1966-07-04

Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in French and in English, copies of an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria relating to the settlement of financial matters, and copies of exchanges of notes between Canada and Bulgaria dealing with consular matters and with the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Labour agreed to table at the first opportunity the report of Judge Lippe who acted as mediator in the recent longshoremen's strike. In his unavoidable absence I should like to ask the permission of the house to table that report now in English and in French.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCASTING


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of now offering to table before the house a bilingual copy of broadcasting (radiodiffusion) 1966.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an immigration appeal board and to make provision for appeals thereto in respect of certain matters relating to immigration and to provide for the appointment, remuneration and expenses of the members of the board and the appointment of such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the conduct of the work of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Smallwood: 1.	Were alleged security or espionage offences committed by Victor G. Spencer, now of Vancouver and, if so, what were they and when did these alleged offences take place?
2.	What year did he come to Canada, and from what country?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1. A
royal commission under Mr. Justice Dalton Wells is conducting an inquiry into matters relating to the late Victor George Spencer. The report of the said commission may be expected to be available in the near future.
2. The late Victor George Spencer came to Canada from the United Kingdom in 1907.


WHARF CONSTRUCTION, ST. PETERS, N.S.
Mr. Maclnnis (Cape: Breton South):
In 1965 did the Minister of Public Works or any minister of the government make statements with respect to the construction of a new wharf at St. Peters, Nova Scotia, to facilitate the loading of pulpwood and, if so (a) where were such statements made and by which minister and under what authority (b) did the said minister make a statement with respect to the inclusion of an item in the 1966-67 estimates for this purpose and has

July 4, 1966
Questions
provision in the said estimates been made for such work (c) when will tenders be called for this project?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed as follows: Yes, (a) In Nova Scotia by Hon. Allan J. MacEachen with concurrence of the Minister of Public Works, Hon. George J. Mcllraith. (b) No. (c) No definite date has been secured.


FEDERAL CONTRACTS WITH LEOPOLD FOURNIER, OTTAWA
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Has the federal government ever granted a contract or contracts to Mr. Leopold Fournier, 46 Lome St., Ottawa?
2.	If so (a) how many contracts (b) on what dates (c) for what amounts?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the National Capital Commission as follows:
1.	Yes the National Capital Commission has granted contracts to Mr. Leopold Fournier of 46 Lome street Ottawa.
2.	(a) 27; (b) on the following dates: 1960, October 20. 1961, June 5; November 23. 1962, March 22; March 27; May 17; November 30. 1963, July 12; August 29; August 29; October
3. 1964, January 6; January 6; June 17; August 26; August 26; August 26; August 26; August 26; October 7; October 21; October 21; December 9; December 9. 1965, February 3; February 3; October 6.
2. (c) Under 18 contracts the National Capital Commission paid Mr. Leopold Fournier a total of $10,281. Under nine other contracts Mr. Fournier paid the commission a total of $237.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, VILLENEUVE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Among the projects that the Department of Public Works intended carrying out in 1964-65 in the constituency of Villeneuve (a) which ones were carried out and completed, and at what cost (b) which ones are in the process of being carried out, how long have they been in progress, and what is their estimated cost (c) which ones have been postponed, when will they begin, and what is their estimated cost (d) which ones have been abandoned?
2.	In the same constituency (a) what projects does the department intend to carry out in 1966-67 (b) when will each begin (c) what is the approximate (estimated) cost of each?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
Location
Cadillac
*Duparquet
*Evain
Malartic (Federal Building)
Noranda (Federal Building)
Noranda-Rouyn
Remigny (Lac Barriere) Riviere Solitaire Rouyn (Lac Osisko) Rouyn (Post Office) Rouyn (U.I.C.) Building)
Val d'Or (Lac Blouin) *Val d'Or Val d'Or (Federal Building)
Project
Post Office Building Post Office Building Revenue Post Office Building
Water softener
Interior painting
Tile bedrooms
Rezoning heating system
Window cleaning contract (Federal and U.I.C. buildings in Noranda and Rouyn Post Office)
Wharf repairs and launching ramp Dredging (river cleaning)
Wharf reconstruction Alterations to Second floor Exterior painting Renovation Taxation Office Rezoning heating system Interior painting Tourist wharf
R.C.M.P. Detachment Building
Interior painting New doors
Cost

Figures for each project include cost of construction, purchase of site (except the R.C.M.P. Building), surveys, lock boxes, advertising, etc.
fMr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South).]
July 4, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	7115
(b) Baie Carriere	Questions Wharf repairs and improvements.	
	In progress for one month.	2,811.00
Lac Caron (St. Roch)	Launching ramp and approach improvements.	
	In progress for six months.	2,274.00
(c) **Baie Carriere	Lighting system	
**Val d'Or (Federal Building)	To be put underway in July 1966. Acoustic ceiling	
Proposed for 1967-698. **It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before tenders are called.		
(d) ***Val d'Or	Rebuild retaining wall	
***It is not customary to reveal estimated costs.		
2. Location	(a)	(b)Baie Carriere	Lighting system	July 1966Cadillac (Lac Preissac)	Launching ramp	Aug. 1966Cadillac (Post Office)	Landscaping	July 1966Lac Duparquet	Wharf lights	Aug. 1966Lac Hebecourt	Launching ramp	Aug. 1966Lac Lemoyne	Launching ramp	Aug. 1966Malartic (Federal Building)	Rezoning heating system	Sept. 1966Relocate flag pole	July 1966Noranda (Federal Building)	Exterior painting	Aug. 1966New roof	July 1966New lino work area	Nov. 1966Remigny (Lac des Quinze)	Approach improvements	July 1966Rouyn (Federal Building)	Exterior lights	July 1966Stock room D.P.W.	Dec. 1966Exterior and interior painting	July 1966Rouyn (U.I.C. Building)	Relocate flag pole	July 1966Repair windows	Sept. 1966New incinerator	Oct. 1966Lighting Award	in progressRouyn-Noranda	Window cleaning contract Various intervals	Val d'Or (Federal Building)	Humidifier and vent. Boiler room	Aug. 1966New windows and frames 2nd floor	Sept. 1966Val d'Or (Lac Blouin)	Lighting system	July 1966
(c) It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before tenders are called.


PRESERVATION OF ARCTIC WILDLIFE
Mr. Johnston: Are any steps being taken to prevent extinction of various forms of Arctic wildlife, particularly the polar bear, as a result of unrestricted hunting made possible by modem development of snowmobiles and air transport and, if so. what are they?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. I am informed by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories as follows: Yes. Three important species of Arctic wildlife, muskoxen, caribou and polar bear, have been declared by the governor in council to be species in danger of extinction. The muskox has been protected from hunting by legislation since 1917. Only male caribou over one year of 23033-451
age may be hunted in the Northwest Territories east of the Mackenzie river, and caribou meat fit for human consumption must not be wasted. Female polar bears with cubs under one year of age are protected throughout the Northwest Territories except Banks island, Victoria island and the Mackenzie District. Under the Northwest Territories game ordinance and regulations no persons are permitted to hunt game from an aircraft or from a motor vehicle. Furthermore, only Indians, Eskimos and a very limited number of white trappers with historic rights are permitted to hunt and trap wildlife in most regions of the Northwest Territories. Further legislation to provide additional protection for polar bears and other Arctic wildlife is now under consideration.

July 4, 1966
Questions


EXPO '67-EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS
Mr. Sherman: Will any students at the university and high school level be employed at Expo '67 and, if so (a) how many (b) in what capacities is it intended that these students will be employed (c) from what regions of the country will these students be drawn (d) will preference be given to any particular students on the basis of region or language?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: (a) The corporation and other employers on the site of the exhibition will employ students at the university and high school levels providing these students meet the employment criteria established for the positions in which they wish to be employed. As there are no classes of employment specifically reserved for students and as the criteria to be met vary widely, it is difficult to determine the number of students that will be employed. However, it is presently estimated that the corporation will employ some 650 students and the concessionaires a further 2,300. In addition, it is estimated that some 300 students may be employed by the exhibitors in supporting type services.
(b)	Certain students may be employed in skilled capacities such as translators or interpreters. However, the vast majority will be employed in semi-skilled and unskilled capacities such as: entrance attendants, parking attendants, ushers, maintenance men, hostesses, guides, clerks, cleaners, information agents, protective agents, platform guards, typists, identification officers, gardeners, ride attendants, area representatives, ship attendants, messengers, waiters, restaurant help.
(c)	A program for the recruitment of a special category of personnel comprising 225 hostesses and 30 male guides, geographically representative of Canada as a whole, has been planned and is being implemented to greet visitors to the exhibition.
(d)	No preference will be given on the basis of regional origin insofar as this is feasible. The corporation will attempt to recruit students or other employees on a national basis. Ability to speak more than one language will be considered an asset in view of the international character of the exhibition.


INVESTIGATION RESPECTING C.N.R. WORK FORCE, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Has the Canadian National Railways commissioned anyone to investigate the sociological, psychological 
and economic issues involved in reference to the 800 to 900 person Canadian National Railway work force at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, as stated by Professor Roy E. George, to the Canadian Industrial Relations Institute at Toronto recently and, if so (a) who has been commissioned (b) what time will be entailed in the carrying out of such study and how soon will a report be available and to whom will the commission report (c) as a result of any aforementioned study, will jobs be provided for the unemployed workers?


Jean Marchand: The Canadian National Railways has signed an agreement with the International Longshoremen's Association and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the carrying out of a complete investigation into various issues involved in the reduction of the longshore work force at North Sydney which is anticipated to take place during the next three years, (a) The studies are being carried out by a joint union-management committee with Professor Roy E. George as research director, (b) It is anticipated that the studies will be continuous until the completion of the change-over to the new ferry service. Informal confidential reports of the studies are being made from time to time to the Canadian National Railways, to the union, and to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and action is already underway to implement some of the conclusions of the earlier part of the studies, particularly in the area of retraining for other work, (c) It is confidently expected that the various measures developed out of these studies will result in satisfactory re-employment for the individuals displaced.


