1966-12-16

Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Special Joint Committee to inquire into and report on the expediency of presenting an address to His Excellency praying for the removal of Mr. Justice Leo Landreville from the Supreme Court of Ontario, and that the Members to serve on the said Committee, on the part of this House be composed of: Messrs. Bell (Carle-ton), Brewin, Cashin, Choquette, Coates, Fulton, Laflamme, Patterson, Richard, Stafford, Tolmie and Woolliams.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: 
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: It would be agreeable to pass this motion, provided it were understood that the extra time made available by the motion would be used to deal with the discussion of the air traffic control dispute only.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: That would be agreeable. The purpose of the motion is to permit us if necessary to deal with the proposed legislation relating to air traffic control services.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Are we quite clear on this, now? We do not want any confusion, as there has been
in the last couple of days. I move as an amendment the addition of the following:
-and that the only order of business to be considered during the extended sittings shall be the measure to consider the continuation of air traffic control services.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Agreed.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: that amendment were moved and accepted by the government-


Michael Starr: It has been.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe it would meet the wishes of everyone concerned. Otherwise, if the present dispute were settled satisfactorily today, we would be required to sit this evening and tomorrow in the absence of any particular emergency, and we see no necessity for that.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I am of
the same opinion, provided it is understood that we should sit to deal with this emergency and for no other reason. We would be willing to consider this motion if the government were prepared to amend it accordingly.


Michael Starr: They have accepted the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Churchill) agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.



PERMISSION TO GOVERNMENT TO SUBMIT EMERGENCY LEGISLATION WITHOUT NOTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motion:
(a)	That standing order 41 be renumbered 41 (1), and the following be added thereto:
(2) Notwithstanding section (1) of this standing order, Mr. Speaker may cause to be prepared and circulated a supplementary order paper giving notice of any government business received by him during any extended adjournment of the house.
(b)	That standing order 42 be rescinded and the following be substituted therefor:
42. (1) A minister of the crown may at any time, notwithstanding any standing order, in relation to any matter of urgent public importance, make a motion to suspend any standing or sessional order or orders relating to the need for notice, the hours of sitting on any day or days, and the number of stages of proceedings to be taken on any day or days.
[Stage Direction]
December 16. 1966
Small Business Loans Act Amendment
(2)	Upon the making of such a motion, the house shall not be adjourned until it is disposed of and, after the minister has explained the reason for the motion, Mr. Speaker may permit debate thereon for one hour and shall then forthwith submit the question to the house without amendment or further debate. If ten or more members rise to object, the Speaker shall deem that the motion has been withdrawn.
(3)	The suspension permitted under this standing order shall not extend to any proceedings not specified in the motion made under this order- The Minister of Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section (2) of standing order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, there may be some urgency in considering this matter and some suggestions of amendments have been made. I would like the right to revert to it later in the day, if that were agreeable to the house and it were thought desirable, bearing in mind the possible necessity for some kind of order relating to the emergency of legislation. I put forward that precautionary note.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is it not the case under the rule which Your Honour has just cited that it is up to the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Exactly. It is under government orders that it will be taken up later this day.



SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act to extend until December 31. 1969 the time during which guaranteed improvement loans may be made under the Act; to extend the guaranteed loan provisions of the act to cover loans made to small businesses engaged in construction, transportation or communications; to remove the restriction that now applies in the case of loans made under the act for the purpose of constructing or purchasing premises; to increase the maximum limit that now applies with respect to the annual gross revenue of a small business enterprise from $250,000 to $500,000; to provide that the aggregate principal amount of all guaranteed business improvement loans made by banks during the new lending period shall not exceed $300,000,000; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for one additional Ontario county court judge and one additional British Columbia county court judge.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROI^-MEASURE TO ENSURE CONTINUATION OF SERVICES
George James McIlraith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services: to provide also for an increase in the remuneration of air traffic controllers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, is it clear that this use of the words "next sitting" refers to today's sitting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not without unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that "next sitting" means next sitting. Is it the pleasure-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask that we have unanimous consent to consider it at this sitting, if it becomes necessary to do so.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the house leader ask for that when the necessity arises. Probably it would be much easier to get it then than now.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that "next sitting" must be taken as meaning the next sitting. There is no argument about that. But is there not a method of saying that it be taken at the next sitting or later this day, as the case may be?


Mr. Speaker:: Actually this suggestion was made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), but this would have to be done by unanimous consent.
December 16. 1966


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a doubt as to whether or not it will be required that we consider this later on in the day, and I am not in a position to give an absolutely firm answer to that question. Perhaps in view of that I should ask that the motion stand until we know precisely what the situation is, and I would ask that I have the right to revert to motions and raise the matter again later in this sitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are not being difficult with respect to the substance of what the government is placing before us, but we do think that standing order 21 should be observed. We observed it with respect to the other matter because it came under standing order 21(2); we handled it properly. But here a matter under standing order 21(1) is posted for consideration at the next sitting of the house. However, it is always possible for the government to ask, when the time comes, for unanimous consent to deal with a matter that is urgent. The motion has been carried which makes this an order for the next sitting of the house, but it is up to the government to ask for it later in the day, if it wishes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as this matter covers several departments I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the North American General Insurance Company, which is a federally incorporated company, a subsidiary of Prudential Finance, and other companies today causing tremendous losses to Canadian workers, pensioners and investors, and a loss of faith in financial institutions.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister what investigation has been undertaken by the Department of Insurance into the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the North American General Insurance Company. I should also like to ask whether there is any truth in the statement, apparently well supported by documentary evidence, to the effect
Inquiries of the Ministry that in January, 1966, William Gruber made allegations of fraud and misappropriation to officers of the Department of Insurance, the Department of National Revenue and the bankruptcy division in respect of Prudential Finance, one of the associated companies.
What action does the government intend to take so that people, who have suffered grievously as a result of financial manoeuvring and manipulation, will have some hope that their savings will not be lost to them, especially since they relied on the fact that this is a dominion company?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance who has been investigating it. I am going to ask him to reply to the questions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the steps which were taken by the Superintendent of Insurance relating to the North American General Insurance Company already have been put before the house in answer to previous questions. I might add that since receiving information concerning the statement made by Mr. Gruber I asked the Superintendent of Insurance specifically whether he had received such information and what he did about it. I am advised that Mr. Gruber had conversations with Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance, and also with Mr. Brereton, the chief examiner of the department.


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Mitchell William Sharp: In January of this year. Mr. Gruber said that he had information to disclose which would be significant to anyone concerned about the affairs of Prudential Finance or its subsidiaries, but would only make the disclosure if he was offered legal protection. It was impossible for the Superintendent of Insurance to offer him legal protection under the law. The Superintendent of Insurance did, not as a result of information given by Mr. Gruber but because the Superintendent of Insurance himself was concerned when the North American General Insurance Company was purchased by Prudential Finance-


John George Diefenbaker: When was that?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I gave the information earlier. I do not have it in front of me now, but it is some months ago. The Superintendent of Insurance was concerned at that time about any changes in management practices that

December 16, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry would take place as a result of the change of ownership. At that time he advised the North American General Insurance Company not to buy or invest in any notes of its parent company, and it never did.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the average Canadian; was there any warning given to him?


Mitchell William Sharp: So far as the federal government is concerned its responsibility was only in respect of the North American General Insurance Company.


Mr. Howard:: The public be damned.


Mitchell William Sharp: It was as a result of the investigations made by the Superintendent of Insurance regarding the change of ownership that a close watch was kept of the affairs of the North American General Insurance Company. It was as a result of that careful watch that a great many special investigations were made, which resulted in the discovery of the theft of securities. There has been no other activity on the part of the North American General Insurance Company which was in any way illegal or contrary to the law. Of course the theft of the securities resulted in the default of the company.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct to the acting minister of national revenue or the Minister of Finance. What action did the government take as a result of information received last January in respect of specific allegations of fraud involving $2 million and frauds in respect of income tax laws and bankruptcy proceedings?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I can answer the question on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue.


John George Diefenbaker: You had better consult him.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Gruber did provide some information to that department. As hon. members know, it is illegal for any officer of the Department of National Revenue to discuss the affairs of any income taxpayer with anyone.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely in regard to a matter which involves the loss of millions of dollars the minister is not going to hide behind the question as to whether an income tax revelation was made. Was evidence of fraud given by Mr. Gruber, who had

knowledge of this matter, and what action did the government take between the months of January and September or October, when information was available about this theft?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the right hon. gentleman would wish to suggest that there are any circumstances under which an officer of the income tax branch should discuss the affairs of any income taxpayer with anyone else. I have heard the right hon. gentleman defend that principle on a number of occasions.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just a smokescreen, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to indicate what the Department of National Revenue and the bankruptcy division did after the message was received in January from Mr. Gruber to protect Canadians against the possible loss of money as a result of frauds that were revealed by Mr. Gruber.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied, so far as my responsibilities as Minister of Finance are concerned, that every precaution was taken to make sure that companies under our jurisdiction did not act in an illegal way. I am confident that the Superintendent of Insurance did everything he could to protect the positions of the policy and shareholders of this company.


John George Diefenbaker: What did he do?


Mitchell William Sharp: So far as income tax information is concerned, I do not think there are any circumstances under which the affairs of a taxpayer should be discussed with anyone, either a member of the government or anybody else.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary, but perhaps it should be directed to the Minister of Justice. Is it not a fact that Mr. Gruber, who was an accountant, informed the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in January about his allegations regarding wholesale fraud and losses affecting this particular company? What action was taken by the Department of Justice or the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in regard to these allegations?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, there have been several allegations of pre-bankruptcy fraud during the year. I am not sure whether Mr. Gruber actually made an allegation in this particular case. If he did, I am absolutely convinced that
December 16, 1966

the Superintendent of Bankruptcy would have taken all necessary steps to avoid any such incident.


An hon. Member:: What did he do?


Francis Andrew Brewin: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Justice inquire, if he does not know, just exactly what information was given to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in January by Mr. Gruber, and what action, if any, was in fact taken?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Gruber did give any information, I would be happy to report it to the house.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did not Mr. Gruber, in January of 1966 inform the minister and the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, over whom the minister had jurisdiction at the time, that several cheques of a fraudulent nature had been written by officials of Prudential for half a million dollars each? If the minister felt this did not fall within his jurisdiction or that of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, did he have any discussions with or pass that information on to the Attorney General for Ontario?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not know whether Mr. Gruber made any allegation to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, but it did not come to my attention.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Following all the statements and troubles we have had with fraudulent bankruptcies in the country, including this most recent one, in view of the whole situation does the Prime Minister contemplate having a royal commission inquire into this subject matter as soon as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not think a royal commission would be helpful in the circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has said that the Superintendent of Insurance discovered the theft of some half a million dollars of securities from the North American General Insurance Company. When did the Superintendent of Insurance discover this theft?


Mitchell William Sharp: In November, Mr. Speaker. He made an inspection in September, and everything was in order. The theft apparently occurred in the month of October. He discovered it early in November.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Finance the nature of the protection or immunity asked for by Mr. Gruber, and did he say why he felt he required it? Of what was he afraid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that he felt legal action might be taken against him by third parties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In what respect?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Kamloops. I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the minister's information that Mr. Gruber was in fact the auditor for the Prudential and that group of companies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I gather that Mr. Gruber was employed by the auditor of the Prudential group, and was dismissed.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This matter cannot be brushed aside quite as easily as the minister is attempting to do. Will the minister table the letters received in January, 1966, from Mr. Gruber, and the replies from the Department of Insurance, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and the dominion department of income tax? Will he produce the letters and the replies so we can understand what happened between January and September, when apparently nothing was done? I want to ask the minister, too: Is the government not going to give any consideration to protecting these poor people who have lost their all, relying on the fact that these corporations are subject to inspection?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the first question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am not quite certain what correspondence is on the file.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought you knew.


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall have to add this word, however. I do not think it would be appropriate for any minister to table correspondence that would reveal the income tax position of any taxpayer in this country. I would adhere to this position, notwithstanding the representations of the right hon. gentleman. On the second point, the question of responsibility is divided here between the federal and the provincial governments. The real issue here, I

December 16, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry regret to say, is that the laws of Ontario do not protect the investors and the policy holders of provincial companies as well as they should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We are talking about the dominion laws, laws administered by this department, the department represented by the Minister of Finance. We are asking what you are going to do about it? Not somebody else. What are you going to do for these people who invested, and relied on these companies being reliable?


An hon. Member:: Accept your responsibility.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear that I take full responsibility as far as the administrative responsibility of the federal government is concerned, and that relates at the present time to federally incorporated insurance companies. In that respect I have outlined to the house clearly the responsibility that I have accepted. I am willing to answer any questions about this matter. It was a question of fraud and of theft, against which it is very difficult to protect investors or policyholders. I have called the insurance companies together for January to discuss how we could improve our legislation, and I am prepared to recommend to this house whatever is found to be necessary. But I cannot accept responsibility for the administration of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether any of the experts in the field of bankruptcy had knowledge of this matter in June of this year and did not disclose it-experts who happen to be in this house, incidentally?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Did the Superintendent of Insurance as early as last January, when he knew that something was wrong in this particular company, check to see whether the securities were on hand and in possession of the company?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There were no irregularities as far as the Superintendent of Insurance could discover until his audit in November. His audit in September showed that everything was in good order.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Will he obtain for tabling, and table, copies of the correspondence sent to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in January 1966 and the replies thereto?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, if there is such correspondence and if it is not confidential in any way, and if it is possible for me to do so, I will.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, when Mr. Gruber brought to the attention of the Superintendent of Insurance the information which the minister says could not be processed by the federal government, the Superintendent of Insurance or any other federal government official suggested to the proper and responsible officials of the Ontario government that they might well look into the affairs of the Prudential company?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding-though of course I can only speak from what might be termed hearsay-that Mr. Gruber also made his information available to the Ontario government, which was primarily responsible in this matter.



REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVES LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Some weeks ago he assured the house that a committee was preparing a draft of legislation respecting cooperatives. In view of the fact that the cooperative movement has been urging the introduction of such legislation for several decades now, could the Prime Minister give the house any assurance that co-operative legislation will be introduced at this session, or at least early in the next session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government hopes to be able to consider the draft bill shortly. After that consideration I will be able to make an announcement to the house as to when it could be introduced.
December 16, 1966



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Will the hon. minister propose that the basic income tax exemption be raised, when he tables his mini-budget, next Monday?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Considering Canada's recent initiative to seat mainland China in the United Nations, could the Prime Minister tell us whether Canada has stated its position on the two resolutions to come before the United Nations Assembly concerning the withdrawal of United Nations forces from South Korea?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look at the text of the two resolutions before I reply in detail to the question. My hon. friend has probably read that the government of Korea has asked that no steps be taken to change the present situation in regard to UN forces in that country. I will have a look at the text of the resolutions.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the interest among maritimers, and all seamen who have ever sailed a ship and felt the salt spray on their faces, is it the intention of the government to return the likeness of the Lunenburg schooner Bluenose to the back of the Canadian dime in 1968, after issuing the special coins struck for our 100th anniversary?


Mr. Speaker:: The question should be placed on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter is of such urgency in the Atlantic
Inquiries of the Ministry provinces and the whole of Canada that the minister would welcome an opportunity to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. On December 5 last I asked the Solicitor General, in keeping with the spirit of good will at this season of the year, whether the government would consider granting clemency to the trade union leaders jailed in British Columbia, so that they will be able to join their families for the Christmas season. The hon. gentleman replied that the matter was still under consideration. Has he any further information to give the house with respect to his consideration of this matter?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to answer this question on Monday.



GRANTING OF AMNESTY ON CENTENNIAL VISIT OF HER MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: A supplementary question. I wonder whether I could ask the Solicitor General if on Monday he will also be able to advise the house about government policy with respect to clemency next year, in view of the centennial and the visit of Her Majesty, thus reviving the traditional way of giving clemency.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a question in which he quoted a letter from the secretary of the Board of Transport Commissioners to the effect that a certain branch railway line was "eligible for abandonment", without waiting upon the passage of Bill No. C-231. Several other hon. members at an earlier sitting raised similar questions including reference to representations from the Branch Lines Association of Manitoba.

December 16* 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
I had not previously seen the letter from which the hon. member quoted-that is, the letter from the secretary of the board-which I readily admit is ambiguously worded. I am assured it was merely intended to indicate that the board was free, in respect to the unprotected lines, to begin assembling the necessary up to date information which would be required when the time came to hold hearings, and that there was no intention of holding any such hearings before January 1, 1967, when the board had anticipated the new legislation would be in effect. I have now received an assurance from the chairman of the board that no hearings will be held while Bill C-231 is before parliament. I regret very much that this misunderstanding has arisen.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the decision made by the government of Quebec to open employment offices in all 108 constituencies of that province, has the hon. minister recently met with the Quebec minister of labour, and discussed with him certain principles governing manpower and the authority of both levels of government?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had this opportunity.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration?
Can the hon. minister tell us whether the Quebec government is pursuing negotiations toward a federal-provincial agreement on a manpower retraining program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, officials of the department and the provincial government have met. I understand that an agreement has almost been finalized and should be signed eventually.



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I addressed a question
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about Canadian standards relating to air pollution control being similar to United States standards. In a supplementary answer the Minister of Industry said, as reported at page 11151 of Hansard:
I do not think, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out, that it has been established yet that the health of Canadians in a great many Canadian communities would be adversely affected by failure to adopt this particular exhaust device.
Was this statement made on the basis of advice given to him or his officials by an official or officials of the automobile industry?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: No, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a most unfortunate insinuation as well, if I may add that.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. Who gave the minister the advice on which he based this statement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to seek advice when I say that it has not been established to my satisfaction. If I may cite the example of the hon. gentleman's constituency, I do not think it has been established that the health of the citizens in communities in his constituency suffers from the lack of this device.


William Heward Grafftey: In my constituency there are no centres with over 50,000 population. May I ask a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is now developing into a debate between the minister and the hon. member and I do not think it should be pursued further along those lines.


William Heward Grafftey: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister before making that statement consult people who were taking measurements of pollution in our large urban centres in Canada?


Mr. Woolliams:: Such as Montreal.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I was referring to large urban centres when I made this statement. It had not been established that this was necessarily so in all communities in Canada.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to
December 16, 1986

the Minister of Industry. Is it the government's intention to extend the Canada-United States car treaty into the field of replacement parts, tires and tooling?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As
I think the house is aware, Mr. Speaker, this agreement will be coming up for review in the not too distant future. At that time, and as a consequence of the review, a decision will be taken in respect to the hon. gentleman's question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question.
Would the minister give the assurance that all those interested in these various trades will be consulted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in the negotiation of the original agreement there was very extensive consultation with all those interested. Their views were sought and considered, and such would be the practice with respect to the review.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I understood him to say in the house the other day that there would be a freeze on any rail line abandonment. I am still getting notification of applications to the Board of Transport Commissioners for abandonment. Would the minister reassure the house that no abandonments will take place until this new bill is through?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. gentleman would read the answer which I have just given to the hon. member for As-siniboia it will answer his question.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Solicitor General in connection with the death of the 23 year old R.C.M.P. constable in Edmonton who was shot, and who had been married less than 90 days. Is the cabinet going to make any compassionate payment to his young widow in view of the
Inquiries of the Ministry very short service of this officer, the fact that he had only been married about 90 days, and because he died as a result of a criminal act?


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult for the Chair to intervene in a matter such as this. Perhaps hon. members might want to make an exception to the rules and allow the minister to answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, we shall follow the policy laid down within the department in a matter of this kind.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I ask what the policy is?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister tell the house what concrete action, if any, is being taken as a consequence of the report he received more than two months ago from the royal commission of inquiry into freshwater marketing.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, a meeting of the federal-provincial committee on fisheries was held in Ottawa on Tuesday of this week to consider the Mclvor report. The committee was also attended by the representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Also attending were officials of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and of the Northwest Territories.
Following this meeting a special working party of federal and provincial officials, including officials from the Northwest Territories, was assigned the task of studying in detail the recommendations of the report and its implication. The party was asked to report as soon as its study is completed.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of the announcement he
December 18. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry made yesterday about the personnel of the inquiry commission to consider the Pacific coast longshoremen dispute. I ask the minister first whether he will table the order in council setting out the terms of reference of this commission and, second, if the minister at this time could tell us about the timetable under which this commission would work to make its report.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: will be very pleased to table a copy, not of any order in council, but of the order signed by the Minister of Labour, establishing the commission. The timetable for the hearings has been discussed with the commissioner and with the two assessors. There have been some discussions with parties involved.
In view of the conditions existing in Vancouver and other ports, the backlog-and I might say that encouraging progress has been made in cleaning up the backlog-and because of the holidays, it is understood that the commissioner will open the inquiry on or about January 17. In the meantime both sides will be notified of the date and they will be able to prepare their respective cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Labour if, in the settlement he arranged between the two parties to the dispute, the right of grievance regarding wages and conditions of employment for the foremen is guaranteed in perpetuity? Or, on the other hand, is the agreement merely temporary, pending the report of the commission of inquiry?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: An assurance has been given by the stevedoring companies concerned that they will introduce this grievance procedure. One of the terms of settlement agreed to by both sides, however, is that the grievance procedure that I suggested should be referred to the commissioner who of course, will seek the advice of the assessors in the matter. He will consider this matter and bring down his views. He will let us have the benefit of his views on the subject matter. What happens thereafter may well depend to a large extent on the commissioner's report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. So that there is no misunderstanding or future debate on this, can the minister clear this matter up. The impression I got from his statement to the house when the settlement was reached was that the formula the minister had submitted

and the union accepted was part of the settlement. The statement made by Mr. Strang of the B.C. Employers Association was that this was a temporary concession. The minister might clarify this position, so that there is not another dispute on the waterfront.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not think there is any real difficulty. I cannot assume responsibility for Mr. Strang's statements. In my view, the exchange of telegrams with union and company officials clarifies this point.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion Souih):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour relating to a question asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The Minister of Labour said he could not take responsibility for Mr. Strang's statement, and that the union officials involved were in agreement. Would he say what unions he is speaking of and who the officials are?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: am talking particularly about local 514 of the I.L.W.U.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Who
are the officials?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The president, vice president and secretary treasurer, among others.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I mentioned three officials of Local 514. These three officials, I know, were "in on" the discussions. It is quite possible that the exchange of telegrams was in the name of the international representative. But I know that some of the consultations were with the president. And these other officials participated in the discussions.



