1966-06-30

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates B for the financial year ending March 31, 1967, was presented by Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue), read by Mr. Speaker to the house and referred to the committee of supply.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the standing committee on national defence, in English and in French.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As vice chairman and on behalf of all the opposition members of this committee I wish to inform the house that we formally dissociate ourselves with the report and the necessity for making it at this time.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on June 14 last I informed the house that Canadian General Electric Company Limited had been granted an extension to June 30 for selection of the site for the heavy water plant to be constructed by that company.
I am now informed by CGE that the site selected is on the Cape Breton side of the strait of Canso in the province of Nova Scotia. An overriding factor in favour of this site was the deuterium content in the water that will be used in the manufacturing process.
A power plant, fuelled with oil with provision for backing up with coal, will be built by the Nova Scotia power commission to supply steam and electric power for the heavy water plant. It is hoped that in time these plants will be part of a larger industrial complex in Cape Breton in line with this government's concern to find new industries for the Atlantic provinces, industries based on modern technology and modern forms of energy.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has been closely associated with the Minister of Finance and myself in this matter, rejoices in this announcement. I am sure the members representing the province of Nova Scotia in this house, the premier and the government of Nova Scotia will also share fully in these sentiments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
In view of the announcement he has just made concerning the establishment of a heavy water plant on Cape Breton, would the minister tell us if there is hope for the establishment of such a plant on the Gaspe peninsula, as was recently stated, for the benefit of the people of Gaspe?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Gaspe peninsula and particularly the city of Gaspe was among the few contestants in the race. One of the reasons why an extension was granted to CGE for a decision was to allow the company to make a complete survey of all the proposals made.


Gilles Grégoire: May I be permitted a supplementary question? Can the minister tell us whether the citizens of the Gasp6 peninsula can hope for the establishment of such a plant at some future date, or within a short while?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order.
Old Age Security

June 30. 1966



PUBLIC WORKS


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, by leave I wish to table the report on the engineering study, Alaska highway-Canadian section-prepared by the Department of Public Works.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DIVORCE


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: that the second report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Divorce, presented to the house on Tuesday,. June 28, be concurred in.


Gilles Grégoire: Since the report is asking that the committee sit at the same time as the house and since we do not believe that members can be in two places at the same time, that is in the committee and in the House of Commons, we do not concur in that report and ask that it be passed on division.

Motion agreed to on division.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before we leave the order of motions, is it not the intention of the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make a statement on the government's intention with respect to old age security?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are debating the Canada Assistance Plan, and that will be a good occasion for the minister to make a statement.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: When?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might have been asked on the orders of the day.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-217, to amend the Criminal Code (publication of ingredients of wonder drugs).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to prevent a recurrence of such incidents as the public announcement in the press claiming curative action of an anti-cancer hormone, coupled with the refusal to divulge the ingredients thereof. Such premature announcement has caused great mental anguish, not only to those afflicted with the disease but also to members of their families. This bill would make it a criminal offence for anyone to make public pronouncements or to call press conferences claiming cures for dread diseases without first divulging all the ingredients of the formula to the National Research Council, where proper and adequate tests can be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether the report in the press is correct-although this matter has not yet been brought before parliament-that the government intends to provide the necessary legislation so that $30 monthly will be available to pensioners whose family income is less than $1,260 a year? Does the government have this in mind? What is the nature of the plan it is going to place before the house? We would like to know whether the government has finally decided to capitulate in part to the demands of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first part of the question is of course out of order. I assume that the second part is acceptable. I have some doubts about the third part.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What I am trying to do is seek information. In order to simplify it, I
June 30, I960	COMMONS
ask the Prime Minister this. Is what is reported in the press correct, or is the press to have available information that is denied the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question in this form is not acceptable. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows better than I do that hon. members cannot ask whether reports in the press are exact or inexact.


John George Diefenbaker: I will reduce it to simplicity itself, even to a paraphrase. Does the government intend to bring in legislation to this effect, as reported in the press today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My answer will be simplicity itself. The government's intention will be announced in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: All this evasion and postponement of legislation for the old people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government will be out in due course.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: In
view of the statement made by Prime Minister Wilson dissociating himself from the action of the United States in bombing the Hanoi-Haiphong areas, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has been in touch with Prime Minister Wilson, and whether he would be willing to associate himself with the stand taken by the British government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is referring to all the matters that were dealt with in the British Prime Minister's statement. I understand from his question that he is only referring to that part of the statement which dealt with the British Prime Minister's "dissociation from the extension of the bombing, and that he is asking whether the government wishes to join in that dissociation".
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we have never been associated with the bombing of North Viet Nam, therefore the question of dissociation does not arise, only regret at its extension.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; in view of the dangers inherent in the escalation of the war, are the Commonwealth prime ministers in consultation
DEBATES	7081
Inquiries of the Ministry with a view to continuing the steps which they agreed to take at the last Commonwealth prime ministers' conference in an attempt to stop this escalation and secure some basis for negotiation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I well remember, as does my hon. friend, that at the last Commonwealth prime ministers' conference an effort was made to help bring the conflict to an end by sending a Commonwealth mission of prime ministers to Viet Nam, a mission which was not agreeable to the government of North Viet Nam which refused to receive it.
In connection with the present situation, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already been in touch with the United Kingdom High Commissioner, and naturally he will be consulting on this matter with other Commonwealth governments.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is correct that during the visit of Mr. Bundy in Ottawa the Prime Minister made clear the view of the Canadian government that any change in the scale or pattern of hostilities could have serious implication for the efforts in which we are engaged to establish common ground on which an approach to a peaceful solution of the Viet Nam conflict could be built. Am I correct that this was made clear to Mr. Bundy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I made our position clear in that matter yesterday in general terms. I cannot confirm the precise words that have been quoted by my hon. friend as reflecting the talk I had with Mr. Bundy.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the general fears that are felt not only by Canadians but by people throughout the world respecting events that have recently taken place in connection with the additional areas that are now being bombed by the United States forces, will the Prime Minister consider early next week-or indeed whenever the opening day may be following the week end adjournment-setting aside a couple of hours for this house to discuss this matter? This is a question that brings to all of us a sense of trepidation. An opportunity to discuss this matter will allow the views of Canadians as a whole to be expressed by their representatives in parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to consider the matter, Mr. Speaker.
June 30. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the government who would deal with this matter. Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the fact that several food and other chain stores in Ottawa and elsewhere intend to remain open for business on Friday, July 1, Canada's national day and a statutory holiday fixed by this house, and remain closed on Monday, July 4? If this is so, has the government taken into consideration any action it may take to prevent this rather regrettable and reprehensible practice continuing into 1967, when we celebrate our centenary?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have seen references to this matter in the press. I shall be glad to look into it to see if there is anything within the federal government's jurisdiction which would cover this proposed action.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is opposed to this practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it not be appropriate for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, to make a declaration in this connection so that Canadians would realize that on this national holiday, Dominion day, there should be regard given in Canada to those things that are of our history and our very existence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, not only should there be an appropriate regard by all Canadians for their national holiday, but I am sure there is on the part of the great majority of Canadians.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement in the latest report of the public accounts committee, which has received considerable publicity
[Mr. Pearson.)
in the newspapers in the last few hours and with which I am sure the Prime Minister is familiar, to the effect that during the past two years many of the recommendations of the Auditor General for preventing waste of public funds have been ignored by many government departments, does the Prime Minister intend to instruct the ministers concerned that they must pay attention to these recommendations without delay?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is a question of a very general nature, and I do not think it can be asked in this way at this time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken about the recognition of the new regime in the Argentine. The latest information we have is that the country seems to be under the control of the present administration.']
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Could the President of the Privy Council tell the house if, at his meeting last Sunday with the premier of Quebec, a new formula to repatriate the Canadian constitution, and also the national medicare program, were discussed?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as reported, it was a first contact on the ministerial level and no attempt was made to solve the problems which might exist between the two levels of government. We made a broad survey of the situation, exchanged information and stated our positions without discussing them on all matters now pending with regard to relations between the two governments.


Martial Asselin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the President of the Privy Council tell the house if meetings will be held shortly to discuss the two matters mentioned in my question?


Guy Favreau: That question is not hypothetical, because there should be meetings between the two governments, but I think that the purposes of those meetings, whatever they are, will be announced in due course. [English]



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Secretary of State
June 30, 1966

for External Affairs. Has the government any report to make to the house on the position in the Argentine? Is the new government there considered to be in full control of the country, and what is the position of the government of Canada with respect to the recognition of the new regime?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken about the recognition of the new regime in the Argentine. The latest information we have is that the country seems to be under the control of the present administration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday during his introduction of a bill he referred to the fact that a report by Judge Lippe had been filed with him. I would ask the minister whether he would consider tabling that report, in view of the fact that he quoted it and stated that it was the basis for the action of the government in introducing the bill.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I will be glad to consider the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard  Johnslon@Okanagan-Revel-stoke: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of immigration. Some time ago I raised the question of Miss Endo and a deportation order which had been issued against her in Vancouver. I was wondering whether the minister had any additional information, which was promised earlier. Has the minister anything to add?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the name. Is this the Japanese girl in Vancouver?


Mr. Johnston:: Yes.


Jean Marchand: The Japanese girl in question has filed an appeal which is now being considered. I am just waiting for the judgment of the appeal board before making any comments.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to say that the immigration officials had another option which they could have exercised rather than issuing a deportation order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is argumentative.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the urgent matter of an emergency crash program to recruit medical manpower in Canada, and is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister been informed that a fully equipped hospital in northern Alberta cannot function and carry on because there is no doctor?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not acceptable. He is asking whether the minister has been informed of something. I suggest that the question as asked is not acceptable.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: My
question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that there is now a very urgent situation in the town of Manning in northern Alberta, as well as in other parts of the north, where the equipped hospital and the population of several thousand people are without the services of a doctor, will the minister not give consideration to the suggestion very forcefully, frequently and eloquently expressed by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi with regard to establishing an urgent medical training program?


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he received any telegrams or telephone calls from the Rivers area expressing concern about the rumoured closing or disbandment of the Canadian joint air training centre at Rivers?
June 30. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether this is a matter of national urgency, and I wonder whether the hon. member is satisfied that it is. If he feels that the question is urgent then I would invite the minister to answer it.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such communications to my knowledge. I will be willing to check with my office and advise my hon. friend.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister denying categorically that there is any truth in these rumours, and is he saying that the government does not plan to close the base?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no hesitation in ruling out the second question.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. An article in the New York Times of June 23 reports that the governors of a mid-west group of states are asking that St. Lawrence cargo tolls be eliminated. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received representations from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for an increase in toll rates on the seaway.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The answer, sir, is no.



CHURCHILL, MAN.-REQUEST FOR EARLY OPENING OF PORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Previously he indicated that he would be glad to look into the possibility of an earlier opening of the port of Churchill in order to facilitate the movement of grain. Since ice has left the Churchill river a little earlier this year than last year and recent aerial surveys indicate that navigation is in progress, has the minister anything to report at the moment on this situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did convey to the harbours board the suggestion that this matter should be looked into. I have not received a report from the board, but I will ask for one and communicate it to the hon. member.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. Can the minister say whether his department has been in contact with marine underwriters to see whether they also might be favourably disposed toward an earlier opening?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not say without inquiring, sir.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works, as leader of the house-he might take note of it.
In answer to question No. 1,595 on the order paper of June 29, I notice that 11 parts of the question were answered instead of 12. The twelfth one, which was not answered, reads as follows:
Who gave the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the list of names of the five commissioners for the constituency of Sherbrooke?
Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if I can expect an answer to that question?


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) answered that question.


