if the economic situation and the mining developments should justify it, from extending its railroad as far as Ungava bay.
Now, this may not answer exactly the questions of the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken).

What was the third question of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I asked how long it took to build the section of the line now in operation so that we might have some idea whether it would be possible to build the remainder of the line in the ten year period?


Gustave Blouin: It took exactly four and a half years to build the railway line from Sept-iles to Schefferville.


William Arnold Peters: Has the company given any consideration to the extension of the Sept-lles-Schefferville line to Labrador City?


Gustave Blouin: There is already a spur line from Labrador City and Wabush to the Quebec North Shore Railway. This spur line is 42 miles long. Then there is the railway line coming into Schefferville from Sept-iles.


William Arnold Peters: There are a number of companies in the Labrador City area. That branch would have to operate separately from the main operation at Schefferville, and therefore negotiations must have taken place between these newly developing companies in Labrador City and north of it.


Gustave Blouin: The 42-mile spur line from the main Quebec North Shore and Labrador line is a joint program between Wabush Mines and the Iron Ore Company and Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company. There is another 27 miles extending to the port of Sept-iles, which is another joint program between Wabush Mines and Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company. As a matter of fact, this question was brought up in the committee on transport and communications about three weeks ago. We have talked about it and I was there as a witness.


William Arnold Peters: Has any construction taken place to date into Labrador or is it all in Quebec proper?

December 9, 1966
Business of the House


Gustave Blouin: There are 147 miles of rail line in the province of Quebec and 219 miles in the Labrador-Newfoundland area.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: It has been pointed out by other hon. members that no new railway construction should be allowed to take place without provision for built-in warning devices at all crossings. I know this railway is in a deserted part of Canada, but can the hon. member assure us that devices of this kind will be installed at the crossings?


Gustave Blouin: To answer the hon. gentleman, I may say that this has already been taken care of. At a few places the Wabush line crosses highway 15 and the crossings there have been taken care of. On the other part going up north there is no highway. This was a provincial request and everything was taken care of so far as railway crossings are concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to thank all hon. members who have contributed to the discussion of this bill by asking questions or otherwise. I take advantage of this opportunity to invite them to come to the area and see the huge developments taking place there and find out for themselves about this railway, which is unique in the world. I invite them all to come next summer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Pursuant to standing order 105 the said bill stands
referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, before the motion for adjournment is put I wish to point out that on Wednesday evening the government house leader announced the business for the next few days. There is a matter to which some urgency is attached, however. It is item 113 on the order paper, a bill to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which affects the operations of the stevedoring companies on both coasts. I understand that the government house leader has had discussions about this with the house leaders of most, if not all, of the other parties, and the suggestion is that this might be the first item of business on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What will be the second item of business?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not anticipate any change in the business as announced on Wednesday night.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Pursuant to special order made previously at this sitting, this house now stands adjourned until Monday next at 2.30 p.m.
At 5.32 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, December 12, 1966