BANK OF WESTERN CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I see the Minister of Finance is here. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the Bank of Western Canada. I now ask the Minister of Finance whether the Bank of Western Canada has secured a certificate to begin operations?
If so, did the government take into consideration before granting it, the financial operations of the British International Finance group in Toronto, and the Stevens interests
December 16, 1966

referred to by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) on December 1? Is it in order, when a firm such as British International Finance Corporation has external interests in companies such as the Wellington Bank of Canada International Ltd. of Nassau, and Wellington Financial Corp. Ltd., to allow Canadian banks to be owned externally by a simple plan such as this, thereby evading the recommendations of the Porter Commission that banks in Canada should be owned by Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical question. I understand that the affairs of British International Finance Corporation were examined extensively in the committee of the house concerned with financial matters, and it was established clearly that this is a Canadian company, owned in Canada. The whole of the financial affairs of the bank was taken into account when the Superintendent of Banks recommended to me that a certificate be issued by the Treasury Board to begin the operations of the Bank of Western Canada.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Finance if anybody in his department is able to understand and explain the intricate business relationships of the Wellington group?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance would not hold himself out as an expert, but there are many in my department who advise me on these matters. They seem to understand the situation.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Ciiy):: I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister. Some weeks ago I wrote to him personally about the 30 year 3 per cent bonds. I have had no reply, and I have answers to give to citizens of modest means who have written to me about this matter. I wonder when I can expect a reply to the matter I raised.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter has been dealt with by the Minister of Finance. I apologize if I have not replied to my hon. friend's letter. I shall look into it right away.
Inquiries of the Ministry STATEMENT ON GUIDE LINES ISSUED BY U.S. TO CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES
On the orders of the day:


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) asked a question about a report received from Washington that the United States administration is issuing or has issued new guide lines which would affect subsidiaries of United States corporations in Canada in import and export positions. I shall be glad to answer that question, though, in so far as it applies to financial institutions perhaps it should be referred to the Minister of Finance.
The answer is that the United States administration has issued new guide lines with respect to direct foreign investment by United States corporations applicable to the two year period 1966-67, similar in form to the guide lines issued about a year ago for the period 1965-66. Following the announcement of the United States guideline program about a year ago, Canadian ministers attending the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs held in March, 1966, sought clarification of the intent of the program and were given assurance that the guide lines were not intended to interfere with normal business practice. The existence of these guide lines during the past year did not interfere with the realization in Canada of a substantially larger capital investment program.
Yesterday in Washington I discussed with Mr. Connor, Secretary of Commerce, the revised guide lines applicable to the 1966-67 period. He assured me that the same consideration applies to these revised guide lines. The essential principle is that both they and we expect subsidiaries in Canada of foreign companies to conduct themselves as good corporate Canadian citizens. Our own set of guiding principles inform all such companies of our views. The government will be keeping the situation under close review.
[DOT] (12 noon)



PERMISSION TO GOVERNMENT TO SUBMIT EMERGENCY LEGISLATION WITHOUT NOTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Orders.
(a) That standing order 41 be renumbered 41
(1), and the following be added thereto:
(2)	Notwithstanding section (1) of this standing order, Mr. Speaker may cause to be prepared and circulated a supplementary order paper giving
December 16, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Motion to Change Standing Order notice of any government business received by him during any extended adjournment of the House.
(b) That standing order 42 be rescinded and the following be substituted therefor:
42. (1) A minister of the crown may at any time, notwithstanding any standing order, in relation to any matter of urgent public importance, make a motion to suspend any standing or sessional order or orders relating to the need for notice, the hours of sitting on any day or days, and the number of stages of proceedings to be taken on any day or days.
(2)	Upon the making of such a motion, the house shall not be adjourned until it is disposed of and, after the minister has explained the reason for the motion, Mr. Speaker may permit debate thereon for one hour and shall then forthwith submit the question to the house without amendment or further debate. If ten or more members rise to object, the Speaker shall deem that the motion has been withdrawn.
(3)	The suspension permitted under this standing order shall not extend to any proceedings not specified in the motion made under this order.-The Minister of Public Works.
George James McIlraith: Under standing order No. 26 of the House of Commons it is possible for any private member to move that the house be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. This procedure is used from time to time, and there are-


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order. Do I understand correctly that the minister has moved, and is now speaking to, a motion proposing rule changes in standing order 41? If I am correct I wish to object. This is a terrible situation. A whole air line is being shut down. The government has asked for unanimous consent to sit through the day, and tomorrow, to deal with the air traffic control bill. Having obtained that consent, the minister is now cluttering up the time for which he asked by proceeding with a preposterous rule change proposal. If he is permitted to continue we shall spend the rest of today and tomorrow debating these rules, and the government will have placed itself in the position of being unable to deal with the air traffic control bill.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order, but I suppose it is a consideration upon which the minister might wish to comment.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, I refer to page 11218 of Hansard where the minister is reported as saying, last evening, under the heading "Business of the House":
Tomorrow we propose to continue the discussion of the measure which has ben under consideration this evening.

That is not the business which is before the house, now. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
At this point I should add that the negotiations concerning the air traffic controllers are continuing. We anticipate that there may be a need to interrupt the proceedings tomorrow at any time to consider that matter. I cannot anticipate what will happen but I thought I should add this warning.
So the minister did give the house his assurance last night that we would be dealing with the old age security legislation or-


George James McIlraith: The hon. member would understand if he would just listen, for a change. His example shows the harm done by useless interruptions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Public Works has the floor.


George James McIlraith: I sought on motions to make an explanation in which I thought the house would be interested, and which I believed to be relevant to the business before us. I was not given that opportunity, so I had this particular order called and I started to give that explanation. In the course of doing so I was not able to proceed very far, as the record will reveal, before this interruption took place.
I believe hon. members are trying to anticipate a difficulty which does not exist. If they would bear with me for a moment or two, since I am in order and proceeding under the rules in a wholly correct way, I think they will be well satisfied, and the anticipated objection of the hon. member for Yukon will disappear. And I hope the anticipated objection of the hon. member for Skeena also will disappear. I am quite sure they will.


Frank Howard: I must say that my objection is not an anticipated objection; it is an outright objection. May I ask the minister a question? Do I take it, then, that the minister intends only to make an explanation about something and then withdraw the motion?


George James McIlraith: No; that may not be a wholly correct statement. I should like to explain the situation in my own words because, somehow, they are more suitable for delivery by me than are someone else's words.
The situation is this: Under standing order 26 a private member has a right to move the adjournment of the house to consider a matter of urgent public importance. This is done from time to time, and we have had two
December 16, 1966

recent examples in connection with emergency matters where this power has been used. It is a curious anomaly that there is no corresponding provision enabling the government to bring any proceedings relating to the same matter before the house without notice. Proceedings under standing order 26 are without notice because of the urgent public importance of the particular matter to be discussed. What is sought in this proposed rule change is some means of giving the government a right in similar circumstances-and the phraseology used is identical namely, "urgent public importance"-a right to submit legislation to parliament in these emergency situations, unless ten members, as a minimum, object.
Since the notice of this proposal was placed on the order paper, suggestions for amendment have come from various hon. members. I should like to arrange a meeting at which this matter could be discussed further, privately. I think it would be useful to consider these points in more detail before deciding this matter, especially as some of the amendments suggested seem to improve the original wording. But I should remind the house that we may have a need for emergency legislation discussions later today, a need in which there will be questions of abridgement of time. For example, I draw the attention of hon. members to standing order 75. Later today we may require leave under this proposed order, where the government could proceed to submit without notice a government motion abridging the time, or alternatively to proceed with a special order later this day, permitting the house to discuss all stages of the emergency measure.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
There are two alternative ways of handling this situation, one having to do with this proposed rule change under which, if accepted, the government could submit the necessary motion as a matter of right, and the second of submitting a motion, without having dealt with this rule, and I wanted to explain that situation to the house because I felt it was something with which the house was very much concerned, and would wish to deal. If the house cares to discuss that point, it would be useful. But with respect to the substance of the motion, I should like to reserve that for either a later period today, if we found it necessary to revert to this order, or for a later occasion.
That is the point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that because of the
Motion to Change Standing Order uncertainty right up to 11 o'clock I was not able to make this explanation before that time to the house leaders of the various parties, as I would have wished, and as it would have been desirable had it been possible to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house listened with some confusion to the explanation given by the minister. He is usually very clear, but today that clarity was not apparent. As I understand it, this is a motion which, if accepted, is going to make a material change in the rules of the house and we are asked to accept it without careful examination. The government finds itself in a predicament in connection with the possible strike of the air controllers. Having delayed action for months, it now desires us to make a material change that can only have the result of further reducing the rights of the opposition. I for one intend to oppose such a motion.
If our rules are to be changed, then there should be full examination by the committee, which has been more or less dormant in recent months. The committee should look into this. The house cannot be pushed around in this way, and asked to accept a permanent change in the rules because the government finds itself in a quandary.
No one wants to see the government held up by the rules on any matter of national and emergent importance, but we are not going to capitulate to the desire of the government to extricate itself. To alter the rules for all time to come, at least until a further change is made, gives the government still greater powers to control and throttle the house.
I have no sympathy whatever with the unjust device of withholding unanimous consent when unanimity is desirable, but in order to cover that situation we are being asked to throw away a major right and to alter the rules of the house in a manner not in effect previously.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman appreciated one point which I may not have made clear in my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The minister has already taken part in the debate.


George James McIlraith: I am asking a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is he asking a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
11232	COMMONS
Motion to Change Standing Order


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) accept the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if he appreciated the point, that I was asking not to proceed with the motion now?


John George Diefenbaker: We have a motion before us. The minister explains what will happen when the motion is brought in, when the government needs emergent powers. Now the minister says, "I am really not forcing it." Well, if he is not, I am not opposed to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I trust it is clear that the issue that concerns the House of commons now is not the substance of the rule changes. There are two of them proposed by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), and I reserve comment on the substance of those two changes. I am being asked behind me why I reserve comment, but my hon. friend will see in a moment that there are other ways and better opportunities for expressing comment.
What does concern us, Mr. Speaker, is the way in which this attempt is being made to change the rules of the House of Commons. I do not know how many times it has been said on this floor-but apparently it has to be said again-that the rules of this place are the rules of the house, not the rules of the government. The rules of this house have been changed a good many times in the last hundred years. On two or three occasions they have been changed on the initiative of the government, by government motions being introduced. Nineteen hundred and thirteen was a case in point; 1965 was another case in point. And each time the rules are changed on the basis of the government taking the initiative, we run into trouble both in getting the changes made and with the rules that result.
The best way to change the rules of parliament is to have parliament do it by means of an all-party committee, or by means of consideration in committee of the whole house. But in this instance the government is bypassing any all-party consideration. It is even by-passing the possibility of consideration in committee of the whole house. What is before us at the momemt is a sudden death motion which is capable of only one stage of debate, which does not permit going into committee of the whole. And if this motion which the minister has moved were to pass, it would make two permanent changes in the rules of the

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
house. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that even though there may be merit in the two changes, this is not the way to go about it.
I also think this is hardly the time to change rules, just because some emergency situation has arisen. The house is granting the unanimous consent necessary to deal with that situation. For example we have all already agreed to sit tonight and tomorrow. I submit therefore these rule changes are not needed for the immediate situation, and in the government trying to make these changes we are faced again with a complete lack of comprehension on the part of the government.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Did he appreciate the point I sought to clear up in my earlier remarks and by my question to the Leader of the Opposition? Did he understand that I did not propose to proceed with the motion at the moment, that I called it in order to be able to explain to the house what I had wanted to explain at an earlier stage in the proceedings today, about the possibility, later in the day, of having to ask for an emergency order of some kind relating to the legislation concerning the air controllers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What business is in front of us at the moment?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe hon. members know what the business is. It is a motion moved by the Minister of Public Works.


John George Diefenbaker: No, he says he did not
move it.


George James McIlraith: No-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is clear what is before us. It is a motion by the Minister of Public Works which would have the effect of changing two rules. The minister asked me whether I heard his suggestion that this matter be not proceeded with at this moment, but that somehow it might be discussed and brought back later in the day. Yes; I heard all that. But apparently he does not understand the point the Leader of the Opposition and I are attempting to make, with a good deal of support and that is that the way to change the
December 16, 1966	COMMONS
rules is not to have the government bring in its suggestion, and then condescend to have it looked at.
Yesterday, in view of the fact that this session might end some day, and so on, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would agree to the appointment of an all-party committee to look into the rules. What was the Prime Minister's reply? His reply was that the government is looking into this matter and soon hoped to have something to discuss with representatives of the other parties.
Mr. Speaker, that is the wrong way to go about it. The rules are the rules of the whole house; the rules are the rules of parliament, and satisfactory rules are not produced by having the government prepare its draft and then condescend to let the other parties have some opportunity to discuss those proposals. This is the reason we are having trouble in respect of some of the provisional rules under which we are operating at the present time. They were brought in, not as a result of an all party committee, but were brought in by the government acting as the government.
I suggest that it is not good enough that the Minister of Public Works let this motion stand, so that later an all-party committee of the house might study it. What he should do is withdraw this motion. Then an all-party committee should be appointed to study, not just this situation but the rules as a whole. This business of changing the rules piecemeal as emergency situations arise does not produce a good set of rules.
I agree with the comment made a few moments ago across the floor, that there are many provisions in our rules which need to be changed; but that is parliament's function. You do not achieve this by having the government produce a draft. What is needed now, first of all, is-


George James McIlraith: Might I rise on a point of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is a point of order, we cannot stop you.


George James McIlraith: I am not sure whether it is; I hope it is. I should like to make clear to the house that I am perfectly willing to end this confusion by withdrawing the order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Apparently I was not able to make clear to anyone opposite-or at least to two of the parties opposite-what was intended. If it is the wish that this be withdrawn, I am quite happy to ask that it be withdrawn.
Motion to Change Standing Order


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome the suggestion that this be withdrawn, and I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing which should be made clear. Is this motion to be withdrawn from the order paper? Is that what the agreement is?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the understanding that there is unanimous agreement of the house that the motion be dropped?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to give this kind of agreement, because I am of the opinion that this never should have been introduced today in the manner in which it was. For this reason we find the government because of that idiot across the floor sitting beside-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is being carried away at the moment by his feelings. I think he should keep in mind that certain expressions are not in keeping with the dignity of the house.


William Arnold Peters: I withdraw the expression, Mr. Speaker. The situation which developed last night, in my opinion, is not in keeping with the conduct of this house. I would suggest that what has happened is just the kind of thing which makes it almost impossible to obtain the unanimous consent which is necessary in an emergency. This type of legislation is not necessary. What happened the other day was a specific case of one individual bargaining with the government. That saves the government a great deal of embarrassment. It is my opinion that it really did not hurt the situation at all. I should like to suggest that the minister would be much better advised to withdraw this, without introducing it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, perhaps again it is a matter of my wording. He raised the matter today and it should not have been raised at all. I suggest this is the kind of thing which prevents co-operation. I am not going to be obnoxious about it. I think this should be withdrawn.
11234	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member completed his participation in the debate? Is there unanimous agreement that the notice of motion be withdrawn?


Frank Howard: I would hope that the government would be less secretive with the house from now on. I think it would behoove the Minister of Public Works to acknowledge what obviously is a fact, that he is no longer the house leader and that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the withdrawal of this motion, but I trust that the members of this house and the public generally will recall how spokesmen for the various parties in this house pleaded with an hon. member last week to consent to legislation being brought in, and were frustrated. I should like to suggest that they look back at some of the words of the people who pleaded with the member at that time. If they read these words, I think they might realize some of the reasons it was thought a rule change might be acceptable to the house at this time. I should also like to make it clear that at that time I did not plead with the hon. member, because I felt it was beneath the dignity of this parliament to be put in the position in which it was put at that time by its own rules.
Although there may be cause for levity and amusement today, to the people of British Columbia and the people involved in losses as a result of the dock strike it was not a cause for amusement or levity. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that there are ways to change the rules. He knows the problem: The problem is time. Again, I am sure that the people of this country feel that perhaps we should move a little more rapidly. I have no objection to withdrawal of the motion, but I think some of these things should be understood.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the consent of the house to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, December 15, consideration in committee of Bill

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 3.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose last evening we were discussing the amendment to clause 3 moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is the committee ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments in respect of the amendment, and explain the attitude of the government in putting the provision in the bill confining the income supplement to pensioners born on or before December 31, 1910.
As hon. members may recall, the Senate committee recommended a program of income maintenance to be applied to old age pensioners. One of the changes we made in the proposal of the Senate committee was to limit the application of the supplement to those pensioners born in 1910 or earlier. We carefully considered the relationship of permanence, in contrast to a transitional program, to the role of the Canada Pension Plan.
Members of the committee will recall that the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan and the Senate committee on aging expressed concern about those people who were too old to benefit from the Canada Pension Plan. We assumed, and still do, that the main retirement program for the people of Canada was the Canada Pension Plan, which is based upon contributions from both employees and employers. The supplement therefore is intended to serve as a transitional measure, while the contributory retirement pension program is maturing.
This supplement will be payable to those current and future old age security recipients who, by reason of age alone, will be unable to benefit substantially from the provisions of the Canada or Quebec pension plans. That is the rationale behind the approach put forward in this bill.
It was pointed out in statements last night that there will be a group of persons born after 1910 who for one reason or other will not have an opportunity, to participate in the Canada or Quebec pension plans. We believe that such a group will be relatively small and we doubt whether a parallel income support program should be developed strictly for application to this particular group, especially in view of the fact this house passed the Canada
December IS, 1SS8
Assistance Plan which can be used as a program for general public assistance. The Canada Assistance Plan also provides health and welfare benefits.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam expressed some concern about the coverage of the Canada Pension Plan. The fact is, of course, that the Canada Pension Plan provides comprehensive coverage. It is in fact one of the most comprehensive contributory programs of its kind. It does cover farmers and fishermen. In respect of housewives, as referred to by the hon. member, our approach has been to provide a combined pension for the husband and the wife so that the wife can derive a bigger pension should the husband die. It should be borne in mind that many housewives will be contributors in their own right and will derive benefits, as well as the income support, because their husbands have been contributors.
Hon. members may not agree with what I am saying about the relationship of this program to the Canada Pension Plan. I do not object to that, but I should like to communicate my concern about a permanent parallel program of income support in connection with the Canada Pension Plan. If the supplementary program is not limited in this way, and this is an income guarantee program, younger workers and certainly lower income workers win wonder, though compelled by law, why they should contribute to the Canada Pension Plan or to the Quebec pension plan when they can get a supplementary pension without any contribution.
That is precisely why this program is transitional in nature. We felt that a parallel program of income support of a permanent character would undermine the confidence among those in lower income groups in respect of compulsory contributions which they must make under the Canada and Quebec pension plans. That is the point of view I am putting forward, and that is the explanation for the inclusion of this clause.
I just want to say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the fact we are putting forward this transitional program in the form of a guaranteed income in my view should not detract from the fact that we are attempting to develop a new approach-a guaranteed income approach to income support. We are applying this on a transitional basis. It may be that the experience we will gain in the development of the income guaranteed approach to this group-admittedly it is a transitional measure-will provide us with a basis on which, at a later stage, we can
11235
Old Age Security Act Amendment apply the guaranteed income program to a greater proportion of our population.
As time goes on I think members of the house and members of the committee will want to consider the guaranteed income approach in relation to all other social security programs in Canada. I cannot foresee the future, nor can I make any policy statement as to the attitude of the government, but it certainly is a fact that the experience gained in respect of this program will be of great importance in years ahead in deciding whether the guaranteed income concept should be applied on a broader basis.
In my judgment we are definitely breaking new ground in applying the guaranteed income approach. Aside from the amounts that are contemplated in this approach, the principles are the same. We are attempting to create an administrative structure. If we succeed, and I hope we will, this will provide a possible' basis for a broader application of this measure in the future. I make that point because I do not have in mind, in confining this concept to a group on a transitional basis, that it would undermine possible application in the future on a broader basis.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one or two words and then ask the minister two questions. I gladly assume that the minister was sincere in the statement he just made to the committee, and that he honestly believes there is some conflict between the two plans. I am afraid he has not communicated to me, even though he said he was attempting to do so, any reason for concluding that there is this conflict.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I have a fear that the minister has yielded to advice which officials often give because of their excess fears about things. My two questions are simply these-and I do not want to make this a long speech. First, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare suggesting to this committee that there will be no one born after 1910 who will not be covered by the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan? I am sure he cannot suggest that there will be no one in the country not covered. My second question is: Is the minister trying to persuade this committee that a young contributor to the Canada Pension Plan will feel he is being gypped, when he has contributed with the expectation of $104 a month as his total pension under the Canada Pension Plan, if I remember correctly, plus whatever other adjustments are built in, as against a possible maximum of $30 a month under this plan'

11236	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment Surely, Mr. Chairman, that simply is not logical.
I suggest to the minister that if there is anyone who is likely to be left out in the cold, even if there are no more than 10,000 of the total number in Canada, because they were born after 1910 and are not covered by the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, and so on, this income maintenance, poor though it is, ought to be maintained. I should like the minister to comment on my two queries.