Maurice Allard: In the absence of the leader of the house, may I direct my question to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member rise on a point of order? I assume he might have an objection concerning a point of order and I take for granted that the responsible minister will agree to take note of the representations the hon. member has just made.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Si. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Following the question I put yesterday, is the minister ready to table the correspondence between himself and the president of the S.I.U. in connection with manning of ships on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to table the correspondence.

June 30, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Has the minister leave to Civil Service Commission. I should be very table the documents requested by the hon. pleased to inquire with respect to the infor-member for St. Ann?	mation requested by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the deep concern of scores of employers across this country about the extra contributions they must make to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec pension plan for seasonal employees, can the minister now state whether any machinery of government has been found by means of which it is possible that these people will be able to get their extra contributions returned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me
this question was asked of the minister previously on a number of occasions. I have some doubt whether it can be answered at this time. I might suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to your ruling it is possible that recently the minister may have found some means to bring this about, which he would like to tell the house.
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I have not yet found a way of performing miracles.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. I gave him notice that I would ask it, and it is raised because of a request by several national defence employee associations across Canada. The question is raised because of a lack of information about the red circling of positions in the new declassifications with respect to the Department of National Defence. I would ask the minister how soon we can expect information on this subject.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the reclassification of civil servants is within the jurisdiction of the
23033-449J



CUSTOMS OFFICERS-PROPOSED WORK TO RULE OVER HOLIDAY WEEK END

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. It appears that inspectors at border points have stated that they will work to rule this holiday week end. This will cause great congestion at the border crossing points. Has the minister any recommendations about this matter?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, at noon today I announced increases for 48,000 civil servants in group B, which will mean that approximately 1,400 customs officers who were formerly red circled will no longer be red circled. I understand the situation at Windsor and Sarnia to be that the officials in question are meeting tonight. I believe the result of these meetings will be that there will be no slow down.
I can point out to hon. members also that the members of the staff side conference representing the civil service associations are completely in agreement with the increases which have been announced for 48,000 group B employees.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether removal from red circling will apply to customs and excise officers specifically at the port of Windsor?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, a good many customs and excise officers at the port of Windsor will no longer be red circled as a result of the adjustments in the group B rates. In addition, the Civil Service Commission and my particular department have agreed to consult with the employee organizations involved with respect to the red circling toward the end of this year, when there will have been sufficient opportunity for the Civil Service Commission to continue with its reclassifications and also for the departments involved to consider the movement of employees out of the red circled positions.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry. I
June 30, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry have given him notice of the question. Can adapted and looped, than by transmission anything be done to save our elm trees from through the proposed new United States the ravages of the Dutch elm disease?	route-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question, although obviously and apparently urgent, might be placed on the order paper. The question does not deal with a sudden emergency, and I think the hon. member would want to put it on the order paper.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask him when he expects to be able to table the report on working conditions as a result of the inquiry being conducted by Judge Montpetit.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: For a while, Mr. Speaker, I thought I might be able to have that report tabled by the end of June. As there have been more presentations put before the judge, that report might be delayed until later this year.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: My question is directed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and the urgency of this question, Mr. Speaker, is based on the fact that in the matter of the application by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to export and import natural gas for transmission from western to eastern Canada through the northern United States, the National Energy Board has already completed public hearings. It is quite possible that the board will render its decision before this house meets again in the fall.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to kindly put his question.


Robert Knight Andras: My question is this, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the existence of a brief presented by an intervener to the same application before the federal power commission in the United States, which brief contains a computerized study purporting to prove that the ultimate delivered cost of natural gas to southern Ontario will be lower if the existing northern Ontario route is


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a proper question.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger Regimbal (Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, as Le Devoir published this morning an item to the effect that the Minister of Forestry said he believes the defeat of the Lesage government can be attributed to the fact that he did not show himself to be concerned with real human problems, I should like to ask the hon. minister whether that is the opinion he expressed, and whether he does not also believe that the refusal of the government to agree to the $25 monthly increase of old age pensions we are asking for, which meets a real human need reveals the same unconcern.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order. AIRPORTS



ST. JOHNS. QUE.-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Beaulieu (Saini-Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).

Is the Minister of Transport ready to give me an answer about the airport in St. Johns, Quebec? We have been asking about this for six months now. The city council has come here, and we have all come here to ask him. He has said that he is studying it very carefully. I should like to get a definite answer, because this should be done before Expo and not after.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is asking a question which has to be answered before Expo '67, I think he might put it on the order paper.



BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO PRODUCTION OF WHITE PAPER On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
June 30, 1966

Inasmuch as this is the last day of the month, I wonder when we can expect to have tabled the government white paper on broadcasting.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I beg the pardon of the house. I am afraid in this case, as in others where women are involved, I am a little late. Referring to the question, I would not anticipate that it would be later than next week. I am afraid it is not expected that I shall be able to table the white paper today.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State assure us that we shall have this white paper before the house adjourns for the summer?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Without question, Mr. Speaker, although the date of adjournment is pretty questionable.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I, while I am on my feet, reply to a question put yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition as to the accuracy or otherwise of certain views expressed on the program "Viewpoint" on national television with regard to the C.B.C. board of directors.
I have made inquiries of the president of the C.B.C., who is also chairman of the board, and am informed by him that the views to which the right hon. gentleman referred are not correct. The board of directors of the corporation have at no time issued instructions to the president in regard to Mr. Walker.
The hon. member for Timiskaming asked me a supplementary question in regard to C.B.C. news coverage of the same subject. I am informed that C.B.C. television news carried an item referring to a speculative report in the Toronto Star on its 6.45 p.m. edition June 28. The fact that the same item was not carried on the 11 p.m. newscast is attributable solely to normal news value considerations. No influence whatsoever was exerted to ensure that the item was not repeated.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank the hon. lady for giving an answer so promptly. I
Inquiries of the Ministry would ask her whether the C.B.C. board of governors at its last meeting came to the conclusion that Mr. Walker, who was vice president and general manager of the English network, should be removed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
that. I do not normally receive copies of the minutes of C.B.C. meetings. Only such items as require governmental or parliamentary action are normally conveyed to me through the normal channels. Those matters go first to the president, who is also chairman of the board.
I have the president's assurance that no directions were given to him about the forcible or otherwise retirement of Mr. Walker. I am certain that if the board itself has expressed some things which it feels the government needs to act on, I shall be notified of this by a report, perhaps from the secretary of the board, at the conclusion of the meeting.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a supplementary question, inasmuch as I believe today is the last day of the meeting of the board of directors before the fall and no assurance has yet been given to the "Seven Days" production people in Toronto that the show will continue next year, can the minister assure the house that this important program will be continued as in the past two years?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he wrote a letter on June 20 to the executive director of the Canadian Health Insurance Association having to do with the government's position regarding medicare, and, if so, will the minister table that letter at the earliest possible opportunity and in any event before the resolution on medicare comes up for discussion in the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think I did send a letter recently to the president or chief officer of the health insurance association, and I shall be glad to table it at the earliest possible moment.
June 30, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN FLAG



INQUIRY AS TO PROSECUTION FOR DESECRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Would the minister indicate whether there is any law in existence which provides for the prosecution of those who desecrate or destroy the Canadian national flag and other national symbols? I think this question is extremely urgent, since many were destroyed last year in the province of Quebec during our national celebrations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask for legal interpretation of or advice about a statute.


William Warren Allmand: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important if the Minister of Justice would let us know before the national holiday if any law prohibits such action.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member still cannot ask that question. He cannot ask a minister if there is a law or if there is not a law. This is not a proper question at this period of our proceedings.



INCORRECT TIME SHOWN BY CLOCKS IN CHAMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I intended to address to the Minister of Public Works, but since he is not present at the moment I shall address it to his parliamentary secretary or to whatever minister is in charge of time. Is there any sinister significance in the fact that both the clocks in the house-


Some hon. Members:: All three.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -in fact all three, are approximately half an hour slow?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman can rest fully assured that there is no sinister significance in this alleged fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government is behind ithe times.
(Mr. MacEachen.]



AGRICULTURE


[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 Agriculture. Has he received from the C.F.U. Federation of the Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere diocese representations deploring the low income of the farmers of this area from manufactured milk? Does the minister intend to make further proposals to the farmers so as to enable them to get a fair price for their manufactured milk?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such communication.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to inquire as to the reason why farmers are not getting $4 per hundredweight of milk as promised in a statement he made earlier?


John James Greene: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, our responsibility as announced under the dairy support program, namely, that there would be a national weighted average of $4 f.o.b. the factory, is being fulfilled, and I am keeping constant supervision over the program to assure that the federal responsibility in this area is fulfilled.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOR STORM DAMAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene).
On June 14 and 17 last, the apple growers of St. Pie, St. Paul, St. Hilaire, Rougemont and St. Jean Baptiste suffered losses of one and a quarter million because of hailstorms. Would the minister tell the house whether representations have been made to his department for grants to offset damages incurred by those apple growers?


John James Greene: I do not remember, Mr. Speaker, but I shall take the question as notice.
June 30, 1966



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Because of the fact that the people of Gaspe are experiencing the loss of a possible heavy water plant, can the Prime Minister assure me that he will make sufficient space available in his office to receive a petition with 50,000 names on it requesting that the final destination of the Grande Hermine be Gaspe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the people of the constituency of Algoma East are experiencing the same sense of deprivation and loss, and I shall do what I can to help the people of both constituencies in view of the decision that has been made.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before the house contains the long awaited Canada Assistance Plan. For over a year the people of Canada, particularly the old age pensioners, have been told with a great fanfare of trumpets and clanging of cymbals that the arrival of the Canada Assistance Plan would solve all their problems. Now we have the plan before us and I must say it is a pathetic response to a great social need. One would almost be justified in using the old and hackneyed phrase that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse.
Not only are the old age pensioners and the public generally disappointed in this legislation but there is a growing indication that many backbenchers on the government side of the house are equally disappointed. Last night it was an interesting spectacle to watch some of the ministers flitting like butterflies from member to member on the government side, trying to persuade them to refrain from

Canada Assistance Plan taking part in the debate and assuring them that if they would just wait until the minister spoke their worst fears would be assuaged.
The government has even become so desperate that it has now started a rumour that the minister is going to make some pronouncement that will relieve the concern of the old age pensioners. If the government feels that concurrently with the old age assistance plan there ought to be legislation to increase the old age security pension, the minister had ample opportunity to announce that when he brought in this legislation.
Further, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had ample opportunity yesterday when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) specifically asked him if the government would bring down legislation to raise the pension to $100 a month before there was a summer adjournment, but the Prime Minister brushed that aside. Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has had ample opportunity, either on motions or during the question period, to announce a policy that would give some hope to our older citizens that the government has not quite forgotten them.
If the minister is prepared to indicate that before we recess for the summer he will bring down concurrent legislation providing $100 a month to old age security pensioners at age 65, he has only to nod his head and I am quite prepared to sit down and give him the floor. But I am not prepared to fall for the old ruse of allowing the minister to close the debate and prevent members on this side of the house from expressing their opinions, on the supposition that he is going to do something, when all the record of the past indicates that the government is not likely to do very much.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In the first place, I wish to say that the Canada Assistance Plan is good administrative legislation. It will do many things which social welfare workers have been advocating over the years. First of all, it will remove many of the restrictive categories and will enable welfare workers to deal with individuals as people rather than as statistics in a given category. In this way it will provide a flexibility for welfare workers which they have not enjoyed in the past. Certainly in the matter of administering welfare programs this is a forward step.
This plan substitutes a needs test in place of a means test. This also has some advantages. One advantage is that where a provincial government is generous and where the

June 30. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan welfare worker is trained it will enable those administering the welfare programs to supply whatever funds are necessary to meet the special need of a particular case. That is something welfare workers have been asking for a long time. It is very difficult when bureaucrats lay down circumscribed conditions and maximum figures of allowable income or the amount of the grant which can be given to deal with special cases. A person may have diabetes and need insulin or a special diet. He may require a hearing aid. There is a whole host of things such as home care and special training that cannot be foreseen in the preparation of regulations which are necessary to give the welfare worker sufficient elbow room so that he or she can deal with special cases of need.
It should be pointed out at the same time that the needs test also has some distinct disadvantages. Where the provincial government is niggardly and where the welfare administrator is stingy the recipient can be worse off than he or she was before. The difficulty about a needs test is that it is a matter of subjective judgment. The concept of need is in the mind of the administrator. Consequently it is going to be difficult to exercise any uniformity of standards. Undoubtedly there will be different concepts of need as one goes from community to community and particularly as one goes from province to province. This causes me some concern, because unfortunately there has always been a disparity between the welfare benefits paid in the "have" provinces and those paid in the "have not" provinces.
One of the ideas inherent in an old age security pension as of right is that all Canadian citizens are entitled to the same amount of payment in their old age irrespective of where they live in Canada. I am concerned lest in relying upon a needs test without any standard of uniformity the "have" provinces can be fairly generous but the "have not" provinces, irrespective of how generous they may want to be, since they must match any payment they get from the federal government, may be required because of financial stringency to be much less generous than some of the more wealthy provinces. I cannot imagine anything which will contribute more to national disunity than to have a wide and growing disparity between the treatment of old people, widows, the crippled, the blind and the disabled, from province to province with less generous treatment in the poorer provinces than in the richer.