EXPO '67-ADVERTISING OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Allmand: 1.	Has there been an advertising program for Expo '67 in countries other than Canada?
2.	If so (a) in what countries has this advertising program taken place (b) what has been the nature of this advertising program?
3.	Do the directors of Expo '67 intend to advertise in an intensive way and, if so, when?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Yes.
2. This advertising program has taken place in the following countries: (a and b) (i) General advertising telling the over-all story of Expo '67 has appeared to date in 1966 in major circulation magazines in the U.S.A., Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Australia, Japan, South America, India, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, (ii) Advertising
July 4, 1986

dealing with the promotion of the business development bureau of Expo '67 has appeared to date in special editions of major newspapers in the U.S.A., England, France, Israel and Italy, (iii) Advertising of the advance passport of admission sales program has appeared in trade publications to help recruit distributors in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Denmark. (N.B.: the program of advertising to recruit distributors in the United States is being carried on behalf of Expo '67 by American Express Co. Ltd.). Advertising to promote the advance admission sales program to the general public has appeared to date in 1966 as follows:
In the U.S.A. in major circulation magazines.
In co-operation with the American Express Company who paid 50 per cent of the cost in Life Magazine issue of May 20, a full page advertisement in colour. In addition, in 12 regions covering the northeastern area of the United States, from Washington north and Chicago east, an eight page full colour booklet was inserted into the magazine besides the full page advertisement. In most magazines published in Great Britain, Switzerland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Arabia, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Greece, the Middle East, and many countries in Africa and South America.
3.	The advertising program approved by the corporation's board of directors for the year 1966 includes extensive advertising of Expo '67 in the U.S.A. and in special supplements and editions in magazines and newspapers throughout the world. In the U.S.A., advertising will appear in newspapers, magazines, radio and television. It is estimated that 57 per cent of Expo '67 visitors will come from the U.S.A. An advertising program is now being finalized for 1967 and will include extensive advertising of Expo '67 until the mid-summer of 1967 throughout Canada and the U.S.A. Advertising abroad is now being planned on behalf of Expo '67 by the Canadian government centennial commission, by the Canadian travel bureau, the tourist bureaus of the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, etc., and by Canadian businesses such as Air Canada, Canadian General Electric, International Nickel Company, etc., and by American and other firms such as American Express, Moore McCormack Lines, B.O.A.C., Air France, etc. Extensive coverage is also received in press radio and TV all over the world through information services.
Questions


INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What was the total amount paid in interest on the Canadian federal debt in (a) 1964-65 (b) 196566?
2.	What portion of this amount was paid directly to individual Canadian citizens?
3.	What portion of this amount was paid to the Bank of Canada for bonds and treasury bills held by the Bank of Canada?
4.	What portion of this amount was paid to (a) financial institutions of Canada, including the Bank of Canada (b) all other Canadian corporations (c) corporations outside Canada (d) financial institutions outside Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The interest paid on government of Canada debt including treasury bills was $802.6 million in the fiscal year 1964-65 and $832.0 million in 1965-66.
2 and 4. A substantial part of government of Canada debt is in the form of bearer securities rather than being registered in the name of the owners and for this reason it is not possible to compute the total amount of interest paid to different categories of investor. The following estimated distribution of the outstanding amount of government of Canada direct and guaranteed debt, however, will give a rough indication of the distribution of interest payments.
Estimated holdings of government of Canada direct and guaranteed debt (par values, millions of dollars)
As at December 31
1963	1964	1965Total : Of which: Canadian financial institutions:	20,276	20,733	20,681Bank of Canada	3,091	3,115	3,472Chartered banks	3,933	3,705	3,723Other	1,928	1,861	n.a.Other Canadian	8,952	8,681	n.a.corporations Individuals-Canada	605	535	n.a.savings bonds only	5,133	5,613	5,866Non-residents	1,073	1,073	1,085
3. The amounts paid to the Bank of Canada were $118.5 million in 1964-65 and $132.4 million in 1965-66.

July 4, 1966
Questions


FAMILIES LIVING IN THREE ROOMS OR LESS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of the total Canadian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
2.	Of the total Indian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Northern Affairs and National Resources as follows:
1.	The 1961 census provides the following information: Total number of households in Canada, 4,554,493; households with 3 rooms or less, 628,376.
2.	14,839 families, according to a survey conducted by the Indian affairs branch in March, 1965.


FAMILIES LIVING IN HOMES WITH FACILITIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of the total Canadian population, how many live in homes which are provided with (a) electricity (b) sewer service or septic tanks (c) running water (d) indoor baths?
2.	Of the total Indian population, how many live in homes which are provided with (a) electricity (b) sewer service or septic tanks (c) running water (d) indoor baths?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Northern Affairs and National Resources as follows:
1.	The 1961 census provides the following information:
Total number of households in Canada, 4,554,493; Households with (a) Electricity, I/; (b) municipal sewer or septic tanks, 3,850,879; (c) running water, 4,058,313; (d) installed bath or shower, 3,659,520.
1/ Not available from 1961 census.
(a) In 1963, it was estimated that 4,608,000 households out of a total of 4,671,000 households (excluding the Yukon and Northwest Territories; households of Indians living on reserves; collective type households; and households living in non-permanent dwellings) had electricity.
2.	Houses having facilities according to a survey conducted by the Indian affairs branch -March 1965:
(a) Electricity, 12,773; (b) sewer service or septic tanks, 2,676; (c) running water, 4,112; (d) indoor baths, 2,048.
(Mr. Sharp.]
The number of persons living in these houses was not tabulated. However, taking the average size family as six persons, the number of persons in each category is estimated as follows:
(a) electricity, 76,638; (b) sewer service or septic tanks, 16,056;	(c) running water,
24,672; (d) indoor baths, 12,288.
The new $112,000,000 physical community development program announced in the House on March 17, 1966 will provide for more than
12,000	new homes and extension of electricity, sanitation, sewer service and other facilities so as to raise the housing conditions on reserves to approximate average Canadian standards over the next five years.


CATTLE QUARANTINE SERVICE
Mr. Ormision: 1.	What is the cost of maintaining quarantine operations where Charolais cattle are kept on entry into Canada?
2.	What was the number of Charolais cattle passing through quarantine in the years 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 to the present date?
3.	What charge, if any, is made against the private owner of cattle for quarantine services?
4.	What other types of animals have been quarantined during the above-mentioned period and what are the numbers in each case?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The department provides the quarantine facilities. All costs for transportation, care, and feed are borne by the importer.
2.	Import records are not maintained on a breed basis. However, it is known that 109 head of Charolais cattle entered Canada through Grosse lie in 1965/66.
3.	No charges have been made for quarantine services. For the forthcoming year cattle entering through the maximum quarantine station at Grosse lie will be assessed $5 per head per day for a maximum of 90 days and importers will be required to pay costs of all special tests.
4.	The following animals underwent quarantine for importation into Canada:
Cattle	Sheep	Swine1962/63	527	49	41963/64	336	7	381964/65	147	151965/66	198	8	4
July 4, 1966


EXPO '67-DUPLICATION OF MAILED PUBLICITY
Mr. Mather: Have complaints been received by the Expo administration as to the duplication of publicity mailings?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Several such complaints have been received and in all such instances immediate steps have been taken to correct the mailing lists.


USE OF CANADIAN MAILS TO DEFRAUD
Mr. Aiken: 1.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the Postmaster General to control the use of Canadian postal services by Canadian or American citizens operating mail order businesses in Canada and advertising in the United States?
2.	Has the Postmaster General or have any of his officials been approached by United States postal authorities with a view to co-ordinating the control activities of the United States and Canadian postal services?
3.	Has the Postmaster General of the United States or any official on his behalf communicated with the Postmaster General of Canada or any of his officials with regard to prohibiting the use of the mails in the area of Canadian-based mail order operations fraudulently soliciting money from United States citizens.
4.	Have there been any successful prosecutions anywhere in Canada under section 306 of the Criminal Code of Canada which is designed to prevent the publication of faise advertisements?
5.	Has the Postmaster General made any representations to the Minister of Justice with a view to amending the Criminal Code to accomplish the purposes outlined in section 306?
6.	Is the Postmaster General in the process of preparing amendments to section 7 of the Post Office Act to enable him to effectively control the use of the Canadian mails for unlawful purposes?
7.	During the past three years have any "foreign fraud orders" under section 4005 of title 39 United States code, been brought to the attention of the Postmaster General by the Postmaster General of the United States and, if so, how many?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. When evidence is received or complaints made that the Canadian mails are being used for illegal purposes, investigation is instituted by the Post Office Department with a view to determining whether the circumstances justify the issuance of an interim prohibitory order under the provisions of section 7 of the Post Office Act.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	None, in so far as the Canada Post Office is concerned.
Questions
5.	No.
6.	No. The present provisions of section 7 of the Post Office Act are considered satisfactory for control purposes.
7.	As a result of regularly receiving copies of the United States Weekly Postal Bulletin, the Canada Post Office Department was made aware of the fact that during the period June, 1963 to May, 1966 inclusive, 31 fraud orders were issued by the United States postal administration against persons or firms residing in Canada.