Mr. Chaiierion:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could ask the minister a question and he could answer it and the hon. member's questions at the same time. In considering the question of whether the program should continue or whether there should be a deadline, the minister must have made an estimate of the number of people who will retire, say in 1976, who will have no pension under the Canada Pension Plan. He must also have considered how many will have a pension of, say $10, how many will have a pension of say $20, and how many will have a pension of $30 only. Can the minister give us some indication of the number of people who will be in those categories?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have not any statistics available at the moment. I will try to get them, to see whether there is any estimate of the future level of benefits and the numbers. As I have stated, I believe that the point of this measure is to look after the people who because of age will not benefit from the Canada Pension Plan. That is why it is a transitional measure.
The hon. member for York South asked me whether there would be persons who would not be eligible for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. I think there undoubtedly will be. We think the number will be relatively small. If we had no other program, I think it would be a matter for concern if after a period of 10 years there were considerable numbers of people who had been incapable, for one reason or another, of participating effectively in the economy and and could not benefit.
It seems to me that perhaps the solution is in some other direction. I am talking about a guaranteed income approach. Having decided upon that course

and hon. gentlemen opposite have taken a different view-it is still a fact that younger workers, and especially low income workers, could legitimately say, "Why should we be contributing to the Canada

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
Pension Plan out of our relatively small earnings, and be compelled to do so by law, when there is another program that could provide us a supplement?" I admit that if I accepted the view of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and adopted the flat increase at this point, the situation would of course be different.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.
, Mr. MacEachen: But in terms of the approach now being recommended to parliament, I think it is wise to limit it in this way. This is really the point of view I am putting across. I am not hopeful that hon. members opposite will agree with me, but I am hopeful that they will at least understand the reason, even if they think it is not acceptable.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am as puzzled now by the minister's theory as I was last night. He made it more specific today when he said that low income workers would resent this program. Has he had representations to this effect? On what grounds does he base this weird theory that he is developing?


David Lewis: On some bureaucratic advice.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will give an example in round figures. According to rough calculations, a worker who earned $2,000 a year would be eligible on retirement for something like $42 a month from the Canada Pension Plan. That is as I understand it. Under this bill as it stands, if this is regarded as income he would have about $21 a month taken off his eligibility.
Is he going to resent the fact that, because of his limited ability to contribute in the way in which most of us expect to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, when he retires he will receive a pension of only $42 a month? Is he going to resent the fact that he is entitled to an extra $9 under another plan? I just cannot understand the minister's argument.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is the point, Mr. Chairman. This is a problem that is quite far in the future. But I believe that workers on low incomes who have to sweat it out and contribute can look at another program and say, "Why should I have had to contribute, having been compelled to do so by law, when if I had not been compelled to do this and had a choice in the matter I could have benefited perhaps as much from this supplement?" This is the point.
December IS, 1966


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister has less faith in Canadians than I have.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question on the matter to which he has just referred. He said this category of worker would object to making payments to the Canada Pension Plan because they may be able to get the supplement under this program. I wonder whether the minister realizes that the payroll deductions of workers today are so numerous that one more little deduction for the Canada Pension Plan, even if they are not getting very much out of it, will make very little difference and they will not even think about it. Is there not some way in which the Canada Pension Plan could be related to th.s supplement, in such a way that there would in fact be a guaranteed annual income for every Canadian?
The minister has admitted that some people will not benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. If there is one person left out, it is one too many as far as I am concerned. I do not understand why we cannot have some relationship in these plans and guarantee every person an income of, say $130 a month. Surely the minister can devise some way in which this plan could be related to the Canada Pension Plan to achieve this objective.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
COMMONS DEBATES	i1237
Old Age Security Act Amendment that the words "born on or before the 31st day of December, 1910" be struck out; this would make the proposed increase available to everyone having reached 65 years of age. For this reason, I support the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is trying to put over on us with his bill, by objecting to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The title of the bill reads as follows: "An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act" and I, for one, feel that the Old Age Security Act should be amended by adding improvements to it, and not by taking away benefits which it already provides. By refusing the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister confirms what my friend the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) stated last December 5, when he said that the minister's amendment did not concern old age security but rather social assistance, which is already in force in the province of Quebec and, probably, in all Canadian provinces.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I am in Eavour of the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre to the effect

Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas 61; nays, 66.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order. We are debating one clause, but as members know it extends from page 2 to page 10 of the bill. The hon. member for Simcoe East gave notice last night that he will be making an amendment to the proposed section 8 on page 2. 1 suggest that for orderly consideration in committee Your Honour might call, say, clause 3, section 6, and then section 7 and so on, so that we will not be moving back and forth over these eight pages.


Herman Maxwell Batten: For purposes of discussion would the committee agree to call each of the 12 proposed sections in clause 3, and complete discussion on each one chronologically?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We will now consider clause 3, section 6.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We passed the proposed section 6 last evening.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not think we passed anything. This is the reason I made the suggestion, because we immediately went to the proposed section 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is not the language we use at this point "Is discussion on the section concluded?" I believe that section 6 was concluded and that we were on 7, which is how I got my amendment in.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to say a few words on clause 3, section 7. The minister's explanation as to why this section, which provides that persons who were born after December 31, 1910 will not be eligible for benefits under this legislation, is included in this clause makes very clear what this legislation really amounts to. The minister has now said that this is transitional legislation; that it is old age assistance legislation; that it is a temporary relief measure to take care of old age pensioners who have very little income,
11238	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment other than their old age security pension. The minister's argument for presenting this rather niggardly program is that if the government were to make this a permanent feature of our legislation it would somehow or other undermine the Canada Pension Plan.
I want to point out two things to the minister. The first is that he can resolve that problem very easily by incorporating this $30 in the basic old age security pension. There would be no feeling of injury then from 1975, on, if those who had contributed to the Canada Pension Plan knew that in addition to their entitlement under that legislation they were also entitled to a basic pension of $100 or $105 a month. This is why we have been arguing that this money, which the government is now proposing to pay, be incorporated into the old age security pension.
What the government are really doing-and it is becoming more transparent day by day-is really to fix $75 a month, plus whatever additional increments will come as a result of the increased cost of living, as a permanent feature of our social security legislation. This will mean that from now on $75 a month plus 75 cents a month for a 1 per cent increase in the cost of living, with a maximum of $1.50 for 2 percentage points, irrespective of whether the cost of living rises by 3 per cent, 4 per cent or more, will be fixed as the basic pension of the old age security pensioner. In many instances it will not even keep pace with the increased cost of living, let alone allow our elderly citizens in this country to participate in the nation's increased productivity. The old age security pension is now fixed, as I say, except for the increment arising out of the increased cost of living.
I am sure that when the government introduced the Canada Pension Plan it was not apparent to most Canadians that the old age security pension was being frozen, except for the cost of living bonus. But it is now perfectly apparent that it has been frozen. It is also apparent that the measure now before us is not going to be the basis of a universally guaranteed annual income. It is purely and simply a relief measure of a transitional nature to provide assistance on the basis of a means test for those persons whose income is insufficient today to keep body and soul together.
On the basis of the minister's explanation, Mr. Chairman, this makes a hollow mockery of all the pretensions we have heard about, to the effect that we were launched on a new era

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
of social security legislation, and that the government was laying the basis of a guaranteed annual income program. This talk of a guaranteed annual income that the government has been promulgating from one end of the country to the other is now exposed as probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of this country.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
Anyone with any doubts about this can read subsection 1 of section 7 as set out in clause 3 of the bill, and realize that after 1975 there will be no new applications under this legislation. Payments will continue to those already on the list who have qualified under the means test, but new persons will not come on the list. Those who do not qualify under the Canada Pension Plan, and there are many-the minister said that farmers and fishermen are covered; it is optional for them, but a good many small farmers and fishermen have net incomes of less than $1,000 a year-will not be able to contribute. Farmers and fishermen would have to pay employer and employee contributions totalling 3.6 per cent, rather than the 1.8 per cent paid by industrial workers.
Many self-employed persons engaged in small businesses, in one-man barber shops,_ in one-man shoe shine stands or one-man filling stations cannot afford to make the 3.6 per cent contribution.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget farmers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The small farmers and fishermen I have already mentioned. Even where small farmers and fishermen with net incomes of less than $1,000 make contributions, the benefits they will be entitled to under the pension will be relatively small. To leave these people absolutely bereft of assistance under this plan demonstrates in my opinion a callous disregard of the needs of the situation.
We have registered our protest against this provision; I do not think we can do more. I hope it is perfectly clear to hon. members of the house and to people of the country what the government's legislation means. It means old age assistance with a means test on a temporary, transitional basis.


George Louis Chatterton: I wish to say a few words on the proposed section 7. When I asked the minister a few minutes ago if he had figures estimating the numbers of people in 1976 who will be getting no pension, or a very small pension, he said he had no figures. I think these amendments were drafted according to
December 16, 1366

some nebulous theory I have not been able to understand. They are based on some nebulous principle, and not on the facts of the situation.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It was expedient.


George Louis Chatterton: It was an expedient measure introduced in a hurry, largely because we exposed the Canada Assistance Plan as not being an effective social security measure.
The recommendation of the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan was that the combination of old age security and Canada pension should bear a certain relation to earnings. In 1961, for instance, Mr. Chairman, close to 600,000 people in non-farm families earned less than $1,000. I maintain that large numbers of people will get little or no benefit from the Canada Pension Plan in 1976. I tell the minister, judging by his performance in this proposal, that he may not be Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1975. I can assure him that, if some measure is not introduced to help the people who will get very small pensions or no pensions at all from the Canada Pension Plan by 1975 or 1976, amendments will have to be brought in to take care of these people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue on the points brought out with respect to subclause 1 of clause 7. The point I wish to make in this connection may be appropriate at a later session. I wish now therefore to carry out the intention I mentioned yesterday, to move another amendment to new section 7 being enacted by clause 3 of this bill. The point I wish to make perhaps is narrow in terms of the number of people affected. If we are to show decency and generosity at Christmastime the minister ought to accept the request I shall make in the terms of an amendment.
If hon. members look at new section 7, subclause 2, paragraph Cc) they will discover that pensioners outside Canada, away from the country for more than six months, are not entitled to draw the supplement or the so-called guaranteed income payment.
I am pleading the case of not many people, though many seem to write to me. I am strenuously pleading the case of people who have no vote in this country, who have moved to warmer climates in the south or to the United Kingdom. They do not vote in Canadian general elections. To me this is all the more reason for doing the fair, decent and generous thing.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
As hon. members know, it has taken us a long time to get the Old Age Security Act amended to make it possible for people who find it necessary or desirable to live somewhere else to draw the old age security pension. We finally achieved this in two jumps. In the first place we provided some years ago that a person qualified for a pension in Canada, who has started drawing it while living in Canada, may go anywhere in the world and continue drawing that pension provided he had lived in Canada for 25 years subsequent to his twenty first birthday. That provision was enacted some years ago, and it was a good one.
More recently when dealing with the legislation enacting the Canada Pension Plan we made another improvement. We looked at the person who has had to leave Canada before attaining pensionable age. He may have had many years of residence in this country; he may have been born in this country, but he was denied the pension unless he came back and lived here for another 12 months.
The kinds of cases coming under this heading surely are well known to hon. members. For example there will be the case of a man and his wife, the man being of pensionable age and his wife not. They go to England; the man gets his pension but the wife cannot because she went there before she was of pensionable age. Or there are single persons moving about for one reason or another, going to various places, the most common of which would be the southern parts of this continent. We resolved the problem of the person who cannot get back to the country by another provision now in the act under which, if a person had a total of 40 years residence in Canada subsequent to age 18, he need not come back to this country to get his pension. [DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I have already come across sad cases of people who are a few weeks short of the required 40 years. I recall the case of one woman who was born in this country, as her parents were born in this country, but who cannot qualify because she is two or three months short of that 40 year period. I do not intend to go into these provisions. I merely indicate that we have made them. It was difficult to get this concession, and the qualifications are difficult to meet. But the concession has been made. Now, by this provision in subsection (2) of section 7, we say that even though people have met the qualification and
11240	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment are drawing the basic pension in, for example, the southern states, or in England, they cannot get the supplement.
Mr. Chairman, how mean can we be? How unthoughtful can we be? Some might argue that if these people have been able to go away, they have resources. Well, if they have resources they would not get the supplement in any case under this legislation. But if a person is entitled to a pension on the basis of the 25-year clause or the 40-year, and needs a supplement, I think he should get it.
I am not trying to set people against each other when 1 point out how unfair the present discrimination can be. Please note that a person who did not come to this country until he was 54 or 55 can get a pension in ten years time. And if he stays here he can get a supplement, provided he meets the means test incorporated in this bill. I am in favour of that; let that be clear. But it does seem odd that a person who has been in this country ten years can draw the $105 if he needs it, while another, who may have been born in this country and lived here for 58 years, cannot get a supplement because he has gone to England or some other part of the world. It seems to me that this is unfair and that it is carrying the unChristmas spirit a little too far.
The minister told us in the speech he made that this provision had been included in the bill deliberately. I feel strongly that it should come out. We have made it possible for those people who have to go away, and who meet the various conditions, to get a pension. They should have a right to get the supplement as well. For the most part we are concerned with people whose health in their latter years does not permit them to endure our winters. Or they are people who have moved to other parts of the world for family reasons-to live with relatives, and so on.
I am not talking about the millionaires the minister seems concerned about. If the millionaires have gone to California, they cannot beat the means test. But having found the answer as far as the basic old age pension is concerned we should not make it impossible for pensioners to receive the supplement because they are living elsewhere. I urge the minister not to give us a long song and dance telling us why this cannot be done. My flies upstairs are full of letters from the previous minister, from the hon. member for Perth, when he was minister, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he was minister of health and welfare, explaining how difficult it was to make pensions payable to

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
people who did not come back to get them: It just could not be changed; it was impossible; there were too many difficulties. But we solved these difficulties with the 40-year rule. Of course some people who might have benefited from that rule died before it could come into effect.
Let us not take ten years to resolve this problem. Let us do the decent thing without delay and say that all these people who have qualified for the basic $75 and who can meet the so-called test for the supplement shall get the other $30. To this end, I move:
That clause 3 of Bill C-251 be amended by deleting paragraph (c) from sub-section (2) of the new section 7 being enacted thereby.


The Deputy Chairman:: Are there any observations as to the admissibility of the amendment?


George Louis Chatterton: I suggest that this amendment falls into exactly the same category as the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and which the Chair accepted.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have one comment to make in respect to this amendment. I merely wish to mention that at some point the Chair will have to determine the meaning of the expression "certain pensioners" used in the resolution. If, successively, all these amendments are ruled in order, the effect will have been to rewrite the resolution to which the royal recommendation is attached.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, may I suggest that it is not a valid objection to an amendment to say that, if it is in order, then one, two, ten or a dozen other amendments might also be in order. The situation might be embarrassing for the government, but the objection which the hon. gentleman has raised is not a procedural one.
I believe the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has stated the proposition correctly, in a nutshell. This amendment provides for a change in the bill in an area which was not dealt with at all in the resolution preceding the bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you will find it difficult to find in any other way than you found last evening. Surely the use of the phrase "certain pensioners" does not give the minister the right to come along now and say: This is what we meant by it. When the same point was raised last evening, my hon. friend from York South said: Suppose the minister had put in a clause saying that people with read hair were not to get a pension, this could have been what the minister had in mind
December 16, 1966
when he said "certain pensioners". I think the Chair was right in the ruling it made, and that there is really no reason to discuss the matter further.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The point I made was that the resolution had been carefully framed so as to be limiting, and the limiting expression was the word "certain". I argued this point last night and I will not repeat it now; but if all these amendments are declared to be in order the effect will have been to rewrite the royal recommendation. I think this would be altogether improper.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the fact that the minister did not write the royal recommendation properly is no concern of ours at this point. He has put the words "certain pensioners" in the royal recommendation, which could mean all pensioners except one, or could mean pensioners with certain physical attributes. The thing permits itself of a very wide interpretation indeed.
I think the ruling yesterday would be applicable. It was accepted by the committee. It was not appealed by the government side, and I think should stand with regard to these others which are on all fours with it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, when earlier in this debate I heard my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referring to the minister as a Scrooge, I did not realize quite how correct he was, because as the debate goes on, and as one looks at the picayune attitude of the minister, one realizes how miserable and mean he is being. I suggest to the minister that he stop thinking of this bill as being-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to say to him we are now discussing whether or not this amendment is in order, and maybe the remarks he is now making could be made some other time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have your ruling.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am prepared to make a ruling now, if the committee so wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I can say to the committee that the Chair has considered this amendment in the light of the resolution which preceded the bill. I have paid particular attention to the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the meaning which he places upon the word "certain."
Old Age Security Act Amendment
It is the opinion of the Chair that while this word "certain" does impose some limit, it is a limit which is defined in the bill; and since the limit is defined in the bill, then to change the limit in the bill, or to express certain limits, does not at all do any violence to the resolution preceding the bill. The word "certain" may have limitations. The bill states what these limitations are. But I do not think the committee is bound by the limitations placed upon the word "certain" by the bill itself.
I would like to read again from Beau-chesne's fourth edition citation 278(4);
The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers have inserted in the bill; and, when no amount has been mentioned m the resolution, any member may propose to increase the grants specified in the bill or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
It is my opinion that this amendment does not exceed the royal recommendation, and I would therefore rule that the amendment is in order.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, just before you made your ruling I said that I found it difficult to understand the reasoning and the point of view which the minister is taking with regard to this amendment. As I said, he was referred to earlier in debate as a Scrooge. I am not going to repeat the long arguments and discussions we have had on the principle of whether $30 a month should apply to all people who are entitled to the old age pension, or just to those who can satisfy the needs test. This has been debated for days. We have had a number of votes in which the house and the committee have expressed their points of view. We on this side of the chamber disagree with the government and with the minister, but that decision has been made.
However, Mr. Chairman, surely the number of people covered by this amendment is so small, and the reasons this small group of people leave the country are so valid, that the government does not have to drive the last nail into the coffin. This is not a new question. It took many years argument before the government of Canada agreed that any old age pensioner who left the country could get a pension. Finally, some years ago, it was agreed that people who qualified could draw their pension, regardless of where they lived.
There are not many of these people. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already said, those who have left the country

11242	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment have done it mainly for two reasons. One is a health reason. I have just come back from my home city of Winnipeg where the people have had a month of below zero weather. It is no wonder that some people who are in their late sixties and seventies find it difficult to live in Winnipeg during the winter, and think it a good idea to go down to the United States, or some other place, where the conditions are easier for them to live. I also know some people, the bulk of whose relatives have already died, but they have brothers or sisters down in the United States, or in Great Britain. They have decided it would be easier and more pleasant for them to finish the last few years of their lives in close association with those brothers or sisters.
These are valid reasons which were recognized by the government of Canada and the parliament of Canada when the pension legislation was amended to permit people to live outside Canada and still draw their pension. But now the minister comes along and says, "Well, that is all right for the people who get the $75 a month. They can live in the United States, they can live in Great Britain or anywhere else, but they cannot get this supplementary benefit."
I cannot see any logic behind this and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I wish the minister would stop thinking of this bill as being like the Ten Commandments tablets which cannot be changed under any circumstances, and that he would exhibit some of the compassion which some hon. members and some people throughout the country thought he had, but which he is rapidly demonstrating he does not have.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there are of course two Scrooges, and I would not like to apply the description Scrooge to the minister without hoping that he is in a sort of period of conversion from the earlier Scrooge to the later Scrooge. We must hold out hope not only for the Scrooges of this world but for the Minister of National Health and Welfare also.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Better conjure up one of those ghosts for him.


