1966-12-12

FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-256, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drugs Act presently protects consumers in respect of the sale of food, drugs, cosmetics and devices. The act protects them against hazardous substances which might endanger health and also protects them against deceptive advertising and fraudulent selling. The purpose of this bill is to extend this protection to the sale of soaps, detergents, cleaners-fabrics and clothing-and paints and dyes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Lambert: 1.	What are the names of the present regional and district administrators of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Canada, their individual classifications in the Public Service of Canada, the range of pay scale for such classifications, and their present salaries?
2.	Under the proposed reorganization of the field offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs, what is to be the new position of each of the above, the range of pay scale for such position and the salary of each on assumption of the new duties?
3.	Who are to be the new district superintendents of welfare services, at what points, and at what salaries?
4.	What is the present position of each and his
present salary?
5.	What is the effective date of the change in organization and when is it proposed to be completed?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: December 12, 1966
Questions


BILINGUAL DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to place the word "Edifice Federal" on all public buildings in Canada even if these buildings are in Englishspeaking parts of Canada?
2.	If so, when and under whose authority was this procedure authorized?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 
Mr. Coates: Did the Canadian National Railways remove from its train schedule, Springhill Junction, N.S., without notice on October 30, Train No. 11, "The Scotian" which operates between Halifax and Montreal, and if so (a) under what authority (b) is it the usual practice for such action to be taken without notice being given to the community concerned?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
At the fall change of time the flag stop at Springhill Junction, of the "Scotian" westbound was discontinued, along with some other stops along the line, with a view of improving the overall performance of this train. Springhill Junction is a conditional stop for the "Ocean Limited" in both directions and a stop for the "Scotian" arriving from the west.
The Board of Transport Commissioners is advised of changes in train services 20 days prior to the effective date of the changes. Notices are posted in railway stations directing patrons to check train schedules for any changes. In addition, local newspapers carry publicity respecting changes to be made in principal trains.


DISPOSITION OF B.C. PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any Inmates in the B.C. Penitentiary died within the past two years and, if so, how many of these have committed suicide?
2.	Were any of these inmates immediately prior to or at the time of death confined in the (a) special correctional unit, or (b) dissociation area of the
[Mr. Teillet.l
penitentiary and, if so, for each such inmate, by name, what was (i) the area within which he was confined (ii) the length of time that he had been so confined in such area and the reason therefor (ii) whether or not he was there at the time of death (iv) whether his death was by (A) natural causes, or (B) suicide, or (C) other than (A) or
(B)	(v) the specific circumstances if death was by suicide (vi) the specific circumstances if death was by other than natural causes or suicide (vii) whether or not any officers or other employees in the penitentiary service were in close proximity to the inmate or in the cell of the inmate just prior to or at the time of death and the names of each such officer or other employee and the position each held (viii) whether or not any other inmate was in close proximity to the inmate just prior to or at the time of death and whether or not such other inmate had access to the (A) wing (B) tier, and
(C)	cell of the inmate (ix) the name of each officer or other employee in the penitentiary service who was in the (A) special correctional unit and (B) the dissociation area, just prior to or at the time of death (x) the name of each inmate who was in the (A) special correctional unit, and (B) the dissociation area, just prior to or at the time of death (xi) the time of death (xii) the time of discovery of the dead inmate (xiii) the findings of any inquest (xiv) the results of any autopsy (xv) if death was occasioned by hanging, the object to which the instrument of death was attached and the height of this object above the floor?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.	Yes, two, both by suicide.
2.	(a) One of these inmates, number 2242, Hunt, E. E. died in the Special Correctional Unit.
(b) Not applicable, as the dissociation area is the Special Correctional Unit.
(i)	This inmate was confined in Cell 5-F-3.
(ii)	This inmate, who died on June 26, 1966, had been admitted on June 23, 1966 to
undergo punishment as a result of a Disciplinary Board sentence rendered at Mountain Prison, B.C.
(iii)	Yes.
(iv)	His death was attributable to suicide.
(v)	Suicide was committed by hanging.
(vi)	Not applicable.
(vii)	There was no officer or other employees of the Penitentiary Service in close proximity to the inmate or in the cell of the inmate just prior to or at the time of death.
(viii)	Six other inmates undergoing punishment were locked in their cells on Tier 5-F. They did not have access to either the Wing, Tier or Cell of the inmate.
(ix)	Correctional Officer 1 James Robert Shay.
December 12, 196S

(x)	Tier 5-E: 2976 Percival; 2385 Fournel; 1976 Meeker (Kingston Pen.). Tier 5-F: 2321 Olsen; 2762 Oaks (Sask. Pen.); 2510 Kovacs; 2603 Beeds; 2406 Beaulieu; 1498 Steele (Sask. Pen.). Tier 5-G: 2895 Sayer; 2509 Whalen; 2627 Paquette; 700 Peebles. Tier 5-H: 2407 Surrette; 2837 Roberts; 2439 Ducharme; 2671 Bernard; 2938 Colpitts; 3027 Pelton; 2679 La-marche; 3028 Penner.
(xi)	This inmate was pronounced dead by the penitentiary physician at 1325 hours, June 26, 1966.
(xii)	1250 hours, June 26, 1966.
(xiii)	A Penitentiary Service Board of Inquiry conducted in this case made the following findings:
1.	That Inmate 2242 Hunt, E. E. committed suicide by hanging himself with a shoelace, tied and suspended from the towel bar on the toilet fixture in cell 5-F3 of S.C.U. at the British Columbia Penitentiary, between 1115 and 1250 hours on June 26th, 1966.
2.	That no blame should be attached to the Penitentiary Service or its officers.
3.	That staff members were vigilant at all times and did all they could, under the circumstances.
The jury empanelled to inquire into the circumstances touching the death of Edward Elroy Hunt, an inmate of the British Columbia Penitentiary, made the following findings:
That the said deceased, Edward Elroy Hunt was declared dead at 1.25 p.m. on the 26th day of June AD 1966 in the hospital ward of the British Columbia Penitentiary in the city of New Westmin-ter, county of Westminster, province of British Columbia from asphyxia due to strangulation which occurred in the Segregation Unit of the British Columbia Penitentiary in the said city on the date first mentioned.
We the Jury find that the death of Edward Elroy Hunt was due to suicide.
We the Jury find that the staff on duty in the segregation unit of the British Columbia Penitentiary at the time of death of Edward Elroy Hunt carried out their duties in full and find no blame attached.
(xiv)	The autopsy revealed the cause of death to be suicide by hanging causing asphyxia.
(xv)	In committing suicide the inmate used a shoelace tied to a towel rack. The towel rack is attached to the sink and is 30 inches above the ground.


OLD AGE SECURITY-REDUCTION OF ALLOWANCES
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Does the government pay any pensions and/or allowances which are reduced when the recipient or spouse is in receipt of the Old Age Security Pension?
2.	If so (a) what are these pensions and/or allowances (b) what are the regulations in each case?
Questions


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of Veterans Affairs as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Certain pensions under the Pension Act, certain pensions under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, war veterans allowances, civilian war allowances, (b) The governing authorities are: (i) pensions under the Pension Act, sections 5(4), 14(2), 25, 26(1) (a), 33(3),(4), 36(5),(6), 38, 39, and 45(2) of the act as amended, (ii) pensions under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, section 60 of Part X of the act (iff) war veterans allowances, section 3(2) and section 6 of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952 as amended; section 10 of the War Veterans Allowance Regulations, (iv) civilian war allowances section 6 of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952 as amended which applies mutatis mutandis to these allowances; section 65(2) of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act as amended; section 8 of the Civilian War Allowances Regulations.


NOVA SCOTIA-ASSISTANCE UNDER INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	How many firms have been assisted in Nova Scotia under the Area Incentives Program?
2.	Where in Nova Scotia are these firms located?
3.	What are the names of these firms?
4.	To what dollar extent has each been assisted?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1 and 2. As of October 31, 1966, 39 firms had declared their intentions of establishing or expanding manufacturing or processing operations in the designated areas of Nova Scotia in order to qualify for the benefits of the Area Development Incentives Act or Section 71A of the Income Tax Act, and have received provisional letters of assurance concerning eligibility. Another 36 applications for benefits are being processed. The 75 projects are distributed as follows: Amherst 5, Bridgewater 5, Kentville 13, Liverpool 4, New Glasgow 14, Springhill 2, Sydney 5, Sydney Mines 1, Truro 8, Yarmouth 18.
3.	It is not in the public interest to divulge the names of the businesses which may benefit from the provisions of Section 71A of the Income Tax Act and the Area Development Incentives Act. However, 21 businesses which have received letters of assurance have announced publicly their intentions to establish or have given the Department of

December 12. 1966
Questions
Industry permission to release this information. The names of these businesses are as follows:
Area	Firm
Amherst	Union Carbide Canada Ltd.
Bridgewater
Kentville
ft
ft
Liverpool New Glasgow
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
Sydney
ft
ft
ft
Truro
Riverport Seafoods Limited L. F. Hogs Limited Kentville Publishing Co. Ltd. Mic-Mac Feeds Limited K & W Enterprises Limited Acadia Fisheries (Canso) Limited
Benro Forest Products Ltd. Bickerton Fish Meal Plant Limited
Erfan Lumber Limited Maritime Electronics Limited Scott Maritimes Pulp Limited
Steel Furnishing Company Limited
C.L.A. Cape Breton Limited Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd.
Deuterium of Canada Pyrominerals Limited Canadian Industries Limited
Yarmouth British Columbia Packers Limited
Comeau's Sea Foods Fishmeal Limited
Yarmouth Industrial Fabrics Limited
4.	Businesses which qualify under Section 71A of the Income Tax Act may receive an exemption from income tax during the first three years of operation. Eligible businesses which elect to take the capital grant under the Area Development Incentives Act will receive payment in three parts during the first two years of operation. None of the businesses which have qualified to date have been in production long enough to have received the full benefits. Thus actual levels of financial assistance by the government in each instance cannot be determined at this time.


VOLKSWAGEN-STUDEBAKER TRANSACTION-VALUE SHOWN ON INVOICES
Mr. Hales: 1.	Has the Minister of National Revenue verified that the value shown on the transfer invoices between Volkswagen of Canada and the Studebaker Company of Canada is the fair market value in the country of origin?

2.	(a) What was the amount of federal sales tax paid by the Studebaker Company of Canada on the 10,000 Volkswagens imported into Canada under the Drury plan and the U.S.-Canada Treaty (b) What would the sales tax have been if the Volkswagens had been purchased by the Volkswagen Company of Canada in the regular way, paying the 17] per cent duty?
3.	Does the Department of National Revenue consider $15.00 a normal mark-up on a Volkswagen car for purposes of payment of the 11 percent federal sales tax?
4.	What were the dates of entry of the 10,000 Volkswagen cars cleared for customs by the Studebaker Company of Canada and then sold to the Volkswagen Company of Canada?
5.	Has the Studebaker Company of Canada filed customs claims for duty and sales tax paid on importation of Volkswagen cars from Volkswagen of Germany and, if so, how much were these claims?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The Minister of National Revenue is satisfied that the values shown on the transfer invoices between Volkswagen Canada Limited and Studebaker of Canada Limited are in accordance with the valuation requirements of the Customs Act.
2. In as much as the disclosure of the amount of federal sales tax paid by an importer on a known number of imported vehicles would permit of the determination of the value or purchase cost of the goods, such information is regarded as confidential. However, the following information may be helpful: (a) In respect of the Volkswagen cars imported by Studebaker: (i) under the Drury plan: the 11 per cent sales tax was paid on the duty-paid value of the cars, i.e., the value for duty, plus the amount of the duty, (ii) under the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965: the 11 per cent sales tax was paid on the value for duty, i.e., the value of the cars, not including any duty.
(b) Had the Volkswagen cars been imported by Volkswagen of Canada Limited, the 11 per cent sales tax would have been paid on the duty-paid value of the cars in respect of both the Drury plan and the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965.
3.	Sales tax of 11 per cent in respect of imported vehicles is calculated on the value for duty in the case of cars entered at the duty free rate, and on the duty-paid value,
i.e., the value for duty plus the amount of the duty, in the case of cars subject to duty. The $15 mentioned in the question has no bearing on the application of the sales tax.
December 12, 1966

4.	The 3,275 Volkswagens imported under the Drury plan were included in seven importations effected from December 7, 1964 to December 31, 1964. The 7,643 Volkswagens imported under the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965 were included in 16 importations effected from January 25, 1965 to July 28, 1965.
5.	No.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO EFFECT HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Fulton: 1.	Did the Prime Minister receive a submission dated July 11, 1966, made by the General Chairman on I-ehalf of the Canadian Highway Safety Council, outlining the accident prevention problem on highways, and containing suggestions and recommendations as to action by, amongst others, the government?
2.	Has any acknowledgement or response been made to the Canadian Highway Safety Council?
3.	Has any action been taken by the government to implement any of the recommendations or proposals?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, the Minister of Industry and Defence Production responded in a letter dated 26 July, 1966.
3.	The Prime Minister has asked the various departments and agencies concerned to make an assessment of these recommendations and proposals.


SHERBROOKE, P.Q.-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOANS
Mr. Allard: 1.	What were the number and amounts of loans granted by the federal government to the city of Sherbrooke in 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966?
2.	What was the nature of the projects of the city of Sherbrooke that benefited from federal loans?
3.	Under what conditions and at what rate of interest were these loans granted to the city of Shebrooke?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 
INFORMATION AS TO USE OF AIRPORTS
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): How many passengers left or boarded an aircraft during 1962 and 1963 at the following airports: Inuvik, Fort Smith, Trois-Rivieres, Drummond-ville, Rimouski, Baie-Comeau, Sept-Iles?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The number of passengers boarding aircraft on reported commercial services during 1962 and 1963 at the airports listed is given in the table below. There is no record of passengers who have disembarked. However, to obtain an estimate of total commercial traffic, it is customary to double the figures shown. Traffic data covering passengers of private aircraft are not collected.
No. of passengers enplaned
	1962	1963
Inuvik	5,300	6,500Fort Smith	9,900	11,500Trois-Rivieres	-	0,400Drummondville	-Rimouski	16,200	16,000Baie-Comeau	29,700	35,000Sept-Iles	54,500	55,400


TAX REVENUE FROM ELECTRONIC GEAR
Mr. Peters: 1.	Has the wartime excise tax on electronic gear been removed and, if not (a) for what reason (b) has this tax assisted the development of Canadian producers of electronic gear (c) how much revenue has been produced by this tax on electronic gear for the years 1964 and 1965?
2.	Does the government consider electronic gear, including radio and hi-fi components, in a different class than cameras, horse race betting, electric and gas fixtures, furs, luggage and photographic supplies and, if so, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Part IV of the Excise Tax Act still imposes an excise tax on phonographs, radios, television sets and electron tubes. The revenue derived from excise tax on imported and domestic goods in this category for the fiscal years ending March 31,	1964 and
March 31,	1965 was as follows:	1964,
$22,009,701.12; 1965, $23,521,712.81.
2. The government has, by virtue of its special excise tax on phonographs, radios,

December 12, 1966
Questions
television sets and electron tubes placed these articles in a different category than the other articles mentioned in Part 2 of the question. If the government were to decide to extend the special excise tax to these or other commodities, this would be announced at the appropriate time.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT GROSS REVENUES
Mr. Brand: What are the gross revenues of the Canadian government for the years ending 1951, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: Fiscal year	Total
ended March 31	Revenues
1951	$3,112,535,948
1955	4,123,513,300
1960	5,289,751,209
1961	5,617,679,854
1962	5,729,623,724
1963	5,878,708,878
1964	6,253,204,039
1965	7,180,309,787


STYLE AND COLOUR OF ARMED FORCES UNIFORM
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	How will the government determine (a) the style of uniform to be adopted for use by the proposed new "Canadian Armed Forces" (b) the colour to be adopted (c) the type of material to be used (d) the insignia to be worn?
2.	Will the decisions in these matters be announced to the forces and to the house and, if so, when?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: 1. The style, colour, type of material and insignia of any uniform adopted for the Canadian armed forces will be determined on the basis of recommendations after a thorough study of all the factors involved.
2. Yes: however no date for the announcement can be given at this time as it is not known when user trials will be completed.


TENDERS FOR MATERIAL IN ARMED FORCES UNIFORM
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has the government commenced testing of types of cloth to be used in the proposed new uniforms for the proposed new "Canadian Armed Forces"?
2.	If so, (a) were tenders called, and (b) what firm supplied the material?
3.	If tenders were called (a) on what date was the call made and on what date did it close (b) how many firms, by name, responded to the tender call?

Taxes credited to the Old Age Security Fund excluded from	Gross
total revenues	revenues
$ -	$3,112,535,948
289,953,678	4,413,466,978
546,886,055	5,836,637,264
603,131,478	6,220,811,332
643,954,238	6,373,577,962
691,138,927	6,569,847,805
750,110,067	7,003,314,106
960,301,254	8,140,611,041


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Tests are being carried out to prove colour fastness properties in colours other than those already in use in the Canadian forces, and to develop prototype uniforms for experimental design and subsequent evaluation. All textile materials to be used are either standard materials currently in the supply system or those which have previously been given user trials.
2.	Tenders have not been called because the program is still in the development stage and it is necessary to obtain small specially processed yardages from companies which have previous experience on the materials to be tested and which are willing to produce samples or pilot yardages.
3.	Not applicable.


CLORIDORME, P.Q.-WHARF REPAIRS
Mr. Keays: 1.	Were there any wharf repairs undertaken in Cloridorme, Gaspe county, P.Q., in 1966?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and what amounts were submitted?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2. In answer to a public notice of tenders in the Cloridorme post office, one tender was received from Mr. Yvon Huet of Cloridorme East in the amount of $3,417.
December 12, 1966


INCREASE IN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION
Mr. Southam: Is consideration being given to increasing the income tax exemption from $1,000 for single persons and $2,000 for married couples?


Mitchell William Sharp: This question concerns budget policy. If the government proposes any change in the income tax law it will be announced at the appropriate time.


LABRADOR-ROAD TO CHURCHILL FALLS
Mr. Blouin: Is the federal government, through the Department of Transport or any other agency of government, making any financial contribution to the construction of a road in Labrador from the coast (Forteau) to Churchill Falls?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Laiulippe: With regard to each of the last three fiscal years, what was the amount of the grant received by each proprietary corporation from the government?
Return tabled.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recommended to the government of the province of Ontario or any other provincial government that extradition proceedings be instituted against Hal Banks? In view of the fact that they have not been instituted, does the government of Canada intend to undertake such proceedings on its own initiative?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I heard stories and read reports over the week end on this matter, and I have asked for a report on it. I have not received that report yet. I hope to have it in time to deal with it tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL-POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN ROBINSON REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board a question arising out of the dispute with the air traffic control association. In view of the fact that Judge Robinson was appointed by the government, in agreement with the air traffic controllers, and in view of the fact that the air traffic controllers have agreed to accept certain salary recommendations made by Judge Robinson, can either of the ministers inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to accept those recommendations and thus avoid the possibility of a strike?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, representatives of treasury board are meeting this afternoon with members of CATCA, the organization representing many of the air traffic controllers, and discussing this matter. I should point out that all that was received from Judge Robinson was half of a report. The other half is not expected to be received until mid-January.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that the half that has been received by the government deals with salary increases, and the other half that will come later will deal with other matters? My question is whether the salary increases are being accepted by the government.


Edgar John Benson: I would not like to commit the government at this point, when discussions are taking place with CATCA.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would ask the minister whether in the negotiations in June he did not indicate to the two bodies concerned that immediate action would be taken by the government on the recommendations of Judge Robinson.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Judge Robinson, as the President of the Treasury Board has pointed out, has not yet completed his report. I think it is not unreasonable to have the whole report before one is expected to make final decisions on it.

December 12, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that Judge Robinson has communicated to the minister that he is disappointed with the government's action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the unions have accepted the conciliation report made by Judge Robinson, will not Treasury Board now give that report serious consideration so that there may be the avoidance of a strike date being set?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board is of course giving Judge Robinson's report serious consideration, and this is the basis for the discussions that are going on at the present time with CATCA, the air traffic controllers association.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there are 12 groups which have contracts with Air Canada, and a number of unions, would the Prime Minister now consider asking Dean Woods of McGill University to speed up his report, so that he might make some recommendations to bring an end to strikes in essential industries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This particular dispute is not a matter for Dean Woods. But apart from that, I think my hon. friend is quite right in expressing the hope that this report from Dean Woods will be made to the government as soon as possible. Having regard to the importance and far reaching character of the subject, it will certainly take some time to investigate it thoroughly. It might be possible for Dean Woods to submit an interim report before the final report is received.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now give the house the answer to the question I asked him on Thursday, requesting the names of the members of the task force headed by Dean Woods, to which the government has referred on a number of occasions.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have not only the names of the task force but the names of the consultative committee that is being appointed to assist in this work. I have not received the latter names yet, though we have invited certain citizens to take part in the consultative work. If I do not receive them both by tomorrow I will give a report on the personnel of the task force itself.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the government house leader a question which, while hypothetical, is I think important. Could he prepare a notice for proposed legislation to avoid a strike, such as the Air Canada strike which we experienced recently, which would tie up the air lines of this country?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, there is a difficulty involved, in that the requirements of the form of the notice would not permit its being done. However, 1 am very well aware of the problem and hope to be able to put forward a rule which would take care of that situation before such an eventuality could occur.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will address myself to the Prime Minister. It concerns the proposal made by Prime Minister Wilson ten days ago on the British cruiser Tiger to the effect that the services of a small white peace keeping force drawn from Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Rhodesia itself would be offered to the Smith government. Has the Canadian government any knowledge of this, or had it received any communication on this subject prior to the announcement by Prime Minister Wilson?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the proposals made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on this whole subject were, as my hon. friend knows, rejected by the Smith government in Rhodesia.
December 12, 19G6


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What action has the Canadian government taken to correct the obviously false charges made by the Russian government newspaper Izvestia about violence being used against Russian nationals belonging to the staff or property of the Russian embassy, here in Ottawa.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have read this report of the statement which appeared in the Soviet official press Izvestia, and so that there be no misunderstanding about our position on this matter I might be permitted to answer this question at somewhat greater length than would otherwise be desirable.
The charges in this latest article are the usual mixture of fantasy and distorted fact. We regret that the Soviet official press has seen fit to make an attack of this kind on Canada, and not only on this occasion. In this country we wish to follow a policy of developing relations on mutually acceptable terms with the Soviet union. I am sure this policy is accepted by the majority of Canadians as being in the interests of Canada, and contributing to the improvement of the general international climate. But it can only succeed to the extent that it is reciprocated.
Canada takes and will take all reasonable and appropriate precautions to protect Soviet personnel and property in accordance with accepted diplomatic usage. This is in line with what the government is sure is the wish of Canadians, that personnel of countries with which we have diplomatic relations should be given the treatment and consideration to which they are entitled, and which we expect to be given to Canadian personnel and property abroad.
The government, however, is not prepared-and this is what seems difficult for the Soviet union to understand-to interfere with the press to prevent criticism of the Soviet union or its policy, or the actions of Soviet representatives in this country. Nor is it prepared to try to prevent Canadian citizens, singly or in groups, within the area of freedom allowed by Canadian law, doing or saying things of which the Soviet government 23033-694
Inquiries of the Ministry may not approve. I am thinking of such activities as speeches, peaceful demonstrations or letters to the press.
I should be sorry to think that the Soviet union so misunderstood the facts of Canadian democratic life as to attempt to make a genuine improvement of Canadian-Soviet relations dependent upon an attempt by the government of Canada to curb these basic Canadian freedoms.
We have made our views on this matter known to the Soviet government through the Soviet embassy here, and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was visiting Moscow. It would greatly help in this regard if Canada's views could reach the pages of the Soviet press, which is of course controlled by the government.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance or perhaps the Prime Minister whether the government has now reached any conclusion with respect to the position taken by the government of Quebec, as outlined in the speech from the throne there recently, that it intends to take over the administration and payment of old age pensions in that province, and as to the implications in that regard in the field of dominion-provincial fiscal relations? If the government has reached a conclusion, what is the position of the government of Canada in this respect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer that by saying that we are quite satisfied as to the constitutional authority of the federal government in this field.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It has nothing to do with his appearance last night on television on program "Sunday". I would ask him, having regard to various financial events which have taken place, such as the bankruptcy of the North American General Insurance

December 12, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Company, which is a federally incorporated company, whether the federal government will set up a royal commission into the activities of that company, including the apparent disappearance of more than half a million dollars in securities. Will the minister also say what attitude the Canadian government intends to take respecting the protection of stockholders in companies incorporated federally which have recently shown a tendency to go into bankruptcy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer a more limited question than the one put by the right hon. gentleman, because I do not know just which companies he may be referring to in his more general comments.
As to the North American General Insurance Company, the Superintendent of Insurance had informed me some time ago of his concern about this company. Indeed, he discovered the theft of the securities before the Prudential Finance Company got into difficulties. Unfortunately by the time he did discover the theft of the securities they were no longer in existence.


John George Diefenbaker: When was it that he made his discovery?


Mitchell William Sharp: He made it just a few days before the Ontario government took action against the Prudential Finance Company.
I have taken this matter very seriously, Mr. Speaker. As soon as I heard the facts of the case I asked the Superintendent of Insurance to get in touch with the Association of General Insurance Companies and asked them to meet with me to discuss the situation, and particularly to discuss whether further legislative action should be taken to prevent the occurrence of similar events in the future.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether some protection is going to be assured stockholders who, relying on the fact that a corporation is a dominion company, place themselves in a position where they ultimately suffer loss through no fault of their own?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would never be possible to prevent losses occurring from theft and fraud of this kind. This company was in their investments, acting entirely legally, except that they bought some stock that was not delivered to them but got into other hands, or did not exist at all. It is very difficult to take legislative action to prevent such an occurrence in the future.

However, I am concerned because, as far as British and foreign insurance companies operating in Canada are concerned, their securities are deposited with me and therefore they cannot be stolen.
I should like to discuss with the Canadian companies whether it is necessary to tighten regulations in such a way that the policyholders of Canadian companies have just as much protection as the policyholders of British and foreign companies operating in Canada.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: On
a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. The minister mentioned that the Superintendent of Insurance had discovered the possibility of the theft of the securities prior to action taken by the Ontario government. Would there not be rather more to this? First, there was the placing of the Prudential Finance Company in receivership. That is one thing. Second, there was a petition into bankruptcy. So far as I know the Ontario government has not yet taken action against the Prudential Finance Company.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry; it was before the first of the events my hon. friend alluded to, before the receivership. Indeed, the Superintendent of Insurance suspects that it was his discovery of the theft of the securities that may have precipitated events.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have another question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister clarify what gap there was in time between the discovery by the Superintendent of Insurance of the disappearance of these securities in the hands of the North American General Insurance Company, and the receivership order being made against Prudential Finance Company? Was consideration being given at that time to suspending the certificate of North American General Insurance Company?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I might answer this question by saying, first of all, that the report in the Globe and Mail this morning is somewhat inaccurate. It suggests that the last audit made by the Superintendent of Insurance was in September. That is not so. There was another audit early in November during which the theft of the securities was discovered. I am unable to say how many days elapsed, but just as soon as the theft was discovered the certificate of the company was suspended.
December 12, 1966


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In view of this latest financial collapse of an insurance company, and since I understand that the incorporation of Baltimore Life Insurance Company is causing some concern to the mind of the Superintendent of Insurance and his department, would the minister consider taking some steps to bring about at least a temporary halt to the incorporation of new life insurance companies, perhaps to the extent of persuading private members not to sponsor these bills until there has been a thorough investigation of the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have heard the representations of the hon. gentleman. I really cannot comment on them at the present time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance who I know is interested in all the problems of the Atlantic provinces. In view of the recommendations of the Margison report, has the Minister of Transport any further statement to make at the present time regarding the possible establishment of a second ferry service between Nova Scotia and the United States?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is nothing I can usefully say at the moment or indeed that I can usefully say on orders of the day.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any information regarding a non-profit ferry authority to be set up in Gloucester, Massachusetts, following a project study by Messrs. Caldwell, Tremble and Mitchell of New York for the provision of a second passenger and freight ferry service-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question might be placed on the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesi):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as put cannot be asked on orders of the day. I am not sure whether it can be asked at any time, but if the hon. member feels it is urgent he might ask it on the adjournment debate.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to consider and decide on the question I posed to him last Thursday. I asked the minister whether he could make possible the sending out of the December old age security cheques before, rather than after, Christmas.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this
suggestion has been considered very sympathetically, but the conclusion is that by sending the cheques out at such an early date in December there would be a considerably greater than usual gap between receipts of cheques. Taking into account solely the welfare of pensioners, this suggestion was not felt to be feasible.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I think this has been done before, and as there will be only a five week period between cheques, which is not unusual, will the minister not reconsider my request?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my information is that, for the reason I mentioned, this has not been done before. It is not a question of not being sympathetic with the proposal or trying to beat it; it is a question of trying to take into account the best interests of most old age pensioners.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister referred to a gap existing between a mid-December cheque and the end of January cheque, would not the government consider providing a bonus in the January cheque?