U.S. MAIL FOREIGN FRAUD ORDERS
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Did the Postmaster General of the United States or any official on his behalf advise the Postmaster General of Canada or any of his officials that the following foreign fraud orders were issued against the following individuals and/or companies for "conducting a scheme for obtaining money through the mails by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises in violation of section 4005 of title 39, United States code" and, if so, on what dates (a) foreign fraud order No. 65178, dated October 14, 1965, against Export Warehouse; Alberta Seed Company; Specific; Arthur Darrell Huckerby, manager; A, D. Huckerby, and their agents as such, at Calgary, Alberta, Canada; against whose principals foreign fraud order No. 62-137 was issued May 23, 1962, under the names Mushroom Salt Co., and Dehydrated Products and Chemicals at Calgary, Alberta, Canada (b) foreign fraud order No. 65-182, dated November 2, 1965, directed against O.S.C.A., director, O.S.C.A. and Ontario Sporting Club Alliance at Toronto, Ontario, Canada; listed as a subsidiary of The Great Northern Pulp Group Ltd., Hugh J. Bruce, president-directors John Heaven, Terence Howes and Barbara Heaven (c) foreign fraud order No. 65-185, dated November 8, 1965, directed against Bestyet Books, 189 Henry avenue No. 3, Winnipeg 2, Canada; principal or principals unknown (d) foreign fraud order No. 65-197, dated December 23, 1965, directed against Mr. Gerald Buell, 624 Lome street, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Canada (e) foreign fraud order No. 66-44, dated January 21, 1966, directed against John Able, 207J Fort street, Apt. 21, Winnipeg 1, Canada; principal or principals unknown (f) foreign fraud order No. 66-60, dated February 24, 1966, directed against L. Pereira, 3 Golfdown Drive, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada (g) foreign fraud order No. 66-67, dated March 11, 1966, directed against Newton Vale-Studio N.R., 160 Bay St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada; against whose principal foreign fraud orders No. 61-122 (May 8, 1961), No. 62-14 (March 23, 1962), No. 63-42 (March 26, 1963), and No. 64-255 (November 3, 1965) were issued?
2.	In each of the above cases, did the Postmaster General initiate any action under section 7 of the Post Office Act which provides for the issuance of interim or final prohibitory orders denying the use of Canadian postal services to persons who are using the mails for unlawful purposes?
3.	Was an investigation undertaken in each case?
4.	If so, what were the results of these investigations?

July 4, 1966
Questions
5.	Was either an interim or final prohibitory order issued in any of the above eases?
6.	If so, on what dates?
7.	Were the principals and/or the companies named in the above foreign fraud orders enjoying free and unencumbered use of the Canadian mails on June 1, 1966?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. As a result of the regular receipt of copies of the United States Weekly Postal Bulletin, the Canada post office was made aware on the dates shown below of the issuance of the fraud orders mentioned, (a) October 21, 1965, (b) November 11, 1965; (c) November 18, 1965; (d) December 30, 1965; (e) January 27, 1966; (f) March 3, 1966; (g) March 17, 1966.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	Evidence or information received was not considered sufficient in any of the above cases to justify action being taken under the provisions of section 7 of the Post Office Act.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to No. 5.
7.	Yes.


POSTMASTER CLASSIFICATIONS AND SALARIES, KENT COUNTY, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
2.	(a) Grande Pointe, not established until 17-6-64; (b) Bear Line, $1,885. per annum; (c) Dover Centre, $1,350. per annum.
3.	(a) Grande Pointe, once from Group 6 to 7 effective 1-6-65. Increase in work load; (b) Bear Line, once from Group 12 to 9 effective 1-9-64. Decrease in work load; no change in salary; (c) Dover Centre, once from Group 8 to 12 effective 1-10-64. Increase in work load.
4.	(a) Grande Pointe, $1,080. to $1,170. ($90.) effective 1-10-64; $1,170. to $1,315. ($145.) effective 1-6-65; $1,315. to $1,360. ($45.) effective 1-8-65; (b) Bear Line, No change, (c) Dover Centre, $1,350. to $1,885. ($535.) effective 1-10-64; $1,885. to $2,035. ($150.) effective 1-10-64; $2,035. to $2,115. ($80.) effective 1-8-65.
5.	Yes, the classification of these offices was determined as a result of work load surveys which gives the postmaster credit for each function performed.
6.	Yes. (b) The number of newspapers handled, as well as other duties performed by the postmaster, are contributing factors to the eventual classification arrived at.
7.	Yes.

Mr. Danforth: 1.	What are the present work classifications and rates of pay of postmasters at the following post offices in Kent county, Ontario (a) Grande Pointe (b) Bear Line (c) Dover Centre?
2.	What was the rate of pay to each postmaster in 1963?
3.	How often have each of these positions been reclassified since 1963 and what were the reasons?
4.	Have there been any pay increases to any of these postmasters since 1963 and, if so, what was the date of increase and the amount of each?
5.	Has the work classification in these three post offices been carried out on a total weight basis and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Are newspapers, daily or weekly, included in the work classification, and (a) if not, for what reasons (b) if so, will they affect the present classification?
7.	Has the work classification in each of these three offices been carried out on exactly the same basis and, if not, what are the differences, in detail?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. The present classification of the offices concerned is determined by a work load survey as follows:
Salary
Class per annum
(a)	Grande Pointe
(b)	Bear Line
(c)	Dover Centre
Group	7	$1,360.Group	9	$1,885.Group	12	$2,115.


Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	Is the Grosse He quarantine station prepared to receive shipments of cattle from abroad at the present time?
2.	Are new arrivals expected and, if so, when?


John James Greene: 1. The maximum security quarantine station a Grosse He is being prepared to receive importations of cattle from France.
2. Providing the disease situation in France continues to remain favourable, the next shipment is expected to arrive at the Grosse He quarantine station early in October, 1966.


CHARTER OF JAPANESE TRAWLER FOR WHALING SURVEY
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries, or any other department or agency of the federal government, recently charter the Japanese trawler Kyo Maru to conduct a survey of the whaling fishery in the North Atlantic and, if so, what are the terms of the charter?
2.	Were tenders called for the above-mentioned charter, and (a) if so, how many responses were there, and by whom (b) if not, what was the reason?
July 4, 1966


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes. To carry out exploratory work and demonstration of modern whale catching techniques and methods. The owners are to receive $12,000 for a period of six months, and are permitted to retain and dispose of, at a Canadian port or ports, all whales caught. The agreement provides that the vessel will be operated under the general direction and control of a designated representative of the minister.
2. No. A vessel of the type required was unavailable in Canada.


SHARES AND DEPOSITS, CAISSES POPULAIRES AND CREDIT UNIONS
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What were the total amounts of registered shares and deposits in the caisses populaires and credit unions in 1965?
2.	Has this detail been omitted from the list of "financial assets held by the public", as shown in the annual report of the Bank of Canada for 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. This information is not yet available for 1965 and there is at present no reliable basis for forecasting it. At the end of 1964 the total amount of caisses populaires and credit union shares was $853 million and the amount of deposits was $1,128 million, making a total of $1,983 million.
2. I am informed that an estimate of $1,900 million for 1964 was included in the table entitled "General Public Holdings of Certain Financial Assets'' in the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada for 1964, and because of the difficulty of making a reliable forecast, this category of financial assets was not included in the comparable table in the 1965 report.


PARKING TICKETS, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many parking tickets were issued on Parliament Hill during 1965?
2.	How many of these tickets were taken back by the R.C.M.P. following explanations given by the alleged offenders?
3.	What was the total revenue from these tickets?
4.	Who received the revenue from these tickets?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. 2,753.
2.	None.
3.	$2,871.
4.	The city of Ottawa.
Questions


COMMUNITY PASTURES AND RESERVOIRS
Mr. Godin: 1.	Under the PFRA, how many acres of land have been used as community pastures in (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta (d) Quebec?
2.	Under the same plan, how many reservoirs or dams for irrigation or watering of livestock received subsidies of $300 to $600 in the provinces of (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta (d) Quebec?


John James Greene: The provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act are applicable only in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
1.	(a) Manitoba, 391,124 acres; (b) Saskatch-chewan, 1,782,073 acres; (c) Alberta, 145,280 acres; (d) Quebec, See note above.
2.	(a) Manitoba, 17,268; (b) Saskatchewan, 59,691; (c) Alberta, 18,988; (d) Quebec, See note above.


RESEARCH GRANTS, QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL STAFF, MONTREAL
Mr. Allard: 1.	Were any members of the medical staff at the Queen Mary veterans' hospital in Montreal granted research funds by the Defence Research Board and the medical research council in 19641965 and, if so, who were they?
2.	For each of the members of this medical staff, what was in 1965, the amount of funds granted for research?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


COMPENSATION TO QUEBEC UNDER STUDENT LOANS ACT
Mr. Dionne: 1.	In what form and in what amount has fiscal compensation been made to the province of Quebec following the adoption of the Canada Student Loans Act?
2.	How many students in each province of the country have received loans under this act?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Section 12 of the Canada Student Loans Act provides for alternative payments to a province in respect of a loan year (payable within six months after the end of that loan year) where that province advised the Minister of Finance that it would operate its own student loans plan and that it would not participate in the Canada student loans plan during that loan year. The amount of the payment to a non-participating province is to be

July 4, 19G6
Questions
that proportion of the total actual payments to lenders during that loan year (net after recoveries) which the non-participating province's population in the 18-24 year age group bears to that of the participating provinces. Payment to Quebec under this section of the act in the amount of $74,262 was made in the fall of 1965 in respect of the first loan year of the plan which ended June 30, 1965.
2. A total of 42,113 students received certificates of eligibility authorizing student loans in the first loan year ended June 30, 1965 as follows: Newfoundland, 737; Prince Edward Island, 437; Nova Scotia, 2,513; New Brunswick, 2,027; Ontario, 21,920; Manitoba, 2,272; Saskatchewan, 2,992; Alberta, 4,519; British Columbia, 4,675; Yukon, 12; Northwest Territories, 9; Total: 42,113.
A total of 50,419 students received certificates of eligibility authorizing student loans in the first nine months of the second loan year as follows: Newfoundland, 1,314; Prince Edward Island, 613; Nova Scotia, 3,767; New Brunswick, 2,988; Ontario, 20,022; Manitoba, 3,431; Saskatchewan, 4,830; Alberta, 6,333; British Columbia, 7,090; Yukon, 23; Northwest Territories, 8; Total: 50,419.