An hon. Member:: Marley's?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre commends itself handsomely to the members of the official opposition because the battle, mentioned earlier, about residence requirements with respect to old age pensions was one brought to a happy end by a former minister of national health and welfare, the
[Mr. Orlikow.l
DEBATES	December 16, 1966
hon. member for Perth. That was one of his outstanding humanitarian accomplishments.
Dealing with the merits of the amendment I would point out to the minister that obviously the number of people involved will not be large. The old age pensioners who can go abroad on either $75 a month, or on a maximum of $105 a month, is not going to be substantial. If they have not already made their pile to go and live in Spain or Florida during the harsher months of the year, they are never going to make it.
I suggest that the type of person who will take advantage of this will be somebody who, in any event, is helped by his or her family to move to a softer clime so as not to experience the great Canadian winter. I further suggest that the families of such people are making considerable sacrifices, and that these sacrifices are being made only for one purpose, for the health of their relatives who find it necessary to move to milder climates.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
I do not think the treasury of this country is going to suffer any great expenditure. I would picture it as something in the order of six figures a year. So, I should like to end where I started; there were two Scrooges, the miserable fellow at the beginning of the Dickens story and that kind, benevolent soul who emerged after an exhausting ordeal-


An hon. Member:: After the change.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -and found a way to become an enlightened employer of Bob Cratchit and a friend to all those around him. I hope that the minister could come back into the chamber and show this same startling metamorphosis with regard to these amendments.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, it has been acknowledged by all Canadians that the old age security pension is an entitlement to the people who have contributed toward the growth of the nation. It is quite clear from the minister and the government that this supplement is not considered as a right. By virtue of this provision the government has discretion to decide which of these senior citizens, having complied with all the requirements of the old age security provisions, shall be entitled to this supplement. In order to point out the anomaly, I should like to make a comparison to the situation in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. Under the Canada Pension Plan a person can move here from some other country. He can live here for ten years, take
December 16, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	11243
his full Canada Pension Plan, and then go back to the place from which he came. Hon. members might say: "Oh, yes, but that is a contributory pension plan". The fact is that such a person, particularly if he is earning $5,000 a year or more when he retires, can draw his pension after contributing for ten years only and receive a bonus, an unearned increment, which is paid to him by the other people of Canada to the tune of some $18,000.
On the other hand, under this bill, a person who has lived in Canada for 20 years after age 21-he may have lived here for 40 or 50 years-who on account of health of other reasons wishes to live in some other country is not entitled to the supplement. Perhaps the minister could tell us how many of these people are affected. Will granting the supplement to these people increase the cost in respect of this measure to any appreciable extent? If not, why does the minister take this "Scroogey" attitude in respect of these citizens who have earned a right to the supplement?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very earnest appeal to the minister to change his mind in this regard. I wish to do so for several reasons. I think he was wrong in not accepting the earlier amendment which was moved. In that case at least, I think he had some reason which I believe I understood. Unfortunately, somewhat to the shame of Canada, there are people whose income is so low that their pensions under the Canada Pension Plan would not be greater than the supplementary income that the early subclause represented. So, at least he had some reason.
I suggest, with all the earnestness which all of us can possibly muster, that there is no reason for the stand the minister is taking. First, as has been pointed out by other speakers, the number of people who will be able to leave Canada and go elsewhere, having only $75 or $80 a mnth, obviously is exceedingly small. They will be people who are ill or who have children living in Detroit, Rome or in some other place and who wish to spend the remaining few years of their lives with their children and grandchildren. The denial of this supplement to them, to me seems to be an act of inhumanity of which I thought the minister was incapable. I mean both parts of that; it is an act of inhumanity and I would have thought that the minister was incapable of it. How many thousands of dollars are involved in this? I suppose one of the reasons the minister wishes to have this subclause in the
Old Age Security Act Amendment bill is that his officers have persuaded him it would be very difficult to check the forms containing the income returns from people who are resident elsewhere. I should like to say to him in passing that this is another reason to condemn his income test.
Even if this were the case, let me remind him that there are dozens of laws on our books which unfortunately are violated daily by residents and citizens of Canada which the governments, federal and provincial, do not bother to police, because the cost of policing would be greater than the few pennies they would gather as a result of such policing. Everyone knows that. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact. He is not worried about that. Governments are not worried about the little infractions which cost the treasury a few measly thousands of dollars. When the minister suggests that people who have lived most of their lives in Canada who reach the age of 65 eventually and now age 69 or 68, and who find that they would like to spend the remaining few years of their lives with their children and grandchildren somewhere outside Canada, cannot get a pension above the $75 a month under the old age security provisions, this is picayune; it is petty. It is petty in mind and petty in heart, if I may use that term. It represents no money; it represents no principle. It represents a bureaucratic intrusion which has absolutely no basis in fact, logic or anything else.
This attitude represents a sacrifice of simple, human compassion for some kind of procedural difficulty which might occur in respect of some loss of the occasional measly dollar which the treasury might have to endure because a person is out of the country for six months. I am making my statement as others have-and I am not saying that I am any different from the others-not with any intention of embarrassing the minister or the government. From my short experience in parliament, I believe that if we leave the government alone it does enough to embarrass itself. No one on the opposition benches has to aid them in that direction. With all my heart,
I am making the plea to the minister that he realize he is making a mistake. He is making a mistake of pettiness for which he will be branded as the Scrooge which people have called him, just as his department will be branded as a department without imagination and without heart.
If the minister could tell us how many thousands of dollars this will cost the treasury of Canada or if he could tell us what it is he is
December 16, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment trying to protect himself against, I would be glad to listen to him. However, I have applied my mind to this matter and my experience in respect of the older people in this country, which probably is as wide as that of anyone else, and for the life of me I cannot see why, when the old age pensioner is entitled to receive the old age security pension when he is beyond the boundaries of this country, this little addition of $30 a month-and it might be less-should be denied him. The only explanation I can see is that some officers in his department must have advised him concerning the procedural difficulty there would be in respect of checking the applications and so on. So what? So, you cannot check them.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: It is to be a very simple form.


David Lewis: It may well be a simple form, but a person who pays no taxes may have difficulty. My question is, so what? Out of 1,200,000 pensioners, which is the number there are now, I should like to know how many in fact live abroad. This whole question does not involve only how many live abroad, because there might be very many pensioners out of the country. The $75 is paid as a matter of right even to those who can afford to go abroad. I want to know whether the minister really thinks there is a substantial number, significant number or even a small number of pensioners who are living outside of the country and do not receive at least $105 per month in income. It is absurd to suggest that there is a crack in the wall of financial responsibility in this regard which would cause any embarrassment or any loss worth a tinker's damn.
Often the minister does accept advice, yet in this case he has a certain approach to legislation which leads him to bring in this kind of petty, mean provision which is what it is. It is a petty, mean provision of no consequence to the country, of no consequence to the treasury, but of consequence only to a few thousand people who will be living with their children or grandchildren outside this country. Those are the few who will benefit from this additional pittance provided by this bill. I appeal to the minister to recognize the validity of the representations made by hon. members on this side of the house in order to show that he has some understanding of, if I may say this without any offence, the workings of a genuine democratic legislature or assembly where a minister does not simply put legislation on the desk

and say we must accept it. In a democratic assembly the minister and the government have sufficient humility from time to time to accept propositions from those who oppose them, given in good faith and in all sincerity. If the minister does not accept this amendment which does no violence to the principles of the act and no violence to anything else which is of consequence, I can only conclude that he is becoming-I have not known him long enough to say that he has been-the kind of administrator who is more bound by his bureaucratic fears than he is by his principles as a human being.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As I look upon the minister's mournful countenance, I wonder whether he regards us as being unseemingly persistent in pressing forward this amendment. If the minister is really anxious to press forward with greater speed and expedition, it seems to me he should be prepared to give us some concrete, statistical information as to the cost involved in the proposition before us. I suspect, because I have not seen any figure, that what is involved by way of additional cost is not of any great magnitude. If that is the case I should like to say to members opposite and to the minister that if we must choose between administrative stringency on the one hand and the generosity of Canadian society on the other, we ought to choose the latter. One must be prudent in dealing with measures of this kind, but if there is a very substantial cost factor involved there is an onus on the minister to bring forward concrete statistical information to indicate the range of additional cost involved in the proposal suggested by this amendment.
I might say that I also regard the provision in subclause (a) as being unnecessarily stringent. If I were to speak about that provision at this point I would be out of order so I shall defer my remarks until after we have dealt with this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us hear from the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the committee with great diffidence after the avalanche of unpleasant adjectives that have been thrown at me in respect of this amendment.
First of all, we kept in mind the fact that this supplement will be paid in all cases for the month a pensioner leaves Canada and for a maximum of an additional six consecutive months. Payment will be stopped at that time,
December 16, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	11245
Old Age Security Act Amendment
but will be resumed the month the pensioner returns to Canada.
The hon. member for Halifax and others made allusions to what had been done in the past by former ministers. The policy being followed in this case is precisely the policy applied to pensioners receiving the basic $75 a month who have left the country and have not put in 25 years residence after age 21. That is a provision of the Old Age Security Act. That principle which is included in that act was applied to the supplement payment. A pensioner will get it for the month he leaves Canada and for a maximum of six consecutive months thereafter. If he remains outside the country beyond that period payment will be suspended, but it will be resumed when he returns.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about pensioners who could not stand our cold winters and moved to the south. We provide for this situation by the six or seven months during which payments will be made. We have taken it for granted that persons who leave Canada and live permanently in other countries are eligible for any benefits which are available to permanent residents in those countries.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That must be taken for granted.


David Lewis: Why should we take that for granted? Other countries may have residence qualifications such as we have.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not understand what the hon. member is saying. Surely, the countries to which most of these pensioners move are advanced countries in the western world. They would be eligible for the various assistance available in those countries. That is all I am saying and we took that for granted. We felt that these persons would become residents of the countries to which they moved and would be eligible for benefits available in those countries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The countries to which most of the people move are Great Britain, the United States and Italy. How would any old age pensioner in receipt of old age security benefits qualify for social security benefits in any of those three countries, unless he had established a long period of residence, just as an individual must establish residence in this country? An individual must live ten years in
23033-712J
this country before qualifying for old age security.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not accept all the inherent assertions of fact in the hon. member's question. We will save some money through this proposal, but it will cost money to make these payments to these pensioners who move. Any amount I might mention would be purely an estimate.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
It would depend upon the income standing of the recipient, if we had any way of checking it. These people are living in 60 different countries. How would it be possible for any administration, even the bureaucratic administration alleged to exist in the Department of National Health and Welfare, to have any way of verifying incomes in 60 different countries? In this case we would be asking residents of Canada to provide us with information that we could not possibly ask residents outside the country to provide.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question at this point? How does he square this with his assurance time and again that it is a very simple declaration people will have to fill in, and the department is going to take their word for it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a simple declaration. I explained yesterday the procedures that would be involved in this program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You haven't any snoopers abroad?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not a question of snoopers abroad. We have stated in the bill that we will check the accuracy of information provided to us. We have no way of doing this for persons abroad in 60 different countries, with varying income levels. We expect people living in Canada to provide us with this information.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question? Does the minister maintain that each and every successful applicant for the supplementary $30 will have had the application checked against his income tax return?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I covered that ground in the house yesterday for about an hour. We went into that matter fully. I appreciate the point of view of hon. members in seeking to make the advantages of the income supplement available to persons permanently resident abroad, those who stay abroad beyond
11246	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment the period of six months. I appreciate their concern. All I am saying is that we are following a principle that is now embedded in the Old Age Security Act with respect to persons who have failed to put in 25 years residence in Canada after age 21. That provision is in the law now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit another question, Mr. Chairman? When he says he is following what is in the law now, he should distinguish between those people who claim their pension on the basis of only 10 years' residence and who therefore when they go abroad cannot draw the pension continuously, and those people who go abroad after having had 25 years in Canada subsequent to age 21, or went abroad before they became recipients of the pension with 40 years residence in Canada subsequent to age 18. I am talking about these two groups of people, the 25-year group and the 40-year group, with respect to whom we have said they can have the $75 pension. No matter whether they are living in the affluent United States, where they have a social security scheme, if we give them the $75 and they are in need, why cannot they receive the supplement? I plead with the minister not to confuse the issue about the 25-year and the 40-year groups by talking about what applies in the case of the 10-year group.
My amendment would not give this supplement to those people with only 10 years residence in Canada who stay abroad beyond six months, because they do not get the $75. But why not treat in the same way those we have finally been decent with in regard to the basic pension, whether they go abroad or remain in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was quite a long question, Mr. Chairman. But I am dealing with the argument that has been advanced by members of the opposition alleging there is something un-Canadian, as it were, about the approach being taken in this particular bill. All I am saying is that we have applied precisely the same approach to the old age security recipients who have failed to put in 25 years residence in Canada after age 21. I refer the hon. member to section 5 (1) of the Old Age Security Act. This is the argument I am making; it is a reply to the statement that has been made on the other side of the house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre makes a rebuttal argument and attempts to build it into another argument for his own purposes.

DEBATES	December 16, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. When I made this amendment, it was clear that I was talking about the groups of people covered by the 25-year clause and the 40-year clause. I took more time than I thought I needed to describe those clauses. It is not a matter of coming back later and putting forward another argument. I am talking about the people who are entitled to stay abroad and draw the full pension; they are the only ones I am talking about. I think the minister should address himself to the question of those people.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am addressing myself, Mr. Chairman, to the arguments put forward in the committee. One of the arguments patently made in the committee was: Why do we not treat these people in the same way as we treat the recipients of old age security who can take their pension abroad without qualification? This is the point I am answering. I am answering it by referring to this particular provision in the Old Age Security Act. I am not drawing any further conclusion than to point out that we are following this particular policy. This is the only point.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question? Perhaps I do not know enough about the Old Age Security Act, but am I wrong in thinking that if this particular subclause were deleted, the residence qualifications that apply to the old age security payment would apply to the supplementary payment? That is all the deletion of the subclause would accomplish, is it not? It would not wash out, would it, the residence requirements that are already there? It would make those residence requirements applicable to this group of people; is that not right


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, one of the arguments the minister used to oppose this amendment was that under this bill the advances made to those people living abroad permanently, and who would presumably be eligible for advances from the country in which they reside, would be considered as income. This is right, is it not? Therefore, if they receive over $60, they would be disqualified from this benefit, and if they receive up to $60 there is a commensurate reduction in the supplement? Am I not correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is suggesting the complexity of the administrative operation in making these benefits available. I am not arguing against the concern of hon. members; I am arguing
December 16, 1966	COMMONS
about the difficulty of trying to administer the program and establish equity between persons resident in Canada and those resident abroad. They can be abroad up to six months and draw this supplement. If they come back they will immediately go on benefit. These people are living in 60 different countries. There are 1,000 pensioners living in Hong Kong. We just cannot possibly hope to administer the program in any effective way and relate 60 different countries, with different income standards, when this program is geared to our own Canadian income level. It seems to me the committee is asking me to undertake something that is almost impossible to accomplish effectively. I do not want to argue against the concern of hon. members of the committee, but I would like the committee to understand the difficulty their suggestion presents and with which I am asked to deal.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the minister has let the large cat out of the bag. It is not a question of the spirit of this legislation or the intent of what we are trying to do for Canadians, whether they live at home or abroad; but rather it is a question of how such an amendment to the Old Age Security Act could be administered. The minister has spoken about administrative difficulties. This is a point that many of us suspected was really in his mind when he opposed this very reasonable suggestion. Now, the minister has confirmed our suspicions.
The argument that has been made before by several hon. members is a perfectly proper one. We are not, by this legislation, creating a new class of pensioner. This legislation will simply provide a supplement, an extra benefit, to a class of pensioner already in being. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for York South, and I intend to point it out again because perhaps by repetition we will get this point through to the minister, the provisions in the present legislation are surely all the guarantee that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, his department and his government require. What we are being asked to do by enacting proposed section 7 (2) (c) is to legislate something which is superfluous. These powers already exist in the legislation we have. I say it is redundant in the same sense that to use the phrase "a round wheel" is redundant or to use the phrase "foolish minister of transport" is redundant.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of the minister of health and welfare. It does not coincide with the judgment
Old Age Security Act Amendment so many of us have formed of him since he has been in the house and I simply do not understand it. Perhaps some of us have missed the point that puts him in the position of apparently being out of character. Perhaps some of the statements that have been made and put on his shoulders originated from the Minister of Finance, who is probably the strong man responsible for much in this bill that goes against our grain and which, if the truth were known, probably goes against the grain of the minister.
If the minister thinks that the committee was confused in their arguments a short time ago, I suggest he look at the words he used when he gets the blues. In his opening remarks in defence of his position he said that this bill was treating people who would be entitled to this benefit in the same way as the Old Age Security Act treats the pensioners. He did not distinguish between the ten and 25 year qualification in his opening remarks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman.-


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I should like the minister to let me make my case, and then he can reply if he wishes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman-


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I did not interrupt the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I rise on a question of privilege. Not only did I relate my argument to this particular 25 year provision, but I cited the section in the Old Age Security Act which makes provision for this. I merely stated that we were following the same policy with respect to payment of the supplement that is provided with regard to this class of pensioner who is covered by section 5(1) of the Old Age Security Act.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to make a presentation, not to raise the minister's ire. If the minister looks at the blues,
I am sure he will confirm that in his opening defence of the requirements of this bill he did not make any distinction. In fact, he made the statement that every old age pensioner living abroad had to return to Canada within six months. If he will look at the blues he will notice that, but I think other hon. members will verify what he said. Subsequently, the position was clarified with a question, or I should say a dissertation, from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I was sitting in my seat with a dissertation
11248	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment prepared, and the hon. member asked a question which was more like a dissertation, judging from the time it consumed. However, he knows the rules better than I, and as this is a matter of keen interest I do not blame him for stretching them.
I think this whole thing is iniquitous. I am just amazed at the concern of the government for a few pensioners. Only a few pensioners are able to qualify under the 25 to 40 year provision.
I rather liked the statement made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam yesterday. He asked who would want to transgress the law for 12 bucks? I suggest there are not too many old age pensioners really in need of this supplement who would transgress the law in this respect. I understand that all the minister is going to do in order to police these provisions is to make spot checks. I think he assured the house that there would be no big group of private-eyes poking their noses into people's homes, but that there would be a sampling made. I suggest that the old age pensioner who makes a simple request for the supplement because he needs it would not be outside the scope of such a sampling. By showing a little humanity and ignoring the heavy hand of the Minister of Finance, the minister could get the co-operation of these people.
I like to think that I had something to do with the action taken by the former minister which made it possible for the 25 year group to live abroad without returning to Canada to collect their pension. I think my suggestion gave rise to the minister's investigation and, I think he will agree, brought about the measure which accomplished this.
I cannot sit here and accept a derogation of this principle, the minister casually ignoring the representations that I have made to him. I recall that during the election campaign in 1962 the present Prime Minister made a great speech about the responsibility of the government in this matter. He said that a Liberal government would not spend one penny or ask for additional income through higher taxation unless it brought about greater productivity, which in turn would mean additional revenue. But what is taking place today? We have this big complex in Ottawa, the cost of which has risen from $9 million to $40 million, and the government has not batted an eye. They will have to produce this extra revenue from somewhere, and we see it being taken out of the hides of our old pioneers, the people who should be the concern of the government. This is something I cannot accept.

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
If the government is concerned about the excessive expenditure of money, let them take another look at some of the huge expenditures being made for the glory of our country and in tribute to our pioneers. I do not think any of us in this generation or in the younger generation either, wants the government of Canada to take it out of the hides of these pioneers. I urge the minister to forget about the policing, which he says he cannot undertake, and to place some confidence in the people who have sweated and toiled to build this country of which we are now the trustees.
I ask him to accept this very reasonable amendment, which will improve this iniquitous bill. For that is what it is; it is a cover for the lack of government action to meet the real needs of our senior citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say and I hope it will not take me as long as my question did a moment ago. The minister keeps trying to say that all the government is doing is treating pensioners who are outside Canada in the same way as those inside Canada. Then he starts to talk only about those who qualify for the pension on the basis of 10 year's residence in Canada. The fact of the matter is that people in Canada today who have 25 years' residence as the basis of their qualification can go abroad and continue to draw their $75 pension for the rest of their lives, as opposed to the 10 years' residence people who cannot.
All that we on this side are saying is that those people already given the entitlement to go abroad and draw their $75 for life should be treated in the same way as if they had stayed in Canada-in other words, as if they had the right to draw the supplement. It is as simple as that, and I think the government and the minister ought to agree to do this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just want to say a few
words, Mr. Chairman. The minister of health and welfare is disclosing his true character in the course of this debate. He is not the farsighted minister that we thought we had in this department. He is not the generous type of minister we thought we had.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: You are disillusioned, Gordon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, completely disillusioned, along with all the other members of the house. The minister is now restricting. He is now the minister of restrictions. What has happened to all those brave words of his of a few days ago about this new concept that was
December 16, 1966

being introduced into our social security legislation? As reported at page 10882 of Hansard he said:
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
-the bill before the house represents an important development in the structure of social security in Canada. It is a measure that will take its place beside the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, and within the old age security program to give this country one of the most advanced and most complete systems of income maintenance for its retired citizens.
Those are the great words of December 8. Now, on December 16 the minister is withdrawing and restricting. What has happened to that great propaganda expression "guaranteed annual income"? That is the way he introduced this measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is only for certain persons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Having told us he would make a great advance in social security by providing for our older people a guaranteed annual income, minister says that those going abroad for more than six months are not to have that income. Surely, this is Scrooge at his best. We have the name for the minister now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would the hon. gentleman explain the difference between Scrooge at his best and Scrooge at his worst?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a first class question. There is no difference at all between the Minister of Transport at his best or worst. It is just a worse situation every day.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is attempting to destroy the value of his introductory remarks to this bill. The guaranteed annual income obviously is restricted to certain people. I am sure all hon. members feel that if a person has put in all the residence requirements which have been talked about, the 25 year period and so on, he should then be able to go abroad without worrying about losing the guaranteed annual income.
\Wiy should those people not apply for the additional $30? They will get the $75, and for many pensioners the amount will go up to $105. If pensioners receiving the greater amount see fit to stay outside the country and not return, their pension goes down to $75 and the guaranteed annual income is meaningless.
Old Age Security Act Amendment more pension than they would be entitled to had they stayed at home. You must consider the large group with which you are dealing. Let us consider that these people will be honest, because statistics show that most people are honest. They are not trying to gouge the public or do something contrary to the laws of the land and deprive the government of taxes. Most people are honest. Why should we assume that the old age pensioner who goes abroad is not as honest as the old age pensioner who stays at home. The fact it will not be easy to check on additional income the pensioner may get abroad is no reason for us to be suspicious.
I doubt very much if anybody will seek additional income, having gone abroad. The minister could provide for a simple form to be filled out every year. Surely, a simple way of checking on these people could be found.
I support the amendment. I think it fits into the broad program the minister outlined to increase social security benefits for our old age pensioners. Let us not talk of too many restraints. Let us not make it too difficult for our pensioners. Let them have freedom of movement. We realize that the situation has changed within the last 15 years. People are much more mobile than they used to be and if they want to move to a neighbouring country why should they not move? These people have made their contribution to Canada. There is a 25 year limitation, but most of our old age pensioners I am sure have given to Canada 50 years of their lives in one way or another, from age 20 to 70, or from age 18 to 68. Most people have made that contribution to the life of Canada and should be given this return without any uncharitable tag ends being imposed today.
I appeal, as have other members, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to revert to the nature we thought he possessed two or three years ago and to be a little more expansive and not restrictive. Otherwise, he will be made Minister of Finance within'the next ten days and there will be a cabinet shuffle. He may find his proper place. I think he has an opportunity in the Department of National Health and Welfare to make a better name for himself than he is making at the present time.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman-
I suppose this minister or his officials thought anyone going abroad and drawing this supplement would get additional money somehow or other. They would be getting


Some hon. Members:: Now we are for it. Mr. Mackasey: I have a few remarks.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster. Scrooge.
11250	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Now that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been classed as Santa Claus he is more interested in Christmas carols than questions in the house.
I find it strange that our present Minister of National Health and Welfare should be referred to as Scrooge. What other minister of national health and welfare in the past half century has been responsible in one way or another for bringing in, during the short period that this minister has been in office, social welfare programs such as medicare, the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canada Pension Plan and now the amendments to the Old Age Security Act. Why should speaker after speaker tag this minister with an unfair label?
I think this is a remarkable record for a young and dynamic minister of national health and welfare.


