1966-12-15

Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, last week I announced in the house that, as part of the understanding that resulted in the resumption of operations in the British Columbia ports, an industrial inquiry commission would be appointed to investigate the causes of the stoppage, which has paralysed ports for so long and with such far-reaching adverse effects, also to make recommendations with respect to the avoidance of similar situations in future, and with respect to the undertaking for the consideration of the grievances of foremen.
I now wish to announce the appointment of Mr. Justice C. Rhodes Smith of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba as the industrial inquiry commissioner. As I am sure hon. members are aware, Mr. Justice Smith is a former minister of labour of the province of Manitoba and he served with distinction for a number of years as chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
I am also pleased to announce that Mr. Justice Smith will be assisted by two assessors. One of these is Captain H. J. C. Terry, retired, of Vancouver, the former president of Northland Navigation Company Limited, who, since his retirement, has done such excellent work as president of the Pacific National Exhibition over the past few years. The other assessor is Mr. Joseph Morris, executive vicepresident of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is well known and highly respected in all parts of Canada, especially on the west coast where he served with such distinction as president of the International Woodworkers Association before coming to Ottawa.
I am also pleased to announce that, pursuant to the amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, to which royal assent was given late yesterday, an order in council has been passed today establishing regulations governing holiday pay for longshoremen for the eight statutory holidays. It is expected that the regulations governing annual vacations for longshoremen will be promulgated in the very near future.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he would amplify in some detail what he said yesterday about the dispute with the air traffic controllers. Can he hold out any hope that the threatened implementation of last minute legislation will be obviated and that he, representing the government, will not permit intransigence on his part, through the adoption of frozen stands, to interfere with a just and equitable settlement?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: First, I should like to deny that we have taken a frozen stand in any way.


John George Diefenbaker: You said so yesterday.


Edgar John Benson: If we had taken a frozen stand we would not now be talking with the parties involved.


John George Diefenbaker: They unfroze you.


Edgar John Benson: Another meeting is to take place this afternoon. We have also agreed to meet tonight, and if necessary to meet all night in an attempt to solve this problem short of the Diefenbaker-Douglas formula of 40 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The latter part of the minister's remarks was entirely uncalled for.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him whether he has forgotten the Pearson formula.


Mr. Pearson:: That was only 30 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: Only 30 per cent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Ten per cent below yours.


Mr. Douglas:: I have a question to address to the Prime Minister on another subject, but I rise now on a question of privilege to say I have never advocated a formula of 40 per cent. That is the minister's interpretation.

December 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to hon. members that we should try to start this day on the right foot. I doubt that the hon. member has a question of privilege, although he certainly has the right to ask a question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister introduced an argument into his reply and I think I have the right to say that the estimate of the air traffic control employees is that the formula suggested by Judge Robinson amounts to 14 to 17 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Plus 15.


Edgar John Benson: What is 24 and 15?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thirty nine.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the announcement that Canada is to be a member of the seven man committee to plan the nuclear strategy in NATO. Does acceptance of this responsibility involve repudiation of the pledge the Prime Minister made three years ago to negotiate Canada out of its nuclear role?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. Up to the establishment of this committee, nuclear planning matters had been dealt with by the NATO council as a whole. It is true that yesterday a nuclear planning group was set up as part of the NATO machinery, which will consist of seven members, including Canada, who will serve for an initial period of 18 months. At the end of that time certain members of the group will be replaced.
The purpose of the group is related to planning for nuclear defence of the alliance. It will permit broadened participation by member countries in making recommendations to the council on these matters.
The concept of a broadened participation by the members of the alliance is an important development for many reasons, not the least of which is the prospect it may advance international efforts to achieve an effective world wide non-proliferation agreement. It should be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, that membership in this group in no way increases Canada's involvement in nuclear matters. The

establishment of nuclear planning machinery is simply a more efficient way of dealing with a problem which, in any event, would come before the council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that Canada has accepted the responsibility of being a member of this nuclear planning committee, at what stage are the negotiations for Canada's withdrawal from its nuclear role?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, there has already been an alteration in this respect in connection with our air division overseas. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) will be able to report on this matter when he returns.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it has been brought to his attention that an old comrade of mine, a former secretary of state for external affairs, is reported as saying Canada is over playing her hand in trying to help run Europe and should consider withdrawing from NATO when the NATO treaty expires in 1969?



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the hon. Minister of Finance but, in his absence, it may be that the hon. Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board can answer it.
Early in November I put a question on the order paper asking whether Section 79 (c) of the Income Tax Act would be amended. The hon. Minister of Finance then replied that amendments providing for the implementation of the proposed changes would be included in a bill to amend the Income Tax Act before the end of the year. As this time is fast upon us, can the hon. Minister of National Revenue tell us whether the amendments to Section 79 (c) will be put before parliament in the very near future?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, a bill will be presented to the house very soon to pick up the amendments which were included in the budget last spring,
December 15, 1966

but which were not enacted at that time because of technical difficulties brought to our attention by the business community. I hope the bill will be forthcoming very soon, but I would have to consult with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to find out when.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: As a
supplementary question, will this new bill cover any possible recommendations or changes which the Minister of Finance now has in mind for his baby budget?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has referred to me the question of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker regarding Hal Banks, and asked me to answer it. Generally speaking it is not the practice to disclose what, if any, recommendations are made by the R.C.M.P., for the very obvious reason that responsibility for the ultimate decision must rest on the appropriate law officers.
The results of the investigation, to date, into allegations of perjury against Banks, were placed in the hands of the appropriate provincial authorities, and the question of charges is now under consideration by the provincial crown prosecutor in Ottawa. He has asked the R.C.M.P. to obtain certain additional information.
The two governments are co-operating on the matter closely, and as soon as conclusions have been reached any information that can properly be given at that time will be placed before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in general I am in agreement with the view expressed by the minister that those things which pass between the federal and provincial governments regarding procedural investigations, charges and the like, should not be revealed. However,
I should like to ask him this: Did the law officers of the crown in the Department of Justice not conclude that on the basis of the information which has been secured not only was there a prima facie case against Banks, but a very strong one.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has referred to the law officers in
Inquiries of the Ministry the plural. I may say that the law officer in this case felt the result of the investigation was of such a nature that it should be placed before the crown attorney for consideration.



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a Canadian automobile executive announced-and I should like to quote one very brief sentence-"that exhaust control devices to limit air pollution would probably be available in Canada in 1968 only as extra cost items, since these standards are not imposed by law as they are now in the U.S." I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether in 1968 Canadians will be protected by Canadian standards similar to those now mandatory in the United States to protect the health of our people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether the question as asked is urgent. I realize the importance of the matter, but the hon. member is referring to protection which might be afforded Canadians in 1968. I think the question might be placed on the order paper.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the industry already has announced its intention. We cannot waste any time. In view of the statement by the industry is the Minister of Industry now satisfied that because of the auto pact Canadians can rely on United States laws and regulations for the protection of the Canadian people?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are rather more interested in results than in the method or technique by which they are achieved. I do not think, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has 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. I suggest where it is established that this is needed in Canada, it will be employed.


William Heward Grafftey: Have either the Minister of Industry or the Minister of National Health and Welfare been in touch with officials in either Toronto or Montreal, where this is a. most serious problem?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford.

December 15, 19G6
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE ASSISTANCE



REGULATIONS GOVERNING APPLICATION OF PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Christmas season is now approaching I am wondering whether the minister could tell us how soon the regulations under the Canada Assistance Plan will be promulgated so that many of those people who are in need and disabled may know what qualifications they must have in order to receive assistance.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which was discussed in the house the other evening. I hope to have the regulations approved by the Governor in Council as soon as possible. Following that it will be possible to sign agreements with the provinces. I should like to point out to my hon. friend, however, that under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government will share the cost with the provinces back to April 1 of this year.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. So that there will be no question in the minds of the people regarding this dispute, will he say now whether the government is prepared to implement the recommendation in respect of wages which is contained in the report of Judge Robinson, an appointee of the government?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada cannot afford a salary increase of 40 per cent over a two year period in this particular instance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course this 40 per cent is a smokescreen on the part of the minister. The exact amount is 17 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister suggesting that Judge Robinson, a man of great experience, was simply appointed to play around

with this problem so that the government could refuse to accept his recommendations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government has not been playing around with this report, it has studied it with care, it is the opposition that has been playing around with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister, without in any way referring to the so-called 40 per cent increase. Is it not true that representations received from the staff associations have in fact included a concession to the Treasury Board? Have they not indicated they would be willing to accept something less than what was recommended by Judge Robinson in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: As I said, Mr. Speaker, everything that takes place during the negotiations is, by agreement, to be kept secret. I do not intend to disclose what has happened during these negotiations between representatives of the employers and employees. Perhaps the hon. member has received information from some source, but I have undertaken not to disclose this information.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister, in view of the situation which now exists and in view of the fact that negotiations are still taking place this afternoon. Has the strike deadline been escalated or has it been set for a later date? What is the situation?


Edgar John Benson: The strike deadline is exactly the same, as far as I am aware.


Mr. R. W. Prilfie (Bumaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister, in view of his comments to the effect that the Canadian people cannot afford the recommended increase. Can the Canadian people afford to pay out $11 million on that pile of junk called the Bonaventure'!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, when he is talking about a 40 per cent increase, he is talking about an increase which has been agreed upon? Is there any truth in the report that Judge Robinson recommended an increase averaging 14 per cent to 17 per cent? When the minister refers to 40 per cent is he
December 15, 1966

in fact talking about the total increases which have taken place over a period of time?


Edgar John Benson: In order to clarify this matter, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that we are talking about a two year period and a contract which was agreed to on July 1, 1965, running to July 1, 1967. During that two year period a 15 per cent increase will take place. Having in mind the additional amount, it is my understanding that the total will amount to about 40 per cent, if Judge Robinson's recommendations are accepted.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question. I am sorry to appear to be badgering the minister, but has the minister proposed to the staff associations an extension of the period during which this agreement will be in effect, or has he suggested that these staff associations should accept the recommendations of Judge Robinson in respect of July 1 of next year? Will the minister be frank to this parliament?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely frank with this parlia ment, except that I will not-


John George Diefenbaker: "Except".


Edgar John Benson: -disclose what has taken place, so far as the negotiations are concerned, and I will retain that position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: You are throwing aspersions on the negotiations without disclosing the facts.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to indicate what action the government intends to take in respect of growing unemployment in the province of Nova Scotia in the steel industry? This unemployment is now occurring in Cape Breton, and Amherst, where 200 employees have been put out of work.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A meeting was held yesterday to deal with this matter of urgent importance.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Prime Minister indicated
Inquiries of the Ministry that proposals were being formulated to alleviate this situation in respect of the steel industry in Cape Breton. Has he any announcement to make on that, and if not will the announcement be made before the Christmas recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will be made as soon as we can possibly make it.



PEE-WEES-REFUSAL TO AUTHORIZE TRIP TO EUROPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister aware that two pee-wee hockey teams, one from Cap-de-la-Madeleine and one from Ville LaSalle, were selected to make an exhibition tour in Europe to defend the colours of Expo '67, and that the officials of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association refuse to authorize such tour? Would the Prime Minister use his influence to obtain such authorization?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Prime Minister has undoubtedly noted the suggestions made by the hon. member.


Mr. Mongrain:: May I raise this question at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER PROCEDURAL CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question either to the Prime Minister or to the government house leader. In view of the fact that this session might end some day, and that when it does the provisional rules of procedure under which we are operating will lapse, will the government consider at an early date establishing an all-party committee to look at our procedures so that we can plan something for the next session of this parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker this matter is already under very serious consideration. I hope that without any delay it will be possible to discuss

December 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry this very important matter with representatives of other parties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister not agree that the new rules do not improve our procedure and have been the cause of some delay in the work of this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The present rules have been an improvement but I think we can improve the improvement.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunen-burg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that President Johnson recently signed the contiguous fishery zone bill giving the United States an exclusive fishing area up to 12 miles off its shores, what progress is being made by the government to conclude negotiations on the 12 mile Canadian fishing limit which was to extend from straight base lines drawn from headland to headland on Canada's Pacific and Atlantic coasts, as agreed to in July, 1964?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that in the bill signed by President Johnson there is a provision recognizing historic fishing rights, which is quite similar to the policy adopted by the Canadian government.
With regard to the establishment of straight base lines, a meeting was held last week with officials of the United States. Also I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have discussions today on this matter with Secretary of State Rusk.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the United States have now established their own 12 mile limit, could the minister inform the house what objections they have to the establishment by Canada of a similar contiguous fishing zone off our own coasts?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was well aware of the fact that Canada is enforcing its 12 mile fishing zone. May I say for his information that only last week over 60 U.S.S.R. fishing vessels were

operating off the west coast and every one of them was operating outside the 12 mile fishing zone, thereby abiding by Canadian regulations.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am well aware of the fact that the Canadian government is enforcing a 12 mile fishing zone; but could the minister tell me when the government intends to implement the 12 mile fishing zone legislation implied in the act which was passed in 1964, according to which the 12 mile zone would extend from straight base lines drawn from headland to headland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important matter and the minister should reply to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not say the minister could not reply. I rose for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the hon. member the fact that he should ask a question. He has now done so and the minister apparently wishes to reply to it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if I may be
permitted to reply to this question, it was made very clear at the time that straight base lines would be established following negotiations with the countries involved. Such negotiations have been under way ever since the new act was passed by parliament, and we hope they will be completed in the very near future.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board based on the replies given on two separate occasions this week by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. These refer to the work that is being done in both departments with regard to a labour market analysis. I should like to ask him if officials in his department would investigate this duplication of services and thus effect a saving in the unnecessary expenditures involved?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When a question on this subject was asked by an hon. member some days ago I stated that work in this field was being done by the
December 15, 19G6	COMMONS
Department of Labour and that some work was also being done by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. As a result of that question, and of a second question asked a day or so ago I directed that an investigation be made into the whole matter. I find that the work is now actually being done by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and not by the Department of Labour. There is no duplication of the service and I apologize to the house for any misunderstanding which might have arisen from my earlier statement.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the extremely unsafe condition of the old wharf on the Pembroke waterfront and the urgent need for new wharf facilities for small boats, can the minister tell us at what stage are the plans for improvement which were submitted last August 13?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that the question should be placed on the order paper, or else the hon. member could discuss it in the adjournment debate.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I addressed a question to the Prime Minister and I did not quite catch his answer. Instead of repeating my question I read the answer in Hansard. I could have repeated my question to the Prime Minister yesterday but I will do it today. It refers to the proposal of Prime Minister Wilson to Prime Minister Smith on the establishment of a small white peace keeping force drawn from some Commonwealth countries. In answer to my question the Prime Minister said that Mr. Smith had refused all proposals. My question was whether Prime Minister Wilson had advised Canada of such a proposal prior to his meeting with Mr. Smith.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Prime Minister Wilson made this proposal in the
Inquiries of the Ministry terms in which my hon. friend has put it. There have been reports in the press that this was part of the exchange of views between the two political leaders. However, the matter did come up at the prime ministers conference which was held a year and a half or two years ago, at which the Rhodesian matter was discussed and at which this matter was put forward as a possible suggestion. I might say that at that time it did not receive too much support.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether now, in the absence of any official recognition by this particular parliament of one of the great architects of confederation, he would consider or ask the government to consider the establishment of January 11, the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald, as a national holiday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, since this is such an important question I really think it should be put on the order paper.



EDUCATION

[Stage Direction]
LICENCES FOR LABORATORY APPARATUS On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Solicitor General whether in the light of the recent seizure by the R.C.M. Police in Toronto from a school teacher of a small distilling apparatus similar to that used in grade 7 science classes, it is the government's policy that all schools must now have licences for such distilling apparatus in their laboratories and classrooms?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure how urgent the question is but I suggest that, like the previous one, it might be placed on the order paper.


Mr. Fulion:: I think there might be some urgency, since the schools might like to know what their position is.



BANK OF WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
DIVERSIFICATION OF INTEREST On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of

December 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Finance may I bring to the attention of the Prime Minister for his consideration a move by Wellington Finance Corporation Limited, which is now in the process of taking over a total of some 46 per cent of the assets of the Bank of Western Canada, when the bank charter that was granted was on the distinct understanding that financial support would be on the basis of diversified interests. Now, as a result of this action, the Sinclair Stevens interests and British International Finance Group will have an overwhelming controlling interest in a bank that presumably was set up in order to be of assistance to the prairie provinces. Will the Prime Minister have this matter looked into because, on the face of it, it seems detrimental to the public interest.
Right Kon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premises on which the question was based I will be very glad to discuss it with the Minister of Finance and have the matter looked into.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he is able to answer today the question I asked on Tuesday, and which was taken as notice by his parliamentary secretary. My question concerned Canada's abstention in the vote in the United Nations on the resolution regarding South Africa.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Prime Minister, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance. My question is based on a report received from Washington yesterday that the United States administration is issuing or has issued new guide lines to subsidiaries of United States corporations operating in Canada which, if followed, would have a serious effect on Canada's balance of payments position. The question I want to ask the Prime Minister is

whether the government is reviewing any possible steps which can be taken to prevent this action on the part of the United States government, which would have this deleterious effect upon our balance of payments problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend will let me take this important question as notice.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Are there any railway financial arrangements to be made, dependent on the new transport bill? If so, will the government negotiate extensions, if the new transport bill is still under discussion this calendar year and not passed by the house?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this question has to do with a matter which is to be discussed, I trust and pray, later today, and it would be more appropriate to ask the question in this debate than on orders of the day.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister state whether any action has been taken by his government to assist McGill University in its present serious financial crisis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, McGill University does undoubtedly receive assistance from the federal government in the manner provided by the arrangements we have made with the provinces. No special steps have been taken in this regard.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not consider this situation to be discriminatory against this very important national institution of education?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
December 15, 1966


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. Has the Canadian government made any representations to the governments in Washington and Hanoi with regard to the extension of the Christmas truce in the hostilities in Viet Nam along the lines proposed by His Holiness the Pope and the Secretary General of the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. The government has welcomed, as I am sure have all hon. members of the house, the decision to institute truces in the war in Viet Nam at Christmas and the New Year, and the proposal for a further truce at the lunar new year in February. The possibility of prolonging these truces and making them the basis for introducing an element of reducing and ending hostilities is one which we earnestly hope the parties to the conflict will consider very seriously, as it is an important preliminary step toward peace. It is with this possibility in mind that we have welcomed, as I am sure the house welcomes, the spirit in which His Holiness the Pope and the Secretary General have issued their appeals.
I have seen news reports from Washington this morning, as my hon. friend may have, which indicate that the United States government would be willing to discuss, if I may quote from one particular report, "a prolonged cease fire or any other reduction in the fighting in Viet Nam in direct negotiation with the communist side". That is the end of the quotation from the report.
I am sure that I speak for all members in expressing the hope that some comparable indication will be forthcoming from the other side. Canada's views on this problem, Mr. Speaker, are well known to the capitals concerned. These views have also been discussed with the Pope and the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if there is any helpful role that we can play in relation to a possible cease fire, either individually or as a member of the international commission, we would be only too happy to have the privilege of doing this.
Inquiries of the Ministry CYPRUS-SHIPMENTS OF ARMS FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Has Canada made representations to the governments of Czechoslovakia and Cyprus regarding arms shipments to Cyprus which will have the effect of endangering the Canadian forces there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government of President Makarios earlier this year concluded an arms deal with Czechoslovakia under which Czech arms would be supplied to the Cypriot police force, which is probably the basis of my hon. friend's question. The first shipment arrived in Cyprus toward the end of November and a second shipment is expected shortly. The Makarios government has stated, however, that these arms will not be issued at the present time and will be stored under mainland Greek control.
The Canadian government naturally regrets any action such as the importation of further arms into Cyprus, which can only have the effect of increasing tension on the island between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. The importation of these arms is particularly regrettable since the Greek and Turkish governments are currently engaged in talks designed to make progress toward an agreed settlement of the Cyprus problem.
We are, Mr. Speaker, keeping in close touch with the situation in Cyprus through our High Commissioner in Nicosia and our representatives in the other countries principally concerned, including our representative in Prague.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that, according to a recent statement by Dr. Lizotte, Quebec minister of transport, the province of Quebec and several other provinces are refusing any kind of federal control over transportation, will the minister consider amending Bill No. C-231 or convening provincial ministers of transport to reach some kind of an agreement?
11158	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, while I do not think there is the slightest question that the exclusive jurisdiction in the field of interprovincial and international motor transport belongs to this parliament as clearly defined by a decision of the courts, I do not think we ought to enter into a debate on this subject at this time, sir, when the bill will be before us in an hour or so.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport in regard to an application of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to abandon 24.6 miles of line between Rockglen and Killdeer, Saskatchewan. In its application it stated that this line is in the "eligible for abandonment" category, without waiting upon the passage of Bill No. C-231, and that the board is prepared to proceed with this application.
In the light of applications for railway line abandonment now being heard by the Board of Transport Commissioners, will the minister assure us that the pledge he gave to the railway committee in June, 1964, is still in effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this would be a most suitable subject for discussion when the bill is before us.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask him whether his department has been able to assist feed brokers in Ontario to acquire western wheat of grades nos. 5 and 6 for commercial use at the Collingwood and Midland grain elevators, which service the central Ontario feed dealers and feeders. The question is urgent, since we are now approaching the end of the navigation season, and Ontario has always been a market for western grain.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Agriculture):: For the hon. member's information, there is a shortage of wheat for feed inasmuch as the quality of the crop this year was very high.

DEBATES	December 15, 1986
This matter falls particularly within the province of the Minister of Forestry and the new feed grain agency. I will draw it to the attention of my colleague to see whether that agency can take some remedial action.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choquelte (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, a great parliamentarian who has more than once tamed the lions of the opposition.
My question is as follows: In view of the alleged police brutality going on in Quebec-which has led the bar of the province of Quebec to demand a royal inquiry-is the government looking into the advisability of introducing amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, taking as a pattern a ruling handed down by the United States Supreme Court, ordering the courts to deny the validity of a prisoner's confession when the said confession with respect to a major offense is made in the absence of the prisoner's lawyer?


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out to the hon. member that the question is probably not very urgent. He may put his question forward at ten o'clock.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel my question is quite important. As a matter of fact, I am sending the provincial minister of justice, Mr. Bertrand, a report stating that one of my clients has suffered police brutality. I would like to know if the federal Minister of Justice has anything to say in this regard?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-251 to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
December 15, 1966
On Clause 1-Definitions
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose at the last sitting, clause 1 was being discussed. Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Simpson:: Before clause 1 carries, can the minister tell us whether he has been able to get in touch with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, concerning the questions I put to him at the last sitting?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I have been in touch with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My officials have also had an opportunity to discuss this question with the officials of the other department. It appears that the number of Indians receiving supplementation of old age security pensions through extra payments from the department is not great and we expect that generally the great majority of the pensioned Indian population will be better off as a result of pension supplements.
In cases where the amount of $105 is not enough to meet the requirements of Indian pensioners, the department of Indian affairs will be prepared to pay additional assistance. We think the number of cases involved will be small, and that those mainly affected will be Indians in need of special care living off the reservations.


Robert Simpson: The minister has told us that in his opinion the great majority of Indians receiving old age pensions, those who will be receiving the $105 a month, will be better off under this legislation. I agree that this may be the case. Nevertheless, in my opinion $105 a month is not enough for an old age pensioner living in an isolated area, bearing in mind the extremely high cost of living in such areas. And most of the people I am concerned about now do live in isolated areas. I happen to know that a great many Indian old age pensioners are receiving very little more than their $75 a month. The department has undoubtedly felt that $75 a month is sufficient. I say it is not.
In any case, it appears to me that the minister is not able to assure us that any of the pensioners who are now receiving supplementary assistance from the Indian Affairs branch, in addition to the $75 a month, will continue to receive assistance supplementary to the extra $30 a month they may be receiving.
I can understand the hon. gentleman's difficulty when it comes to giving such an
Old Age Security Act Amendment assurance. But I should like to point out to him that if the federal government, which controls the department concerned, cannot give this committee an assurance that supplementary payments will be continued, it is setting a precedent for the provinces; faced with such an example, the provinces will be considering very closely the idea of decreasing their own supplementary payments to recipients of old age pensions. This is what I am afraid will happen. I do not think there is much hope that the provinces will continue to make these supplementary payments unless the federal government itself can assure the committee that it intends to take the initiative and continue this class of payments to old age pensioners among our Indian people.