December 12, 19S6
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY



PERMISSION TO INCREASE PASSENGER FARES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I have a news report indicating a substantial increase in passenger fares by the Canadian Pacific Railway over the Christmas-New Year holiday season. Was it necessary for the C.P.R. to obtain permission from the Board of Transport Commissioners to introduce this increase in fares, which in some cases amounts to a boost of more than 30 per cent, or was the company able to raise these fares without such consent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is not in order. It is not in order for the hon. member to ask whether authority was obtained. Perhaps the question might be rephrased or reworded in a way which would make it possible for the Chair to accept it.


James Ernest Pascoe: It is an important question at this time of the month. Is the minister aware of this increase, and has he any comment to make on it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid the minister is not aware of it-or was not aware of it until the hon. member was good enough to send him a note. However, the minister will look into it.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm what he told the Canadian people last night on the free love and safety program known as "Sunday", that the budget he intends to bring in will not be anti-infiationary, but anti-recessionary. If that is the case, and he was able to tell the people on that distinguished program what his course of action will be, can he now tell parliament when this quick-change program which altered from September to December, and which is now available as a mini-budget, will be presented?


Mitchell William Sharp: In response to the series of questions I have been asked in the house I gave exactly the

same impression as I did in the information I have given publicly on a number of occasions, including the program last night. In any event, the most probable date for the presentation of the supplementary financial measures will be next Tuesday, that is, a week tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I answered the question about the date on which I would bring down my supplementary financial measures I said the most likely date would be Tuesday of next week. I do not want that to be understood as a final decision. Perhaps I should add that the choice is between Monday and Tuesday.


John George Diefenbaker: So long as it is not Sunday.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance is any more sure of the date than he seems to be in respect of the contents of the baby budget.



EXPO '67 SUGGESTED INTENSIVE PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister of Trade and Commerce being absent, I will put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Rumour has it that we are experiencing difficulties, outside Canada, in getting people to grasp the specific meaning of Expo '67 through advertising. Is the government considering other means to make the site known to all foreign countries and get the Expo '67 message across, so that these countries may know what is going on, before the whole operation comes to an end?

Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I think effective steps are already being taken. I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the minister who is already concerned, so that he may be able to satisfy the hon. member that these steps are not only effective but are being increased.


Raymond Langlois: May I suggest a representative might possibly appear a couple of times on the Ed Sullivan show?
December 12, 1966



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him if he has received today, or over the week end, a letter from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union in Vancouver objecting to an alteration in the unemployment insurance regulations which has the effect of denying benefits to all fishermen? Does the Minister propose to take any action with regard to this situation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Had I been given notice I might have made inquiries. The minister personally has not seen any such submission, but it might have been received by my departmental office. I will take the question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has the Canadian government received any official indication or any unofficial intimation that it is the intention of the United States government to instruct major United States corporations with Canadian subsidiaries that the voluntary guide lines will be extended for one more year?


Mitchell William Sharp: When I visited the Secretary of the Treasury a few weeks ago he indicated there was likely to be an extension of the guide lines policy, but I am unaware of any more detail than that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the minister aware that this was announced to particular groups in Washington during the past week? Has he not received through the offices of the Canadian ambassador in Washington any notification in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, but I have read those reports in the newspapers and I expect we shall be fully informed by the United States administration when they have made their final decision.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Can the hon. minister tell us if an interim payment to the sugar beet growers was authorized recently?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: The sugar beet producers representatives met with the Stabilization Board last week and I believe a formula for interim payments was agreed upon.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: My question was whether a payment had been authorized.


John James Greene: I believe it was; but I will take the question as notice and answer it tomorrow.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Has this payment been authorized for all provinces or for only a few provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether that supplementary question is in order. In fact I doubt whether the first question was in order. It seems to me the hon. member is now seeking detailed information. However, perhaps the minister has noted the second supplementary.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I am ready to wait for the answer from the minister tomorrow, provided he pledges he will give me an answer tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: My question is intended for the Minister of National Defence; perhaps the associate m'nister could draw it to his attention. Would the minister ask certain naval intelligence officers to cease intimidation of Mrs. Bonnie Purdy, a Halifax television news editor, since she obviously does not intend to reveal to them the sources of certain news reports about the closing of the Cornwallis naval base?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I am informed that no intimidation has been tried upon Mrs. Purdy.

December 12. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry The headquarters of maritime command has actually been investigating the disclosure of a confidential service message which was released on a national television program from the Halifax area. We are endeavouring to find out how it happened that a confidential service message became public property. I am told nobody has been intimidated, but many people have been questioned. We are trying to ascertain how this thing happened.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, instead of going into a long supplementary, I think I will give notice for ten o'clock tonight.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would assure the house, as further reported in connection with the Halifax incident, that indeed the telephones of members of parliament are not being tapped in order to ascertain information in this regard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
supplementary question is as follows: Would the Associate Minister of National Defence not agree that there are ways of questioning which can give an impression of intimidation, and that there are questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker. I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance. Can he tell us whether the federal government is contributing toward the construction of a road from some point in Labrador to Churchill Falls, part of which would run through the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question should be put on the order paper.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the

Minister of National Health and Welfare a question having in mind the numerous inquiries now being received by members of parliament concerning who gets what under the proposed supplementary old age pension legislation. Would the minister give consideration to the preparation and issuance of a simple easy-to-follow leaflet which would contain information in line with the proposed legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just as soon as we can get the legislation approved we hope to take appropriate steps so that the public will be informed of the beneficial effects of this program.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State now received the information which she said on November 14 she expected to have during that week, and which would allow her to announce a definite date for an extended C.B.C. television service into northern Manitoba.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Simpson: Would the Secretary of State indicate when she thinks she may have this information available.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a long distance from the C.B.C. headquarters office to my office. I cannot understand by what means of transportation the information is coming, but as soon as it is received I will be glad to let my hon. friend know.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. the Prime Minister. May I ask him whether he is in a position today to reply to the question I posed several days ago regarding a communication he received from the president of the steelworkers union at Sydney. At that time the Prime Minister asked whether I would allow him to check and said that
December 12, 1966

he would give me an answer the next day. This was in respect of a supplementary works program to assist the unemployed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what was said the other day by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the effect that we are doing everything we can to deal with this important matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the labour market analyses are being compiled by departments.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, some work is being done in the Department of Labour, and they work closely with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister answer the question direct. Have the analyses been compiled for each department?


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



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, who is the minister responsible for the operation of the Atlantic Development Board. In view of the recent statement made by the vice chairman with regard to serious staff shortages on the Atlantic Development Board, which apparently are delaying some 20 separate planning studies for the Atlantic provinces which are now before the board, woud the minister assure the house that there will be an immediate increase in staff so that the board may get on with its work on an over-all plan for the economic growth of this very important sector of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is of a general nature and is one which should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



INQUIRY CONCERNING DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF MAINLAND CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canada has just signed a wheat agreement with China, thus recognizing that country as a suitable trading partner, what progress has the government made with regard to the diplomatic recognition of China?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the very clear statement made on this matter the other day by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It relates to the C.B.C. program "Quentin Durgens M.P." In that program one member is portrayed as a "Manitoba farm M.P. who cannot get up to speak without making a fool of himself". I should like to ask the hon. lady whether she will make representations to the C.B.C. pointing out that this kind of portrayal does not correspond to reality now or at any time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask her whether she has received complaints about the excessive use of television commercials by C.T.V. during the showing of movies by that network, and If so whether she has taken up these complaints with the B.B.G.?


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

December 12, 196G
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



INDIA-PROGRAM FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Some weeks ago when we were discussing in this house the matter of additional wheat for India I asked the Prime Minister whether he would give serious consideration to further technical assistance which I believe is very sorely needed. Has he anything to report on this matter at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as wheat is concerned, my hon. friend will be glad to know that provision already is made for the shipment of that wheat. In so far as technical assistance is concerned, that matter is being considered in respect of the annual program for assistance to India, and I hope I will be able to make a statement on this before long.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, to whom I have given a partial verbal notice of my question. I am informed that the premier of British Columbia intends to establish what will be known as the "Order of the Dogwood" which would be awarded to prominent British Columbia citizens. Has the Secretary of State received any communication from the premier of British Columbia with regard to this order, in order to regularize its status.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not urgent.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it has been brought to his attention that all the supermarkets in Winnipeg recently advertised a reduction in the retail price of side bacon to 89 cents a pound, where it had been varying from store to store at levels between 99 cents and $1.15, and will the government investigate this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether this is the kind of question which can be asked at this time. I am sure the representations of the hon. member have been noted by the government. I do not think the question should be asked at this time.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE REQUESTED COVERAGE FOR C.B.C. EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Labour. I am sure it is appreciated by many that meetings are to be held among representatives of the shipping industry regarding the hours of work set up by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. Now that the minister appears to have a few moments at his leisure, would he mind seeing whether he can make similar arrangements so that employees in the C.B.C. may be able to have coverage under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In his absence I hope that the parliamentary secretary will take it as notice. Have the minister and his officials recently met with representatives from the province of Manitoba relative to working out some points of disagreement in respect of the recently signed federal-provincial ARDA agreement in that province.


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



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration possibly the Prime Minister will either answer this question or take it as notice. According to the estimates of the committee studying the
December 12, 1966

subject of draft dodgers from the United States, there are some 1,500 to 3,000 draft dodgers who have come to Canada and are now living here, with the expectation that in years ahead they will take out citizenship. What is the attitude of the government with regard to giving consideration to their obtaining citizenship, in view of their refusal to accept the responsibilities of United States citizenship which were theirs?
#


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter with the minister, but as my right hon. friend is no doubt aware, it would be very difficult to give a general answer to a question of this kind in respect of individuals who might be applying in the future for citizenship. I am sure at that time each individual application will have to be considered on its merits, and all the factors, including the kind of thing mentioned by my right hon. friend, will have to be taken into consideration. I will discuss this with the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether or not there has been any communication from the administration of the United States protesting against the fact that these people are being welcomed into Canada and, indeed, that a certain Canadian organization has been set up for the purpose of assisting them in what they are doing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no such communication to my knowledge. I think I should check into this matter, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Solicitor General I should like to address my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that Christmas is almost here I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could report on the possibility of the four trade unionists, imprisoned as a result of the Lenkurt Electric dispute, being given an opportunity to be at home with their families for Christmas and the New Year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Solicitor General does not have a parliamentary assistant, perhaps I should discuss this matter with the minister.

Canada Labour (Standards) Code [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING HOLIDAYS FOR LONGSHOREMEN

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the second reading of Bill No. S-54, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which is chapter 38 of the statutes of 1965, provides for eight general holidays with pay in a year. However, an employee is not entitled to a general holiday with pay if it occurs during his first 30 days of employment with an individual employer or if he has not worked at least 15 days during the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the general holiday. The act does not prohibit work on a holiday, therefore it is not work on holidays with which we are concerned in this amending bill.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There are some of us who would like to hear the words of the minister. Perhaps we could have a little less noise in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I understand the hon. member, he as well as perhaps others, are having difficulty in hearing the minister's statement. Perhaps hon. members will keep that in mind and carry on their conversations, if they are necessary, in sotto voce.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the act does not prohibit work on a holiday, so when work is performed on a holiday no problem arises. However, in the longshore industry, even where longshoremen work regularly for eight and a half months of a year or on a yearly basis, many are unable to meet the regulations in respect of general holidays because they have not built up sufficient continuous employment with any one employer over a 30-day period. It is part of the regular pattern in the longshore industry, in both eastern and western Canada and on the great lakes, for longshoremen to work a few days or perhaps even a few hours for each of several employers over a 30-day period. I submit they should not, for this reason, be denied the rights to which employees who have steady employment with a single employer are entitled. That is one of the two objects of this bill.
A further problem exists in that some longshoremen may by chance have sufficient credit with one employer to qualify for an annual vacation with pay, while others with equal or
December 12, 1966

Canada Labour (Standards) Code greater service are not so entitled. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to make the Code apply more equitably to all longshoremen, and to make their rights to pay for general holidays and for vacations as nearly equal as possible to the rights of employees regularly employed by single employers. The only instance of multi-employer employment which has been brought to our attention is the one to which I have referred, namely the longshore industry. However, there is a possibility that there may be similar situations in respect of one or two other industries, and it is for that reason we have sought in this legislation to incorporate a definition of "multi-employer employment".
This is a very short bill with only one clause in it. There are several subclauses because the bill will add four new clauses to the act, if approved by this house and given royal assent. The bill proposes to authorize the making of regulations to achieve these two purposes. It will be necessary by regulation to replace employment and service requirements specified in the code by comparable eligibility requirements suitable to the longshore or other multi-employer employment, if any such are found at a later time.
Essentially the same problem occurs in respect of rights to annual vacations as in respect of holiday pay. It is felt that by this bill these two situations can and should be corrected.
Perhaps I should indicate that this bill was subjected to very careful study by the appropriate committee of the Senate when officials of my department and myself answered a number of questions posed by members of that committee. In view of the fact we have two holidays occurring within a few weeks, and in view of the assurance I gave in the summer or early fall that I would do my best to expedite the passage of this legislation to correct an anomalous situation which apparently no one anticipated, I hope that the house will accede to my request for early passage. Perhaps we could give this bill third reading today.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) wishes to ask the minister a question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: So do I, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: 
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, we have had extended discussions with employers and workers on both coasts. The thinking at the moment seems to be that the two objectives of the bill could be accomplished by adding 3 per cent to the pay in one instance and 4 per cent in the other. That is covered in the proposed regulations. There will be authority to do this in the regulations. For instance, we have eight holidays a year and we know the number of weeks that are worked. If you gave a percentage increase it would accomplish the desired objective. The same principle applies to vacation pay; two weeks a year would mean 10 working days a year. They would get a percentage increase in this respect. Provision is made for this in the regulations.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to ask a question of the minister before I take part in this debate as the chief spokesman for the official opposition. The question I ask the minister is this: Is there any provision for retroactivity, or do the provisions of this bill apply only to the two holidays now approaching?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there is no provision in the bill for retroactivity. I might say that as a result of the discussions I have had with both employers and employees I can hold out little hope of such a step coming about because the payments have already been distributed in so many instances. I had extended discussions on this subject in August and again in September. While we do not want to deprive anybody of pay they may have earned, in view of the bookkeeping that has taken place, and in some cases the very small amounts involved, I am reasonably satisfied that if this legislation becomes law before Christmas and covers all future holidays and vacations it will be accepted.


John George Diefenbaker: appendix to Hansard the regulations in question, so that the house will understand exactly what the situation is and the degree of application involved? The amendments seem to apply to various eventualities. We would like to know what matters have been in contemplation by the minister and in what way they have been incorporated in the new regulations.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Considerable work has been done on the draft regulations. The regulations, as the right hon. gentleman knows, could not be passed by cabinet or recommended to His Excellency until the house had approved the bill. There is one aspect of the proposed regulations on which the workers on the east coast sought clarification. We have not disclosed the regulations but have discussed the principles. We had discussions with them on Friday last and further discussions are taking place today. I will give the right hon. gentleman the assurance that as soon as this point has been cleared up the regulations will be made available to the house promptly.


John George Diefenbaker: Before this debate is
over?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would hesitate to bring a draft order in council before cabinet without the house having given its authority. I hope the right hon. gentleman will trust us when we say that, having had discussions with the employers and the workers on both coasts, the regulations will be reasonable.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has noted, this is what might be called a small amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, but it is none the less a substantial amendment as far as a good number of my constituents and a good number of other Canadians who are engaged in stevedoring are concerned. The problems that are to be solved by Bill S-54 are not unique or new. They are clearly problems that existed when the Canada Labour (Standards) Code was originally presented to another parliament. I suggest that it should have been anticipated then that this difficulty would arise and the problem should have been solved at that time. As it is, a body of men who have what is called multi-employer employment, that is, they move from one company to another in the services they perform, has been denied some substantial benefits that other people have enjoyed under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. As a result, the minister and the department must be thoroughly faulted.
23033-695J

Canada Labour (Standards) Code
Having said that, and having received notification from the men involved as to their feelings toward this bill, it can be said that the measure is welcomed. I think I can also say on behalf of the official opposition that we will grant the minister his request, unless there should arise subsequently a need of amendment. We will be prepared to give this measure as swift a passage as possible, so these people may plan over the holiday season whether they wish to work on that occasion.
I should also like to say that it is very, very rare that a minister comes before us and says that regulations have been drawn up under a bill that he is piloting through parliament. Usually, we have to wait around for ever and a day for the regulations. I suppose I would be out of order if I chastised the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) at this time, but I know of legislation passed six or more months ago for which we are still awaiting regulations. Therefore the minister and his department are to be complimented on doing their homework, if the regulations are what we hope they will be.
The final point I should like to make is that there will be disappointment that some method has not been found to achieve retroactivity, especially for those men who have had to wait more than a year after the Canada Labour (Standards) Code brought benefits to other work people. With those caveats and reservations, Mr. Speaker, and whatever might come out in examination at the committee stage, we give a qualified blessing to Bill S-54.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I think we should deal with the request of the minister for unanimous consent to have the bill proceed through its various stages in the hope that it will be passed by the house today. There is no hesitation at all on our part in providing that unanimous consent. It might be well in passing to point out that often when reporting events in parliament, those who do the reporting and interpreting to the general public fail to take full account of the harmonious relationship that exists between us as parties when there is something of this importance to deal with and when there is a request for unanimity.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am sure that other people in the house have expressed the same view. The Canada Labour (Standards) Code came into force on July 1, 1965, almost 18 months ago. I am sure it would be a surprise to some hon. members to learn that there are employees working in
December 12, 1966

Canada Labour (Standards) Code industries over which the government has jurisdiction who do not as yet receive the full benefits of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. There are still a number of industries to which the provisions of the law have not been applied and which in effect are exempted from it for the time being, so that the employees working in those industries do not receive the full benefits of the law which came into existence about a year and a half ago.
Although the amendment before us is an acceptable one in that it deals with a situation which perhaps was not fully foreseen at the time the original code was before the house, nevertheless it contains certain loopholes. I had hoped that in bringing forward an amendment to the standards code the minister would have taken account of the fact that certain industries under federal jurisdiction have been able to postpone effectively the application of one section of the code.
Earlier today I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) a question regarding the application of the code to the shipping industry. I believe that tomorrow a meeting will be held with representatives of the shipping industry to determine whether or not a mutually satisfactory formula can be worked out regarding the application of the hours-of-work section of the Canada labour code to the shipping industry. Eighteen months is quite a long period of time to wait before arrangements can be made for the representatives in the industry simply to sit down to see if they can work out a formula. I am saying this because one of the principal provisions of the act states that any postponement of the application of the hours-of-work section should not exceed 18 months before either being rejected or substituted by as ministerial order. Unfortunately, there is another section of the code which permits an extension beyond the period of 18 months. By dragging its feet, industry, has so far been able to postpone the application of a particular section of the law, thus denying the employees in that industry the full benefits applicable to them.
In this connection, I might also mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has deliberately postponed the application of the law by giving extremely technical and legal interpretations of the provisions of the code. The corporation has thus been able to put off the full force of the law as it applies to the C.B.C. employees concerned. I think that the C.B.C. being a government agency, should be one of the first organizations to put the law

into effect in the spirit in which it was passed by parliament.
I do not wish to speak on this subject too long because I will probably run afoul of the rules, but I thought it was worthwhile briefly to put on the record our regret that the bill before us does not contain provisions which could adequately cope with the fact that by virtue of a variety of circumstances there has been a lack of application of the law. There has been the reluctance of industry to apply the law to its employees, and, to put it politely, there has been the pressure of work with which the Department of Labour must cope.
I hope that the minister, if he finds an industry to which the law does not apply, will take steps, either through new regulations or through an amendment to the bill, to see that the law of Canada is made to apply to all the industries under federal jurisdiction in the spirit in which it was passed by parliament.
So far as the contents of the bill are concerned, I do not know whether I can go quite as far as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) when he said that there is a qualified or reluctant support for it. There should be a full and unqualified support for it on our part.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to delay too long the approval of the bill before the house. We welcome it. The minister does not need a reminder from me or from anyone else in the house of the extreme sensitivity in these times regarding the conditions of employment at Canadian ports. If we can act to improve those conditions to a degree which has long been accepted in other industries, then I think we should move quickly in that direction.
Last evening many of us heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) say that in these days of change governments must be flexible. I hope that in dealing with these types of problems which have caused this bill to be presented to us the government might in the future be a little more flexible and be able to foresee a little earlier the need for this type of change. This would el'minate the necessity of employees refusing to work and court injunctions forcing them to work on statutory holidays. In other words, earlier action would avoid the sort of experience we have had during the last few months.
I believe there has been an undue delay in bringing this legislation before the house.
December 12, 1966

Now that it is here, we welcome it and we hope it will be passed quickly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The
few remarks which I should like to make on this bill relate entirely to the situation on the coast of British Columbia with which I am particularly familiar. I do not ask the minister to comment in any way on the remarks which I intend to make. I am aware, as I am sure he is, that the particular industry on the west coast which is, as he mentioned, affected by the bill has been the subject matter of a good deal of time consuming effort on his part during the course of the past year in relation to two separate situations, the most recent of which brought him to the verge of introducing special legislation to parliament.
As the minister said, the fact that this bill was necessary resulted entirely from an oversight in the original legislation which was introduced by the previous minister of labour. The point I wish to make is that, in my view, any fair-minded person reading the code as it was passed by parliament could not have failed to have understood the intent of parliament. That is to say, any worker who is regularly employed should be entitled to the benefits of the bill in respect to statutory holidays and annual vacations with pay.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that in my view the employers of the longshoremen on the Pacific coast showed a very narrow and archaic attitude. Using a technicality in this law they forced a situation which resulted, as we all recall, in a number of the presidents of various longshoring locals on the Pacific coast going to jail because they felt that their normal rights as Canadian citizens and workers were being unnecessarily infringed upon.
I feel that this bill should not pass without someone in the house drawing to our attention the attitudes that were revealed in this situation by the employing interests on the west coast. I very much regret the minister has announced that, after investigation and discussion, he has not discovered any appropriate way to make the provisions of this bill retroactive. I believe that those workers were unjustly deprived of rights and benefits which it was the intention of parliament, when it passed this bill, to confer upon them.
In view of our discussion on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and the attitude that those employers showed at that time, I think it should not go unnoticed that in this more recent situation
Canada Labour (Standards) Code which brought the minister to the verge of introducing special legislation before parliament these same employers had been bandying around rather freely such terms as "illegal strike".


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think on this particular bill we should be going into items which were the subject of several weeks' serious discussion. There are two sides to every case and all the facts have not been brought out in this house. I think we should stick to the principle of this bill rather than refer to some other incidents, in fairness to both sides.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the point of order which the minister has raised may I say I feel I have been confining my remarks rather closely to the principle of the bill. As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to rectify an omission in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which resulted in certain workmen in the longshoring industry being deprived of benefits which I maintain parliament intended them to have.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if the hon. member would permit me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order which has been raised by the minister is that discussion should be relevant to the bill. I am sure the hon. member who now has the floor will want to keep that in mind.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was confining my remarks to the bill. I was dealing with the background to the situation and the omission in the original bill which has resulted in this legislation being introduced.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit me to say-I think this will be helpful -that before this recent work stoppage on the west coast occurred, and before there was any discussion of it, I had given the assurance both to the workers and to the employers on the west coast that I would introduce this amendment and would do my best to have it become law before Christmas. But that assurance was given long before this recent work stoppage occurred. There is no connection between the two except that having given that assurance it is doubly important in view of
10988	COMMONS
Canada Labour (Standards) Code the results that came out of the recent discussions, that the minister's assurance be implemented. That is important to the two parties concerned.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I very well recall, Mr. Speaker, the day on which the minister publicly in this house gave the commitment to which he has just referred, namely that he would introduce this bill. I quite agree that this was long before the development of the recent incidents to which he has been referring. May I say I certainly did not have it in my mind to suggest otherwise.
However, I still feel that it is in order for me to express my regret that it was necessary for this parliament to bring in this amending bill to make provision for statutory holidays and vacations with pay for these particular employees in order to honour what in my view was the intent of parliament when the original labour code was adopted.
I did preface my remarks by saying that I was not asking the minister to make any comment on the views that I am expressing, which are my own. I also realize that he, as Minister of Labour, has been involved in delicate and difficult negotiations with both parties; therefore, I do not ask him to agree with me, or for that matter to disagree with me. All I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, was that in the most recent situation on the west coast these same employers had been bandying around rather freely in the public press allegations about illegal strikes. As far as I am concerned, this is an attitude of mind on the part of certain employers which is all too frequent, by which they try to arrogate unto themselves the right to interpret the law.
While I agree, Mr. Speaker, that technically perhaps they did follow a correct interpretation of the law, nevertheless I want to register my regret as one member of this house that they did see fit to do so. As the minister has indicated, only upon the passage of this bill will statutory holidays be paid for, and annual vacations will be paid for in respect to employees who it is suggested in the terms of this bill are engaged in multi-employer employment.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the other members of the house who have spoken in indicating full support for this bill. I will certainly be most happy to see its speedy passage, and I hope that its passage may be one element in bringing about reconsideration of some of the past attitudes that have prevailed, with particular reference to the west coast of Canada with which I am

DEBATES	December 12, 1966
most familiar, and indeed with respect to multi-employer employment in other parts of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second tiime and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful before we embark on our study of this bill, even though there is only the one clause, if I were to comment briefly on the remarks of the speakers who have participated in the debate on second reading. I might say that I am in entire agreement with most of them.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
All hon. members who participated in the debate or who are familiar with the debate that took place when my predecessor piloted this important legislation through parliament -legislation which was long overdue-will recall that my predecessor stated it would take some time to work out practical arrangements for adjusting hours of work in all industries affected in the way referred to by the hon. member for Skeena. That remark, of course, applied to such industries as shipping and trucking, where long hours traditionally have been worked. To my horror and surprise I found that in the trucking industry they worked 72 hours a week, sometimes even longer hours, but 72 per week was not uncommon.


An hon. Member:: Just like members of parliament.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The legislation was long overdue. I think we have made substantial progress since it became law. The settlement of the truckers' strike in Ontario, which lasted for such a long time, was delayed by trying to bring about a formula to reduce the work week, which often was upwards of 80 hours a week, to 40 hours a week in a relatively short space of time.