An hon. Member:: Forget the record.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The pride that the people in the maritimes have for this representative of theirs in cabinet is seen by the way that hon. members from that part of the country, though they are in another party, stand up and pay tribute to him, asking him questions-


Robert Muir: You speak for yourself. We can speak for the maritimes.


Mitchell William Sharp: Could not a nice word or two be found for the Minister of Finance?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is hardly necessary to say anything for a minister of finance who has acted as responsibly and ably as the present Minister of Finance has. These are qualities that should be synomymous with the Minister of Finance.


George Robson Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could this little love fest continue behind the curtains.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask the hon. member a question? If this bill is so good, why is he delaying its passage?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not accept the hon. member's premise that I am delaying the passage of this bill. Most of the editorial writers whose columns I have read in the morning papers take the position that it is the opposition which is taking part in a filibuster against this legislation. No one can accuse me of holding up the bill. This is the second opportunity

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
I have had of taking part in the discussion. I did speak briefly on second reading. I hesitated to take a greater part in these proceedings because I realize I do not have the experience on the subject which some hon. members possess, particularly the Gold Dust Twins from Winnipeg who have all these things at their fingertips.


An hon. Member:: What about the amendment?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The amendment is as
ridiculous as all the other amendments they have brought forward. I suppose that if I shared the opinion of members of the New Democratic Party that the basic principle behind this legislation was bad, I would bring forward a similar amendment. They think that what is best for this country would be simply to increase the benefit from $75 to $100 a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, to $105.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is $105, now. The hon. member is converted.


Mr. Stewart:: Would my hon. friend like to try to explain to the committee why if, in the opinion of the opposition, this is such a bad piece of legislation, its provisions should be made both perpetual and universal?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will simply say that the amendment is logical if one believes that the principle of this bill is bad and that it would be better to raise the present $75 to $100 or $105, the figure to which the hon. member has now been converted.
I support this bill because I believe that for the first time in the history of Canada a measure has been introduced which will for all time take the question of old age security pensions out of party politics. This is why I support the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There are so many hon. members who agree with me that I cannot absorb the wisdom of all their remarks. Basically, we are taking old age security pensions out of party politics. I do not have copies of newspaper editorials with me at this moment but if hon. members opposite want to read a telling editorial in their official voice in the province of Quebec, I would refer them to the Montreal Gazette.
The Gazette this morning points out that this legislation is a step forward from the
December 16, 1966	COMMONS
days in which, every time the parties wanted to woo the votes of the older citizens of Canada, they attempted to outbid each other and insulted the senior citizens by saying, in effect, that their votes were worth so many dollars to the party. Finally, we have had the courage to get away from that system. I have heard hon. members say in the course of this debate that it is unsound politically to depart from the traditional practice in this field. Perhaps it is. But morally it is the finest thing this parliament will ever do.
Then again, no one has pointed out that many of our old age pensioners who remain in this country might well resent a provision which would enable those who leave Canada, possibly for economic or selfish reasons, to obtain an extra $30 a month automatically regardless of whether they were poor or rich. The minister has drawn attention to the fact that our senior citizens are living, at present, in some 60 different countries; some in eastern Europe, some in Hong Kong, some in western Europe.
It is time hon. members began to discuss this bill in a more objective manner and ceased to label the minister with a tag he does not deserve. If hon. members over there wish to be fair and objective, let them christen him as he is-perhaps the most imaginative and fair Minister of National Health and Welfare this country has ever had.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Winkler:: On a question of privilege, three members on the government side entered the chamber from outside the chamber after the vote was called.


Some hon. Members:: Out.


Eric Alfred Winkler: In all fairness, I was behind the curtain all the time. I ask any hon. member who wishes to do so to get up and attempt to challenge that statement.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. All those in favour of the amendment please rise.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: yeas, 40; nays, 55.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Before the committee proceeds any further, may I cite standing order 12 (2) which reads:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
I ask the co-operation of the committee in this respect.


George Robson Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you repeat that to those gentlemen on your right who were not listening to what you said?


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I must say that during the vote I saw the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, the hon. member for Mercier and the hon. member for Cochrane coming from away outside the chamber and they cast their votes.


Mr. Loiselle:: The hon. member for Hast-ings-Frontenac came into the chamber too.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, I did not vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order please.


Gérard Loiselle: I want to apologize to the hon. member. I was looking at other hon. members back there, the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; the item before the committee is subclause (7).


George Robson Muir: Will the minister give hon. members a copy of the application form that is going to be sent to old age pensioners? The reason I ask for this is that in answer to the hon. member for Marquette yesterday the minister said, with regard to pensioners who would not make out income tax forms, that the advice of a third person would be sought whether their applications would be considered or not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, it is not customary to submit a proposed form to the committee before a bill is passed. It is without precedent in our parliament to do this. I do not mind trying to tell the committee the kind of information that will be sought. I stated yesterday, in respect to any check on the accuracy of the information provided, that we proposed to rely on information provided by the Department of National Revenue.
11252	COMMONS DEBATES	December 16, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask what the minister meant when, as recorded at page 11,200 of yesterday's Hansard, he said:
The other source of Information is what you might call third party information-
What is that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I had in mind was information provided on income tax returns.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let me read the whole sentence:
The other source of information is what you might call third party information which is available even though an individual does not submit it in a tax return.
This is not from an income tax return.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The point is that while the individual himself or herself may not submit an income tax return, information with respect to that person may be available on another income tax return, for example, provided by an employer.


Mr. Rynard:: I am concerned about persons who receive the guaranteed income and for health reasons have to leave Canada. There are many reasons why older people have to leave. I can mention circulatory disturbances, emphysema, and chest conditions in which case people are advised to go to Arizona. Is there no provision whereby such people can go there? What provision is being made for that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The provision that is being made is that the supplement will be payable for the month of departure and for six additional months, so that a person who must leave the country for part of the year for health reasons, would be fully looked after.


Philip Bernard Rynard: But a percentage of these people have to remain in a dryer climate all the time. What does this bill do for people who have to live in a dry climate outside Canada for 12 months of the year? The number, may be small, but I think they are entitled to the guaranteed income.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This whole issue was fully debated on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The situation is as I have described it. Such a person certainly will be eligible to remain outside of Canada for a good part of the year when the climate is unfavourable to him. This is in accord with one provision of the Old Age

Security Act. There really is nothing further I can add to the debate which already has taken place.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether over the week end he will consider the implementation of some provision in respect of these people who are few in number. It seems to me there should be a provision which would cover their position and entitle them to this guaranteed income. It should be as simple as that.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to new subsection 2(a) of proposed section 7. I think possibly the minister should provide a specific answer in this connection. It seems to me that the provision in this paragraph is unduly restrictive. If the minister has some explanation he can give us concerning the reason this paragraph has been included in the bill, of course I should like to hear it.
It is my understanding, however, that the provisions of the Old Age Security Act are such that they would not prevent a potentially eligible recipient obtaining the pension even as late as a year after, and for a year retroactive to, the date of the application. Now, if this provision in this paragraph were to pass as it stands, it would seem to me to preclude certain pensioners who are eligible for the supplementary payment but who, because of some unavoidable reason or some contingent circumstances, were not able to file their return on time. It would seem that they might lose what it is their right to receive. Is it really necessary to have this type of a restriction?


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is well taken. From memory, I believe that in the Canada Pension Plan there is provision for appeal in cases where the application was submitted late. Perhaps the minister could include a provision of this nature so that when these persons, through no fault of their own-many of them are quite elderly-do not submit their applications on time, at least there would be an opportunity for appeal or perhaps discretion with the minister to take care of the situation. I think the point is well taken and I hope the minister will give it his consideration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In general, in reply to the hon. member for Springfield, I should like to say that the supplement is payable to recipients of old age security who already have established their status, so to speak, and therefore have qualified for the old age
December 16, 1966	COMMONS
security pension. We wished to give some degree of retroactivity to the pensioner who may have mislaid the form or who may have forgotten to submit it. Because of the fact that these people are recipients of the old age security and likely will be alert to the possibilities under this program, we thought a period of four months retroactivity would be sufficient. However, I shall be glad to consider the point made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. It may be that the appeal procedure is a way in which the rights of the persons could be secured.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister in respect of new section 7. Before doing so, I might say that I presume the minister will say this matter has been debated during the past few days, as he did in answer to my previous question. Despite the fact that the minister may say the matter we are discussing now was debated fully, may I say that although it may have been debated fully it certainly was not explained fully. In relation to new section 7 the minister has pointed out that the recipient of this supplementary payment may leave Canada for a period of six months or more and receive the payment for six months. Then, he said when that pensioner returned to Canada he again became eligible for the supplementary payment. Can the minister tell us how long that pensioner would have to remain in Canada upon his return in order to become eligible, and then leave the country and receive it for another six months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a good point. I presume, once his eligibility is re-established upon his return to Canada, that he is then put back on the benefit and can leave the country for a further six months. However, I should like to check a little further into this question.


Robert Simpson: Do I understand that there is nothing in the legislation which covers this situation? When the minister is checking into this I wonder whether he would endeavour to assure the house that when this pensioner returns to Canada and makes an official application it will not be necessary that he remain in Canada for a lengthy period until the validity of his application is determined.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We would require that the person tell us about his or her return to Canada. We certainly would try to avoid any undue delay in giving the person the benefit. The situation is as I have described it to my hon. friend.
Old Age Security Act Amendment [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to clause 7, paragraph 2 and ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to state clearly whether all the present pensioners will automatically receive the application form which would enable them to receive the supplement provided in the measure? Would the minister also tell the house what will happen if an applicant dies between January 1 and the four-month period? In other words, if a pensioner files an application for income supplement and passes away two months later-say in February or March-will this increase be payable to his estate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I did not hear the complete question asked by my hon. friend. If he would be good enough to repeat it I will try to answer it.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to ask the minister to explain clearly whether all the present pensioners will receive, without having to send for it, the application form which will entitle them to the supplement provided in the legislation? I would also like to know what will happen if an applicant passes away between January 1 and the date upon which he should receive his supplementary income benefit. If a pensioner should die in February or March, for instance, would his estate be eligible to the retroactive payments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister why the six months period was chosen. In some parts of this country the cold period lasts longer than six months, although it might not be as cold as in the middle of winter.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
There are certain periods during the year when, because of dampness, people with poor health are forced to leave the country. I am wondering whether the minister will reconsider and allow an extension in these cases so that an applicant who receives a pension but lives outside the country will not have to go through the difficulties of again applying to the department each time he returns and leaves the country.
December 16, 1965

Old Age Security Act Amendment


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are aware of this particular problem but there is a provision in the bill for the payment of the pension during six months following the applicant leaving the country. As soon as such an individual returns and is reinstated, he can again leave. This point was made earlier by the hon. member, and I will give it some consideration.


Mr. Scott (Victoria (Oni.)):: I should like to ask the minister whether it is true that approximately 900 additional employees will be required to administer this change?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have answered this question fully. We anticipate we will require an additional 400 permanent employees and an additional number of casual employees during the first four months.


Reid Scott: How many casual employees will be required?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have placed this figure on the record on several occasions. I shall be glad to put it on the record again. The number of casual employees required is 675.


Maurice Rinfret: Does this conclude our consideration of proposed section 7 of clause 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: We will now proceed to a consideration of the new section 8 of clause 3.


Philip Bernard Rynard: This is probably the most clumsily drafted bill ever presented in this house. This is also the opinion of a number of people who are trained to draft bills of this kind. We should return to the principle of drafting bills which communicate their purpose to hon. members of this house.
I intend to move an amendment to assist those people in Canada who are over 65 years of age but who did not go past the third or fourth grade in school. They experienced two world wars and a great depression. They are now faced with increasing automation. This group comprises approximately 150,000 people in Canada. They have little income but are physically and mentally able to work. I refer to these people who do casual work such as gardening, cutting lawns, shovelling snow, babysitting, sewing and perhaps cleaning. These people earn in the neighbourhood of $400 to $800 per year. They do not keep books. They are faced with the necessity of paying their carfare to get to their jobs and buying

tools and extra clothing. These people are happy to perform these small tasks and they are assisting the economy of this country.
As a result of the provisions of this measure we will be forcing these people to stay at home rather than work. They require transportation, extra boots, extra clothing and in some cases, tools. As a result of these necessary expenses they will find that by working they are money out of pocket. These people will find it cheaper to stay at home sitting on the front porch in the summer and watching television in the winter, if they can afford a television set. We are destroying these people mentally and physically. If they stay at home and do nothing they will degenerate to the point where they will have to be taken care of in homes or hospitals. One can find many of these people in our institutions. These people have not had the opportunity of earning very much during their lives and I ask the minister to give them some consideration.
By the provisions of this bill we will be doing a great disservice to those Canadians who for health purposes leave Canada on the advice of their doctors. There is a tremendous increase in the number of elderly Canadians who suffer from respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma. By discriminating against these people we are being penny wise and pound foolish.
In order to provide some opportunity for these people to obtain happiness I move:
That subsection (1) of new section 8 of clause 3 be amended by the addition of the following proviso thereto:
'Provided that no deduction shall be made in the case of a single person having earned less than three hundred and sixty dollars in the preceding year and in the case of a married person, otherwise qualified, having earned less than seven hundred and twenty dollars in the preceding year.'
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps for the information of the committee I may read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East:
That subsection (1) of new section 8 of clause 3 be amended by the addition of the following proviso thereto:
"Provided that no deduction shall be made in the case of a single person having earned less than three hundred and sixty dollars in the preceding year and in the case of a married person, otherwise qualified, having earned less than seven hundred and twenty dollars in the preceding year."


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I merely address myself to the propriety of the amendment, if that is satisfactory. I submit that this
December 16, 1966

amendment is in the same category as the two amendments submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in that the royal resolution refers only to "provide for the determination of ... income". There is no definition whatsoever or restriction in the resolution as to the word "income". The proposed amendment does not interfere with the 40 per cent; it defines merely the income that is referred to in the royal resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Go back.


Mr. Ricard:: The question has not yet been put; what are you Liberals talking about?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The question has not yet been put by the Chair; therefore hon. members are entitled to enter the chamber. I am now about to put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Amendment (Mr. Rynard) negatived: Yeas, 42; nays, 60.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I, too, indicated yesterday that I had an amendment that I wished to propose to the new Section 8, subsection (1), being enacted by clause 3 of Bill No. C-251. It is not necessary for me to restate at any length our basic position with regard to this legislation, but it does seem to me that the validity of our position has been strengthened as this debate has continued. Our position is that we welcome wholeheartedly the proposal to raise the amount available as an old age security pension in this country to $105 a month, but at the same time we fee] that amount should be paid across the board. We are therefore opposed to any test of income, by whatever name it might be called, that denies to some of our senior citizens the full amount of that pension.
As the debate has continued, it has brought out the fact that the complications in connection with this program are going to be numerous. It has brought out the fact that the differences that will be established among people will be most unfair. I think that by now the Minister of National Health and Welfare
Old Age Security Act Amendment should be persuaded that it would have been far better in the first place to have brought in a straight, across the board increase to $105 a month. I, therefore, rise now to give him the opportunity to consider this proposition again. It is not too late to make the kind of Christmas present to our senior citizens that would really be appreciated; and I do not have in mind the kind of celebration for Christmas that the Minister of Finance suggested out on the west coast the other night.
The new section 8 provides for a supplement to be paid on top of the $75, which for the year 1967 would be $30 and for any year after that would be 40 per cent of the amount of the old age security pension. That reference to 40 per cent in the case of years after 1967 of course takes into account the fact that the basic $75 may be increased by a maximum of $1.50 a year if the cost of living index rises by 2 per cent in each year. But the provision of this total package of $105 a month to pensioners is qualified by a test which is to be found in the first three lines on page 3 of the bill.
I think that test should be removed. Perhaps I may for a moment refer to the arguments the minister advanced when he did not like the fact we were asking that this legislation be extended and made permanent. I am sure he knew then that it was our view that not only should the legislation be made permanent but that it should be without a means test. As far as we are concerned, these two propositions go together.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in order to give the minister an opportunity once again to consider removing the test and making this $30 increase an across the board improvement in the pension, I move:
That clause 3 of Bill C-251 be amended by deleting from sub-section (1) of the new section 8 being enacted thereby, the words "minus one dollar for each two full dollars of his monthly base income, being one-twelfth of his income for the preceding year", as found in lines 1, 2, and 3 on page 3 of the bill.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
So as to be clear, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is accepted it would remove the test and make the $30 increase in 1967, and the 40 per cent of whatever the basic pension is after that, across the board without the kind of means or income test that is presently in the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I want to argue this point of order-
11256	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Herman Maxwell Batten: I hear the committee ask for the question. Perhaps I should first ask for comments about whether or not this amendment is in order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite different from any amendment proposed to the Chair thus far. The deletion of the words "minus one dollar for each two full dollars of his monthly base income being one twelfth of his income for the preceding year" would basically change the scheme contained in the resolution. The resolution provides for partial supplements ranging from $20 to $360 a year, or ranging up to $30 per month.
The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment . . . under that act of a monthly amount to be known as the guaranteed income supplement, to certain pensioners thereunder up to a maximum of 40 per cent-
I suggest that if this amendment were ruled in order it would have the effect of making $30 a month the only amount payable, and it would be payable to every pensioner in Canada.
Aside from whatever argument may be made as to the unsoundness of the hon. member's basic proposal, the resolution which carries the royal recommendation proposes a scheme which is explicitly declared in the resolution as making partial payments up to 40 per cent of the pension payable to certain pensioners. It seems to me that an amendment which makes the supplement payable to all pensioners and which removes entirely the possibility of a partial payment is certainly going beyond the scope of the resolution. It differs basically from any of the amendments proposed up to now in the committee, and I suggest it is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When I prepared the three amendments that I have now presented to the committee I dared to hope that all three of them might be found to be in order so that as a result of our proposals we could make this the kind of plan it ought to be. As one who appreciates the rulings the Chair has given on my other two amendments I am going to have to say that, whatever you rule on this occasion, I shall be prepared to accept. I recognize the difference between this amendment and the other two. The other two related to subjects which were not mentioned in the resolution preceding the bill. In this case, what I am talking about in the amendment is referred to