In my view the basic weakness in the Canada Assistance Plan is that it is wedded to the old concept of welfare. Assistance is still going to be granted on the basis of requiring each individual to pass a test. It is true it is to be a needs test rather than a means test, but it is still a test. It is an affront to human dignity to ask people because they are in bad financial circumstances to degrade and humiliate themselves by submitting to a test. What the government really is saying in this legislation is: We are going to help the needy people of Canada provided they are on their knees. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is little value in feeding the bodies of men and women if we are going to leave them with a sense of humiliation.
Last Sunday afternoon while I was attending a picnic in the city of Hamilton a longtime resident of that community walking with a cane hobbled up to me and said, "I want you to tell Mr. Pearson that I would rather starve than pass a test." I think he represents the view of hundreds of thousands of proud-spirited people in this country who are not going to submit themselves to a test and who feel, as a result of having toiled all their lives in helping to build Canada and bring it to what it is today, that they are entitled to the amenities of life without having to undergo an individual test.
The whole concept of welfare is changing throughout the world. In the United Kingdom at the present time legislation has been introduced to provide for a guaranteed annual income. In the United States a number of congressional and state committees are studying the same proposition, only they call it a negative income tax. Whatever terminology one may use, I am convinced we shall see public opinion in the years ahead force whatever government is in office to abolish the means test and the needs test and guarantee people in necessitous circumstances an income which can be determined by means of the income tax so that the individual will be assured that if whatever pension and income he has are not sufficient to meet a given minimum the government will make up the difference.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We in the New Democratic Party feel that if the government were to establish $100 per month pensions at age 65 and set up a guaranteed annual income measure providing, let us say, $1,500 per year for single people and $3,000 per year for a married couple, people who had nothing but their
June 30, 1966

pensions would still be entitled to some additional assistance under the guaranteed annual income measure. Those who have some private income in addition to their pensions, and this would be indicated when they filed their income tax returns, would not be entitled to any additional payment.
This would not rule out the need for the Canada Assistance Plan. There will still be cases of special need and there will still be instances where welfare departments will have to step in because of special circumstances and give additional aid over and above any assistance that may be provided as a result of old age security pensions and guaranteed annual incomes.
The tragic thing about this legislation is that it really does nothing for the elderly citizens of Canada. The groups who are affected, recipients of mothers' allowances, the blind and disabled, need all the help they can get and that is why I should like to see the adoption of a guaranteed annual income measure. These people need more help than can be provided now and, in some provinces, more than the provinces can afford to pay. There is nothing in this legislation which will help the people who are trying to survive on $75 per month.
I consider this legislation the cruelest hoax that has ever been perpetrated on senior citizens of this country because their expectations were built up by the government and by the Liberal party. I could bring in stacks of Liberal campaign literature which informed the old people of the great assistance they were going to get when the Canada Assistance Plan was a^noted. For over a year every time we raised the question of increasing old age pensions we were told to wait until the Canada Assistance Plan was brought before the house. There is nothing in this legislation that will guarantee any assistance to the old age security pensioner. This measure does provide that if the provincial governments want to give additional money the federal government will pay part of the cost, but there is no guarantee that provincial governments will want to pay more and there are many provinces which may not be able to pay more.
What were the old people told about this Canada Assistance Plan? I have here the Toronto Star of October 16, 1965 which has a three-column, one-inch type heading reading "Pearson Pledges $100 A Month For Needy Old People". The article then states:
The government plans to pay pensions of more than $100 a month to old people with no other income, Prime Minister Pearson said last night.
Canada Assistance Plan
The article goes on to state:
The Liberals proposed to concentrate higher pensions on people who need more than $75 a month and have no other income.
The article then quotes the Prime Minister as stating:
Anybody who has only $75 from the state, and no other source of income, and needs more, even if it's $125-more than $100-should be in a position to get it.
It's so simple to say, "all right, you gave them $75, we'll give them $100". But I'm not going to engage in any auction of the people's money for that kind of thing.
Mr. Pearson did not estimate how much the proposed "Canada assistance program" would cost.
He said only that his government is prepared to pay "a large share" of the extra pensions-leaving the rest of the bill to the provinces.
The Ottawa Journal of the same date carried an article under the heading "Pledges Pension Boost" and the subheading "Pearson Promises $100 Or More For Needy Aged". Every other newspaper in the country carried similar stories. Many of the old age pensioners took the government's promise seriously, that if they had no other pension than $75 a month they would be entitled to $125 a month. That is the kind of propaganda that was spread, but there is nothing in this bill which will guarantee them a five cent piece more than the $75 a month they are getting right now.
I accuse the government of a cruel deception upon the old people of this country. I accuse the government of playing politics with the hopes and expectations which they aroused in the senior citizens of this country. Having built up great expectations by advance publicity the government is now trying to hurry this legislation through the house by introducing it late, hoping thereby that they can get it passed before the public becomes aware of the fact that the old people of this country have been betrayed and deceived. With respect to old age security pensioners this plan is a deliberate attempt to foist off on the provinces a responsibility which belongs to the government of Canada.
In 1951 the government of Canada asked for a constitutional amendment to give it exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of providing old age security pensions and it got that authority. What is more, it got the tax revenue to provide these pensions through a 4 per cent surcharge on personal income tax, 3 per cent on sales tax and 3 per cent on corporation tax. That money has gone into the old age security fund and it is quite a fund today. It has a surplus now in the neighbourhood of

June 30, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan $250 million and it is going up at the rate of $20 million a month. It is estimated that by March 31 next the fund will have a surplus of $455 million.
The government can well afford to make some additional payment to the old age pensioners. It may be that it is delaying this in order to use it as an election gimmick during the next campaign. I do not know if that is the intention, but if so it is a terrible way to treat the old people of this country. Instead of exercising the jursidiction which the government asked for and instead of spending the money it has taxed for this purpose, what is the government doing? It is now saying that $75 per month is all it is going to pay old age security pensioners.
The old age security pensioners need more. The Prime Minister said in a television interview during the last election campaign that they might need up to $125 a month. The government now says that if they need more let the provinces put it up and the government will pay half. There is no reason why the provinces should pay any part of this increase because these people are the exclusive responsibility of the government of Canada. The provinces have plenty of other responsibilities. They have all the rest of the welfare field lying at their doorstep and have inadequate financial resources, particularly in the have-not provinces.
This government has no excuse whatsoever for trying to shift part of its responsibility for looking after old age security pensioners on to the shoulders of provincial governments. There can be no doubt that the federal government can afford to increase these pensions to $100 per month, particularly in view of the surpluses that are building up in the old age security fund.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I hope the minister will not follow the line that has been followed by the Prime Minister on some occasions, namely, of pointing out that inflationary pressures would build up if we increased the old age pension. The old age pensioners are in a very anomalous position. When we are in a deflationary phase in the business cycle we do not give them an increase because we cannot afford it. When we are in an inflationary phase in the business cycle we cannot give them an increase because it will cause inflationary pressure. So the old age pensioners cannot win. If the government is convinced-I am not-that there is too much money chasing too few goods and that somebody's purchasing power

must be curtailed, the last people who ought to have their purchasing power curtailed are the elderly citizens of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These are the people who need every dollar they can get just in order to live. Like all members of parliament I get letters from people all across this country. Here is one that came to me from the city of Toronto from a woman of 74 years of age who has been a widow for 10 years, is a diabetic and is partly crippled as a result. There is one phrase in this letter that has stayed with me ever since I read it. I could not get it out of my mind. She says:
I do hope and pray we will get a raise this month as I know I get hungry at times and I guess we all do. We will hope and pray for a brighter future.
When I think of a woman 74 years of age having to say "I get hungry at times" in a country that has the second highest standard of living in the world, a country that is in a state of affluence, a country whose gross national product has been increasing steadily throughout the years, it is certainly a reflection upon the adequacy of our social security program.
The argument which is being put up by members opposite, not by their speeches because they have been very careful not to make speeches but by their interjections, was expressed very well yesterday by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) as reported at page 7076 of Hansard when he interrupted and asked a question. He said:
Like all members of the house I have a problem about which I want to ask him a very simple question. It is this. Rather than require pensioners to show a reasonable need, does the hon. member support the principle that we should pay the extra $25 a month to hundreds of thousands of people who do not require it at all?
Another member across the way interrupted yesterday to say, "Do you think that we should pay a pension to a person with an income of $10,000 a year?" Mr. Speaker, in the first place we thought this type of argument had ended long ago when parliament decided to set up an old age security pension without a means test and to pay it as a matter of right.
What about the question of paying this pension to people who do not really need it? First of all, how many are there? I think the figures show that of the people 70 years of age or over in this country the number with an income of $10,000 or over is 1.1 per cent.
June 30, 1966

We have to ask ourselves: Is it better to make 99 per cent of the people go through the humiliation of a test lest we pay too much to the 1 per cent? I would also remind the house that even the 1 per cent who may not need the pension have through the years paid their income tax surcharge and the 3 per cent sales tax into the old age security fund and are entitled to the pension. They have paid for it; it is not charity.