Mr. Chatterton:: I have two minor points. When we come to later clauses dealing with the application of this measure, we shall be asking some questions about the type of application which may be imposed.
I understand a draft application form has been prepared. Would the minister make copies of it available to us? We recognize it would merely be a starting point, but it would give us some idea of the type of application form which may be necessary for the purposes of this bill.
Second, has the minister consulted with the Minister of Veterans Affairs as to the possibility that the supplementary payment made under this amendment would not be considered as income for the purposes of war veterans allowance? I recognize that payment of war veterans allowance is not considered as income for the purposes of this bill, but it may work the other way around. The receipt of a possible $30 under this bill might prejudice the war veterans allowance payment.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, last Monday the minister and I were just commencing a very interesting discussion with regard to certain questions which could arise as to the legality of this legislation, having in mind certain actions which might be taken by certain provinces. Since then I have reviewed Hansard, including the discussion initiated by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, the speech made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke and the statement made by the minister in response to questions which I asked him.
I have too much respect for the minister as a good parliamentarian not to feel that his answer to me was carefully phrased to avoid answering very important questions, and I

December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment believe this bill should not be passed until we receive some better answers.
I have taken the position throughout, Mr. Chairman, that the responsibility of the federal government should be exercised in respect of subject matters which are essential to make the central government strong and viable. I have always supported the government in its efforts in that regard, but here we have something entirely different. Here we are getting into the twilight area, the gray zone between federal and provincial governments.
It is all very well for the minister to say to me, and quite correctly, that as matters now stand the government has a legal opinion to the effect it is entitled to enact legislation of this kind. I accept that fact. There is no doubt about it, but I am looking to what the situation will be respecting this legislation in the event that a province, as one province has already indicated, enacts legislation of a similar kind.
I can do no better, for the purposes of the record, than put the very brief provision of section 94A of the British North America Act on record at this point. It reads:
It is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the Parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
It is notorious that this section was enacted in 1951, after several abortive attempts had been made to give to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction in this particular matter. In 1964, when the government secured the constitutional amendments providing for supplementary benefits, in the form of survivor and disability clauses, I brought this matter up in the house. I asked the Prime Minister a question in June, 1964. I asked why the government at that time, when securing a constitutional amendment, did not attempt to secure the exclusive right to deal with old age pensions and matters of this description.
I did not get any answer, but in the course of the debate which followed, when the address was presented by the Prime Minister, I again brought this matter to the attention of the government and the Prime Minister. I referred to the fact that when the first amendment was introduced in 1951, as originally proposed by hon. Mr. Garson, at that time the minister of justice, it was on a very simple basis. It was to the effect that notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act,


the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions.
That was the orignial proposal of the federal government but the provinces would not accept it, for reasons which they thought adequate. So, as a result of discussions and correspondence between the premiers and the federal government, a condition was added which was, as I have just read, that "no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature. . ."
The current situation has been inflamed by events. We have seen the introduction of a statement into the Quebec legislature that it is their intention to enact old age pension laws. What then will be the position of this legislation here? Let us assume-and it is not at all unlikely-that the type of legislation which the province of Quebec, or any other province, may introduce will establish certain age limits which may differ from the age limits in this legislation. They may establish in their legislation different amounts. They may establish in their legislation different conditions of payment and sources of funds.
Surely, under those conditions it cannot be successfully argued that the continued attempt to implement the provisions of this, and the original legislation upon which it is based, will not have the effect of interfering with the operation of a provincial act dealing with old age pentions? I am not going to follow this line of argument, nor is this the place to do so, through to its completion. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is a very real possibility and so, while the minister was quite correct on Monday when he said the government has every legal right to enact this legislation-and that is a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree-this will not necessarily be the case when the province of Quebec, or any other province if it so sees fit, exercises its constitutional responsibility to deal with matters of this kind. The likely result of the operation of this federal legislation will be to interfere with the operation of the provincial legislation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
What is the government going to do then? What will be the position of the pensioners? What about the sources of funds? What about the old age security fund? These are matters with which the government must be concerned, and it is not for the minister to fob off the committee with the casual statement
December 15, 1966	COMMONS
which he made on Monday. It is a very difficult problem.
The minister may well say in reply to my comments that this is all theoretical, that it is all hypothetical, but in the light of the statement in the speech from the throne in the Quebec legislature, it is getting to be more than theoretical. I think the members of this committee are entitled to some indication as to what the views of the government are, not as the situation is today but as it may well be if such an event comes about.
Before I resume my seat I make this suggestion to the minister, that he might well give serious consideration to the provisions of the Supreme Court Act. There is a very simple and adequate remedy under, I believe, section 55, where the Governor in Council has the right to submit to the Supreme Court references not only as to existing legislation but as to the powers of either the legislature of any province or of the federal government which have been exercised or which may be exercised.
I suggest to the minister that if it does become apparent that specific legislation is going to be introduced in the province of Quebec then there is a duty incumbent upon this government to seek, through the medium of the Supreme Court Act, an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada as to what would be the situation. I put this suggestion quite sincerely to the minister. I suggest the government should not leave this question until the last, until we have in existence legislation of a province and this legislation of the federal government, which are in direct conflict. There is very grave doubt as to whether or not this legislation, which we are now being asked to enact, is in fact valid in view of the possible operation of provincial legislation.


Robert Simpson: I wonder whether the minister would enlighten me a little further with regard to some of the payments which will not be considered to be income. I know that he has explained this quite fully in this house and on the national television service, but perhaps I might ask the question in this form: The minister has said that assistance from relatives, ownership of property, money which people may have in the bank, and I believe he mentioned social assistance, will not be considered as income when the income of the old age pensioner is computed. Are there other things which the minister has in mind? Could the minister tell us very briefly what other things he has in mind in this regard?
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, under this proposed measure, we define income as it is defined in the Income Tax Act. In addition to those items which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Churchill we would not regard, for example, unemployment insurance benefits as income for purposes of this supplement; nor would we regard as income payment for workmen's compensation or any form of social assistance including war veterans' allowances; nor would we consider as income disability pensions received by veterans with regard to war service or indeed pensions in a form which in a sense is an award for damages.
These are among the additional items which are not included which come to mind immediately. We do not include donations or gifts from relatives or friends. Old age pensioners receiving gifts from their children, for example, would not be expected to regard these as income. As you may remember the Senate committee recommended that all cash income be regarded as income for the purposes of the program, but we have not accepted that definition. We have accepted the definition of income as provided by the Income Tax Act and, accordingly, we have knocked out quite a number of items which otherwise might have been included, if the Senate conclusion had been accepted.


Robert Simpson: The minister may not be able to tell me this-I do not know myself-but I am wondering whether payments which are made to Indians under treaties are, under the Income Tax Act, classed as income. Perhaps the minister might assure the house that these payments will not be taken into consideration when the income of the Indian people is computed in respect of applications for the extra supplementary assistance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, this point has been raised before. I will look into the matter and attempt to provide an answer.


Robert Simpson: In checking the point, would the minister consider including this in the bill. He mentioned payments for damages. I would say that in some measure the treaty payments to the Indian people have been made to them in respect of a loss of something which they once owned. I think the minister should give very serious consideration to this, and have it included in the bill.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, there is one question I should like to ask the minister which is supplementary to those which already have been asked. I take it that
December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment it is fundamental that old age security is counted as income. What is the position in respect of the recipients of old age security in provinces where the provincial government is supplementing the old age security and has increased it, as in the case of Prince Edward Island, to $100 a month? Will the additional amount be counted as income? In other words, will the old age security recipients in Prince Edward Island qualify only for $5 from the federal fund or will the province be in a position to withdraw that supplement? If the provincial supplement is withdrawn will the recipients of old age security then become eligible for benefits under this legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The pension payment
made in Prince Edward Island was considered. In proposed section 9, as contained in clause 3, there is a provision that the amount of any pension or supplement and the amount of any similar payment under a law of the legislature of a province shall not be regarded as income. Therefore, if an applicant from Prince Edward Island applied for this guaranteed income supplement such an applicant would not have to put down on the application form as income the $25 of the P.E.I. pension payment. It is then up to the province to do what it wishes to do. We do not, however, disqualify any pensioner from receiving this benefit by virtue of a supplement received from a province.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the proposition which has been advanced here this afternoon dealing with the constitutional position in respect to old age pension legislation must be answered by the government. That the government should sit in solitary splendour and look on while a question of such importance is raised is something which cannot be accepted by this house. Indeed, it is quite amazing to me, as I read my correspondence from day to day, the number of people who write to me and say, "Well now, what stand is being taken on behalf of a straight pension to all Canadians in view of the fact that each Canadian who pays income tax, corporation tax, and the like, has made a contribution which entitles him to a pension".
No longer is there any suggestion in legislation of this kind that what is being granted is in the nature of an emolument or benefit. Today it constitutes an earned income in consequence of contributions made by all Canadians. I should like to make clear once more that our attitude has been, and still is, that what is being done here by the government is unjust and unfair, and that all

Canadians who are entitled to the old age pension should receive the amount of the pension which we continually and regularly have advocated should be $100 a month.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
What is perpetrated by this legislation is a departure from a principle established and accepted by Canadians as a whole, that everyone should be entitled to the same pension regardless of his or her circumstances. The argument that a means test should be applied today is one that cannot be accepted. This is simply a step backwards, as has been said over and over again during the course of this debate, and is detrimental to human dignity. No matter what attitude the government adopts, what is being done here is an application of the means test. The government tries to dignify it by calling it another name, but a rose by any other name is just as sweet and a thorn by any other name is just as "Sharp". This is without doubt an economic and political gimmick, because we are departing from a principle which has been accepted over the years.
I am not going to go into detail in respect of this matter as it has been dealt with fully by other hon. members, but I should like to point out again that the opposition has repeatedly moved amendments, in an endeavour to recruit the support of members on the government side, to increase pensions to $100 per month. We went as far as to suggest that a vote on such an amendment would not be considered a vote of non-confidence, but the government has lined up all the Liberal members in this house to vote against such an increase, amounting to $25 per month.
I do not intend to name any members, although I could name one or two immediately, who today in their constituencies are endeavouring to lead their constituents to believe they are in favour of a straight increase. However vociferous they may be in and out of this house, and regardless of whether the government is right or wrong, Liberal members are always of the opinion that the government is always right.
Having said that, let me now refer to a matter of major importance. This legislation ought not to be passed until we have received an answer to the question regarding the position to be taken by the federal government when one province or another passes legislation giving that province the power and authority to grant old age pensions. It is not just a coincidence that this legislation was put of! for weeks and months, and suddenly rushed
December 15, 1966	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment into the house when the government of Quebec decided to claim jurisdiction in respect of old age pensions.
Mention has been made of the British North America Act and the section dealing particularly with old age pensions, namely Section 94A. I should like to read it again because it does not require any interpretation. Any layman or any individual who is able to read English or French can interpret this section and realize what it means. It reads:
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
In the month of April, 1963 the Prime Minister enunciated a principle, which I queried at the time and still do, which was disruptive of Canadian unity. That was the declaration of the concept of two Canada. Today that concept is being departed from, retreated from and abandoned by the government. The government showed by action that it does not believe in the concept of one Canada. This government stated in 1963, 1964 and 1965 throughout this country that we were going to build up a kind of dual nation-not a duality of citizenship based on the rights of French or English Canadians-but dividing Canada into two parts. The rights go back to 1775, 1791 and 1865 as amended since then.
With all the propaganda force at its command the government has today backed away from that concept. We do not hear anything more about co-operative federalism. That was a doctrine held up as one of the great concepts that this government had evolved. Co-operative federalism as a concept is as dead today as the dodo. This government was the creator of that concept, and the destroyer of it.
I am sure the minister has had this legislation ready for a long time, and I am sure it represents hours and days of work. We asked repeatedly for this type of legislation because we were willing to accept half a loaf on the basis that half is better than none. The government refused to bring it forward until the Johnson government of Quebec said it intended to bring in old age pension legislation, assuming jurisdiction in this regard in the province of Quebec.
The minister is able to recognize the government's promise during the last election campaign to increase old age pensions by $25 per month, and he is also able to forget about that promise after a period of 13 or 14 months.

The minister possesses political agility and astuteness.


Mr. Byrne:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Kootenay East is one who understands agility possibly better than any other member of this house.
I should like to ask the minister what the government intends to do regarding this legislation. Surely, the government does not intend to gloss over this matter and get the measure through simply by sitting silent and inert. We want to know what is going to happen and what the government intends to do.
As a result of the amendment to the British North America Act of 1951, the provinces joined together in accepting the principle that the federal government could bring in old age pensions, but that amendment did not provide for exclusiveness. The very wording of the section indicates that it was intended to maintain and preserve this exclusive right of the provinces to provide old age pensions.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I will read this section again so that there will be no mistake:
-but no law made by the parliament ol Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
When the legislature of Quebec passes the legislation which is embodied in the Speech from the Throne and determines, as evidence by the declaration which has already been made, to appropriate exclusively to the legislature of that Province jurisdiction over old age security in the province, what will be the attitude of the federal government? When Mr. Lesage was premier all he did was to ask, and generally he received what he asked for because the Federal government did not want to argue with a province which saw eye to eye with it in the legions of liberalism. However, suddenly this government has developed a new concept, and co-operative federalism has died an unnatural death. I am sure the minister will have gone into this matter most thoroughly and his advisers will have given the fullest consideration to the eventualities which will arise if the legislation is passed in Quebec.
Will the minister say to the province of Quebec that section 94A gives the federal government the right to pass the legislation on old age pensions? Section 94A gives us no exclusive right whatsoever; we only have a permissive one. If the province of Quebec

passes legislation to provide a pension of $100 a month, is it the intention of the government of Canada to bring about something like the monstrosity which it brought forward in connection with health insurance? In the case of health insurance, the government accepted the principle of the duality of insurance plans. Does the government of Canada intend to hand over to the province of Quebec-by way of advance or by whatever other method is followed, such as a subsidy-an amount that will be sufficient to cover the total expenditure to be made by that province on old age pensions? The government finds itself in a desperate position, and I can understand the minister's unaccustomed silence in this regard.
The government finds itself today in a frightful predicament on the question of university education which was mentioned by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox. He asked what the government intends to do about McGill University, and the answer was that they would not get into that problem because it is within the jurisdiction of the province.
However, when we were in office we were able to bring about a formula whereby the province of Quebec-at the time when Colonel Sauve was premier of that province-accepted the $27 million which had been amassed for university education, under a formula which was acceptable to both sides. However, under that formula the money that was paid to the province of Quebec for education could only be paid to those institutions that qualified. In other words, they qualified on a per capita basis in accordance with the same requirements which obtained in other provinces.
When this government took office it decided, in its wholesale denunciation of all those principles that had been acceptable for years to embrace the idea of co-operative federalism, under which the amount advanced to any one province for educational purposes could be used in any other area. In other words, what was paid to a province for university grants could be used for other purposes. This money was simply placed in a consolidated fund, and the designation of this sum for any one purpose was made by the legislature of that province.
Now, the government is in a fine jam. I am interested to hear how they will get out of it. If the legislature of Quebec passes this legislation-and if I read Mr. Lesage's views correctly he is certainly not going to oppose the adoption of this legislation-then what will

DEBATES	December 15, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment the government of Canada do? They can say that this will come up later. We want to know now what they are going to do.
A moment ago when a question was raised in a general way and reference was made to a submission to the Supreme Court of Canada, the minister gave it his full attention but did not articulate any reply or make any suggestion regarding the attitude of the government. I would like to hear him now, as an authority on this subject. He must be an authority in view of the tremendous amount of expenditure that is now being made for social security, much of which is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Naturally, he will be able to place before us clearly and succinctly answers to the following questions: first, has the government departed from the constitutional position that it adopted regarding the concept of co-operative federalism, which has now become unco-operative federalism?
Second, will the government push any province into the position of having to accept a measure that is unconstitutional? Far be it from this government or any government to do that, so the answer would be in the negative. Then, what will the government do? What does the government intend to do when the legislation is passed by the legislature of Quebec and receives royal assent? This is something that the people of Canada have the right to know. We have seen too much chiseling away at our constitutional rights in the last three and a half years not to demand now an accounting in the particular matter that is before the house. I await with anticipation and interest the explanation which the minister will make on behalf of the government of Canada. When the question was asked in 1964, as quoted earlier by the hon. member for Peace River, no answer was given. It might have been theoretical then, but today we are approaching the moment of truth. The legislature of Quebec intends to legislate exclusively on this question which is within its jurisdiction as set out in the constitutional amendment now embodied in section 94A. If the minister cannot answer this question himself but requires the assistance of the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, who today has become to all intents and purposes the real law officer of the crown, then I suggest that this section be allowed to stand. Otherwise, the minister should give the committee a full, complete, comprehensive and intelligible explanation of what this government is going to do. If the section stands, the government will be able to produce those in charge of the justice department and Canadians will learn
December 15, 1966

once and for all where we are tending under this government.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
For three years this government has followed one policy and is now running in the opposite direction. We want to know what this government intends to do in this connection; and we have a right to know before this bill is given passage by parliament.
I see the Postmaster General is in his seat. He is a man for whom I have always had a high respect, and I should like to hear from him in this regard. Is he going to depart from the constitution? I should also like to hear from the associate minister of defence on this question. I think they are the only two ministers from Quebec in the house, and I want them in on this poll. I want to hear what is their attitude, not what they are going to say on the hustings in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada but what they are going to say in parliament.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, surely the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was right in raising the questions he has just raised with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to the legality of Bill No. C-251. Will the amendment to the Old Age Security Act reduce in any way the vested rights of Canadian provinces, not only of Quebec, but of any province?
In fact, section 94A of the British North America Act says very clearly:
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec has stated very firmly and straightforwardly that it intends to recuperate all its rights relating to old age security. In my opinion, it is obvious, in the spirit and the letter of the British North America Act, that old age pensions are a matter for the provinces rather than for the Canadian government.
However, it must be recognized that the Canadian government, some thirty years ago, took the initiative of giving the Canadian people legislation providing for the first old age pensions, the first old age assistance legislation in Canada.

Old Age Security Act Amendment
At that time, all provinces were consulted and the provinces in general, except for the province of Quebec, which was then under a Liberal administration, agreed to let Ottawa take over legislation concerning old age security and allowances. Mr. Taschereau, the then Quebec premier said that old age pensions would amount to promoting laziness, that they would prevent children from helping their parents, in a word that children would become distorted sons or daughters, refusing to help the aged. One year later, old age pensions were accepted in the province of Quebec, as in all other Canadian provinces.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, you have to be fair with those who, at that time, were administering the country, at the federal level; as a matter of fact, they showed the way, so that the provinces might accept old age pensions. At the time nothing prevented the province of Quebec, like the others, from passing legislation to provide for the old age pensions; but, the initiative came from Ottawa and not the provinces. When we say today that Ottawa invades the rights of the provinces, when the provinces themselves were passive, paralysed or unwilling to act, I think that we have no right to blame the federal government for everything it has done in the field of old age security over the last 30 years.
Mr. Chairman, that does not stop us, however, from seeing the facts clearly as concerns Bill No. C-251 now under consideration, which provides for an increase of the pensions up to $30 a month, subject to investigations. Amendments to abolish such investigations, have been declared out of order or defeated, so that we shall have those investigations, with regard to any person who will receive any supplement to the existing pension. Even a pensioner over 70 years old, to be entitled to any old age security supplement, will have to submit to those investigations.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
And I think, Mr. Chairman, that investigators and investigations will cost the Canadian taxpayers more than if the supplement of $30 proposed in the bill were granted to all those 65 and over.
It will create a bureaucracy stronger than the present one; it will be necessary to open throughout Canada offices which will cost millions of dollars to decide who is entitled to that supplement and who is not. And everyone knows that those investigations lead to gross injustice. It is obvious today when
December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment it comes to granting a pension to someone who is not 68 at the present time.
I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) should have inquired a little more about the cost of those investigations in Canada to find out who is entitled to a supplement and who is not. What will be required then, and who will decide if a supplement of $10 instead of $30, of $15 instead of $25 should be paid? The minister should have set up requirements, so that the members of parliament would at least know where they are going with that new bill.
I understand that the government's intention is to reach its goal, that is a minimum guaranteed income for every Canadian citizen. I do not think that the pensions will help it attain that goal, because even $100 a month is only $1,200 a year. Now, the minister is fully aware that nobody can live decently on $1,200 a year in Canada, in view of the present cost of living. It seems to me that is a well known fact.
Mr. Chairman, an interesting point was raised the other day by my colleague, the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise). He referred to a state pensioner of 65, 67 or 68 years of age, whose wife would only be 54, 55 or 58. She is not entitled to a pension due to her age. I should like to know whether two persons living together can manage with $105 a month for both of them. So, why is it not specified in the bill that when a man is eligible for a pension, his wife is also entitled to one?
At present, mothers of 55, 57 and 58 years of age must work as charwomen, at night in most cases, because her husband and herself are unable to live on $105 a month and even less on $75, as at present.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should have urged his cabinet colleagues to be as generous for older Canadians as they are, for instance, with regard to national defence, trade and commerce, and foreign countries. I say again that we do not object to helping underdeveloped countries of the world, but let nobody tell me that our older people who get $75 or $80 a month are well off. Some people earn approximately the same amount in other countries where the cost of living is much lower than it is here. If some persons or families are reduced to poverty or destitution in several countries, we also have some in Canada. And the older persons in many cases fall in that group.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that this bill is liable to be amended or improved any time when this or the following government will take that decision, but nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account the facts in our country which are evident to the world and show that we are one of the richest countries. If such is the case, we cannot deny Canadians, our older citizens who have devoted their life to their country, Canada, who have worked for its development and improvement, the strict right to a bare minimum, the right to have a decent standard of living in any province of our country, while respecting the wishes of each one of the provinces for, according to the British North America Act, each province has real and unquestionable priority rights in this field.
Even if Ottawa took the initiative 30 years ago, it must still respect the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution. It is not a question of amending the constitution, but only of respecting it, and from the moment it is respected, Ottawa will have done the provinces a service. We will even be able to say that Ottawa showed them the way 30 years ago and that, seeing that they have reached a certain maturity, we now come back to the spirit and the letter of the constitution and allow them to develop or pass legislation which they have the right to initiate in the best interest of both their population and the whole country.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, the day before yesterday I mentioned the very problem brought up today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I was asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to tell us, if a province should claim exclusive jurisdiction over old age security, whether he would be prepared to recommend that the federal government grant the province fiscal compensation to finance and administer a provincial old age secrity fund.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister, of course, reaffirmed what the Prime Minister stated this week to the house, namely that the federal government feels reassured with this bill as concerns the constitutionality of the legislation; in other words, the federal government is occupying this field and intends to stay there.
In today's context, that line of reasoning makes sense, of course, because as long as one, or all the provinces do not pass any old age
December 15, 19S6	COMMONS
security legislation, the federal government does not have to express its views on the matter.
However, since the Quebec government has announced in the speech from the throne that it is determined to pass legislation and to occupy the whole field of old age security,
I think the federal government is now placed before an accomplished fact. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and the cabinet should, so as to dispel any confusion that might exist in the minds of Quebec taxpayers, answer the questions we have asked, more particularly those put by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and put today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
It is obvious, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this afternoon, that, should a province want to exercise its jurisdiction over old age security under section 94a, the federal government must withdraw from that field.
If we consider the spirit of the amendment passed in 1951, we find, especially on the part of Quebec representatives, a statement of principle to the effect that the province of Quebec, at that time, agreed to let the federal government exercise jurisdiction as regards old age security, but nevertheless kept the right to exercise its own jurisdiction in such a field when it deemed it advisable.
Now, the taxpayers of the province of Quebec are asking themselves the following questions: Should the provincial government set up its own old age security plan, will the federal government continue to exercise its own jurisdiction in the field of old age security along with the provincial government? Supposing the federal government refused to withdraw from this field, in order to administer this provincial old age security fund, will Quebec taxpayers be subjected to double taxation? Will the federal government act like in the case of joint plans? When I directed my question to the minister, I had joint schemes in mind, of course. We know that the federal government, in the case of provinces having withdrawn from some joint plans, under this system of co-operative federalism so often mentioned by the Prime Minister, decided to grant them fiscal compensation in return for the amounts they were not collecting under those joint programs.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Peace River asked the minister whether there would be any possibility of this constitutional issue,
Old Age Security Act Amendment which is obviously not difficult to understand, being referred to the Supreme Court by the cabinet, so that it would have guide lines as to its exclusive jurisdiction in this field.
I must point out to the hon. member for Peace River that the premier of the province of Quebec stated before the Quebec legislature that the province of Quebec would not recognize the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this matter and that a decision by that court on old age security would not be valid. And this brings me to say that as a matter of fact, in the province of Quebec, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would not be recognized by provincial authorities, nor by the majority of the people concerning this constitutional jurisdiction in any field whatsoever, as to whether it belongs to the province of Quebec or to the federal government.
I believe it would be useless for the cabinet to refer this question to the Supreme Court, since the present premier of Quebec and even Mr. Lesage when he was premier of the province have often questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the validity of its decisions as regards the constitutional character of our legislation. I believe it is useless for the cabinet to ask for the opinion of the Supreme Court.
We ask the federal cabinet to reassure Quebec taxpayers and set their minds at ease, before this bill is passed, as to its eventual attitude concerning the old age security plan.
Will the central government persist in keeping this taxation field and will the taxpayers of the province of Quebec have to withstand double taxation, since they will be called upon to pay the costs of a provincial old age security plan?
Evidently, the federal government, according to the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, intends to keep this taxation field.
In the reply to the question I had asked the day before yesterday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that according to the law and the constitution, any province is free to establish its own old age security plan.
Of course, the minister thereby suggests that the province of Quebec can establish its old age security plan, but this does not mean that the federal government will withdraw from this field which it now occupies.
In my opinion, according to section 94A, if a province wishes to exercise its jurisdiction in the field of old age security, the
December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment federal government has to get out. I believe that such is the spirit of the said section 94A.
I actually believe that it is not necessary for the cabinet to obtain an opinion from the Supreme Court in this matter. One has only to read carefully section 94A, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, to be convinced that if a province wishes to exercise completely its jurisdiction in matters of old age security, it is fully entitled to do so. I think that the federal government should withdraw from a field that it occupies at present.
To my mind, there is only one solution the federal government should consider and I believe the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare can give us an answer before this bill is passed. The federal government should say this to the provinces: If you decide to set up your own old age security plan and administer it yourself, the federal government is willing to deal with you in this regard, as it does in the case of joint programs.
I ask the minister earnestly to give us an answer. The matter is of the utmost importance and the present situation is unsettling for Quebeckers. It is only fair and sensible to give us a firm reply, positive and definite, concerning his jurisdiction with regard to old age security if Quebec should decide, as it has clearly indicated it will, to take over exclusive jurisdiction in that field.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, from what we heard since the beginning of the discussion on this bill, it is obvious that every objection seems to be of a constitutional nature. However, in spite of the numerous requests put to him in this regard, the Minister of National Health and Welfare refuses stubbornly to reply to the important and essential question that representatives of all parties, as well as the independent member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) have been asking these last few days, namely: does section 94A of the British North America Act go against the bill now moved by the government in this house?
I think that the minister would help us enormously to shorten the debate and give it some direction if he had the courtesy to tell us clearly, without equivocation or shillyshallying, as the minister responsible for presenting that legislation to the house, how he defines the responsibility of the federal government with regard to the application of that legislation under section 94A. It is not necessary to be very acutely aware of constitutional matters, Mr. Chairman, to see in