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
in the resolution. But it will be up to Your Honour to decide whether the form in which it was mentioned, namely, to provide for the determination of the income of a pensioner, is precise enough to prevent the committee from looking at this kind of provision when it is inserted in the bill.
I wish to argue that it is in order but at the same time I do not want to detract from the point that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made, namely that the purpose of this amendment is to remove the test and make the pension automatic across the board.
I hope that Your Honour finds it in order; but if you do not we will find another opportunity to deal with the matter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for a ruling now.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reads as follows:
That clause 3 of Bill C-251 be amended by deleting from subsection (1) of the new section 8 being enacted thereby, the words "minus one dollar for each two full dollars of his monthly base income, being one twelfth of his income for the preceding year", as found in lines 1, 2 and 3 on page 3 of the bill.
This amendment too has received the careful attention of the Chair, and it is the opinion of the Chair that if the amendment were adopted it would have some very far reaching effects. Indeed, one of the effects of this amendment would be to repeal the latter part of the resolution adopted by the house on December 5. It would eliminate the supplementary nature of the payments envisaged by the bill, and would substitute therefor a fixed and certain payment of 40 per cent of this pension payable to recipients under the Old Age Security Act.
The latter part of the resolution reads as follows:
-to provide for the determination of the income of a pensioner for the purposes of such supplement and for appeals by pensioners against decisions or determinations made under that act; and to provide for other related and consequential matters.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would delete from the bill the method or formula by which the income of a pensioner is determined for the purposes of such supplementary payments. If
December 16, 1966

the amendment were to carry, payments under this bill would be fixed rather than supplementary payments. As stated at page 551 of May's seventeenth edition, paragraph (13):
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution.
I recognize that this is the third amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I regret that on this particular occasion I will have to spoil his batting average by declaring the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I regret it too but I accept your decision, naturally. However, I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare would not be willing in this case to do what he did in respect of the medicare debate. When reasonable amendments were proposed from this side of the house-one in particular which he said was out of order without a royal recommendation-he got this royal recommendation and brought the amendment in himself.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I wonder, in view of the argument that has taken place, whether the minister would not now reconsider his position on this matter and bring in his own amendment to provide for the $30 increase to be without a test of any kind.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a suggestion for the minister that I sincerely want to make. I will not move an amendment. I refer to the new Section 8, with regard to amount.
The minister has said that this is a new procedure. It is a new principle almost, being accepted for the first time by way of legislation. I ask the minister to consider this.
It is well established that the older a person gets the greater his requirements become. Evidence given before the Canada Pension Plan committee showed that a person needs $3 per month extra for every year by which he exceeded the age of 70. Ample evidence was presented to the Senate committee on aging to the same effect. I suggest to the minister-he may have to bring in a new resolution-that he consider the provision of an additional sum, another $10 or 33J per cent, to old age recipients arriving at the age of 70. I hope the minister will consider this.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
I am sure my proposal will be accepted by all hon. members. It does not disturb the principle of this measure but adds a new principle in a manner of speaking. The existing Old Age Security Act recognizes that at a certain age a person has certain requirements. My proposal goes one step farther, recognizing that a person reaching 70 needs more than a younger recipient. I urge the minister to bring in a resolution embodying my suggestion, because I am sure it would gain support from all sides of the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill having to do with the livelihood of our senior citizens. From the very outset of the introduction of the resolution we in this party endeavoured to put forward to the government what we considered the proper treatment of our senior citizens. At the resolution stage we moved an amendment which was defeated.
Since entering the committee stage, under the able leadership of the hon. member for Simcoe East who, with others, has done a tremendous job on this bill and who has led our party in the putting forward of amendments to the bill, we have tried to move humanitarian amendments on behalf of our senior citizens. Those amendments were voted down by government members with heartless determination.
We have exhausted all arguments to try to convince the government that it should not treat our senior citizens in the callous way it is now treating them but with human feelings. Our senior citizens have built this country, contributing to it through their taxes and work. It seems that the government is adamant in its position that the bill cannot be amended. The bill has to go through as it is before parliament. In view of this, I feel there is nothing further to be done by our party and we are prepared to pass the committee stage of this bill within the next half hour.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the Committee ready to deal with new section 9?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: 
currently getting it as the result of the passage of this legislation. That being so, it seems to me we must address ourselves to the fact that some people will be getting payments similar to those provided under provincial law.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As I read the section, these people will not be able to deduct, when computing their incomes, payments similar to those being received by citizens in various parts of Canada as a result of actions by provincial legislatures.
I have particularly in mind the situation of Indians and Eskimos for whom the parliament of Canada has a direct and peculiar responsibility. There was some discussion about the needs of these people earlier, and if I understood the minister correctly he indicated to the committee that some arrangement could probably be worked out whereby payments to the Indian people could be continued. However, as the matter stands, I do not see any ground on which the minister could make such a statement. The wording of this section is specific. Supplementary payments can only be exempted from income when those payments are made as a result of action by provincial legislatures. It would seem to me that the payments which have been made through the Indian affairs branch would not be exempt. This is an important consideration; in my opinion it is one which should be discussed further before the clause is carried.
As a result of discussions we have had on Indian affairs during consideration of estimates and on other occasions, I believe we are making some progress in assuring that the Indian population receives the same level of benefits, the same general services in such fields as education, health and welfare, as do other residents of the provinces in which they live. We know that arrangements are being worked out with the provinces in this respect. It would therefore be most regrettable if by this legislation we were to place these people in a category different from that in which other citizens of this country find themselves.
I find the drafting of this section complicated, as I have mentioned, but I have attempted to close what appears to be a gap in the provisions of the new section. I should like to put forward this proposal in the form of an amendment, so that we may at least consider the pros and cons. I should like to move:
That clause 3 of Bill No. C-251 be amended by adding thereto following the words "provincial
December 16, 1966	COMMONS
legislature" in the new section 9, where they appear in line 17 thereof, the words "or of the parliament of Canada".


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I
should like to press the minister more closely on a matter I raised a few days ago, that is, the arrangements which have been made with the provinces. I have not been here during the entire debate; I have been attending other committee meetings, and so on. But as far as I know the minister has made no statement on the subject of definite arrangements with the provinces apart from the first statement he made.
I have here a newspaper report from the Victoria Colonist of December 13 in which the premier of British Columbia is reported to have said that while he had been officially notified about the proposed payments increases, the situation was "still not too clear so far as Ottawa is concerned". The report added that Premier Bennett had no comment to make on the matter yet. The premier of British Columbia has thus taken the position that the information the minister has given him with regard to the arrangements for these supplementary payments is not clear, and he is not yet in a position to comment on it. For this reason, I believe the minister owes it to the committee to tell us now what arrangements have been made with the provinces with regard to the payment of this supplement?
All over this country elderly people are very worried about what will happen to the provincial supplements they are now getting, when this legislation comes into effect. People are anxiously asking us to find out just what will happen to the provincial payments; they are very worried lest these payments be discontinued. Can the minister tell us what further communications he has had with the provincial premiers, specifically with Premier Bennett? The premier is on record as having said the matter is not clear to him. Would the minister clarify the situation as far as the provincial supplement is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be happy to oblige the hon. lady and try to clarify the situation. There are two aspects of this problem. The first is: how do we treat supplementary assistance payments made by the province of British Columbia? Well, those are not reported as income for our purposes. They are excluded because they are not included in the definition of income under the Income Tax Act. So, an applicant from British Columbia
Old Age Security Act Amendment receiving assistance in 1966 and applying to us would not be obliged to include that amount as income.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Therefore, the benefit being received from the province of British Columbia would not disqualify the person, or reduce in any way the benefit available from this program. Our definition of income is such that a person in receipt of that assistance supplement in British Columbia, is not disqualified.
The second point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has to do with the amount of any pension or supplement, and the amount of any similar payment under the law of a provincial legislature or of the parliament of Canada. The effect of that amendment would be to do something which is already done under the law because we could not include the Old Age Security pension, and the supplement, as part of income. Therefore, his amendment is totally redundant in that sense.
What we are asking here, which is something different to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, is that if a province pays a pension like the $75 pension, how would we treat it under this program? We provide that it, or any supplement similar to our supplement, would not be treated as income for our purposes. The effect of that is to make it possible for a provincial resident to receive a benefit from a provincial government without losing any benefit under this bill.
There are two different aspects here. There is the aspect with respect to an assistance payment, which is excluded from the definition of income, and there is this direct provision which does not include as income the amount of any pension or supplement, and the amount of any similar payment under the law of a provincial legislature.
The only case in existence in Canada is the $25 payable by the government of Prince Edward Island. It is an across the board $25, above the $75, to every pensioner in Prince Edward Island. Under this provision the recipient of that pension from Prince Edward Island is not disqualified in any sense, so far as we are concerned, from receiving our supplement.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Is
there anything in this legislation which will protect the income of the old age pension recipient in the provinces? Is there any bargain with the provinces whereby they will not
December 16, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment reduce their payments by the amount provided in this supplement from the federal government?


David Orlikow: I had the experience of listening to precisely the same argument while I was a member of the Manitoba legislature. The Conservative government of Manitoba in 1959 passed a social allowance act under which people in the province, whose income was less than an amount calculated by the province as needed to give a decent standard of living, were entitled to supplementary assistance from the province. This included people who got old age pensions from the federal government.
When I was a member of the legislature the federal government increased the old age pension from $55 a month to $65 a month, and every single person in the province of Manitoba who was a recipient under its social allowance act had the amount which they received from the province reduced by $10. This is precisely the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
There is the possibility that Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario, three provinces which I know have such plans, will take steps once the federal government pays this extra $30, or any part of it, to reduce the amount provided by the provincial plans by the $30, or whatever part of it is given to a pensioner by the federal government. I would like to know if the minister has consulted with the provinces about this point.


Mr. Pugh:: Several days ago I asked precisely the same question of the minister as to whether any reduction would be made in the benefits paid by the provinces. I suggested that the minister had a duty to get in touch with the provinces to try and find out their intentions, and inform this committee of the results of his conversations. I do not know whether he did or not but I wish to ask him now, has he had any communication whatsoever with his opposite numbers in the provinces during the last two or three days? Has he asked them directly to give an assurance that there will be no reduction in provincial benefits and, if so, what reply did he receive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have not been in touch with the provincial ministers of welfare to seek assurances that any benefits payable in the provinces would be reduced because of this program. But that is not because of any lack of interest. It is because this
[Mrs. Maclnnls (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
is a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces and they could properly take some offence if I said to them, "We are doing this; please tell me your program is not going to be affected."
The maximum supplement provided by the province from which my hon. friend comes is $30 a month. This benefit which we are providing will not be affected in any way by that benefit payable by the province of British Columbia. But the question arises, what will the province of British Columbia do with respect to its additional $30? Will it make the total pension $135? Will it strike a figure somewhere between that and $105? This is a matter for the province to decide. All I can say is that if any province, including British Columbia, decides that additional supplementation is required above the $105, we certainly would be very glad to co-operate under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan and share the cost of the additional supplementation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think this will be a natural development in high cost areas of Canada. I believe that where pensioners need more than the guaranteed income of $105 a month under the Canada Assistance Plan, it will be provided and we will co-operate and share with the provinces in that. I hope my hon. friend will understand that the reason I have not sought the assurance is that I thought it was a matter for the province and I would have no real business to interfere.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, may I continue on this other point? I do not wish the minister to think for five seconds that I was suggesting he might lack interest, because I know full well that this is his bill; it is his baby. I am sure that he wishes to give it a good launching. I think there has been a lack of communication. Two provinces have been mentioned. I do not believe that British Columbia will cut the supplement in any shape or form, but the province of Manitoba has been mentioned. When an old age pension increase was made, there was a corresponding decrease in the supplement paid by that province.
Any legislation passed by the federal government should apply equally to each and every person under similar circumstances throughout Canada. Does the minister have any information to the effect that one province might treat its elderly and needy citizens in a different fashion? Since this is federal legislation, I believe it is most important that
December 16, 1966

there be quality. I do not wish to reiterate the suggestion I made, but it seems to be a most important one; that is, that there should be equal treatment in respect of all citizens across Canada who need the benefit of the federal supplement. I do not have anything against this federal supplement. I think it is a good thing. But if in the giving of this we produce inequality in the different provinces throughout Canada, then to my mind that is wrong. This is a situation which could be prevented or cured through previous consultation with the provinces.
On many occasions, in respect of much of our legislation on various subjects, we have heard a great deal about the lack of communication with the provinces. In fact, the government has been castigated fairly severely from time to time because there had not been this prior consultation. The former Minister of National Health and Welfare started off on another plan. It had to be scrapped because immediately the premiers of the provinces said that they did not want that plan. The minister has stated that under this legislation we are not going to treat the provincial pensions as income; that is, if the people are receiving any side benefit in any province that benefit will not be treated as income under the Income Tax Act and therefore will not upset the payment of the maximum amount of $30 to each and every citizen who is entitled to it. We know that. That is all right. But, we do not know how the provinces will treat this supplement.
We do not know whether the provinces will maintain their present supplements in the form in which they are and have what you might call a reciprocal arrangement with the federal government. The provinces could say to their people that anything they receive from the federal government will not be regarded as something which would upset what they are receiving in the way of a supplement from their province. I think it is important that we know that. The situation in respect of Manitoba has been pointed out. There is a strong possibility that the supplementary old age assistance which will be paid by the federal government will have a lesser effect in respect of the citizens of Manitoba.
I feel quite confident that in the province of British Columbia there will be no diminution of the amount paid. That province is, if not ahead of every other province, certainly second to none with regard to payments. Why should the citizens of the province of British
Old Age Security Act Amendment Columbia be treated in the end result any differently than the citizens of the province of Manitoba?
As I have said, the minister was delinquent in his duties. I might put it the other way around. I wish the minister would take the trouble to co-operate in this regard with the provinces. Having said that, I should like to ask the minister to reply. I think that sums up my remarks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I assure my hon. friend that we will consult with the provinces in every way in respect of their programs. There is, in fact, an inequality which exists at the present time among the aged people of Canada, because some provinces make supplements available and other provinces make little if any available. The federal system is such that all will be treated exactly the same. This is the reason the bill has been written in this manner. The pensioners in every part of Canada will be in precisely the same position with relation to this legislation.


Mr. Mather:: I have been listening to the minister, but I would like to be quite clear on one point. Am I right in thinking that there is nothing in the proposed legislation which in any way would prevent a province continuing its present $30 supplement to the older people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


Barry Mather: Thank you.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question and I hope he will not consider it to be a request for a legal opinion. Earlier he mentioned the word "pension" in referring to this section and suggested there is only one province in Canada, namely, the province of Prince Edward Island, which had enacted a pension. I can understand the intent to cover the situation in the province of Prince Edward Island, but I find the wording here a little puzzling in respect of how it would relate, for instance, to pensions enacted under the Municipal Superannuation Act which we have in the province of British Columbia or the British Columbia teachers pension which is set up under the law of the province of British Columbia. As this is worded, is it the intent that pensions of this type which are provided under provincial laws are not to be regarded as income?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the expression "pension" used in this respect is a payment similar to payments under the Old Age
December 16, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment Security Act. In other words, a pension under the Old Age Security Act is the monthly payment authorized to be paid under this act. It is different from a pension paid, for example, to a superannuated teacher.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am willing to accept the minister's point in that regard although I find it a bit puzzling. We now come to the phrase "any similar payment under a law of a provincial legislature". I raise this question because I have not heard the minister during the discussion this afternoon state whether he has any objection to the subject of my amendment. If the minister is prepared to support it I should be glad to hear him say so, because it might be of some guidance to other members of the house.
The minister has said nothing to clarify the position of the Indian people of Canada. As I said, these people are my main concern so far as my amendment goes. What is the position of Indian people on reserves who do not receive similar supplementary payments from the provinces? The minister gave us a long answer about the benefits people get from the provinces but what happens in respect of those people getting similar payments as a result of the actions of this parliament? As I read this part these people will be disqualified and discriminated against. The minister has not dealt with that question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have dealt with it. My hon. friend is talking about assistance payments which are not counted as income for the purpose of this program. Any assistance payment received by any person, including Indians, will not disqualify him for payments under this bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the minister point out where this bill states that assistance payments are not regarded as income? This bill has its complexities so far as drafting is concerned, but I have not been able to discover that reference.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The bill refers to income for a year computed in accordance with the Income Tax Act, and that act excludes assistance payments as income.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Can the minister tell us where the Income Tax Act states that assistance payments are excluded as income? I looked at section 10 of the Income Tax Act before drafting this amendment. I may have missed the reference. It does spell out as exclusions

workmen's compensation payments, unemployment insurance benefits, certain payments under war veterans' pensions and compensation received under the regulations of section 5 of the Aeronautics Act. It also refers to the Halifax explosion and payments made by the Federal Republic of Germany.
I am not anxious to press my amendment just for the sake of pressing it but I am anxious to make sure that the superintendents of Indian Agencies across this country are not going to be put in the position of having to cut down on payments to Indian people. I want to make sure that the Indian people are to be eligible for benefits under this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that certain hon. members on the other side contain themselves while the minister peruses the act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not wish to detain the committee, but I cannot find in my papers the exact provision which excludes assistance payments. These payments have been excluded for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. If there is any doubt whatsoever in this regard this will be spelled out in revisions to the Income Tax Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Minister of Finance not help you?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He just has, very obligingly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not wish to delay the committee. I have the 19G5 consolidation of the Income Tax Act in my hand, and if it will be of any assistance to the minister I will send it across to him. It just is not good enough for the minister to say that under some vague undefined provision of the Income Tax Act this situation will be looked after. That is not the kind of answer we expect when we are being asked to deal with legislative proposals in this house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would listen for one moment and be reassured that, by practice under the Income Tax Act, in respect of the Indian population, with whom he is so greatly concerned, assistance payments have never been included as income for the purposes of that act. If my hon. friend regards that practice as being inadequate for his purposes let me give him my assurance that this exclusion will be spelled out in the Income Tax Act.
December 16, 1966	COMMONS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, so that we have this clear let me say that I know income of Indian people derived from their reserves is not regarded as income under the Income Tax Act. What I am talking about are supplementary payments which are equivalent to payments made under provincial laws. Are those people who are receiving the old age security pension under the existing act eligible for the benefits of this provision provided they meet the other qualifications? I am not talking now about someone who may have outside income. Are these people going to get the $30 per month in addition to what they now receive in the way of assistance payments from the Indian affairs branch? The minister has not dealt with that question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is the third occasion this question has been raised. I dealt with it on each occasion, but I will be glad to do so again. The fact of the matter is that the number of payments or supplementations paid to Indian pensioners is very small. The great majority of Indian pensioners will be much better off because of this provision in this bill. We believe that in most cases Indian pensioners will be better off because of this supplement which will bring their incomes up to $105 per month. If their requirements are in excess of this supplementary payment, further assistance will be made available in accordance with the practice in the provinces.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the minister say exactly the same thing the other day. As far as I am concerned, he is saying that in no case is an Indian living on a reserve in the province of British Columbia going to receive more than $105 a month, whereas other citizens in the province of British Columbia, if the provincial government decides to take action, will receive up to a maximum of $135 a month. I may be wrong about this and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is in the chamber and can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that there is already in effect or in process of negotiation an arrangement whereby the Indian people in British Columbia living on reserves will receive the same amount as other citizens of the province or as Indians who live off the reserves in respect of what are described here as similar payments, in other words, the supplement, welfare payments and the like.
The minister has just finished saying that Indians across Canada who are receiving old age security are now getting very little, if
Old Age Security Act Amendment anything, more than the basic old age security. This is something some of us have realized for a long time, and we have not been very happy about the situation. The minister has said in effect that when this bill comes into effect these little bits of payments they are now getting, which do not amount to much, will be withdrawn because they will be receiving the $30. The minister still has not shown us that there is any provision in the law to take care of this situation, as is done by the amendment I have proposed which would put people receiving those kinds of payment under legislation of the federal parliament in exactly the same position as people receiving them under provincial law.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The payments which Indians may be receiving from the department cannot be considered as a pension or a supplement under the terms of this particular clause. This is the point I am making. They are not a pension or a supplement. I have said that the provision of this supplement will improve the income situation of the great majority of Indian pensioners. There is no doubt about that. They will be better off. If in any province additional support is required, it will be made available in accordance with the practice that is followed by the department. This is really the point.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The practices followed by the department in the administration of Indian Affairs are fairly hard to define. I might point out to the minister that I could make an argument that his department is illegally administering a program of health services for the Indian people, that there are no rules or regulations governing this sort of thing, that as far as I have been able to find out there has never been any transfer of duties under the Transfer Of Duties Act to give the minister that authority. But I am not suggesting he stop making these payments.
What is the meaning of the phrase "of any similar payment"? I took it to mean that, whether it was called a provincial bonus, mother's allowance or social welfare under provincial law, these amounts would not be regarded as income for the purpose of computing eligibility under this act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: "Pension" is defined in the Old Age Security Act and the expression "supplement" is defined in this particular bill. The words in the clause are:
(1) the amount of any pension or supplement and the amount of any similar payment under a law of a provincial legislature,-
11264	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
This has to do with a pension or supplement, not welfare payments. The hon. gentleman is talking about Indians receiving welfare payments. This is not a welfare payment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We could debate that point, Mr. Chairman, and also whether what some people in British Columbia call "Bennett's bonus" is a welfare payment. I have never been able to see any distinction between the two. I am not trying to be obstinate. Does the minister see any harm in agreeing to this amendment, in case some of these vague sections in the Income Tax Act which he has not been able to find do not apply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are talking about a pension or a supplement, which are defined in the Old Age Security Act and the amending act. The amount of any pension or supplement and the amount of any similar payment under a law of a provincial legislature and the parliament of Canada, which refers to the pension or supplement, is by virtue of new section 9 (a) (i) exempted from income. In other words, it really repeats what is already done in the section. This is the only point I have to make. What the hon. gentleman is seeking is already accomplished. This is the only reason I do not accept his amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister keeps giving us his assurances that things are going to be all right. He has given us the assurance that it will be a very simple matter to apply for this supplement. I was reminded of this a moment ago when he read about eight or ten words from the new section 9 which we are now discussing. The minister read the words, "is his income for that year computed in accordance with the Income Tax Act". I draw his attention to the fact that those few words are taken out of a section which is 27 lines long, has in it 181 words and comprises one sentence. I suggest that probably a good many members of the house have not yet read the whole sentence.
Despite the minister's assurances, I am afraid that when supplement applicants are presented with an application form based on this definition of "income" they will have to go to a lawyer, their member of parliament, or what have you. The minister shakes his head. Let us have that on the record. He says it will be a simple form. I cannot see how a form that carries out the lengthy definition of "income" in the new section 9, or the estimate of "income" in the new section 10, plus the special provisions for married applicants in the new section 11, can be anything but a very