Michael Starr: May I ask the minister a question? Has he not enforced the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in respect of hours worked per week in all industries coming under federal jurisdiction?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Chairman, but I am happy to say that the code is in effect in most instances.


Michael Starr: In view of the fact that the act provides for only 18 months deferment, that
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
18 months being up now, could the minister not tell us when a definite and final conclusion will be made with respect to this matter?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Chairman, the minister cannot.
Happily, or basically, one principal reason for the legislation was to provide for a minimum wage. That minimum wage will be universal in effect by the end of this month. In most instances it already is in effect. In the great majority of industries the minimum wage results sought for have been accomplished. In certain industries, and I am thinking of small flour mills-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of the answers given to my previous question, how can anyone say the act is enforced if employers and employees under federal jurisdiction are working in excess of the hours provided for under the act? Has an additional extension been given? If so, let me point out that the act does not provide for that.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Some deferments with regard to hours to be worked extend beyond December 31, 1966. That extension can be and has been provided under the act.


Michael Starr: By regulation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, by permit or by order. There is no question about that. One thing that cannot be deferred beyond December 31, 1966, is the minimum hourly rate. The minimum must be paid and the applicable overtime must be paid.


Michael Starr: There is no contravention of the act, I take it, should any question arise for further deferment?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There has been no contravention of the act as yet, to my knowledge. If there has been any contravention I would appreciate any hon. member bringing it to my attention or to the attention of my department.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Do the minister's remarks apply to prevailing rate employees and casual employees of government departments?
I understand, for example, that there are complaints from Halifax International Airport. Some of the cleaning staff are not properly covered by the operations of the act. Is this the type of complaint the minister would like us to dig out of our files and send to him?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Chairman, because what the hon. member refers to comes under
Canada Labour (Standards) Code another act or special regulation. This other act applies to certain employees who are other than government employees. You may recall that we also have the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and some federal government employees are covered by general regulations.


David Orlikow: I should like to follow up the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario, and ask the minister if it is not a fact that with respect to the hours of work applying to a whole series of industries, including the railway industry, the 18 month extension after which the industry will be forced to adopt the 40 hour week will come into effect when the minister grants that extension. In the meantime, there are a whole series of industries which have made applications. In those industries the 40 hour week is automatically deferred until the minister gives a ruling. In fact, the minister has not yet made a ruling with regard to some of those industries. There is nothing in the act which says that he must make a ruling within any particular time. Only after he gives a ruling and grants deferment will the industry have this further 18 months to which I referred. In some cases, that ruling may never come.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Had I been allowed to finish my brief statement, I might not have been asked that question.
I have spoken about legislation providing exceptions to whole industries. There were some pressures to exclude whole industries from the act. Those pressures were resisted by my predecessor, by the government, and by parliament because parliament took the responsibility of passing this measure in its present form. Commendable progress I think has been made in dealing with deferments since the act became law.
The general procedure, as all hon. members must know, is that one industry or a group of industries applies before the deadline for an extension, which automatically results pending disposition. We are gradually dealing with the applications which have been made. For instance I have dealt with several during the last three or four days.


Michael Starr: How many are there which have not been dealt with?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Deferments have been
granted in the case of certain small air lines, not the large air lines, smaller ones operating during the fire season in the north country and in other cases. Flour mills and grain elevators have been given certain consideration, but in the great majority of cases there
December 12, 1966

Canada Labour (Standards) Code has been no deferment. I cannot give particulars of these now, but if any hon. member is interested I shall be glad to write giving particulars.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question? Rather than having the minister write to individual members, would not the minister undertake to table in the house a resume or listing of the industries, groups, or parts of industries which have applied for deferment. Could he include in that list those industries with which he has dealt and those which remain outstanding?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should like to give that undertaking but I would not be able to do what is asked today because we are working actively-


Michael Starr: Some time this week, perhaps?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: We are trying to clean up as many applications as we can by the end of the year when the 18 month period is up. I can give an undertaking to file such a list reasonably soon, after the resumption of this session, that would be early in the new year. It is very difficult, with our limited staff and the large number of applications pending, to do that now. Though we have a relatively adequate staff it is small for the volume of work it has to do in such a short time. Rather than meeting the hon. member's wishes now, I think our time could be better used cleaning up some deferments and, where we feel it advisable, refusing deferments, and giving a report as soon as possible as of the end of this year.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have two points to raise. I mentioned that I thought government employees were not being brought under the provisions of the act. I should have said that those employees work for contractors who treat with government departments. Normally those employees come under the operations of this act. I have in mind specific employees of the cleaning firm which works for the Department of Transport at Halifax International Airport. The provisions of the act have not been applied to these employees, or had not been when I consulted with these employees a few months ago. I presumed that was the situation.
This situation lends itself to correction. I hope that the minister will assure me that I am correct in that inference.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, service contracts come within a third category. Employees affected by service contracts do not

come under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. That act applies to the construction industry where any firm of that industry constructs buildings for the federal government. General regulations apply to other government service contracts. It is the government's intention to clear this matter up, an order in council already exists which permits such clearing up. These matters have to be dealt with independently, but I can assure the hon. member that we shall proceed to do so as quickly as possible. If any matters such as the hon. member referred to are brought to my attention or to the attention of my department they will be acted on and investigated promptly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a second point. I thought the minister had told the Leader of the Opposition that regulations were available now. The minister dealt with 34-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister. He seemed to indicate that as soon as passage was given to this legislation the package would be quickly unveiled for the stevedores in all parts of Canada. I was wondering what sort of rates the department was thinking of suggesting. Apparently, the rates have been worked out between employers and employees, and presumably the department's rate will be comparable to the existing rates or to rates in similar sections in other legislation. Could the minister give us some indication about what I ask?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The proposed regulations are intended to deal with two situations only, the eight holidays and what amount should be paid in connection with those holidays and the annual vacations with pay. It should be remembered that in the course of a week employees might work for as many as six employers. They might, of course, work for only one. On the west coast it would be a maximum of about five; on the east coast it might be six, or seven. In answer to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition I stated that we were having further discussions within the next day or two with both workers and employers on the east coast; there seems to be need for further clarification, so I cannot say the regulations have been completed. Nevertheless, the proposed arrangement seems to be generally acceptable to all concerned.
December 12, 1966	COMMONS


David Orlikow: Can the minister indicate the date by which all the applications tor deferment will finally have been decided by the department? I do not mean, by this, a date when there will be no further exemptions given.
I am concerned about instances of application for deferment made by industries without consultation with the workers concerned. The employees are worried because the department has not yet dealt with these applications. The men fear it may be 1967 before the department finally deals with an application, at which time the department will probably allow an 18-month deferment. Thus, it would be the middle or, indeed, the end of 1968 before the provisions of the code with respect to hours of work would come into effect.
I am sure the minister knows that certain dining car employees, members of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have already given an assurance that I will give an up to date report on this matter after the turn of the year, as soon as possible after the session resumes. I say this in all sincerity. But the hon. member is now dealing with a subject which is entirely outside the scope of the bill now before us. I did not raise a point of order because I invited the co-operation of the committee and, having done so, I felt I should be the last to raise too many points of order. But having given the assurance I have, I hope we can now stick to the bill.


David Orlikow: The minister gave an assurance that he would make a report. Members on this side appreciate that assurance. The report will make clear which applications have been dealt with and, I suppose, those which have not been dealt with. I am asking the hon. gentleman now to tell the house at some time in the near future the date by which all these applications will have been handled and decided.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Unfortunately I cannot give sruch an assurance today, or tomorrow or, probably, for several days.


Frank Howard: Before I relate my remarks to another aspect of this subject I would respectfully say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister that it was the minister who first raised at this stage-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have not finished my statement yet. All I have been doing lately is answering questions.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


Frank Howard: Perhaps I can retain the floor on a point of order, just for the moment, to indicate that the minister was the one who made the first reference in committee stage to the hours of work clause in the bill. We are merely following along.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With respect, I said I
thought it might be helpful if I dealt with the observations made by the hon. member for Skeena and other hon. members. This matter was raised by the hon. member in his opening statement.


Frank Howard: Yes, I raised it first on second reading. The minister opened the subject in committee. He did not raise a point of order but he did indicate a wish that the hon. member for Winnipeg North would get off the subject of hours of work because it was not germane to the bill. Yet, he was the one who started it all. He cannot get halfway into a subject without letting anyone else get into it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I accept that reprimand. Perhaps, to avoid another, it would be better to proceed with the clause by clause discussion.


Frank Howard: I want to refer to the nonretroactive feature of this legislation. I realize this is a complicated clause and that what I propose would involve searching through back payrolls to ascertain the payments made to employees, some of whom might no longer be on the job.
For many years it has been standard practice in negotiations between labour and management in cases where a new contract is signed some months after the termination date of the old contract and made retroactive to the terminal date of the old contract, for the company covered by the agreement to go back over its records to ascertain the eligibility of its employees for statutory holidays, vacation pay and the like. The minister will be familiar, because of his association with the forest industry, with the situation on the west coast of British Columbia where for many years the collective bargaining process has been conducted between at least eight local unions of the International Woodworkers of America and I don't know how many companies which combined to bargain through Forest Industrial Relations Limited. So, there has been a collective agreement in effect between eight unions and many scores of companies, all in the forest industry.
The concept of a multi-employer relationship exists in the industry, especially in the
December 12, 1966

Canada Labour (Standards) Code logging section where it is not uncommon for a logger to work for four or five employers during the course of the year, possibly within the jurisdiction of three or four local unions of the International Woodworkers. This has been the course followed in the industry-the course of seeking a collective agreement with a retroactive feature in it. It is true this necessitates employers going through their books to find out who was eligible for what, and making pajments where called for. But it was felt that those working in the industry should not be denied the benefits of a collective agreement simply because negotiations continued longer than had originally been expected.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I submit that this is the situation here. We are looking at something with hindsight which ofttimes is better than foresight. In effect, we are agreeing that this is something which should have been contained in the act in the first instance but the problems were not foreseen at that time. I think that parliament should and does have an obligation to the employees working in these industries to say to them that we made an error and omitted something from the law which came into effect on July 1, 1965. I think we should carry out our obligation now and see that these payments are made retroactive. We should see that these people are not denied something which in essence this parliament intended to provide for them. I hope the minister will accept these remarks in the light in which they are intended.
It is not our intention to cause this industry undue work in checking through its past records, wage bills, and so on. This is an obligation, however, which we owe the employees working in that industry, because the purpose of the law is to provide the minimum fringe benefits to employees working in federal undertakings and businesses coming under federal jurisdiction. We could carry out our part of the bargain by making this retroactive to the first of July, which is the date of the original act.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The point made by the hon. member I think is well taken. I raised it myself during discussions with the industry. The situation, however, really is not as simple as it is when you are negotiating a collective agreement or a series of collective agreements with one industry. In this case the stevedoring firms involved have to bid for business and they bid in a competitive market. Later they send out their bills to shippers all over the

world. There are thousands of ships involved, and in some cases only a few dollars or cents are involved. It is not as simple as the hon. member has suggested to make this legislation retroactive.
In the very early stages of my discussions I brought up this matter. I think it is likely that in the forestry industry the approach would be quite different. But here were people bidding on the market having had the advice of their lawyers and chartered accountants, the bills have gone out and have been paid. This was all explained by me to the longshoremen in July or August of this year. I explained the reason. This is why, in my opinion, we should not make the provision retroactive, and this is the reason the government could not recommend it.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Chairman, might I ask the minister when he brings down his promised statement with regard to deferments, whether he would include therein the disputes which are in existence between employers and employees in relation to whether employees come within section 2(c) of the act. I think it would be helpful if he would so do. Were it not for the fact that I agree with the minister that it would not be in order to discuss this problem at this stage, I would raise the whole question of the C.B.C. and the dispute which exists between the corporation and set designers, costume designers, cameramen and others. I think an unfortunate situation exists within this corporation. I hope this will not be allowed to continue.
I take it that the minister's department believes these employees should be placed within the terms of the act, that they are reasonably within the terms of the act, and that it will not be necessary for litigation to result in order to bring about a solution of the situation. I think it would facilitate matters if the minister would bring down a statement concerning what is intended in these matters.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: While I cannot give any undertaking such as I gave the hon. member for Skeena, I will gladly give the hon. member's request sympathetic consideration.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the reasoning the minister has given us with regard to not making the bill which is before us retroactive. But I think some consideration should be given now, inasmuch as we are close to the Christmas and the New Year holiday, to amending the bill by inserting words to the effect that it shall be deemed to have come into force on, say, December 15, or some date prior to Christmas. In this way the
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
industry would know beforehand that this measure will be applicable to those two holidays.
I understood the minister to say that he hoped it would come into effect before the end of the year, and that the regulations would be prepared and promulgated by that time. This may not be the case, I do not know. It depends on the degree to which the minister is able to draft the regulations. I see that the minister is trying to rise, and perhaps I should give him the opportunity to answer.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, our objective is to get the legislation through today if possible, get royal assent as soon as possible in the hope that we can introduce the regulations on Thursday or later this week. I cannot give any definite assurance until we have completed our discussions. The department, however, is committed to having these regulations completed before Christmas, if possible. They will be completed long before that date I hope, if we get continued co-operation.


Frank Howard: That co-operation was promised by everyone beforehand. The question is whether the minister can get the regulations before cabinet and get approval by the Governor General in time. He may have all the best intentions in the world, but I suggest that if such a provision were written into the bill there would be no opportunity for argument and there would be no delay.
A variety of things might occur and it might be New Year's day before these regulations go into effect. I think it would be regrettable if things were delayed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If we were to attempt to write in that the effective date of the bill is to be December 15, this could be really effective only after the regulations are in existence. I am reasonably sure we will have the necessary regulations promulgated this week. If we were to put a date in here and it should later be held up by the regulations, I think that would be unwise.


Frank Howard: It would be a guarantee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena has been talking about the question of statutory holidays. There is also the question of the calculation of annual vacation pay. As I understood the minister, it is considered likely that this will be done, as is the case in some instances under provincial jurisdiction in the construction field, as a percentage of earnings payable with each pay cheque.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
It seems to me the point the hon. member for Skeena is making is that if we added a clause to the bill which said that this act shall be deemed to come into effect on the 15th, in view of what the minister has said about various discussions on the principle of the regulations, those responsible would be in a position to make provision for calculating annual vacations effective on that date.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There was some reference to royal assent. Perhaps the minister is in a position to give us some indication as to whether or not, if we deal with this bill today, we can expect royal assent today.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot bind His Excellency, since I am only one of perhaps 25 who advise him collectively. I can say that I believe the measure will become effective before December 15, if it is given third reading today. That is all I can say in this regard at this time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has made a legitimate point because it is not a question of royal assent but when the regulations are made under this measure. That is what will bring the results into fruition. I think the solution to the difficulty expressed by my friends to the left would result from an assurance on the part of the minister that the regulations will be made within a couple of days of the passage of this bill and will become effective some time near the middle of December so that employers and employees alike will know that Christmas and New Year's days are covered. If that assurance is given surely we do not have to add anything to this bill at this time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, this matter was discussed this morning and I am very pleased to give that assurance on behalf of the government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions I should like to ask concerning the proposed sections 34B and 34C. It is proposed in this bill to set out how annual vacations and general holidays will be defined. It is my understanding that the regulations adopted under this part will set out general holidays and the basis for annual vacations.
What I have not been able to follow is just how, under the new regulations, annual vacations and general holidays will be the same as those set out in other parts of the act, for instance, parts III and IV. Perhaps I do not
December 12, 1966

Canada Labour (Standards) Code understanding because I am dense. I am not suggesting that this is the suggestion of the minister or the government, but as I read it, whether or not Christmas day is to be one of the general holidays depends entirely upon the regulations to be drafted. Could the minister indicate how the workers concerned will be guaranteed the same provisions in respect of vacations and holidays as are workers who come under the general definition of an employee under the single employer relationship?
I realize there is a subsection in this proposed section 34D which refers to equal treatment, but I am not sure in my own mind that this will cover the situation I have raised.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am not going to attempt to give a legal opinion, although I have given them from time to time over a period of many years, because I am prevented by my office from doing so in this house. Let me, however, draw my hon. friend's attention to the interpretation section which also applies to part IV. In the main interpretation section defining general holidays, Christmas day and seven other holidays are included. This definition also includes any day which might be substituted for any such holiday pursuant to section 28. I think the answers to most of the hon. member's questions can be found in the two sections to which I have just referred.
Having regard to the other part of the hon. member's question in relation to payment, we have suggested, on the basis of experience in other cases where there is a percentage relation to annual vacations and general holidays, that this matter be dealt with in that way.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I understand what the minister is saying, the interpretation section at the beginning of the existing act will apply to part IVA in respect of the definition.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, it does apply.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is what appeared to be an ambiguous point, but I am prepared to accept the minister's assurance.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Of course the interpretation section applies to the whole act, but there is also a special interpretation section for this part only.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the minister one other question in relation to proposed section 34D (1) (c). I am not quite clear as to the purpose of the authority for making regulations prescribing the minimum rate of wages that an employee shall be paid for time 
worked by him on a general holiday. Is this provision included to cover employees coming under this part who may not be covered by union agreements, or employees who will not be paid in some other way. Why is it necessary to have a reference to the prescribing of minimum wages?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot say definitely, but my understanding is that under part IV there is provision covering situations where more favourable benefits can be paid. For instance, if employees are to be paid double time for such holidays as they work instead of time and a half, because of some collective agreement, we must be able to guard against limiting those benefits. However, there cannot be any lesser benefits applied than the minimums provided in the act.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Robert Jardine McCleave: By leave, now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of the bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in passing perhaps I should congratulate the minister for choosing a day when the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was absent to ask for unanimous consent.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, may I thank all hon. members for their wholehearted co-operation and the assistance in giving this bill approval today.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to tender my appreciation for the minister's recognition of the rights of labour and for his success in solving the difficult problems with which he has been faced.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
December 12, 1966
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the second reading of this bill to create a guaranteed income program for our older citizens. Hundreds of thousands of our elderly people certainly need and deserve further help, being dependent as many are, entirely or almost entirely on the old age security pension. They have helped this country reach the stage of development it has today and we, their fellow citizens, certainly have an obligation to help them achieve and maintain a decent and dignified standard of living.
There are many older people who will not be able to benefit significantly from the Canada Pension Plan. Steps to fill this gap were recommended by the senate committee on aging and the joint parliamentary committee which studied the Canada Pension Plan proposals. The government, we know, moved partially to fill this particular gap when it took steps to have the old age security pension available at age 65, with this coming into effect over a five-year period. Also, by creating the Canada Assistance Plan the government has created a measure with the potential of providing further, provincially administered help, on the basis of need, rather than means for older citizens once provincial cooperation and agreement is obtained. But there has remained a place for a further measure handled directly by the federal government and available as of right to our older citizens. To deal with this particular area of concern, the government has now brought forward this program to provide a guaranteed income for our older citizens.
It should be noted that this measure incorporates the basic recommendations of the senate committee on aging headed by Senator David A. Croll who is, I might mention, a distinguished former citizen of my own city of Windsor. The government's proposals will guarantee an income of $105 a month or $1,260 a year for old age pensioners. These proposals make possible a maximum monthly supplement of up to $30 in addition to the old age security pension. The amount of supplement, as the government's measure indicates, will depend on to what extent the pensioner has income as defined by the Income Tax Act over and above his old age pension.
For some 500,000 older Canadians who have no additional income, this means an additional maximum supplement of $30 a month. In other words, the government's proposal provides a maximum benefit for those who need it
Old Age Security Act Amendment most. By adopting this approach the government has not scattered and diluted its efforts across the whole range of older people no matter what their income might be.
I think the government is making a more effective use of the taxpayers' money by aiming the bulk of this expenditure at, and concentrating it in, the area of those with greatest need. This means that for the 500,000 older people whose only income is the present old age pension, the government's proposals will provide $5 more a month than the proposal brought before us on several occasions by the official Conservative opposition. Second, this program will involve an expenditure of $100 million less in the first year of the plan's operation than the Conservative proposal. This money of course will be obtained from the taxpayers, and according to the information already before us, the amount it will be necessary to obtain for this program from taxes will decrease as the years go by.
I have referred, Mr. Speaker, to the obligation we all have to deal fairly with our older citizens. We must also be conscious of the obligation the country and the government has to all the other groups within our borders. The expansion of education, for example, is a matter of high priority if we are to increase our productivity and generate the higher tax revenues needed to maintain adequate standards for the aged and all our citizens. The government's guaranteed income program improves on the Croll Committee recommendations in several ways. First, it provides a higher maximum income for a married couple. The senate committee suggested a maximum of $2,220 a year, while the government's plan will make possible a maximum guaranteed income of $2,520 for married pensioners. Second, in the government's plan the supplement will not be reduced, if the pensioner has income in addition to his pension, on a dollar for dollar basis in the manner recommended by the senate committee; instead, the supplement will be reduced by $1 a month for every $2 the pensioner's income increases over the old age security pension.
I stress that this additional income is as defined for income tax purposes. This obviously will permit an old age security pensioner to earn more from part time work, for example, without having his supplement reduced, than under the recommendation of the senate committee. Third, the supplement is not expressed as 40 per cent of the $75 old age pension, therefore it will automatically increase whenever there is any change in the
10996	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment pension index to reflect changes in the cost of living.
The focusing of the additional payment on those who need it most is based on the use of the new income test proposed by the Croll committee. I think we should be very clear on this. No matter how the opposition tries to twist and turn the income test, it is not the demeaning means test that is required for qualifying under the old age assistance and disability programs which exist at the present time, Also it is not the more humane and realistic needs test called for to qualify for benefit under the Canada Assistance Plan.
It is a new and simple approach recognizing the privacy and dignity of the individual. It is my understanding that once a year the pensioner will complete a form listing his income as defined for income tax purposes, income earned in the preceding year, and he will send it to the Department of National Health and Welfare. This form will be used as a basis for the pensioner receiving a supplement in the current year. He will be able to fill in this form himself in his own home, although of course he will also always be able to seek the help of friends, government officials or even his Member of Parliament. Surely, this is a very different thing from the present means test which rightly disturbs those who must seek help under the present old age assistance programs.
Under the means test an investigator comes and pokes around and talks to every applicant. This is not to happen under the guaranteed income program. With the means test, a percentage of the value of a person's own home is deemed as income even when he obtains no revenue at all, from it in the form of rent. This will not happen with the income test. A man's savings over a certain amount under the means test, and not merely the interest on them, are calculated as income for the purpose of granting old age assistance or a similar pension. This, also, will not happen under the income test. Gifts of money from relatives will not be considered as income under the new program, according to the information the minister has provided.
There are many other differences that I could mention between the means test and the proposed income test. The minister has already outlined them in some detail and I am sure they will be discussed in an even more detailed manner as the consideration of the bill continues. To say that the form required to be completed in order to qualify for this additional payment under the program constitutes

DEBATES	December 12, 1966
a means test is, I think, misleading to say the least. I suggest that it involves a means test no more than the much more complex form which has to be filed every year for income tax purposes or, for that matter the application required to obtain an old age security pension itself.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Let us not forget that everyone who wants an old age pension must first complete and file an application. The present old age pension cheques do not start arriving automatically. An applicant first must meet tests of age and residence; it is not enough for him to fill in a form and send it in. Evidence must be submitted and the requirements are often complex and detailed. It is often not so easy to obtain the evidence. I think almost every hon. member has been approached at one time or another by an older person asking him for help in filling in the form and in finding out how he can obtain the evidence required by the Department of National Health and Welfare so that he may begin receiving his old age security pension. There are requirements for class A and class B evidence, and so on.
In passing, I might say that criticism has been voiced of the provision for a right of appeal under the government's proposed guaranteed income legislation. But there are appeal tribunals for those who are not satisfied with the department's rulings on the applications for old age security pensions.
I must say I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) or anyone in his party, or the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) or anyone in her party, complain about the need to fill in an application form for old age security or complain of the tests, which can be quite complicated, required to obtain an old age security pension or even of the existence of an appeal procedure provided under that legislation. May I suggest that generally, older people have not found the procedures required to obtain the old age security pension or the application forms needed as evidence before the appeals tribunals to be a form of snooping. I suggest that the form even though it is required annually by the government under the proposed guaranteed income program is not one which should be burdensome of oppressive.
The best evidence that the government's measure does not involve a means test is contained in the very recommendations of the
December 12, 1966

Croll committee report. As has been mentioned by members of the opposition, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, the Croll committee has criticized measures providing further assistance to older people with an income not exceeding $75 a month based on a means test or a needs test.
However, these hon. members have conveniently neglected to inform the house that the alternative to this suggested by the Croll committee is an income guarantee program based on the income test, the very measure proposed by the government.
Let us take a quick look at some of the principal recommendations of the Croll committee as they appear on page 18, of the report. Paragraph 3 reads:
(3) The establishment of an income guarantee program to provide allowances throughout life to all persons beginning at age 65 on the following lines:
(a) that the only conditions for eligibility under the income guarantee program be age, as indicated above, ten years' residence in Canada, and net cash income from all sources, including old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, below the above amounts.
lb) that the program be administered and financed by the federal government.
(c) that the procedure call for the completion of a simplified income form annually and that the amount by which the declared income falls short of the established minima in any year constitute the benefit for the year following.-
I suggest that this should sound rather familiar to members of the house because it is very similar to the proposals of the government.
I suggest that if those who criticized these proposals have based their criticism on what the Croll report had to say about the means and needs test then in all honesty and fairness, they must accept what the committee said, when it urged an income guarantee program based on an income test as an alternative to the measures it criticized. In other words, the Croll committee says that the income test is not a means test or even a needs test.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is a very important additional form of support which has been demonstrated for the government's income guarantee program based on the income test by certain members in the house who in effect seem to claim that they alone have the interests of the older people at heart. This claim is something which will be disputed by most of the members of the house. Let us take a look at Hansard for Tuesday, June 21 page

Old Age Security Act Amendment 6687 where, at the bottom of the second column the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) is reported as saying:
There is a report from the Senate that calls for a different kind of program than a flat rate, old age pension. It is a good report and contains some worthwhile ideas.
I am sure hon. members on the government side will thank the hon. member for Waterloo South for his constructive words in this regard.
I also wish to refer you to Hansard for Tuesday, June 14, page 6419 where the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) speaking on the Canada Assistance Plan is reported as saying:
Perhaps before this debate ends, Mr. Chairman, we will have an opportunity of going into the final report of the special committee of the Senate on aging. I wish my friend opposite, if he has not already read it, would read it. The report is a great tribute to the chairman of that committee. Senator Croll. The foreward to the report, and the report itself, adopts what I feel is probably the most humane and reasonable approach to the whole problem of aging in Canada. If the philosophy contained in this report were carried over into the legislation before us now,-
The hon. member is referring to the Canada Assistance Plan.
-I think the measure would meet with a far greater response.
Let me again put the words of the hon. member for Danforth on record when he said that the Croll report adopted what he felt was probably the most humane and reasonable approach to the whole question of aging in Canada.
Finally, let me turn to Hansard for Wednesday, June 29, pages 7050 to 7052. We find there the remarks of the very charming hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who, in some ways, is the most severe critic in the house of the government's proposal to base further aid for pensioners on the income test. At page 7051 she is reported as saying the following:
The Senate committee on aging pointed out a way in which this problem could and should be solved. As a matter of fact the Senate committee suggested that we should have a guaranteed income for those on old age security pension.
Further on, she went on to say with her usual eloquence:
The Senate committee on aging proposed that we have a minimum income in this country and that we begin with the recipients of the old age security pension. I should like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to send me very soon the complete text of the speech he made at the opening of the welfare conference in Vancouver.