black and white, at page 480 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, what is stipulated in section 94A. Here is part of it:
-but no law made by the Parliament of Canada . . . shall affect the operation of any law present or future-
It seems to me that the safeguard which the legislators included in the British North America Act is clear and protects the provincial legislatures against interference or centralization by the federal government.
Since I have other remarks to make, I am wondering if the minister is not being unfair and ill-disposed by refusing to take a stand and define the meaning he gives to that section 94A, since it is our only objection, but the main one, to that legislation.
I see that the minister is engrossed in the newspapers. Who knows but he may be reading precisely about objections raised in the house by hon. members who represent all the people of Canada. Personally, I represent a Quebec riding and I must therefore speak up for the interests of my province. Hon. members from other provinces have also made known their opposition to that legislation under that very same section 94A which is clear, unambiguous, and does not lend itself to any misunderstanding or even to a technical or legal interpretation.
In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, the minister is turning a deaf ear.
Why does he stubbornly refuse to make his position clear? What is the minister's interpretation of section 94A as far as it applies to old age pensions? The section is quite clear and it seems to me that the minister should give us an answer. If the minister says that his bill is not contrary to the B.N.A. Act, that it is not a challange to the Canadian constitution, in short, if he can give us the assurance that his bill is not contrary to the spirit behind all the legal opinions which contributed to bringing forward the 1951 amendment to the B.N.A. Act I say that he is wrong and that he is leading the country politically toward serious, to say the least, constitutional difficulties, as far as the future of this country is concerned.
If agreements between the central government and the provinces are not respected, Mr. Chairman, then what will be, in the future? Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare want, seriously and deliberately, to be instrumental in creating a strong disagreement between the provinces and the
December 15, 1966	COMMONS
central government? Is that the spirit of cooperative federalism we have heard so much about since his government took office? If the minister would only answer our questions instead of showing silent arrogance, indifference and irresponsibility toward parliament-an attitude which has become apparent over recent years-I think serious problems could be avoided, problems which could become more serious if the government does not, as it should, spell out its understanding of the country's constitutional problems.
Some members of the house have called for constitutional committees and advocated measures so that the central government and the provinces would cooperate more closely. The present government has always postponed the matter. It has studied, it will study again; it has considered and will reconsider those problems, but has never made a positive, firm, unequivocal decision on those fundamental problems concerning the compliance with the provisions of the B.N.A. Act, a pact which has allowed us to live in a rather relative but, nevertheless, positive harmony in our country. Relying on a majority vote and availing himself of a numerical superiority, since the government can probably expect the support of the New Democratic Party, the minister wants to run counter to the B.N.A. Act and to the spirit which inspired it.
I therefore ask the minister-


An hon. Member:: This is a dictatorship.


Georges-J. Valade: I hear someone say this is a dictatorship. It is even more, it is ostracism, it is a political hegemony that the minister is attempting to impose on this parliament, because he is fully aware that he is dealing with a means of political partisanship rather than a social measure.
If the minister knew that his silence can have serious, consequences, he would realize that none of the Quebec Liberal members had the courage to tell us, since discussion started on this bill, their position on this matter which is against one of the provisions of the B.N.A. Act. Why this silence on the part of all the Quebec Liberal members who, during the last election campaign, went around promising our senior citizens a $125 pension? Why this silence on the part of these pseudo-intellectuals, the Quebec Liberal members, namely the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), the member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) and other sensational Quebec members? Why do they remain perfectly silent, indeed, as silent as fishes over this bill?
Old Age Security Act Amendment
In view of the fact that they represent the only province which has officially announced, through its speech from the throne, its intention to legislate in the field of old age pensions, the Quebec Liberal members sitting in this assembly have the moral and political obligation to state their position with respect to his problem.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: You are asking much too much.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I am told that I ask too much but, out of the 40 odd Liberal members, I should be able to find at least one who would have the courage to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to give a clear explanation with respect to his interpretation of this particular section. And I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why it is that we must always come back on everything, implore, urge the minister to tell us what he thinks, how he interprets or what his definition is of a section of the constitutional act. Is this so very difficult for the minister?
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that he considered the minister to be a brilliant man. I find the minister is brilliantly silent, because he knows that he is presently unable to give us his legal, historical and constitutional definition of section 94A. This is not difficult and it would be very clear. I wish to point out to the hon. minister that if he refuses to answer, he can expect that we will expose him-as we will have to-on the electoral platforms of the province of Quebec, along with those of his colleagues who refuse to give clear and plain explanations.
Mr. Chairman, our senior citizens are in urgent need. Several are in an extremely deplorable financial position. I represent a riding where the majority of voters are of the working class, and when they get to a certain age, these people can no longer earn a living with their trade, profession or occupation. Most of them are without any means of livelihood and they must receive government assistance. Whether this help comes from the provincial or the federal government does not matter, as long as somebody helps them.
Well, the Quebec government has shown its intention to assist them, to try and meet their needs, and that is why the federal government does not have to interfere in that
December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment field. It no longer has a priority nor a constitutional right to occupy the old age pension field, as it is doing at the present time, or as it wants to do.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said earlier that the federal government had taken the initiative to legislate as far as old age pensions are concerned; he was right. When the federal government did that, the provinces had shown no interest -because they did not have the means to finance such a legislation. But now the province of Quebec has shown its firm intention to legislate in that field, and if the minister keeps on refusing us a more precise definition of section 94A, I say that he runs counter to the law, he kills, right from the start, anything that we might contribute in future on the constitutional amendments, when we have developed a system for the revision of the confederation pact.
Mr. Chairman, I insist, as member of this house, and I ask and order the minister to give us an answer, or his interpretation of this section of the constitutional act referred to by several members of this house.
Why does the minister refuse stubbornly to give us an answer? Is he unable to do so? Is he short of legal advisers. Or is it because his colleagues from Quebec, on whom he based all his political propaganda during the last election, are unwilling to commit themselves with him in connection with that bill? The people have the right to know the reason for this silence which we disapprove, this silence which indicates to the people of this country the poor sense of responsibility shown by the minister in the House of Commons towards the representatives of the people. I do not understand why there is no standing order in this house compelling the minister to give explanations and state clearly his position about the discussion of a basic and unalterable principle, that is whether the minister is acting legally or illegally. I maintain, for my part, that he now acts illegally from a constitutional standpoint by forcing Quebeckers to submit to his act instead of the Quebec legislation as prescribed by the constitution.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the members, and the minister knows it, are in a very difficult position or will be in a very difficult position when the time comes to vote for or against Bill C-251, because of the political aspect it implies. If members of this house were asked to vote on section 94A, concerning
[Mr. Valade.l

the bill before us, it would be a vote of censure toward the minister, and he knows it. That is why he remains silent and does not want to inform the house of his government's intentions.
We cannot afford, we, responsible members, to play politics at the expense of our senior citizens, because we consider that we have an important social role to play. But we also know that the government is not honest in introducing this legislation. Knowing already that the provincial government intends to vindicate its constitutional rights in that field, the present government and the minister place the members in a situation which does not correspond to reality and which may be interpreted as a denial of the advantages which we want to provide to our senior citizens, if we vote against the bill. And if we vote for the bill, it means that we are accomplices of the minister in betraying the provisions of the British North America Act.
That, then, is the dilemma to which this bill and the minister's silence reduce us. If the minister gave us a clear definition, an accurate interpretation of the act, I believe we could far more honestly and objectively take a stand. I feel that the minister will be responsible for whatever treasonable acts are perpetrated by his own colleagues of the province of Quebec, when the vote is taken on this bill if he does not throw some light on his present stand.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that the N.D.P. members will vote for it blindly and without hesitation. Under the cloak of social justice they flirted with the province of Quebec during the last election campaign. They said to the people of Quebec: "You know, we, in our party, understand the problem of French Canadians; we recognize the independence of the N.D.P. in the province of Quebec under Mr. So and So; we will intervene in the decisions that are made."
[DOT] (5.00 p.m.)
Today those people will blindly approve the government, without any discussion. And what are they going to say during the next election in the province of Quebec? They will have to be denounced also as opportunists who go into the province of Quebec, the way the Liberals did during the last election, gathering votes and, the following day, betraying their promises toward people who are too proud and too honourable to accept the dishonest compromise and dilemma which are being proposed to them today in this legislation.
December 15, 196S

And if the minister refuses to give answers, we shall hold him personally responsible and his government will suffer the consequences of such irresponsible action at the next election.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to tell us what the British North America Act and clause 94A represent to him.
If he is unable to tell us, well, we no longer need an inefficient minister within the government, and we shall see to it that he is replaced. If the government is unable to explain itself clearly, we shall also see that it is replaced.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of prolonging this debate. Last Tuesday, on second reading, that is before consideration in committee, I had the opportunity of making comments on the subject matter of the bill as well as on its constitutional implications.
I followed with a great deal of interest this afternoon the speeches of hon. members and particularly those of members of the official opposition. The one who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), as well as the speaker who preceded him, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), asked the minister some very judicious and important questions.
The hon. member for Sainte-Marie is wondering why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), or the government, refuse to divulge their position and their opinion on the constitutional implications of this bill. Although the minister, it seems, does not want to answer, I think we were given a very solemn and imposing answer by another minister of the crown, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) when we were examining another bill in this house during the present session. If I remember rightly, it was the bill concerning the creation of a cultural centre in Canada.
When some hon. members talked about the constitutional implications of this other bill, the Associate Minister of National Defence rose to condemn as shenanigans all these constitutional points often raised in this house by hon. members and based on the British North America Act. Yes, such is the attitude of Liberal members of this house and the cabinet ministers who come from the province of Quebec; for them, as for the government and the whole cabinet, constitutional
11171
Old Age Security Act Amendment implications are merely shenanigans. Hon. members should not expect an answer either for no government has ever shown such systematic obstinacy in not giving this house and the country explicit statements in order to eliminate undue conflicts. On the contrary, the government is aggravating those conflicts.'
As the hon. member for Charlevoix pointed out, the government of the province of Quebec, through its new premier, Mr. Daniel Johnson, has already stated publicly that it would not accept that this point be decided by or referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.
His predecessor, Mr. Lesage, also rejected the authority of the Supreme Court as far as mining rights on the continental shelf were concerned. In that matter, in that parallel responsibility as set out under section 94A, it is clearly stipulated that a jurisdiction, a prior and exclusive responsibility is granted to a province, when it decides to enter into that field of action.
The Supreme Court, with due respect to its honourable members, is not a body which can rule on constitutional opinions and conflicts between the central and provincial governments within the federative system in which we are living. In a federative system, the central government as well as the provincial governments are equal and autonomous in their respective responsibilities. A body appointed by one level of government is not apt to rule on conflicts which could occur between the central and provincial governments.
I know quite well that before 1941, we had an objective and constitutional authority, namely the privy council in London, as decided in 1867. Now, when the two parties concerned, either the central and provincial government or provincial governments, disagreed on the interpretation of the constitution, the privy council in London delivered its ruling on the appeal. Before 1949, there was an objective organization to settle the disputes between two levels of equal and autonomous governments within a federative system. But the federal government of the day abolished appeals to the privy council, which was a very good thing, not from the viewpoint of the constitution but of the emancipation of Canada, of the achievement of domestic and international sovereignty. Among the signs of sovereignty, an independent and selfgoverning country within the commonwealth

Old Age Security Act Amendment of nations had the power to decide its contentious matters, in last report, and it is under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster, of December 11, 1931, that the privy council, in London, was abolished as a final court of appeal in 1949. Since 1949, we do not have in our country an objective constitutional court, whose members would be appointed by the central and the provincial governments to represent precisely those various viewpoints, within federalism, of the various governments with regard to their equality and autonomy.
For the above reasons, the Quebec government and probably other provincial governments if they want to speak more openly, and millions of Canadians, are of the opinion that there is no court in our country to provide objective opinions on constitutional interpretations. And this government is always dragging its feet in this matter as well as in many others.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In regard to constitutional reforms, it has created, so it seems, an unofficial committee of public servants. Imagine, Mr. Chairman. Such is the spirit of liberal bureaucracy all right. It is not the legislators of this parliament who have to And, in 1966, a solution to the problems of our time and the necessary constitutional reforms, consistent with normal changes occurring over a 100-year period. No. It is not the legislators of this parliament who have to determine and discuss those problems. This Liberal government has created an unofficial committee of public servants, who are giving advice to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or other members of the cabinet, in regard to possible reforms or adjustments. I think it is a serious mistake from the democratical as well as the legislative point of view.
How unfortunate that this should happen only a few weeks before we celebrate our centenary, since in a few weeks from now, it will be the beginning of the year 1967, meaning a record of 100 years for this magnificent country made up of so many Canadians of good faith from one ocean to another. Why is it that those Canadians do not understand each other sufficiently? Why is it that some, in a corner close to the Pacific ocean, and some others, close to the Atlantic ocean, are at times under the impression that they do not know each other and that it is very difficult to establish national understanding and brotherhood? I say that this Liberal government is greatly responsible for such

DEBATES	December 15, 1966
a situation, for it has refused, since January 18, since the opening of this session, to give the Canadian parliament, the members of which come from different sections of this country, the opportunity to openly discuss, specify, establish constitutional taxation reforms, through a joint committee of both houses. Let the government rely upon the intelligence and the good faith of the hon. members.
Personally, I may have particular reforms in mind and at heart, specific reforms that some Canadians will find drastic, but I am ready to discuss the matter. I want to exchange views in an official way, through a committee appointed to this effect. I am sure I will be able to make concessions, as other members who might sit on that committee so as to enable Canada precisely to turn toward a better, a much more efficient federation than the one we have known until now and the centenary of which we are going to celebrate.
I will always maintain that the present government, by refusing to set up this committee, makes no effort to establish, realize and materialize national harmony and brotherhood.
Mr. Chairman, how do you expect provincial representatives to get along with their federal counterparts with respect to every problem that comes up, when our parliament denies us the opportunity-as intelligent human beings-to define, organize, direct and activate the different levels of government for the next one hundred years.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare will make his position known before the end of the debate. Let him not hesitate; we are prepared to hear him through, even though his views may be different from ours. But we want to hear what he has to say and let him not resort to this evasive way of going about things. The present government may very well decide unilaterally to embark upon a supplementary aspect of old age security, but it is not a Unitarian system of government we have in Canada.
We live in a federative system. There will be conflicts. The Quebec government said so clearly, and I am sure that the premiers of other provinces will do so shortly, and this will occur again.
Today I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) concerning the refusal by Quebec and several other provinces
December 15, 1966

to accept a federal control on transportation. But we get evasive meaningless answers, which perpetuate and multiply incomprehension in the country and increase tensions between the provincial governments and the central government.
In closing, like other members who took part in the debate this afternoon, I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to tell us his exact position on the constitutional implications of this bill and to tell us also whether his government considers that the Supreme Court is a competent constitutional court to deal with these constitutional conflicts.
Old Age Security Act Amendment Hon. members opposite say there is not enough national unity in this country to get on with the job of constitutional reform. I say that there is. I say that in our centennial year there will be enough national unity in order for us, as parliamentarians, to use it as a base in our study of the constitution. What I believe we need is a committee made up of members of parliament from all parties and from all regions in this country to study in depth the Canadian constitution. Let us meet with similar bodies in provincial capitals, and then, as the leader of my party has said time and time again:
We would appreciate definite answers from the hon. minister; we do not want him to answer that our interventions are only constitutional monkey-shines.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a few days ago, following the speech of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), it is quite obvious that the time has come for us-I say for us, members of parliament, and I emphasize the words "members of parliament"-to consider the true reforms to bring about in our Canadian constitution, while we are considering this bill.

Again, for the third time, let me say to the minister-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members from Quebec cry filibuster". How can we be filibustering when we are talking about national unity and our constitution?
L i ransiationJ
After such a dialogue with the other provinces, we are going to sit here in Ottawa with the premiers and the members of the other provinces, to get a modern constitution adapted to our modern days.
Mr. Chairman, we shall see, in the future, that our constitution has been perhaps or will be flexible enough for our existing needs. It may be necessary to amend it slightly or to rewrite it completely. As for me, I notice for the third, fourth, or fifth time in the House of Commons, that we must get to work without delay and exchange views with the other provinces. Within a few weeks, we shall know the decisions or the findings of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. We are going to see a committee report in the province of Quebec. Therefore, there must be an exchange of views between the federal government and the other provinces, and we have our own responsibilities to assume here in Ottawa. [English]
But, Mr. Chairman, what does the government do?


Mr. Guay:: They are not from Quebec. Change your glasses.


William Heward Grafftey: My hon. friend made the same remark. I will be interested to hear the hon. member's maiden speech. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, let us face the facts and what is happening. Soon the B and B commission is going to report. Soon the constitution committee of the province of Quebec is going to report its findings. What is going to happen if we in Ottawa do not act? With whom do we hold a dialogue? The dialogue will take place in a vacuum, and our national unity and federal-provincial relations will suffer, if this sort of thing continues.
23033-707J


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I wonder whether the Chair would kindly advise us just what we are discussing at the present time. What is the measure now before the committee?


William Heward Grafftey: Some of us who are in tune with the real problems in this country, Mr. Chairman, think that we are discussing perhaps the future of this country. Maybe the hon. member is one of those centralizers who does not understand the problems, but we are going to try and make him understand.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I did not ask for any advice particularly from the hon. member. I asked my question of the Chair. What are we discussing here at the present time, Mr. Chairman?
December 15, 1986
H174	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


The Deputy Chairman:: May I remind the hon. member, and members of the committee that we are on clause 1 of a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. I know that there may be observations about the constitution and about the constitutionality of certain matters-

-the constitutionality of the act. I believe the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) should depart from general terms and deal with the crucial point of the bill, namely the amendment to the Old Age Security Act.


William Heward Grafftey: I am on clause 1, Mr. Chairman. Time and again the opposition, and I speak for many backbench supporters of the government, have been faced with fait accompli legislation, especially in fields involving conjoint jurisdiction in the constitution. That is plain, Mr. Chairman. No matter what the constitution says, the political facts in Canada today are plain. We may do this and that, we may have our B and B study, but in the final analysis the constitution is a political document and politicians must deal with it. They should not bury their heads in the sand. Not a month goes by without some provincial premier drawing attention to problems. This time the premier concerned is the premier of Quebec. The government ought not to act unilaterally without consulting with the provinces. In centennial year, let us get down to the basic job of reforming the constitution. Section 94A of the British North America Act-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman's argument, which I apologize for not having heard in full, that this parliament does not have jurisdiction to enact this bill?


William Heward Grafftey: This parliament does have the jurisdiction which is conjoint.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does.


William Heward Grafftey: Right; perhaps I ought to say a word about what I am arguing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.
Mr Grafftey: Let us not quibble about the letter of the law. We have jurisdiction. We
[Mr. Patterson.l

can do lots of things, but let us do them in a way that will enhance federal-provincial relations and national unity at this stage of the country's development. The premier of Quebec exists, as do the premiers of the other provinces, yet this government does the kind of thing it is doing here without consulting these provinces. The ministers of the government say nothing about their ideas about basic constitutional reform. They are for national unity-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask another question? I am trying to understand the hon. gentleman's argument and his position. When he thinks that something is exclusively within federal jurisdiction, which he has admitted-


William Heward Grafftey: No, no.


An hon. Member:: No, he has not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to put my question without help. It may be a poor question, but the hon. gentleman has admitted that this bill-I am not talking about the subject matter as a whole-is within the jurisdiction of parliament.


William Heward Grafftey: Right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He admitted that a moment ago. Is he now suggesting that we should not introduce legislation that is within the competence of the parliament of Canada, before we have consulted provincial governments? Is that the position of the Conservative party?


William Heward Grafftey: No, that is not the position, and I will answer the hon. minister very briefly. Though I am a lawyer I would not apply such legalistic, narrow arguments to the broader questions of national unity and federal-provincial relations as they bear on this country we call Canada. We are the first country in the western world that has attempted to make a federal system work with parliamentary government. Without going into a whole lot of legal arguments, every member of this house, no matter to what party he belongs, realizes that things are not going well in 1966. I commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare for his humanitarian goals which I support, and I say to the Minister of Transport that we do have jurisdiction. But I also say that it is most important that we do not, by our actions as a government, exacerbate the situation.
It is up to us to tell the country as we approach centennial year what our opinions are relating to basic constitutional reform.
December 15, 1966

Backbenchers opposite say that any committee looking into such a problem ought not to be an all party committee. They say that such reform is the responsibility of the government. If that is the case let them accept their responsibility. Let them act so that ministers, such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare and other ministers, will not run into difficulties when, in future, they decide to plunge into these conjoint areas of jurisdiction to which I refer. Because things are as they are, because of unilateral action in conjoint areas, I see not one, but five or six unnecessary situations in which friction will be stirred up. We shall have friction until we get down to this basic job of constitutional reform.
The minister asks, what about section 94A.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not.
Mr. Graff fey: That section reads:
It Is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the Parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
That is the constitution. I know what the practice has been, and I think it is desirable that we have uniform social welfare legislation in this country. But, once and for all, let us face the facts of life in 1966. We have political people here called provincial premiers who should be consulted to let them know what is happening. Do not take this kind of unilateral action without consulting them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the official opposition consult the provincial premiers when they moved an amendment earlier this session to increase the old age pension by $25-


An hon. Member:: Unilaterally.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Unilaterally.


William Heward Grafftey: Let me say this, in spite of the things of which we are accused. I am sitting three or four feet from an ex-minister. He picked up the telephone and spoke to provincial premiers to let them know what was happening. When we were in power, did you hear about these troubles with provincial premiers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: In my province, you tagged us with the gimmick that we were anti-Quebec.
Old Age Security Act Amendment Did you hear about the winter works program? I was in the Minister of Labour's office and I told him about my problems relating to winter works. I was in his office when he telephoned officials in Quebec and the whole problem was cleared up. We made a go of the program, and it worked well because we consulted the provinces.
I say to the hon. minister that we want to see progressive legislation on the statute books, but many people are becoming worried about how it will work. If this government acts unilaterally in fields such as this, pretending with its head in the sand that the provinces do not exist, it will run into trouble and national unity and federal provincial relations will suffer.
I say for the tenth time-I see hon. members opposite are laughing. Some are saying, "I wish the bore would sit down". I say for the tenth time, let us start an all-party parliamentary committee to look at this question in centennial year and to discuss our constitution. How would it look in future, with all our B and B commissions and things like that, if we as parliamentarians cannot get together to discuss this problem? Let the committee go to the premiers and consult with them, and then come back to Ottawa to see what it can do.


An hon. Member:: Let us get back to the bill.


William Heward Grafftey: If we do nothing else, at least we shall have tried. Members opposite might take this lightly. They are in a hurry, I know, to get progressive legislation on the statute books.


An hon. Member:: They are jumping the gun.


William Heward Grafftey: They are jumping the gun, as a colleague says.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member may remember what the hon. member for Grey-Bruce said about pensions.