Mr. Starr:: And they will be paying on this, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Furthermore, if their income is high enough the $100 a month that we are proposing would put them into an income bracket which would mean that a good part of the pension would be taken back in tax. We in the New Democratic Party take the position that it is better to recover by means of income tax from the few who have too much rather than humiliate the many who have too little. We had hoped that the type of argument advanced by the hon. member for High Park and others, namely, that we cannot give everybody an increase in the pension because somebody who does not need it may receive it, had disappeared long ago.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we want a guaranteed annual income on a negative income tax basis. We want to see the end of tests. What the government is proposing here is that the old age pensioners will get $75 a month as of right. But anything more they get they will get by virtue of passing a test and on the basis of the generosity of the provincial government, and then the federal government will come in and pay part of the cost. I say that the government's failure to announce concurrent legislation, along with the Canada Assistance Plan, to raise the old age security pension is a betrayal of the people's hopes. We are not opposed to the Canada Assistance Plan. We do not object to what is in it. We are profoundly disappointed about what is not in it and the provision it does not make for the people who were led to believe that the Canada Assistance Plan would be the charter of their salvation.
I say that the Canadian people, when they realize the full implications of the government's neglect of our elderly citizens, will rise in their wrath and condemn this government. After all, the cost of living, which is bothering every family in Canada, falls just as heavily on the old people. In many ways it falls more severely on the old people because while in the last 12 months the weighted cost of living index for all commodities went up 4
Canada Assistance Plan per cent, if one takes the specific commodities which people must buy in order to live, food, clothing and shelter, those items have gone up more than 4 per cent. Consequently the cost of living for these old people has gone up to a very marked degree.
When the workers find that the cost of living is going up faster than their wages they have trade unions in many cases and can do something about it. They can negotiate a new agreement; or they can go out on strike if they want to. When farmers are pushed too far they can wheel their tractors out on the road. But these old people have no weapons with which to fight in the economic jungle of our modern society. They have nothing to appeal to except the conscience of the Canadian people, and I believe that the conscience of the Canadian people will be touched as they realize the full implications of the government's neglect. I am convinced that the backbenchers on the government side have had their consciences touched. I am convinced that if the government were to allow a free vote today on whether the old age pension should be raised to $100 a month at age 65, the motion would pass. Only the government's intransigence has kept them from passing it now.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I listened in particular to the comments made yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and I can only come to the conclusion that the government's arrogance has dulled their sensibilities. When the Minister of Transport said yesterday that we have the best social security system in the world he certainly proved either that he does not know what he is talking about or that he has become so completely insulated from the people of this country that he has returned to the arrogance of 1957. Because any person who will look at the social security systems of some of the other countries of the world would not make the kind of statement that was made by the Minister of Transport. I invite the Minister of Transport to go out and tell the old age pensioners of this country, who are trying to eke out an existence on $75 a month, that we have the best social security system in the world-let him try telling them that and see what their reaction will be.
I think the government should stop and take stock. They are in a minority position in this house. They have stayed in office for the very obvious reason that no party today wants to put this country to the cost of another general election. So the government

June 30. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan has been given a free hand in bringing down legislation and has obtained the co-operation of all parties of this house in proceeding with their program.
I want to tell the government that unless they do something about the plight of old age pensioners, the opposition parties in this parliament will be justified in combining and putting this government out of office. I think the people of Canada would support them in taking such a step. After all, the last time the Liberal government was defeated was in 1957, and the reason for its defeat was that it had become so arrogant that it lost touch with the feelings and the social conscience of the Canadian people. Despite the fact that they had a large surplus in the treasury, the very best they could do was to raise the old age pension by $6 a month. When opposition members of that day raised their voices in protest, they received the same kind of answers that we have been getting these past two or three days.
But when the government-dubbed as the "six bucks boys"-went to the people in the election of 1957 they found that the reaction of the Canadian people was such as to put them out of office. I suggest they would be wise not to make the same mistake again. The Canadian people are patient and long suffering but their patience is wearing thin. The great bulk of the Canadian people, concerned as they are about their own problem of getting sufficient income to meet the rising cost of living, are also concerned about their neighbours and their fellow Canadians. There is hardly a community in Canada in which there are not old people who are in need, and these people have touched the conscience of their neighbours and their friends.
I want to tell the government that the Canadian people will not put up too long with a government that refuses to take the steps which are so obvious and to use the money which is now available in the old age security fund to provide these old people with some of the amenities and decencies of life. If this government wants to put some muscle into its war on poverty, here is the place to begin.
Let them begin by bringing in concurrent legislation so that in addition to the Canada Assistance Plan the old age security pensioners of this country will get $100 a month, not by passing a test, not by having to depend on a generous provincial government, but by right, and by virtue of the fact that this parliament has made it clear that it will live

up to its federal responsibilities for the elderly people of Canada.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Before the debate on second reading terminates, Mr. Speaker, and before we go into committee I should like to make a brief statement. Because of the fact that my name had been mentioned on one or two occasions during the debate I thought I should say something to the house at this time. The questions I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) respecting the increase in the old age pension were directed to an increase in payments under the Old Age Security Act; these questions were not directed in any way to the Canada Assistance Plan. I wish to assure the house that my position in this matter remains unchanged.
The Canada Assistance Plan is a welfare matter. I have been advocating changes in the Old Age Security Act for the benefit of senior citizens without the requirement of a means test. And so, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my remarks on the Canada Assistance Plan until we go into committee.
I wish to say at this time that I believe the plan which is before the house is a good one in that it benefits the disabled, the unemployed, the blind, the poor and the aged who need additional assistance to that which is provided under the Old Age Security Act. It represents a great advance in the welfare legislation, and I am all in favour of it as far as it goes. I understand it has been carefully considered by the provinces, which are in favour of it and expect this house to pass the measure.
I will refrain from making any further comments until we hear from the minister who, as he has indicated on several occasions, wishes to make a further statement regarding this act in winding up the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: A revised statement.


James Elisha Brown: Perhaps the minister wishes to make a statement in view of the fact that the subject of old age pensions, which is relevant to this debate, was constantly brought up during the course of the discussions in the house.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment in general on the debate that has taken place, particularly that of yesterday. I believe that the level of the debate was at all times very high. I am referring specifically to the speech made by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) who spoke first on behalf of the
June 30, 1966

opposition in respect of this bill. His speech was restrained, logical and forceful as well as helpful to all members.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Then, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a reasoned, clear and constructive contribution to the debate. All these members are concerned with the subject of the welfare of the senior citizens of Canada. I believe the debate indicated that they have a feeling which is shared all over this house that the means test or even the needs test, which is an improvement over the means test, should not be used with regard to the semor citizens of Canada. In spite of a few remarks which were made on both sides of the house, I want to say in conclusion that I thought the debate on this subject was a credit to the House of Commons on the eve of Canada's 99th birthday. I believe all hon. members at all times upheld the dignity, honour and reputation of parliament.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I usually do not intervene in debates in this house on social and economic subjects, Mr. Speaker, the reason being that I have been assigned certain other responsibilities. However, I feel that if I did not intervene in this particular debate I would be derelict in my duty, particularly my duty to my constituents. I know of no single subject upon which my constituents are more concerned than the subject which is being discussed in this debate. On no single subject have I had more letters, more sincere and moving letters. I imagine this is true of every member in the house. I am not forgetting the fact that when I went around to seek election, as other members did, I called upon many people in the constituency and person after person urged me, if I did anything in this house, I should do my best to work toward an increase in the old age pension.
Such oratory as I have, Mr. Speaker, is not of the tear jerking variety. I do not propose to try to put into rhetorical terms the situation that faces many of my constituents, who are typical of people all across Canada. However, I want to read one or two letters which were brought to my attention and which set out typical situations about which we have heard. I quote:
I am going to be 80 years old In a few months and I have been receiving the old age pension since the age of 65.
The money I am receiving from the pension is not enough to keep me going, Mr. Brewin. I've needed new glasses for one year now and I am not able to buy them. Because of this I am not able to read and my eyes bum terribly.
Canada Assistance Plan
The doctor informs me that I also have a hernia.
I need medicine at times, and I cannot buy it. I have no other income but my pension.
I am not eating properly since I must be extremely frugal in order to survive.
People have told me to write to you, Mr. Brewin, and they said you would help me to receive $100 or $104.
I do not believe it would be a very fair answer to this person if I were to say that, well, some time in the future we may be going to do something about this or if I were to say, well, the weather is getting hot, the government is anxious to have a recess, at a time when we have an opportunity to speak up for these people as a result of this debate. If I were concerned about matters of that sort, if I were worried because somebody said I was filibustering or taking up time unnecessarily, I believe I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring these matters to the attention of the house.
I have another letter here, Mr. Speaker. This letter contained a small article from the Toronto Telegram, and the person who wrote to me from my constituency told me that this statement is, to his knowledge, absolutely true. I should like to read it:
Hundreds of old age pensioners in Toronto are slowly starving to death-
This may be a sensational statement, but wait until you hear who makes it.
-a Toronto nun claims.
"The public is not aware of the vast number of pensioners suffering from malnutrition," says Sister Mary Vianny, administrator of Providence Villa home for the aged.
"Anyone would find it difficult to live on $75 monthly. More than 250 of the 500 persons at Providence Villa must receive outside help in order to survive on the regular pension."
Speaking at an interfaith rally of the United Appeal, Sister Vianny said that despite government grants in addition to regular pensions, it costs the home more than $20 a month to "give each resident proper care."
She said that Providence Villa was being asked increasingly more to care for pensioners.
"Money is not the only answer," she suggested. "Many older persons living alone do not receive the proper care. They are just sitting in their rooms slowly starving to death."
I believe this to be a statement of fact. I am not putting it forth in sentimental terms because I believe it is a fact. I have called on many of these people and spoken to them. I know that they have this $75 a month. I know that eventually, at some time in the future, through this assistance plan which we are now discussing if the provinces take it up as no doubt they will, these people may be able to get the extra amount they need. But I say that these people are slowly starving to
June 30, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan
death now. These are not my words, they are the words of an experienced social worker speaking to an experienced group.
I could go on and cite other letters of this sort which I have received, but I will not. However, I do have a letter which I think is perhaps typical and it says:
Our government is in trying-
I do not know what that means.
-to solve scandal problems instead of improving legislation such as the old age pension on which the undersigned are dependant upon for a decent existence. We would appreciate it if you could approach the government on our behalf-
This letter is signed by a group of pensioners of the Baron Byng Legion, branch No. 1, Ontario, within my constituency. There are many signatures on it. This being the situation, Mr. Speaker, this is our opportunity to bring to the attention of the government the fact that this is not a political issue or a fictitious issue. This is a real matter affecting people. If we were in a situation in which the required action were impossible to take, then I believe it would be our duty to say so frankly. We would be doing something wrong if we were to hold out hopes that were impossible of fulfilment.
It is not our job, as I understand it, as members of parliament merely to reflect public opinion. If public opinion demanded that something be done that was impossible of fulfilment or would damage the economy of the country, then of course we should say so frankly, whether that was popular or unpopular, and take the consequences of doing so. We are not here merely to reflect opinion, as I understand it, we are here to exercise our judgment on policy. I say, with all the sincerity I can command, it is possible for this affluent country to pay this reasonable amount that is being asked here for all our old age pensioners. I am not going into the economics of the situation. So far as I am concerned, I know that inflation is a serious danger. However, as has been said by my leader, if it is required to impose additional taxation on people, on the well to do and even the less well to do, in order that we may have enough for the old age pensioners to save them from starvation, then I say we should do precisely that. I do not believe there is a single family in my constituency receiving an average income of $5,000 or $6,000 a year who would not pay the extra tax for this sort of thing. But they know very well that some old people perhaps own a home, and out of their pension they may

have to pay $400 taxes. Streetcar fares and the price of bread, milk and rent have been escalating for the old age pensioners. I think I speak for the ordinary people of the country when I say that if it ipeans that the imposition of some extra tax is necessary-and I am not sure it is; I am sure a lot of the cost of an increase would come back in one form or another-the people of this country would accept it as a measure of social justice, and with a willingness to be fair.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Racine:: Would the hon. member permit a question in French?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly. In case I do not understand I will listen to the translation.