DEBATES	December 16. 196S
complicated document that will confound applicants. I regret very much that the minister has not seen fit to let us have a copy of the form that people will have to use for this purpose.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would help us by telling us how a pensioner is going to fill in this simple form. If the pensioner rents a room or two, will he be able to deduct from the income derived therefrom a percentage for depreciation, a percentage for heat, light and insurance? Are these things going to be set out in the simple form that the minister hopes to present to the pensioners? Second, if a person derives income from a mortgage under which payments are made in respect of principal and interest, will the government help the old age pensioner determine what is principal and what is interest? Third, if the old age pensioner has a boarder who pays his room and board, what allowance is made for the cost of the food and all the other aspects of depreciation of effects? Would the minister assist me on this?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, there is an effort to complicate this procedure beyond all reason. The hon. member knows that most citizens in Canada, including old age pensioners, fill out income tax forms. There has never been any indication that filling out an income tax form was beyond the intelligence of most Canadians. If people do run into difficulties they can get help from friends, neighbours, relatives, sons and daughters.
The income tax form itself is a familiar document and is filled out by the majority of the population in Canada. The form that we are proposing is simpler in nature than any income tax form-in my view much simpler. The hon. member has raised very technical questions, but the pensioners is in no different category from anybody else who fills out income tax forms. If they do need assistance it is available either from the income tax department or from district pensions offices. So let us take the view that for the great bulk of the old age pensioners it will be a relatively simple operation.
Even though the pensioners in my riding are not part of any urban group I know they can take steps to obtain help if needed in filling out these forms. But if the old age pensioners do encounter technical questions of the nature raised by the hon. gentleman, they would undoubtedly seek assistance.
December 16, 1966


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege. I think it is opportune to do so now because it is the first opportunity I have had. I have learned something within the last few minutes which I feel compelled to raise at this time.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport resorted to shabby trickery when he put forward a motion at a time when it was understood among the house leaders that this would not be done. As a result we wasted more than three hours, which could have been fruitful hours spent considering this bill.
Last night we passed clauses 1 and 2 and today we have been putting forward some amendments, without success. Approximately an hour ago I rose from my seat and stated in effect that, having exhausted our efforts to convince the government it should take a more humanitarian view toward our elderly citizens, and it being evident that the government was adamant in its position, we were prepared to pass the balance of the clauses in this bill within the next half hour. Of course, the N.D.P. members have had points to make, for which I do not blame them.
It has been brought to my attention, Mr. Chairman-and this grieves me more than anything else-that the government house leader has made a statement over the radio and in the press to the effect that the opposition is indulging in a filibuster and making threats with regard to the Christmas recess if certain things were not done. I have always trusted people with whom I have dealt and I like them to be frank. If they have anything to say to me they should say it to my face instead of using the press as a battering ram, a means of communication for putting forward statements that are not entirely true. That is my question of privilege.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have neither heard the statement nor read it, but I should advise the house that this morning when I came to the house I went to the hon. member's office and was unable to find him there. I telephoned him at his hotel and asked him to come up to the house because I wanted to discuss the rule change proposals I had. I spent a considerable time, about an hour or so, before eleven o'clock talking to him.
I came directly to the House of Commons and the hon. member saw me here. I left the house for a very brief time over the noon hour, had my lunch privately in my room with a man who, I can assure hon. members, was in no way associated with the press. At
Old Age Security Act Amendment the conclusion of that I returned to the house and then, left for a very brief interview with the mayor of one of the local municipalities, whom I was very glad to meet. Having talked with him I came back into the House of Commons. I have not seen any newspapermen today nor talked on the telephone with any newspapermen or communications men. I have had no contact with anybody in the television, radio or newspaper world today.
I simply do not know what the hon. member is talking about. I do not wish to discuss what I think about the conduct of the hon. member's party at times, but I certainly have had no occasion to say what I think about its conduct within the recent past and I do not think it would be germane to do so at the moment. I am a little surprised at some of the things said in the house earlier today by their leader, but they may have been due to lack of communication. But in any event I have done or said nothing to warrant any requirement to apologize or anything else.


Michael Starr: Then, Mr. Chairman, on my question of privilege-


Mr. Choquette:: I rise on a point of order.


Michael Starr: I am speaking to a question of privilege.
Mr. Chairman, I have just heard the house leader tell the committee what he has done today, but in order to put the record straight I point out that the story in today's Ottawa Journal by the Canadian Press is as follows:
M.P.'s may have talked themselves out of a big chunk of their Christmas vacation.
Government house leader George Mcllraith said in an interview Thursday night there's been so much debate on the government's guaranteed income measure that the Commons may have to delay the start of its proposed 11-day vacation by one day.
It also might have to come back a few days earlier, he said.
Mr. Mcllraith accused the opposition parties of conducting a filibuster against the guaranteed income legislation which would add as much as $30 monthly to needy old age pensioners.
The minister did not mention in his interview the shabby trickery of the Minister of Transport in this house yesterday in introducing his motion. If the minister was going to give interviews, instead of undermining the trust amongst the house leaders he should have told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


George James McIlraith: I did state the whole truth. Last night I came into this house and found
December 16, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment the most obvious filibuster going on that one could imagine.


Michael Starr: Based on the shabby trickery of-


George James McIlraith: Hear me out; I have been courteous to the hon. member. When I found this out I may have said last night that what was at issue-


Michael Starr: May have? You did.


George James McIlraith: I may have said that in view of the progress with legislation in the house we might have to curtail our prospective recess. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the press statement, but if that is what is in the article it is perfectly accurate and I would have said it to anybody. When I found this filibuster in progress I immediately and as quickly as I could-


Michael Starr: You are not telling the truth.


George James McIlraith: -took appropriate steps, or what I thought were appropriate steps, to correct the situation. I moved very swiftly, firmly and directly into the situation.


Michael Starr: Because you knew you had done wrong.


George James McIlraith: Furthermore, when the hon. member speaks of telling the truth perhaps he will tell his colleagues in the official opposition what I said about my attempt to get an appropriate recess settled. Perhaps he will report to his colleagues, as he obviously has not reported to his seatmate, on some other subjects that we were dealing with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are using the club.


George James McIlraith: I do not wish to be accused of not telling the truth, because in dealing with matters I find the only way one can carry on is to tell the truth, if for no other reason. There are other reasons for telling the truth but that is a good one. I did not expect in any way a charge from the hon. gentleman. I have not in any way undermined him. I have the right to express a view of his party's conduct, and I should think that he would apologize to the house for his lack of communication. In any event, I will not press that. I hope the house is fully satisfied with the explanation. I hope we can get on with the urgent business now before the house.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Sit down. I have made my point.


Maurice Rinfret: Having heard arguments from both sides of the house, let me bring to the attention of members of the committee article 41A of our standing orders which says:
Unless notice of motion has been given under standing order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I very gently draw to the attention of the committee the point that we have before us an amendment, and my understanding of the rules is that we must observe relevancy in discussing amendments before the house.
Amendment (Mr. Barnett) negatived: Yeas, 31; nays, 48.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we leave new section 9 will the minister explain the last part starting at line 31 with the word "minus" and continuing for five more lines?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: "Minus ... where the
spouse of that person"-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In calculating the supplement payable to a married person the idea is to take into account the combined income of a married couple. This part provides for the case where a married pensioner has an unmarried spouse-


Stanley Howard Knowles: An unmarried spouse?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I beg your pardon. A non-pensioned spouse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does this provide, Mr. Chairman? This is interesting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us keep sex out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me start again. This provides for an old age pensioner with a spouse who is not an old age pensioner. In collecting the supplement the combined income of the couple is taken into account. In the case of calculating the supplement in this particular situation $900 of the non-old age security income is sort of put to one side to take into account the non-pensioned spouse. By taking that out of the income and putting it to one side you of course increase the supplement payable to the pensioner, which
December 16, 1966	COMMONS
otherwise you would not do. This is basically the way it works.
Take, for example, a pensioner who has other income-forget his pension-of say $100 a month, and the non-pensioned spouse has no income. The combined income is $1,200 and in order to calculate the supplement, the pensioner who has applied will divide that $1,200 in two. You therefore have $600 and you sub-stract $450, which is six times the amount of the pension that may be paid to a pensioner for any month in that year. The remaining income on which the supplement is paid is $150. The effect of the operation of this part is to put to one side half of the income of the spouse in receipt of the pension.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that an example of how simple th s bill is? It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There may be members in the house who can understand it, but how will the m nister make this clear to the married pensioner with a non-pensioned spouse seeking to fill out the form?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We hope that we shall make it clear to pensioners by means of examples. I admit that when you read this legal sentence it is quite baffling. It was to me. Perhaps it is not to the hon. member for York South or other legal personalities.


An hon. Member:: He would make it twice as long.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is really a way of providing a higher supplement in the case of a pensioner who has a spouse not on pension. I thought that to have that additional benefit it would be worth having the four complicated legal sentences in here. I took that risk hoping that the benefit to pensioners would outweigh the criticism I would get for this complex paragraph.
The Depuiy Chairman: Does this terminate consideration of new section 9 of clause 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 11 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 12 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 13 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 14 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 15 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 16 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
i he Deputy Chairman: Shall new section 17 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell us what precedents there are for this digression from the general rule under the Income Tax Act? Tins seems to be a section which makes it possible for the Minister of National Revenue to give information to the Minister of National Health and Welfare obtained from the income tax returns of individuals. We had a long dissertation this morn.ng from the Minister of Finance about the sacredness of income tax returns. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare would tell us whether there is any precedent for what is proposed in this section?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not know of any precedents. I have not checked but I am not aware of any precedents. Nor can I say there are no precedents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should we not take a moment to consider this question even at the risk of being accused of filibustering? If we are for the first t.me making it possible for information obtained by the Department of National Revenue to be communicated to another department, should there not at least be some defence or some justification of this innovation?
As we have pointed out, the minister has not yet convinced us that this process is a simple one. He has not really convinced us that there is not a means test in operation here. I do not wish to borrow the word
11268	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment "snooper" which the Leader of the Opposition used, but is this not what is implied by the provisions of this section? Even apart from my own use of the words "means test" and the use of the word "snooper" by the Leader of the Opposition, should we not have a clear statement about this departure from the established practice under the Income Tax Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I have covered this point already. All we are providing here is that the Minister of National Revenue may, upon the request of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, furnish information on the income or source of income of an applicant or beneficiary. This is information about income, and the purpose of this provision is to provide some means of checking the information provided in the statement of an applicant. All this has been made clear to the committee from the beginning of our discussions when I pointed out this would be the only check available to us for this purpose.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I am astonished by the minister's explanation, because it is not very long ago that the Minister of Finance stood in his place and raised his hands in horror at the thought that any hon. member would ask him to contravene the Income Tax Act by revealing information about skulduggery in the financial world, information which, had it been revealed, might have prevented many people from losing money. But it is now proposed to set aside this provision of the Income Tax Act in order to snoop on old age pensioners. I should like to see the two ministers get together, because the Minister of Finance was extremely self-righteous about this very point earlier today.


Mitchell William Sharp: This legislation, as I understand it, is authorizing the Minister of National Health and Welfare to obtain information from the Department of National Revenue for a specific purpose. Parliament is being asked to give its approval to that procedure. As far as I know, parliament has not approved any procedure which would enable the tax returns of individuals to be revealed to anybody else. If parliament feels this proposal is unreasonable, it can turn it down. As far as I am concerned, I do not have access to income tax returns, and the Minister of National Revenue has no authority from parliament to reveal any information on individual taxation matters to me or to anyone else

DEBATES	December 16, 1966


Colin Cameron: As I recall the minister's remarks, he was objecting not only on legal grounds but as a matter of high principle, and was surprised that any hon. member would suggest that he or anyone else might seek information which is confidential to the income tax branch. Yet apparently he can accept with equanimity the proposal which is contained in this new section.


Mitchell William Sharp: If parliament authorizes the necessary statute, it can give the Minister of National Revenue the right to show income tax returns to anyone he wishes, and I would have no protest to make. But he does not have that authority. Parliament is now being asked to authorize a provision which will allow tax information to be communicated for certain purposes, or for a specific purpose, and if approval is given, the situation would be altered accordingly.


David Lewis: The obvious answer to the Minister of Finance is to say that when he first found out about this skulduggery he could have done precisely what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has now done. He could have come before parliament and asked for exemption from the secrecy provision which attaches to information in the Department of National Revenue in order to get at the people concerned and put an end to these depredations.
I also wish to point out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he has not told us the full extent of the power which is made available in this new section. The section says, in fact:
-the Minister of National Revenue or any person designated by him for the purpose may, upon the reQuest of the minister, furnish to the minister or any officer or employee in the Department of National Health and Welfare-
Information and so on. This seems to amount to snooping of the worst kind. It means that any employee engaged in this field can go and ask for this information without even asking his minister to authorize him to do so. It seems to me that this is entirely reprehensible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A few minutes ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked whether there was any precedent for this action and I said I was not aware of any precedent. I have now to advise him that there is a precedent under the Canada Pension Plan legislation. The authority given
December 16, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
there is considerably wider than is sought here.


David Lewis: Is there the same provision that any officer or employee may have access to the information?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a difference between the Canada Pension Plan and this piece of legislation. The Canada Pension Plan is based upon contributions and an individual account for every pensioner. That is not the case here. It strikes me that the example given by the minister is not sufficient precedent for the action now proposed. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance earlier today, I feel it is not good enough to assume that parliament will now agree to this proposal. I therefore move:
That clause 3 of Bill No. C-251 be amended by deleting paragraph (a) from subsection (3) of the new section 17 being enacted thereby.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It starts at the bottom of page 9 and concludes at the top of page 10. I have only one copy of the amendment because I have just drafted it within the last minute or two.
Old Age Security Act Amendment clerk or employee of the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance and the Unemployment Insurance Commission "for the purposes of the administration of this act may be communicated by him to an officer, clerk or employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare". Therefore there is a system in vogue by which the Department of National Revenue can make information available to the Department of National Health and Welfare. We are asking for this authority with respect to certain items affecting the income of persons, and the whole concept we are attempting to build up would be destroyed if this amendment were accepted. I ask the committee to reject the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the minister would reread that section of the Canada Pension Plan Act which he has just read, it should be apparent to him that far from being much wider than what is proposed here it is a very narrow and specific provision. I have not got the text in front of me but I think he will find it is restricted to contributions with respect to the Canada Pension Plan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman satisfied that the bill would make sense with this amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not destroy the rest of the section. It still leaves section 3 with another part, and the law officers of the crown have the authority to do any repunctuating that is necessary. The effect of this amendment is to strike out lines 41 to 49 on page 9 and the first five lines on page 10 of the bill, and I suggest it has no effect on anything that was set out in the resolution preceding the bill.


Maurice Rinfret: For the information of the committee I will read the amendment. It is moved by Mr. Knowles that clause 3 of Bill C-251 be amended by deleting paragraph (a) from subsection (3) of the new section 17 being enacted thereby.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wrong to proceed further without pointing out that parliament is not being asked to take an unusual action in approving this particular section. As a matter of fact, the authority granted by parliament under the Canada Pension Plan is much wider than the authority sought in this bill, because it provides that notwithstanding any other act or law, any information obtained by an officer,
But this new section in this bill opens up the whole field of income and the sources of income of an applicant, and I submit this is a very different thing from the provision which the house agreed to with respect to the administration of the Canada Pension Plan. At that time we agreed that for the purposes of economy of administration officers of the Department of National Revenue could transmit the appropriate information with respect to contributions made by individuals to the other department which was going to handle the payment of pensions under the Canada Pension Plan. My understanding is that it was a very narrow and very specific provision for the obtaining of information from the Department of National Revenue and that it did not include anything of the kind that is proposed in the new subsection, which reads in part as follows:
-relating to the income or income from a particular source or sources of an applicant or beneficiary or the spouse of such applicant or beneficiary or otherwise relating to any such applicant, beneficiary or spouse-
The whole question of income and all the factors relating to it are opened up for inspection under this proposal, and I submit the minister is completely in error when he tries to say that the Canada Pension Plan provisions are wider than the implications of what is being proposed here.
11270	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Robert Jardine McCleave: If we adopt what is
proposed in this legislation we will be incorporating in it a nuclear bomb to drop on a very few malefactors, and that seems an excessive approach. If somebody is going to set out to defraud the taxpayers a check could be made in other ways. Perhaps neighbours would tell on him, or these 400 or 500 civil servants who are going to be hired to administer the plan would find out. This is a very far-reaching weapon to catch a limited number of people, and for this reason I support the amendment to delete it.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, lest these remarks of the Leader of the Opposition should be taken too seriously-


John George Diefenbaker: They are very serious and should be taken seriously.


Mitchell William Sharp: -I should like to make some comment to show the sheer hypocrisy of the view he has taken-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and to suggest that he does so entirely for purposes which he seems to have in mind-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and because of his desire to put the administration-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is an authority on hypocrisy after his exposition today.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be permitted to make a few remarks. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has suggested that in some way the federal government interfered with the prosecution-


John George Diefenbaker: Failed to act.


Mitchell William Sharp: -of people who had defrauded the public.


John George Diefenbaker: Failed to act.
December 16, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	H271
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Mitchell William Sharp: There was nothing in what I said this morning which could lead to this conclusion. What I said then I will repeat now. As I said, I confirmed that Mr. Gruber had been in touch earlier in the year with the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Insurance. I do not know about the department which is concerned with bankruptcy, because this is not within my purview. Just the other day I learned about this approach by Mr. Gruber. I inquired about it. I discovered that so far as the Department of Insurance is concerned the officials there had acted with all due diligence to protect the interests of that insurance company which is under the supervision of the federal government. So far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned the question was, should the officials who received the information pass on information about taxpayers' interests to the public at large?


John George Diefenbaker: Or to the government of Ontario.


Mitchell William Sharp: On that occasion, as I have said, they did not, and of course they were acting in accordance with the law. In this regard I think they should have the support of the right hon. gentleman rather than his condemnation. I should like to add something which the Leader of the Opposition has conveniently overlooked, and I am surprised about that because he has asked a number of questions to which I have given the same answer. In respect of the responsibility of the Ontario government, Mr. Gruber gave the same information to the Ontario government that he gave to the officials of the federal government. Therefore I did not feel we had any responsibility to pass it on.


John George Diefenbaker: To the provincial government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: How did you know that Mr. Gruber did that?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Gruber was in touch with my office just two or three days ago and he told me, in the course of the information which he dictated to my secretary, that he had passed this along. I asked the Superintendent of Insurance about this and he told me that Mr. Gruber had told him the same thing.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Chairman,
would the minister answer this question? If he only found out within the last few days that Mr. Gruber had passed this information
on to the provincial government, why did he not pass it on to the provincial government between January and November?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Gruber passed it along at the same time that he passed it on to the federal government. We did not feel we had any responsibility to pass on the information which Mr. Gruber himself had said he passed on to the Ontario government. I again hesitate to criticize the Ontario government's administration, but the right hon. gentleman has forced me to do so on five or six occasions already and I regret having to do it again.
An hon Member: Where do you live?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Chairman is in some doubt concerning the relationship of what is being discussed now to new section 17.


David Lewis: On a point of order, and with great respect to you, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance without talking about any part of the bill, had the permission of the Chair to make a statement in answer to certain allegations made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in the course of a speech when he was referring to a certain clause in the bill.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


David Lewis: With great respect to you, sir, the Minister of Finance ought not to get away with such a statement as he has made, which in my view contains a number of unacceptable propositions, without an opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Lewis: -being given to someone else to say something about those propositions. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have that opportunity.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I have recognized that some of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance were out of order. I believe a continuation of this argument, which has no relationship to new section 17, is also out of order. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to new section 17 of clause 3 and the amendment thereto.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment which is before the committee. I should like to say that it seems to me no case has been made out which would permit this intrusion into the secret information in the Department of National Revenue by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or by officials and employees of his department
11272	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment whom he may appoint. I say that on this day we ought not to agree to this in view of what the Minister of Finance said earlier and in view of what he also said a few moments ago. Whether or not his department has any responsibility going beyond the particular corporate entity known as the North American General Insurance Company, he has the responsibility in my submission, with all the emphasis I can give, to look after the interests of the people of Canada. Even though he may have known that the authorities in Toronto were given the same information he had, surely he had a responsibility to make sure (a) whether or not that information was given to them, (b) whether the same information was given to them and, (c) whether they were doing anything about the information which was given to them. He should not hide under the narrow umbrella he has now built for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


David Lewis: Hon. gentlemen opposite who are crying "order" had a duty to shout "order" when the Minister of Finance spoke. This clearly is another example-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think the hon. member for York South realizes that I have some doubt whether the remarks he is making are in relation to new section 17 and the amendment thereto. I respectfully solicit the co-operation of the hon. member in getting along with the consideration of the actual amendment which is before the committee.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you had the doubt which you have expressed while the Minister of Finance was speaking but you expressed it after he spoke. With great respect, I would ask that you extend to me the same generosity. Let me say to those hon. members opposite, who did not interrupt at all when the Minister of Finance spoke entirely without relation to the bill, that they are showing their unprincipled partisanship.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The Minister of Finance has made it very clear that the only time he is prepared to hide behind the cloak of secrecy in the Department of National Revenue is when a corporation is concerned even though it is to the detriment of the Canadian people. I suggest that the committee should not pass this clause and that it should be deleted from the bill. We should not permit snooping into the affairs of old

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
people in receipt of pensions. If you are going to treat corporations one way the least you can do is treat the aged people of this country in the same way, leaving them that privacy which the minister has insisted should be left so far as insurance companies are concerned.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: It is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman. There is some doubt about the private members' hour today, but in view of the fact we have not had an announcement regarding the air traffic control dispute the regular order of business should take precedence.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not know whether I have interpreted the order made by this house this morning correctly, but it was my understanding that the house was to sit from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and that private members' hour was suspended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There does seem to be some misunderstanding, but in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is in the house and the press gallery is full-I imagine because an announcement is to be made-perhaps we should rise and report progress so the announcement can be made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would you read the complete motion and the amendment, both of which were adopted this day?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The motion passed this morning reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of any standing order to the contrary, on Friday, December 16, 1966, the hours of sitting shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m., that the hour for the consideration of private members' business in the said sitting shall be suspended, and that, on Saturday, December 17, 1966, the house shall meet at 11:00 a.m. and sit without interruption until 6:00 p.m., and that the order of business and procedure for the said sitting shall be as for a Friday except that there shall be no private members' hour.
The amendment thereto, which was also agreed to, reads as follows:
-and that the only order of business considered during the extended sitting shall be the measure to consider the continuation of air traffic control services.
It appears to the Chair that the amendment relates to the extended sittings, so that the order of business to be considered during the extended sitting should be taken up at seven o'clock.
December 16, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	11273


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, would you not take the view that because of the suspension of the private members' hour that hour becomes part of the extended sitting?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You must read the motion and the amendment as a whole.