William Heward Grafftey: Let us all act, so that one year from now we may see how Canada looks with a reformed constitution. A reformed constitution will be better for the country and it will make our legislation work better. Hon. members, such as the independent member for Sherbrooke, are not speaking as they do for fun. I am sure were party discipline on the other side not so rigid, backbenchers of the government would make the speech I have made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: God forbid.
11176	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment


William Heward Grafftey: Why is not one Quebec member from the other side making this kind of speech, when it is patently obvious that something is wrong? Mr. Johnson asked every one of you to think about this, and you sit there like robots automatically voting for this bureaucratic government. What is wrong? Are you not speaking, thinking that the people in Quebec will automatically vote Liberal?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Do members opposite intend to sit back, thinking the people of Quebec will vote Liberal automatically from now until doomsday? Those people will take a good look at this legislation and ask why the centralists have been allowed to run them down. The government wants the votes when the clutch is on, but ignores Quebec on a gut issue like this one. I say to members opposite: you will not be elected automatically in future. Call this a filibuster, call it what you will, but people who are looking at this issue very profoundly, and who want this type of legislation to work, are warning the government.
I am only one of many members who are making speeches of this kind, and I am hoping the government stands so warned.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who wondered this afternoon what the discussion was all about because I listened to dissertations on the constitution which- to be sure-were enlightening at times, and which are certainly appropriate once in a while because if no one sounds the alarm, problems will evidently remain unsolved.
Nevertheless, I followed with interest the speech made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and I would agree with many of the things he said. At one point though, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) was the only one to applaud; there was not even one Conservative member applauding him; that is what brought discredit upon him, in my opinion. I began to worry at that point and I said to myself: there must be something unorthodox in what the member for Brome-Missisquoi just said. And-


Mr. Gregoire:: That proves the superficiality of it all. It is not applause which determines the quality of a speech; it is the essence of the speech itself that counts. This just goes to show how superficial you are.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am not expected to make more elaborate comments on the observations of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), since he has once

DEBATES	December 15, 1966
again condemned the members of the Conservative party by stating that theirs is a superficial attitude.
However, Mr. Chairman, I feel we are considering a bill which meets a need. Is it constitutional or not? It appears that hon. members do not agree on that point since those who objected to the bill this afternoon asked that an interpretation be given of the pertinent section of the constitution. The mere asking for this interpretation immediately suggests that the meaning is not clear and that there is a possibility of being right in both cases.
I feel the situation should be viewed from a different angle but, mind you now, I am not condemning those who are presently demanding that the constitution be rejuvenated-I do not even blame those who maintain that this bill might be unconstitutional-because I am of those who feel that we must eventually bring our constitution to date.
Mr. Chairman, what worries me is that, if we delay passage of legislation which fulfil some needs, because there are terms we want to discuss here, it would be detrimental to the senior citizens who are anxious to receive those benefits; indeed, they are not much impressed by constitutional problems. Besides, what really counts for them is their cheque, and I wonder whether some compromise could not be found to settle the matter.
For instance, if any province should decide to pass legislation on old age pensions, I would think that the government should grant fiscal compensation to that province and transfer its responsibility to it. This would probably be a compromise that would make the government project more acceptable to those who now raise constitutional arguments against it.
Mr. Chairman, from my point of view, I cannot object to it because of a vital and urgent need for an increased old age pension to the senior citizens. This settles it. From there, let us strive to rejuvenate the constitution, straighten all those things, let lawyers agree among themselves-this may never be, perhaps it is wishful thinking-to try and arrive at an acceptable constitution formula.
A while ago, as I listened to my friends from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and from Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and even to my deskmate from Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), who is a member of the legal profession and whose knowledge of constitutional matters I quite often admire, I said to myself:
December 15, 1966	COMMONS
Some people want to exert pressure on the federal government to establish a new constitution. I was thinking of my own province and I was asking myself: In my province, at least, are people in agreement on some formula? Do people know what they want actually? Would it not be rushing things dangerously to require that the constitution be reframed while taking into account all demands-the word "demands" might not be the proper one-from the province of Quebec, as long as there is no certainty about the consensus of those responsible for the future of that province?
Now, I do not feel that we are in agreement, and I still have fresh in my memory this remark from a previous Quebec minister who, also, was quite convinced that the constitution had to be revamped as soon as possible but, as he said: "The time does not seem ripe, since we are not in accord yet."
When the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi says, about this bill, that we should take this opportunity to establish right away the dialogue, to form a joint committee to discuss a possible new constitution, I do not share his opinion, since I believe that when we discuss such a constitution, we shall leave the responsibility to men like ourselves, politicians, who, though well meaning, will always be exposed to some resurgence of partisanry which will prevent them from coming to an understanding.
I believe rather that we should choose in the ten provinces people of recognized qualifications and uprightness, people who are not influenced by partisan considerations, who, in their respective fields, are acknowledged as authorities, and then form what I have called already a sort of Council of Wisemen. These wisemen, sitting around a table, will establish the good will dialogue as suggested by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, and thereafter will offer to the responsible provincial authorities and the federal government an acceptable constitution formula.
But are we going to wait for that before we give our old people and our sick what they need? I do think so, Mr. Chairman. I am not so exacting, while not condemning those who are, honestly and sincerely, because I feel the need here is vital, fundamental, and that our old people need those things. I shall therefore vote in favour of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to repeat, however, that, to my mind, fiscal compensation to the provinces which may wish to have their own plan is a necessity. Indeed, some people may
Old Age Security Act Amendment have overlooked the fact that we are dealing here with a transitory legislation; within a few years the provincial pensions acts will gradually eliminate the need for it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There will come a time where this act will play but an infinitesimal role. I see it as an interim act, an act of transition, to be replaced eventually by provincial pension acts now starting to be enforced but which do not cover everyone.
Now, Mr. Chairman, certain matters obviously worry those who will be entitled to those pensions. For instance, those who already have other pension benefits will see their income reduced because of the new pension plan. This should be provided for in this bill, because it seems to me that since they have paid for those pensions, they are entitled to them, the pensions should not be considered the same as income from the operation of a business or something similar.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat that we do not have the right, in my opinion, to refuse to the aged the minimum income they need to live decently until such time as the constitutional authorities of all the provinces agree on a new constitution, something which, in my opinion, will take several months and probably several years in the climate which prevails now.
I feel that in the province of Quebec a reasonable agreement has yet to be reached by a majority to adopt an acceptable formula. If the government could include in its bill- and I would have voted for the amendment if it had been moved-the principle of fiscal compensation for the provinces that want their own bill, such a compromise would probably meet the requirements of the majority.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres allow me a question?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Georges-J. Valade: Has the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres read section 94A of the Confederation Act?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I guess I read it 25 times. I find that it opens the door on both sides; it does not close it to anyone. I feel that if the government understands that there is an urgent need to fill, a need which the provinces are not filling at the present time, it is its duty to do it until the provinces take over.
11178	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
I noted that my hon. friend from Sainte-Marie said that those who will vote for the bill will lay themselves open to a charge of treason. Of course the charge is very serious. But as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman,
I will vote for that bill and with a clear conscience because it will help put a little more bread on the table of the old people of my riding and of the whole country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Beaulieu:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to those of all the hon. members who represent the province of Quebec in this house.
At the present time, we are dealing with legislation which is of interest not only to the people of Quebec but also to every Canadian citizen. During the last election campaign, I remember, we promised $100 a month to each and everyone if our party came to power, and at that time, we could hear our opponents say: We shall give you $125 a month. But now that they are in the house, they sing a different tune. The party in office now introduces a piece of legislation and says: All those who received $75 at 70 years of age, without investigation, will now get $75 at 69, 68, 67 or 65 until everyone gets a pension at 65.
The position in which our fellow citizens find themselves in every province-and here I refer in particular to those in our own province-is that $75 a month is not enough to live decently.
When an additional amount of $30 is offered, but subject to a condition, in my opinion, it is a little undignified because the $30 difference is equivalent approximately to the increase in the cost of living, in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.
A little earlier, when we are dealing with the legal and constitutional aspect, it was stated that the province of Quebec had refused it. I think that it is the leader of the Quebec Creditistes who said: "It is Ottawa which took the initiative." I remember that, as if it were yesterday, because at that time I was entering provincial politics. It is true that the premier in office of that time refused, and he refused during seven years, to grant the old age pension to the people of our province, but was he wrong or right? That is a question one can rightly ask.

DEBATES	December 15, 1966
Mr. Chairman, at that time the province of Quebec had a yearly income of $75 million only, when today, its income reaches the $2 billion mark. As far as income is concerned, the province of Quebec at the present time is one of the richest in the Canadian confederation. But we fought, in 1936, claiming the old age pension for the people of Quebec because at that time, we were paying taxes to the federal government. Today, the problem is the following. The government wants to have investigations, to search through people's lives, to worry the aged, those who have $500 in the bank, the workers who managed to acquire a small property over 30 or 40 years and tell him: "Now you are going to assess your income to see whether you have a monthly income of $60 or an annual income of $720; if you do, you will lose your $30 completely.
People will be in a position where they are going to ask themselves: Are we going to make a false statement? Are we not going to take our $1,000 out of the bank and bury it?" Do they want all taxpayers in our province and in our country to act as hypocrites? I am reluctant to accept that, Mr. Chairman, and I think that the suggestion that was made, not only by our party but by almost every party and even by the Independents to give the full allowance to everybody, without asking any questions, would have solved the problem.
But the problem facing us at present is a constitutional one and as I have spent 19 years in Quebec, I have become sensitized to that question. Respect for laws in the provinces is very important to me. I know the federal government has rights, and that it is the responsibility of federal members to preserve them. But members in Ottawa also represent one province or another, and in our case, we represent the province of Quebec. With a population of 6 million out of the 20 million people in Canada, I feel we are representing quite an important area.
Clause 92A is probably the clearest of all clauses in the British North America Act. As regards clauses 91 and 92, there are discussions. It is being said "they are subjects of exclusive provincial legislation", but in a further clause, one can read:
-nevertheless, In case of urgency, In case of warhot war or cold war-
-the federal government may be granted the right that we regarded as exclusive to the provinces.
December 15, 1986	COMMONS
But in clause 94A, there is no doubt, whether it be past, present or future, a province may at a given moment, claim the exclusive right in this matter. Even if the federal government lays claim to that right, I am not denying it such a right, I say that if the province claims it, I wonder why the minister and the government persist in provoking the provinces.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In Canada, as we know, we are going through a difficult period at this time. We are going through a troubled period. And in the province of Quebec-more than anywhere else perhaps-people are awakening and claiming their rights. And that is the reason why I was listening with pleasure to the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Dief-enbaker) when he said, a while ago, that he wanted constitutional rights to be observed. And I heard other members saying: "We dread the decisions of the Supreme Court". Thus spoke the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and other members.
And the present premier of Quebec, as well as his predecessor, Mr. Lesage, are unanimous in saying that they do not accept, in certain cases, decisions from the supreme court regarding constitutional matters. This is no wonder. The court in question is organized and appointed by the federal government; consequently, it cannot be a good judge in such a delicate and important field.
Concerning the arguments put forward as to whether the federal government should readily grant the provinces what they are asking for, Quebec demands recognition of a right to which it is entitled under the constitution. There is no doubt about that. But instead of saying yes, the federal government is defying Quebec once again. This situation occurred often enough. In my opinion, the time has come for the present cabinet, for the minister there-who means well, I admit it -to take a position which would contribute to better relations between the federal and the provinces. Actually, it would be very simple if the minister would only say: we will give the fiscal compensation to the provinces requesting it, because they are entitled to it. This, I think, is the viewpoint of my party: provinces should be given fiscal compensation; discussions with our provinces at every turn should come to an end.
As a matter of fact, the federal government will spend large amounts to initiate inquiries. It would be so simple if it only said to the provinces: administer the plan, whether it is $75, $100, $105 or $125 a month;
Old Age Security Act Amendment the province may provide whatever payment it wants, and the federal government will grant it fiscal compensation, guaranteed by its own legislation, as it is bound to give it to all other provinces who will not accept to administer themselves the scheme under consideration in the house.
I am surprised to note that the ministers from Quebec do not stand up here to demand the rights of their province. I am surprised to note that members who, during election campaigns, in the province of Quebec, for all sorts of reasons, contend that their party is the defender of the rights of minorities, of provincial rights, do not stand up now to demand those rights here. They know that all parties in the Quebec legislature are unanimous in claiming those rights. But here, what the official opposition, the Creditistes, the independents ask for is not heard. One would say that their arguments fall on deaf ears. The minister does not want to; his attitude is such that it is provoking a reaction in the province at a time when the latter must remain calm, when it must sense what is coming, when it must prepare the future. The government in power has only about 50 members in whom the Quebec people have placed their confidence. Those men have no right today to cast a vote which would prevent the province of Quebec from getting what belongs to it, from claiming, in all fairness, the right to admister and to apply within Quebec, for Quebec and by Quebec, the social legislation which comes under its jurisdiction.
I think the minister would do well to review his legislation and to bring forward some amendments that are imperative. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that we could then bring back a climate of peace and good will between federal and provincial governments.
But especially, I would like a climate of good understanding between my province, the province of Quebec, and the government of my country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Bechard:: Would the hon. member permit a question.


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: Yes.


Albert Béchard: The member said how much he was respectful of the rights of provinces. Is he more respectful today than he was in 1936 when he was accepting interference of the federal government in the field of old age pensions.


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: Mr. Chairman, I want to answer that immediately. That is the reason
11180	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment why the Liberal party was defeated in the province of Quebec. That was when the former premier, the late Mr. Duplessis, conducted his campaign by saying: "We will accept the old age pension plan in the province of Quebec. We accepted it then, but we had only $95 million revenue". But today, full control is asked.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member did not answer my question. Was he ready then to sacrifice autonomist principles for money.


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: There was no principle to sacrifice. It was a federal piece of legislation; there was no principle involved.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to say a few words following the last remark made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). I think he does not quite understand the problem.
Under the constitution, the government has the right to pass this bill. That is understandable, as long as it adds, as suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), the hon. member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Beaulieu) and the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and, one has to admit, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), because he heard other members make the suggestion before him.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out that I did not hear the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it does not matter who says it, as long as he hears it, that is good enough for him.
Mr. Chairman, how about adding a fiscal compensation in order to hand over to the provinces the sources of income equivalent to the amount the province of Quebec would have to pay for those old age pensions? This is what we are asking and it is a rather simple matter. It is said that both levels of government have jurisdiction, but if a provincial government wishes to enter this field, it has priority to do so. Provision should be made in the bill for a fiscal compensation to be paid to any province wishing to take over old age pensions. I wonder whether the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) does not find it reasonable, since he is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp), to provide for a fiscal compensation to be paid to any province that wants to take over old

DEBATES	December 15. 1966
age pensions. This is what we are asking. There is no question of depriving older persons of their pensions or of an increase as soon as possible. We are quite willing to pass the bill, but only if a fiscal compensation is provided, all the more so since a provincial government has already made known in its speech from the throne its willingness to take over old age pensions.
If a province is also justified in wanting to take over old age pensions, why then would we ask the taxpayers in that province to pay twice? Why not immediately make provision in the act for fiscal compensation? That is all we ask, Mr. Chairman. And I feel that, under the constitution, this is a perfectly normal and logical procedure, and should be acknowledged by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen).
Mr. Chairman, section 94A provides precisely for this kind of situation. That is why I see nothing against introduction of this legislation by the federal government, under the present circumstances, but I would also like to include the section providing for fiscal compensation to those provinces wishing to take over this service.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, that is what I ask. I feel that it is the minister himself who should introduce this item. An appeal was made a while ago by the member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Grafftey). The member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) also made this appeal, and so did the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), and I urge the Quebec Liberal members to express their views on this particular point, to drive home the fact that this legislation should provide for fiscal compensation.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock, and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), amendment to Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act-concerning validity of
December 15, 196S

confessions in certain circumstances; the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins), public works-Pembroke, Ont.-wharf facilities.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-30, to incorporate League Savings and Mortgage Company-Mr. MacEwan-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On Clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I must express my appreciation to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance for recognizing that this bill, relating to the League Savings and Mortgage Company, involves the incorporation of a company which operates in competition with the operations of a credit union incorporated under the Loan Companies Act. This bill was considered by the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, but it will be perhaps February or March before we will have the proceedings of that committee printed.
Perhaps I should repeat what I said at the second reading stage of this bill. For many years I have been a member of a credit union and I thoroughly endorse the principles behind the functions of such an organization. I do so because this is one method by which people can control their own financial investments. One principle in respect of credit unions is that a member has one vote regardless of the number of shares he may own. An individual member has only one vote regardless of whether he owns ten times as many shares as another member. This is in direct conflict to the principle which has been accepted by companies incorporated under the Loan Companies Act. To put it clearly, if an individual owns 100 shares in the League Savings and Mortgage Company he would have 100 votes whereas an individual who owns a thousand shares in a credit union would have only one vote, not 1,000 votes. There is this important difference between these two types of organization.
I hope this conflict will be cleared up by the sponsor of this bill before we complete this stage of our consideration. That hon. member did a very good job of explaining the purposes of this bill at the time he introduced it. He outlined the background of this proposed corporation. Inasmuch as the League Savings and Mortgage Company has been founded by a credit union movement in Nova Scotia, and inasmuch as it is in essence an extension of a
23033-708J
Private Bills
credit union's financial operations, owned, directed and controlled by members of a credit union, hon. members of this committee are well advised to take some step to ensure that this company will be of benefit to the credit union movement. Any step which can be taken by this parliament to strengthen the credit union movement is a worthwhile step.
There is a very serious conflict between the philosophies of the credit union movement and companies operated on the basis of individual control.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The credit union movement has apparently found this to be the only mechanism they can use to reach the end which they desire. This is an effort to put together two philosophies which run counter to each other. On the one hand, we are seeking to give effect to the desire of the credit union movement to enlarge its activities into the savings and mortgage field, and on the other we desire to give effect to the principle of ownership and control which is contained within the credit union movement. However, we are doing this by superimposing another requirement, that of financially based ownership. With all due respect to the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill and with sympathy and understanding for the credit union movement, I submit that the committee should not be content simply to pass the bill because it seems to be a good idea. We should take a look into the future and plan some steps to guarantee and protect the rights of the credit union people by ensuring that the League Savings and Mortgage Company shall always act in accordance with the credit union philosophy and principles.
Of course we would be much better off in this regard if we had on the statute books some credit union legislation under which groups such as this one could operate. We should have a federal credit union law which would assist credit unions in joining their resources together so as to expand beyond the bounds of the individual credit union and encompass other fields of financing, which is not now possible with the limited resources which a small, community based, credit union might have.
Over the years it has been the hope of many of us that the parliament of Canada some day would get around to drafting legislation in the credit union field. If we had such legislation it would then be possible for the League Savings and Mortgage Company to apply for incorporation in this fashion and to apply for the expansion of the credit union movement for

December 15, 1966
Private Bills
the purposes desired by this particular company. I should like to make reference to clause 7 of the bill even though we have not yet reached that clause. The powers and limitations of the incorporating act of the League Savings and Mortgage Company would then read as follows:
The company has all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by, and is subject to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of the credit unions act of Canada.
This would be a far more desirable way of approaching this matter. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a group of credit unions has desired to embark on this type of project, and I hope it will not be the last time.
I hope that other credit unions, even in the absence of a beneficial credit union law relating to them, will see the advantages which might come from this sort of incorporation. I hope that the government will recognize that something has been taking place in the credit union movement to which it should have given some thought several years ago.
I hope the government will take the course of drafting a federal credit unions act to enable credit unions all across the nation to expand rightfully and correctly into the fields of mortgage lending for housing developments, for individual home ownership, for investment for the expansion of credit union plans, and for the expansion of loans to co-operatives. The co-operatives have a comparable philosophy, except that they deal in the field of production and distribution rather than in financing.
I would strongly urge the government to appoint one of its ministers who may not have much to do-and there are many like that-to oversee the question of federal credit union legislation. He could, in consultation with the credit union movement, start drafting a federal credit unions act so that we might have in the near future some guiding legislation of which this parliament would approve for the advancement of the philosophy according to which human beings who own, control and direct their own means of production, distribution and, in this instance, financing, are far better off.
In the past the parliament of Canada has never hesitated to come to the aid of the free enterprise section of the economy by means of protective legislation. The company now under consideration is being incorporated under the Loan Companies Act, a law which was conceived by the government and passed by parliament. It is designed to enhance the position of the free enterprise section of the economy in the field of loans. We have the

Companies Act, the Small Loans Act and a variety of other public laws which are designed to increase the position of the money interests. I submit that the time is overdue for the enactment of legislation which would enhance the position of the individual in the society.
A door is being opened to us and a group of credit unions is coming to parliament and saying: "Let us incorporate in this way because it is the only way in which we can do it. In this way we are giving to you an indication that federal legislation is lacking in the field of credit unions". I hope that the government will take cognizance of that fact, and take a serious look at it.
I take note of the fact that only one minister of the crown is present in the house this evening, namely the associate minister of defence. I notice that he is listening attentively, and I hope with approval, to what I am saying. I do not know the extent of his duties in the department of defence, or what his position will be when the forces are unified. Perhaps there will be an integration at the ministerial level also, and he will find himself out of a job. Plowever, he is the only minister present this evening and this is commendable. He is listening to the debate, not necessarily because I am taking part in it right now but because the house is considering a certain matter. Knowing his sympathies for the rights of the individual and his desire to preserve those fundamental rights and freedoms, and particularly knowing there is perhaps a stronger belief in those rights in his province than in other parts of Canada, I am sure that he will immediately see the advantage that will accrue to human beings if this government enacts laws to protect the rights of the individual in the financial world. This is all the credit union movement is looking to. They have struggled against insurmountable odds up to now, working against the massive cooperative bulwark of the banking and insurance institutions of this nation which wanted to crush the credit union movement. They could see that it was a threat to the position of banking institutions in society to sell the concept of an individual controlling the means of financing his own needs. The government should recognize this, too, and take this necessary step.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I know that we cannot extract an answer from the minister at this stage. It is not a matter of estimates that are being considered. The minister may not feel he is in a position to make any commitment on behalf of the
December 15, 19G6

government. But if he would indicate that the proposals we are advancing will receive consideration and study, then I think this would be of advantage and would be lauded by the credit union movement in this nation as at least a start on something which is long overdue.
rnvate Bills
I thought I should put that on the record, because the hon. member stated that the proceedings of the committee might not be printed for some time. As I say, I am speaking from my recollection of the evidence, but I think that is what the witness MacMullin stated.
This, however, comes within the field of public law. I should like to hear, as I am sure other hon. members would, from the sponsor of the bill as to what guarantees might exist or be developed to ensure that this company remains an arm of the credit union movement. We would like to ensure that it is not likely to end up in the hands of the financial interests of this nation, which would love to get control of the finances of credit union members.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I realize the concern which is voiced by the hon. member for Skeena, a concern which he brought forward on second reading of the bill. The bill was referred to the finance committee and at that time was given a thorough going over. Many interesting questions were asked along the lines suggested by the hon. member.
The managing director of the Nova Scotia Credit Union League, Mr. Rod MacMullin, appeared as a witness, and so did legal counsel. The situation is that the initial shares of this company will be held by the individual credit unions throughout the province of Nova Scotia and their individual members. The transfer of shares will be limited to credit unions and credit union members in the province through the by-laws; the by-laws will specifically state this.
In answer to a question Mr. MacMullin stated that the by-laws had not as yet been made up but were being drafted. He said that by way of the by-laws the transfer of shares would be limited to ensure this company would remain in the hands of the various credit unions making up the Nova Scotia Credit Union League, and as a result the shareholders would be the credit unions themselves and their members. As far as the number of shares in the company was concerned, this would be a matter of internal arrangement in the Nova Scotia Credit Union League.
Another thing Mr. MacMullin said was that he thought the annual meeting of this company, if incorporated, would be held at the same time as the Nova Scotia Credit Union League held its annual meeting. In this way those who would be attending the annual meeting of the credit union league would also be at-


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member tell the committee who are the people listed as the provincial directors and their connection with the credit union movement in Nova Scotia? I notice they are listed by their full-time occupations, and I think that this information might be of interest.


Howard Russell MacEwan: One is a clergyman, Rev. John Donald Nelson MacDonald. He was one of the originators of the Nova Scotia Credit Union League. Then, there is Roderick Gregory MacMullin, an electrician. Another is a policeman in the city of Halifax, Mr. Wrin. There is Mr. Cujes, a college professor of Antigonish. Mr. MacDonald, the clergyman, is from the village of Middle Musquodoboit and, as I say, was one of the original incorporators of the Nova Scotia Credit Union League. Then there is Mr. MacKinnon, an electrician, from Sydney. I am not personally acquainted with these gentlemen, but I do know of the work of Rev. MacDonald.


Frank Howard: May I ask this question of the sponsor of the bill. The by-laws of League Savings and Mortgage Company will confine the issuance and the transfer of shares to credit unions and credit union members. It seems to me that this is a matter which should be spelled out in the law itself. Parliament has the responsibility of preserving a certain situation here. By-laws, of course, can be changed from time to time. While I am not suggesting that this will be the case, we do know that things which are done at one time are often undone at some other time. Often times matters develop which originally were not conceived possible.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Pictou could say whether any thought has been given to placing a provision in the bill which would outline the intent of the by-laws. In other words, let us make it the law of Canada. If this company is incorporated, such act will become the law of Canada; and I suggest it should also be the law of Canada which must confine the operation, ownership and transfer of these shares to the credit unions and credit union members. Has any thought been given to this?
tending the annual meeting of the League Savings and Mortgage Company.