FISHING VESSEL CREWS, ATLANTIC COAST
Mr. Howard: 1.	How many fishing vessels operating out of Canadian ports in (a) Nova Scotia (b) New Brunswick (c) Newfoundland, are manned by crews which contain other than Canadian citizens?
2.	How many of the said vessels were subsidized in any way from the federal treasury?
3.	Is there any intention on the part of the government to extend to other provinces the provision of the British Columbia fishery regulations to the effect that a licence may be granted only to a company incorporated under the laws of Canada or to a person who is a Canadian citizen or who has served in the Canadian armed forces and, if so, when will such an extension take place?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Not available.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	At the present no consideration is being given to this matter.


EXPERIMENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1. As of June 21, 1966, how many houses have been bought by enfranchised Indians and Metis in Northern Saskatchewan under the experimental housing program?

2.	What are the localities in which the houses are situated?
3.	How many houses are in each of these localities?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. Of 36 houses approved as of June 21, 1966 under the experimental housing program in northern Saskatchewan, 35 houses were bought by enfranchised Indians and metis. The sale of the remaining house did not proceed and was withdrawn from the program.
2.	Seven houses are located in Air Ronge, two in La Ronge, ten in Buffalo Narrows, ten in lle-a-la-Crosse, three in Beauval and three in Cumberland House.
3.	See answer to 2 above.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are any Indian reservations in Canada policed by special R.C.M.P. constables of Indian origin and, if so, which ones?
2.	Is any other method of policing used and. if so (a) what is that method (b) how many reservations are involved?
Return tabled.


PURCHASES BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What amount of purchasing is made annually by (a) C.N.R. (b) Air Canada (c) Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (d) C.B.C. (e) Polymer Corporation Ltd. (f) Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd.?
2.	What proportion of this sum represents the purchase of (a) Canadian products (b) foreign products, for each of these companies?
3.	Do the aforesaid crown corporations give preference to a company whose major business is carried out in Canada even though its bid is not the lowest and, if so, by virtue of what authority?
Return tabled.


WINTER WORKS STATISTICS
Mr. Allard: 1.	What was the value of the winter works programs carried out in each province in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966?
2.	What is the value of the winter works programs carried out in each municipality in the province of Quebec in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966?
3.	With regard to the population of each province, what percentage of federal expenditure is incurred for winter works?
Return tabled.
July 4, 1966	COMMONS



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I
asked the Prime Minister whether the government would look favourably on the request that some day this week we be given an opportunity in this house to discuss the Viet Nam situation. While there has been no answer in that regard as yet and no opportunity to debate this matter, there are a number of questions that I should like to place before the Prime Minister at this time.
Over the week end or within the last few days the President of the United States said in Omaha that one should count ten before dissenting from United States policy in Viet Nam. I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the expansion of bombing that has quite fearful, dark and ominous dimensions and the possibility of a world war, whether the government of Canada has directly endeavoured to exert its moral influence upon the United States to exercise a degree of restraint in expanding the bombing operations; and whether any steps have been taken in the last few days that would indicate that the North Vietnamese are prepared in any way to allow for the convening of a conference so that this ever increasing and frightening threat to world peace might have some hope of being removed.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first half of my right hon. friend's question, the possibility of a discussion of this matter in the house before any recess is being considered by myself and my colleagues. One possible way of arranging for a debate would be when interim supply is requested; but we will be discussing this matter tomorrow morning at a cabinet meeting.
So far as other questions are concerned, our position on the matter of the bombing of North Viet Nam has been made clear to the United States government recently, indeed over the week end. I said in the house that we regretted the extension of the bombing, and that remains our position. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think no government has pressed harder for an end to hostilities in Viet Nam by negotiation than this government, and we will perhaps continue so to press.
DEBATES	7123
Inquiries of the Ministry
Perhaps I may be permitted, because of the seriousness of the question, to repeat what I said publicly on May 1:
There seems to me to be one overriding consideration here; not who is responsible for what, but how can the fighting and the slaughter and the suffering be ended and the people of that distressed land be allowed to live their lives in peace and freedom in a political society of their own choice without outside interference in making that choice, and outside pressures after the choice has been made.
I then went on to say, and this remains my view:
The first concrete step in this direction would be a cease fire, or a more formal armistice agreement, put into effect as part of a wider pattern of peace negotiations without prior conditions.
Once the cease fire was in effect and as negotiations progressed, equivalent and phased withdrawals from South Viet Nam by North Viet Nam and by the forces of other governments could take place under international supervision.
I can only reiterate, Mr. Speaker, the hope that a cease fire can be arranged which would bring an end not only to bombing from the air but also to shooting on the ground, and that negotiations can begin. I sincerely hope that with negotiations under way the process of phased withdrawal on both sides could begin.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has there been any reaction to the visitation by Mr. Chester Ronning which would indicate that the North Vietnamese have any feeling or attitude of mind that might lead the right hon. gentleman to believe there is any hope at the moment of a conference being convened?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is impossible to be optimistic at the moment in regard to an early convening of any such conference. However, while it is impossible to be optimistic, it would be most regrettable if we ceased in any way to work for such a conference. That remains our policy.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread concern that has been expressed by prominent world figures such as Senator Robert Kennedy, does the Prime Minister not consider that the United States would be more fully seized of the gravity of the situation if the Canadian government formally expressed disapproval of the escalation of the war by the bombing of the Hanoi and Haiphong areas?
July 4. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: This government, with the support of the house I am sure, is engaged in a continuing process of trying to bring about negotiations. Because of our position on the international truce commission, and because we have been able to enlist the services of a very experienced negotiator in these matters, and in the midst of an effort to bring about negotiations, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it would be desirable for me to comment any more than is required on the policies of either side in this dispute. We have already indicated our regret at the extension of the bombing, and I prefer to leave it at that at this moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether Canada is endeavouring to have its two colleagues on the international control commission, India and Poland, join with us in another attempt to reconvene the Geneva accord powers in the hope that this could be the beginning of a basis for negotiations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything we can to secure an appropriate role for the commission in this regard, and that requires continuous consultation with the other members of the commission.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question on the same subject, but addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister undertake to give to the House of Commons, at the opening of the debate on external affairs if we have one, a military appreciation of the situation in Viet Nam so that full information will be available to all hon. members with regard to the nature of the war, its extent and the prospects at the present time?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I would find some difficulty in doing that, in view of the fact that much of the information we have in respect of the war is from sources outside of Canada, from the United States in particular. If my hon. friend would really like to have an appreciation of the situation there it might be that we could arrange a private meeting at which information could be given. Since most of the information is classified and comes from sources outside the country, it would be difficult for me to give an appreciation which would be really usable without compromising the information received from other sources.
fTranslation]


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell the house whether the Quebec government's decision to float a $50 million bond issue on the United States market will result in the cancellation of the recent decision of the federal Minister of Finance to redeem Canadian bonds held on the United States market?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I tried to rise at the end of the written question period, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch your eye. I should like to ask the government house leader if he will use his good offices to secure answers to questions currently on the order paper. There are some 37 pages of them, less the 28 that were answered today, numbering down to 894 and dating back to March 1.


George James McIlraith: I would be very glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that President de Gaulle has ordered all foreign military installations out of France by April 1, 1967, will the minister indicate the approximate date on which our forces will be moved from Marville and Metz, and the new bases to which they will be assigned?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This matter has been given serious consideration by the government. I expect we will be in a position to make an announcement shortly. I think perhaps it would be

July 4, 1966

better to wait until the details have been determined rather than give a statement to the house at this time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. I know he realizes that the maintenance of our aircraft is a highly sophisticated business, and it could well be that the ground crews would be thinking more of moving their wives and furniture than of maintaining the aircraft flown by our pilots. This could lead to serious problems. I ask the minister if he would recognize the urgency of this matter and reach a decision as soon as possible.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is precisely one of the problems; I am determined to make every effort to assure that whatever moves are made will be made during the summer period so they will not disrupt the schooling of the children. This is one of the technicalities that is being worked out. As soon as it can be done I will inform the house. I should like to try, if we can, to inform the people concerned simultaneously or approximately at the same time as the information is made public.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence arising out of the answer he gave to me some moments ago. When our forces are moved from Metz and Marville, is it the government's intention to maintain our eight squadrons of Starfighters in Europe in a nuclear strike role?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a question of general policy, and I doubt whether it should be asked at this time.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport prompted by a radio newscast over the week end to the effect that the operation of the airport at Sydney will be placed on a part time basis, namely, closing each night at midnight. May I ask the minister if he, as the minister concerned, is in a position to confirm or deny these reports?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: No, sir.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he would interest himself to the extent of inquiring about what may be the future for the operation of the airport, and report to the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be delighted to do
so.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the regulations recommended in the white paper on broadcasting just tabled, would the hon. lady say what effect they will have on C.A.T.V. systems, where they have a number of United States channels and a number of Canadian channels. Will these regulations in any way affect the viewing of the United States channels?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts whether this question can be asked at this time. This is a matter of a very general character, and I suggest to the hon. member that it cannot be asked now.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she intends to refer the white paper to the committee on broadcasting.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do intend to do that, I would hope in the fall. If there is no summer adjournment, of course, then there is no reason why it should not be referred almost immediately.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A supplementary question. May I ask the Secretary of State whether it is the intention to introduce during this session-I do not mean prior to adjournment but at this session of parliament-legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the government which are contained in the white paper, so that the white paper and a proposed bill would be before the committee? Will that be done at this session?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I would not think they would be referred together; but whether a bill is introduced during 1966 would certainly depend on the progress made by the committee with the white paper in the fall.
July 4. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