Herman Maxwell Batten: While I do not propose to answer questions, perhaps I should say to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that what I have said is my interpretation of the order passed by the house this morning. I have given this matter a good deal of consideration during the last hour or so. It is my belief that the house suspended the private members' hour this morning and that the amendment regarding the extended hours refers to a particular type of business which can be considered during those extended hours. It is my belief that the extended hours of sitting will begin at seven o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I take it we are now considering new section 17 of clause 3. When I spoke on this bill two or three days ago I drew attention to this new section and I pointed out that there were nine areas in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare could undertake extra investigation to determine the incomes of applicants for this supplementary pension. He said I was misinterpreting this provision. Nevertheless it was at that stage I said he was going to have snoopers looking into the incomes of old age pensioners.
Now that we are down to a detailed study of new section 17 we find that I was right in my suggestion, that this snooping process is going to take place in an area which heretofore has been considered sacrosanct. This morning the Minister of Finance indicated that income tax forms do fall into this category. It has always been our understanding that no one could look at an income tax form unless there was a special order to do so. A special arrangement is now being made in respect of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I understood the minister to say that if the house passes this measure authority will be given to investigate income tax forms. For this reason we should resist such action to the greatest extent possible. This is an indirect way of destroying the confidentiality on which people have relied up to this time. The seriousness of this move is now apparent to hon.
Old Age Security Act Amendment members. We should support the amendment and we should do everything in our power to prevent this change in the law. I believe that the suggested change in the law should have been resisted by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. These two people who are responsible for the finances of this country should be the first to object to snoopers in their departments looking at forms which contain confidential information. Alternatively, if snoopers are to be allowed to look at income tax forms filed by pensioners they should be allowed to look at forms filed by companies or corporations.
It is my belief there will be a storm of criticism in this country when the public become aware that the door is being opened to this extent. I doubt that anyone wants his income tax form examined by a casual observer. There are two inherent dangers in this situation. We are putting the stamp of approval on snoopers and we are invading the privacy of the individual. We will be destroying the confidentiality of income tax returns. Let the Minister of Finance tell us whether he thinks this is not a bad move. I believe it is because people will say that the act which amended the Old Age Security Act made it possible for snoopers to investigate income tax returns. They will believe that no serious objection was taken, although the fact is that our objections are always brushed aside. They will believe that this having been done it can be done in the future in respect of other acts. They will believe that we have given approval to this type of investigation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In some other bill brought forward in the future we will find a similar provision. Other people will be given the privilege of investigating income tax returns and the whole matter will then be wide open. The time to stop is when the first break appears in the dyke. This is when the hole should be plugged. We would lack diligence in the performance of our duty if we permitted such a provision to go through at any time. This involves more than simply protesting. The whole proposal must be resisted to the very limit. I add my words of objection to this particular section and I will support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-
11274	COMMONS
Settlement of Air Traffic Control Dispute


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I might, with the consent of the committee, suggest that we rise, report progress and revert to motions so I might make a statement?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I suggested ten minutes ago.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why all this is necessary, since the Prime Minister just said that the house would be very disappointed that a settlement had been reached.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, smarty.



AIR TRANSPORT


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, during the past 24 hours we have been meeting almost continuously with representatives of the three organizations representing the air traffic controllers. We have reached a position where these representatives have agreed upon terms with the government that they are willing to recommend to their membership. They have also undertaken to withdraw the strike deadline for Tuesday next.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege and say that I inadvertently misinformed the house the other day when I said, on the basis of what I thought was accurate information that had been given to me, that the three organizations concerned had been consulted about the terms of reference. I had a telegram this morning from Mr. Barnes, the executive director of the professional institute, saying that his organization had not been consulted and that I had misinformed the house. I regret this very much and I felt it my duty to make this information public.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that we return to the business interrupted by the announcement of the Minister of National Revenue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Mr. Diefenbaker.)
DEBATES	December 16, 1966



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act. The committee is now considering new section 17 of clause 3 and an amendment thereto.
On clause 3-


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few observations on this matter. I intend to support the amendment. I can do so with consistency because at the time a proposal of a similar nature to that which the government now advances was raised in connection with the Canada Pension Plan I opposed it.
When we examine the type of legislation being introduced by governments now, and this government in particular, with regard to matters of this kind-this was the case with the Canada Pension Plan-we find that all too often the principle governing the immemorial right of a person who may be charged with any offence, namely, to be convicted only as and when evidence is produced by the crown to establish his guilt, is being altered. There is in this proposal which the government advances, as in other cases, the suggestion that evidence can be obtained from other sources, government documents and government records, on the basis of which people can be convicted by statements which they themselves have made and which were made on the basis that they were privileged and not subject to inspection.
I th:nk the amendment is one that should be supported. I believe there should be no doubt, having in mind the provisions of the section which provides for the establishment of offences and punishments, that the committee should support the amendment. In view of the remarks that have been made, this section should not be allowed to pass in its present form. Surely the onus lies upon the government to justify their attempt to establish this extraordinary power. They do not successfully discharge that onus merely by saying, "We did it once before". I do not care whether this government or any government did it before. It is an extraordinary remedy that they are asking the house to approve, and far more
December 16, 1966	COMMONS
effective and compelling reasons must be given before the committee should pass it. I for one intend to support the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I should like to see hon. members in all parts of the house examine this section. This is an extraordinary power that is being sought. It is over and above anything that has been given before, and I am aware of the amendment that the house passed on another occasion. We are here being asked to give approval to mass snooping into the affairs of Canadians. This is a section that I would have thought the government would have been loath to bring into effect.
In reference to this legislation we have been saying throughout that what is being done is to bring into effect a new principle in connection with old age pension legislation whereby the means test is to be restored. The government endeavours to get around that by explaining that it is not really a means test. They give it another name. This section will make it the meanest test of all. It is an inexcusable intrusion into the rights of the individual. Why should there be one law for the old age pensioner and another law for everybody else? That is what it amounts to. Income tax records of Canadians in general are not looked into except within the limitations of our law. But when it comes to the old age pensioners, that group cannot be trusted. That is what this amounts to. They cannot be trusted. We are going to provide the necessary machinery so they can be hunted down and their representations in connection with their income can be investigated
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The government has even gone so far as to provide a penalty in section 21 for those who commit an offence under section 17. I will read the proposed section 21 to indicate how far it goes. It provides:
Every person who
(a) knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in any application-
This is the law today.
-or statement required or permitted by this act . . . or obtains any benefit payment by false pretences ... or
(d) contravenes section 17, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This is an extraordinary position for a government to take, a government which goes
Old Age Security Act Amendment around the country boasting of what it has done in connection with social security. It makes every old age pensioner who asks for this supplementary payment a person to be suspected, to be snooped upon, to be examined. And if perchance an old age pensioner makes a mistake, he is subject to a penalty as prescribed by this section.
I am amazed to find the government taking this position. They do not need this power. Surely they can rely on the integrity of old age pensioners as much as on the integrity of other Canadians. But the government is going to set them apart and say that when they make statements it will check and cross-check those statements. The government is going to examine the income tax records of the old age pensioners, and if it finds any mistakes the pensioners are going to suffer.
Surely the government is not going to set the old age pensioners apart in a class by themselves to be discriminated against so far as any representations they make as to their income are concerned. If they falsify they deserve to be punished. But the onus of establishing this should be on the Crown. Instead the government puts forward an amendment which in effect casts aspersions on every old age pensioner who makes an application. This amendment puts the government in the position of being able to ferret out, to snoop upon and examine the income tax returns of those who make application for extra assistance.
To me, Mr. Chairman, this is a section that reveals in its nakedness that what this government is doing by this legislation is to bring in the means test, and I repeat that over and over again. I know that the government has denied it but this section reveals what it has in mind. I can just imagine every old age pensioner applying for this additional payment being hunted. All the forces of the law will be after him. The Department of National Revenue will be looking into his records, although he was given to understand when he filed them that they would not be subjected to snooping. When Canadians make income tax returns they make them on the distinct understanding that the information they give will be confidential. That was the basis upon which the law was founded. We are going to remove a basic principle so that the government will be able to do that which they undertook to Canadians would not be done, namely, to regard income tax returns as nonconfidential whenever the government decides it is beneficial so to do.
December 16, 1966
11276	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
I come back to what was said a little earlier about the statement of the Minister of Finance this morning. This government secured information from Mr. Gruber in the month of January and did not pass it on to the government of Ontario. They did not know that the government of Ontario had the information and they did not do anything about it until a few days ago when they found out that Mr. Gruber had also given the information to the Ontario government. In other words, they were very solicitous that nothing should be looked into, Mr. Gruber having asked for protection against possible action. What action he had in mind I know not.
I suggest we must have the same solicitude for all Canadians, and I resist, resent and will continue to oppose a measure that is going to place the old age pensioners in Canada in a class of their own.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: The old age pensioner is going to be set apart from the rest of us whose returns cannot be examined. An open season is being declared by this government, through this particular section, against those who make application for the additional $30. The minister laughs at this, but that is what it amounts to. There is to be a closed season for those who are powerful and for the rest of Canadians, but an open season on old age pensioners. I object to that kind of legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance called hypocrisy a little while ago of the gross character to which we have just listened to pass without comment. The right hon. gentleman said that we were making a special class of a certain group of old age pensioners by verifying or seeking means to verify the accuracy of statements they make about their income. Every income taxpayer in this country is subject to the verification of his income tax return by the crown. Surely if the crown is entitled to examine the accuracy of a person's statements when he is obliged to have money taken out of his pocket by the state, the crown is entitled and it is no more humiliating to verify the truth of statements of someone making application to have money put into his pockets by the state.
The right hon. gentleman in his usual, skilful manner confused the facts and the purposes of this legislation by suggesting that a communication from one privy councillor to another, for public purposes only and for the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)

protection of the revenue, is comparable with the revelation of the private affairs of a taxpayer to some other private person or agent.


Erik Nielsen: The section says officer or employee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that this is the grossest possible distortion. If we are going to trust Canadians and are going to say that we will run our affairs simply on the basis of trust, then we will accept everybody's income tax returns and make no verification of them at all. This rule would have to apply to the millionaires to whom the right hon. gentleman referred, the rich and the powerful. We would accept their word. We know that 99 per cent of the taxpayers and 99 per cent of the old age pensioners will submit true returns. We also know that a lot of people may make mistakes.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It does seem to me that to weep these crocodile tears, and everybody knows that is what they are, is going too far. Nobody can produce them by the gallon as well as the right hon. gentleman, except the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should like to see them in a competition. But the ordinary Canadian will not be fooled by fir's. The ordinary taxpayer paying taxes on $2,000 or $3,000, subject to having the truth of what he says verified by the Minister of National Revenue, will not think there is anything unfair about having verification of a statement of income.


Gordon Minto Churchill: By whom?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That verification applies to those who will have some of the tax handed over to them. That is exactly what this process is. We are doing this because people need the money, because we have a social conscience and accept our social responsibilities.


Erik Nielsen: Where are the crocodile tears
now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is only fair to the taxpayers, the small ones as well as the large ones, who contribute to the funds used in this way that we should take reasonable steps to see that what is expended is expended on those for whom parliament intended to have it expended. That is all that is sought to be done in this bill.
The real measure of the hypocrisy of hon. gentlemen opposite is that at 3.30 this afternoon the hon. member for Ontario rose and,
December 16, 1966

speaking for his party, said that his party was satisfied with the rest of the bill. "The government is adamant", he said, "so we are ready to have it passed in half an hour". This present objection was not known by these bright people on the other side, including that distinguished lawyer, the Leader of the Opposition. He did not know anything about this until it was pointed out to him by the N.D.P. That is the measure both of their study of the bill and of their sincerity. It seems to me it is about time we recognized that there is a great difference between a simple verification-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -done entirely within the structure of the treasury-


An hon. Member:: Of the means test.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and the revelation of private income tax affairs for other purposes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have
been here long enough to expect almost anything from the hon. gentleman and I am never surprised. To hear the power of snooping described this afternoon as revealing the social consciousness of the government is going beyond anything I have ever heard.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport has reminded me of more things to say than I had intended to say. In the first place I think he had better read the section he was so knowledgeably discussing because he has obviously never read it. Had he read it he would not have talked the nonsense about one privy councillor whispering in the ear of another privy councillor information about some taxpayer's income. New section 17 (3) in the bill reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other Act or law,
(a) the Minister of National Revenue or any person designated by him for the purpose-
Heavens, Mr. Chairman, he may designate the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I happen to be a privy councillor.


Colin Cameron: I continue:
-may. upon the request of the Minister, furnish to the Minister or to any officer or employee in the Department of National Health and Welfare designated by the Minister for the purpose, any information obtained pursuant to any other act relating to the income or income from a particular source or sources of an applicant or beneficiary or the spouse of such applicant or beneficiary or
11277
Old Age Security Act Amendment otherwise relating to any such applicant, beneficiary or spouse, for any purpose relating to the administration of this act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Colin Cameron: The minister says, "exactly."


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Colin Cameron: What does the minister want? The question will not be sensible. Let us have it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I could not hear
the hon. gentleman's remark.


Colin Cameron: I did not intend commenting on the minister's hearing. I was referring to something else. Let us have the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unfortunately I am deaf. What I intended asking the hon. gentleman was this. Does he not realize that officers of the department are all bound by the Official Secrets Act and that this information can be secured only for the purposes of the administration of this act?


Colin Cameron: Next I want to turn to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and quote some words he spoke on December 5 of this year. He was describing to us that strange, esoteric difference between a needs test and a means test. It is one of those difficult philosophic questions I have found it hard to come to a conclusion upon. The minister made an attempt to describe the means test which, heaven forbid, this government would not think of imposing. But whatever they call it, it is a means test, just that. It involves the examination of the nooks and crannies of a person's financial status, the money he has in the bank, whether he owns a car or a home, the ability of relatives to contribute to his support, his earnings and so on. The government rejects entirely that it is a means test; it is merely applying a needs test. The minister described precisely what this government will not do when he said, as recorded on page 10708 of Hansard for December 5:
No information will be asked for that is not already required for income tax purposes; there will be no snooping, no prying into financial affairs, no demeaning questions. This program is an innovation-
For heavens sake, let us have some honesty from this government. If they consider it necessary to snoop and pry into the affairs of
11278	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment old age pensioners, let them have the courage to say so instead of pretending as this minister did. The kindest thing I can say about his speech of December 5 is that it was extremely disingenuous. The speech conveyed the impression of the people of Canada that the old people were to be treated as responsible and honest citizens and not as objects of snooping and prying. In the bill we have a clear indication that the government does intend to do all the things the minister described, and the things described are part and parcel of the full means test which he rejected out of hand.
The minister says he is not going to examine the nooks and crannies of a person's financial status, the money he has in the bank, whether he owns a car or home, the ability of relatives to contribute to his support, his earnings and so on. The minister may smile, but the bill reads precisely in these terms. It will bring about the snooping and so on I have described. The investigators can seek any information they want under this section that is received under any other act. In other words, there is no limit to the snooping. I suggest that the minister explain his position again perhaps a little more clearly, a little less disingenuously than he did on December 5.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. He has been kinder to me than most hon. members. Having been described as Scrooge, mean and miserable I am now described as disingenious. I have improved my standing in the committee. The procedure we propose to follow under the bill has been made clear to the committee. It has been suggested that this is a move without precedent, that we are embarking on a practice which is somehow unCanadian. The hon. member for Peace River, making a point earlier, said he did not like a similar provision in the Canada Pension Plan. The fact is that the law already makes it possible for the Department of National Revenue to exchange information-any information-not with respect to the relatively small number now affected but with respect to five million people.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The intentions of the government on this point have been made clear from the beginning. We have never concealed from anybody the idea that we would seek information about an individual's income and that we would verify this information with the Department of National Revenue. That has been made clear time and time again, so it ought not to come as any surprise. I do not believe

DEBATES	December 16, 1966
hon. members can find anything particularly repugnant about this. The hon. member for Wellington South has argued that in order to apply a guaranteed income program it is necessary to know what a person's present income is. We ask pensioners to tell us their income on a simple form which we send to them. They tell us. All that happens here is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare or an officer of the department may ask the Department of National Revenue to verify the information. It may at times be of benefit to pensioners to have this information verified.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been suggested by hon. members that in one sense this program is too lenient, that there are not sufficient checks. The hon. member for Halifax asked why the department did not go around talking to the neighbours of pensioners to find out what their incomes were.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for
Winnipeg South Centre said we had nine different ways of checking income.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And I am objecting to every one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But the hon. member is miscontruing this proposal. The only department to which we can go, at our option, to check this information is the Department of National Revenue. We are coming frankly to parliament and seeking approval to do so in order to administer this program. If we are to make any progress in this country in establishing a guaranteed income program in the future, this seems to be a realistic and sensible authority to seek.
I assure hon. members that it is not the intention to conduct any kind of un-Canadian investigation. This is merely intended as a means of checking the information provided. I am sure that if I came to parliament and put this program before parliament without seeking authority of this kind I would be subjected to great criticism for having failed to make such a provision in the bill.
I have tried to understand the arguments put forward. I think maybe that the developments of the afternoon have led to a certain-high temperature in our proceedings. I hope, nevertheless, that hon. members will realize that this is not an effort to denigrate the standing of old age pensioners but a move to
December 16, 1966

maintain what I consider to be a simple, private method of checking information as necessity arises.


Stanley James Korchinski: Having been treated to a tear-jerker by the Minister of Transport, several questions occur to me and I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to answer them. The minister told us that because 99 per cent of income tax returns are accurate the same degree of accuracy might be expected in returns from old age pensioners. Why, then, does the hon. gentleman need a staff of 400 persons and 675 employees on a part-time basis to deal with these applications?
Income tax returns are normally sent in during one short season of the year. If only 1 per cent of these returns are likely to be incorrect is it worth engaging 675 employees on a part-time basis to snoop into them and take account of what might be an excess of $5 or $10 beyond what is normally regarded as allowable income? Does the minister really think it is worth the time and the effort to employ 675 people in his department to snoop on a few old age pensioners to make sure they do not get a few extra dollars?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The staff is intended not to snoop on pensioners but to process the hundreds of thousands of applications which will have to be processed. The intention is to recruit a casual staff for a few months in order to get this program into operation.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister says the
need for extra staff only arises at certain times of the year. How does he explain that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The extra staff will be needed when the applications are being received.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the claims the minister keeps making is that the test of income embodied in this legislation is not the kind of means test which has been incorporated in the past in other legislation. I draw his attention to the fact that in the original Old Age Pensions Act, which did contain a means test -there is no doubt about that-no provision was made for getting information from the income tax branch. I also draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that at the present time there is a means test embodied in the War Veterans Allowance Act. Yet I know of no provision in that act which enables the government to get information from the Department of National Revenue with respect to veterans who apply for allowances.
Business of the House
I submit that the government is writing into this legislation a method of checking which has not been used in relation to other means tests. This places the minister in a difficult position when he maintains he is offering a pension which people get after filling out a simple form, being trusted all the time. I believe the minister should think about this over the week end, since it is now six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in case by chance there should happen to be an hon. member present who was not here a few minutes ago when the announcement relating to the air traffic control services settlement was made, I want to mention that it has been announced that there is no need for legislation on that subject. Consequently, it will not be necessary to meet tonight and tomorrow.
The business we propose submitting on Monday is, of course, the budget at eight o'clock in the evening, but subject to that we propose to continue the discussion of item 111, the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, and on the completion of that, item No. 92, the transportation policy bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Might I ask the house leader if he can tell us what other business there might be next week, when the house will rise for the Christmas recess, if it does rise, and when we will be coming back in January.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to do that at the start of proceedings this morning. I had outlined a plan on certain assumptions, but I am sorry to say they have gone rather far astray today so I am not in a position to announce the plans for a Christmas recess, much as I would like to be able to do so.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


George James McIlraith: No, it is just a lack of communication in the house, not on this side and not on a large part of the other side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have already had a budget this session, may I ask the minister under what standing order will the Minister of Finance be making his statement on Monday night at eight o'clock?

December 16, 1966
Business of the House


George James McIlraith: My understanding is that it is done on a motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. I think that is the form of a motion on the budget. I have not checked the procedure, but I am quite sure that is the procedure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister checked that standing order recently? Does he not realize that it says that that order is passed without debate, except for the budget presentation? Since we have already had the budget for this year, hadn't the minister better look at this.


George James McIlraith: That is right, but I could not find any provision saying there can be only one budget in a year. Indeed, there have been many occasions in the past when the rule has been used, and I think the interpretation
clearly permits the procedure that has been proposed for Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe we will not get these taxes at all.


George James McIlraith: It looks more as if we will not get the old age pension supplement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Following the statement made by the Minister of Public Works that there is no legislation dealing with air traffic control services, am I correct in assuming now that the house agrees to consider the order of the house passed this morning as being discharged?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 19, 1966