Howard Russell MacEwan: This matter was referred to the parliamentary agent and also dealt with

December 15, 1966
Private Bills
extensively by the managing director, Mr. MacMullin. The legal advice was that this would probably be unnecessary and this limiting could be done just as well by way of by-laws.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the last words uttered by the sponsor of the bill add some weight to the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Skeena about the need for what I would term a federal co-operative charter for Canada, of which appropriate credit union legislation would be an important segment.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
If my recollection is correct, years ago in this country in the insurance field there were organized what at the time were called mutual insurance companies. According to my information they were orginally organized in rural areas of Ontario. They were closely related to what today are known as co-operatives, or credit unions. They were set up under legislation with the idea that their policyholders would be shareholders. They were to be organizations democratically run, comparable and similar to credit unions being operated in the various provinces of Canada that already had credit unions.
Over a period of time, because of the legislation they were incoporated under, the effective control of these organizations passed out of the hands of the original organizers. The companies became companies controlled by minority blocks of shareholders, that is in numbers of people controlling the companies. Many of the older insurance companies, some of them still operating in Canada today and carrying the mutual label, have long since ceased to come within the real meaning of thcit term.
I share the concern of the hon. member for Skeena that this should not happen to organizations such as this, because this body is obviously being put forward as a bona fide body by the credit union movement of Nova Scotia. I am sorry that we have not the full printed proceedings of the committee before us when we are considering this bill, but I thank the hon. member for Pictou for having given a summary of the representations made to the committee by the credit union people from Nova Scotia. I thank him for the information he gave of the background of this bill at the second reading stage.
This bill, I believe, is another example of the sort of limitation placed on the growth of organizations like credit unions because of the lack of appropriate legislation. We take great pride in this country in our democratic

process, that every citizen of the country considered adult and in his right mind, who has not been incarcerated for a criminal offence, has the right of the franchise. We make a great deal of one vote for every citizen, and that in our election process all citizens are equal in determining what eventually takes place in our representative institutions of parliament and the legislatures of the country. In spite of our pride in this political democracy, we effectively deny to the people who want to build an economic democracy the necessary machinery by which they can do this. In my view the terms of this bill show how difficult it is for people like the credit unionists of Nova Scotia to set up this kind of financial institution in a way that will make it clear to all the world that it is what it is. I am sure the credit unionists of Nova Scotia are proud they are taking this step. I am sure they have not changed much from what they were a few years ago, when I had the opportunity as a member of a committee to listen to a presentation on another matter by a credit union spokesman from that province.
At a cursory glance this bill seems no different from 101 other bills incorporating mortgage or finance companies across this country. This appears to be an ordinary company governed by the same principles, as the hon. member for Skeena says, that govern people in other companies wielding a big economic stick. It is unfortunate that this kind of mechanism has to be used for such an organization to be incorporated. Members of parliament ought to do something about this. A few years ago, in another field of the co-operative movement in Canada, the desires of co-operaters to develop insurance institutions in accordance with the principles of economic democracy were denied because of the lack of appropriate general federal legislation. It was impossible for them, within the framework of existing federal law, to ensure that economic democracy would prevail through the normal democratic principle of delegated representation at annual meetings.
I am happy to see this bill coming forward. I participated in the credit union in my home town. I saw that credit union grow from a small organization to one which now has several branches owning two or three nice buildings. It has a full time staff and is a successful business enterprise. It still retains the principles of economic democracy in its functioning. The credit union movement in my province has become an important factor, as a financial institution, within the province. That is true of individual credit unions and of the credit unions collectively, coming under such bodies
December 15, 1966

as the credit union league and the central credit union of the province.
For a long time the credit union movement in British Columbia operated with inadequate provincial legislation. The attempts made- and this, I suggest, will happen in Nova Scotia-to provide services that people needed where there was a need for lending funds, were hampered by lack of provincial legislation to make this possible.
I am happy to say forward steps have been taken in recognizing the growing place of credit unions. Those steps have been taken within the framework of provincial legislation, and our central credit union now operates, as I understand it, within reasonably satisfactory provincial legislation. I assume the same process is taking place within provincial fields of legislation in some of the other provinces of Canada.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I had an interesting discussion with a person from the province of Quebec who is associated with the provincial department of co-operatives. He told me something of his work in helping to expand and make more attractive the operations of the credit union movement within that province. We in this parliament can no longer afford to ignore the credit unions and the co-operatives of Canada. As far as the parliament of Canada is concerned, such organizations do not even exist. Those of the type before us now demonstrate that quite well.
I support the passing of this bill with some reluctance. I do so because this appears to be the only legislative mechanism which is open to us at the present time. And I do so with some regret, because this is an important area of the activities of this parliament which has been ignored for too long. Ever since I became a member of the house, this question has been regarded as one which must eventually be dealt with. Yet no effective proposal has come forward from the treasury benches. It is time some concrete proposal was placed before parliament for consideration.
The mere fact that this bill is before us in its present form is, to me, sufficient demonstration of the great gap in our concept of what is required. There are acts galore having to do with the incorporation of private companies of one kind or another. It is about time that we who like to boast about political democracy took steps to make it possible for those Canadians who want economic democracy to develop more easily the institutions in which they believe and which would be of advantage to them.
Private Bills
I wish to thank the sponsor of the bill for the way in which he has provided information to the house and to the committee on the background of this measure, and I wish those who are interested in it every success in their endeavours.


Raymond Langlois: December 15, 1966
Private Bills
as this bill provides will permit lending to be carried out on a greater scale. But I very much doubt whether such low interest rates as I have mentioned could be maintained in the future.
Consider the rate of less than 6 per cent to which I have just referred. I venture to suppose that this is the lowest rate in the entire country. But if there were an overall plan of the kind which is now proposed, I do not think it could be maintained at its present figure. Of course, what is to the disadvantage of one particular region might well be to the advantage of another. However this may be, I firmly believe that this bill, if passed, would not result in interest rates higher than the general level of interest rates which now prevails.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Private insurance companies are lending money at up to 8 per cent. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation rate is 71 per cent, and I do not think the rate to be charged by this company will be that high. I hope it will be below that. I do not know all the particulars about the financial state of credit unions in Nova Scotia, but I do think the government should give consideration to allowing the near banks and credit unions greater latitude. At present they are obliged to retain 50 per cent of their deposits on reserve. The big financial institutions in the country do not have the same limitation, but still they operate an efficient system.
In my home town one operation has been able to retain the interest rate on mortgages at a little over 5 per cent. I would think other financial institutions in the country would find it hard to match this record.
This bill has one good provision in that it keeps family affairs out of the business. I am talking about credit unions which make loans to the relatives of the people running them, and after loans have been given to all the brothers-in-law, fathers-in-law and sons-in-law, there is no money available for anybody else to borrow. Some people have a large number of relatives. It is something that is discovered when one checks one's Christmas list. But in the situation which we are discussing, I do not think any one individual would have a big enough family to cover the whole province. I could give specific examples where the public turned their back on credit unions simply because they discovered all the money was going to relatives.
I hope the effect of this bill will retain the interest rate at a level which the borrower can pay when he needs money for housing
fMr. Langlois (Megantic).]
and similar projects. Having balanced the arguments both against and in favour of it, I think this bill will be of benefit to Nova Scotia, and possibly to other provinces, so far as credit unions are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 5-Amount to be subscribed and paid before commencement.
Mr. Peters:: Having been a member of a number of credit unions, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I believe the people of Nova Scotia should be congratulated on this type of legislation. I hope the sponsor of the bill will tell the principals of this company that it is our desire they continue the development they have made in the past of the credit union movement in Nova Scotia and of the league itself. It is now moving into the mortgage loan field, and I hope these people will continue to press for national legislation which would allow the credit union movement to establish a national co-operative in the financial field. Then, all credit unions across Canada, instead of putting their money into an international organization, would be able to participate in a truly national lending agency capable of making loans to individuals on the basis of their background and personality, and not solely their wealth.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Powers and limitations.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, at some time in the near future I think the house would appreciate a declaration from the government about its intentions with respect to federal credit union legislation. We have discussed this matter earlier in the proceedings related to this bill. I do not expect an answer right now from the two ministers present, but I wish they would consult with their colleagues and see that a statement is made some day on motions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In answer to the hon. gentleman's very reasonable question, I may say I know this matter is receiving the consideration of the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
December 15, 1966	COMMONS



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I move, seconded by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), pursuant to standing order 6(2) that the house continue to sit after 10 o'clock p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), pursuant to standing order 6(2) that the house continue to sit after 10 o'clock p.m.


Frank Howard: I will have to object to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 6(2) I must ask those objecting to please rise.
And eight members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being less than ten members objecting, the motion is deemed to have been carried.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, is it not in keeping with our rules that no votes are to be taken between the hours of six and eight o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member that under the standing order no debate or formal vote shall be held. The house will now proceed to the consideration of the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I might agree that there is no debate but there might very well be a point of order. I think the hon. member for Skeena brought up a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Fewer than ten members having risen, the order was deemed to have been carried according to provisional standing order 6(2).


Raymond Langlois: If a vote was not supposed to be taken, I would suggest that it was not valid. I should like to have the opinion of the Chair on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might refer the hon. member to standing order 6(2) at page 4 of the provisional standing orders:
A motion that the house continue to sit after the hour specified in section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places-
Old Age Security Act Amendment
May I interject here to say that this is the procedure the Chair adopted.
-and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion. If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried.
Fewer than ten members stood in their places and therefore according to standing order 6(2) the Chair must consider the motion carried.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, if you continue to read you will find the following in standing order 6(3):
If any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1 o'clock p.m. and 2.30 o'clock p.m. or between 6 o'clock p.m. and 8 o'clock p.m.-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should carry on and read the full standing order:
No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting.
If no formal vote is to be held, then I suggest to the hon. member for Timiskaming that standing order 6(3) does not apply. The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



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. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we heard members of this house ask the minister to state his position with regard to section 94A of the B.N.A. Act.
Far be it from me and previous speakers also, I think, to take up the time of the house only for the sake of it. The meaning of section 94A is of vital importance and it is extremely important that the position of the minister and, therefore, of the government, should be clearly defined.
As I said earlier, we are not seeking to prevent the passage of Bill No. C-251, but it is clearly the duty of members of the house to ask the minister to clearly state his position.
December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment
As Quebec members, I feel it is in our interest to know the minister's intentions. If we insist, it is because the interpretation given to section 94A could give rise to some disagreement, misunderstanding or even legal disputes prejudicial to mutual understanding and unity in the country. That is why, when I spoke on Tuesday, December 13, as reported on page 11061 of Hansard, I asked the minister as plainly as possible how he understood section 94A or what position he intended to take in that connection. After quoting section 94A, I put a few questions to the minister that I should like to repeat now. I said, among other things:
It is impossible to ignore the wishes of any Canadian province-
Mr. Chairman, as you know the government of the province of Quebec, through its premier, Hon. Daniel Johnson, has expressed its intention of invading the field of old age pension. Section 94A gives him that right and when we ask the minister to establish his position, we merely wish to prevent any difficulty.
Later on I said:
I therefore ask him not to miss the opportunity to make his positions known, because if this is not done, there may be . . . between the two levels of government a misunderstanding.
I repeat this same warning today and I add, Mr. Chairman, that I can hardly understand and interpret the attitude of the Liberal members of the province of Quebec. Throughout the speeches made on this side of the house this afternoon, the members on the other side of the house gave us the impression that they were losing patience and that they were feeling ill at ease about our remarks. And we repeat over again for the hon. member for Saint-Henri, that we do not intend to resort to a filibuster or make trouble for the government, we merely wish to establish clearly our respective positions. This is our only intention.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
And from my seat in the house, I had the opportunity to notice this afternoon a conversation going on between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) which lasted a good while during the speech of one of my colleagues. I thought that the Associate Minister of National Defence seemed worried.
Mr. Chairman, the continual refusal and obstination of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to establishing his position certainly puts the Liberal
[Mr. Ricard.l
members from the province of Quebec in a difficult situation. They cannot but realize that one day they will have to account for their vote on this question. They will not be able to step back every time or to justify their position, as they did for example at the time of their vote on the second flag and when they voted in favour of nuclear weapons. The people of the province of Quebec will not stand for the Liberal members from their province refusing much longer to assume their responsibilities here in the House of Commons.
This is why I should like the minister- and that is all I ask of him-to answer our questions and let the hon. premier of the province of Quebec know what his position will be with regard to section 94A of the British North America Act.
The statement of the hon. premier of the province of Quebec was quite clear. He said that nothing would stop him, which means that he could even resort to double taxation. I do not think double taxation would be in the public interest. If the hon. minister will not state his position clearly, I would like my Liberal colleagues from the province of Quebec to let us know at least what will be their attitude and their reaction with regard to double taxation. One must remember, Mr. Chairman, that the premier of the province of Quebec has the support of the liberal opposition in Quebec. The leader of the opposition himself, Mr. Jean Lesage, said he was supporting the principle set forth by the premier of the province of Quebec. In this matter, he was supported by the former minister of municipal affairs (Mr. Laporte) and he even has in this house a member supporting him, namely the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who has also declared himself in favour of the principle under which old age pensions should be administered by the government of the province of Quebec. Will the minister keep on turning a deaf ear? Will he persist in his stringent attitude, in his arrogance? I am sorry to use this word, since I have a great deal of esteem for the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare and I would not like him to be looked upon on account of the position he has taken until now, as an anti-Quebecker, an antiFrench Canadian.
And I allow myself to give him an advice, if he will allow me. He is still in the prime of life, great hopes are being placed upon him by the people, by his party, and I would not like him to commit political hara-kiri.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
December 15, 1966


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, it is always the same thing, you hear noise on the other side of the house, only noise, they have not enough courage, those gentlemen on the other side of the house to rise and express their own opinions. Interruptions, unusual noises, nothing else but that. Let them rise and answer with courage. All we are trying to do, on this side, is to lay sound foundations for mutual understanding, perfect understanding-


Mr. Boulanger:: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -between the different governments. I will hear the speech, the "maiden speech" of the hon. member when I am through. I am very anxious to hear it, since this house has not heard his voice yet. You may be sure I will give him this opportunity in a few minutes, but I would like to pursue the few remarks I have to make. I add that the Liberal party, which during seven years, Mr. Chairman, caused the older people in the province of Quebec to lose their old age pensions, certainly has much to do so that people may forget its past turpitudes.
Mr. Chairman, one may recall that when premier Taschereau was in office, he refused over seven years to accept old age pensions because they came from the federal government. Today, we can understand that the Grits are attempting to have us forget the huge disadvantage they imposed on the Quebec population, and so they would like to create the feeling that they are innovating, that they are the initiators of the whole social legislation.


Some hon. Members:: That is true, that is true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, you see, Mr. Chairman, these people are so confident in the strength of the opposition that they blame us for not having taken some steps while we were in the opposition. However, if we think it over, we could not bring in social legislation while we were in the opposition. On the other hand, you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that when we came into power in 1957, we immediately increased the old age pensions, what the "six-buck boys" on the other side of the house had kept putting off indefinitely.
Every time an increase in old age pensions is contemplated, members on the other side of the house say: "This would cost too much; we cannot do that." The Secretary of State

Old Age Security Act Amendment for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) said today, in answer to a letter from the council of a city in his riding that the government at the time could not afford to increase old age pensions. The present minister, in 1966, still puts forward the burden of cost and, in the same breath, says that he wants to extend to all the population the benefits of an increase in the old age pension.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: A question, please?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When I am finished, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would like to repeat it. When a Conservative member of the province of Quebec rises, the Liberal members who always call for national unity, are the first-


Mr. Habel:: They are your colleagues.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -to shout: "Sit down, shut up", or things of that sort. They lack breeding, Mr. Chairman.
I deplore it with you, Mr. Chairman, for it would never cross your mind to speak in such fashion to your friends across the way.
But it would seem that there sits on the other side of the house a certain class of people somewhat lacking in manners. The best advice I can give them, I think, is to mind their manners, and to learn how to behave. Their behaviour is not worthy of people appointed to represent a riding in the House of commons.
Mr. Chairman, I bring my remarks to a close, in a hubbub of interruptions, like those of the member for Saint-Henri-that is about as much as we have heard from him in the course of his whole political career-


Mr. Lessard:: It is still better than the speech you have just made.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Those interruptions do not scare me and do not make me lose my bearings. I have seen far worse. If that is all he can do, interrupt as he does, he should at least spare the house a spectacle hardly worthy of a member of parliament.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I say again to the minister that he must explain his position clearly on Section 94A to the province of Quebec and to the other provinces.


Mr. Ethier:: It is in the bill.
December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Another one has just proved that he understands absolutely nothing about what goes on here. I shall identify him: that was the member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Ethier).
The minister owes it to the House of Commons and to the province of Quebec to make clear his positions and the positions of the government in this regard. It would be a pity if, through the stubbornness of a government, double taxation had to be implemented in Quebec and the other provinces that will ask for fiscal compensation. We have a duty to save the people from double taxation.


Mr. Eihier:: Johnson.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I hear the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott saying "Johnson". The government of the province of Quebec has rights and it asks, through its premier, hon. Mr. Johnson, that its rights be respected. We are entitled to retrieve our rights. And when Liberal members, as little knowledgeable as the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott, try to filibuster, well, I say to them that they do not face up to their responsibilities because they do not know what it is to be a member of parliament, and that it is better for them to remain in their seats.
Mr. Chairman, I again appeal to the minister and say to him: please, do not just sit there, for you will do the province of Quebec and Canada a disservice. You will be responsible for increasingly weakening Canadian unity should you remain adamant in your present attitude. Now that the premier of Quebec has made his position known, you ought to make your own position clear immediately, so as to prevent any possible misunderstanding.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, by all means.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member supported his argument by referring several times to section 94A and since he also mentioned that when his party was in office in 1957 it increased pensions by $20, could he tell us whether he had then the same opinion regarding section 94A of the constitution as he has now?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, reviving the past will not change one iota in the bill before us. This legislation should be put through as expeditiously as possible, but not by encroaching upon the rights of a province, and that is

the point on which I want to draw the minister's attention.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would the hon. member permit a question? If the hon. member wants to be consistent, would he advise the senior citizens of his riding, after this legislation is passed, to return their cheques, because they will be coming from Ottawa and that will be unconstitutional?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the member for Trois-Rivieres does not associate himself with those on the opposite side, since he really belongs there.
If the hon. member had followed my line of reasoning, he would have had no grounds to ask this question; as a matter of fact, I said again and again that the needs of our senior citizens are pressing, that we ought to do everything in our power to increase their pensions, but not at the expense of our most precious rights.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, with your leave, I would like to rise on a question of privilege on grounds that may seem more or less sufficient. The hon. member is being helpful to me when he recommends that I sit on the Liberal side. I thank him for his kindness; however, I should like to be the one who decides what position I shall take here; I do not want to abuse of the hon. member's good nature to the point of asking him to decide for me.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, after listening to all the speeches this afternoon and on looking at this bill I am concerned about the legislative jungle into which we may be getting. I think there are a few principles which we have not yet considered. It has been stressed before that approximately 7 per cent of our population consists of people 65 years of age and over. In another 10 years this figure may go up to 10 per cent and it is quite possible that the rate of increase will rise more rapidly. I should like to make a point regarding taxation. If a tenth of our population becomes unproductive at the age of 65 they will increase the ranks of the unemployed but will still be consumers. This will put a big load on the younger generation, the wage earners of this country, and will create an imbalance in our economy. I think that in the future the trend should be to encourage these people to work beyond the age of 65 and to continue their productive years. I do not see why there should be an arbitrary age of 65
December 15, 1966

at which they should stop working. Some years ago the idea was prevalent that because of biological aging it was necessary to set a limit at which a person should stop working. Let us face facts. In 1900 the average age span of a person was 40 years but today, in 1966, the span of life extends to 70 years.
I submit that this fact should be seriously considered. The government says that it is short of money. I do not exactly agree with this but if it is so I think it is largely due to bad housekeeping. However, I will not go into that topic at the present time. The fact of the matter is that we have a growing aged population. Half the population of Canada is 25 years of age or under and in a decade the dividing line may be at the age of 35. There is no reason to doubt that as medical science progresses people could live to be 100. As a matter of fact, there is one place in the U.S.S.R. where research work is being done in the field of longevity. Their research has shown that people live to the age of 100 and are still able to continue productive work and to all intents and purposes are perfectly healthy. I do not know whether this fact has been authenticated but according to the reports of these scientists some people in that area live to the age of 125. This is a matter the house must consider because we are getting into a legislative jungle as far as the provinces are concerned. This is why, as the minister said, it would have been so much simpler to give the pensioners $100 a month across the board. Why didn't he?
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
As I have said before, we have an aging population and in this regard I should like to give an illustration of the economics involved to the committee. A friend of mine who had earned good money all his life retired on a pension of a little better than $15,000 a year. He had to quit work because of an arbitrary rule of retirement at 65. He laid around for a few months, visited here and there and finally got tired and accepted another post at $25,000 a year. Three years ago he was still holding down that position. He is paying tax on $40,000 in the United States where he lives. Why in the world tax a similar case in Canada on $25 a month? This is the point I am trying to make.
Let me look at the other side of the coin. What happens to people when they are prevented from working? If we look at the statistics and believe the medical scientists, geriatric societies and schools of medicine, people deteriorate when they stop working. It not
Old Age Security Act Amendment only shortens their lives but can make them bed patients or put them into a home. This is something all of are concerned about because very soon we too will be old. So this legislation is of great concern to us now and to the people who will follow us.
Compulsory retirement at age 65 solves nothing; it just creates problems. As the population increases productivity must increase because the people must be fed and looked after. This puts us on the horns of a dilemma. People who are taken out of production are still consumers so this puts a greater burden on the workers. I suggest that the financial burden placed on the people of carrying an increasing number of older citizens would be intolerable, with the life span increasing as it is today, if everyone stopped working at age 65. Therefore it follows that we must utilize to the utmost the productive efforts of our older people.
I have an interesting article before me which states that some companies and many individuals know that compulsory retirement is often the wrong answer to just one of the challenges which are presented to business. A compulsory retirement plan allows a company tactfully to unload those it no longer needs but it also prevents companies retaining people they want to keep. The article asks whether the Canadian National Railways, for example, really wanted to lose Donald Gordon. Donald Gordon could hold his place with anyone on the board but, though able, he had to retire. I have indicated how this sort of thing affects the economy. I suggest any principle which taxes elderly people who are working on an extra $25 a month is wrong.
Let me now come to the little people who belong to the labouring class, the sort of people who do not work for corporations, people who are now 65 or over. I am referring to the k!nd of people who have not worked in factories or in other organizations from which they receive a pension. They have never earned a lot of money. They have little or no income. There are about 150,000 of these people across Canada. Approximately another 475,000 have incomes of $1,000 or less. These are the marginal workers who have to do gardening or caretaking, and the ladies do babysitting. These are jobs they badly need.
Let me illustrate my point with an actual case. I know a man who is a gardener. He cuts the lawns of a property owned by a busy executive and looks after the flowers. He earns around $700 a year. He is a nice man who never had much education; I do not think
December 15, 1965

Old Age Security Act Amendment he got beyond second grade. But he does do a good job. He has an old car that he drives to and from his work. In the fall he covers up the plants and fixes everything up for the winter. As soon as spring comes and the ground is ready he tends the gardens and lawns for the rest of the season. He requires overalls, heavy boots and work shirts as well as a few tools.
Another case in point is that of a lady who babysits for three families when required. She does a little sewing. She really does not know what she earns but thinks it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600 to $800. She has never kept any books. She requires a few extra clothes, coats and overshoes for her work.
Both of these people are in the marginal labouring class and have had little education but are people to whom we owe a great deal. Many were born before 1900. What will these people be forced into if the minister's guaranteed income plan is put into effect? They are going to sit on the porch in the summer and deteriorate, and they will watch television in the winter. The man will do no gardening, and there are not too many others to replace him. Financially these two people will lose $25 to $30 a month by not working, but the man would have to spend more than this on his car, his clothes and his tools. Therefore he cannot afford to work. This man will be faced with deterioration, probably mentally as well as physically, and I do not think this is right. His incentive will have gone.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
But this is not all, Mr. Chairman. Instead of encouraging him the government is discouraging him. It will destroy him. Idleness and boredom will lead to illness and soon he will go either to a nursing home or to a hospital. He will degenerate physically and mentally, and the government will have created but one more problem. It will have taken people out of their homes where they were self-sustaining and sent them to a nursing home or to a hospital much sooner than should have been the case. This is the situation that the government is creating. By so doing you remove the productivity of these men and women from the economy. And add to the burden of taxation on the younger people of the country. Make no mistake about that.
The younger people will have to support the institutions and hospitals populated by people who, but for the government's action, might


not have been there. People in such institutions will cost millions of dollars in lost productivity and for the care which will have to be given them in these institutions. The aged population must be kept working in the factories and in the fields. In the factories it is mandatory that workers retire at 65. Education and retraining-I know the minister has advanced views on this subject-are needed. We do not need a means test on our senior citizens but we do need education and retraining for our people. That is the course to be followed.
We ought to draw on the skills and experience of our old people. You can be as educated as you like but you only get experience through time, and that is what the government is forgetting in this bill. The older citizens should be kept working. They will be healthier and better adjusted for it and they will be producers as well as consumers. I am disturbed about this bill. I cited some cases to prove my point. Perhaps 100,000 people in Canada are similarly situated, for all I know. The minister does not know about this either. I have spoken of two people I know in one little town. What about similar people in other hon. members' constituencies?
I am disturbed about another thing. What will become of the medical care cards which people will have in the province of Ontario? The minister has taken away one month's salary from these aged people. He has taken away one month through this so-called gift of a guaranteed income of $30 per month. What will happen, Mr. Chairman? Those people will come under the $600 taxable income provision, and that means that they will pay $30 a year for their medical cards. I will not go any farther, but I could have mentioned many other things that are not right about this bill.
In fairness to those people who themselves cannot do anything about the matter, to the marginal workers and those people over 65 in good health who still want to work, who still want to perform a useful service, who still want to add to the productivity of the country, I shall move this amendment to proposed section 8, subsection 1 in clause 3:
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 years."
December 15, 1966


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to tax the patience of my hon. friends-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Before the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) takes the floor, this-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not to the clause under consideration.