Jean-Paul Racine: I do not want to misinterpret the hon. member. Is he suggesting that taxes should be increased in certain fields, in order to increase old age pensions from $75 to $100 and if so, in what field should the government impose taxes?
I would like the hon. member to enlighten us on that point.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot answer the hon. member in adequate French, so I will stick to English, particularly since the question is a complicated one. I am not making a budget speech at the moment but I could suggest a good many things. A capital gains tax would be one means. We live in an affluent society and if additional taxation is necessary, there are plenty of sources of additional taxation which might cut down the consumption of people on particular income levels-and the consumption of people like myself, as far as that is concerned-in order to provide the funds necessary to pay the extra old age pension.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that, and I think the people of Canada would be prepared to accept it if they knew the destination of this money and it was shown that a tax was essential. I am not advocating an increase in taxation. It may well be, with the buoyant revenue received by this government which has produced a boom which is still going on, as I understand it, that we do not need any extra tax. But if we do, let us as Canadian citizens and taxpayers be ready to pay the cost. As my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), said, if there is a danger of inflation, must we take it
June 30, 1966

out on the old age pensioners who can least afford to meet this particular burden?
It was suggested, Mr. Speaker, at one stage of this debate by one or two interrupters on the opposite side of the house, and I think it was repeated in the newspapers-I do not think it was the more thoughtful members opposite who made this suggestion-that we in this part of the house are engaged in some sort of filibuster. I have tried to find out just what is involved in filibustering; it sounds like a nasty and sinister proposition. I found out that a filibuster, according to the definition in the Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 1961, is as follows:
The obstruction of business in a legislature by dilatory tactics, such as speaking merely to consume time. The use of the word in this sense is almost confined to the United States, where the late Senator Huey Long spoke for nearly 16 hours in 1935. He introduced such irrelevancies as recipes for fried oysters and the life of Frederick the Great in a speech alleging an offence by the executive in placing in high-salaried positions men whose names had not been submitted to the Senate for confirmation.
It goes on to say that the United States type of filibustering is not permissible in the House of Commons, and would not be allowed under various standing orders. So that even if I or the members of my party were capable of filibustering, I think we would have difficulty living up to the standards set by Mr. Huey Long.
But, Mr. Speaker, are we filibustering simply because we in this part of the house, faced with what the government itself says is one of its most important measures, and believing that there are gaping deficiencies in it which affect our constituents and people all over Canada, are we to be accused of filibustering because in speaking about this matter we put the needs of our constituents before the house?
I have not been a member of the house for very long, but I do remember sitting here all summer to debate the issue of the Canadian flag. I do not know that I begrudged the time, but I think we spent 30 days on that matter. I think it was an important subject and I do not criticize any member of the house at the time who took part in that debate. But I say that a discussion of a day or two-and a day or two is about all this discussion will occupy-in order to help put before the house what our constituents feel and believe on this question is thoroughly justifiable. I would feel ashamed if I for one had yielded to any suggestion, or if the members of my party had yielded to any suggestion, that we should
Canada Assistance Plan pack up our bags and go home and not talk about these matters at this particular time.
A filibuster is an obstruction of business by people speaking merely to consume time. We are not trying to obstruct business. We expect the Canada Assistance Plan to be passed within a day or two. We do not know that there is any hurry to pass it in the next day or two, but we expect it to be passed. We have made it absolutely clear that, although we think it is inadequate, we do think it is an advance and that it will get our support. But is that any reason that we should be accused in the course of a debate of obstructing the business of the house by filibustering, by speaking to consume time, when we bring before the house the plight of our own constituents in relation to the most important matter in the lives of many of our constituents that we have ever discussed in this house?
Anybody who makes such an accusation, Mr. Speaker, is being blind. It is suggested that it is a terrible thing, that we are holding up the house and do not want to go on a vacation. Personally, I think that that sort of talk is much exaggerated. I know that when the house does recess, as it probably will within a few days, the members of the house will have lots of work to do in their constituencies. I for one would be glad to have the opportunity to get back to my constituency and talk to my constituents about this matter.
I see nothing wrong with our desiring to have a reasonable vacation, in view of the work we do in this house. But to suggest that somebody who wrote an article in a newspaper or some government member leaked the idea that we were to get out by today, and that this would be the last day of this part of the session, and that therefore we are disrupting somebody's plans by insisting on an adequate discussion of the Canada Assistance Plan, is nonsense. We should sit here, if necessary, for as many weeks as are required to deal with this legislation, and to deal, I hope, with the parallel, sister legislation which ought to be introduced. It is clearly the will of the house that legislation dealing with an increase in old age pensions should be introduced. Personally I think that it would be very unfortunate if we in this house were to allow anything to interfere with our responsibilities in this regard.
I have said that the Canada Assistance Plan is a step forward. We have consulted the social workers who see the real advantages in it. We understand that in many fields, as has

June 30. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan been pointed out, the provinces have primary responsibility. But we believe that it is our responsibility in this house to deal with the question of old age pensions, and a minimal way of dealing with it at this time is to increase the pension to $100 a month without a means test. I want to say that in no other subject I have had the opportunity of dealing with in this house in four years am I more conscious of speaking the earnest prayers and desires of my constituents, whether they qualify for old age pension or not.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I give the government and this parliament credit for the Canada Pension Plan. The time will come when this problem may be solved. But is that any reason why we should, in the interim, disregard the rights of people who have struggled and worked to create the affluent society we are enjoying? I say no, Mr. Speaker. I should like my voice to be added to all the others which have spoken, not for my own sake, but for the sake of those people I have been chosen to represent, and especially for the sake of the older people, who are the people in urgent need. They hope that this house will do something for them.
1 urge the government to reconsider this matter and to increase pensions, not at some future date, but now, or in the immediate future. I ask the government to yield to the clear will of this house and, I suggest, to the clear will of the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the hon. member for Beauce wish to put a question?


Jean-Paul Racine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman a question. He did not speak in any way about family allowances. Does he think that they should be increased? What does he say about the views expressed by-I do not know whether he is the joint leader in Quebec-one of the leaders of the New Democratic Party? I should like to know if his party wants to increase old age pensions, family allowances and everything else?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I never disagree with the leader of my party in the province of Quebec. If he has said that something is the policy of this party, he is right, and I stand behind that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Paul Racine: You could disagree when he is telling the province that he has the help of three ministers of Union Nationale.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am afraid that is getting a little out of my sphere.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few moments of the time of the house to speak on behalf of the senior citizens in my riding whom it is my honour to represent.
I believe this legislation that has been set before us, known as the Canada Assistance Plan, is one of the greatest pieces of camouflage that we have ever seen in this house. I say that, because it was stated during the election campaign that if the senior citizens would only wait, this government would introduce legislation to be known as the Canada Assistance Plan that would take care of their needs and their wants.
However, I give the minister some credit for this legislation, because it has developed a new concept with respect to welfare work. This legislation has introduced federal assistance for the health care plan, the mothers allowances, child welfare and Indian welfare, also the social welfare workers provision for self training. All these things are good, and I congratulate the minister in tidying up all these welfare acts, which have grown like Topsy, and for bringing them all together under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Whom does this plan assist? It assists most of the people, but it leaves out those very important people who should have assistance, namely the senior citizens. There is no assistance for them whatever. There is not one nickel in this legislation for our senior citizens, unless the provinces agree to enter into the agreement set out with the federal government. It must be remembered that some provinces in Canada are not financially able to enter into this program. What will the senior citizens do in those provinces? The federal government, and not the provincial government, has the responsibility for the senior citizens.
We may take that for granted. What is the senior citizen get that money? He or she application. In your riding, sir, or in my riding we have senior citizens geting $75 a month. You and I know that it is not enough for them to live on, with the great increase in the cost of living. This bill says to them: "But you can get more money". And how does the senior citizen get that money? He or she has to go to the welfare office and, on bended
June 30, 1966

knee, say to the welfare officer:	"Will
you please give me extra money. I cannot live on $75 a month." Our senior citizens have to go begging for that increase.
Is that what this parliament wants our senior citizens to do? That is what is laid down in the bill, as I understand it. It says, in effect: "Go down to the welfare office and ask for a few dollars extra over and above the $75." This was not what was talked about during the election campaign. Now, however, we are faced with facts. This measure is what the government has presented to parliament, asking that it be endorsed.
The members on the other side of the house are not proud of this legislation, they are not satisfied with it. If they were they would be on their feet speaking in support of it, and giving it their endorsement. The Liberal members are not in favour of this legislation. As a matter of fact they are ashamed of it.
The situation we have is this: that this government refuses to give added income, which is so badly needed, to our senior citizens. Yet this same government can spend $6 million for a picture for the art gallery; it can spend $100 million in building a new national defence building 37 stories tall in this city; it can buy a ship from the Sorel Company in Quebec, pay $310,000 more for it than they should have paid, turn around and give the same firm the business of refitting it at an estimate of $750,000, and finish up paying $2,447,000, without calling for tenders.
Everywhere we look we can see money wasted. Yet this government refuses to provide much needed assistance to our senior citizens. The government has come forward with the Canada Assistance Plan, which gives assistance to everybody but to our senior citizens. For the life of me I cannot understand why this type of legislation was brought in at this late date, just when we are ready to adjourn, and asking us to pass it. This is important legislation and should have been one of the first pieces of business to be dealt with, so that we might have had a good chance of debating it from beginning to end.
I said I would be brief, so I conclude. I simply say that this plan offers assistance to nearly everybody but to those persons who should have it and need it most, the senior citizens, those people who helped to build this country. I ask the Minister to reconsider this bill.
Canada Assistance Plan
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I could not let this debate come to a close without adding a word, although I want to be very brief, because I hope all hon. members in this house will do all they can and I ask them to do so to have this legislation passed, although I believe 90 per cent of hon. members do not find it categorical enough. When one is thirsty and does not have a glass of water to drink, one drinks the few remaining drops in the bottom; I think that is the principle hon. members ought to accept this afternoon, in order to close this debate.
Some claimed that the opposition wanted to start a little filibuster. I do not believe, as an hon. member pointed out a few moments ago, that two days to deal with such an important matter is too long. This legislation should simply have come before the house at the beginning of the session, instead of trivial things such as the Spencer and Munsinger affairs. In fact, the government should endeavour to bring in serious legislation at the beginning of sessions, so that we can work on something solid.
As far as Bill No. C-207 is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are very disappointed. We had been expecting it for a long while and we also expected to have a statement from the government to the effect that it would transfer to the provinces certain rights which belonged to them. Today, and this is after stating that it was short of money, that it could not raise old age pensions, the government says through its assistance plan, that it has money to spend. We would have thought that it would have given the provinces the money it had to dispose of, that is $100 million or $200 million, in order to enable them to improve their social assistance services. As you all know, the provinces, and the province of Quebec which I know more particularly, have their own social assistance plans, where everything is well defined, well determined, and for the completion of which the only thing lacking is money.
We would be pleased to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare return to the provinces what amount he may dispose of, such as $200 or $300 million, to enable them to operate in the field assigned to them.
We also expected a bill which would improve the conditions for eligibility of the pensioners, so that they might not be at the