December 12, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment
Apparently she referred to this speech because she claimed the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) had spoken of the desirability of a guaranteed minimum income in Canada. She then went on to say the following in referring to the minister's speech:
I remember that there was great applause at that point, because the welfare and social workers believe that the Senate is talking good sense when it suggests that we have a minimum guaranteed income for those on old age security in this country.
Then, the hon. member went on to say:
One of the most interesting addresses we had at the Canadian Welfare Conference in Vancouver was that of Professor Richard Titmuss of the London School of Economics. He told us that there is now going through the British House of Commons a piece of social security legislation which in its outlines is very like the guaranteed minimum income which has been proposed by the Senate committee on aging.
It is a piece of legislation under which they calculate the income of those people on social assistance, that of the old age pensioners and those in other categories of social need. They calculate the income of these people-incidentally, they do not take into consideration the home in which they live-and take account of the taxes they have to pay.
She went on to give further details and then said:
At regular intervals a cheque is sent out to these people and at the end of the year they are asked whether their status has changed.
If their status has not changed, they continue to receive the cheque. What is the cheque? It is the difference between what these people are receiving and what the government considers to be a suitable guaranteed minimum income.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Then, I ask hon. members to listen to these words:
That is the sort of thing we should be doing in Canada if our resources permit us to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I note the applause from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis). I think that these words afford one of the strongest demonstrations we could have of the value, humanity and usefulness of the government's program.
Some of these same people whom I have just quoted, in this debate, have attempted now to heap scorn on the same approach that they praised a few months ago, an approach which they urged the government at that time to incorporate into legislation as soon as possible. No wonder members on this side of the house who recall the use of the phrase "income

test" are tempted to use words like "hypocrisy". At the same time they may have the urge to say things about motives and sincerity when they hear such criticism by the members of the N.D.P. who spoke so fulsomely in praise of this measure a few months ago.
The members of the N.D.P. are posing today as having some superiority of outlook and purpose. However, the Canadian people may well want to look with great suspicion at a party which apparently is so desperate for support that it is willing to say and do anything, seizing upon the genuine concern over a serious matter like the plight of the aged, to get and hold popular support.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out on a previous occasion that the leader of the N.D.P., who was premier of Saskatchewan for some 14 years, headed a government which administered without any noticeable complaint legislation based on the means test approach which the members of that party are now criticizing. Investigators employed by this same C.C.F.-N.D.P. government for some 14 years fanned out over the province of Saskatchewan snooping and prying into the lives of people seeking assistance.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that when the Conservative government headed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was in power it also continued to administer means test legislation and did nothing to eliminate it during the six years it was in office, even though it had at that time the largest majority in Canadian history and could have done so very easily.
It is the present Liberal government which, rather than extend the means test as suggested by some opposition members, has moved to make possible its elimination from assistance measures through the passing of the Canada assistance plan, which is based on the needs test approach.
I am confident, therefore, that if older Canadians look at the income test and its application with an open mind and not in the distorted manner which is urged by the opposition, most of them will find it a reasonable and acceptable way of obtaining further help for themselves and their older fellow citizens.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that:

This program, administered under federal jurisdiction, is important because it will be handled directly by the federal government and will be available to people in every part of Canada. By the same token, it will be a
December 12. 1966	COMMONS
most important means to strengthen our national unity because, through this measure, the federal government is showing its concern to meet the needs of the whole country.

This measure, which is under federal jurisdiction and is handled directly by the federal government, is available to people in every part of Canada. It will be therefore an important part of this government's program to strengthen our national unity. I urge this house to support this legislation so that the additional payments which are needed by so many of our older people will go out to them as soon as possible in the new year.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Welaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating some of the very logical arguments already advanced in this debate, I should like to make a few comments. I cannot help but disagree with the previous speaker on one point in particular, and that is his comparison of the previous application form for old age security which must be filled out before payments are received with the present one. The present form contains the criterion of age only, not of income. However, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this bill as it will increase the pension received by many of the needy among our elderly people, and the sooner this is done the better.
I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, how a principle that has long been accepted can be applied to part of this $105 pension and not to the other part. Surely if the pension of $75 a month needs to be increased-and it does-in order to keep pace with the rapidly rising cost of living, or perhaps we may call it the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, then the same principle should apply to the proposed increase of $30 as well as to future increases which may be necessary to provide decent living standards for our elderly people. The figure of $75 is certainly unrealistic at the present time.
Since old age security is paid out of a fund established from tax collection, it follows that these taxpayers should reap some benefit. Otherwise, the ambitious and hard workers are discriminated against. Do we want a society in which it pays a man to do as little as possible in his working years so that he can get more welfare from the various governments? This, it seems to me, is a socialistic philosophy.
Do we also want to prevent elderly recipients of the pension from contributing to our
Old Age Security Act Amendment economy by continuing to do what work they can? I am referring here to work which may be essential to their physical and mental well being. By earning what money they can after they have reached the age of 65, are they thereby forfeiting any increase in old age security? Under this bill, Mr. Speaker, they certainly are.
There has been considerable argument during this debate, Mr. Speaker, about whether there is a means test here. As reported at page 10894 of Hansard the minister stated that those who consider this a means test were dishonest or stupid. Many letters from elderly people show that they felt that a means test is being applied here. I am sure that the minister does not consider these people to be dishonest or stupid; they are quite sincere.
The application of any test to determine eligibility for the additional $30-call it a means test, a needs test, an income test or just a test-will create many problems of administration. This type of legislation always does; and, of course, a test of this sort will be costly to administer. Surely the minister and the government will admit that if a straight increase were granted with no strings attached much of it would be recovered through income taxes in those cases where the full amount was not required to maintain a decent standard of living. A straight increase in the pension would eliminate so many problems that it should be given consideration.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some of the things which have been said in this debate, but first of all before I deal with what is wrong with this legislation I should like to say that a number of us in this party have received letters from present recipients of old age security pensions, people who have nothing but their pensions, in some cases with a provincial supplement, to live on, begging us on no account to allow the principle of universality in the application of the present old age security pension to be done away with or undermined. One letter I received this morning from a person who would be eligible for this new federal supplement begged us on no account to weaken on this principle He considered that it was the only fair way of dealing with people when they get to a certain age.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
That is the first thing, and I want to reiterate it. This legislation undermines completely the principle of universality in our old age
December 12, 1966
11000	COMMONS DEBATES
Old Age Security Act Amendment legislation. Let us not lose sight of that. All elderly people have earned this pension by the work they have put into this country in their working years. They have a right to receive it when they reach the proper age. Now, only some of them will get this increase.
The excuse of the government, putting it briefly is: Why give this bonus to millionaires? Why give it to those who do not need it?


An hon. Member:: Right.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Right? Wrong, I say.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Winona Grace MacInnis: 
An hon. Member:: A lie.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It is
not a lie, it is the truth.


An hon. Member:: It is a lie; rot.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It is
not a lie, and it is not rot. It is the absolute truth that this government has the wrong priorities when it comes to the old people of this
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
country. We feel that instead of spending the kind of money they are spending on less essential services, and defence is a good example, this government should spend it on the old people who have reached the stage where they are entitled to a pension, with no questions asked.
There is another reason for my alarm in seeing the undermining of universality in the old age pension legislation. Once the government gets the habit of undermining universality, the next thing to go will be medicare. We shall be getting amendments to medicare very shortly which will mean that only those people who are needy, who fall into the lowest category, will be considered in the new medicare legislation when it comes into effect. This mentality of applying the means test to people-whether that means test is applied by the authorities or by the old age pensioners themselves enforcing the regulations-is catching. I, for one, do not want to see this mentality growing.
I believe that money is not the only important thing, and I believe that more than mere money is at stake here. Those of us who watched the right to the universal old age pension won back in 1961, after the long years that went into that fight, realize how much the old people rose in status when they got their pension as of right. Before the old age pension first came, the old people used to have to drag their children before the courts to have the courts declare that their children could not support them, before getting charity from the municipality. That was before the old age pension was paid. I want to point out that the means test mentality is fatal, because if that mentality prevails we shall see bit by bit the dignity of the elderly people do down the drain. It will be dignity on the dole. Others may believe in it, but I do not. We are asked to sanction dignity on the dole. A number of us will not do that, because we do not believe in dignity on the dole.
Some hon. members may say: "But you will vote for this measure as you voted for the resolution the other day." That is quite right. After having fought to the best of our ability we shall vote as we voted the other day, because we shall not dare to do otherwise. We dare not refuse, on behalf of the needy, the few cents that this government is prepared to give them. Though we shall not vote differently, we shall fight to the limit of our ability to get the legislation approved in the way we want it approved.
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
I wish the minister at this time could undergo the transformation which changed Scrooge into Santa Claus. It is not too late for that. He would be proud if he did that, and his descendants to the nth generation would be proud that he had the courage to do this.
Perhaps I should not say that. I do not know what his status is at the moment. Perhaps I can remind him of another occasion when my father looked across at the then prime minister and said that the prime minister's descendants would be exceedingly proud to know what he had done for Canada. My father was also forgetful of the prime minister's marital status.
I want to touch on a point raised by the speaker who preceded me on the government side. He said we objected to the tribunal. We object to the use that will be made of this tribunal. In the past, the tribunal has been used to establish age, and the right of recipients to receive benefits. In future, the tribunal will go into the means of the elderly people, and that will be very sad for those old people who are called before the tribunal when their statement of income is questioned.
I wish to raise another point about this legislation. To the best of my knowledge-and I wish the minister would let me know if I am wrong-the government has made no arrangements with the provinces to make sure that when this legislation is passed the provinces will not curtail or withdraw the provincial supplement to the old age security payment. So far as I am aware, no such arrangements have been made between the minister and the provincial governments to protect the old people of this country. I think I am right because when I tried to get an assurance the other day from the premier of British Columbia that there would be no curtailing or withdrawing of the provincial supplement when this legislation was passed, which in our province goes up to $30, I learned that the premier was not talking yet.
Of course, in British Columbia we have a built in guarantee, because we have an opposition there that is strong enough to prevent the government from escaping its obligations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: An opposition?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Do
not laugh. We have an opposition strong enough to prevent the government from withdrawing the provincial supplement. That is the type of opposition we have there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Winona Grace MacInnis: Do
not laugh too soon because you might make another mistake.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I must say this: until the minister has received an assurance from the provincial governments that they intend to pay the present income supplement to old age pensioners once this legislation becomes effective, I do not think this bill should be passed. I do not think it should be passed until there is some guarantee from the provinces that the supplementary allowances will be paid as before.
In British Columbia there are a great many old age pensioners in all our ridings. Many of them are very much worried that when this legislation is passed they will lose something which the province has been giving them. They have done their best, by following newspaper articles and statements made in this house, to cut through the jungle of administrative detail which is now contained in the bill and which will, I suspect, be contained in the regulations when they are approved. The complexities will remain in spite of the booklet of explanation which the minister has promised. We have not as yet received sufficient assurance from the minister that these people will not be deprived of the provincial supplements they are now getting, once this federal legislation comes into effect.
I have received a letter from one pensioner who is very much concerned. Her income does not fall within the lowest category. She lives in my riding, and she writes:
I am 78 years old-a widow. I have my own little home. Sometimes I wish I hadn't, because I cannot get into one of our senior citizens' homes as I have too much money. I have no money, though, only my home which is worth about $7,000 or $8,000. Our provincial government gives me $30, and that makes $105 a month in all. It takes that $30 and more to run my little four roomed home with oil, gas, light and 'phone. Now they tell me I will not get any raise in my pension. We have paid taxes here since 1910 and it seems that the people who own their own homes are the worst off.
We receive letters of this kind all the time. These people are worried and upset. I want to know, and this party wants to know, what arrangements the minister proposes to make with the provincial governments to ensure that once this legislation becomes effective the latter will maintain the supplements to the old page pension they are presently granting?
We feel the old people are being made pawns in the power play between the provinces and the federal government. We think this sort of thing should stop. We do not feel
December 12, I960

Old Age Security Act Amendment the legislation before us in its present form contains any guarantee that the pensioners will be in a better position once it is passed.
There is a further ground for objection. We do not approve of the ceiling which is placed on these bits of earned income. I have been in many pensioners' homes in my own riding where people are covering up bits of income which they must have in order to live, prices being what they are today. While this legislation does make things a little easier, it still fails to remove a direct invitation to desperate people to conceal their earnings, or part of them. This is what these people fear tremendously, that they will be smoked out by this new legislation, through tribunals, so that their secret socks will be discovered under the mattress or wherever they are kept. This is why we object to the legislation; it is discriminatory and its terms make it almost impossible for pensioners to lead a straight, upright existence.
I invite hon. members to listen to what one old lady told me. She had, she said, always lived an honest life, yet in order to make ends meet today she had been obliged to take in a lodger under the pretense that he was her son. A pretense of this sort should not be necessary. There should be no such ceiling as this bill imposes. We talk a good deal in this house about encouraging initiative. We certainly encourage the initiative of people like Weston. There is a lot of encouragement for people like him. But let an old age pensioner try to keep a boarder, or do something like that, and we soon find out how much room there is for initiative on her part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
realize that some hon. members are far more interested in protecting people in a higher income range. But I am interested in those people who have only their pensions and, possibly, a little more. I believe that those of us who are in a position to do so should be glad to pay a little more for such things as old age security schemes in order that those who are worse off may not have to pay as much.
The minister has quoted the Canadian welfare council as approving what he is doing. Well, if he quotes more flattering notices from the welfare council, he will get more of the other kind from us on this side of the house. The welfare council is appreciative of what he is trying to do but there are many social workers who do not go all the way with this legislation. On November 15 Mr. Reuben C.
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
Baetz, Executive Director of the welfare council announced a new study of the budgeting problems of low-income Canadians. This is to cost $100,000 toward which the federal government is making a grant. He says:
If the high cost of living is working hardship on the average middle-class consumer today, what is it doing to the poor? Studies show that the poor pay more for goods and services at the best of times: and as prices rise their suffering increases. The low-income groups that are especially hard hit are large families, families in which the mother is the sole support, and people on fixed incomes, such as the aged. The spending patterns of these groups, in particular, will be studied.
That is from a communique of the Canadian Welfare Council. On the next page Mr. Baetz is quoted as saying:
Up to now, decisions on benefits have been determined by a combination of political expediency, financial limitations, and rough estimates of need.
I wish the minister were here to listen to this.


An hon. Member:: He is right here.


Winona Grace MacInnis: He
is misplaced.
For example, the federal government's program for a guaranteed minimum income for the aged is being launched without a thorough study of minimum needs, as was recommended by the special committee of the Senate on aging.
Did the minister hear that? I will repeat it.
The federal government's program for a guaranteed minimum income for the aged is being launched without a thorough study of minimum needs, as was recommended by the special committee of the Senate on aging.
This is a scattergun or stopgap measure, and the minister knows it because he has indicated a number of times that these provisions are of a temporary nature.
I need not stop with the welfare council. The government's own special planning secretariat, in a report put out earlier this year, referred to the intense and widespread poverty of the aged. I wish to read a little from this report.
It is well known that poverty amongst the aged is particularly intense. While about five per cent of all Canadians receive public assistance in the course of a year, 21 per cent of all Canadians aged 65-69 have consistently received old age assistance.
In other words, over one fifth of all Canadians aged 65-69 have been on relief.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Then, I should like to go a little further. The minister wishes to phase out this old age security legislation. He called it temporary because he wants to phase it out when the
December 12, 1966

Canada Pension Plan gets into operation. Again, I wish to quote from this special planning secretariat. I think this is very important:
While the introduction oi the Canada Pension Plan in 1966, and the gradual lowering of the age of eligibility (from 70 to 65 by 1970) for old age security, will have a cumulative effect in greatly improving the income of the aged in Canada, two residual problems will remain. One is temporary, yet serious, and the other continuing. Many of those who are already aged or who will become so in the next five to ten years will receive either partial benefit or no benefit from these program improvements. For them financial problems will remain.
That is one point. Here is the other:
In the longer term, there will always be some of the aged who have never been in the labour force, or whose attachment has been relatively brief; many of this group will continue to have inadequate income in their later years.
So, there are these two categories of people whom the Canada Pension Plan will never cover. These are people who ought to be considered when one is thinking of a plan of this particular type. I should like to suggest that until a proper study is made of the minimum needs of elderly people in this country there should be no stop-gap or scatter-gun program of this kind. There is another point. A member opposite quoted me in June as favouring the guaranteed income. He did not need to go that far back. I will quote what I said on December 5, as reported at page 10737 of Hansard:
We in this party, are in favour of a guaranteed income, Mr. Chairman, but to call this a measure to provide a guaranteed income would be laughable if it were not so tragic. My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, as I say, has already re-fered to the $138.96 statistic which the Senate committee reported last January was the monthly amount required by single people to live on.
I went from there to describe the Swedish plan for guaranteed income. Mr. Speaker, the idea of a guaranteed income did not begin with the Senate committee on aging. Back at the end of the second world war the C.C.F. party, which was the forerunner of the New Democratic Party, wrote into its program a policy which would provide a guaranteed floor below which no Canadian income would be allowed to fall. Some of us have never forgotten that in our platform. It is one of the most important planks in our platform, and it has been there for many many years. A guaranteed floor under income, however, is not a hole in the basement. We believe that to call this thing a guaranteed income is simply to use a device at the moment to hide a great

Old Age Security Act Amendment gaping hole beneath the incomes of the old people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, until we have a proper study of the minimum needs of the aged in this country to arrive at a proper figure for a guaranteed income, until formal arrangements have been made with the provinces to protect the provincial supplements of the old age pension recipients, there is only one sound course to follow; that is, again this year to give an across the board increase to all those people on old age security and make sure that every bit of that award which people do not need is taken back in the form of income tax to be applied toward the provision of better universal old age pensions.
These are the things in which this party believes. May I say that I hope the minister, when he goes to bed tonight, may see the ghost of Christmas past and Christmas present and that when he wakes up in the morning he will suddenly discover all the Bob Cratchits of Canada and their grandparents in the old age bracket dancing around very, very happy that during the night the minister transformed himself into Santa Claus and left them with a straightforward, unhampered old age pension of $105, with the hope that if they are good next year they shall have an even better pension.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the MacEachen test seems to have preoccupied the past two or three speakers. They made references to it and tried to get around it. My remarks, however, will be somewhat brief and I hope useful. First of all, I should like to suggest that there probably are three of four very basic differences between the position of the opposition with regard to this matter and the position of the government. In each particular instance, these are substantial differences. As suggested by the previous speaker, they are not based upon an unconcern for the elderly people in Canada and are not based on any misunderstanding of the real need of the older people for more substantial income. Rather, they are based on a different understanding of the best way in which to approach this problem.
First, I wish to deal with the adequacy of the basic $75 a month as a permanent amount of money, its relation to the transitional aspect of the supplementary question and, finally, universal application as it spells out the differences between the approach we would take to the solution of the problem of the aged in this country and that chosen by the government. Because the minister has used it as an
11004	COMMONS DEBATES	December 12, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment argument against our position, perhaps I should deal first with the argument in respect of increasing the pensions of those whom he describes as persons with high incomes. The members of the House of Commons and the other place I think were the two examples he chose to use. In this connection, I simply say that, while on the surface it perhaps does seem not the greatest path of wisdom to increase the amount of dollars available to somebody who already enjoys a substantial income, this must not be the end of that thought process. We must go on further, and realize that these people over their lifetime have paid into this pension fund. What we are concerned with is not whether the people of Canada are going to give a few extra dollars to somebody who is earning a substantial number, but rather whether or not the principle itself is valid.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
At some time, ten or 15 years ago, it was determined that universality was the only right and proper approach to this problem, and if that was the right approach 15 years ago it is the right approach today. Nothing has happened during the course of the past 15 years to change that approach to what is an increasing problem.
Over a period of years, the people have paid in dollars and cents through income and other taxes to sustain old age security payments. What they have paid in during their working lives must remain theirs by right to withdraw. The minister knows this is a valid principle. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) read into the record some comments hon. members made at the time this whole matter was trashed out some 15 years ago and there is no need for me to reiterate them. Let me say they were accepted as valid at that time and have not been challenged during intervening years. There has been nothing said or suggested to date that should in any way undermine the validity of those remarks today or tomorrow.
Let us look at the $75 basic pension in terms of what has happened to our economy, our cost of living and productivity. If I understood correctly what the minister has said, he will be able to provide a supplementary benefit in the order of 40 per cent. Surely, if the minister does a little basic arithmetic he will find that it is in fact 34.7 per cent, based on current figures which we understand to be valid. I do not refer to projected figures which may relate to any increase which might be built into these figures during the next ten years. The amount

of the supplement, as of now, will be some 7 per cent less than the minister has indicated to the Canadian people will be the result of this measure.
Surely, we are not wrong in advocating that the basic pension should be increased to $100 across the board. It is not valid to argue that this would be a waste of the Canadian taxpayers' money. All we are suggesting is that we return to the Canadian people that which they have paid in and deserve as a matter of right.
It is not our job in the parliament of Canada to penalize the initiative of Canadians to make a good living in this country. Indeed, we should be making it possible and easier for them to do so. As a young man in a young nation, I believe what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said, that we have an obligation to our elderly citizens which transcends the question of to whether or not they should receive pensions as a matter of right. There is a stronger and perhaps more compelling obligation on our part to increase old age pensions. The government should recognize the position which has been taken by members of this party. We owe these people a moral obligations, and I, as a young citizen, have no qualms about acknowledging that debt to our senior citizens.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), any money that is invested in this program by the government will be returned to the government on an accelerated basis in the form of taxes, particularly by those who have higher incomes.
It would be interesting at this stage, before we pass on to the next stage of this bill, to receive from the minister some statement as to the form of application he intends to use in determining the incomes of applicants. The bill itself, at page 3 in clause 9, refers to the calculation of income for a year on the basis of income as computed in accordance with the Income Tax Act. When one looks at the Income Tax Act he sees that the definition of income is set out from page 5 through to page 33. This is a little broad and difficult to understand, even for those who work with it daily. It would be useful if the minister could give us some details in respect of the form of the application to be used in calculating income.
It would be interesting, and certainly of considerable use to hon. members of this house, if the minister would give us some details regarding what has been referred to by
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
the hon. member for Saskatoon as the "Mac-Eachen test". I hope the minister will give some consideration to that suggestion in order that we can be helped out of the dilemma with which we are now faced as to whether or not this measure involves a means or a needs test.
I should like to refer to two other points regarding the measure we have before us. I have tried to refer to the universality aspect, and I see no moral basis whatever for the exclusion of certain people. There is no economic reason why these people should not be included. Indeed, the money that would be paid would be money paid in by those people. We would not be giving them something for nothing, but something to which they indeed have a right.
Let me now move to this one final observation. Now that we have reached this stage of social welfare, I am wondering whether or not the government will give some consideration to the appointment of a welfare council to look into all welfare programs that touch upon the spectrum of the social needs of our people.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I ask whether the government should not consider the feasibility of bringing all these things together for administrative purposes, for a better determination of the economic principles involved in each of them and to better determine the most equitable distribution of our national wealth in the areas where need is the criterion. I ask the government whether this is not the time to give active, very serious consideration to this type of proposal that has been made many times in the past and dismissed because it was felt it was perhaps easier to administer the various acts under the federal and provincial departments.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that we have not felt in the past, and do not feel today, that there is any need for any kind of test. It does not matter what you call it; it is still a determination of income upon which will be based the decision of whether supplementary benefits will flow to our aged. Also, the $100 payment is not beyond the economic capability of Canada today; the government could accommodate this payment. Finally, I draw attention to the discrimination that continues in the denial of this benefit to thousands of Canadians, and also the discrimination that arises with respect to the ability of some provinces, such as the province of Nova Scotia, to maintain the same standards that
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion are achievable economically by the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and others.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) proceeds with his remarks perhaps he would permit me to read the adjournment proceedings for this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:	the hon. member for Burnaby-
Richmond (Mr. Prittie), Canada Elections Act-reappointment of experienced returning officers; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), National Parks-Prince Edward Island-location of new parks; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), news report [DOT]-naval intelligence investigation.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) continues his remarks I wonder whether it would be agreeable if we adjourned for an hour for dinner.


George James McIlraith: That would be quite agreeable, Mr. Speaker; but in view of the hope of many hon. members to get a Christmas recess as quickly as possible I ask the house to consider sitting an extra hour after ten o'clock if we have not finished second reading of this bill by that time. If we have not completed the second reading stage by ten o'clock, is this suggestion agreeable to the house?


Michael Starr: I do not think that, without the proper consultation, the house is able to commit itself at this moment that we would complete second reading of the bill if we sat an extra hour. I think that is asking too much.


George James McIlraith: I did not put it that way.


Michael Starr: Then, there would be no point in our sitting an extra hour.


George James McIlraith: I meant that if we had not completed the second reading stage by ten o'clock we perhaps could sit an extra hour in order to accommodate hon. members who wish
December 12, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment to speak. I did not ask that our sitting be conditional upon the bill being given second reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Speaking for this party, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can come to a conclusion at this time with respect to the house leader's offer.


George James McIlraith: I am afraid my suggestion was not understood, Mr. Speaker. I said we were quite agreeable to rising for one hour now for dinner, and I suggested to the house that if we had not completed the second reading stage of this bill by ten o'clock, we should continue the debate until eleven o'clock to have that many more speeches finished. This might be helpful later on when we are trying to fix the adjournment for the Christmas recess.


Mr. Aiken:: We will sit for an hour, but not necessarily to give the bill second reading?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the house leader is far too optimistic in assuming that we could complete second reading of this bill even if we sat an additional hour.


George James McIlraith: I did not suggest that, Mr. Speaker. This is the point I have made repeatedly. I was not assuming that the bill be given second reading at that time. I said I would only ask for an extra hour's sitting from ten o'clock to eleven o'clock, if we had not given the bill second reading before then. I was not making any assumption that we would have given it second reading by that time.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the suggestion is valid, namely, that we should rise for an hour at this time. Then, as far as we are concerned, if there is an indication that the bill could be expedited by sitting another hour and possibly completing it, we would be in agreement to so doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the suggestion is that the house will suspend its sitting from six o'clock to seven o'clock, and if second reading has not been given by ten o'clock the house will sit for one hour until eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Without any obligation that second reading will then be completed.


George James McIlraith: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. Accordingly, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 7 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of speeches on the subject of a guaranteed minimum income. I think they have been very good speeches, but it is apparent that there is a great deal of fallacy with regard to the guaranteed income program. I point out again that neither the minister nor anyone else on the government side has refuted the argument that we are dealing with a special group of people. I have said this before and I will say it again. We are dealing with people who were born before the turn of the century. Seventy per cent of these people were born on the farms of Canada and had only grade three education. A few of them entered high school and fewer still entered the professions. They were born at a time when the population of this country was around the five million mark. They are people who went through two world wars. Many of these men enlisted, went overseas and fought in the first great war. I will not recapitulate their record, but it was a glorious achievement for a country the size of Canada to have half a million people under arms fighting for freedom and liberty.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
In the year 1929 the world was plunged into one of the greatest depressions it has known, a depression which lasted till 1940 shortly after the second world war began. As I have pointed out to the minister previously, this was the prime earning period of their lives. These were their best years. Many of them managed to get a job which paid them a couple of dollars a day. Even professional men in those
December 12. 1966	COMMONS
days were paid in kind. I remember that many doctors with rural practices got a goose, a duck, a chicken or potatoes in payment for services rendered to people who did not have any money. Many people younger than the minister-I have a couple of members of parliament in mind-worked in camps for $5 a month and board. Others rode the trains or walked the roads seeking jobs wherever they could find them.
I remember a fellow from a town in the minister's country. I picked him up one morning in the year 1934 and he had slept under a maple tree. This chap was going to Fort William and in an effort to conserve the little money he had was walking the roads and getting rides whenever he could. I picked him up about seven o'clock in the morning and gave him a lift to the nearest town. The people I am talking about lived through those trying times.
I want to deal with the position of these people after the second world war. A great many of them, as I said before, lacked education, having only grade three or four, and as a result found themselves unable to compete in an age which was rapidly moving toward automation. They found themselves without jobs. These, Mr. Speaker, are the people who today we are going to submit to a means test.
I think the minister has been over-sensitive on this point because the test outlined in the bill is a means test. I think we should keep things in their proper perspective. However, let me talk for a moment about the savings that these people accumulated during their prime years from 1929 to 1940. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the dollar they earned then would purchase today? Thirty cents worth of goods.
These people, many of them now over 70, deserve full credit if they were able to accumulate a little nest egg. They deserve the praise of everyone in this house for having gone through very difficult times and saved, and not many of them are left. When hon. members talk of Mr. Taylor, Senator McCutcheon and the wealth these gentlemen have, let them take another look at the figures, because they will find that about 3 per cent, as I remember it, have an income of $5,000 or more.
Having said that we are dealing with a very special class of people, I suggest that the government must deal with them honestly and fairly. These are people who bought perpetual bonds in 1936 to be patriotic. Today, Mr. Speaker, can they sell these perpetual bonds?
Old Age Security Act Amendment I should like somebody on the other side of the house to tell me whether they are even listed, because the last time I looked at the papers they were not. Perhaps these bonds are worth 50 cents on the dollar, though I do hope they are worth a little more than that. They were purchased by these people with the money they were able to save.
I could read into the record a letter I have received from a woman who has $4,000 worth of these bonds and needs the money, but I will not do so unless an hon. member wishes me to. These bonds were supposed to have matured this year, 1966.