Maurice Rinfret: That is what I wish to draw to the committee's attention. It is an amendment to subsection (1) of the proposed section 8 of clause 3.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed today a small marathon in which the handful of French speaking Conservative members who managed to get elected in the province of Quebec vied with each other in trying to amend the Old Age Security Act.
They did not speak about the benefits to be derived from the amendment to this act nor, as did other hon. members of the opposition, about the social philosophy embodied in the bill. They did not, of course, speak about the welfare which will benefit a large part of the needy in the province of Quebec. They neglected the whole social aspect, the whole welfare side of the bill and chose to deal instead with the constitutional aspect.
And it is surprising to see this sudden start on the part of the French speaking Conservative members with respect to the constitution, they who have remained silent I do not know how many times when intrusion by the Conservative government of the time, in fields of provincial jurisdiction, was criticized. This sudden awakening occurs on more than just shifting grounds. In fact, three lines of the speech from the throne delivered in a legislative assembly have caused this sudden awakening. And yet, these three lines are far from a bill. Because of three lines which the government of the province of Quebec inserted in its speech from the throne, at the opening of the session, we suddenly discover this great flurry on the part of the Conservative members who cry out: "Watch out for the constitution," having no knowledge of the implications of those three lines for the future.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
And it is that much more surprising to discover this happening immediately after a
Old Age Security Act Amendment federal-provincial conference, where all questions were discussed, and during which the government of the province of Quebec never once mentioned that they intended to take over old age pension responsibilities. This unilateral gesture on the part of the provincial government, coming immediately after a federal-provincial conference, is strange. And it is also strange to note that this unilateral action is being taken in a recognized field, within a field of joint jurisdiction and no one here can claim anything to the contrary.
Of course, the priority of jurisdiction can be discussed-and I would not like to discuss it here-but when a joint field of jurisdiction is chosen and a unilateral stand taken after a federal-provincial conference, it appears more clearly that the government of the province of Quebec is bent on picking a quarrel with the federal government and its quarrel rests on very shaky grounds.
It is strange also to see that suddenly a pact, an alliance is struck between the federal Conservative members of the province of Quebec and those of the Union Nationale. That pact is still fragile in view of the remarks made by the premier of Quebec who said that he had no alliance with the Conservatives of the province of Quebec. Therefore, the Conservatives of the province of Quebec are on their knees today before a provincial government which has given only three lines to that matter in the speech from the throne and on their knees before a provincial government which has clearly signified to the Conservative party that it did not want to co-operate with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: And the Conservative members nag the Quebeckers, creating a diversion. Why do those Conservative members not ask the government they want to befriend, to deal with their own or joint spheres of jurisdiction? For instance, why do they not ask the Quebec government to take steps to welcome immigrants in the province? That was completely overlooked by the Union Nationale government. Why do those same Conservative members not ask their Quebec friends to take care of housing? That is sadly neglected in Quebec cities, while Ontario has for several years now set the example of a coherent policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December IS, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment


Jean-Pierre Goyer: And why do those same Conservative members, in another field oi joint jurisdiction, not ask their so-called Quebec friends, to busy themselves with research, which is of prime importance if we want to stand our ground in the world instead of dealing haphazardly with the well-being of our people?
Today, research is essential. But we have never heard of a Conservative member for the province of Quebec asking his Quebec friends to deal with it. There are three fields of joint jurisdiction where the Quebec government could work. But let the federal government introduce a bill that can be of benefit to the people of Quebec that can increase the well-being of people whose rights are denied, who are in need, and they rear up, take up the torch and want us to retreat before three words, three lines in the speech from the throne. What a queer bunch of members we have here before us, Mr. Chairman, to fight for the rights of the people of Quebec.
Would those members want us to give up our jurisdiction overnight so that old age pensions might be reduced in Quebec?
Are members not seeking to stir up those who voted for the Union Nationale in Quebec, and this seems to be the case when one witnesses what seems to be a putsch?
Mr. Chairman, what is important to consider at this time concerning old age security is the commitments of the government during this one session. That is what is important, and our friends in the N.D.P. should listen to this, as they have always preached that the social problems should be examined and solved as a total concept and not only within the framework of a matter of social security.
The federal government has announced a social assistance plan which will cost millions. It has had medicare passed, which will cost millions. It has announced a retraining program which will cost millions. All that in one session only. And today, the same government presents an amendment to the old age security act for a $30 increase for those in need.
Those are coherent social policies. But, Mr. Chairman, nobody at this stage can tell the total cost of all those commitments. Only time will tell us how many hundreds of millions of dollars we will have to spend to meet our commitments. In the field of retraining, we will have to train a large number of people because we must make up for time lost. And even more in the field of old age security since under the proposed legislation,

those who will qualify for a pension will be able to receive it at 68, 67, 66 and 65 years of age.
Hence, we have very important commitments now and for the future. I do not deplore that, but the stubbornness with which we persist trying to concentrate everything on a single social measure, when all the social field must be provided for, especially family allowances which have not been reviewed for a long time.
From 1957 to 1966, total expenditures for old age pensions went up from $473 million to $927 million, while for the same period, total expenditures for family allowances increased from $437 million to $551 million. It means that over a ten year period, the total amount for old age pensions increased by $450 million while the total amount for family allowances went up by $114 million only. If we consider that the legislation announced will entail foreseeable expenses of $280 million for the first year, and $40 million per year for the next three years, we can see that we will soon reach, that is in three years, an increase in 10 years of $1 billion for old age pensions whereas, to date there has been only an increase of $114 million in family allowance expenditure.
If our friends of the opposition would like to be reasonable in the case of old age pensions, they should ask the federal government to review family allowances as soon as possible. That is where we should strike and demand because even though we should keep our senior citizens in mind, we should also consider those who are preparing to become the working group of our population. And today, we notice that we have neglected for too long the education of our young people and their educational opportunities.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Family allowances represent an education opportunity for the young. Therefore, from now on we must concentrate our efforts on them, on the young couples who also have to face more and more urgent obligations. That does not mean putting aside in any way the matter of old age pensions.
If we could do more in the field of social welfare, we would do it; if we could do more in the field of medicare, we would do it; if we could do more in the field of manpower rehabilitation, we would do it. Since it is impossible to do the maximum with regard to each piece of social legislation, it is necessary to be reasonable and to think about the other sectors of the population.
December 15, 1966

Those who are now neglected in Canada are the young couples, the young people and, from now, our demands must be directed to that social field. Let us stop making demands with regard to old age pensions only; the figures prove that we have invested and will invest in the next three years ten times more in the field of old age pensions than in the field of family allowances.
I think the time has come to be reasonable and those who are urging the government to increase to the full expenditures for old age pensions will delay social measures liable to help young Canadians. That matter cannot be considered otherwise, especially in the light of all our future social obligations during a single session.
Therefore, to show that we are well-meaning Canadians, that we are not only looking for political gains and trying to push the government into a corner and keep it from improving the lot of other groups of the population, we must instead direct our efforts towards a social program which unfortunately has been rather neglected so far and where we must catch up and where the opposition can do much to help.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, after what has been said during the past several days I had hoped that the minister and those who support this bill would come to their senses and amend it so that it would do for the old folk of Canada what they expect from it. Since last taking part in the debate I have had an opportunity to check with several old people in my area, and I failed to find one who is in sympathy with this bill except those who will qualify for the full $30, but even then they do not want to be subjected to a means test.
People across the country have no doubt that the minister is attempting to impose a means test. If the government were in touch with the grass roots it would not be long in hearing what the people think. There is no question but that this bill would have been passed several days ago had it not been for the means test.
Last July, when the minister made his first statement, he said he was going to spend $225 million. According to the last speaker on the Liberal side the $225 million has now risen to $280 million, and I have heard another figure, $270 million, quoted. Let us see what these figures mean.
We should look at this question from the point of view of paying $30 a month to 800,000

Old Age Security Act Amendment people or paying $25 a month to 1,200,000 people. In the first case the cost would come to $288 million, in the second $360 million, and the difference between paying $30 and $25 a month would be about $72 million. Added to that must be the cost of administration, which is about $5 per capita and in the case of 800,000 people would come close to $4 million. The minister's figure is $3,600,000 but my guess is that it will reach $10 million. If you take into account office space, heating, lighting, stationery and things like that for the use of people administering the means test, the cost will be another $5 million or $6 million. This would make a total of about $15 million, and such a sum would help to close the gap between the cost of giving $25 a month to all old age pensioners and the cost of giving $30 a month to 800,000.
In addition, many of these people will be paying taxes. Some of them will be pushed up into higher income brackets and a good deal of the difference, if any still exists, would be recovered in additional taxation. When all these factors are taken into consideration the total difference will probably be less than $50 million. The means test is going to be a hardship to a lot of people, and since the difference between the two schemes will be not too great I cannot understand why the government is clinging so tenaciously to its scheme which in practice will not be in the best interests of anyone.


Mr. Schreyer:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Just give me a chance to finish and then I shall be glad to answer questions.
There is nothing sacred about the figure of $105 which the Senate committee recommended as the amount which old people needed. In many cases many of them need more; possibly many of them need less. But in trying to arrive at an equitable distribution of the increase and administration of the legislation, I say there is not one of the old folk who would not be willing to sacrifice $5 and accept the $25 figure in preference to having a means test and being required to fill out a lot of forms.
Old people may have to hire accountants to help them fill out the forms. Many of them are not skilled in the income tax regulations, and if they hire somebody the charge will probably be about $5. None of this is necessary. All the minister needs to do is make the rate uniform. The people of this country are accustomed to a uniform rate. They think in terms
December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment of $75 and prior to that they thought in terms of $65, but always a flat rate figure without a means test. Now the minister is imposing a means test to decide who will qualify for an additional $30 a month.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This is going to cause discontent. The result will be that persons in a neighbourhood will be pitted against one another. There will be dissension. Some of these old folk will be filling out these forms and stating that they do not have income when they do have. This will make liars out of them for no good reason whatsoever. But the Minister of National Health and Welfare has entrenched in the back of his mind the idea that this is the way it has to work in spite of what people throughout the country are saying. I say to him that if he will go out and move among these old people during the Christmas vacation he will come back with a view vastly different from that which he now holds. There is no question about that. I do not wish to continue my remarks in respect of this bill. We have discussed it at great length. The difference between the one approach and the other, in terms of money and in terms of measures such as the mini-budget which have to be brought into effect in order to pay for it, is insignificant.
This whole issue boils down to the fact that there is the one principle which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is attempting to get the old folks to swallow and the other sensible method about which they all are concerned and to which they have been accustomed for years-a flat rate. I should be pleased now to answer whatever question my hon. friend may wish to ask.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Macleod whether he would care to make more extended remarks about the matter of the increased administration costs. He made a logical reference to increased administrative costs. Could he indicate his source for the reference he made to a figure of $4 million, and so on?


Mr.   Kindi@: The Minister of National Health and Welfare mentioned a figure of $3.6 million in respect of the administrative costs of the program. I rounded out that figure to $4 million. I also said I am of the opinion that before he is finished it will be $10 million. I do not know what other figures my hon. friend would like me to enlarge on, but I should be glad to talk further on the subject if there is some part of my reference to figures which is not clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it may seem strange that this old age pension measure has been under discussion in the house for most of the day without a speech having been made by any member of this party. I wish to point out that we are here and still have a good deal to say, but we are waiting in the main for some of the other clauses. Should the debate continue on clause 1, we may not be able to remain in our seats as we had planned.
I should like to join the hon. member for Simcoe East, however, in giving notice of some amendments which I shall be moving when we reach clause 3. It is not my intention at this moment to read the amendments, but so that the committee will know what is coming I should like to point out that when we reach clause 3 of the bill I shall be moving an amendment to 7(1) under clause 3, another to 7(2) under clause 3, and another to 8(1) under clause 3. I give this notice so that the committee will know that these amendments are coming and to indicate that when we get around to what we do wish to discuss we intend to suggest some of the ways in which we think this bill despite its difficulties can be improved. Our general position remains, as we have made clear, that we welcome the increase to $105 a month but think it should be across the board.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks and ask the minister some questions which I think are relevant to clause 1. These remarks and questions relate to the number of people that it will be necessary for the department to hire to examine the application forms. In closing the debate the other evening the minister stated that initially the department would have to hire about 675 part-time employees to examine the returns when the initial applications come in. There are a couple of questions I should like to ask. First, I should like to ask the minister whether he thinks his estimate is rather modest and whether in fact the number of employees who will be required may be nearer 1,000. Second, I should like to ask the minister how long these casual or temporary employees will be hired during the first year for the purpose of going through the large numbers of applications which will be made. Then I should like to ask the minister how many of these same people will have to be rehired in subsequent years to bring the applications up to date.
The estimate we made originally would indicate that there would be large numbers of people employed. I feel that the minister's
December 15, 1966
estimate is low, but perhaps he can verify it. I should like to know whether in subsequent years it will be necessary to hire additional temporary help each year to examine the returns. I am wondering for how long a period the department estimates that each of these groups of people will have to be hired. It is my understanding that the verification of these returns can be carried out by examination of the income tax returns of the people concerned. I understand that this is the method which is to be used. I also understand that the supplement will be paid possibly in March of next year.
I should like to ask the minister how verification through the use of income tax returns can be made in respect of the year 1966 when many of these returns are not due and will not be filed until the end of April next year. I should like to ask him how any verification can be made until May or June. I am also wondering how verifications are to be made in respect of persons who do not file income tax returns at all and who on the basis of another criterion may be eligible for the supplement. If these people do not file returns we must assume that there will be no verification of the statements they make. Perhaps the minister would like to answer the several questions I have asked.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A number of casual employees will be taken on strength for three or four months. The number of employees to be taken on permanent staff will be about 400. It may be necessary in future years, as the plan goes into full operation, to take on more casual employees for short periods of time. However, I do not think the number will be anywhere near the number required at the initial stage. We propose to check the information on the application forms against the information received by the Department of National Revenue. It is true that we cannot verify this information immediately. We can only do so in respect of income tax returns for 1966. In respect of those who do not file income tax returns we can rely upon third party information and upon the system followed by the Department of National Revenue.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thank the minister for his answers. There are two or three questions I should like to ask for the purpose of clarification. The minister referred to the number of employees required to administer this program. I am wondering how many of them will be permanent and how many will be hired for a short period of time. Also, will applications received in March and April be held up until
Old Age Security Act Amendment verification is obtained by way of income tax returns?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We intend to accept as being accurate the information supplied on the application forms. We can do this on the basis that this information can be checked against income tax returns to be filed in 1967. The bill provides that recoveries can be made when inaccuracies occur. In connection with the hon. member's question regarding the number of employees to be hired, let me say that we expect to hire approximately 400.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister suggested that 675 and 400 employees would be taken on staff. Should we add these figures together in order to arrive at the number of extra staff which will be required?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. The one figure relates to a temporary category of employees and the other relates to a permanent category. The 675 casual employees will be hired from time to time during heavy workload periods.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As I understand the situation, 400 permanent employees will be added to the staff and from time to time a number of casual employees will be hired, and I think the figure mentioned was 675. They will be hired, presumably, at the time income tax returns are being filed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. One must keep in mind the fact that there will be 900,000 individuals eligible for these benefits. There are ten district offices and it would be quite impossible for present staffs to handle this extra work. It would be undesirable to ask them to do so.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to ask the minister whether these employees will be hired in connection with the application of the Canada Assistance Plan? Will they be hired as employees of the federal government or will they be hired as employees of the provincial administrations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These additional employees will have nothing to do with the administration of the Canada Assistance Plan.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister has answered most of my questions but before resuming my seat I should like again to point out that there is a much more simple solution to the problem with which we are faced. During the course of this debate people have written me expressing their concern regarding application for the supplementary benefit. Just before I came to

December 15, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment the house this evening 1 had a telephone call from an individual who has paid income tax throughout his life. He feels that he should be eligible for the supplementary pension. He has been frugal and has saved some money. He feels he should be entitled to receive every bit as much as another individual who has saved nothing during his life. There is a fundamental difficulty involved in a means test. I do not intend to say anything more about that at this time except that by adopting a means test we are taking a backward step in our approach to social security.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the answers given by the minister during the debate. I was particularly interested in his remarks regarding the number of additional employees required to carry out this old age security program. It seems to me that it would be much more simple and less expensive to carry out this program on the basis of the amendment to this bill proposed by the opposition. It would seem to me much simpler and perhaps not much more expensive if the minister would accept an amendment to the bill, in the same way as he accepted an amendment to the medicare bill, granting every old age pensioner in Canada an extra $25 a month. The reason I say it would not be much more expensive is that under the proposed plan account will have to be taken of the 400 additional permanent employees and 675 casual employees who will have to be paid and housed, and the setting up of an organization of this kind will increase the cost. When a calculation is made of how much extra money would be required to pay all the old age pensioners an extra $25 a month and the amount of money which would be recovered through income tax, and having in mind also the fact that it would not be necessary to impose a means test, or whatever the minister wishes to call it, I am sure the taxpayers of the country would greatly prefer this course of action.
There are one or two questions with regard to the application of this legislation which I would like to put to the minister. When an application is received and there is some doubt whether it is a bona fide one will investigators be sent to particular areas to ensure that applications have been made out correctly and that no money is being paid to people who are not entitled to it, or will the decision regarding the application be made on the basis of the information regarding the applicant's income as contained in his application?

Will all this be done in a central place? If you are going to send people out-and I do not see how you can avoid this in a great many cases -additional employees will be required to do this work, which will add to the cost of the plan. I hope that even at this late date the minister will be prepared to accept an amendment, or even to propose an amendment of his own, to grant to all our old age pensioners an extra $25 a month without the meanest of all tests, the means test. If this were done the minister would become a hero in the eyes of a great many taxpayers in Canada.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that a gift be made to all the senior citizens of our country by giving them on July 1 next a bonus of $100. However, I am quite aware that we cannot do so because we cannot spend any money. I should also like to suggest that our centennial year should be a tax-free year. These are the only two suggestions I wish to make.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, like most other hon. members I have not had the opportunity of being present at all times during the debate. I have one question which I should like to put to the minister and I believe that possibly it was referred to by my colleague from Cape Breton South. The other evening when the minister was speaking about the determination of income he mentioned that war veterans' allowance payments, gifts, and money from the sale of homes would not be classified as income. What I am thinking about at the moment are the small pensions paid to retired coal miners in the province of Nova Scotia. Some of these are very small. I should like the Minister to advise us whether the small amounts which they are receiving will be classified as income under this so-called income test or, as someone has suggested, the MacEachen test. I suppose that these small sums, which the retired miners are receiving could be considered as rewards given to them for having served for 30 or 40 years in the coal mines. As the minister is well aware, there was no joint contributory pension plan established in the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia. The only plan in existence was based on a certain sum of money which was contributed by the coal company.
Can the minister inform us whether the sums being paid to retired coal miners by different coal companies such as the Dominion Steel and Coal Company will be classified as income under the income test to which he has referred? If this is the case, I am afraid that
December 15, 1966

these retired coal miners will not get much benefit from the present bill. I know that the minister is well aware of the situation to which I am referring and I am sure that he must have this information at his fingertips.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course the answer is that if the coal company pension is a company pension, as it is, it would be regarded as income under the Income Tax Act. I have received some correspondence-I was trying to find it-from the chairman of the pensioners' union, Mr. Joseph Nearing, who wrote to me about various cases of miners receiving the company pension. I believe that in all cases they will benefit substantially from the proposed legislation because the pensions are small. As my hon. friend pointed out, and because of the two-for-one principle, I believe they will benefit from the supplement up to the income level of $1,620 for a single person.


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to follow up that particular question and ask the minister where he got the information that the miners receive a pension. Can he also tell me whether Mr. Nearing did not object to the so-called means test?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, not in his letter to me. He asked me to explain what would be the benefits in what he thought were the standard cases which were being discussed among the retired miners. He made no comment about the income test.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one further clarification for the minister's benefit, if he wishes to take my word for it. If not, he can check this out. The fact is that the miners in Cape Breton do not receive a pension but only a gratuity. Miners who have retired since 1952 have not received increases in their old age security pension because of the 2 per cent increment which was contributed. Actually what they receive from the Dominion Coal Company is a gratuity not a pension.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


George Robson Muir: Would the minister advise me how he intends to verify these applications?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I explained a few moments ago to a member of the opposition how we propose to make this verification. When we receive an application from early in the year we will accept the information provided as accurate. We will not send people into the field to check on this form. If the information
Old Age Security Act Amendment is incomplete or the form has been improperly made out we will write to the pensioner and tell him he forgot to include such and such an item. But we do not intend to send out investigators to check these forms. As I said, the only way we can check the accuracy of the information on these forms is to go to the Department of National Revenue and get the information from the income tax returns. That will be the source. We have no plans to go beyond that.


Mr.   Kindi@: A supplementary question. Did I understand the minister to indicate that when the supplementary forms are received and there is a question as to their accuracy they will be checked against the income tax returns? The minister nods his head and I understand that is what he intends to do. Is he within his rights, even though this is a government venture, to tamper with income tax forms?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not proposing to doing anything I am not asking parliament to approve in this bill. There is a very limited type of information contained in income tax forms which the Minister of National Revenue may make available to my department for the purpose of checking the accuracy of application forms. This is covered in detail in a later clause in the bill.


Mr. Mandziuk:: May I ask the minister how he will verify applications by those people who do not file income tax returns? Thousands of old age pensioners do not file a return. They have small gardens, or a cow or a couple of pigs, but according to the income tax regulations they are living off the land and this is income. How does the minister explain this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am being attacked, as it were, from two different flanks here.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Not attacked; we just want an explanation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been suggested that the test is too strict; on the other hand, it is being suggested it may be too lenient. The matters mentioned by my hon. friend would be of no interest to us. I assume that an individual in the country who has an income of sufficient interest to national revenue will file an income tax return, and that is what we will accept. If other people who should be filing income tax returns are not doing so-I am not suggesting that such is the case-then that is a matter for the Department of National Revenue.
December 15, I960

Old Age Security Act Amendment


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Are we to understand that those people who have not been filing income tax returns will not be rechecked as to their qualification for this supplementary pension? Yes or no?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are two sources of income tax information. One is information received from the department with respect to an individual who files a return. 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. These are the only methods provided for in the bill. From this explanation the hon. member will see that the test is quite different from any other test employed in the past.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am not trying to delay proceedings but I remember that when we had the means test for old age pensioners in days gone by the government of that day had two or three officials in an area who, if they did not like a pensioner, made an adverse report on him. On the other hand, if they did like him they made a favourable report. Is the minister going to depend upon a couple of Liberals in each area recommending whether a pensioner should be thoroughly checked? The pensioners are concerned about this and I do not think the minister realizes it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would not rely on
Liberals for such a purpose, Mr. Chairman. I will not even rely on Conservatives.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Are the income tax inspectors going to investigate these applicants? Would the minister put that on the record?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not reluctant to put this on the record. I have been putting it on the record. The system I mentioned is the system provided for in the clauses of the bill.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: A negative shake of the head does not show on Hansard. That is why I wanted the minister to verify it verbally.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: A supplementary question. If the income tax officials do not get in touch with an old age pensioner, is it the thought that representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare will take it upon themselves to check the old age pensioner, which is in fact the same thing? I assume from the bill that this check will be made.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the thought. If it were the thought we would require many more staff in addition to

the people I have mentioned. We propose to rely on the system I have explained to the committee, and we have no other plans.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the important question concerning what the retired coal miners in Nova Scotia may receive as a result of this bill, my colleague from Cape Breton South has stated that the amount they receive from the coal company is a gratuity or, as we term it in the area, a pension. This sum is for long, faithful and continuous service over 35, 40, 45 and in some cases 50 years. It represents the grateful thanks of the large corporation for their long and faithful service.
Since the minister is in close contact with the largest operator of the coal mines, can he advise the committee whether it is the intention of the coal company when this plan goes into effect to cut back or reduce the payments they make at the present time to the retired coal miners? When a retired coal miner has reached the age of eligibility for old age security the company has in turn cut him back by that amount, reducing the gratuity received from the coal company.
Can the minister say whether he has had any discussions with, say, Dominion Steel and Coal Company about whether they will reduce the amount they pay their retired coal miners at the present time? If all the predictions and forecasts are true, it may be possible that after a period of time the employer here will not be DOSCO but the federal government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot give any assurance that DOSCO will treat this supplement any differently from the way they have treated increases in the old age pension in the past. I cannot give any assurance but I shall be very happy to have a word with the president of DOSCO to see whether a different attitude might not prevail in this case.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


George Robson Muir: I hope the minister will follow this matter up and I hope he will be successful in his endeavours with the coal company.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question or two following questions asked by other members. What is to be taken as income? A number of people in my constituency have incomes that are very limited indeed but they live in their own homes. Let me give an illustration. They live in their own homes, raise their own beef, grow their own vegetables, produce their own pork and
December 15, 1966	COMMONS
produce their own fruit. They have their own canning plants, they catch plenty of sport fish, they burn wood for fuel and produce their own light. They have their own hydroelectric power service. They have access to considerable quantities of game, large quantities of wild fruits and so on.