June 30, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan mercy, as is often the case, of petty politicians. We also expected the provisions to explain the act clearly enough to prevent investigators from wangling their way out of tight spots. It would have been even more marvellous if the act could have been implemented directly without investigators.
What we expected most was that the government would keep one of its greatest promises, that to increase the old age pension; that is would be willing to risk some money. The government could have introduced that act, providing for an increase in the old age pension to at least $100 a month. I feel that in those two fields of endeavour, namely old age pensions and family allowances, the government can act directly and constitutionally. I feel it should have made every effort in those two fields in which it can act without transgressing our constitution, and it would have been congratulated for doing so.
It is all very well to say that an old person can live on a welfare cheque of $75 a month, Mr. Speaker; it simply cannot be done. It is impossible, and only a person who has no contact at all with elderly people thinks that way. For the past 30 years I have been mayor of my city and president of the school board, hence in constant contact with elderly people who come to our office to try to obtain the bare necessities. Although the province of Quebec has brought another amendment to the assistance of elderly people through the medical aid card and added a further amount up to $30 a month for drugs, I believe that if the federal government had wanted to be logical, and especially constitutional, it would have simply said to the provinces: We are prepared to hand over to you

not give you, I do not speak of gifts as concerns the provinces-$100 million, $200 million, to try to improve further your social assistance legislation and thus co-operate with your programs against poverty.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same with family allowances. The Quebec government is about to double family allowances and I think that this sum would have been accepted with delight by the new premier of Quebec; it would have helped to pay part of his increase in family allowances.
What do we have? First of all, we have a bill that normally involves the three levels of government, provincial, municipal and federal. We have a bill hatched solely by the federal government, while they should at least have had the decency to call in the

interested parties to consider the possibilities, since joint programs and federal-provincial relations are involved. But no. We are presented with a bill containing a flood of words and a dearth of ideas. The bill has 21 pages and what do they say? They say to the provinces: "We will have some millions of dollars to redistribute." That is just about all the bill says.
When this bill is compared to Quebec social assistance, it will be observed that it is simply a repetition of the provisions of the Quebec Social Insurance Act. Without stating the amounts, without specifying this or that department, it provides for increased assistance.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this is such a paltry bill it could have been condensed in one page instead of 21. And in one page it would have been in accordance with the constitution, whereas in 21 pages, the constitution is being infringed upon. When reference is made only to a few pages, the short title of the bill is used. Can you imagine? The short title of the act is the Canada Assistance Plan. We have always been aware of the Social Assistance Act. This reminds us of the time the federal government changed the title of ARDA to Rural Development. It was exactly the same act, but in order to give it a Liberal title, it was named: Rural Development.
I remember a legislation providing assistance which caused everybody a great deal of suffering-I was very young then-especially with regard patronage, and the word "assistance" in the title is extremely repugnant to us, as well as to the entire population.
The Assistance Plan is defined as follows:
"Assistance" means aid in any form to or in respect of persons in need for the purpose of providing or providing for all or any of the following:
(i)	food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies and personal requirements-
Why not include shoes, stockings and socks? Why not? This would lengthen the wording of the act.
It goes on:
(ii)	prescribed items incidental to carrying on a trade or other . . .
(iii)	care in a home for special care,
(iv)	travel . . .
(vi) health care services,
Everything is listed. However, Mr. Speaker, all those things are already provided in provincial acts which are supposed to be administered under provincial authority.
Tune 30. 1366

Provincial authority in charge of social welfare, but "assistance" has been overlooked. The authority entrusted with the administration of welfare is the province. It could not be otherwise, because only the provinces are entitled to administer social welfare.
We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been much more logical for the government to say simply: We might help the provinces even more by turning over to them more of the money we took away from them.
Further on, reference is made to persons in need, and this is the major problem in our areas.
At this stage, I would like to point out that each government should try today to hire as investigators real social workers, with diplomas, free from politics, who respect the law; unfortunately, that is not the case in our regions. We still have small politically appointed investigators who indulge in politics.
As a matter of fact, I wish to tell the house about a case which I referred to the minister. It is about a man who brought up 16 children; he has been unable to work for a year and a half and he has certificates from three doctors to prove that he is disabled. He has not been working for a year and a half and there are still two young children at home, but he cannot get anything. Think of it. He has not received anything for a year and a half. Why? Because he has a small property worth about $3,500.
Well, I thought that the government would have allocated a taken amount to try to direct the investigators with regard to properties. A man who has acquired a small property the hard way asks for help and is told: Sell your property, go to the city, rent a house and then you will be able to get social assistance. I find that utterly ridiculous. And it goes much further, because in my own city we have had, for four years now, about 20 or 22 per cent of those immigrants who used to live in the country-at least those people who were without work-they had a small piece of land, kept a few head of cattle and had a small garden to get potatoes at least.
But if the couple in need wanted to stay on their piece of land, they could not get a penny under the legislation. And they have to leave everyting, go to the city, live in a rented house with all their children. And those people have seven, eight, nine, ten children.
Canada Assistance Plan
Just think of those people coming to the city and there they yet get help, a pitiful allowance.
I sincerely believed that the government would have included in the legislation a clause to wake up the governments concerned and give the investigators the opportunity to help the families without depriving them of everything first.
I think that is one of the big problems of public assistance, because some people want to keep their small house, very often a modest house. And the cost of the government would be cut in half if it gave them a few cents to stay in their locality, instead of having them move to the large cities where life is so expensive.
I believe this is a capital point for the economy. As I said, 20 per cent of those people now live within the city limits and with the assisted persons we already had, almost 40 per cent of the people of our city are socially assisted. That is getting to be an epidemic for a city.
Well, I believe that if the legislation contained a section to correct such a situation, it would certainly be more substantial.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Now, as regards children. We have here persons under the age of 21 years, as far as foster homes are concerned. Well, this is another problem. I do not understand why public assistance-I am saying this to the minister because he will have the opportunity to discuss it with the ministers of the other provinces-would provide for a foster home but, on the other hand, gives nothing or almost nothing to the mother of a family, a widow with two, four, five or six children. If you can provide $30 or $35 per month for a foster home, then give the $35 per month to the mother. It would enable this mother to keep her children with her and it would not cost more to the government. You will provide it if she makes the sacrifice of parting with her children and sending them to a foster home. Then, why not give it to the mother, who wants to keep her children with her and who will surely discharge her duties in a much better way than the foster home?
You have examples today of foster homes where children are martyrs. Why? Because you forced the mother to throw her children out of her home.
Well, at least, let there be granted to the mother the same benefits as are granted to strangers for taking care of those children.

June 30. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, I would still have many points to make, but I do not want to take up more time.
First, I hope the minister will bring in some amendments before we pass this bill. Of course, if they had gone to the trouble of investigating further in the provinces, and if they had acted like in all joint programs, for this is, in effect, a joint program, there is no argument about that -if they had acted like in all joint programs, you certainly would not have brought forward a bill so empty, so poorly adjusted to the needs of Canadians on welfare and, above all, you would have accepted to pay $100 per month pensions to old people.
And what about family allowances? One would think it is useless to talk about them here. Nobody wants children any longer. I believe some hon. members, if they could, would remove the present allowances.
I ask the government to make an effort, for Quebec is going to double its allowances. Let the government make an effort and if it wants to go hand in hand with the province of Quebec, let it do something about family allowances.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the rather foolish word "filibuster" used recently. Since I have never been known for making many or long speeches, since I belong to that place in Canada which has the finest summer climate in the world, and since I think Ottawa has perhaps the worst summer climate, I will not be accused of participating in any such inappropriately described exercise. But if I thought any utterance or act of mine would in any way hasten the day when the senior citizens of this country would have a full measure of justice meted out to them in the way we are discussing, I would not hesitate to remain here throughout the dreadful months of July and August. I am not given to making rash promises or difficult pledges.
This has been, as members have said, an interesting debate. I think in this country we are going to have to look pretty carefully at welfare programs, and there are areas in which I, for instance, would find myself in quite strong disagreement with the people on my left, geographically and philosophically; but I cannot for the life of me understand the continuing difference of opinion about this particular area of welfare. I refer to the area which has been discussed by the last three or four speakers. I find it hard to see how the

conflicts can be sustained when welfare for our older people-our senior citizens, to use a euphemism-is being discussed.
This is a sector of our population whose capacity for earning is either completely gone or painfully diminished. These are people who, like the rest of us, are living through a period of rapidly rising living costs, and who, because of their own situation, face in addition to the rising cost of living exceptional expenses because of advancing years-the cost of medicine, nursing, special care and transportation. Many of them are no longer able to own or drive a car.
Surely no one in this house or anywhere in Canada has to document the needs of people living today in Canada with the cost of living index where it is, and I am sure it is higher now than it was when I last checked it not too long ago. No one can decently, let alone comfortably, live on $75 a month or $18.75 a week. I do not think that anyone could or would for a moment suggest that this is a proper measure of financial assistance to the older people of this country.
I was much impressed during the last election campaign with the response which the people of my constituency gave to the platform of this party. I suppose no thoughtful member of any party is ever at any time 100 per cent in accord with what his party stands for, but I know that in all the years I have been a member of the Conservative party I have never been more proud of its position than I was in respect of its clear-cut, forthright and consistently retained approach to this problem.
We in this party think that for many reasons the $75 should be forthwith raised to $100. We have said this and, I am happy to say, backed our voices with our votes when this house was seized directly with the question; and for that I am very proud of my membership in this party. This figure should be immediately raised from $75 to $100. I believe that any astute and sensible government would have done so before now.
I am concerned, as I have always been concerned, about the means test, and whether it is euphemistically called a needs test or not does not really alter the case or mitigate my feelings of anxiety about it. The government has said that it has abolished the means test and that what is being used now is a needs test. How is the need established? Is it based on the colour of an old person's eyes or the part of his hair? No, it is established by a most undignified scrutiny into every detail of
June 30, 1966

an individual's life, in so far as his finances are concerned. Not only must one be poor, he must prove to some official of the state that he is poor. I think that to force this upon the senior citizens of this country in an indignity.
Another thing that concerns me, and I have good reason for concern about this, is the possibility of regional variation because of previous suggestions that perhaps an old person in Toronto needs more than an old person in Prince Edward Island.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Somebody else said that.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: No member of my party ever said that. For the people who have laboured long for their country, have paid taxes and discharged their obligations as good citizens, I think to have them appear before some authority and document the degree of their need is a degradation; it is unnecessary, it is an impropriety and it is an indignity to which I will never lend my support. I think that this country-and we have been saying this for a long time-can afford to look after this sector of the society which is, as one member said last night, the most defenceless of all elements in our population against the buffets of economic life.
I think we can afford to take this step at this time; and it is not by any means a giant step. I am sorry that in the Canada Assistance Plan, which has some meritorious features which I do not deny-indeed I welcome them-there is the needs test, the means test, and that behind it is the stubborn refusal of the government to recognize the needs of our older people.
There is one aspect of this debate which has interested me in particular. Hon. members opposite, including the minister and others on this side of the house, have made reference to the province of Prince Edward Island and to its premier Hon. Walter Shaw. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) in reply to a question said, as reported at page 6872 of Hansard:
The position taken by the premier of Prince Edward Island is made possible or will be made possible through the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
I should like to make a comment on that reply, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, the resolution in respect of this measure has been languishing on the order paper, lo these many weeks. That is the reference to time. I
Canada Assistance Plan should like to say, too, that the government of Prince Edward Island under the leadership of Premier Shaw is providing for the payment of $100 per month to all its older citizens, and not only to those who come forward and document their poverty. This is a very important distinction.
I was sorry that the hon. lady from Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), for whom I have a high regard not only because of herself but because her husband was a Prince Edward Islander, choose to designate the action of the government of Prince Edward Island as a deathbed repentance. I should think that, considering what she and her colleagues have been saying for the last few days, the premier of Prince Edward Island should become their hero because he has moved to put into effect what they have been calling for. The government of Prince Edward Island is prepared to bear the full load of pensions without a means test.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, could I ask my hon. friend a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is he aware that the proposal made by Premier Shaw depends for its implementation on the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan and that that government proposes to enact its pension legislation under the provisions of the bill that we are now discussing?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to say to the minister that as I read this bill, and since he is piloting it through the house, I presume he read it too, the Canada Assistance Plan is for those in need, and the government of Prince Edward Island is paying its pension to all senior citizens without their having to prove need. Therefore the minister's statement is not on all fours with the actual situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend obviously is not aware that the government of Prince Edward Island proposes to apply a means test, and has requested federal co-operation under this plan to do that.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be well for the minister to look more carefully into the actions of the government of Prince Edward Island, for a variety of reasons; first, so he would know what he is talking about, and second, so that he might have an example to follow. I am telling the minister and the house that the government of Prince Edward Island is in the process of