FRANCE-REPRESENTATIONS BY CANADA FOLLOWING BOMB TEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us whether the Canadian government, as a Pacific power and as one having a special relationship with France, has made any representation to the government of France protesting the recent bomb test in the south Pacific?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the government of Canada made known its view that all countries with a nuclear capacity should be encouraged to adhere to the partial nuclear test ban treaty. This includes, of course, the government of France as well as the government of mainland China. Neither country has adhered to the treaty, and there is no indication of any intention by either government at the present time to do so. It would be the sincere wish of Canada that they both would.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that other Pacific nations like Chile, Ecuador and New Zealand have already registered protests over this A-bomb test, have we registered an immediate protest over the test of the past week end?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, before the recent test by the government of France took place we had expressed our desire and our strong view that all countries with a nuclear capacity should adhere to the partial nuclear test ban treaty.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the house whether he has received the report on tolls from the St. Lawrence seaway authority and, if so, would he make the report public?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, late in the

afternoon, I received the report required by law from the St. Lawrence seaway authority as to the sufficiency of tolls and the proposed changes related to the authority's financial requirements. The authority, I very much regret to say, has not been able to negotiate a joint report with the United States Development Corporation. I feel that the report should not be made public pending the outcome of possible further negotiations with the United States government, because, I think all hon. members would agree that it would be desirable, if possible, to secure such an agreement.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question on the St. Lawrence seaway.
Does the Minister of Transport intend to ask the St. Lawrence seaway administration to facilitate passage of pleasure craft through the locks of the St. Lawrence seaway?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have to consider that question very carefully, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him whether the consensus of this report could be made available to the transport committee which could consider it in camera.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is something that I would have to think about quite a lot. I think all hon. members would agree that if negotiations are to have any chance of succeeding there must be an opportunity for the parties to consider, without any outside pressures, the position they ought to take. However, I will consider the matter very carefully.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS OF CANADIAN RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norlh):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if the productivity analysis with respect to Canadian railways was undertaken by Professor John Kendrick for the Department of Transport. If so, would the minister make the report public?
July 4, 1966	COMMONS


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think, sir, there is anything that can properly be called a report on this subject. The gentleman in question, who is an expert, was retained by my department to give some advice on this subject in relation to a matter that was under discussion between the government and the two main Canadian railways. Much of the information or the opinion given by the gentleman was oral. It was given for the guidance of the government in a negotiation with the railways that is not completed. I cannot think that it would serve any good purpose to attempt to give any kind of summary of that matter at this time.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister whether he is aware that the alleged contents of this report were used by the Canadian National before the conciliation board headed by Mr. Justice Cameron.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had no knowledge of any such thing until such an allegation was made to one of the officers in my department by the hon. gentleman.


David Orlikow: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister whether the material in question could be made available to the union so it could answer the arguments presented-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That part of the question is hypothetical.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. Will the minister table in the house the 26 page report which was drafted following a two-day meeting of officials from across the country in regard to car design and safety measures? The report is marked "Restricted and not for publication", but is referred to and reported in detail in the Oakville Journal Record of Thursday, June 30.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to that request.
DEBATES	7127
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Has the minister read the article in the farm paper La Terre de chez nous of June 29, 1966 entitled "Ottawa Dairy Policy Inadequate" and can he tell the house what he intends to do to give justice to dairy farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question put by the hon. member is out of order. He asks whether the minister has read an article and I do not believe that, put in that way, it can be accepted.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he is now convinced that his dairy policy is not in line with the requirements of dairy farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is now argumentative.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in order that my question may be in order?
Has the minister received representations from the Quebec Catholic Farmers Union to the effect that the Ottawa agricultural policy is inadequate?


John James Greene: I do not recall any, Mr. Speaker, but I shall take the question as notice.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO TWO PRICE SYSTEM On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister tell us when the government will be in a position to announce any policy regarding the two price system for wheat.


John James Greene: If government policy is made in this regard it will be announced in the normal manner.
July 4, 1966-

Inquiries of the Ministry
NATIONAL DEFENCE	RESEARCH



INQUIRY AS TO RETIREMENT OF SENIOR OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Did any of the three officers replaced at the top level of his department, as announced this morning, retire voluntarily?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question should be asked at this time. It should be put on the order paper.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house whether Dr. Barber, the commissioner who will investigate prices of farm machinery, has yet started his work? If so, has the government anything to report on this matter?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Barber has commenced his work but I have nothing to report with respect to any findings at this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is the minister aware of the wage demands of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians made on January 1 of this year, and that the C.B.C. management as yet has made no offer to the union? Can the minister look into this and see that some offer is forthcoming in the near future?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, as I understand my role, it is not to interfere with management.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SPACE RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the remarks made over the week end by Dr. Gerald V. Bull who is in charge of space research at McGill University, to the effect that Canada at present has no space policy whatever, is thought not being given by the government to establishing -I suppose it will now be in the fall-a special parliamentary committee on space research, and a policy with regard to space research?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this question is so urgent that it should be asked now. I would suggest to the hon. member that he give that some thought.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we are looking forward to a fairly imminent adjournment, and because a considerable government staff change is to take place relating to our space policy, I submit we ought to have some indication whether the government intends to do anything with respect to the establishment of space policy through a parliamentary committee in the fall.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is much too general in nature and cannot be asked.



CANADIAN COAST GUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Now that the month of July has been reached, could the minister advise whether tenders have been or will be called soon for the construction of the first of the new series of coast guard ships, as we were advised would be the case in the committee on transport and communications during consideration of estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to inquire.
July 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS	HEALTH AND WELFARE



INCREASES IN PROVINCIAL WELFARE PAYMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I would like to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) as it appears on page 6937 of Hansard for Tuesday, June 28, 1966, regarding the supplementary allowance available to certain individuals in Prince Edward Island.
This recently announced supplementary allowance, which is available to recipients of the old age security pension in Prince Edward Island, does not constitute exempt income under the War Veterans Allowance Act and regulations and must therefore be assessed as income for war veterans allowance purposes as is the case with the old age security pension.
In his question the hon. member for Queens referred to the supplementation of old age assistance in Prince Edward Island. This, however, will have no effect on recipients of war veterans allowance as they are not entitled to receive old age assistance benefits by reason of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 of the Old Age Assistance Act, which states that old age assistance may not be paid to recipients of war veterans allowances.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General, notice of which I gave him on the airplane as we were coming from Toronto this morning.
In view of the reports in the Toronto newspapers that the R.C.M.P. has obtained sufficient evidence to warrant extradition proceedings against Hal Banks, the former head of the Seafarers International Union, is it a fact that such investigation has been completed, and does the government intend to instigate extradition proceedings?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The
material gathered by the R.C.M.P., Mr. Speaker, is being placed in the hands of a special prosecutor, and a final decision has not yet been reached.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER TO HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the Minister of National Health and Welfare was good enough to confirm that he had written a letter on June 20 to the general manager of the Canadian Health Insurance Association, and that he would be glad to table it at the first opportunity. May I ask whether the letter is available for tabling now?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the letter is not available for tabling. I hope to table it today or tomorrow.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis Vancouver-Kingsway): I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Can the minister inform the house as to the probable date when a permanent warden for the women's penitentiary in Kingston will be appointed?
Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnetl (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries arising from my understanding that the hon. gentleman was able to spend some time in British Columbia over the weekend. I should like to ask whether while in British Columbia he was able to make any progress toward settling the difference of view between the Department of Fisheries and the government of British Columbia on the question of driving logs in the Stellako river.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: As the hon. member knows, the applicants who had sought a writ of mandamus have withdrawn their application to the supreme court. The matter is now before the Department of Justice, and I am getting legal advice as to what steps should be taken next.

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the minister whether his department or the international pacific salmon fisheries commission have conducted an investigation, or will conduct an investigation, concerning the damage resulting from this year's log drive on the river so that we may have a further assessment of this situation?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes. Technicians of the department were present when the drive took place the week before last, and we are now awaiting a report as to the extent of damage done to the spawning grounds.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as this legislation is concerned, it has been made perfectly clear by various speakers in Her Majesty's loyal opposition that we support the measure in question, though believing there are various changes which should be carried out to make these proposals more effective.
We are greatly disappointed at the absence of any suggestion on the part of the government that an additional $25 a month is to be made available to the old age pensioners of Canada. No one can argue that today, with the cost of living the highest in history, $75 a month meets the elementary requirements of fairness or equity. There are many thousands of people who have been waiting for action, and who from week to week live on a mere pittance, their hopes kept alive by periodic statements that sometime, some where, some place, something will be done.
Today, I intend to review the stand which we, as the opposition, have taken on this matter throughout the last couple of years. I make no apology for going into detail, and I resent very much the suggestion of the minister that there has been on the part of the opposition an attitude of filibustering this bill. As far as the Conservative party is concerned, representatives from all the provinces, I think, have made their views clear. They have the right and duty to do this.