An hon. Member:: Where is this place?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am describing my own normal way of life. Would these things produced on such properties be included as income? The people I refer to may have substantial farms but there is very little sale of commodities. They have a small cash income with perhaps the old age pension and some other small income. Would these home-produced goods and commodities such as I have mentioned be considered as income when such people are completing their income tax forms?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to every item my hon. friend mentioned. I do not think there was a single item that would be included in the definition of income. I hope that this rather Utopian picture extends beyond the confines of my hon. friend's constituency and applies to many other old age pensioners who, with this type of resourceful living described by hon. members, will benefit from the supplement in this bill.


George Robson Muir: There is one question which concerns me and which the minister has not answered so far as I am aware. Can he tell me what the difference in administrative cost would be between paying every old age pensioner $25 and paying those old age pensioners who have passed the means test $30 as is now proposed? What would the difference in costs be considering the return to be made to the treasury through income taxes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the argument has been made and debated that it would be better, or almost as good, financially, to pay everybody the flat rate.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been argued that we could recover in the form of income tax such sums as would offset any administrative costs we might incur. It has been suggested that such sums would be as great as any savings in this program. I have put on the record the recoveries we would expect to make. For example, if the rate were kept at the present $75 the amount paid out, if the $75 were continued, would be $1,110 million. The recovery in income tax is relatively small. The figure
Old Age Security Act Amendment that I recorded was $33 million. If we increased the figure to $105 a month the additional recovery would be $15 million. It is surprising that the recovery is so relatively small.
We think by this program, by concentrating the assistance in the low income groups, that even with greater administration costs we should, in comparison, be securing savings to the taxpayers of $97 million. That is a considerable sum from the point of view of the Canadian taxpayer. It underlines how relatively small the administration costs of this program will be and how relatively small recoveries would be if the figure were changed.


George Robson Muir: The fact that the minister has placed on the record that the recoveries are so small is an indication that a great many of our old age pensioners need added income, and they will not be among the people receiving it. If they were receiving adequate income the recovery would be much larger. The minister defeats his own argument by saying that the recovery is so small that it is hardly worth talking about. There must be many old people in Canada needing this extra money.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That may be part of the explanation. The other part of the explanation is that pensioners with high incomes still retain a considerable portion of this pension payment.


Mr. Pugh:: Having listened to the hon. member for Kootenay West describe Utopia and make his point about income, I wish to ask a similar question affecting people with small holdings and drawing veterans' pensions. I should like to know the definition of income or the rules and regulations applying to income affecting veterans with small holdings. Some of these veterans have allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Some veterans have small holdings of only an acre or an acre and a half. From these holdings they derive no actual income. They are assessed, I take it, on what is known as calculated income. The minister, I think, nodded his head in affirmation. That is an important point, because what the hon. member for Kootenay West said struck a cord in my mind. I am aware of veterans receiving war veterans allowance who have improved their own places and take fruit from extraordinarily small orchards to the packinghouses. Against what they receive for the fruit they have to set the cost of growing the fruit, pruning,
December 15, 1966
11202	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment spraying and so on. Spraying is the most important part of the process. The department will not take the net return as the assessment of income. It will not take what the grower receives from the packinghouse and set it off against the expenses of growing the fruit.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Before the minister reaches agreement with the hon. member for Kootenay West about what is and what is not Utopia, will he take this matter up with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and find out what effect the terms of this bill are likely to have on war veterans allowances? It is not as though only one or two people will be affected. In my area, as well as in the area represented by the hon. member for Kootenay West, there has been a great deal of settlement on what are termed small holdings and I am concerned about the inequalities which the payment of the additional $30 may have upon such men.


Mr. Nasserden:: In rising to take part in this debate I cannot but think back to the days before I entered the House of Commons, the days when the Liberal party held sway in Canada and seemed almost impossible to defeat. Those were days when the Liberal party had a policy, had principles and believed in embodying those principles in the legislation which it brought forward.
In looking at this piece of legislation which has been prepared by the minister and the government I have reached the conclusion that it amounts to a reversal and repudiation of the policies which have for so long been followed by the Liberal party. I cannot help thinking of the men and women from one end of Canada to the other who took justifiable pride in a party which abolished the means test in regard to the aged citizens of this country, those who had pioneered, those who had come to this land to build their homes and bring into being a society better than the society in the countries from which they had come.
Now we have a Minister of National Health and Welfare who is unworthy of the traditions of the party to which he belongs. At a time when the cost of living has reached the highest point ever, he comes to this house with a proposal that certain classes of the aged should be subject to discrimination. The hon. gentleman can shake his head and make all the arguments he wishes to make in this regard, but this bill certainly does discriminate against a great number of those who are receiving old age security benefits.
Think of those who in order to meet expenses at the present time are earning a little


income from odd jobs. Others are, perhaps renting a room to a student in order to make a few extra dollars. These are the people who are to be penalized. I think back to the election campaign before the party opposite formed the minority government. I think of the boasts which were made during that campaign. Twenty-five dollars was not enough. They said they would give more than that as of right to the aged people of this country, those who laid the foundations upon which we are building. During that election campaign we had men like the minister going from one end of this country to the other saying that their leader was a man who cared. What is there in this bill which fulfils the promises they made to the senior citizens of this country during that campaign?
It is disappointing to me to see the present Minister of National Health and Welfare disavow the principles upon which his party was founded and the policy followed during one of its greatest periods when it abolished the means test with respect to recipients of old age pensions. The minister cannot take much pride in the legislation he has placed before the committee. He will not only disappoint the Canadian people, who remember some of the promises made during the election campaign, but he will surely disappoint those who are the very bulwark of the Liberal party from one end of the country to the other.
There are other things about this bill which concern me. I believe that in its present form it will have an adverse effect on the productivity of Canada. After all, what is the incentive for an elderly person to earn a little extra money if the result is to be discrimination along the lines set out in this bill? A government which has boasted so much about its achievements in social legislation must surely have hesitated before bringing back the means test in old age security legislation. Then the Minister of Finance tells us he is going to be Santa Claus to the senior citizens of this country. I am reminded of a picture in one of the great daily papers of this city today-a picture of a lean and lanky Santa Claus. That is the type of Santa Claus which the government represents to many of those who receive old age security payments at the present time.
Today, as I have pointed out, the cost of living in Canada is the highest in the nation's history. This situation has come about as a result of action deliberately taken by the government opposite. Yet we have the spectacle of the government deciding that it will do something for some of those who are receiving
December 15, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	11203
old age security payments and nothing for others in the same category. How can we differentiate between those who pioneered in this land and gave of their best so that we could enjoy today the standard of living we have achieved and a tradition to hand on to the next generation which is worthy of a free people?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I am thinking of the many people who supported the minister and the government during the last election when I plead with the minister tonight to change his mind. In his heart he knows he is not doing what he promised the people of Canada during the last election campaign. He is not following the record of his party which it established when it abolished the means test some years ago. It does not matter whether the minister calls it a needs test. Everybody in Canada knows it is a means test and that it is the meanest test of all. It is unfitting for a young and youthful minister, with a great future ahead of him-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: -to bring forward this type of legislation. I am not so sure his future is going to be in politics if this is the type of legislation he is going to bring forward. Why don't hon. members opposite applaud that?
Those who voted Liberal in my riding and those who voted Liberal across the country will be disappointed with this measure because of the fact that it falls short of the traditional and historic stand taken by the Liberal party in years gone by. This legislation also reflects on the Prime Minister. He does not measure up to the standard that was set by former Prime Minister St. Laurent at the time the means test was eliminated. During the last election campaign the Liberals used the slogan in reference to the Prime Minister-"This man cares". But when I look at the bill I ask, what does he care about? Certainly he does not care for those people who will not benefit by this legislation, nor for those who will be discriminated against, nor for those who will enjoy a lesser standard of living because of the lesser productivity caused by the means test in this legislation.
A young man like the minister should be thinking of productivity in this day and age when people all around the world are finding it more and more difficult to compete in the markets for the goods that are sent from one nation to another. I hope the minister thinks about that, and that before this measure passes he will do something to eliminate this
Old Age Security Act Amendment undesirable feature of a means test which he is asking parliament to reintroduce in its dealings with the senior citizens of our country.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to inject one or two words at this point in the debate to ask the minister to consider some kind of supplementary benefit in this legislation that would be pegged to the cost of living. The guaranteed income supplement will certainly be a benefit to thousands of old age pensioners who for one reason or another were not able to provide adequately for their declining years, but it seems to me that the legislation is penalizing those who did succeed in one way or another in putting something or providing some kind of retirement income for their old age.
One of the most crippling and unsatisfactory aspects of this legislation is the blow it delivers to the Canadian spirit of initiative, individual responsiblity and enterprise. Thousands upon thousands of people in this latter category have a small retirement income which now, by some supreme irony, militates against them in their old age. I suggest that this is a sad state of affairs in a great country like Canada which was built on individual initiative and the spirit of individual enterprise.
These old age pensioners who have a small retirement income are severely pressed by today's high living costs and have no hope of escape from this trap unless we in parliament move to intervene on their behalf. I ask the minister, why should a man or woman who has worked all his or her life, say on a railroad or in some other job, be penalized now for having earned a small pension? That is what this legislation does. It penalizes the man who applied himself sufficiently to his job during his working years to lay up a small retirement income for himself.
The government should, without question, bring in a flat $30 a month old age pension increase across the board, with no questions asked. The Senate committee on aging recommended a minimum income of $1,260 a year for all Canadians. I say, all right, let us put that into effect for everyone. But at the very least thousands and thousands of old age pensioners need some help against the cost of living, and it seems to me that the top priority item in this legislation should be some additional supplement for all senior Canadians, pegged to the rise in living costs.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say after hearing the remarks
December 15< 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser-den) who says the present government promised during the election campaign such and such a pension and feels that the government is not generous enough. However, the hon. member forgot to say that his party was in power from 1957 to 1962. Who prevented his party, while in power, from passing the measures it is now advocating? Who prevented his party, while in power, from giving our older people what they are entitled to get?
Mr. Chairman, we must be honest all the same with the Canadian people and stop indulging in petty politics. It is good to hear the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser-den) tell us about all the advantages that the party now in power could bring to the aged in Canada. But when they were in power, barely four years ago, why did they not give older Canadians what they are now asking the government to give them?
Mr. Chairman, honesty does not work only one way; it should exist on both sides. It is essential to be as honest and truthful with the Canadian voters. Today, the Conservatives criticize the advantages that the government will give to our older people, and yet, they had the largest majority in Canadian history, having had the greatest number of members elected to the house in 1958, since Confederation, that is, 208 out of 265, and they did less than nothing. There were then in Canada more than a million unemployed.
And today, the member for Rosthern rose to ask the government: "What are you doing about your election promises?" But what have you done, you Conservatives, about your election promises? In Quebec and throughout Canada, what did you do about that?
Mr. Chairman, I have no sympathy for the Liberals or for the Conservatives. Truth only must prevail, and the right must remain truthful.
Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to recall other parties' election promises, and it is even easy, when one has failed to keep one's own promises while in power. The Conservatives are acting in this way.
I see my good friend the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal). He knows I am right when I say this. His presence here is the result of lies told by the Conservatives in the province of Quebec.
Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, on the contrary, I think highly of him. But I think he is in the wrong pew;
[Mr. Caouette.l
he should not be sitting there, he does not have any elbow room. He must act according to instructions, according to the consensus of a party which has betrayed Canada since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: One of my good English speaking friends who participated in this round of applause says he will answer me in a moment. He is welcome. Nothing prevents any hon. member to speak up and say what he likes in the house, Mr. Chairman.
I am saying frankly what I have to say. I am not approving everything the Liberals do. Far from it. I believe-


An hon. Member:: Almost.


David Réal Caouette: No, no, not almost, not at all.
I believe our senior citizens deserve better treatment. I sincerely believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) should, first of all, take into account the wishes of the provinces. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to the bill before us. The amendment I move-


An hon. Member:: There is already one before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Which one?


Prosper Boulanger: There is none.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, is there an amendment before the committee? If so, I will keep mine as a handy substitute.


An hon. Member:: There is none.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
[E nglishl


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There is no amendment before the committee at the moment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, this proves one thing: I am the only one who is in step and the others are out of step, because several members shouted to me that there was an amendment; among them was the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), who is always mixed up anyway.


Prosper Boulanger: I said there was no amendment.


David Réal Caouette: Not the hon. member for Mercier, Mr. Chairman, I mean the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), who misled me. The
December 15, 1966

hon. member for Mercier was right; there was no amendment. Therefore I move the following amendment to clause 1, which means to Bill No. C-251 as a whole:
That while this house is of the opinion that the necessary steps should be taken to provide our senior Canadian citizens with an adequate pension, it believes that legislation dealing with an old age security plan in Canada would not be adequate unless it provides a fiscal compensation plan permitting any province that might so wish to establish its own old age security plan."


An hon. Member:: It is almost the amendment of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), word for word.


David Réal Caouette: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) was not-


An hon. Member:: Separatist.


David Réal Caouette: No, there is no separatism at all in this. There is simply confirmation as regards positions taken by the province of Quebec. This does not deal at all with separatism, Mr. Chairman, but only with the respect for the spirit and the letter of clause 94A the Canadian constitution, which provides that the federal government can only intervene in the social legislation or the old age pension field so long as the rights of provinces are being respected.
So, Mr. Chairman, such is the spirit of the amendment I move. The Conservatives, the Liberals, the members of the New Democratic Party may discuss it as long as they will; I sincerely believe that until the Canadian constitution is amended it must be respected in its present form, otherwise we will not reach that unity and that national understanding so necessary to the development of our natural resources and all the spheres of this country's economic activity.
Mr. Chairman, such is the amendment I am moving and I hope everyone, Liberals, Conservatives, members of the C.C.F., of the N.D.P., and we, of the Social Credit party, will accept it.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond to the invitation which has been extended to me by the leader of the Creditiste party to trace some of the history of the legislation which has been provided for the people of this country in the form of old age security. At the outset may I say that the government led by my leader, Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, the hon.
23033-709J
Old Age Security Act Amendment member for Prince Albert, when he was prime minister of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: -provided more in the way of old age security than any other comparable government in Canadian history. We remember how that government came to office. It came to office because of the "six-buck boys" across the way. There they sat with the old age pension at $40 a month. The hon. Mr. Caouette endorsed the-


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Nasserden) is not allowed to call me "honourable Caouette". He must refer to the name of my riding, according to the standing orders of the house and, for his benefit, I represent Villeneuve county. I hope he can pronounce this name as well as I pronounce the name Rosthern, his riding.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Perhaps in the heat of the debate the hon. member for Rosthern has forgotten the usual method which is used in referring to members in the house.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say very frankly that for the moment I forgot the name of the constituency the hon. member represents. I regret any inconvenience that my reference has caused him. I hope he will accept my apology. I was about to say that the hon. member for Villeneuve reminded me of-
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member knows that my heart is in the right place. The hon. member for Villeneuve reminds me tonight of the method by which the former administration came to office following the Liberal occupancy over a period of 22 years. The Liberals increased pensions to $40 per month and then they proposed, during inflationary years, to pay our senior citizens an extra $6 per month. Surely they recall what happened in this country at that time. The people receiving assistance took objection and brought that government to its knees.
The leader of the Creditiste party asked me what our party did for our senior citizens when we were in office. We raised old age pensions to $55 per month and then to $65 per
December 15, 1966
11206	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment month. We were not responsible for an increase in the cost of Irving such as we are faced with today. We did not create circumstances such as those created by hon. gentlemen opposite.
The leader of the Creditiste party has endorsed the action taken by this government which has resulted in an increase in the cost of living in this country. Interest rates and rents have gone up. The government of today increased pensions by $10 per month and immediately the cost of accommodation was increased by an equivalent amount. Has the leader of the Creditiste party and his followers in the House of Commons any answer to the obvious situation which the government has created-


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member for Rosthern permit a question?


Edward Nasserden: Certainly.


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member indicate what the Conservative government would have done in the circumstances which exist today? If he could answer that question I am sure he would be saying more than he is saying at this time.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to respond to the hon. member's question if you will allow me to do so. A Conservative government would not have put into effect an 11 per cent sales tax. We would not have encouraged the highest interest rates in the entire history of this country, and we would not have increased the interest rate in respect of housing to 7J per cent as this government has done. We did exactly the opposite when we were in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I can understand the desire of the hon. member for Rosthern to answer the question posed by the hon. member for Villeneuve but I suggest he confine his remarks to the clause of the bill now before us.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Members on the other side sound like wild geese.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to confine my remarks to the clause now under study. Let me answer the question posed by the hon. member for Villeneuve who has endorsed the action taken by the government. He asked me what we did when we were in power. We tried to provide additional moneys and accommodation for our senior citizens at a rate which-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise on a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Edward Nasserden: Let me remind the minister who has interrupted that by our policies we enhanced the livelihood of our senior citizens by decreasing the costs of-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that this is not the time for Aesop's fables or Diefenbaker's fables. We ought to return to a consideration of the bill before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, that admonition on the part of the minister reminds me of the time when he sat on this side of the house and the liberties he then took.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Abide by the rules of the house.


Edward Nasserden: I intend to abide by the rules. When this party was in power we increased assistance to the blind and the disabled. Pensions were increased by our government. We did a great deal compared with what the present government did during the period of time between the two world wars. This party when in power more than doubled assistance in respect of hospitalization.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to do is answer the false charges made by the leader of the Creditiste party.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order and a question of privilege.
The member for Rosthern says that I have made wrong accusations. Can he deny that, under a Conservative government, when his party had 208 Conservative members of parliament, we experienced the greatest difficulties, that there were over 1 million unemployed in Canada, something which Canada had never experienced before? Is the hon. member prepared to support his position?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The committee seems to be getting away from the subject matter of our discussion. Let me ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair by relating their remarks to the clause now under discussion.
December 15, 1966


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I immediately recall the days when we assumed office. At that time this country faced conditions the like of which had never before been experienced. It took three years to lay the foundations for the greatest period of expansion this country has ever known.


An hon. Member:: What about the vision?


Edward Nasserden: That is my answer to the "funny money" position.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman-


David Vaughan Pugh: I rise on a point or order, Mr. Chairman.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The only period we experienced the worst credit restrictions, with "funny credit , was when the Conservatives were in power.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. In my opinion the hon. member does not have a point of order.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the interruption of the hon. member for Ville-neuve because he reminds me of the fact that when we were in office we improved the benefits of our elderly citizens by allowing an additional $100 deduction, so far as income tax was concerned, for those over 65 years of age. Apparently the leader of the Cre-ditistes endorsed the action taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. We are against the means test. What is the position of the hon. gentleman in this regard?


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr Chairman.


Edward Nasserden: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can understand-


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member says that this party is against a means test-


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


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is a point of order. When the hon. gentleman says
Old Age Security Act Amendment that he is against a means test he is misleading the House of Commons.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the feelings of guilt that fall upon the shoulders and exist in the mind of anyone who would propose a piece of legislation bringing back into the statute books of this country a means test which would affect those who pioneered this land. Everyone in the House of Commons knows why the leader of the Creditistes has taken that stand tonight. We have heard that he believes there are more children in the province of Quebec than there are old people and therefore he would like to see family allowances increased rather than old age security payments. This is at the heart of the proposal which he has put forward tonight and of the charges which he has made.
We in this party, and I believe Canadians generally, believe that those who pioneered this land, many of them at great sacrifice, regardless of whether they were thrifty during their lifetime or not are entitled to a basic consideration in view of the contribution which they have made to the society which we are trying to build within this nation. This principle was endorsed by Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the administration of which he was the head. This principle has been repudiated by the government opposite and by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a sorry sight to see an administration retreat from a position which was endorsed by a vast majority of Canadians in the years gone by. I cannot help but wonder what it was that brought about this repudiation and reversal of the policies and principles of a great party in their effort to do something for the senior citizens of this country.
When I consider the figure which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has given us with regard to the saving that this measure will effect-and there is no time tonight to go into it in detail-I cannot but feel that the minister has failed to take into consideration many aspects of the situation. However, the most important aspect of the situation is the loss of productivity which this nation will encounter because of the action taken by the government and, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Simcoe East, not only will it result in a loss of productivity for this country but also in the shortening of the life span of our senior citizens. It is important for them to know that they are still part and
December 15, 1966


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the committee so wishes I would be prepared to make a ruling on the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment deserves some discussion. The hon. member for Villeneuve has come before us trumpeting his own virtues and has brought forward an amendment which can obviously only be moved on second reading of the bill and not in the committee stage. Apparently he does not know the difference when Your Honour is seated where you are and when Your Honour is seated in Mr. Speaker's chair. I think this should be brought to the attention of the committee. I know Your Honour will be kind to the hon. member for Villeneuve and will rule out of order the amendment proposed by him without giving him an extensive explanation of why it should be ruled out of order. The fact is that the hon. member for Villeneuve is not aware of what has taken place in the committee with regard to this bill, and I hope that Your Honour's ruling will make this perfectly plain.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I will read the motion proposed by the hon. member for Villeneuve:
That all the words following the word "that" be removed and replaced by the following-
"That this house is of the opinion that the necessary dispositions taken to assure the senior Canadian citizens an adequate pension but furthermore believes that legislation dealing with an old age
bill which the committee is now discussing. Again I should point out to the committee that the form of the amendment might allow it to be moved on second or third reading but it cannot be accepted as an amendment to a clause at this time. For these three reasons I will have to rule the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve out of order.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in participating in this debate, even if I do so somewhat late, for three reasons. The first reason is the very obvious need of old age pensioners. The second reason is a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to which I take very real exception. The third reason for my real interest in participating in the debate-it is a catalyst form of participation since the debate will continue whether I participate or not-is the motion moved by the Minister of Transport at seven o'clock tonight. From my brief experience in the house I suggest that the minister's movement, and he is known for many movements, is conditioned by the season of the year. Many members are in their seats tonight and it seems that the minister's motion, though ill-conceived perhaps, is in keeping with the mood of the season. His motion has brought all sorts of members into the house, which reminds me of the nocturnal activity in the days of Scrooge.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
There is some analogy between the motion of the minister and the bill under debate to Mr. Scrooge, Bob Cratchit, his bookkeeper, and Marley's ghost. The hon. member for Rosthern said he had a great sympathy for the minister, but that he thought he was a little too avant garde. I think the minister should look to his derriere. This bill should make the minister look more to his rear than to his front. For just like Scrooge with the chains rattling in the basement and the apparitions

December 15, 1966	COMMONS
appearing, so will apparitions appear before the old age pensioners, if this bill becomes law, at the thought of filling out a multitude of forms to comply with the terms of the bill. This will come home to the minister in the same way as Bob Cratchit and Marley's ghost home to Scrooge.
I take exception to the bill, Mr. Chairman. One of the first statements the minister made was that for one to suggest a means test was involved indicated one was either stupid or dishonest. I point out to the minister that the fact of the matter is that a test is involved. He calls it an income test but I suggest it is a mean type of test.
In the last few days he has taken great pride in pointing out that through this principle certain pensioners would receive more per month than they would with a flat rate, across-the-board increase. At one sweep of the pen without any administrative gobbledy-gook in interpreting this bill they would get a straight increase.
The minister has prided himself in saying that under the present bill the pensioners will get an increase of $30 a month. Compare this with what this party fought for in the election of November, 1965, an increase of $25 a month. Whether you call this test a means test, a needs test, an income test or Mac-Eachen's test, the fact of the matter is that there are 50,538 pensioners in Nova Scotia in receipt of old age security payments. Taking 50,000 as a round figure, if an amendment moved in this house almost a year ago had been passed the pensioners of Nova Scotia would have received $25 a month supplement. Twenty-five dollars a month would have meant an extra $300 a year in the pocket of each pensioner and, multiplied by 50,000, some $15 million would have been provided our needy old age pensioners in Nova Scotia.
The minister castigated the opposition for suggesting an aboveboard, flat-rate increase of $25 a month. But the pensioners of Nova Scotia have lost $15 million over the past year because the minister and his colleagues sat on their derrieres. I suggest to the hon. member for Rosthern that the minister should not look ahead but to his derriere, because all of the actions of this government have been taken from the derriere. In suggesting that we on this side, who have tried to be constructive, have attempted to befog the issue and in standing up and repeating the words of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that because we believe a test is involved we are either stupid or dishonest, the minister is departing from the standard of intelligence for
Old Age Security Act Amendment which he has been known in certain areas of the country as well as in his native province.
I compliment the Minister of Transport, as I say, for this motion tonight because he has brought so many members into the house. He has many attributes I admire, but I am surprised to find him participating in this debate, having been close to the persons in power in 1951 when parliament decided that there would be no means test imposed upon the needy pensioners of this country. I do not care what the minister calls this test or even if he describes it in Gaelic. Fifteen million dollars could have been put into the pockets of 50,538 pensioners in Nova Scotia had the government not sat on its derriere.
I have noted with awe the sphinx-like silence on the part of the members from Quebec opposite. I have listened with great interest to the members on this side, as well as the members to my left and the independents as they have tried to explain the constitution to members who should be interested in the constitution. These 50 members opposite remind me of the sphinx of Egypt. It looks solid, it has been there for centuries, for aeons of time. The sands of time have whirled around the sphinx; nevertheless it still sits there, the winds, hurricanes and pressures of time billowing about it. It is just like the 50 members from Quebec who sit in their seats opposite silent and sphinx-like, with heads of rock and hearts of stone. They personify the sphinx, and unfortunately the sphinx personifies those opposite who have failed to participate in the very real constitutional issue involved in this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: For this reason alone I am only too happy to participate in this debate. I will not repeat the constitutional arguments which have been made to those with hearts of stone and heads of rock across the aisle; I leave it to their conscience. But regardless of the fact that Nova Scotia is not like Quebec, which is a province of great bounty and wealth, we are concerned about the constitution, and there is no doubt that this legislation runs counter to and conflicts with provincial jurisdiction.
My third reason for participating in this debate, other than to engage in this nocturnal activity-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

December 15, 1966
Business of the House [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit me to move that the chairman of the committee rise and report progress?