Mr. Goyer:: Order.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would the hon. member say what he has on his mind? I would be glad to listen to him.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I merely-


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would the hon. member wait till I put my translation earphone on or speak in English? I want to hear what he says.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to point out that the hon. member is now dealing with a matter which is entirely out of order and has absolutely nothing to do with the measure before us. One could refer to any topic pertaining to individual income and go back to Adam, as the hon. member seems to be doing.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That has nothing to do with the problem at all. I am talking about these people's savings. I do not even know whether a second lot of coupons has been issued, even though the first ones have all been clipped. But I do know that bankers across the country told these people to hold on to their bonds because the government would redeem them in 1966. I know this for a fact because as a result of one lady getting in touch with me I phoned a banker to see what he thought about the matter.
I do not know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has issued any new coupons, but I ask him whether it would not be fairer and more honest to increase the rate of interest to bring it in line at least with the going rate of interest, instead of hiding behind the speculators. Speculators bought these
11008	COMMONS DEBATES	December 12, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment
bonds because they thought the government was going to stand behind them.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I hope I have made my point that these people are in a very special category and we will never again have the chance to do right by them. I do not think I am asking tor anything unreasonable. I do not think the minister can say that the request is unusual, namely, that these people be given $100 per month without test, because the parliament of this land said in 1950 that there would not be a means test any more. Old age security was to be paid as of right. I say to the minister that after the old people's trials, tribulations and struggles to keep this Canada for us, this Canada whose abundance we are enjoying today, they are entitled to their increase. Yet it is on these people that the government wishes to impose a means test.
In 1950 the committee that studied this question unanimously agreed in its report, adopted by the house, that the pension ought to be paid as a matter of right. I have been in this house for some time and I have not heard of another unanimous report.
The government says that nothing is changed and the provision is the same as under the income tax laws. Perhaps the minister would care to refer to the Journals of the House of Commons to see what the committee had to say. The Committee said that it is difficult to forecast the cost of any proposed means test program since it is not possible to predict the proportion of aged persons who would apply for the pension under any given income test.
In 1950 the words used were "income test". That is where the government got its idea for the means test. The government is very sensitive about this point but, as a Shakespearean character says, they protest too much. They protest too much about this means test.
In 1950 the Liberal government under prime minister St. Laurent introduced universal pensions to be paid as a matter of right with all parties supporting the move. There was not to be any penalty for thrift. The means test was out. The minister of that day, now Secretary of State for External Affairs, said that there would be no more penalties for thrift in this country. It was pointed out that people of means paid municipal taxes, income taxes, corporation taxes and so on and paid more in taxes to the government than they would ever get back in the form of pensions. Then there must be considered those aged people who had property,

who had farms and businesses they could not rent. Often in those depression days the rent for a property would not pay its taxes. Yet they could not qualify. Today we have a situation where our old people are not entitled as of right to this extra old age security pension.
Let me go farther and say that if people who do not need the extra pension receive it, it can be taken back through income tax. The government has entirely forgotten that it took the $500 exemption away from the old people.
I believe the government took this away for persons 65 years of age and over.
The Liberal government today has abandoned its principles of the past and I should like to know why. We shall see the spectre of old people embarrassed and humiliated by interference. We shall have the spectre of old people being called before boards or tribunals and having in one year to make good an overpayment of the year before, leaving some of them with hardly anything to live on. This is the mess the government is leading into. There is a forest of legislative anomalies throughout the bill.
The administrative costs, it will be found, will eat up any savings there might be. From the standpoint of geriatrics any such administrative procedures can only be damaging to the old people. That is why in 1950 the then minister of national health and welfare, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, felt that never again should our senior citizens be brought into court and penalized for offences they did not really understand. The people across Canada applauded him for that. Never again would peoples' estates be taxed to recover overpayments.
Three principles were established at that time. First, the right of every senior citizen to the old age security pension was established. The second principle was the abolition of any tests of means or income. The third principle was that there would be no more humiliation and embarrassment to our senior citizens with the consequences that sometimes followed. The pension then was set at $40 a month. Five years later the Liberal government increased the pension by $6. Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? I know that you follow these things because you read history. That increase was not enough and the people of Canada spoke.
When the Conservative government took office it increased the pension by another $9, making it $55 a month. The Liberals were criticized across the land for their cheap $6
December 12, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	11009
increase and they were defeated in the 1957 election. I say to them that they are pulling the same trick today. I say this with all sincerity, and I am not playing politics.


An hon. Member:: No?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Three years ago this parliament set the old age pension at $75 a month, and today this government has the audacity to bring a bill before the house that leaves the pension at the same floor, despite the fact that living costs have gone up by approximately 10 per cent in the past year. Food and rent have increased from 10 to 25 per cent depending on where people live.
Hon. members opposite surely cannot believe that what they are doing is right. To help pay for old age pensions a 3 per cent tax on corporation, a 3 per cent tax on sales, and a 4 per cent tax on income were imposed. The government accumulated $400 million. I do not call this overtaxation if the money is given to our people but if it is not given to them then I do call it overtaxation. I should also like to know whether the money has been transferred to any other fund. Where is that $400 million today?
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The government is playing this shabby trick. I say it is shabby. I could have gone along if they had brought a bill into the House of Commons saying: We are going to give these people a $100 basic pension and then we will go for a contributory pension. But I cannot go along with thinking which denies these old people of 70 and over what the government is giving to everybody else. Inflation has soared during the last three years. The government gave the longshoremen a 35 per cent increase. I can name other raises they allowed because of the increase in the cost of living. But will they give the old age pensioner his just due when he is in the twilight of his years without much power to fight back? Thank the Lord there are some in this house who will speak up for them.
That is the situation. Wages have gone up 35 per cent, 30 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent. Rents have increased between 10 per cent and 25 per cent. I can name one city in Canada where rents have gone up 25 per cent in the last year. Food costs are up 10 per cent. But there is not one thing for the old age pensioner. The government left him alone for three years and then brought in a guaranteed income plan with a means test. Talk about Scrooge. I will not mention Scrooge. But I will mention conscience because I believe
Old Age Security Act Amendment there are a number of members on the other side of the house who have consciences.
What are the costs for these people today? Had the government raised the pension to $100 a month and then brought in the guaranteed income plan I would have applauded the minister. There would have been no question about my support. Where are these people living today? Seventy per cent live in the cities. Seventy per cent of them live alone. That is the situation. Let us see what the immediate requirements of people in the cities are. I have heard a lot of figures given by speakers on both sides of the house. I examined a lot of figures and I came up with this result: The minimum requirement for a single person in a city today is between $125 and $150. This will be admitted by any fair-minded person in this house and is a good illustration that the value of the pension has shrunk.
The minister says we do not have the money. What became of the $400 million? What became of the last five years of prosperity unprecedented in this country with trade at an all-time high and wheat sales-I know the hon. member for Kootenay East will agree with me-at an all-time high? One billion dollars worth of wheat was sold last year. You could afford it back in 1951. Is it just bad housekeeping? What has been done with that money? If the minister wants to ask a question he can get up and ask it.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I merely remarked that the hon. member has forgotten the five years of Tory rule.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Well, you have not, because we were the ones who put you in shape. We straightened out the mess. In 1961 we had the first positive external trade balance in ten years. You had better go back and do your homework. You will find out who put this country on the road to prosperity and who started the wheat sales you have today. If you want to be political, we shall be political because we were the ones who laid the foundations. Who revalued the dollar? Who got all the good out of the increased trade? The minister is smiling. He knows too well who laid the foundation for the prosperity we have today. If he wants me to go back I will cite some of the figures for him.
If there are more gentlemen who wish to get up they may do so because the record is there.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, but not true.
December 12, 1966
11010	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment Mr. Goyer: Would the hon. member like to know the figures?


An hon. Member:: Send them over to him.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Allow me to give the hon. member the figures.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes. It may illustrate how little the hon. member knows. Wait till I get my earpiece.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government, that is from 1957 to 1963, public debt charges increased from $567 million to $917 million; in other words, Canada's public debt doubled during that period of time. The figures are there-
JEnglish]


Philip Bernard Rynard: We are not listening to that because the government have had a deficit ever since they took over, even with all the prosperity we left them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair is beginning to wonder how all this is related to the principle of the bill.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like Hansard to give a true picture of the facts. It may be true that the public debt went up, but one must remember that the Conservative government increased payments to provinces, paid off the debts incurred by its predecessor-


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the house is getting a little far afield from the discussion of the principles of the bill before us.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has just said that Hansard must be corrected, thereby suggesting that my figures were not correct. I would simply point out that the figures given by me-


Philip Bernard Rynard: On a question of privilege, I never said that at all. I ask the hon. member to withdraw.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He was referring to me.
IMr. Byrne.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member that there is no question of privilege. If he disagrees with the figures he will have an opportunity to say so.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I seem to be hitting pay dirt so I am about to conclude my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The government says: Where will we get the money? I have already put it on the record that we entered upon an era of prosperity in 1961. The foundation was well laid. We had our first positive balance of trade in 1960-$164 million. The foundation was well laid for this. We started the wheat sales which rose to a billion dollars last year. All these foundations had been laid. As the late President of the United States said, Canada was the best managed country in the world. I will not dwell further on this.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I put it on the record that it costs between $125 and $150 for a single person today to live in a big city. If it is a question of building palaces or providing food for these elderly people, I am all for looking after these people. Perhaps we could have done with a smaller sum spent on that new defence building. Was it $100 million or $50 million? Perhaps some savings could have been made in that regard, especially since the staff is being integrated and it is hoped to save a lot of money in that way. Maybe that is one way in which they could have done it. Then there is the matter of the jet planes we purchased. Maybe that is another place where there might have been a saving. I do not know whether those jet planes are to take ministers touring across Canada. I do not know what they were purchased for. I understand that several were bought and perhaps the minister could tell us what the purpose was.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have never travelled in one.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will take the minister's word for that. Then there is the arts centre. Is it ever going to be a paying proposition? Even if it does pay, I would rather see this special class of people fed adequately than build these palaces. Then there is the $200 million expended for Expo. I am all for Expo, but I am not for Expo if it is going to cut into funds which otherwise might be available to these people who do not have the wherewithal to eat properly and be sufficiently clothed. I wish to say one other thing.
December 12, 1966


An hon. Member:: The same old thing.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Perhaps we could have saved the $5 million money spent on the Bilingual and Biculturalism Commission. There is also the more than $100 million going into the C.B.C. I think every member of this house will agree with me that we could dispense with the program "Sunday", if we did, all of us would have a little cleaner consciences, because all that this program has done is to destroy the sanctity of the homes across this land. Through this program the C.B.C. is pouring trash and dirt into the homes across this land on a Sunday evening. I am sure this is something else we could do without.
I do not think I will offer any more ideas to the minister. I have given, I hope sufficient. Again I ask the minister to take a long look at this matter. I know he is hampered because there are others with whom he must deal. I know he has a good heart and is a nice fellow. Some members over there may laugh, but I really mean this. I really like the minister. I hope he will go back to the cabinet and tell them that they must change this bill. They are departing from Liberal principles. The Liberal party and all parties in this house said in 1950 that this must not be done to the old people of this land. I can assure him that they will all be a lot happier on Christmas day if the government changes this bill so there is no means test.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to take a few minutes of the time of the house to participate in the debate on the proposed amendment to the Old Age Security Act, and express my great satisfaction with respect to increasing the old age pension to $105 per month.
We have long been demanding this increase and our senior citizens in particular were anxiously awaiting consideration of this legislation. Every day-at least as far as I am concerned-I get letters from senior citizens in my riding, wanting to know when this long-awaited increase will become effective. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can now tell them-or rather we can now tell them-that we can reasonably expect that it will be adopted before the end of the year and will be enforced at the beginning of 1967. Consequently, I believe that with respect to the increase in the old age pension, the government easily has the unanimous support of the house and of the country. But I wish to express my dissatisfaction over the way in
Old Age Security Act Amendment which this increase will be granted, namely after investigation by government officials. This way of going about it is unfair, since it not only discriminates between classes but will spread anxiety and confusion among those who wish to improve their condition in life.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, we have an Old Age Assistance Act which provides for benefits after investigation, and we all know the humiliation which senior citizens 65 and over must suffer, if they wish to take advantage of this act. The present Old Age Security Act is, to my mind, one of the best social measures, and the government wants to amend it in such a way as to bring it to the same level as the Old Age Assistance Act with which we are familiar and which is administered by the provinces.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the minister and to the house that I do not approve of this approach, and I want to make it known tonight in this assembly, because, when my constituents send me letters or request my intervention in order that they may be treated with fairness, I intend to tell them about the position which I took in the house and I will return these letters to the minister, so that he may realize his present mistake.
The minister tells us that the act does not provide for a means test but for an income test. We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, believe that this amendment should not contain restrictions because the injustice lies in the fact that those who have the means will be privileged, whereas those who do not have the means, or have very little-after having paid, for several years and out of their salary, and old age security tax-will not be able to take advantage of that act, if they can better their lot by doing old jobs which their health and abilities permit them to do, thereby earning a little money which they need.
We must not delude ourselves: with $105 a month those people will not live in luxury, far from it. As far as I am concerned, this legislation comes too late in view of the cost of the increasing needs of senior citizens.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, some of them will want to add to their income. When the act is enforced people of 68 years of age will try to avail themselves of that right. At that age, some of them are still capable and healthy enough to perform certain tasks and thereby improve their lot and lead a more comfortable life. But, under Bill C-251, they will be punished for doing so by being denied part of the
December 12, 1966
11012	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment proposed increase, if not all of it, depending on what they manage to earn.
Mr. Speaker, it is that provision of the proposed amendment that I find unfair and to which I strongly object. At the resolution stage, the minister said that the social assistance benefits paid by the federal, provincial or municipal governments would not be considered as income. We know that at present, provincial governments pay allowances in addition to the old age security pension. The province of Quebec-that I know better than the other provinces and whose laws I also know better than those of other provinces -sometimes grants additional allowances to some really needy persons, because the $75 old age security pension is recognized as definitely inadequate. Therefore, the social security covered by the minister's amendment is already provided by the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I remember the last time that the old age security pension was increased from $65 to $75 a month the Quebec government cancelled all additional allowances paid to those people. We then had to renew our requests and ask the Quebec government again to grant an additional allowance to those persons. This caused older people to worry and I expect that the same thing will happen again because of the amendment moved by the minister.
But what is more, since April 1966, the Quebec government gives to any person in receipt of social assistance a medical card enabling the holder to get free medical care and medicine at the hospital, in addition to hospital insurance. Therefore, the older people eligible for old age security pensions will no longer be entitled to that medical card which is now given to them by the province of Quebec.
The minister will point out that there is the medical care legislation, but this plan will not come into force for maybe another two years. Then, between January 1, 1967 and July 1, 1968, that is a period of a year and a half, the older citizens of the province of Quebec will be deprived of the advantages deriving from the legislation now in force in the province of Quebec. Consequently, I would like to know whether the minister has inquired about the intentions of the Quebec government following the amendment which he has just introduced. We know quite well, according to the recent speech from the throne, that the Quebec government intends to take advantage of the Canadian constitution to repatriate the Old Age Security Act.


But we do not know yet when the province of Quebec will take over the administration of old age security. Therefore, until then, questions come to my mind and I am concerned about our older citizens. Indeed, I wonder whether the amendment put forward by the minister will benefit them or whether they are not better off with the act now in force in the province of Quebec.
I do want to state again that I object to the proposed application of the bill, that is with a test. The minister tells us that this will be easy, that people will have a simple form to fill out and that everything will be in order. But we know too well that such will not be the case. I have a friend who is an insurance salesman. He comes into daily contact with a great number of persons. Not one day goes by without someone asking him for assistance in completing this or that form. One knows how puzzled our people are when they have forms to complete. And when the minister says that the old people will merely have to ask their friends and relatives for assistance well, this again means that they will have to humiliate themselves and beg for assistance to obtain what they are entitled to. I think it would have been much simpler to grant the increase we have been claiming for a long time without any investigation. If the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) assured the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) that he could find enough money to pay the army of new investigators who will have to be added to those already in existence, the minister should have used this money to increase old age pensions, not to $105 per month, but to $120 or $125; then, all these people would have been satisfied, except perhaps the few who want to work for the government.
Before concluding my brief comments, I should like to deal with a particular point. At the beginning of the present session, I put on the order paper a resolution which, had it been studied and accepted by the government, would have given an old age pension to the wife of a person entitled to a pension, even if she had not reached the age stipulated by law. Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that in 90 per cent of cases, the wife is younger than the husband. According to the present act, they are forced to live on one pension for two, three or five years, or even more; I find it completely illogical that this couple, after spending their life together, should have to live on one pension
December 12, 1966

when the head of the family retires. I call the attention of the minister to this fact. I was hoping that the minister would include in his amendment, a clause providing that both husband and wife would receive their old age pension simultaneously, which would have been much more logical.
There are also other points to which I should like to draw the minister's attention before concluding, namely the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act. We know that if the government has agreed to grant the increase we request for our older people, it is on account of the increase in the cost of living. Now, the cost of living has increased in the same degree for blind people, for disabled people and for those who will not yet be 68 this year.
Therefore, I think the minister and the government should meet with the provincial government authorities in order to amend those acts, namely the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, so that these needy people may receive the benefits provided by this legislation concerning old age security.
I wanted to address these few remarks to the minister tonight, so that he may consider them and introduce, if possible, the necessary amendments, in order that all the handicapped persons, and not only those belonging to a certain social class, may be entitled to the same benefits everywhere in Canada.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicioria-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, in making some observations concerning the motion before the house for second reading of Bill C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act, I well remember the speech of the minister during our consideration of the resolution on which this legislation is based. At that time he made extended remarks which begin at page 10707 of Hansard for December 5 of this year.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
In that speech the minister reminded the house of several things which I think are tremendously important. There are some things which we should remember because they are most important. In the course of his speech the minister told us that this legislation will affect 900,000 citizens of Canada. He also endeavoured to establish that, because of the reduction in the age of qualification for
Old Age Security Act Amendment benefit, by the year 1970 one and a half million Canadians will be involved in this legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, could we have order in the house? I see that a Liberal caucus is being held on the other side of the chamber. One member is standing and talking to others while the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is making his speech. I have not seen this happen in the house before. If hon. members opposite are not interested in what is being said, why do they not go behind the curtain?


Hugh John Flemming: The minister said that in 1967 the cost under the present legislation would be $260 million to $280 million. He said that by 1967 the outlay in respect of the existing old age security pension would reach $1,110 million and that when we add the supplement to which I have referred we will reach a total cost in 1967 of approximately $1,400 million. The minister also stated that by 1970, which is not too far away, the total expenditure under the old age security program will reach $2 billion, and of this amount the portion payable under this legislation will be approximately $385 million.
It is not my intention to try for a moment to argue that this expenditure should not be undertaken by the parliament of Canada. I believe that all parties in this parliament have committed themselves to an expenditure of roughly this magnitude. While we may not oppose the principle of taxation of our businesses, resources and the people of this country who produce this staggering sum, I believe we would be very derelict in our duty if we did not examine the situation. We must examine the economic structure of this country to ascertain how in our own minds and to our satisfaction, in the light of all the circumstances, we can best raise the funds necessary to carry out this program. Two billion dollars by 1970 is a staggering sum of money.
As I said before, we are all committed to providing a universal old age pension of $100 to $105 a month. This is something to which all parties subscribe. Therefore there is no use in any of us trying to get out of this commitment. I have given the minister's figures as to the cost of the program. Where do we go from there? I think we can properly go into the details of how we are to raise this money. Whether the provision of the minimum income becomes universal or whether the amount depends upon the financial resources of the individual is something with which I think we are not all in accord. The minister

December 12, 1966
Old Age Security Act Amendment says that a statement will be made by the recipient of the pension. He says this is not a means test. There may be a difference of opinion between us in this respect, but I am influenced by the argument that people who have reached the age of retirement should have uniform treatment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Therefore, Mr, Speaker, I suggest to the minister it is most unfair that a man and woman who have been thrifty, hard working and have saved their money in order to amass some kind of income in their own right should be discriminated against when compared with someone who has been completely indifferent to his future needs. I believe this kind of discrimination is unfair, and therefore this program will have no effect except possibly to discourage the principle of thrift in this country. In my opinion a man and wife who have made provision for the future should not be discriminated against in this way. This could be avoided by the universal application of the pension principle. As has been said in the house on many occasions by many people, if they are eligible for taxation by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) on behalf of the government, obviously a large percentage of the pension comes back to the treasury by way of taxation. This money is returned to the coffers of the government. It seems to me that this principle should not be overlooked.
I acknowledge that it is perhaps difficult for the minister to do this at the present stage because he is committed to the other path. I believe there is more to this question than just the matter of funds. I think we have to acknowledge what has been said in this regard by many speakers. Of those who have spoken publicly in this connection, none has been more vociferous than the minister with regard to the great resources of the people of this country. He talks about what great people we have in Canada. This is true. The people of Canada want to contribute and do their utmost to increase the productivity of the nation. There is no question about that. But I say to the minister that when it punishes some people, which is what it amounts to, and works to discriminate against the individual and imposes a penalty upon him, it discourages industry and, in that regard, the country as a whole, because it discourages the individual who contributes to our growth.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The minister has presented a bill which calls for a statement of financial resources. I

say this is a means test of personal application; it is an examination of an individual's personal affairs. This does not make the test any more digestible to the individual. The fact that he himself will have to divulge his financial situation, rather than doing it through an inspector, does not seem to me to make very much difference. It seems to me that it has all the depressing features of an examination by an inspector. The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), who first spoke, mentioned inspectors. I wonder why the minister has not taken the house into his confidence and told us about the difference between the cost of administration of this plan and the cost of a plan which would be universal. I think this is a very pertinent point but so far he has been very silent on this feature. We hope that before long he will tell us how many million dollars he will pay for a horde of inspectors who will be running around the country watching that everybody is making a proper return.
At page 10711 of Hansard the minister told us that filling out a form requires no effort, that it is very easy. He said there is nothing to it. But after having said this he told us that if these people need any help they can get it from their friends, their neighbours and their relatives. This is what the minister said in his speech.
Then he said that if friends and relatives cannot help them they can obtain assistance from officers of the various government departments administering the old age security program, the Canada Pension Plan and the Income Tax Act. They will be there to help them. I find great inconsistency between the two statements made by the minister. It cannot be that easy to fill out such forms if assistance is required from friends, neighbours, relatives and the staffs of various departments. Yet the minister tells us there is nothing to it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is just ridiculous.


Hugh John Flemming: I hope that specific information relative to the supplementary payment will be made available to old age pensioners to enable them to furnish information with a complete understanding of what is required. I am quite certain the minister will say that it will be furnished, and I hope that is true. I think it is humiliating for people to have to acknowledge that they have been a financial failure. That is not good. I believe that in this connection the principle of universal application is the best principle. This happens to be
December 12, 196G	COMMONS
the argument advanced on this side of the house but that is purely coincidental. These remarks are not entirely influenced by this fact, but perhaps they are partly.
Now I should like to direct my remarks to the employment of old age pensioners. On page 10710 of Hansard the minister cited the example of an old age pensioner working part time. He said:
Another example would be a recipient who has a part-time job from which he receives $360 a year. He would receive an income supplement of $180 which along with the $900 basic pension, would bring his annual income to $1,440.
I suggest to the minister and to the house that this regulation will discourage people from working. I happen to be one of those who consider it a great privilege to enjoy sufficiently good health so as to be able to work. Considering the education which is available today I do not think that working has been sufficiently glamourized. It is a great thing to be able to work, to have the health to work, to have the ambition to work and to have work to do. We have heard of people who are punished by not being given any work to do and we know that sometimes they go crazy. If I am right in believing that this provision will discourage people from working, and I believe I am, then I say this should not be so.
I wish to urge the minister, when he has a few moments to himself, to think about allowing people to receive the supplement in addition to whatever earnings they may obtain. I am referring to people who are fortunate enough to have good health and who have the urge to work, people whose experience of a lifetime may be most useful to industries in their locality. They may be needed and their experience may be valuable. They can contribute to the productivity of the nation if they are allowed to work. I do not think that a man should be obliged to retire at the age of 65. It may be necessary for him to retire from the job which he has held, and I will not argue with this, but he should be allowed to contribute to the productivity of the nation in some capacity. The nation should not be deprived of the experience which a man has gained in his lifetime. I ask the minister to consider this point. This reglation will discourage a pensioner from working.
I ask the minister to listen carefully to what I have to say. He spoke about the pensioner who earns $360 per year, which is only $30 a month. He will receive the same amount if he does not do any work at all and on top of that he will receive an income supplement of $180.
Old Age Security Act Amendment This means if he works he will only receive what amounts to half pay. It seems to me that this will discourage the man who really wants to work. Somebody will say to him, "Look, you are crazy because all you have to do is stop working and sit at home. You will then earn as much except for $15 a month which you would spend anyway for extra clothes to go outdoors." I say to the minister that this is wrong. This will be a deterrent to the man's productivity. It will hasten his end; it will shorten his life. There is no question about this in my mind.
The minister should consider seriously an amendment allowing a man or woman to match his pension dollar for dollar by earnings and receive the supplementary payment as well. It might also be considered desirable to allow a married man and his wife to earn an equal amount jointly so that if one of them is incapable of working because of ill health or for other reasons the other can earn the full amount. I know of cases where the man cannot continue to work productively after he has retired but his wife can do so. Therefore I urge the minister to consider the married couple as one unit as far as receipt of the supplement is concerned so that either of them will be encouraged to work. Many businesses with which I am familiar have many valued employees of pensionable age who like to work. Generally speaking their services are very efficient and very good.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I make these suggestions to the minister in the hope that he will give them consideration. I believe they are good for the individual and are good for the nation. After all, we must export to live. Canada cannot possibly survive with only domestic markets. We have vast resources and are a very rich country but unless we can produce goods, whether they be gold, silver, lead, lumber or no matter what, in competition with other countries in the world there will be no demand for these goods. Consequently there will be no jobs and no revenue coming in for the minister to finance these welfare plans of which he certainly has special knowledge. This is why I have made these observations about what might be done in the interests of the individual and in the interests of the nation, and I do not think a great deal more funds need to be provided to implement these ideas.
I do not wish to throw cold water on this legislation but I think we would be stupid and blind if we did not stop to consider for a
December 12, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment moment where the money required to implement this legislation will come from. It must of necessity be raised by taxation. As I said at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, we have to decide where the taxation load is going to bear the lightest and where extra taxation will be most effective. If we do not consider this question we are just bumping our heads against a wall, and certainly we cannot justify such indifference to this matter. As I said before, the people of this country will have to pay these taxes. Although we have already been told, I am going to tell the house again in a moment where the money is coming from. It comes from taxation of various kinds.
In order that the people of Canada may continue to be fully employed we must export our products. This is an absolute must. Consequently industry must be sufficiently buoyant to provide jobs. Canadian industry must be able to compete in world markets. If the people of some other country are working longer hours and more efficiently, that country will soon overcome the advantage we have of a more than average supply of natural resources and take our markets away from us. To survive and flourish in this world today we as a nation must be competitive. In order to be competitive we must be productive. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, a country with only 20 million population and with the resources of Canada has insufficient markets at home to keep everyone busy. The old saying is that we must export or die. This means that our elderly people will have to contribute to the success of industry and help it to be productive, and this they want to do.
I said I was going to take a moment or two to explain where the revenue comes from to pay our pension bill; at least, it has paid the bill up to now. Other speakers have mentioned this and I repeat it because it bears repeating. There is no question of that. The people of Canada must understand that these welfare measures, to which we all heartily subscribe, must of necessity be paid for by the taxpayers of the country.
At the moment we get 3 per cent of the money from sales taxes. The sales tax is added to the cost of the goods, and of course it is the consumer who by buying goods pays this tax. There is a 3 per cent tax on corporation income. If corporations do not export their goods the people of Canada buy them. So again it is the people of Canada who pay the bill. There is a 4 per cent tax up to $120 a year on personal incomes. These incomes are

the personal incomes of the taxpayers of Canada, not necessarily large taxpayers but taxpayers nevertheless. So I say to the minister with all the force I can muster that he should of necessity not disregard the fact that there are economic aspects to all welfare legislation.
I suggest that the minister should have a talk with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and find out from them what they think about legislation which is going to cut by 50 per cent the little extra remuneration which a person who has retired is able to earn. If a pensioner does no extra work he receives the whole $360 a year. If he earns $360 it will be cut to $180. This is what it amounts to.
If I may summarize my remarks, people who receive the old age security pension of $75 a month should be allowed to supplement that pension up to the full amount of the supplement provided by the legislation. After all, the pension of $75 a month is universally applied and I see no reason why the supplementary payment should not also be universal.
Since we have not been successful so far in persuading the minister, and through him the government, to accept our suggestions in this regard, I would ask the minister whether he would seriously consider these two minor changes which I have taken the liberty of suggesting to him. I think they are most desirable. The first suggestion is that the pensioner be allowed to earn dollar for dollar up to the monthly maximum payment of $30 a month made to him by the government. Any additional earnings, of course, the government would not match. My second suggestion is that in the case of a man and his wife both or either of them should be allowed to earn the full amount of the supplement payable to each.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It is said that we have a relative scarcity of workers. We talk about unemployment but workers are scarce. It is difficult to get certain jobs done at specific times. We should not discourage people who have the urge to work, but that is what we are doing in the legislation as it is drafted. We need the experience that people have gathered over a long period. We need the many skills they have acquired. We need the services of people who want to contribute to their own progress, to that of their families and ultimately to that of their country. The services of such people should be
December 12, 1966

utilized as long as their health remains good. Being useful will contribute to their own happiness. Such people will have the satisfaction of knowing that their services are in demand and that the welfare of the country is being served.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate on this bill it has occurred to me that we are concerned about a vast group of people who have become tainted with two sins in our modern society, age and poverty.