The minister in a moment of annoyance, I think, decided he would brand the opposition as being responsible for a filibuster, thereby taking the pressure off the government for action on behalf of the old age pensioners. Just after he spoke the other evening in this regard I decided to look up the meaning of "filibuster". In the old days in parliament speeches of seven, eight, nine or ten hours were not unusual. Those days, of course, are past. I recall I used to get Hansard in 1910. I was greatly impressed by a member by the name of Mr. Lafortune who, at the end of 14 hours, told the Speaker that he was "about to come to the essential portion" of his argument.
I recall very well that in the days of Prime Minister Mackenzie King speeches on occasion were of almost limitless extent. No one suggested that Mr. King would engage in a filibuster against himself and his party. Mention is sometimes made here of Senator Wayne Morse in the United States. I find that on one occasion he spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes; he was excelled in length only by a member of the legislature of Texas who spoke for 28 hours and 30 minutes.
Filibusters are in the nature of speeches made without any objective in mind except to hold up the passage of legislation by the government. It is not a filibuster to demand from the government justice on behalf of the old age pensioners of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The charge of filibustering has no effect, but it indicates a state of mind. The minister and the government do not like to hear this question discussed. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that everywhere across Canada there is an almost universal demand for this action to be taken.
The expectation last week was that the house would adjourn by Friday for a summer vacation. I have heard of no further prophecy since that prophecy turned out to be at variance with the facts. However, I believe the time has come for this house to determine on regular adjournment periods-at Christmas time, at Easter and for the summer vacation.
In the United Kingdom they have regular adjournment periods. I think we might very well follow that course; for in the last couple of days the government has seen fit to add one or two further measures to those already before the house.
July 4, 1966

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
And so it goes. Always at the end of a session governments find that there are matters they would like to get cleared away. The result is indefinite postponement of the rights of hon. members. Those who are here, not those who are travelling abroad, have the right to look forward to a reasonable expectation of being able to meet with their constituents and enjoying the rest they have earned by being here for such a long period of time.
Somebody suggested to me that one of the reasons for general expectation of an adjournment on last Thursday was that Mr. Commissioner Spence had his report ready and wanted to go on vacation. But now apparently the report is not to come until after adjournment. I do not want to see the commissioner denied his anticipated holiday. I would suggest, if the report is ready as is generally believed to be the case, having been completed some weeks ago, that we would be prepared to have the report brought down while the house is in session rather than waiting indefinitely for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it for granted that the right hon. gentleman's remarks are introductory in nature and that they will lead eventually to consideration of Bill C-207 which is the matter in hand. I would therefore take the liberty of reminding the right hon. gentleman that at the first opportunity he should address himself to the bill now before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was simply pointing out that the house was to have adjourned last Thursday but that now the adjournment is indefinitely postponed, that various matters have been brought in at the last moment by the government and that we are prepared to have one more brought in. That was the point I was endeavouring to make by way of introduction, as you expressed it, to a full discussion of the bill before the house. I thought that the government would welcome the suggestion that we are prepared to wait even longer if only it will bring in the report instead of setting it aside to be brought in after the session adjourns.
It has been interesting to follow the government's peregrinations in connection with old age pensions. During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said that he would not do anything that could possibly be construed as endeavouring to buy
Canada Assistance Plan votes. That was the way in which he met the perfectly responsible program that we advanced for assisting the old age pensioners of Canada. As recently as June 14, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) reviewed the matter that is now before the house. But there was not one word of hope for the old age pensioner at that time.
What happened between June 14 and today? There have been no unusual cataclysms. The rise in the cost of living has been at about the same rate as previously. What has caused the sudden interest of reputable reporters in the press gallery, who have been able to set out in some detail the announcement that the minister will make when he has the opportunity to speak? The minister has had many opportunities to speak. Any day on motions, before the question period, he can get up and let the old age pensioners in on the secret.
He has not done so. On Thursday he put up the attractive member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) who made a delightful speech. If everyone were as attractive as she is the house would be a most attractive place. But I was attracted by the fact that she did not give any of the answers. She could have told the expectantly waiting country what the government is going to do. But no, her lips were sealed except with regard to those matters on which none of us is in disagreement.
What has brought about this change? There was no thought of it on June 14. I do not know what has happened, but the press reports that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), a member to be reckoned with-the government has been reckoning with him for a long while-has urged the government to implement the Croll plan to provide a guaranteed income to old people.
The press also reports that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) believes the government should make the Croll plan part of its program. The press reports that the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison), a man who understands the needs of people, allegedly accused the government of lying on this matter. I presume that had reference to its recumbency. Finally, the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) was reported as saying that unless something was done he could not face his constituents.
I do not know whether these press reports are correct. If they are, they indicate that

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan there is a basic reason for the sudden conversion of the government to the need of taking action. Long before June 14 the Senate report was published. Why has there not been any action on it until now in the last hours before adjournment? First the government said it would not do anything about increasing the old age pension from $75 to $100. The suggestion of such an increase was ridiculed by the Prime Minister when he spoke in Prince Edward Island. He said he was not going to make an auction block out of a political campaign. He was not going to promise $105. It is interesting that that is the figure he mentioned.
Since that time the government has had every opportunity to act but it has not acted. Every Liberal member has voted against increasing the old age pension from $75 to $100 a month. When I hear some members of the Social Credit party speaking out I am reminded that they joined with the Liberals in that action. Had it not been for that fine, filial relationship between the Liberal party and the Social Credit party, the old age pensioners of Canada would today be getting $100 a month. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) is not in the chamber. If he were I would refer him to some of his own contributions in this connection when on almost every occasion we tried to get action, he was almost the first to rise to argue that our amendments were not constitutional according to parliamentary authority. He rushed in on every occasion, but in his absence I refrain from going into details.
From the beginning to the end on this question, not only in this session but in previous sessions, the government has revealed itself as playing a game, a charade of hypocrisy, wherein the old people of Canada are to be engaged in guessing the meaning of the words and the promises made by the government. What is the reason for this change of attitude? This is a government that bends and, if the wind is strong enough, it is always able to bring about that which it previously had said could not be done. It always stands firm until public opinion is aroused.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What do we find in this connection? The minister has been denied an opportunity to open what one might refer to as Pandora's box. I think this is unfair to him. I might as well tell the house what he will say when he speaks because it has been made available in the press over and over again. Several days
tMr. Diefenbaker.]
ago representatives of the Toronto Telegram and the Toronto Star stated that when the minister spoke he would indicate that nothing is going to be done now, but that assistance will be given in the fall by the provision of an additional $30 per month to qualified pensioners. Mind you, the minister did not give the information, but the newpapers indicate that this information comes from well-authenticated sources which have always been reliable in the past.
Again I can only rely on these formidable witnesses of the press who have stated that anyone whose income is below $1,260 per year will be given assistance. What will happen is that a needs test plus a means test will be applied so far as the needy of this nation are concerned. How many are there in this category? Outside of the farming community there were 425,446 in 1961 who had an income of under $1,000 a year. That relates to total income which means that the $65 per month that was being received was included. We had raised their pensions to that amount by then. How many people fall within the category of $1,000 to $2,000 in income, again including the $65 a month? In that category in the same year there were 158,501.
During the last election campaign, and here in this house, we took the stand that the tremendous exactions under the old age pension scheme would permit an increase being provided out of the surplus moneys collected over and above the actual expected requirement. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) was able to find out as a result of questions, that as of March 31, 1966 the excess that had been collected amounted to approximately $217 million. As of December 31, 1965, the amount was about $140 million. In other words, in three months there was an increase of $77 million. At that rate of increase the amount today over and above what is actually needed for the payment of old age pensions would be in the neighbourhood of $300 million.
I should like to ask the government a few questions and perhaps the Prime Minister will answer them. Can he inform the house whether or not it is a fact that the surplus to which I have made reference has been judged by the experts of the Department of Finance to be sufficient that it would be feasible for old age pensions to be increased immediately to $100 per month? Will the Prime Minister indicate that those experts have gone even further and have come to the conclusion that
July 4, 1966

the surplus would permit an increase in pensions to $125 a month by next year? Following the increase in 1963 of payments into the old age security fund, 1 per cent additional to raise them from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, is it a fact that experts in the Department of Finance calculated that by the fall of 1967 it would be possible to make an increase not only to $100 per month but to $125 per month?
These are things about which we are entitled to have some information. The surplus next year will be much larger than it is this year. I should like to know why the government will not take action, except by way of a smoke screen provision to be announced, on behalf of all the old age pensioners of this nation.
I have made reference to the Prime Minister's speech in Charlottetown on October 16, 1965. In this regard I should like to quote from an article written by Mr. Fraser Kelly which appeared in the Toronto Telegram on October 18, 1965. The Prime Minister is reported as having pointed out that Quebec had opted out of the pension plan and was not paying into it so that if Mr. Diefenbaker's proposal were acted upon Quebec would be getting the higher pension without paying for it. The article then states:
This means people in Prince Edward Island would be paying for Quebec because people in Quebec wouldn't be paying for themselves, he said.
The article then states:
He extolled the virtues of the Canada Pension Plan. Then he scornfully rejected opposition promises of $100 a month-
What changes have taken place in the thinking of this government since then? Let me refer to the various votes that have taken place in the house on this matter. On March 29, 1965, an amendment regarding old age pensions was moved in this house. It is interesting to note that when it was ruled out of order every Liberal member, and the Social Credit members as well, voted to uphold the ruling of the Deputy Speaker.
Again, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved a motion in respect of Bill C-136, in connection with contributory old age pensions, to the effect that it be not read a third time but referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 122, every Liberal member voted against any action being taken and again they had the support of their Social Credit allies.
Canada Assistance Plan
On March 26, 1965, as recorded in Hansard that day, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) that the bill in question:
-be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole so that the government may give consideration to and introduce amendments to the said bill to provide for a minimum payment of $25 per month out of the Canada pension plan account to all persons between the ages of 65 and 69 years who are retired from regular employment, and also to provide an increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for all those now 70 years of age or over.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I see that the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) got into the act. He said how unconstitutional and unparliamentary that would be. There was the insistence of the hon. member who is now Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner). Again there was the ruling that the amendment in question was not in order. The Deputy Speaker so ruled and the decision of the Chair was sustained. All hon. members voted to sustain it except the Conservative members. It is interesting to follow what happened. This was over a year ago.
Then we come to 1966. In January I moved that an increase from $75 to $100 a month be made. What happened? Again, all the Liberal members voted against it. I had made it clear in the earlier vote that the vote on this question would not be one of non-confidence, that it would not mean the defeat of the government. But they lined up to defeat the motion. It is amazing, that within a period of only 20 days since the minister introduced this legislation, there has suddenly been a realization that something must be done. They forgot all about that on previous occasions.
On April 6 this year the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) introduced a private resolution as follows:
That, In the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of introducing a measure to increase the amount of pension provided under the Old Age Security Act to $100 a month and lowering the age of eligibility of applicants to 65 years.
That was a private member's resolution. In no way would its adoption have been construed as a vote of non-confidence. But it is of interest that it was talked out and that the government's final speaker was the hon. member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The reason