Mr. Mcllraith:: And request leave to sit later this day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit me to move that the chairman rise and report progress? There is a matter which I wish to have taken up with Mr. Speaker. The committee could rise. The chairman could report progress and request leave to sit later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, between six o'clock and eight o'clock tonight there was a motion made that was contrary to an understanding that existed between the house leaders that such type of motion would not be moved between six and eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: In the light of that understanding and in order to attempt to live up to it I wonder if the house would not consider agreeing to sit until eleven o'clock to make some progress on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed? It is so ordered.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
ask the minister a question? Am I to understand that the Minister of Transport put his foot in it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The order made earlier is rescinded and we shall now proceed under the new order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to add to the embarrassment of the Minister of Transport, but is it the understanding of the house leader that the rule, properly interpreted, should not have permitted the making of that category-


George James McIlraith: I want to clear this up if I may. I think it is very important. I am not quarreling with the interpretation of the rule

but I indicated that we intended when we drafted the rule, and we did not do a very good job-


An hon. Member:: As usual.


George James McIlraith: -that we would not use this rule between six o'clock and eight o'clock if five members objected. That was the understanding existing between the house leaders. Regrettably and understandably that was not conveyed to all hon. members and they relied on the rule as it reads.



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. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, because we have made such good progress in the last five minutes I will not hold up the completion of this bill. That progress was hastened by looking at the clock and by circumventing any Pickersgillian efforts to pollute the rules of this house. There is a third reason why I do not hesitate to participate in this debate. I have already repeated two arguments and I shall now come to the third. We are all somewhat agitated about the progress of the bill and I think there is real merit in discussing and debating what it contains. As I say, I will not repeat all the arguments. In two minutes I wish to summarize, and I can do it. I am reminded of the schoolteacher who in grade 3 tried to implant in me the basic lessons constituting the three R's. Without talking about reading, writing and arithmetic, I wish to go back to this bill and compare it not with the three R's but with the three I's.
I notice that hon. members opposite are not standing up. They have been noticeably silent about this bill. In talking of the three I's as they apply to this bill I say that the first of those I's is incentive. This bill kills any incentive for old people to work because it cuts away their means. Incentive therefore is the first I. The second I stands for investigation and, whether the minister knows it or not, it is investigation under the Income Tax Act. It surprised me to hear the Minister of Public Works stand up trying to imply support for this bill because in the debate on a similar bill in 1951, as reported on page 1353 of Hansard
December 15. 1966

for that year, the Minister of Public Works, then the parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade and commerce, said that no part of the Income Tax Act would be used without the previous consent in writing of the person making the return. That has been circumvented, because we shall have investigation.
The third I is inequality between the old age pensioners, those who have worked and saved a little of their income, and those who have not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And indignation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Indignation is what people outside this house will feel.


An hon. Member:: And indignity.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, and indignity, to which you can add insult and many other I's. The bill is against incentive, it is for investigation and it will perpetuate inequality. It will add to the difficulties pensioners have with the high cost of living, lack of income and all the rest of it. I go back to the words of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes-


An hon. Member:: Your two minutes are up.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are they? The hon. member mentioned that if the gross national product in 1951 could provide a $40 or $50 old age pension, taking into account the same considerations the gross national product now could support a pension of $105 a month. The noise made by Scrooge's chains in the basement will be a heavenly minuet compared with the noise the chains binding the old age pensioners will make as those chains are prescribed in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, 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] (10:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier that I wished to move an amendment to the new section 7 being enacted by clause 3. I believe that this 23033-710
Old Age Security Act Amendment comes ahead of the part which the hon. member for Simcoe East wishes to amend. Also, there is a rule which says that amendments have to be made in the order of the clauses concerned. I should therefore like to have an opportunity of putting my amendment ahead of the hon. member's.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I would be glad to let mine stand for the time being.


Maurice Rinfret: We are now considering clause 3 and we shall go to the new section 6. Shall the new section 6 of clause 3 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move two amendments. I will deal with them one at a time. The first is an amendment to subsection 1 of the new section 7. If hon. members will look at it they will see that it contains a limitation. The general purpose is that a guaranteed income supplement is to be paid to every pensioner commencing with the year 1967. However, by the words which follow the guaranteed income supplement will never be paid to persons born after the end of 1910. This means that persons who are now 56 years of age or older have this supplement to look forward to when they reach pensionable age, provided they qualify for it. But persons now under the age of 56 will not have this supplement available to them when they reach pensionable age no matter what their income may be.
I recognize that the plan to phase out the guaranteed income supplement is related to the time when the Canada Pension Plan benefits reach their maximum level. But there are two things to be said. First, it will never be the case that all Canadians will be covered by the Canada Pension Plan. Why, then, should we exclude from the notion of a guaranteed income level those persons who will not get benefits from the Canada Pension Plan ten years from now?
The other point is that the exclusion of such people is inconsistent, in my opinion, with the idea of increasing the basic amount of the old age security pension. This clause says in effect: we are moving toward a guaranteed income level but we are adopting it for only a limited period. If the idea of a guaranteed income is as wonderful as the minister makes it out to be, if it is to take its place with all the great pieces of social legislation about which the minister has boasted, why place it on such a temporary basis?
I shall have something to say about later clauses. I shall have other amendments to
11212	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment move in an attempt to bring about further improvements which I believe should be made in this legislation. If I could make all the improvements I wanted to make I would, for one thing, turn the supplement into part of the basic pension. In any event, if this idea is as worth while as the minister pretends, why should we have its fruits only for the next nine years and then phase them out? If the plan is such a good idea, I suggest it be permanent in its effect. I therefore move:
That clause 3 of Bill C-251 be amended by deleting from sub-section (1) of the new section 7 being enacted thereby all the words after the words "every pensioner".
If hon. members will look at the clause they will realize that this has the effect of cutting out the words "born on or before the 31st day of December, 1910." The subsection as amended would then read:
Subject to this Part and the regulations, for each month in any year commencing with the year 1967, a monthly guaranteed income supplement may be paid to every pensioner.
I have copies of the amendment in my hand but I believe the table already has copies in line with the notice I gave earlier.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there are any comments to make as to the validity of this amendment the Chair will be pleased to hear them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to argue that this amendment is not in order and that it should not be put to the committee. The effect of the amendment is, of course, to apply the benefits of the bill to all pensioners in perpetuity. If the principle argued by the hon. member were accepted it would do more than anything else to undermine confidence in the Canada Pension Plan and it would ultimately give the workers of Canada the right to complain that we perpetrated a fraud when the Canada Pension Plan was passed if we intended to introduce a parallel program which would exist in perpetuity. All kinds of questions would be raised as to equity between persons who were beneficiaries under the Canada Pension Plan and those who were beneficiaries under the income supplementation program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question, since he is speaking on the substance of the amendment? Why would a $105 old age security pension be any more contradictory to the principle of the Canada Pension Plan than a $75 old age security pension? How can $105 be a fraud and $75 not be? Where did the minister get that nonsense?

DEBATES	December 15, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Canada Pension Plan was passed and its benefits were related to a pension of $75.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it frozen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, it was not frozen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, what are you talking about, then?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am well aware of the sensitivity of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this point because the effect of his amendment would be to undermine confidence in the Canada Pension Plan and entitle the workers and contributors to that plan to conclude that this parliament had perpetrated a fraud because in the following year it had provided a parallel system of income support which would be bound to weaken the Canada Pension Plan. Why should people be asked to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan for benefits if, in certain income ranges, they could enjoy the same benefits from a general income support program? That is the question which my hon. friend has failed to answer, and just cannot answer. That is the conclusion; there is just no answer. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to argue the substance because I suggest-
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister already has for five minutes. I suggest that makes the amendment in order for debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Presumably if the rule were to be applied the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should have presented his amendment and then sat down until it was determined whether it was in order before he made his argument in substance.
The resolution preceding this bill provides for "a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund and for the charging to the old age security fund under that act of a monthly amount to be known as the guaranteed income supplement, to certain pensioners".
The expression "certain" was put in the resolution for the explicit purpose of confining the application of the measure to pensioners born on or before December 31, 1910. If that were not the purpose, Mr. Chairman, then the simple expression that has been used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, "to pensioners thereunder" would have been used. The word "certain" in
December 15, 1966	COMMONS
the resolution is a limiting word which in my judgment makes this amendment out of order.
I refer to citation 246 in Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads in part as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all . . . not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
We have qualified and conditioned the royal recommendation by including in it the expression "certain", with the intention that it would limit the application of the benefit to pensioners born on or before December 31, 1910. For that reason. I suggest that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the resolution because it widens the effect to include all pensioners and not certain pensioners as contained in the royal recommendation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the point of order which the minister has raised, and I suggest that this is a very serious point of order affecting the question of whether or not parliament has any rights in this field at all. We all recognize the function of a royal resolution preceding a money bill. We recognize the rules and the citations and the requirements that a bill must not go beyond the specific conditions laid down in a money resolution. But there are also citations which say that care must be taken to draft a money resolution to cover the points that the government has in mind.
There was nothing whatsoever in the resolution that perceded this bill which suggested there was to be any cut-off in terms of the date of birth of a pensioner. For the minister to stand up and make the assertions that he did tonight is for the government to say, any time it brings in a bill, that there can be no change in it because "this is what we intended and that is it".


An hon. Member:: Liberal arrogance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I am afraid the position the minister is taking tonight is one of arrogance. He has read the resolution and I invite Your Honour to read it. I find it at page 10707 of Hansard for December 5, and it reads as follows:
That ft Is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide tor the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and for the charging to the old age security fund under that act of a monthly amount to be known as the guaranteed income supplement, to certain pensioners thereunder up to a maximum of 40 per cent of the amount of the pension payable
Old Age Security Act Amendment under that act; to provide for the determination of the income of a pensioner for the purposes of such supplement and for appeals by pensioners against decisions or determinations made under that act; and to provide for other related and consequential matters.
The resolution made it clear that there was to be a limit as to the amount. The amount could not be more than 40 per cent of the amount of the pension provided under the Old Age Security Act. It made it clear that there was to be a provision for the determination of the income of a pensioner for certain purposes and so on, but there was nothing whatsoever in that resolution that said there would be any date in the bill phasing out this plan, that there would be anything in the bill that would say that people could not get this supplement if they were born after a certain date.
For the minister to take the position that the word "certain" in the resolution covered anything the government proposed to put in the subsequent bill means that from now on, if that position is supported, all resolutions preceding money bills can be extremely simple. All the government needs to do by way of resolution preceding a money bill is to say it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide certain things. Then we will get the bill and the things in that bill will be what the government intended, and the government can say that was what was contained in the royal recommendation.
I submit that we are back to the kind of procedural debate that we had when we were on the medicare bill, when we had many arguments over what was included or not included in the royal recommendation. Surely this resolution on its face indicates that there are some things that the government felt had to be covered-the amount of the pension, the question of the test and so on, but there was no reference whatsoever to a cut-off date such as is now in the bill. Therefore I submit, no reference having been made to it in the resolution, that the government has no legal right now to claim that we cannot move this kind of amendment.
I also point out that this is not the kind of a money resolution that sets an amount of dollars in any absolute figure. When we pass legislation of this kind which provides an allowance, pension or benefit we do not say that only so many thousands or millions of dollars can be spent. We pass a bill that lays down principles, and if people meet those principles the money has to be found to meet the payments. There is no over-all ceiling on the amount of money provided. It is simply a
11214	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment matter of principle, and there was nothing in the resolution to say that one of the principles would be this cut-off date.
I submit there is more at stake in the procedural argument we are having now than just this bill. What is at stake here is the whole question of the right of the government to conceal what it has in mind when it is drafting a resolution, to say as little as possible, but by putting in that word "certain", or something like that, to be able to claim that parliament cannot make any kind of amendment. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this point has got to be looked at very seriously, and I certainly contend that my amendment does not go beyond the terms of the resolution. As a matter of fact, my amendment accepts the alleged virtues of the resolution and says, if this is a good plan let us stay with it.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Since the minister did take some time to argue substance, perhaps I might point out again that it is no more inconsistent with the Canada Pension Plan to have an old age security provision of $105 a month or $150 a month than it is to have one of $75 a month. I suggest that argument was quite beside the point. However, I am keeping to the point of order and I contend that this amendment does not go beyond the terms of the resolution and should be allowed as in order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order-


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to say that the resolution as proposed by the government refers to pensioners with different levels of income rather than what the minister referred to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is referred to in another sentence.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the committee will permit me to make a ruling, I am prepared to do so now. I have had an opportunity to examine the amendment in the light of the resolution. The question before the Chair is not one of substance. The question before the Chair is whether or not the amendment is correct procedurally.
I should like to read part of citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
[Mr. Knowles.)
DEBATES	December 15, 1966
In the resolution reference is made to the amount of the supplement involved. In this particular case it says that the supplement is to be 40 per cent of the amount of the pension payable. Therefore in respect of that part of the resolution I do not think it would be possible to effect a change. In the amendment we have before us, however, we are dealing with limits which were not set in the resolution itself. I can understand the argument which the Minister of National Health and Welfare uses with reference to the word "certain". While I think the word "certain" does in some measure limit something, the word "certain" does not say by how much.
I should like to refer hon. members to citation 278 at page 227 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Paragraph 4 reads as follows:
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 in 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.
In the recommendation which we have before us I cannot accept the view that the limitation set by the word "certain" is exceeded. May I refer hon. members also to page 799 of May's seventeenth edition. I should like to read part of the paragraph at the bottom of the page:
As, however, the power of amendment of the committee is not limited by the terms of the resolution which is before it, but by the resolution which has received the Queen's recommendation, namely the resolution by which it was appointed, it is within its powers to increase the amount, to extend the purposes and to dispense with the limitations of the expenditure actually proposed to it, so long as these changes do not extend the terms of the resolution recommended by the Queen.
It is my opinion that in the motion which we have before us the terms of the resolution preceding the bill have not been exceeded. I therefore rule the amendment in order. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in essence is exactly the same amendment I intended to propose, but I had agreed that the hon. member for Simcoe East should present his amendment first. Therefore I have no hesitation in concurring wholeheartedly in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I have had great respect for the ability of the Minister of National Health and Welfare
December 15, 1966
but I am sorely disappointed at the reason he gave for opposing this amendment, namely, that it would undermine the confidence of the people in the Canada Pension Plan. To me that is absolute and unadulterated rubbish. I am sure the minister must know this. He must know what the Canada Pension Plan provides for. He must know that it is a compulsory plan. No one can opt out of the Canada Pension Plan provided he fulfils the requirements in respect of income and so on. He is compelled to contribute. How can his confidence be undermined if he has no option but to contribute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Do you not think that persons who are compelled by law to contribute have a just sense of grievance if there is a similar program providing levels of benefits to which no contribution is made? Would this sense of injustice not serve to undermine confidence in the plan?


George Louis Chatterton: Certainly not. These
amendments which the minister is proposing say that income from the Canada Pension Plan is income for the purpose of the legislation. Therefore if anyone is in receipt of $60 a year or more under the Canada Pension Plan he automatically cannot receive any more benefit from this legislation. So the argument falls flat. Furthermore, during the ten year period in which this supplement is payable to the pensioners many pensioners will receive a pension during that time which will be in a much greater amount than that which will be received by people in 1977 and 1978. If the minister would study the evidence given during the hearings in respect of the Canada Pension Plan he would see that there will be hundreds and thousands of Canadians who will not receive any benefit from the Canada Pension Plan in 1976 or 1977 or maybe even by 1980. Any person who is self-employed, such as a Newfoundland fisherman, who consistently has a net income of less than $800 a year will receive no benefit from the Canada Pension Plan.
In 1961, the last year for which figures are available, there were over 101,000 Canadians who had no income whatsoever. There were over 600,000 Canadians who had an income of less than $1,000 a year. When the time comes in 1976 all these people, if born before 1910, will receive no benefit under the Canada Pension Plan and they will receive no benefit from this proposal. I am surprised at the attitude of the minister. Certainly the bill has shortcomings, but the bill would be improved
Old Age Security Act Amendment greatly if this limitation of 1910 were removed. In that way everybody would be treated the same for all time. If you wish to make another adjustment and say that in respect of the Canada Pension Plan the adjustment will be dollar for dollar, that might be an improvement if the minister wishes to accept such an amendment.
In my opinion the minister is forgetting the fact that there will be hundreds of thousands of Canadians in 1976 who will receive no benefit from the Canada Pension Plan. These are the people who will need assistance because their income will have been so low due to illness and other reasons that they will not have been in a position to set aside any savings for their retirement. These provisions such as they are should be continued without reference to the date of birth of the pensioner.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, if I recall my own birth date correctly, I believe I am under the line the minister is attempting to set by something like four months.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
Let me say at the outset that I have no personal interest in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Like a number of other hon. members, I find myself completely amazed by the performance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Many of us do not always agree with his arguments but we normally expect some semblance of reason and logic. The only possible explanation I can think of regarding the argument which the minister attempted to advance under the guise of discussing a point of order is that he has been sitting too close to the Minister of Transport and has acquired some of the logical mania of that hon. gentleman.
The minister might have some possible ground in logic for his earlier argument if he had based it on the assumption that all of the people who would be eligible for the Canada Pension Plan would be drawing the maximun of $104 per month. Surely the minister must admit that a great many people, apart from those referred to by the hon. mmber for Esquimalt-Saanich, will receive no benefit from their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. A large number of individuals who will be entitled to benefits from the Canada Pension Plan will not be drawing the maximum.
It does seem to me that anyone whose income from the Canada Pension Plan is such that it would make that individual eligible for

December 15, 1966
11216	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment any of the benefits under this bill would be out of his mind to feel that anyone eligible for the benefits embodied in this bill was being better treated than him, or that anyone who was drawing $104 per month was being unjustly treated, even though he was getting a few dollars more as a result of this plan. Perhaps that is the type of thing the minister has in mind as being fair and equitable.
Let me suggest to the minister that he should reconsider his position in respect of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister admitted to this house that no one whose income level was such that he would be eligible for benefits under this bill would begrudge the payment of these benefits. Surely to suggest that those of us who may contribute to the Canada Pension Plan might feel unjustly treated because in future years we would not receive these additional benefits is wrong. No one can accuse us of feeling unjustly treated because we are required to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan with the knowledge that it will do us no good.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The reaction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, demonstrates very clearly what a complete sham this so-called guaranteed income legislation is. When the minister found it necessary to do something about old age pensions, because of the pressure brought to bear not only by members on this side of the house but throughout the country, he brought in legislation to reimpose a means test on persons applying for old age assistance. In order to dress it up in high-sounding phrases the minister made speeches about a new concept in respect of pensions. He suggested that we were going to provide a guaranteed annual income. Certainly there is a great deal to be said in support of the general policy of providing a guaranteed annual income, not to be confused with the guaranteed pittance about which the minister is talking when referring to the old people of this country.
Let me remind hon. members that this is not a program to provide for a guaranteed income for everybody. As the minister has said, by the provisions of this legislation no one who reaches the age of 65 years in 1975 will be eligible for these benefits. In other words, this is simply a temporary relief measure by which the government intends to pay $30 per month to certain persons who can qualify on the basis of an income test. When


the Canada Pension Plan becomes completely effective the $30 per month provided by this measure will be phased out. This measure will not do any individual any good who reaches age 65 after 1975.
The minister says that this measure after 1975 will undermine the Canada Pension Plan and that in the next few years there will be people who will qualify for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. If they are able to qualify for these payments they will receive them but if they cannot qualify they will not. The difference is whether they will or will not qualify by 1975.
There will be thousands of people who cannot qualify for the Canada Pension Plan. In other words, what the minister is saying is that the $75 per month old age pension is to be frozen in perpetuity. The minister has suggested that the Canada Pension Plan will help the workers of this country. This will make very little difference in five or 20 years from now because the old age security pension plan will still provide a maximum of $75 per month.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what the minister said.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is exactly what he has said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member knows that he is continually misrepresenting the facts to the people of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The increase will only be 75 cents-


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend knows different, and he voted for this measure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Transport need not tell me what I know. Let me tell him that I know a great deal more about this legislation than he obviously does, as demonstrated by the slimy trickery he tried to pull off this afternoon. If there is any person who should keep out of the debate it is the Minister of Transport. He has already done enough damage. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to get this legislation through-
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I accept the remark of the hon. gentleman but-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If he wants to get this legislation through I suggest that he send the Minister of Transport to the Northwest Territories.
December 15, 1966


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The Minister of Transport wishes to rise on a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I accept from the hon. gentleman the adjective "slimy" as coming from one who is an expert.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the kind of interjection that one could expect from an adolescent. If there ever was a demonstration of arrested mental development, we have just had it. I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that if he wants to get this legislation through with any expedition at all he should send the Minister of Transport to the Northwest Territories.
May I return to the point with which I was dealing before I was so rudely interrupted. The Minister of Transport says that there is an increase by virtue of the increased cost of living. Am I to take it then that the government says that the only increase there will ever be in the Old Age Security Act is the increase of 75 cents for each 1 per cent increase in the cost of living? Does this mean that the government never intends to give to the old people of this country any of the return that comes from increased national productivity? Does this mean that as this country increases its wealth and its production and as the general living standard rises, the old people are still to get $75 a month plus the small pittance which will be added by virtue of the fact that the cost of living has gone up? Is this all they can look forward to? This is what the government is saying, that the maximum increase for the cost of living will be 2 per cent regardless of whether the cost of living goes up 3, 4 or 5 per cent per year. The government has let the cat out of the bag. They have demonstrated that they never intended to bring down this legislation.
In the election of 1965 the government made two specific promises. One was to bring in medicare on July 1, 1967, and the other was the promise that old age pensioners would get $105 a month if they needed it. This was their program. They thought they were discharging the second commitment by bringing in the Canada Assistance Plan, and when the people of Canada and the members of the opposition made it perfectly clear that the Canada Assistance Plan based on the principle of need was unacceptable the government found it necessary to cook up some kind of legislation which would cover up their complete failure to deal adequately with old age pensions.
Old Age Security Act Amendment Instead of doing what members on this side of the house have been asking, what old age pensioners have been asking, what chambers of commerce, trade unions and farm organizations have been asking, namely, raise the old age pension to $100 or $105 a month to increase the earning power of the old people of this country commensurate with the nation's increased productivity, what did they do? They did not even have the honesty to come out and say, we are not going to give them an increased pension, we will give them a sort of relief bonus if they can pass a means test. Instead, they talked glowingly about a guaranteed annual income, and the inference was left that this was to be the beginning of a great new program of giving everybody a guaranteed annual income. This is what the press releases said and this is what the editorials said in the newspapers sympathetic to the Liberal party. This was the great step forward into a new epoch of social security, namely, a guaranteed annual income for every body. But when we see the bill it turns out that the guaranteed annual income is not granted.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise on a point of order. The hon. member is making a general speech about the bill. Surely the rule of relevance must be applied. What is now before the committee is an amendment to a particular clause in the bill. I wonder if the hon. member could not be requested to come back to the point before the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with subsection 1 of new section 7 which says:
Subject to this part and the regulations, for each month in any year commencing with the year 1967, a monthly guaranteed income supplement may be paid to every pensioner born on or before the 31st day of December, 1910.
I am talking about the guaranteed income supplement and pointing out-


George James McIlraith: It is the amendment which is now before the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly. I am pointing out that subsection 1 of new section 7 should be amended by striking out the words which would prevent any person born after 1910 getting this guaranteed income supplement. I am pointing out to the committee that this means that the government has no intention of establishing a guaranteed annual income. What they are providing here is a temporary

December 15, 1966
Business of the House
measure of relief to help the most needy persons until the Canada Pension Plan comes into operation. In the process of doing that they will deprive thousands of persons who are entitled to assistance and who will not get any benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. If we are going to give a guaranteed annual income, who is more deserving of such assistance than the people who are not covered by the Canada Pension Plan? There are thousands of people who will not be covered by that plan. The minister knows perfectly well that housewives, farmers, fishermen, many small selfemployed persons and small businesses are not covered by the plan.


Maurice Rinfret: Pursuant to the previous order made by the house that the committee should rise at eleven o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to continue the discussion of the measure which has been under consideration this evening. 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.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour, and as the staff are involved, could we adjourn today's session now and forgo the usual adjournment debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we do not proceed with the adjournment debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 16, 1966