An hon. Member:: Being a Liberal is one.


Steven Otto: We can no longer grow old gracefully and there is no dignity in poverty. To be poor is a sin, and to grow old is not something to look forward to. In our business world and in our business dealings certainly we realize that poverty is evil.
I very much appreciate the minister's concern and the concern of members of this house about the pensioners. We are trying to do what we can. We want to do as much as our economy will allow us to do. I have no argument with the minister over this bill because he is trying to do his job sincerely and as best he can under the circumstances. I will not get involved in a debate as to the meaning of means tests and needs tests because the minister knows what is meant. He knows the difference. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pretends not to know the difference, but I think he does. Bringing my legal mind to bear I can also appreciate the difference between these tests. The people, however, may not understand the difference between a means and a needs test. Again, I know that what we do is governed by circumstances, as has been carefully pointed out by the Minister of Finance.
Without getting into a debate on whether a means test is justified, it must be borne in mind that there are people who say, "I have saved, I have been careful and now I am penalized", and there are other people who say, "It is not my fault I am poor, I have been unfortunate, I have had expenses and so on." Instead of getting into a debate on this subject I want to refer the minister to a concept I put before him some time ago which would have the effect of eliminating the need for this bill completely.
We realize that we have two groups among our senior citizens. We have those coming under the Canada Pension Plan and those not coming under it. Certain people cannot come under the plan. Now we are forming another 23033-6971
Old Age Security Act Amendment group consisting of those who will get the additional $30. Some of our old people will not get it. We therefore have three groups of old people. I say to the minister that he should strive to make these three groups into one group.
We passed the Canada Pension Plan. All on this side of the house agree that the Liberal party has been promoting old age pensions for many years. When a person who is now 70 says, "Why could we not have had this plan ten years ago, we would have taken advantage of it", what can we say? It is the doing of this house if such a plan was not in existence. The result is that we have a group of people who cannot come under the plan.
By amending the plan in a simple way all these people could be brought under it. Everyone would be entitled to benefit under the plan. As I said, I have raised this matter with the minister before. Let us look at the figures. I gave the minister these figures some time ago but to this day I have not heard anything about them. I think 1 know why the figures have not been considered seriously. It is because I made the suggestion. However, I should still like to hear an explanation of why my plan was not even considered.
Essentially, this was the plan. It would not be expensive and it would not be unreasonable for those people who now are 70 to make a lump sum payment of ten years premiums and be immediately entitled to the benefits of the plan. Even if people took advantage of the highest benefits the total lump sum contribution would be around $1,800. Great numbers of people could take advantage of such a plan. Many people have relatives or children who would be only too glad to help. Then there could be a provision to allow those who did not have the means to borrow from the fund.
What would the cost be? I have had these figures tabulated. As I recall, for the first two years there would be no cost at all to the nation. There would be no inflationary pressure. In the third and fourth years the costs would rise from $215 million to around $340 million but they would decrease after that. Amortized over a ten-year period the program would not be a burden on the nation and everybody would be entitled to the same benefits.
I disagree with the general trend of the opposition's thinking that the $30 should be universal. I do not think that would solve the problem. I believe it is evident that with today's inflationary pressures the $30 soon would shrink to a minimum value. Paying it
December 12, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment to everybody would impose a heavy burden on the country and, as the Minister of Finance has said, it would be impossible at the present time. If the money were given to everyone it would not solve our problems.
I shall support this bill with the hope that consideration will still be given to the idea I put forward which would cover that group of people not benefiting from this bill. I hope the minister can answer my proposal. What is wrong with the idea? If there is nothing wrong with it, when can it be introduced? Adopting my plan would satisfy those people not benefiting under the Canada Pension Plan. It would give everybody an equal opportunity to take advantage of the plan.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I join in the debate on the subject of Bill No. C-251, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, in the belief that the Old Age Security Act certainly does need amending though not, I am convinced, along the stringent and unproductive lines proposed by the minister in the measure before us.
After looking over the thirteen pages of bureaucratic red tape set out in the 23 clauses of the bill I must conclude that the adjective "stringent" is a mild one to use when describing the way in which this legislation will treat any applicants who apply for increases in their pensions. The dreaded means test which formerly was such a blow to the personal pride of older people applying for assistance has now been revived by this Liberal government.
I am reminded of a popular song which is currently heard over television and radio in the form of a ballad. It refers to some of the woes of the human race in these modern times, and one part asks this question:
How many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see?
When I hear this sung I think of the refusal of the Liberal government over and over again in the last three years to do anything to alleviate the plight of the aged and the needy of this country. They turn their heads, pretending they just do not see.
There is no doubt that if this parliament as a whole were allowed to formulate a financial plan to improve the old age pension scheme and increase the pension, and if it came forward with such a plan, one which was the aggregate of our voluntary individual opinions in this house, the resulting pension legislation would be far better than that proposed


by the minister under this bill. The big stumbling block in the way of justice tempered with dignity for the old people of Canada at the present time is the Liberal party. The Liberal party is the servant of big interests.
The Liberal party has only a cursory or superficial interest in the present problems of the old people of Canada. It has been interesting to hear the minister and others speaking on behalf of the government telling parliament over and over again that Bill C-251 does not contain a means test. But every clause in this measure makes stipulations which are contingent on the means of the applicant for benefit.
Let us check the dictionary and consult the definition of the word "means". The dictionary says it is the equivalent of resources, property, riches; other synonyms would properly be: wages, salaries, income. I draw the attention of hon. members to clause 10. I checked it. This long drawn-out clause has at least 55 lines delineating the terms under which senior citizens may qualify. The poor senior citizen who now receives a pittance of $75 per month must reveal all the remainder of his private affairs in detail to this government before he can receive any supplementary amount up to $30 per month. He would not get this increase, however badly he may need it, he cannot enjoy any of the dubious benefits of this bill unless he does exactly what the bill commands. What else does it amount to if not an investigation to test the means of applicants?
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us see what definition the dictionary gives to the word "test". The dictionary I consulted defines it as follows: "An examination or trial to prove the value or ascertain the nature of something; a method, process or means used in making such an examination or trial; a standard of criterion by which the qualities are tried; an event or set of circumstances which proves or tries a person's qualities, eligibility or qualifications. Bill C-251, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, certainly contains clauses which answer to these descriptions and are equivalent to a means test.
How inconsistent can this government be? During their term of office members on the treasury benches have allowed many increases in salaries all along the line without resort to legislation. They have granted many of these increases by order in council, some of them just on the word of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or by the stroke of his pen. Many of these raises were exorbitant and ill
December 12, 1966

advised. This government has been the author of escalating costs all along the line. Yet, when Anally crowded into a corner and convinced by political parties in opposition that something must be done for the aged people of our country, for those who during their lifetimes have helped to build this land, they come up with a hodge-podge of bureaucratic red tape which is more of a deterrent than a help in the face of the high cost of living which now besets senior citizens.
I pointed out that the old people of Canada have built this country. This statement is more true of them than it will ever be of any following generation. During their working years they did not have at their disposal the advantages of modern technocracy, the latest inventions and all our modern labour saving devices, to say nothing of automation. Every one of them worked a six-day week and at least a ten-hour day, and the farmers worked much longer than that, from sunrise to sunset for low wages, and low returns. Those who were not farmers or farm workers but lived in the towns and villages could not make high wage demands when seeking employment. They belonged to no unions. All they asked for was work. And they willingly went to work for the going wages. They lacked the educational advantages and qualiAcations with which the modern generation is equipped. All they had was the will to work, good common sense for the most part, and an understanding of simple economics which told them they must not spend more than they earned. The Arst requisite was to pay the rent and the store bills. There was nothing much left over for luxuries.
These people are still existing without any luxuries. I know many of them in my constituency who are facing the twilight of their lives and the westering sun of life eking out their existence on a bare minimum. Time was, in their youth, when they could afford to buy a new suit or a new dress once in a while, but not now at this stage of life. They cannot afford these things. I see some of them on the street in Napanee. If the weather is Ane they walk downtown from their lodgings, their clothes mostly threadbare and shabby. Some of them have a little money put away, perhaps enough for their funerals. As for other revenue they wait for next month's old age pension cheque. If they are in institutions they see only a little spending money, probably not more than $10 a month.
Old Age Security Act Amendment [DOT] (8.50 p.m.)
I checked the other day with a good nursing home in Napanee which takes care of senior citizens. I asked what was the daily cost of keeping a person in that home. The Agure given me was $7 a day. This means that the monthly keep of any person living in an institution of this kind would cost at least $200.
Assuming there are 31 days in the month, it comes out to an even greater amount. You can see, therefore, that $75 a month does not even begin to keep a pensioner in a nursing home. Of course, if the pensioner, apart from his pension, is an indigent, the balance of the money is paid by the public welfare department of his municipality. I am sure all hon. members agree that $75 is a mere pittance. According to modern day costs, the $30 maximum supplement, although a help to those who will receive it, is still a mere pittance because of the recent rapid escalation in the cost of living all along the line.
So, Mr. Speaker, you must agree that this bill does very little for the welfare and social security of the old age pensioners of Canada. This Liberal government pays lip service to many things. From them we have often heard lofty platitudes about social planning, welfare and security measures, citizenship and human rights-words, words and more words. Here in Bill C-251, however, they really display their inhuman and callous disregard for more than 5 per cent of the people of Canada, the poor and helpless senior citizens of the country. No, they do not care much about the poor and aged. They are playing for bigger stakes.
On May 27 last, as reported at page 5609 of Hansard, I pointed out to the house that this government and its policies apparently serve the big interests and the super corporations. Now the Andings of the Senate-Commons committee investigating living costs conArm my statements of May 27 which sparked this inquiry. I should like to quote from the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, December 8, 1966:
The stunning scope of the Weston-Loblaw food empire was unfolded for all to see today in a full disclosure of the names of its 150 active companies.
The extent of the great North American complex was made known simultaneously to shareholders and to the Senate-Commons committee investigating living costs.
No doubt there are other cartels which prey upon the frayed purse-strings of the Canadian public, especially the old people. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, can we bolster up any humanitarianism which may exist in this government at this late hour? I doubt it very much.
11020	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
There is a further argument against this bill in its present form. The means test involved in the bill will require the employment of hundreds of clerks to keep track of those who may receive supplementary assistance and those who will not receive it. If the assistance had taken the form of a flat rate increase, further expense would not be required, and the matter would have been looked after by the present staff. No one knows what the cost of administration in respect of this legislation will be except that it will be very high. Why not divert these high costs directly to the aged citizens of Canada for their direct use and benefit?
Last Thursday I was amused by the remarks of the Minister of Transport when he interrupted a speaker to ask where the government could have saved $100 million in this year's budget. He also asked whether it was thought that the amount of money to be used for old age security is unlimited. I say to him that $100 million could have been saved on just three or four items-in the defence department, on the many royal commissions that this government has sponsored, on the squandering of taxpayers' funds, and on the policy of bilingualism and biculturalism which has cost this country more than $500 million. It seems that this government is very willing to throw money around lavishly on these things. This bill indicates that there is little or no disposition on the part of the government to help the rank and file of old age pensioners in this country. Their priority is at the bottom of the heap.
There is another facet in connection with this bill which encourages laziness. It has been ably pointed out by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal). If a pensioner is industrious and earns a little money he is penalized and will not receive the full supplement. But a pensioner who sits on the verandah and does nothing will receive the maximum if he can pass the Pearson-MacEachen test. How ridiculous can the government make itself look. What a laughing stock it will be. There will be a big field for the cartoonists. This legislation will also cause jealousy, controversy and trouble between neighbours. One man will hear that another receives more pension than he and then there will be trouble.
No doubt there will be many injustices attached to this legislation if it passes. There will be many instances of unrecorded income. In many localities across the country you will find senior citizens who cannot qualify for the

DEBATES	December 12, 1966
additional supplement because they cannot pass the means test. This will be the case if the person earns just $60 a month. In this case he will receive no supplement at all. Then there will be the neighbour who qualifies. This neighbour is able to obtain a little employment and earn $60 a month or more but if it is unreported he will get $105 a month plus the extra he earns. On the other hand, the first-mentioned pensioner still has to subsist on the $75 a month. This bill is nothing but a generator of inequalities. Do not worry, Mr. Speaker. It will be self-induced. People are not dumb; they will not always report everything.
Most hon. members must agree that this bill will not serve the needs of the majority of the older people of Canada. It is too little, too late. There is another point I should like to make. Is the government going to administer the supplementary payments? This government has no field workers but we know that the provinces have. If the answer to the question is no, then the provincial governments will be asked to do this. I contend that this would be nothing but an imposition on the provinces. Even if the answer is that it is going to be handled through the Canada Pension Plan offices, nevertheless field workers will still be required to go out to investigate these cases. A fiat universal supplement is by far the best thing for the pensioners and for the country as a whole, if the recipients who are better off pay their pensions back in the form of income tax. This has been pointed out by many hon. members before me.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) say that the need for this bill could have been eliminated. Certainly it could have been. It could have been done simply by amending the existing act by the addition of a flat rate universal increase for all recipients.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There is one more point I want to make on behalf of the senior citizens of this country, and it relates to the increasing cost of rent and lodgings. Let me refer to an item which appeared in the Kingston Whig-Standard of December 8, 1966. The headline reads "Food Prices Down, Housing up". Part of the article reads as follows:
Rents, home-owner repairs, property taxes, furniture, textiles, utensils and most supplies and services were heavier burdens on the householder.
The article had reference to October of 1966, which is not too long ago.
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
The increasing cost of rent poses a serious problem for the senior citizens of Canada. I was contacted the other day by one of my townsmen in Napanee who asked me to remind the minister that after the last increase in the old age pension most of it was absorbed by raised rents, as a result of which many pensioners derived no benefit so far as their personal wants were concerned. Let me ask the minister to pay close attention to this fact lest there be another escalation in rents as a result of this legislation. Surely there must be some way of protecting the aged against unscrupulous and unfair increases in rents.
In closing let me again ask the government to face up to the inevitable failure which will result if this legislation is passed as it stands. The government should abandon this expensive and inefficient bill in favour of a flat rate increase to the senior needy citizens of this country. Let me ask again how many times this government "can turn its head pretending it just does not see"? Let parliament as a whole point out the needs of the aged and help to bring forth legislation which will meet those needs.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to intervene at great length at this time because, as has been stated by members of this party, we intend to vote for the bill in order to obtain an increase in pensions for our senior citizens as quickly as possible. There are, however, one or two matters I think should be drawn to the attention of the minister. The fact that I do so may not lead to an amendment to the bill, but I hope it will lead to a moderation of the type of administration we have observed in the past.
At the outset let me say it appears that this debate has been reduced to a discussion surrounding the interpretation of a means, needs or income test. Some members who have spoken today and earlier during the debate cannot or are unwilling to distinguish between the three. So far as I am concerned there is a decided difference between a means test and a needs test and between a means or needs test and an income test.
There is a paradox involved in all three of these tests in that an attempt is made to penalize the thrifty while at the same time giving a maximum increase to those who need it most. If the application of legislation of this kind was as simple as some hon. members have tried to make out, it would be easy to draft and adopt a measure which was satisfactory to the nation as a whole. It would also be
DEBATES	1X021
Old Age Security Act Amendment easier to make pension payments and collect the wherewithal to do so.
There is one valid argument which can be raised in opposition to any penalty imposed on the thrifty of this nation. Thousands of citizens have saved a little and have acquired certain assets which produce income. They may live alongside others who have not been as thrifty; yet they will be penalized. I still regard thriftiness as an attribute and it seems to me that the application of such a penalty will not be acceptable.
Some hon. members have argued on both sides of this question at the same time. If there is a determination on the part of the members of this house to provide a maximum increase to those who need it most we should do so. However, if hon. members are more concerned about the penalizing of citizens who have been thrifty, that is another argument. They cannot have it both ways.
In so far as the interpretation of the application of an income test is concerned though it may have some inherent injustices, as other members have suggested, it is substantially different from a means test as means tests have been applied in the past. As means tests have been applied in the past in all provinces which have paid old age pensions, the value of the home, bonds and bank accounts have been totalled. If the total, calculated on a cash basis, was greater than a certain figure the applicant was disqualified. I am in agreement with the minister who has said that if a home and other assets do not produce direct income of more than $360 per year they should not be taken into account. Surely that means there is a distinct difference in the interpretation of a means and income test.
There is also a distinct difference between a needs and income test. For many years the Alberta government has been paying supplementary payments to those received by senior citizens from the federal government in the way of old age security. These supplementary payments in recent years have been determined on the basis of a needs tests. Social welfare workers have gone out into the field and have reckoned the cost of senior citizens' requirement for food, clothing, shelter, drugs and those other things which fall within the needs category. Whatever income they found available to the applicant, including old age security payments, was subtracted from the maximum award available to a senior citizen. For those reasons I suggest it is unfair to suggest there is no difference between a
December 12, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment means test as it has been applied in the past, a needs test as it is being applied now and an income test as envisaged by the minister. I am concerned about one or two things in respect of the passage of this bill, and I note that the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. La-prise) in his speech indicated that these things were also of concern in the province of Quebec. What will happen in respect of supplementary payments now being made by provinces when this measure becomes law? In the past this has included Alberta, and I am sure it includes all the other provinces. If there has been an increase in the federal old age security pension, there has been a decrease in the supplementary payment by the provincial department of welfare.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Perhaps a great many senior citizens will not have any net gain at all. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can anticipate a situation where it may involve a loss to a senior citizen to apply for the supplementary payment under the guaranteed income program. In the province of Alberta anyone who qualifies for a supplementary payment from the department of welfare automatically receives a medical card, and that medical card may be worth far more to some senior citizens than $30 a month. However, the supplementary payment from the province and the medical card are granted on the basis of a needs test. If the means of the individual go beyond the point where the province pays a supplementary amount, of course these persons do not receive a medical card. Some senior citizens would be better advised not to apply for this supplement because they could lose more than they would gain.
I hope the minister will take this into account and at least try to work out some arrangement with the provinces so that if the federal government is paying the senior citizen a cash income upon which an income or needs test is based, those citizens who have a medical card will not have that card withdrawn simply because the federal government is now making the cash payment instead of the provincial government. I hope, too, that the provincial governments will be very charitable and understanding with respect to this increase, because I think the members of this house and Canadians generally agree that the cost of living has risen substantially. What is more, I believe we have an obligation to provide, that as the productivity of the nation goes up, so will the standard of living of our senior citizens. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while


$90, $100 or $105 may have been all that was allowed in 1964 or 1965 under the provincial regulations, this amount should be raised sufficiently so there will be a substantial net increase to each senior citizen as a result of this bill becoming law. I said at the outset that I would not intervene in this debate for long. However, I have encountered this problem two or three times. In fact, it has arisen every time the old age security pension has been increased. I hope it will not be repeated.
In passing I should just like to say, because I see the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) is in the chamber, that I liked his suggestion that we take back $100 million from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and put it to far better use by paying it into the old age security fund. The other day the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) where he would suggest we could save $100 million. I suggest, having seen some of the trash produced by the C.B.C. and its biased and politically slanted ideology, that the government would do this country a great service by withdrawing $100 million from the corporation and putting it into the old age security fund.
There seems to be a contradiction in the bill. Clause 19 says:
A benefit shall not be assigned, charged, attached, anticipated or given as security, and any transaction purporting to assign, charge, attach, anticipate or give as security a benefit is void.
The very next clause says that the Department of National Health and Welfare has the authority to attach future payments if a person should receive an overpayment. Perhaps this provision has to be in the bill. Perhaps it has to be stated in the law as a means of protecting the public treasury from fraudulent applications. However, I do not believe there should be any large-scale attempts to recover payments unless they are justified and warranted.
There have been cases in the past where senior citizens have received a few dollars more, sometimes several hundred dollars spread over a long period of time, than they were entitled to receive, after examination of the account and the cheques they had received. Sometimes the amount overpaid has been recovered by the treasury through payments of $5 or $10 a month on the part of the pensioner. The hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) said a few minutes ago that our senior citizens are not dumb. I believe I am quoting him correctly. He said they will not report what they do not
December 12. 1966	COMMONS
have. However, I do not accept that argument.
I believe that the senior citizens by and large, in 98 or 99 per cent of the cases, will report accurately whatever the regulations call for. But they can make a mistake. As has been pointed out, our senior citizens, about whom we have been talking this evening, the potential recipients of these payments, are all over 65 years of age and in all cases their standards of education and understanding of these forms are not up to the level of people who have the educational standards of today. Therefore it is possible for them to make a mistake, and some of these mistakes can be disastrous.
If all a pensioner has is $75 or $105 a month and he has to pay back money to the treasury because of some mistake on the part of the department, it can be disastrous to him. Therefore I hope the minister and his administrative staff will be very charitable in applying the law under clause 20 of this bill. I know of cases in my constituency where repayments of this kind have created severe hardship. After some negotiation with the Department of National Revenue it has been possible to reduce the monthly repayment to as low as $5 or $10 a month. But even this is too much when a reassessment of the individual's financial circumstances indicates that there is no other source than the pension cheque from which to take the money. If the pensioner has cash or other assets the amount is recovered from this source, but if there are no such assets and the repayments are taken from his pension, this constitutes a penalty on the pensioner. The apparent concept of the guaranteed minimum income is that every citizen shall have at least $105 a month, which shall be no less for any reason whatsoever. Therefore these attachments defeat the principle and the concept outlines in the minimum income program. As I said, I hope the minister will be charitable in collecting from those senior citizens who have made a mistake in filling out their forms, if any such recoveries are necessary.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Finally I wish to say that the bill is a step in the right direction. We believe that $75 a month cannot and should not be considered the maximum universal old age security pension. At the same time we have to recognize that only the government is responsible for this legislation and has the authority to introduce a bill raising the ceiling. They have chosen not to do so. They have chosen to bring in as a substitute a guaranteed minimum income of up to $105 a month for those
Old Age Security Act Amendment who qualify under the Old Age Security Act. Therefore while there is nothing that anyone in the opposition can do to change this decision, because under our rules a minister of the Crown must move such an amendment to a bill, we hope that the minister was not correct when he said on December 5 that this legislation will take care of the situation until the Canada Pension Plan becomes applicable to everyone, or over the next ten years after which this legislation will be phased out.
We look to this government, or whatever government is holding office, to raise the universal old age security payments in keeping with the increased productivity of the country. If we ask for anything less we will not be doing justice to our senior citizens. I also suggest that simply to raise old age security pensions so as to cover only the increased cost of living from year to year will not be enough because as the standard of living goes up owing to increased productivity our senior citizens should reap the benefits as well as everyone else.
I wish to say again to the minister that I hope he will be charitable in the application of the income test and that if mistakes are made as the plan first comes into effect those people who may get a few dollars to which they are not strictly entitled under the provisions of the act will not be dealt with too harshly. As I said at the outset, we intend to support the bill but we do not consider it to be the last increase. We hope there will be a further justifiable increase in the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the second reading of the bill. I need not remind the house of the work I have done in an effort to have the Old Age Security Act amended in order that the monthly payments to old age pensioners be increased to $100 a month without a means test. I have not been very successful in my efforts but I have been successful in urging the government to go as far as to introduce this bill.
However, I know one thing for sure, namely, that in my fight for an increase in old age pensions without a means test I have the support of an overwhelming majority of the people of Brantford, Ontario. I find that a good many of them have doubts about the effectiveness of the bill to establish a supplement to the old age pension. Last Saturday one man said to me that no one has said how much it will cost to enforce the provisions of the bill and how much will have to be paid
11024	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment out to check applications for the supplement and to fight the contested cases through lawyers. He also wondered about the cost to the provinces to pay lawyers to act for indigent persons under legal aid in support of their cases against the government.
No one has mentioned how many civil servants will have to be hired to police the provisions of the act. Unless we are given an honest idea of the expenses involved in applying the necessary test to all applicants we cannot balance adequately the cost of paying a minimum income to everyone with the cost of enforcing the provisions of the bill.
Another man spoke to me over the week end and said that he wants a receipt for his share of the cost of giving out the welfare payments provided under the bill. He said he wants a receipt for an individual taxpayer's donation by force toward payment of the supplement to old age pensioners so that he can use it for income tax purposes. He may have a point that is worth considering. He claimed this his contribution to the payments under the provisions of this bill, which he called a forced charitable donation, should be deductible for income tax purposes.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member not aware that several hon. members on this side have covered very thoroughly, the question of the expensive policing of the pension plan brought in by the government?