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
was, of course, that the government did not want a vote on this question. Lest there be any mistake about it I will read what she said, because she speaks with the authority of a parliamentary secretary. She said:
Mr. Speaker, some hon. members are calling for the question to be put. I should like to draw to their attention the importance of the matter under discussion. I was prepared to put forward quite legitimate arguments giving the government's viewpoints with regard to increasing the old age pension to $100 a month. Many members on this side of the house, and I am sure on the other side, would have welcomed the opportunity to speak in this debate today. However, many of them have left for the Easter recess, under the impression that we would continue with government business, a procedure which was denied by hon. members opposite. Therefore with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.
There was some argument. Six o'clock came and out went the hope of adoption of even a private member's resolution to this effect. Even this cursory review shows the attitude of this government. They will not face the problem that is faced by the old age pensioners of Canada. I said a moment ago that the minister had lots of chances. We have been hungrily waiting in expectation of his rising and revealing what the government has in mind.
I asked the Prime Minister the other day, "Are you going to bring in legislation to increase the old age pension from $75 to $100 a month before the adjournment?" The answer was "no". The minister could have made this announcement at any time. I again repeat that what he had in mind was that he would wait until the end of this debate, would then march in and produce this plan, a plan which the government believes will delude the old age pensioners. There could be no discussion, of course, thereafter.
If the minister does not get the opportunity today to place this matter before the house, I for one, and I am sure all hon. members on this side of the house, would be willing at any time to revert to motions so that the anticipated announcement, which is as public as the sun, could be made to this house. But that is not the reason they have not done so. The announcement has not been made because the government knows that the opposition will not accept this promise as being adequate, appropriate or in keeping with the rightful demands of the old age pensioners of Canada.
We have made our position clear. The government has applied the whip to Liberal members, because when they meet us outside many of them are quite willing to say, "We know this should be done but what can we

do?" That is their attitude. They cannot do anything; they are not allowed to do so. There is one hon. member, a very charming one too, from the Ontario constituency of Brantford. He is all for $100 a month for the old age pensioner. He was for it all through the election campaign. He said, "When I get down there you are going to hear from me." He came back here, but when it came to voting he lined up with the other Liberal members. After all, the whip said, "The government does not want you to vote for it. Line up, or else."
We have again made our position clear on various occasions throughout this debate. Our position is simply that no alternative to $100 a month for the old age pensioners will meet the situation.


Mr. Knowles:: Without any means test.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, without a means test.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: We welcome the fact that there has been a softening of the opposition of the government since the Prime Minister spoke in Prince Edward Island in October. At that time he would not have anything to do with this matter; it was ridiculous. But the pressure of public opinion has brought about a slight change.
Someone suggested that we would be giving an increase to old age pensioners with incomes of $10,000 a year or more. My recollection is that approximately 78 per cent of Canadians 70 years and over have incomes under $2,000 a year, including their pension. It would be a great day for the old age pensioners of Canada if the Liberal members opposite were to vote in the house as they speak out of it. This would be an unbelievable miracle, although I still believe that the day of miracles is not over. They could prove that they mean what they say.
Our stand is clear and definite and it has been made so on many occasions. It will not be met by any scheme whereby everybody who on bended knee, asks for the extra $30 a month will have to go through a course of catechism and interrogation. That is a denial of the rights of free men. Just imagine saying to all the old people of Canada: Line up here on the left and we will provide an opportunity for you to get an extra $30 a month. But you have to prove that you are in need. You have to assure us that you do not meet the
July 4, 1966

means test that we will apply. There is no meaner test than a means test. We stand against it.
I could say a great deal more on this occasion but I will limit myself to reiterating our stand which is now a matter of reasoned acceptance. We all took this stand last year when we found that the government had no realization of the needs of old age pensioners. We shall continue to press forward and, no matter what the government may have in mind, our purpose is to do everything we can to bring about this increase.
I hope that the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), who has expressed himself with such power in this debate, will be able to bring about such a change of mind in his party when the vote takes place as he displayed in taking the very opposite stand. I cannot put a question to the Leader of the Social Credit party as he is not here today. I am sure that, if he were here, he would feel constrained to support the views of that hon. gentleman. That shows what the influx of new blood into a party will do. In January he voted against the increase but in the intervening months he has found that that was wrong.


Mr. Johnston:: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: If he has not, I will give him an opportunity to speak.
I thought the hon. gentleman was going to give us an explanation of the unexplainable but he is not. He will sit where he is. Conversions such as these are welcome; they show what parliament can do. It is sometimes said: "Will you love me in September as you did in May?'' I say to the hon. gentleman: Don't love the old age pensioners in June as you did in January.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question for clarification purposes? I gathered at the beginning of his comments that he stated that the members of the opposition as many have already indicated, would vote in support of this bill, and then at the end of his remarks he anticipated a vote in which he would vote against. Was he referring to the second reading of the bill?


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the minister is clearer in the presentation he will make than in the interpretation of my remarks. We support the bill in its present form and we said so at the beginning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Canada Assistance Plan


John George Diefenbaker: Applause is unnecessary. We said we supported this measure over and over again. We trust that the opportunity to vote will be given to assure us that the government will be forced to do that which justice demands in every part of this country. The government has been forced into the position of bringing in changes to this bill which are to be announced by the minister and which we all look forward to hearing. I hope that between now and the time the minister speaks he will rise and say: On the 14th of June I did not expect to advance any legislation to give an increase to old age pensioners but I have looked this over and now I intend to promise those in need $30 a month provided they go through a means test. I hope he will then say: I intended to announce this-it has already been reported by the press-but after listening to all the arguments I have decided that I will come out in favour of an increase of $25 a month without a means test. If the minister does that, he will be in the strongest possible position in the steeplechase that is about to take place.


Mr. Whelan:: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? He made reference to a statement of mine having appeared in the press in which I said I had not been able to face my constituents. Could he tell me where such a statement was reported and when it was made? I am not one who is used to my comments being reported incorrectly by the press.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall reading this statement in the press. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not belong to that group of members of parliament who are unaware of their names having appeared in the press. However, I will find the particular newspaper in which it appeared. Now that he has intervened, I will ask him whether he did say that.


Eugene Whelan: I never said it in the presence of any member of the press-


Some hon. Members:: You hoped it would not be reported.


Eugene Whelan: -and I never expressed myself in the terminology used by the Leader of the Opposition. I am in favour of the proper treatment of the elderly people in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This may be the right time to give the hon. member for York South the opportunity to speak.

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, similarly to everyone in the house I want to say something about the subject of old age pensions. Before I do that, however, I want to express my own disappointment at the bill as a whole. If the minister were to rise and ask me whether I intend to vote for the bill my answer to him would still be in the affirmative. Those of us who want improvements in the field of social welfare have frequently been faced with suggestions which appear to be half a loaf while they are only a quarter of a loaf, and in such circumstances we are forced to support this bill rather than have nothing at all.
First of all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me that our attitude to welfare has over the years always been one of charity. I have found that private charity has carried over into the public domain. Every time persons in need have required assistance they have been able to obtain it only by begging from the municipal or provincial authorities, by having to prove need or by having to go through some kind of humiliating test.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The improvement in this legislation, and it is supposed to be an improvement, about which the minister has boasted is that instead of having what has been called a means test there will now be a needs test. The only difference that I can see is, as someone has said, in the spelling. Instead of having to prove a certain amount of income the person seeking relief, in addition to showing what his resources are, will have to show what his budgetary needs are. Some social welfare person from some board or department will be in a position to say to the applicant for assistance; I consider this item is necessary for you but that item is not. This is what the test means.
If a person is in necessitous circumstances some bureaucrat, someone representing some municipal or provincial department, will be able to go over that person's means of living and say to him: This you may have but this you may not have; you may not have this because in my view, and in the view of others like me, you do not need it. You do not need to smoke. You do not need to take a trip somewhere once a week. You do not need a television set because I consider it to be unnecessary.
Make no mistake about it, the needs test just as much as the means test means that the person applying for assistance will have

to humiliate himself not only by showing what his resources are but will also have to haggle with someone, to bargain with some welfare officer, when getting assistance. This is as humiliating as the means test ever was.
Of course, the minister is able to boast about an improvement because we started with an evil, wicked base, a humiliating base, and when you reduce the humiliation somewhat you are able to boast about improvement. However, the humiliation is still there to a large extent. We in our party, as our leader stated the other day, are looking forward to the day when assistance to people who require it will be based on the concept of a guaranteed annual income or some form of income maintenance. If a person's income does not add up to the level which has been set, not by some arbitrary officer somewhere but by what a budgetary analysis will make clear a person requires in order to live in decency, then his income will be augmented up to that level.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask my hon. friend a question? He has referred to the proposal put forward by Senator Croll. Would he agree with the income test implied in the proposal, or a test that he envisages under the income guarantee program?


David Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker, and for three reasons. First, if it is intended to be an income maintenance plan the amount suggested is obviously far too low. Surely no one in this house or in the other place believes it is possible for a man to live on $105 a month. I believe the Senate report suggests that his total income should be $1,260 a year. If the Senate committee believes a man can take care of his needs in dignity and self-respect in 1966 on $105 per month, they are talking without knowledge of the cost of living in Canada.
I believe the committee also suggested that the $105 would not be doubled for a couple but $185 would be set for two people. I have seen various calculations made by welfare councils, and if my memory serves me correctly the minimum amount required for a couple to live in self-respect and dignity is somewhere around $3,000. As I pointed out in another debate, in modern, cost-of-living terms a family of four would require $4,700. My first answer, therefore, is no, I cannot accept the Senate committee report. If it is intended to be an income maintenance plan, the amount suggested is niggardly. I suppose when you look at $75 and raise it to $105 you might think you were doing something very
July 4, 1966

good because the percentage increase is substantial.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not want to intrude on my hon. friend's time but I am interested in whether he supports the income test in principle, because earlier he said he was prepared to accept an income maintenance program on the basis of budgetary studies which would be applied, no doubt, under such a program.