June 30, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan paying the additional $25 to recipients of the old age pension, without a means test, and I expect my word to be taken on that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not what the minister of welfare of Prince Edward Island told me.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would say that things have advanced in Prince Edward Island, and I wish the same pace of improvement could be engineered by the minister. We look forward to the day when a part of the burden now being borne completely by the province of Prince Edward Island will be shared by the dominion government through the Canada Assistance Plan. That will be rightfully under this legislation of course, for those in need.
This measure provides no device, no means whereby the dominion government will assist the province of Prince Edward Island in the payment to those who are not able to document their poverty. This is the fundamental difference between the program envisaged in this legislation and the action which the Shaw government has already taken.
I should like to say, while we are on the subject, that the Department of National Health and Welfare could have been more co-operative in this regard. When the province of Prince Eward Island sought from the minister's department the names of recipients of old age security cheques, I think the co-operation which could have been extended was not forthcoming. I would hope that this situation will be corrected; that even if the government refuses to pay $100 a month to all senior citizens, they will not refuse at least to give the names to a provincial government that is prepared to do so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have given them that assurance in a letter. There is full co-operation.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am glad to hear that. I was hoping the minister would not hold out in this negative attitude too long. We must get the situation straight. It is not for the province of Prince Edward Island to be paying all of the pension; it is not even, in my view, sufficient for the province to be paying half the pension; it is the dominion government which should be paying all the pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All across Canada.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would say that in this one area of welfare which is now clearly a dominion responsibility the government

should not hesitate to move in and give justice to our older people. I would say that they might well emulate Premier Shaw instead of criticizing him. The government of the smallest province of Canada has set an example in this regard, and I am proud that in the smallest of all the provinces, a province with a very limited revenue base, a province where the cost of services to its people is high, a measure of justice has been meted out by its government.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I say that Prince Edward Island, as it has before, has set a worthy example, and I honour Premier Shaw and his colleagues for doing this. I am not surprised they did it. Premier Shaw, as well as being the leader of my party in Prince Edward Island, is an honoured and prominent member of the national party to which I belong. He stood with us last October and November when we made our point of view clear. In the face of the failure of the dominion government to provide the money, he is doing it in the province of Prince Edward Island. I say to the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway that Premier Shaw is the man whose example she should proclaim from the housetops all across Canada, and that she should not criticize him. Let us emulate the man, but let us not leave it to the provinces to move into the vacuum created by a vacuous government which is not honouring its oft proclaimed promise to bring about a measure of justice to the older people of Canada. I think that those who are pressing strongly, vigorously and even at length to have this legislation passed are doing a service to the older people of the country.
I do not accept very kindly the suggestion that we would be good fellows if we quietly acquiesced and vacated this place. This is an issue upon which much will be heard in the weeks or months ahead, and it is something on which I for one do not wish to give up. I do not want to see the provinces left with a burden which is properly that of the dominion government. I call upon the minister and his colleagues to act on this. They have changed their minds on many other occasions; they could much more worthily change their minds on this.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: I am
quite well aware, Mr. Speaker that there is not too much that is new that I can add to this debate. However, being tremendously aware of the interest of my constituents in
June 30, 1966

the provisions of Bill C-207, I cannot sit quietly and not raise some strong objections to the government's seeming indifference to certain aspects of the bill, even though much of what I have to say has already been said more ably than I can perhaps express it. Nevertheless I must support wholeheartedly the arguments put forth by hon. members on this side of the house, and particularly those of my colleague the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who so courageously, efficiently and, I might say, at all times, defends the cause of the millions of ordinary people all across the country. I do not wish to get into any conflict with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) because I do not want to make the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway a point of argument, regarding what happened in Prince Edward Island.
One of the first questions I was asked by the news media following my election to parliament was whether I would support the proposed Canada Assistance Plan, which, as all hon. members know, was given a great deal of publicity during the election campaign. Recognizing the possibilities of such a plan, my answer was an unqualified yes. My answer today will still have to be yes, even though Bill C-207 is far from reaching the expectations I entertained for it. However, a slice of bread is better than no bread at all, and this in my opinion is what Bill C-207 exemplifies; a slice of bread where a whole loaf, or perhaps more truthfully many loaves, are needed. However, the principle behind the bill is a worthy one, even though the provisions of the bill fall far short of what is expected of them, particularly so with respect to our senior citizens.
As I understand it, a sum of $85 million will be made available by the government to assist in supplementing the pension of a great variety of people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to bring home a pay cheque to take care of their needs of every day living. The idea is commendable indeed, but when you take into account the great number of people who are in need of additional assistance of one kind or another, how far is $85 million going to go? How stringent will the rules and regulations have to be in order that a person might qualify for additional assistance? What degree of need will have to be evident before assistance is granted?
Taking into account the sum of money available and the many thousands who are now
Canada Assistance Plan eking out a meagre existence on insufficient pensions of one kind or another, I think it is quite obvious that only a small minority will benefit from this legislation, and even those to no great extent.
This, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the point with which I am most concerned, and that is the plight of the many thousands who are now trying to get along on old age assistance. These are the people who deserve prior attention. But when a very large portion of this $85 million is siphoned off to assist disabled and blind persons, widowed mothers, and the many other types of assistance that are spelled out in the bill, then we must ask ourselves just how many of the aged people will get the assistance they need. Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to imply that there is not a very great need for assistance for people in the categories other than those who rely on old age assistance. The point I am concerned about is that in my opinion too few of the aged will get the help they so urgently require.
The second point I wish to make is also in connection with those living on old age security. Many of these people have through their lifetime contributed to their country and their communities. As my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has stated, they have built this country and many of them have performed a valuable service to their fellow-men. They have educated their children to become good and industrious citizens. They have lived through a major depression and did not have the opportunity to acquire much in the way of worldly possessions. Many have done well to manage to retain a humble home. Are we to subject these people to a means or a needs test, before they can qualify for a pension that will at best only provide necessary clothes and food? I reiterate what my colleague has stated: A decent pension is their right, and we should not deny it to them. They should not be required to answer numerous questions and to suffer humiliation in order to get this pittance.
I find it hard to believe that hon. members on the government side of the house have not received continual representations from across the country insisting on the need for an immediate increase in old age security pensions. I find it even harder to believe that anyone can turn a deaf ear to the pleas of these people. I do not think it should be necessary to go into any detail and to quote figures to show that the increase in the cost of living more than warrants a minimum

June 30, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan pension of $100 a month for our senior citizens.
I would like to give just one example of what I consider to be a typical case. It is a local case and I am well acquainted with it. It regards a husband and wife who are trying to maintain their humble home, which has been theirs for the past 40 years. The wife has not yet reached the age of 70, so they are trying to make ends meet on the husband's pension. When they tried to get additional assistance they were advised to sell their home and move into a small apartment. Needless to say they do not wish to give up a home that has been theirs for four decades. They have a small garden and their sole enjoyment and entertainment is in trying to keep their property in a presentable condition.
If the wife could qualify for the old age retirement pension without any questions asked, think what a load this would take off their minds. When I say old age retirement I mean a pension of $100 a month. This is the type of people who have too much pride to humiliate themselves by subjecting themselves to a means or needs test, whatever you like to call it. They have been an asset to their community all through the years. Surely they have the right to spend their remaining years in dignity and without feeling they are charges on the community. This is only one case, but I am sure it is typical of many thousands of others. I am sure that every hon. member in the house knows this to be a fact.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that as a new member I am amazed that the government would wait until this late date to bring before the house such an important piece of legislation. I have to ask myself the question, is it by accident or design that the measure was not placed on the order paper until most members were anxious to get away for a summer recess? Perhaps I am only a frustrated rookie member, but I am afraid I have already reached my own conclusion as to the degree of sincerity behind this legislation. I hope I am wrong and the government will yet take the action that is needed to ensure that our senior citizens will get the relief that is so long overdue and so badly needed. I hope the government will immediately introduce concurrent legislation to increase the old age assistance to $100 a month and reduce the age requirement to 65.

Let me also stress the fact that according to all surveys $100 a month is insufficient. Unless some action is taken now to curb the inflationary cost of living and to provide decent housing within the means of our senior citizens, additional increases in old age assistance will be needed to ensure that these people can enjoy the measure of security they justly deserve. Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that perhaps I have been a little naive in answering the many letters requesting relief which I have received from old age pensioners. I have assured them that sooner or later the government would break down and give them the relief that was required. I hope I have not been naive. There will be no one any happier than I if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) announces there will be concurrent legislation introduced which will give these people the additional increases they require without a needs or means test.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of remarks about the Canada Assistance Plan by hon. members, one theme has tended to recur frequently, namely that the financial needs of the aged should be more adequately recognized, either through an increase in the old age security pension or through the adoption of a guaranteed annual income as recommended in the report of the Senate committee on aging, or in other ways. A number of complimentary references were made to the Senate committee report and it was suggested by some members that the government has not given sufficient attention to its recommendations. I should like, therefore, to devote some attention to that report and to assure you that it has been taken seriously and that action has already been taken on a number of its recommendations. A continued and careful study will be made of the report as a whole.
It should be borne in mind that the Canada Assistance Plan is a measure designed to support the provision of appropriate aid to any person in Canada regardless of his age, place of residence or the cause of his need. Thus, while it provides the basis upon which special attention can be given to particular groups in the country, such as the aged, it nevertheless helps to assure that the needs of all groups will be considered. Indeed, it is only through the development of very comprehensive and soundly conceived assistance
June 30, 1966

measures for the total population that the needs of particular groups can be adequately met.
This approach is recognized by the Senate committee on aging and is set out as the first principle for relating this approach to the needs of the aged. I quote from page 7 of the report as follows:
1.	The welfare of older people is closely linked with the welfare of all Canadians. Many of the problems older people face are the result of new developments in society, such as rapid technological change, which are having their effects on other age groups as well. This means that constructive planning for old people cannot proceed on an ad hoc basis, but must rest on an analysis and understanding of the social situation.
2.	Society has a responsibility to protect and assist disadvantaged groups in the population, such as older people under present day conditions, but in doing so must also take account of the wider public interest.
Commencing with this realistic approach to social need, the report of the Senate committee goes on to make a number of recommendations which, in its opinion, must be implemented if our society is to fully accept its responsibilities toward its older citizens. The first of these, and the one which has received the greatest attention, concerns the need for income security. Specifically, the recommendation is that an income guarantee program should be established. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has already stated to this house that this proposal is being carefully considered, but that there are important implications which were not brought out in the Senate report which must be considered before any responsible decision can be taken. This view is held also by the Canadian Welfare Council, which has established a sound reputation as a responsible and well informed spokesman for the views of social welfare in Canada.
In a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) dated May 29, 1966, the council makes the following statement:
The council believes that the principle of a guaranteed income for the aged has much to commend it. However, there are many questions that should be studied, and related decisions made, before a conclusion is reached as to whether such a program should be undertaken. These questions are concerned with the proposal itself, and with current and future programs to improve the living standards not only of the aged but of all Canada's needy people.
The council sets out seven major questions which in its opinion need to be answered before a decision is reached. These are as follows:
1. Has parliament the constitutional power to institute an income guarantee program?
Canada Assistance Plan
2 What priority should be given to the economic needs of the elderly vis-5-vis those of the rest of the population (recent studies carried out by the Canadian Welfare Council have shown that a relatively large proportion of the total population is living in poverty, many below the present level of the old age security pension).
3.	Should a guaranteed income program as recommended for the aged also apply to the blind and disabled?
4.	What would be the impact of a guaranteed income on the incentive built into the Canada Pension Plan to keep people 65 to 70 years of age in the labour force?
5.	If such a program were inaugurated:
(a)	What would constitute "income" for purposes of calculating the deficiency between what income a claimant has and what he should receive?
(b)	How would the amount of the guaranteed income be determined and what devices would be necessary to keep it abreast of the standard of living?
(c)	Would the guaranteed income be the same across Canada or would there be regional differences?
(d)	What provision would be made for dependent spouses (under 65) and children, when the beneficiary is alive and when he or she dies?
(e)	On what basis would an applicant's first year benefits be calculated?
(f)	How would overpayments be dealt with?
6.	What are the alternatives to such a program?
7.	Should a sickness cash benefit program be established for all people with or without an income guarantee?
The Senate committee, in putting forward this recommendation, recognized that it had not been in the position to estimate the cost of an income guaranteed program, and suggested that the proposal should be given immediate study.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has already stated that through the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government will contribute toward the cost of providing assistance to older persons whose income is insufficient to meet their needs.
[DOT] ( 5:40 p.m.)
He pointed out that no ceiling is set on the amount of the federal contribution and that the concept of assistance is sufficiently broad to cover any element of need that may be present. It includes, for example, the cost of a comprehensive range of health care services, the lack of which represents one of the most costly and worrying problems facing older people today. It includes institutional care and a variety of welfare services to which I will shortly refer in greater detail. It is anticipated that the substantial federal funds to be made available to the provinces will contribute materially to their ability to provide the additional assistance to all older persons who require it.