James Elisha Brown: I would like to thank the hon. member for drawing this to my attention. I am glad to be able to repeat one taxpayer's remarks at this time.
Another man wrote to me today and asked me to ask the minister why he cannot make the supplement under the bill payable to everyone over the age of 80 without a means test. I pass on this request to the minister and I am sure he will pay attention to it and perhaps move an amendment to the bill at a later date.
Another man who spoke to me over the week end said he thought the bill would put a premium on listlessness. He disliked the fact that those who had no savings, which certainly includes those who never saved a cent in their lives, should earn a pension at the expense of persons who had saved and penny-pinched all their lives in order not to be a burden on the taxpayers in later years.
All these arguments have already been dealt with. However-and this is what I should like to bring to the attention of the

DEBATES	December 12, 1966
hon. member who interrupted me-I am putting them forward as coming from a Liberal who has stood for an increase in the old age pension to everyone across the board without a means test both in and out of parliament over many years. I should like to reserve my further remarks until the clause by clause study of the bill.


Mr. Churchill:: Will the hon. member answer a question? May I remind him of a remark of the minister the other day when he accused the hon. member and others who said that this legislation contained a means test of being stupid and dishonest? Does the hon. member accept this statement from the minister?


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be facetious but I do not think the minister was referring to me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are the only person he had in mind.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the hon. gentleman would go on with his talk because I was enjoying it very much. It was refreshing to hear a member on the government side speaking out in favour of a $25 a month increase across the board without a means test.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Medicine .Hat (Mr. Olson) who tried to define the distinction between an income test, a means test and a needs test. The other day I happened to be talking to an old age pensioner who lives in my hon. friend's riding and I learned from him, not at my solicitation but of his own volition, that he is convinced from what he has read in the papers that the legislation the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is now bringing forward amounts to nothing short of a means test. You may call a rose by any other name, Mr. Speaker, but would it smell as sweet? I ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat not to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the old folks, because they know better.
In addition to talking to the pensioner to whom I have just referred, during the past week I attended three or four meetings in my riding and the question of the old age pension came up each time. The people at those meetings were opposed in no uncertain terms to a needs test. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), who has just resumed his seat, put his finger right on the pulse of what
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
people are thinking across this country and I say to the minister, who has just gone out to stretch his legs and stand behind the curtain, that he had better reconsider this measure if he wants to get any political advantage from it. The people do not want any semblance of a means test imposed on them. He would be far better to reduce the amount so that the $225 million would cover everybody equally.
The minister mentioned last July that the amount of $225 million was going to be set aside for the purpose of paying the old age pensioners $30 a month. Some of us know that there are in this country about 1,200,000 old age pensioners. With sharp pencils an hon. member in the N.D.P. ranks and myself did some quick figuring and on a monthly basis we arrived at a figure of $18 to $20. I immediately rose and asked the minister how he was going to spread $225 million among 1,200,000 people and not impose a means test. The minister would not admit it was a means test. No, he had something else in mind. I asked him whether he was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of our old people and he did not even smile as he is smiling now. He thinks it is funny, but if he would talk to the elderly people they would soon tell him how funny it is. He is fooling no one but simself and some of the members of the Liberal party.
The application of a means test is vicious. It is something foreign to the Canadian way of life. It is something which has been put into effect in the case of war veterans receiving veterans allowances, burnt-out pensioners, and in many cases many war veterans would be much better off if it could have been handled without a means test.
Let me tell the minister as a member of parliament that I have handled many cases of people who have supplemented their income and had it deducted from their pensions. They in turn have felt this was unfair, and in many cases it caused hardship. We are now getting to the point where the minister of health is going to have a building full of bureaucrats whose function it will be to check the incomes of our old age pensioners. How is the minister going to smile this off? He cannot, simply because the old age pensioners know that if 1,200,000 of them are going to be called upon to fill in a piece of paper and state their incomes a tremendous staff will be required to check their statements. If the minister also requires staff to check the eligibility of these pensioners for this supplementary benefit under the act, he will also require staff with legal training and all the rest of it.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
Other hon. members have pointed out that certain old age pensioners will not get this supplementary benefit simply because they have reported a meagre amount of additional income. They may be living alongside others who do receive it, and this will create a feeling of bitterness on the part of the people who are denied the additional supplement of $30. They will say: "That so-and-so got it and I didn't".
If part of some extra earnings in the amount of $200 or $300 for which they have worked hard is deducted, then the pensioner who has earned this money may on a subsequent occasion omit this item when he fills out a form of application. The minister will make liars out of our old age pensioners. Any minister in this house who insists on legislation of this sort when members of his own party remind him of the points I am now trying to make is embarking upon a course which is not justified.
Instead of paying all this money to bureaucrats he would do better to pay the extra money to the old age pensioners and bring their payments up the amount suggested by the Senate committee as the required amount to meet today's cost of living. The minister would do far better to make a $25 payment across the board to all old age pensioners. If this were done it would be unnecessary to have a building full of bureaucrats checking the records of the old age pensioners and looking over their shoulders to see how much income they have.
The minister above anybody else ought to know that this sort of thing is foreign to the Canadian way of life. Therefore, why does he go ahead with this bill and be stupid? Why does the minister insist on something which is not Canadian? I ask the minister to come to his senses and to bring in a bill which will pay an across-the-board amount to the pensioners without a means test. We would not need in that event a building full of bureaucrats, and the old folks would not be penalized or caused to make statements which might be against their own conscience just because they wanted to receive the extra $30 a month.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This, Mr. Speaker, the minister is bringing upon himself. He is not supported in it by the members of his party because they know differently. Anyone who has moved among the people as I have during the past week would be firmly convinced more than ever before that the minister is fundamentally wrong in adopting what he chooses to call a needs test.
11026	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment It is not a needs test at all; it is a means test under another name. The minister hopes it will smell like a rose and be acceptable to the people. He hopes they will turn round and applaud him and all the rest of it. I tell him that when this provision is enacted into law more complications than he ever dreamed of will result.
The minister can smile. He can laugh it off, but I tell him now that he should go out into the country. Do not make any mistake. If he wants to find out what is going on, he should go out and talk to the old age pensioners. Get some sense into what you are trying to do before it has bad effects. Perhaps the minister is too busy to do this. We all know how busy he has been working out this plan. But he should consider what is being said out in the country. He should consider what the effects of the means test will be because it will plague him and it will plague the operation of the bill, offsetting all the good he is trying to do.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, let me say that this evening I enjoyed the speech made by the member for Simcoe East (Mr. Kynard) and on the whole I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). I enjoyed his argument but I could not agree with his suggestion that we save $100 million by taking it away from the C.B.C. I think that sometimes C.B.C. programs lack good taste, but I recognize the value of the C.B.C. to Canadians as a whole in promoting Canadian culture, Canadian unity and so on.
I rise to support those members who have urged the minister to use the present Old Age Security Act properly to provide an increase of $30 a month for all persons entitled to old age security under the act. I will not repeat the many excellent arguments put forward by members of the opposition. I will not use the figures which have been used. I intend to take a slightly different tack. When one is late in speaking in a debate like this a good many of the arguments have been used and repeated often.
I listened with great interest to the minister's speeches on the resolution and second reading of the bill and I give him credit for using the best defence possible for the government's position. I might say that the minister is very popular on this side of the house. We all like him. He has a very, shall I say, bland and disarming approach to any problem we bring to the attention of the house which

DEBATES	December 12, 1966
makes it all the more difficult for us to criticize him severely on occasions. The minister made the best defence he could of the government's position, if we are prepared to depart from the basic principles of the Old Age Security Act. He has been called a Scrooge by some members on this side of the house. I prefer to be more charitable. I shall refer to him as a sort of scabrous minister on this issue.
During his speech, he mentioned that to conform with the principles of the Old Age Security Act would cost the country $100 million now and up to $200 million by 1970. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, and I want the house to know this, that I am not a dreamer when it comes to money matters. I am not given to supporting any government proposal unless I am convinced it is financially sound. I trust the minister will listen to my remarks, having in mind my background and attitude to many of these questions. That principle to which I have just referred must be recognized whether a government is known as a free enterprise government or a socialist government if we are to legislate in the best interests of the people as a whole on sound financial lines.
I speak this evening as one who has lived in complete and happy independence and security practically all his life on an income slightly above the social welfare level. That was so until I was elected as a member of parliament. Of course, my financial circumstances have changed somewhat since then. But I believe that all government schemes must be financially sound to be of permanent value.
I oppose the limiting terms of the present legislation for the following reasons. First, it represents a departure from the basic principles of the Old Age Security Act which received the approval of the members of this house and the majority of the Canadian people when the act was passed. That act was passed after a great deal of effort by many members of this house to get the government of the day to accept the principle of universality so far as old age security was concerned.
I oppose this legislation on the second ground that the bill provides, shall I say, for a form of taxation under false pretences in that it taxes some who will not be allowed to enjoy the full benefits of the act when this measure is adopted.
The third reason is that I consider the bill to be unfair because it will prevent certain pensioners from going abroad if they wish to continue drawing what the minister calls the
December 12, 1968

guaranteed income. That is unfair. Many persons entitled to old age security are required to live in another country for health reasons at certain times. I think this kind of amendment is unfair to those people.
In my opinion the cost of administration will multiply rapidly. I do not think the minister has given sufficient consideration to the future costs of administration of this amended act. I know that in British Columbia, whenever legislation requiring a means test or needs test has been introduced, the cost of administration has risen annually. I have talked to social welfare workers who have told me so. Any means test involves a great deal of investigation and that sort of thing. Without a doubt there will be appeals under this act. There will be other costs and there will be a great many mistakes by persons entitled to draw the guaranteed income because of the complexity surrounding this whole matter.
Is it worth while, Mr. Speaker, to save $100 million now by the introduction of this bill when the principles of the Old Age Security Act can be maintained from our point of view-shall I say-in a certain way. I give this illustration because the other day when somebody on the government side of the house asked how we could save $100 million the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said "on defence". I bring this to the attention of the house. I think we could save $100 million on our defence expenditures. In that connection I think the government has failed to correlate its policies to deal with this measure.
I want to quote some remarks reportedly made by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) as contained in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, March 2, 1966. The headline reads "NATO 'Top Heavy' -Hellyer". This is what the article says:
Change is inevitable in NATO, Defence Minister Hellyer said Tuesday.
He told the Canadian Club it was time to take a hard look at the alliance and the form it should take in the next decade or two. Mr. Hellyer said NATO is becoming "top heavy with headquarters and bureaucratic machinery."
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
He cited what he called the "plethora" of military headquarters. Mr. Hellyer suggested NATO could make savings of some $7,000,000,000 annually on its present annual gross defence expenditures of $74,000,000,000.
In other words, nearly 10 per cent could be saved by cutting out the waste incurred at the present time.
He said such savings could be used for better weapons and equipment and for more aid to underdeveloped countries.
Old Age Security Act Amendment
I quote from this statement by the Minister of National Defence because some of this $7 billion is coming from the pockets of the Canadian people in the form of taxation to pay for this bureaucratic and overloaded NATO structure. I believe the minister knows what the policy of this party is with respect to NATO in the changing conditions of the world today. We think there is need for the government and for the members of this house to reassess our role in NATO and determine how we can best contribute to the maintenance of peace in the world in present circumstances. I do not intend to pursue this theme in any detail. I merely mention it to indicate a direction in which we can save a considerable sum of money, according to the Minister of National Defence.
Recently I asked some questions about the cost of NATO to Canada. These questions were answered on July 6, 1966 and the answers may be found on page 7260 of Hansard.
1.	Total contributions paid by all NATO nations to the NATO commonly financed infrastructure program since it began in 1951 have amounted to approximately $2,694,000,000 up to March 31, 1966. Canada's contributions paid during the same period have amounted to $152,300,000.
2.	The estimated capital cost of the aircraft presently supplied to No. 1 air division as at April 30, 1966, amounts to $211,600,000. Additionally, the capital costs of the fixed facilities at the Canadian bases of No. 1 air division are estimated to have cost $14,700,000, of which $11,000,000 was spent in France and $3,700,000 in Germany. These costs do not include the costs of those facilities commonly financed by the NATO infrastructure programs referred to in 1 above nor do they include the cost of facilities in Germany financed by Germany as a charge to occupation and defence support costs.
3.	The total estimated annual cost of maintaing No. 1 air division is $85,300,000. This figure includes certain elements of annual cost incurred in Canada in support of the air division such as operational training and airlift support.
4.	The estimated total annual cost of maintaining No. 4 CIBG in Germany is $64,500,000. This figure includes the cost of ammunition supplied from Canada and airlift support costs.
5.	The estimated annual cost of transporting defence forces and their dependants between Europe and Canada is $7,500,000. This amount includes costs of moving and storing household goods in Canada and airlift support costs for passengers.
I suggest that the government could well reassess its role in NATO if it wishes to save the $100 million for which the minister is looking in order to pay this increase to old age pensioners. I wish also to draw the attention of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to a statement made not long ago by the German ambassador that Canada did not play a particularly effective role in NATO but that its presence there had to do
December 12, 1968

Old Age Security Act Amendment with the maintenance of morale and things of that sort.
For these reasons I believe the governement might well look at the cost of NATO to our country when it is seeking $100 million to carry on the old age security program. Again, the money might also be obtained by making an adjustment in corporation taxes and in the taxes imposed on the higher income groups. I refer to the tax deducted for payment into the old age security fund. Has the minister considered this possibility?
WhilS I am speaking about the cost of old age security I want to mention that the committee on veterans affairs went to Europe last July and while in France met with officials of the pensions branch of the French government to discuss military pensions and pensions in general. The committee did the same thing in London where its members met with officials of the British ministry of pensions to discuss disability pensions, old age pensions and so on. We were informed in both capitals that in order to remove the issue of pensions from partisan politics it was the policy to review pensions periodically in relation to the cost of living, to the level of wages generally and to standards of productivity. In my opinion the government should give consideration to doing the same with respect to old age security benefits, disability pensions and other pensions paid to veterans, as well as disability allowances, pensions to the blind and so on.
The hon. member for Simcoe East said we might well do without the new defence building on which so much is being spent. That project could be postponed. We seem to be getting along fairly well in the present headquarters. This would mean a saving of $50 million. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre does not like the tower because it will be higher than the peace tower on the parliament buildings. I think there are sound grounds for his objection. It is a symbolism we do not like so far as our national policies are concerned.
We shall certainly support the bill, knowing of the urgent need of those to whom it applies. At the same time we emphasize our opposition to the breach of the principle upon which the Old Age Security Act was founded, that is to say, universality. We are very sorry to see a departure from that principle. It is all the more saddening when one recalls that it was only obtained after a great deal of effort in the house on the part of members of the opposition who were finally successful in convincing the government of the desirability of

the principle of universality. It is for these reasons that we feel the government could have given more consideration to the opportunities open to it to save $100 million this year and to save $200 million by 1970 so that all persons would continue to receive old age security at the rate of $105 a month on what we consider to be a sound financial basis.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether there is an agreement that we will continue sitting or whether I should call it ten o'clock. Is there agreement that we carry on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. There has been agreement that we carry on until eleven o'clock.


James Ernest Pascoe: Then I should like to say a few words in this debate. Under the new rules of the house the debate on the resolution stage is limited to one day. Therefore not too many speakers had an opportunity to join in the debate. I think it is the duty of all members who are interested in the welfare of our senior citizens to take part in this debate before the legislation is given second reading.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There are 265 members.


James Ernest Pascoe: It would show that they have an interest in the welfare of the senior citizens. I would hope that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) would get up once in a while to speak rather than sit there and make interjections. We will wait for him.
I do not think I need repeat the arguments which have been advanced by some members on this side with regard to the penalty on those who have the incentive to carry on and earn some income after they retire. This has been brought out previously. There is also the point about the possible removal of the incentive for thrift. Of course there is the point that all our old age security pensioners require additional financial help because of the ever-increasing high cost of living. As I say I do not wish to repeat these arguments.
I will deal separately with one great difficulty which we on this side see in the bill, that is, the income test which we regard as a thinly disguised means test or needs test. The minister has employed every argument he could in an attempt to justify his claim that his plan for senior citizens does not involve a means test or a needs test. Incidentally, as has been stated by others, the proposed income check, if this legislation goes through without
December 12, 1966

amendment, certainly will be referred to as the "MacEachen test".
It is very much of a change to see some hon. members on the other side get up and speak in respect of this means test. As I say, I hope the hon. member for Kootenay East will get up when his turn comes. It is refreshing to see that some members on that side do rise once in a while to speak. They were very quiet in respect of the medicare bill and I imagine they will also be quiet when the transport bill comes up.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no, we won't.


James Ernest Pascoe: As I have said, it was refreshing to see some of them get up. The two we heard this evening certainly spoke against the means test. Despite all the arguments which have been mustered by the minister the fact remains that our senior citizens will be subjected to a complete disclosure of their annual income before they can qualify for any additional pension payment. There is a very interesting letter along these lines which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of December 6. It is signed by the chairman of the Golden Age Association of that city. I think the same is very appropriate. This is an excerpt from the letter:
We have discussed the recent legislation being presented to parliament concerning old age pensions. We are unanimously opposed to the present plan because it includes a means test. We are unanimously agreed that old age pensions should be increased to $105 a month across the board. Those persons who do not require the increase will ultimately turn back the increase to the government through income tax.
As I say, this letter reinforces the argument made by previous speakers. I do not need to dwell on it to any greater extent. In his statement at the resolution stage the minister said that the purpose of a needs test is to determine the gap between what a person has and what he needs for an adequate decent existence. Is that not what is involved in this new pension plan? Is that not what one would consider a means test? The minister also said that there will be no snooping, no prying into financial affairs and no demeaning questions. He then went on to say that the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue will work with the old age security administration of the Department of National Health and Welfare in carefully checking all applications by senior citizens. I will refer to that a little later.
I should like to warn the government against the possibility of violating the confidentiality of income tax returns. I cannot
Old Age Security Act Amendment emphasize this too strongly. If the government tries to impose a close check on income tax returns it will be violating confidential financial statements. Under this legislation provision is made for appeals against decisions by officials of the two departments, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of National Health and Welfare. This would seem to indicate that there will be a very close check made in respect of each individual's finances before any additional payment is made.
At the resolution stage the minister also stated that the additional pension will not be paid to Canadians who leave the country for more than seven months. He said it would not be feasible to verify their statements of income in order to administer the guaranteed income supplement. I should like to emphasize the words "verify their statements of income". This certainly would indicate to me at least that applications for the additional old age security pension will be very closely scrutinized and that any application which might be a little doubtful will be treated very severely. I refer to the fact that the Department of National Revenue, through the income tax division, will be working with the Department of National Health and Welfare.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I should like to refer briefly to a booklet published by the Department of National Revenue regarding the collection of income tax. Let me read a few excerpts to indicate the complexity involved in checking each individual income tax return. Before doing so I should like to point out that the task involved will be increased greatly in respect of applications for supplementary old age security payments if and when this bill is passed in its present state.
At page 41 of this booklet, which is entitled "Twenty One Million Dollars a Day", there is an indication of what the Department of National Revenue does in collecting taxes. It states:
Tax forms, so dear to the hearts of cartoonists at filing time, are the necessary means by which Canadians fulfil their obligations each year under the federal self-assessment tax system. The variety and complexity of these forms reflect the diversity of the income-earning activities of a modem society composed of millions of wage earners, investors, business proprietors, farmers, professionals, executors, trustees, corporations and others.
The category of "others" in my opinion includes old age pensioners who will file income
December 12, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment tax returns if Bill C-251 is passed in its present form. There is another interesting comment in this booklet at page 35:
Because of the nature of its work, the taxation division is the largest employer of professional accountants in Canada with some 850 on staff at the time of this report.
A great many more will have to be employed when this division begins checking the income tax returns filed by pensioners as a result of the adoption of this measure. The report also indicates that there are 7,900 on staff for income tax return checking purposes. This number will also be increased if this bill is passed in its present form.
The report also refers to the complexity of checking income tax returns as a result of the adoption of this bill in its present form. Not long ago, and this may or may not be coincidental with this measure, the income tax division of the Department of Revenue attempted to acquire inspectors and checkers. I am not suggesting they are now being employed for purpose of checking returns necessitated by this measure but I imagine they will be put to work in this regard.
At page 10883 of Hansard for December 8, the minister is recorded as having said:
No doubt It would have been simpler in the short run to have raised the old age security pension to $100 a month for all the recipients of old age security-
To be fair to the minister he went on to point out that he felt the pension plan he was introducing would make better use of federal financial resources. He did say, however, that in the short run the universal application of old age pensions would be much simpler. In the same statement he said that this was only a temporary plan or, as he referred to it, a transitional plan until the Canada and Quebec pension plans come into full effect in 1967. Surely that statement fits in with his suggestion that in the short run an old age security pension of $100 a month across the board would be much more simple.
The minister has heard strong arguments against the application of a means test and some of his colleagues have allied themselves with these arguments. In this regard let me commend the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) and the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). I am sure they have voiced the opinion of other government members who may yet take part in this debate. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) may be one of them.
Members of the opposition have been effective in improving government legislation through debate in this house. This is true in respect of the medicare proposal. The government yielded to argument on the part of the opposition and made necessary amendments. This indicates that the minister does listen to reason and can be persuaded to make changes. A bill sponsored by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) will be placed before the house shortly. As a member of the committee on transport and communications I hope the minister will listen to our arguments, as he did when the bill was being studied by that committee.
It is our hope that we can persuade the government to do away with the "MacEachen income test" in respect of Bill C-251. We are not attempting to obstruct legislation by carrying out the job of the opposition, which is to impress upon the government the need for necessary changes in legislation.
Let me reinforce my argument in respect of the role of the opposition by referring to comments of hon. members now sitting on the government side. I take these quotations from Hansard. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) when sitting in opposition said, as recorded at page 398 of Hansard for October 11, 1962:
Since it is the duty of members of the loyal opposition to oppose I cannot see how one can have effective opposition without constructive criticism.
That is exactly the position we take tonight, Mr. Speaker. That hon. member went on to say:
I believe that no reform can be achieved and no survival is possible without the freedom of honest and vigorous criticism.
Let me quote from the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) who made a speech at Swan Lake, Manitoba, on December 5, 1966. He said:
In our democratic system it is always the right of the opposition to oppose, and often its responsibility to oppose. It is opposition and delay and persistent inquiry that produces legislation free of blemish ... I have said I respect the right of the opposition to oppose.
At this time I am speaking in the interests of our senior citizens who have forwarded petitions asking for an increase in old age security pensions without a means test. I have these peitions here but will not read them. Every petition I have asks for an increased pension without a means test.
[Mr. Pascoe.l
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I referred to the Liberal member for Brantford when he was in the chamber. I am sorry he is not here now. He spoke on this matter a while ago and again recently. I wish to commend him for his second speech against a means test. If the minister finds it difficult to listen to our arguments, surely he will accept the views of the hon. member for Brantford in view of the fact that he sits in close proximity to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The hon. member is not sitting close to the minister now but is in contact with him.
Reference was made previously to a public opinion poll taken at the booth of the Toronto area retired workers' council at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto. I wish to put the results of that poll on the record once again. The question was: Do you believe the basic old age security pension should be increased from $75 to $100 a month and without a means test? The answer was "yes" in 90 per cent of the cases. I think this represents the general view across the country. I have not been out west for a while but the letters I have received show that this represents the general view in that part of the country.
Our centennial year is fast approaching, and I make this final plea. Every effort should be made by the government to honour our senior citizens, who built up this country, and pay them at least part of what they deserve for their contribution to this great nation.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made this evening to the MacEaehen test. I am wondering whether the minister would take it upon himself to send the expert, and I qualify the word "expert", on his personal staff to Cape Breton, back home so to speak, in order that he may assess the situation there. Of course the minister realizes I am talking about Mr. Bill McEaehern who was on the minister's personal staff and obtained national prominence a few years ago for subsisting on the old age pension. The minister will recall Mr. McEachern's series of articles which was carried in the Toronto newspapers and at that time received a great deal of favourable comment. I wonder whether the minister would take the trouble to send Mr. McEaehern back home so that he could familiarize himself with the situation in the minister's constituency and other areas throughout Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
I understand that the minister said this plan will benefit some 900,000 persons. Some people have indicated the number will go as high
Old Age Security Act Amendment as 1,200,000. I ask the minister, in what category has he placed the miners of Cape Breton? The minister realizes that the miners receive-I cannot refer to it as a pension-a gratuity from Dosco upon retirement. He is also aware that every miner since 1952 who has qualified for old age security has had that gratuity reduced by $42 or $45. The company is in a position to cut off the gratuity completely at any time. Since the company has used the argument-I am going back to 1952-that they are paying 2 per cent of income toward old age security and since on the basis of paying this 2 per cent they are allowed to cut off the advances in old age security, has the minister received any assurance whatsoever from Dosco that they will continue paying the gratuity?
The minister is aware that by 1975 the Dosco gratuity will be phased out completely as far as the work force is concerned. Has the minister any knowledge whatsoever of the situation of the miners already pensioned off and receiving the gratuity? Does he know whether they will continue to receive the gratuity? This is another reason why I suggest that the minister might send his expert, Mr. McEaehern, to that part of the country, and I say this in all sincerity. Mr. McEaehern could go to Cape Breton and Inverness and prepare a detailed report for the minister in respect of the formula he is introducing now and the old age security increases that will be brought about.
I have listened with great interest to hon. members who have spoken this evening. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) is in the chamber. The conscience of hon. members opposite has urged them to try to explain why they took a stand against an amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) at the beginning of this session to provide a pension of $100 a month for the elderly people of this country. Hon. members opposite have been squirming about their stand ever since. I may say to the hon. member for Brantford that he is nothing less than dishonest or stupid.


An hon. Member:: Nobody is taking you up on that remark.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion Souih):: I ask
the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) to get up and try to justify the position he took on the amendment. Shortly after voting against it he rose and said he was in favour of our old age pensioners receiving $100 a month.
11032	COMMONS DEBATES	December 12, 196S
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Robert Norman Thompson: I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member answer a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes.


Robert Norman Thompson: Would the passage of the non-confidence motion to which the hon. member is referring have brought about a pension of $100 a month for the old age pensioners?


Malcolm MacInnis: It certainly would, had it passed. I would point out to the hon. member and to the Liberals who have excused themselves on this score that had they made their stand known to the whip of their party the whip would have been fully aware what the result of the vote would be and the government would have accepted the amendment and would not have fallen. The hon. member for Red Deer might as well go back to Uganda, or wherever he spends most of his time, rather than getting up in this house and voting against an amendment that would have provided $100 a month for our old age pensioners. He should read his speech as reported in Hansard. Having voted against the amendment at that time, he immediately got up and said he was personally in favour of our old age pensioners receiving $100 a month.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Malcolm MacInnis: I would go on to ask the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hon. member for Red Deer is rising on a point of order.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member who is speaking to at least stick to the truth, to stop making personal insinuations and answer the question I asked him.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will make a note that the hon. member has asked me to stick to the truth, and it is my intention tomorrow to rise in this house on a question of privilege and quote the hon. member's words from the record. He stood and voted against that amendment. He was the first speaker following the vote on the amendment, and at that time said he was personally in favour of a pension of $100 a month for the old age pensioners of this country.


Robert Norman Thompson: That is right; he is in favour of it.


Donald MacInnis: You did
not vote for it; you voted against it.


Robert Norman Thompson: You do not know what the vote was.