June 30. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
I would now like to refer to other recommendations that appear in the Senate committee's report. There are in all 92 recommendations under seven headings, covering the general topics of income status and security, employment status and opportunities, health status and health care, housing status and needs, community services for old people, research and statistics, and planning and co-ordination. Many of the recommendations come within the area of responsibility of other government departments, where they are being given close attention.
I can take the time to list only a few of the recommendations that come within the fields of health and welfare. The following illustrate the range of needs to be covered, and you will note in some instances refer specifically to the Canada Assistance Plan.
Home care programs for the elderly should be greatly extended. They should include medical and nursing care, physiotherapy and other rehabilitative services, and visiting homemakers.
Counselling services provided by local welfare departments to the elderly and others should be a shareable cost under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Municipalities should extend counselling services for old people and develop foster home placement services.
Homemaker services should be accepted as a shareable cost under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Study should be given by the appropriate authority to the place and function of homes for the aged, and in particular attention should be given to prevailing admission policies, the possibility of alternative accommodation in sheltered semi-independent housing for relatively well ambulant patients, the placing of rehabilitation or "reactivization" programs, and the careful selection and training of staff.
Grants under the health and welfare training programs of the federal government should be used to increase the supply of workers equipped for work in the field of old age.
The welfare branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare should establish a specific division for the purpose of providing technical advice and up-to-date information with regard to day care centres, homemakers, meal services, counselling and such other welfare services for the elderly as come within its terms of reference.

The Senate report clearly documents the need for the variety of social welfare services proposed, and indicates that, to the extent to which they are provided, older people can be helped to maintain their independence as fully and as long as possible. The Canada Assistance Plan has been specifically designed to give emphasis to the general approach put forward by the Senate committee, but in doing so includes the needs of the total population along with the needs of that particularly deserving group, the aged.
Let me list some examples of services provided for under the plan, and relate them to the aged. First, health care services, including not only medical, surgical and optical and nursing services, but also such important items as drugs and prosthetic appliances. Hon. members will know that one of the more costly items required by many older people is that of drugs, and the federal contribution toward this item alone will help to alleviate the concerns of older people who are presently unable to meet the high cost of medication.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member continues would she allow a question. She has mentioned the question of drugs and the alleviation of the conditions under which so many old people, as well as other people, operate owing to the high cost of drugs. Is she aware of the fact that a request has come from the government of Saskatchewan for the immediate removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs, and what is the attitude of the government in that regard?


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the right hon. gentleman's question but I will say only this at the moment. I think he is probably well aware that the committee on the cost of food and drugs is still hearing witnesses and certainly is concerned, as is the right hon. gentleman, about a most important matter.
Second, homes for special care and particularly homes for the aged and nursing homes. Federal contributions will be available not only to help cover the costs of care in such homes, but also of the important services that should be attached to them. I refer here to such services as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and nursing services. In this connection I might also note that federal contributions may be made available toward the cost of day care services which may be set up in conjunction with an institution or separately.
June 30/ 1966

Through such services older people can remain in their own homes but at the same time receive the attention provided in a day care setting.
Third, homemaker services. Particular attention was given by the Senate committee to the importance of homemaker services through which older persons, in their own homes, can be assisted and supported and provided with the help and care needed to enable them to carry on independently and to postpone, as long as possible, the need to enter an institution.
Fourth, counselling services. The Senate committee report also emphasized the importance of various forms of counselling services through which older persons can be given advice and help where needed and can be referred to appropriate services in a community. The plan provides for federal contributions in this respect as well as for other rehabilitation services required by the aged.
In addition to providing for federal contributions toward the costs of providing assistance and welfare services, the bill provides for the Department of National Health and Welfare to make consultative services available to the provinces with respect to the development and operation of assistance and welfare services programs. There are already consultants on the staff of the department, and others will be appointed as soon as qualified persons can be recruited. Particular attention is being and will continue to be paid to the needs of the aged.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
May I also say, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Assistance Plan provides a sound basis for the development, extension and improvement of assistance and welfare services for the aged. It acknowledges and provides for the wide variety of needs that older persons face. It contributes toward the research and evaluation needed to assess and develop services in accordance with changing needs. It contributes to the cost of training the skilled personnel required to provide the services. It takes into account the representations put forward by the many organizations who speak for the aged, and represents a major step forward in ensuring that our older citizens can have access to the help needed to enable them to live full, independent and satisfying lives.
If I might, Mr. Speaker, I should like for a few moments to speak about the child welfare program as it is covered in the Canada 23033-450a
Canada Assistance Plan Assistance Plan. I am sure that all hon. members who have children, as I have, recognize the special care that is needed for the children who are in need, unwanted and uncared for. I wish to take a few moments of the time of the house to speak of this particular aspect of the Canada Assistance Plan which is very near and dear to my heart.
Hon. members will have observed that the plan covers persons under the age of 21 who are in the care or custody or under the control or supervision of a child welfare authority, or who are foster children-that is, children in receipt of assistance but not under the supervision of child welfare agencies.
I understand that some 50,000 children are in the care of child welfare agencies in Canada. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns), a social worker himself with years of experience in charge of an important child welfare agency, emphasized in the speech I mentioned earlier that "one of the difficulties in the welfare structure is the inadequacy of the provision for children," and went on to say: "I must point out that child welfare services have been understaffed all across the land." He knows what he is talking about.
Fifty thousand children. And these are not all that are being helped by child welfare agencies. For example, I believe that something like 13,000 children are placed for adoption each year by our child welfare services in Canada. Still others need placement, and adoption homes might be found for them if more trained staff could be employed.
It has often been pointed out by child welfare agencies that many children who come into their care might have been able to stay in their own homes, or be returned to them without undue delay, if the agencies could provide adequate family rehabilitative services, which all too frequently is not possible because of limited funds. I quote again from the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa who, in referring to child welfare agencies, remarked that: "Those agencies are provided the rehabilitative services concerned with the basic unit in Canadian society-namely, the family" and he indicated that these services were in urgent need of being strengthened. Saving or restoring the family for the child is sound social policy and makes sense from an economic point of view. Here is one place where those who are concerned with the welfare of people and those whose chief interest is in saving money may find themselves on common ground.

June 30, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
This leads me to the important concept of prevention which is a basic feature of the Canada Assistance Plan. We have heard of the dependency cycle and the need to break it at some point. Well, what better point than that of the child. Later may be too late, despite our best efforts. But our success at the point of the child is dependant upon the skill and knowledge to be found in our child welfare agencies and the resources available to them. The Canada Assistance Plan will encourage the development of better services to children and the expansion of resources available to child welfare agencies, such as day-care, homemakers, adoption, casework and other services.
Lately, I have read in the newspapers about the inadequacies in the number of facilities in some provinces for the special care of emotionally disturbed children. Many of these children do not require hospital treatment. What they need is a type of non-medical special care which normally comes under welfare auspices. This is provided in a number of institutions across Canada, some being former orphanages which have now developed specialized programs for this type of child. These would be covered under the plan.
There are other children who may suffer disturbances and may need treatment under medical auspices, and there are still others whose needs are for correctional care or better educational facilities. Provision for these types of need lies outside the scope of the Canada Assistance Plan and belongs elsewhere.
However, the better the job that is done by the child welfare services, including the special care for emotionally disturbed children, the less need there will be for hospital treatment and correctional facilities for children and, I might add, for adults. I believe it makes good sense to aid in the development of these vitally needed services.
The integration of child welfare into a comprehensive welfare plan for all Canadians is a step forward and basic to a fully-rounded program designed to help meet the needs of people. The coverage by the Canada Assistance Plan of children who are in need of social assistance and welfare services complements the federal government's existing income support measures for children-namely, family allowances, family assistance-that is, the family allowance program for children from abroad during their first year in Canada-and youth allowances.
tMrs. Rideout.]
I have attempted to point up the various ways in which the Canada Assistance Plan supports the provision of assistance and welfare services for children, and I am sure that hon. members will agree that federal funds devoted to this purpose will be well spent. But the Canada Assistance Plan is also an integrating measure. Up to now, child welfare services have been largely provided by agencies or departments which direct their entire attention to children. This focus can now be shifted and attention given to the needs of children as members of a family unit, with the objective of helping to keep families together and prevent the need for the care of children outside their own homes.
The close integration of child welfare with public assistance and its related welfare services is an objective which has been advocated by all provinces. It represents a major step forward in ensuring that the needs of people of all ages can be properly and effectively met.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with discussion I had with members of our party this afternoon I would ask that government order No. 48 be called.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the house agree to having government order No. 48 called at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD


Maurice Sauvé: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation, to be known as the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, for the purpose of assisting livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia; to empower the board to make payments related to the cost of feed grain storage in eastern Canada and payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation to or for the benefit of livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia, to enter into arrangements for the purpose of ensuring the availability at reasonable prices of adequate supplies of feed grain for such livestock feeders, and when authorized by the governor in council to enter into direct marketing operations in feed grain; to provide for the administration of the said board and for the establishment of an advisory committee; and to provide that all expenditures in connection with the said
June 30. 1966

measure, other than those related to direct marketing operations, will be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament therefor and that any expenditures related to direct marketing operations in feed grain will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and charged to an account to be known as the Canadian Livestock Feed Board account, the amount of any such expenditure to be charged to the said account not to exceed the amount by which ten million dollars exceeds the balance of the said account plus any amount advanced to the board as authorized by the governor in council pursuant to the said measure.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Sauve thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-218 to provide assistance to Livestock Feeders in Eastern Canada and British Columbia.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while we are taking this means of co-operating in order to allow the bill to come up for second reading, it cannot be implied by that, that all the terms therein are agreed to by Her Majesty's Opposition.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: What will be the business on Monday?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I can only say that on Monday hon. members should be prepared to deal with any of the items on the order paper. We shall deal first with legislation, subject only to our right to adjust the order so as to have certain business completed here and sent to the other place. We shall start
Business of the House with the measure presently before the house, the Canada Assistance Plan, then deal with the income tax bill, the crop insurance bill and the National Arts Centre bill. Having disposed of those I hope hon. members will be ready to deal with the other items in any order.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the minister say when the long interred, and now recently disinterred Bank Act amendments, will come before the house?


George James McIlraith: At the first available opportunity we can get. I have been trying to get an opportunity to have that item called for some days now. I would not wish to have it called before the other bills which have to go to the other place, but I would hope it could be called on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Have you the assurance of the hon. member for Davenport in regard to that?


George James McIlraith: I am perfectly sure, on this eve of what I hope will be a very pleasant holiday to all hon. members, that we can have it brought forward at the earliest opportunity, and I hope that will be on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: And I hope by Monday you will have decided on the extra $25 for the old age pensioners.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made Wednesday, June 29, and in accordance with provisional standing order 2(4), this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock on the afternoon of Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 4, 1966