Donald MacInnis: Again, Mr. Speaker, I explain for the benefit of the hon. member for Brantford or anybody else on that side of the house that if they had made their stand known to the whip of that party the whip would have known what the result of the vote would be and it would not have been a non-confidence vote and the government would not have had to fall. They cannot make excuses on any other score. They know that they have been out-manoeuvred ever since. What was said to the hon. member for Brantford was that he was either stupid or dishonest in his approach. The minister had this to say, as recorded on page 10707 of Hansard:
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I am confident that members of this house will resist the temptation to get partisan mileage out of the proposal on this ground; that no attempt either intentionally or inadvertently will be made to spread the spectre of a means test among our older people.
Now I turn to page 10746 of Hansard where the hon. member for Brantford is reported to have said the following: "In my view there is a means test." Farther down the page he said: "Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we have a means test in front of us." I am speaking of supporters of the Liberal government on that side of the house who have contradicted their own minister and who have insisted that there is a means test contained in the old age security legislation now before us.
Why did I say to the hon. member for Brantford that he was either stupid or dishonest? I am only repeating what his own minister said with reference to anybody who referred to this program as one which contains a means test. I am quoting the minister from page 10894 of Hansard. He said:	"Anyone"-and I should think that this would include the hon. member for Brantford

"who equates the means test with the norms set out in this program is either stupid or dishonest." If the hon. member for Brantford can live with that indictment from his own party then his sincerity and respect for the old age people in this country is very much in question considering the fact that he has had the opportunity on one or two occasions to go back
December 12. 1966	COMMONS
on his previous statement and has turned it down. I have quoted his own minister.


James Elisha Brown: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to me as being either stupid or dishonest. I will say in reply that I certainly was not stupid enough to vote for an amendment supported by a member such as the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
sure the hon. member realizes that when I referred to him as being stupid and dishonest those were not my words. If the hon. member thinks I originated those words then I apologize to him because I would never think of saying such a thing to the hon. member. I would say to the hon. member that those were the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with relation to him. The hon. member cannot exclude himself from the group to which the minister referred and I would refer him to page 10894 of Hansard where the minister said:	"Anyone who
equates the means test with the norms set out in this program is either stupid or dishonest." There is only one way in which the words of the minister can be considered not to apply to the hon. member and I will give him the opportunity to get up and withdraw the statement which he made on more than one occasion that under this legislation there is a means test attached. In that way he will rid himself of the accusation made by his own minister. Otherwise he will be stuck with it and will continue to be referred to by his minister as being stupid and dishonest.
The minister, in seeking support for his legislation, has brought forward the argument that it would be ridiculous to pay senators or members of parliament, and he went to a great deal of trouble to find out how many senators and members of parliament would be eligible to receive the supplement. He said that some 54 senators and some 16 members of parliament would qualify. I suggest that when the minister uses this argument he is going against the principle established by a Liberal government. When the old age pension was granted to everyone at the age of 70 the means test was discontinued. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was among those who gave the government credit for wiping out the means test at that time. Now the present Liberal government has brought the means test back.
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not give them credit for it. I took the credit for it and they agreed to do it.


Malcolm MacInnis: With a Liberal government in office there is no doubt that someone in the opposition would give them credit. The minister is well aware of the fact that when the old age pension was automatically granted to all at the age of 70 the prime minister of this country, Mr. St. Laurent, was photographed receiving the first cheque and the publicity was enjoyed by the Liberal party of the day.
Now the minister has said it is not right to follow a formula which was established by a Liberal government, and in fact he has ridiculed it. It is almost as bad as the ridicule which was heaped by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) on the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the other day when he said that the United Nations has been immobile for 16 years. This was as much as to say that the Prime Minister did nothing for 16 years. The members of the Liberal party have constantly been denying and contradicting each other. The other day they even rose in the house and broke cabinet solidarity when ministers of the crown voted against the party line on a particular issue.
Now we hear the minister using members of parliament and members of the other place as an example of people who might receive the $25 increase in reply to the proposal put forward by the opposition that $100 should be made available to all old age pensioners. He failed to take into account the policing of the income test which he denies is a means test, and yet any time an individual has to put down on paper facts and figures and sign his name to it he is in fact subjected to a means test.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) has just cautioned the government not to get involved in the confidentiality of income tax returns. I doubt very much that the government can carry out this inspection system without infringing the confidentiality.
I have indicated to the minister again that he can do himself a great service by going to Cape Breton and examining the situation there. As I have indicated previously the Minister of National Health and Welfare has had considerable experience in this field. I indicated that miners in Cape Breton do not receive a pension. Over the years they have been receiving a gratuity from a company which can cut if off whenever they wish to do
11034	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment so. I am not certain whether the minister is aware of this but I am sure he knows that the gratuity has been reduced time and time again based on the fact that the company was supposed to be paying 2 per cent of their income for old age security, which they could not have been doing since they have not shown a profit for a great number of years.
Has the minister received from Dosco any assurance that when the supplement to the old age security plan will come into effect those men who have been receiving a gratuity from the company, and especially those pensioned off since 1952, will be able to profit from it? I think the minister should acquaint himself of these facts before saying that 900,000 people will receive benefits from this plan. He said that there would be nothing undignified about receiving this supplement. He has not been in touch with those people who are looking forward to an increase in old age pensions. All these people have been looking forward to an increase without being forced to subject themselves to the indignity of an income test.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
The minister also knows that it would be a much simpler formula to pay everybody, including members of this house and members of the other place, than to impose a means test. Granted, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, that the test is not as severe as it was, but it is still a means test the implementation of which will require inspectors, auditors, rental of property and everything else, something which I do not think the minister has taken into account in arriving at a total cost figure.
If it was cheaper to pay the old age pensioners a pension under the formula and principle advocated by the Liberal government at the time, then it is cheaper today. With nothing more than an amendment to the present legislation the pensioners of this country could receive today $95 or $100 just as they were able to receive $40 under the principle advocated by a previous Liberal government with the pension being payable automatically at age 70. The minister is definitely overlooking some of the cost involved and the number of men who will be required to police this piece of legislation.
I could make a few remarks about what was said by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) but let me say this. As I indicated on another occasion, though we may have a certain respect for some members of parliament it appears to me that in this case the

DEBATES	December 12, 1966
members of the Liberal party are fearful of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Despite their feelings about the old age pensioners of this country they do not have what it takes to stand up and express their feelings by voting for an old age security pension without a means test, a test which has been referred to as the "MacEachen test".


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that once more the Liberal government have done something they have been doing for a long time. I can remember when both government members and members of the opposition fresh from an election campaign raised the question of increasing the old age pension to $100, and there was a hue and cry from the treasury benches that this would cost the Canadian taxpayers $800 million. I remember indicating my opinion that if we were to pay $100 at the reduced age of 65 the sum involved would be much less than half that amount. I believe we now have a piece of legislation which indicates that the government was completely irrational in setting that amount and that they have come to this conclusion rather reluctantly.
The minister will realize that the establishment of the old age pension in Canada without a means test resulted from pressure applied by every old age pensioner in the country over a number of years as well as by every politician who stood for office. I am sure there was no politician close to the people- those of us who were elected must have been in tune with the people in our respective areas-who was not aware of the fact that the worst type of anomaly occurs in the imposition of a means test. For that reason the government was persuaded to remove it, which I think was a step in the right direction.
This government is a minority government not only in the house but amongst themselves. There are two financial factions in the Liberal party. There is the one which believes in ultra-conservatism. I would not consider the other progressive but it is at least in tune with the times and is trying in a conservative way to promote new thinking toward legislation. When these two groups in the Liberal party come together this is the type of legislation which results.
We are all aware that this piece of legislation does not stand alone. It involves a needs test and therefore carries with it a certain stigma. It also ties in with other legislation such as the Canada Pension Plan and our
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
system of social security allowances, and combines to produce in Canada a very confused social security system.
I believe part of this confusion results from the role the government plays in its minority position. If the government had a huge majority the old age pensioner would probably have received an additional $10 and would settle for $85. This has been the history of governments for some time now. I was here when we raised the pension election after election $10 at a time. A majority government would no doubt have discovered another $10 which they could make available when another election appeared to be in the offing.
The government, and I think the minister too, are also considering legislation in which we should have been interested a long time ago. As we reach our 100th birthday we are discovering many things we have neglected in Canada for a long time and we are trying to catch up on them. I also presume that the minister has considered the economics of the pension structure which this country will require during the next 25 years or so. We will probably become involved in a program being played with by economists in the United States, commonly called deficit income tax. If this structure is carried to its conclusion it would tie in with a statement made by the minister some time ago and on which he has since been hedging, namely, that everybody in Canada is entitled to a decent standard of living no matter whether or not they work or whether or not they are of value to the nation. People are human beings and therefore we have to provide them with enough money to maintain a decent standard of living.
The day will soon come upon us when we will find that automation and cybernation have created the means of providing for full production in Canada without resort to the resources of most of the Canadian people. In fact, rather than there being an obligation on everybody to work, there will be an obligation on everyone to refrain from working. Work will have to be carefully apportioned between the people who will be called upon to work, and this will be a reward rather than a necessity.
If this is to be our heritage in the next generation I think it is not too early to look at what we want to accomplish now. I might point out that the structure of deficit income tax establishes what the minister calls a needs test. I cannot see this plan being implemented either in Canada or in the United States for
Old Age Security Act Amendment some little time, but the principle of it is to arrive at a minimum level of income, which in the United States is suggested to be $3,000. Everybody files an income tax return but those who make only $3,000 are not called upon to pay tax. If they make more than $3,000 they return to the government a percentage of the money in excess of that figure. If they make less than $3,000 the government makes up the difference to the $3,000 level. I think the minister is toying with this idea in an elementary way with the introduction of a needs test.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
If you implement such a program with a deficit income tax structure it will work, but if you go only part of the way you will drive the costs of administration to an exorbitantly high level compared with the benefits received. The minister may find this is true if he looks at the problem in Ontario where there was a great problem in the collection of taxes. The 3 per cent sales tax was implemented a few years ago. The government found it had to spend 2 cents to collect 3 cents, winding up with 1 cent net gain. They raised the tax to 5 cents to get 3 cents net. Inspectors were everywhere. They went to small grocery stores, they looked at bottles by the till and asked who had dropped pennies into the bottles and whether the items concerned were taxable and so on. The total cost of administering the tax became fantastically high.
There is no doubt that the old age pensioner in the main needs much more money to get by on than he has been receiving. Everyone who has dealt with war veterans allowances and other pensions realizes that the means test applied to those pensions results in a much greater income to the recipients than will be paid to the old age pensioners. The need to increase the old age pension is recognized by everyone. We should be in a poor position if we could not get the money to pay this subsidy to our aged.
I think the minister's plan is complicated beyond need. There were those, and I am sure they are in the majority in his party, who campaigned on the old age platform during the last election. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) and the candidate in my riding campaigned, as we did, for an increase in the old age pension to $100, with the pension to be under exactly the same structure as the present old age pension. I think the changes the minister has introduced will work a great hardship on many pensioners.
11036	COMMONS DEBATES	December 12, 1966
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I have had experience in trying to establish the age of pensioners. In many instances pensioners cannot act for themselves but must obtain the services of their minister, the township clerk, their member of parliament, their member of the legislature, neighbours or anybody who can help them. Should it be necessary to ask for other people's services to fill out forms for this supplement? Remember, Mr. Speaker, that many people living in rural areas have had no experience with income tax. They have never filled out an income tax form in their lives and it is ridiculous to ask them at 69 years of age to start filling out forms they have never been familiar with. This, I think, will cause hardship for many.
I know the government will be faced with a continuing barrage from the old age pensioners and from the people interested in this problem in the welfare and social fields-yes, and in political fields-to remove the means test after the bill is passed. The Social Credit group, though they are disturbed by some aspects of the bill will vote for it.
As an opposition member interested in the old age pensioners I shall have to vote for this legislation even if it has a needs test in it. The need for old age pensioners in my area to receive an increase is so desperate that we shall have to support this measure. It is also safe to say that if Liberal members of parliament are not dishonest with themselves they will immediately begin a campaign to remove this type of test. That campaign, I believe, will begin immediately the legislation is passed. I should be very surprised if at the next election all the political parties do not come out with the idea of making the $30 part of the old age security plan.
I shall also have a few words to say about the relationship this plan ought to have to supplements paid by provincial governments and to the Canada Pension Plan. For that reason I call it eleven o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about tomorrow?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. What is the sense of the house regarding the adjournment questions? Does the house wish to proceed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is too hard on the staff. As we have gone to eleven o'clock we should show consideration for the staff of the house and discontinue. We should postpone the adjournment debate until some other day.


Mr. Prittie:: All those concerned this evening are here. We shall not take very long.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask what the business will be for tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We propose to debate this item tomorrow, and when it is completed we shall take the railway bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, on December 2, at page 10668 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
-I have a question for the Secretary of State which she might take as notice and answer on Monday. Will the minister inform the house why competent returning officers with years of experience are not being reappointed for the new constituencies? New appointments are being made daily and these experienced people are being dropped.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker said that was a proper topic for the adjournment proceedings. The custom for a long time in Canada since confederation has been for the party in power to appoint returning officers in the various constituencies across the country from, of course, among its own supporters. This is not the issue I am bringing up tonight though it is an important issue and there might be some other way of making the appointments. But that is not the subject I wish to deal with. I want to complain about the fact that returning officers with many years of experience are being replaced. Not all of them are being replaced but the majority are and, of course, the old practice of appointing friends of the government in power is being followed.
When a returning officer is appointed he retains his appointment except for one of several reasons which are listed in the Canada Elections Act, I am quoting from section 8 (3):
The Governor in Council may remove from office, as for cause, any returning officer who
(a)	has attained the age of sixty-five years;
(b)	ceases to reside in his electoral district;
(c)	is incapable, by reason of illness, physical or mental infirmity or otherwise, of satisfactorily performing his duties under this Act;
(d)	has failed to discharge competently his duties, or any thereof, under this Act; or
(e)	has at any time after his appointment been guilty of politically partisan conduct, whether or not in the course of performance of his duties under this Act.
December 12, 1963
These are the causes. I suppose that in some cases certain of these returning officers have reached the age of 65 while others, because of redistribution, no longer live in the electoral districts. But this does not account for the majority of the cases I have in mind. It seems to me that the government is using section 8(1) as a reason for making these wholesale changes. This subsection provides:
The offices of all returning officers appointed prior to the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be vacant and the Governor in Council may appoint to such offices either the same persons as now hold them, any of such persons or any other persons; he may also thereafter appoint from time to time a returning officer for any new electoral district and a new returning officer for any electoral district in which the office of returning officer becomes vacant, within the meaning of subsection (2).
With redistribution we have a completely new electoral map of Canada, with new ridings. That is the justification which is being used. I do not intend to speak about particular cases here, though this has happened in my own riding as it has happened in ridings in every province.
Being a returning officer is like holding any other job. A man has to be at it for a while before he can do it well. It takes at least one election to learn the job, often with the help of candidates who have had experience in elections. They do not become competent right away. It seems to me a pity that the experience which has been gained in the last three general elections should be lost in this way. The people I am speaking about are, generally, Conservative appointments, I know. They have proven themselves to be competent returning officers and they probably acted in the elections of 1962, 1963 and 1965. These are the people who are being replaced under this section of the act which allows the appointment of new returning officers to new electoral districts.
All this seems a pity, especially as we have virtually taken redistribution out of politics. We have appointed independent commissions to draw the boundaries of the new electoral districts. There is a provision whereby we can make protests in the House of Commons, but the system is virtually out of politics. It is too bad that this other aspect of politics still has to be present. Why do we not go all the way? Why not appoint competent people to these positions on a non-partisan basis? Or if we are not prepared to do that, why not at least retain the competent people we have, regardless of the manner of their original appointment?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) enumerate all the arguments advocated for the recent replacement of returning officers, I cannot see which one I could use, because the hon. member has put forward all those arguments which justified the replacement of certain returning officers.
The hon. member referred to length of experience and he says so in his question; why replace people who have a long experience?
Mr. Speaker, when we think of the numerous replacements which took place barely five years ago, in 1960, let us say six years ago, one may wonder how long an experience a returning officer could have acquired in so short a time. Experience is not the only yardstick of competence.
I would also like to add that the returning officers which have just been appointed are extremely competent. Needless to say, several returning officers who had been appointed in the previous ridings have been reinstated.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to an act which was passed on November 20, 1964: the Electoral Boundaries Readjusment Act. This act, gave us entirely new ridings. Consequently, reporting officers had to be appointed to assume this very important responsibility in the 264 new electoral districts-260 rather, since four remained unchanged, namely Roberval and Verdun in the province of Quebec, and Elgin and Niagara Falls in Ontario. All the others are new districts, since their boundaries have been modified. Therefore, returning officers had to be appointed for the next federal elections.
Mr. Speaker, the government have scrupulously abided by section 8 of the Canada Elections Act and section 27 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act when they made the changes which had become necessary, either because the returning officer had reached age 65 or because he did not reside in the new electoral district.



NATIONAL PARKS-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-LOCATION OF NEW PARKS

Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I hope my respected colleagues will pardon me if I delete some purple passages and omit some of my remarks because of the hour. I was delighted to read the report of an

11038	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion address delivered by Mr. Strong, one of the officials of the parks branch, in which he said:
In Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland a number of future national parks have been delineated and, with the continuing co-operation and support of the provincial governments, the most intensive national park development since 1930 may be centered in the Atlantic provinces.
I rejoiced in that. I think it indicates a recognition of a great need in our part of Canada. Of all places where the need is compelling and urgent, my own province of Prince Edward Island is in the forefront. The existing park in our province occupies an area of about six square miles. Last summer, in the months of July and August almost exclusively, it admitted 1,127,608 visitors. That is a great number of people for a small park and indeed for a small province. Last year's figures were nearly 17 per cent over those of 1965. I think that these hundreds of thousands of people would testify to the fact that they were very well looked after in our fine park and in all the establishments provided in the province to cater to the ever-growing number of tourists.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
It is not for me, and indeed it is not necessary for anyone, to speak about our attractive park site or our beautiful beaches, because boasting is not necessary. We do need more development and more facilities for the vastly increasing number of tourists which we can realistically predict for the future. A wise and prudent government looks toward the future.
Some time ago before a committee of the Senate the assistant deputy minister of the department of northern affairs and national resources, as it then was, indicated that the departmental officials charged with selecting park sites had chosen an area in the eastern end of Prince Edward Island, a most beautiful area and one I know well, although it is in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid). A survey was also made of the western end of the province and there too there are attractive sites and beautiful areas which could potentially be developed. Since I represent neither the east nor the west of Prince Edward Island but the middle, I cannot be accused of partiality. I can offer a solution, and that solution is the development of a park both in the east and in the west. This would be a sensible progression and a realistic appraisal of our needs.
I know the minister has vast responsibilities in his administration of parks. He has many problems other than those in the province of

DEBATES	December 12. 1966
Prince Edward Island, but there is no province where tourism is such an important industry. It is our most rapidly expanding and most expandable one. We have few industries in our province-agriculture, fishing and tourism. I am sure that the minister, heading the department which is charged with the responsibility of retaining that which is beautiful and that which is historical for the use of all Canadians and not merely a few, could do great things in Prince Edward Island by meeting not only our current needs but by projecting into the future and realizing that many people will be coming to the Atlantic provinces, especially Prince Edward Island. Great things could be done in co-operation with the provincial government, and I know the role of the provincial government in the establishment of parks. Many great things could be done by providing a balance of recreational areas with the fine established park in my constituency and in these other areas. I would be very much surprised if the government of Prince Edward Island would not give full co-operation to this development.
We all like to hear ministers' speeches, and I commend Mr. Strong for the fine speech he made the other day. I hope he has forecast the kind of program that is imaginative and helpful and future geared, and I commend the suggested course to the minister.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather happy that the hon. member kept me until eleven o'clock tonight because I now have the opportunity of dealing with one aspect of my department which is interesting, constructive and productive for the people of Canada.
The attendance in our parks from April 1 to November 30 this year was 10,470,000 persons, which is 14 per cent up from the year before. We are experiencing growing difficulties. We are spending about $27 million per year in our parks and we are only receiving from them in the way of revenue about $2,500,000. It is not expected that parks should pay, but there is a limit to the funds available and they have to be spread as wisely as possible.
I agree with the hon. member on the wisdom and necessity of expanding our parks along the shoreline of the Atlantic provinces as rapidly as we possibly can. There is an advantage in merely obtaining property in these areas even though we do not develop them immediately. We have vast coastlines on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, much of which
December 12, 1966	COMMONS
we are losing at the present time to individuals who are not citizens of Canada. It is imperative that we step in. We have funds for development but not for acquisition. I do not want, in this speech at least, to predict the necessity of altering our policy, but I may be doing that in the coming year.
The Atlantic parks are within two days driving for over 100 million people. This accounts for the fantastic rise in traffic in those parts. In the case of Cape Breton Highlands there has been an increase of 16.75 per cent, Prince Edward Island, 15.56 per cent, and Terra Nova, 65.21 per cent over the year before.
This is the problem we are presented with.
I appreciate the hon. member's raising this matter. We have been very active in this regard. In Newfoundland preliminary studies were carried out on our behalf on the west coast in 1965. In 1966 field studies were concentrated on the Bonne Bay area. Joint press and radio releases were made by myself and Mr. Keough, minister of mines, agriculture and resources of that province, in early July. No formal statement has yet been made, but we are hopeful of reaching agreement in respect of 800 square miles in that area, in which we may be doing very little actual development for several years to come.
With regard to Nova Scotia, the development of Kejimkujik in the central part of the province is well under way. In July, 1966, we examined the Nova Scotia coast from Canso to Yarmouth. A report is being prepared on an area with good potential. This area is in the vicin ty of Ship Harbour, 40 miles northeast of Halifax. The federal recommendation has not been passed along to the provincial gov-entitled "Park and Recreation Survey of the other than one stating that the coast from Canso to Yarmouth was being studied.
In regard to New Brunswick, a joint study of the coast from Tormentine to Campbellton was carried out in May, 1966. The reports, entitled "Park and Recreation Survey of the Atlantic Coastline of New Brunswick" and "Kouchibouguac Bay National Park-A rec-commendation" have been forwarded to the deputy minister of natural resources. That is what is going on in New Brunswick.
In Prince Edward Island a joint study was carried out in 1964. In July, 1966, I met with Premier Campbell regarding the East Point area. I had discussions with the previous government regarding this area. A press conference was held, but no formal announcement was made at that time.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I can tell the hon. member, and I know he will agree with me, that we have the beach but not enough space behind the beach in which to build campsites. Part of that park is 200 yards wide. We have to make preparations if we are going into East Point, and I hope we do some day, to secure property behind the shoreline to make use of the magnificent beach. This 10 miles is probably the finest beach on the North American continent.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, we are undertaking studies with the various authorities in the provinces in reference to these parks. They are coming along extremely well, and I would expect a development in the next several years for two or three, perhaps four, additional parks in the Atlantic area.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CORNWALLIS NAVAL BASE-ALLEGED INTIMIDATION FOLLOWING NEWS RELEASE

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the ranks of the Tuscan are getting thinned out, but some of us are still here. I welcome the presence of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux). I assure the hon. gentleman that had I known we were going to be kept for an extra hour tonight because of the shenanigans at six o'clock, I would have fought very hard to have both himself and myself home at a more reasonable hour.
The point I raise at this time had its origin, I gather, in a message dealing with the possibility of a tri-service basic training centre and the possible closure of the Cornwallis base in Nova Scotia. I do not know that I have ever seen the message, but from it flowed certain results involving a reporter named Mrs. Bonnie Purdy of CJCH television in Halifax. She was visited first by one and then two intelligence officers of the Royal Canadian Navy.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
I do not see any useful purpose in putting their names on record and therefore I will not do so. Obviously they were doing what they were told to do. The sequence of events was as follows. Mrs. Purdy was asked to reveal the source of her story, and this she refused to do. Second, she was again asked to reveal the source and was told that her answer would be treated as confidential but that the person or persons responsible for giving her the information would be transferred. Again she refused to reveal the source. Third, the naval gentlemen went to her station manager and also consulted members of the news room
11040	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion staff. Again Mrs. Purdy refused to reveal her source.
Indeed, knowing as I do most members of the Halifax press or the press anywhere, it is obvious that even if her manager had told her to reveal her source she would have refused to do so and would have preferred to be fired for disobeying the order rather than breach what news people consider to be the sacred code of confidentiality. Finally there was a suggestion by telephone, which Mrs. Purdy advises me she felt came from one of the naval gentlemen, that since she was concerned about the fine toothcomb type of investigation among naval personnel, if she revealed the name no innocents would be hurt and it would prevent needless suffering. The suggestion was that if she named her source the net would not close around a whole lot of innocent fish who otherwise would be trapped in it. Again Mrs. Purdy said no.
I think it might be of interest to take a quick look at the legal position. From the legal point of view the position of news reporters in keeping their sources privileged is a questionable one. Nevertheless this is the code of newsmen. Short of an order from a judge in court, the disobedience of which may be considered contempt of court, I do not see how anybody can legally require a person in Mrs. Purdy's position to reveal her source of information. I think the naval officer should have known this. There is a question here regarding the message. So much has been made of it that obviously it seems to me to be at variance with statements made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) or by senior civil servants with regard to whether Cornwallis will or will not be closed.
I suggest that there is no national security issue at stake here. However, there might be a very substantial economic issue and I think that Mrs. Purdy, in tackling the issue the way she did, was concerned about the economic effect on Nova Scotia of the closing of the Cornwallis base. I think that all hon. members representing the Atlantic provinces would regard the closing of that base as nothing short of an economic disaster for western Nova Scotia.
To give a slightly wry and ironic twist to this whole James Bond type of operation, I am informed that the message in question was inadvertently put on the bulletin board for a couple of hours where it could be seen not only by naval personnel but by civilian personnel at H.M.C. Dockyard. I do not know whether the Minister of National Defence or

DEBATES	December 12, 1966
the Associate Minister are aware of this development. When I was told of this fact the hope was expressed that I would not be treated as a national security risk by passing it along. I think the whole affair arose because of unrest, turmoil and a lack of certainty in the naval establishment in Halifax regarding the future of the Royal Canadian Navy. It is not really a tempest in a teacup; it has broader implications than that. I have said on other occasions in the house in dealing with national defence issues that we are living through a terrible period of uncertainty and nowhere does that uncertainty rest harder than in the area I serve.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) said, the Halifax radio and television station CJCH in a broadcast on November 18 disclosed information contained in a message that was classified "confidential" from training command headquarters to the fleet school, Halifax. The Atlantic special investigation detachment attached to maritime command was asked to investigate the release of confidential information. In the course of this investigation they interviewed some of the staff at the radio station to ascertain if they could provide information which would assist in the investigation. I am advised that no threats or any intimidation were employed but that those persons who were approached were advised that the information contained in the message was of a confidential nature.
I might add that the reason the message was classified confidential by training command was that it referred to tentative planning by that headquarters in respect of matters that had not yet been decided by Canadian forces headquarters. The disclosure of this information in the broadcast tended to indicate that decisions had been made which in fact had not been. A departmental representative who attended a meeting at Cornwallis on November 15 to hear representations from interested parties in the area in relation to the rumours that Cornwallis would be closed stated that no decision had been made with respect to its closure. He further stated that he had been authorized by the Minister of National Defence to say that, pending a final decision with respect to the future of the Canadian forces base Cornwallis, assurance could be given that it would not be closed before July 1, 1968. This is the position as of tonight.
December 12, 1966
We are, of course, concerned when confidential information of this nature is disclosed, for the obvious reason that it results in misunderstandings by the many people who have a direct interest in the subject. It is, therefore, our responsibility to ascertain, if it
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is possible, the departmental source from which this information was disclosed and that is wny an investigation is being conducted.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11:29 p.m.

11043

Tuesday, December 13, 1966