David Lewis: Obviously, if you have an income maintenance program, you have got to find out what income a person has; otherwise you cannot have an income maintenance program. I am sure the minister knows that as well as I do. If you are going to say, you must have at least X hundreds of dollars a year or a month in order to live and we will make up anything below that, then there has to be some kind of measurement of a person's income. There are two ways of measuring it, however. One would be to put the person concerned through some humiliating test where every detail has to be discussed, as is the case with the needs test.
I realize that many people have said the needs test is an improvement. I know that most social workers have said that the test the minister proposes in the plan under discussion is an improvement. I have no doubt it is an improvement if you have a good social worker. A good social worker, if he or she has a heart and a knowledge of the needs of people, will be able to get more for the person concerned under this kind of plan than he or she could under the categorical payment plan. I realize that. However, I say that the requirement that a person sit down and haggle with someone else over what he is entitled to have before he will be able to get assistance does not make me any happier. This is a humiliating thing, and I do not like it any more than the minister, I am sure, likes it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will not be asking my hon. friend another question because I do not want to interrupt too much. However, is he not aware that under the Canada Assistance Plan it is possible to provide a level of income support along the lines he has mentioned, without subjecting the individual to the necessity of going into detail about what his needs are, because of the use of the community budget studies, which are an essential part of the plan?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister know? He is taking me to my second
Canada Assistance Plan point. This is the second major weakness in his plan. He sets no standards and he does not know what the studies will reveal. He has no idea what the standards will be. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about social welfare in Canada, and I do not pose as an expert, knows quite well that standards differ from province to province and from community to community within a province. The standards will be different for metropolitan Toronto and the larger cities in this province compared with the smaller communities in which there may be no social welfare staff and where some committee of the council will set up what the standards shall be. So long as the council has to bear some share of the payment, then the council will be concerned with the cost and the applicant for assistance from the council will suffer.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This takes me to the second major weakness of this bill. However, may I first get back to the point I was making earlier. There are two ways of testing an individual's income. One is the humiliating way and the other is the simple way in which all of us are tested for income tax purposes. The part of the Senate committee report which, if I understood it correctly, appealed to me was the suggestion of an income calculation which would be as simple as the income tax form, or perhaps not as simple but as clear and as limited in the information required as any income tax form. To that extent it would be an improvement.
I come back then to the lack of standards in this bill. This worried me immensely from the very start, and I must say that I have not been able to feel even as approving of the bill as some other members in this house, even some of those who have criticized it.
The one great evil in this country over the years, the one heartbreaking fact about Canada which I am sure has been the cause of greater disunity than anything else, language and culture included, has been the terrible inequality which exists in this country. I have been in communities in this country-and I am not going to mention even the provinces, let alone the names of such communities-where the welfare program is absolutely shameful. There is a lack of welfare workers and a lack of any humanity toward the people who are in need.
These communities will be able to get 50 per cent of their expenditures in an indirect way through the provinces, no doubt, but will

July 4, 1968
Canada Assistance Plan their programs be improved? Is there any guarantee that they will treat the needy of Canada with greater consideration than they have up until now? Furthermore, there are provinces in this country-and the minister represents a constituency in one of them -which with the best intent in the world cannot provide the assistance to the needy in the province that anyone with any compassion would consider half adequate, let alone sufficient.
As far as I can see, and I am sure I see correctly, this bill does nothing to establish standards across Canada. It leaves it entirely to the provinces to establish those standards. If the minister says that this is because of the constitutional situation, then I would say to him, with the greatest respect, that the constitution is used too much as an excuse for refusing to equalize the opportunities in this country. Without claiming to be a constitutional expert, but as a lawyer who has read something about our constitution, I know of nothing in the constitution which would prevent the minister from providing in this bill that if such and such a standard were met the government would pay 50 per cent, if such and such a standard were met the government would pay 60 per cent, and if such and such a standard were met the government would pay 75 per cent.
I make the concrete suggestion that there ought to be in the bill an inducement to improve the standard of care for the needy people in Canada, so that those provinces which cannot afford the standard that some other province is able to afford will gain from the bill a great deal more than is now offered them. Until such time as we do get in this country, Mr. Speaker, a sense of urgency as to the need to equalize opportunities for all Canadians, whether young or old, in need or in jobs, and until the big gaps in income per head of population which now exist between one province and another are eliminated, we will continue to have divisive influences which feed on the natural and desirable discontent and resentment prevalent among people in sections of the country who feel that they are not provided the same opportunities as those in other areas of the country. This is the second major weakness in this bill.
Third, another reason I feel unhappy about this bill, aside altogether from the question of the old age pensioners, is that modern welfare involves something more than the payment of money. It seems to me that this bill

ignores the progress that has been made in the concept of welfare in 1966. It is not merely a matter of giving assistance. It is not even a matter of giving assistance to train welfare workers and to provide various forms of therapy for elderly and ill people who require it. There is also the concept in modern welfare thinking of providing older people with things to do, of funds being made available so that they can live useful lives in this country, and of building environments for them so that they can lead useful and dignified lives.
The other day the parliamentary secretary to the minister stated how important it was to take care of disturbed and retarded children. It has been pointed out in some provinces, particularly in the legislature of the province of Ontario in the last number of months, that there are tens of thousands of children who are disturbed and who grow into difficult people, to put it mildly, as they grow older.
What is needed in order to meet this problem is not merely an offer to pay a little bit toward providing the kind of service outlined in this bill but large, really massive injections of capital assistance to build the homes and the institutions required and to train people to take care of these tens of thousands of youngsters across Canada. There are probably 100,000 to 200,000 young people who, because of their environment, background and for various other reasons not of their making, or indeed often not of their parents' making, if they know who their parents are, require homes, institutions and the kind of care which, as far as I have been able to study the situation with the help of one very close to me, involves the provision of one teacher or one trainer per child.
As far as I can see there is nothing in this bill that recognizes the modern approach to social welfare. When I say nothing, perhaps that is an exaggeration and I should not put it quite that strongly; but there is very little in the bill which recognizes the trends in modern welfare.
This takes me, Mr. Speaker, to the question of the old age pensioners. I did not intend originally to take part in this debate, and I must say that the person who more than any other got me to my feet was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), to whom I will return a little later.
Listening to the debate on old age pensions and how much we should give our old age pensioners, I felt-and I am sure every other
July 4. 1966

hon. member including the minister must have felt this way-as if we were in a kind of Alice in Wonderland atmosphere. I am sure it would be most unjust to the minister, to all his colleagues in the cabinet and to the members who surround him to suggest that they have any less concern for the needs of our old people than have we on this side of the house. I am not saying this with tongue in cheek. I am sure that the minister is a kindly man-he looks it and I hope looks are not deceptive-who is as concerned about the plight of the old people in Canada as is anyone on this side of the house. However, he and his colleagues and those who support him have been the victims of an attitude over the years. They are the victims of an attitude which objectively, whatever their hearts say, is an attitude of callousness and mathematical calculation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If, Mr. Speaker, you look at the history of the old age pension in Canada you will find, I think, a sordid story. Perhaps you will forgive me if I review the dates and a few facts. We start in 1927, after a long fight by the late J. S. Woodsworth, with a pension of $20 a month with a means test. I must say that every time I look at these dates I feel humiliated at having been in this country when this kind of thing happened. From 1927 until about 1944 people aged 70 and over received $20 a month after a means test. In 1943 or 1944 it was up to $25. I learned a long time ago when I was studying a little economics that if you make your base low enough your increase, no matter how small, can be a very large proportion of your base. Therefore, when you start with a measly, niggardly, inhuman amount of $20 a month with a means test and you raise it to $25, you of course have raised the amount by 25 per cent and everybody pats himself on the back for having been generous.
In 1946 the amount was raised to $30 a month but still with a means test. In 1948 it was raised to $40 a month, still with a means test. Without going back to the economics books, Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that the $40 in 1948 was worth not one cent more than $20 was in 1927, if it was worth even that much.
Not until January 1, 1952, which is the effective date, was the means test removed. The $40 was left. The $40 figure remained all the time from 1948 to 1957, despite the immense increase in the cost of living created by the Korean war in 1951, 1952 and 1953.
Canada Assistance Plan The increases in the price index were greater than any other we have known since the end of the second world war. Yet we left the old age pension at $40 even though it was without a means test in the fifties. We introduced old age assistance at age 65.
The aged were fortunate that there was a series of elections following one another in rapid succession. Thus in 1957 the St. Laurent government increased the pension by $6 to $46. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition formed a government-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Probably because of the $6.


David Lewis: Probably because of the $6. That was a big increase, wasn't it? There was another election in 1957 and the amount was raised to $55. Still another election raised it to $65 in 1962 and yet another election and it was raised to $75 in 1963. I have often said to the old age pension oragnizations I have addressed from time to time: "If I were a member of your organization, I would have in the program of my organization a requirement for a federal election every year, because that way there would be a chance to get faster and better treatment."
The reason I am talking about this, Mr. Speaker, is that at no point in this succession of amounts, as I have been able to read the press and history, was there ever an attempt to figure out what an aged person needs to live on. At no time has that been done. At no time did any department of government sit down and work out what a man aged 70, or now 69 requires to live in dignity and self-respect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There was a parliamentary committee in 1950.


David Lewis: They did not decide anything so far as I can see. They were arguing mainly about removing the means test. They were not concerned with the amount. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I imagine, was a member of that committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no imagination about it. I was there.


David Lewis: As I remember the reports of the committee, which I read some years ago, that committee was concerned with the removal of the means test and with the introduction of old age assistance for those below age 70. It was not concerned with the amount.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There was a unanimous recommendation about the size of old age security payments, was there not?

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


David Lewis: Would the minister repeat that? I did not hear him. I hope it was worth hearing.


An hon. Member:: I am not so sure about that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Did not the committee make some recommendations unanimously about the size of the pension?


David Lewis: Committees must deal with what is before them. I am not here to defend that committee, even though my hon. friend, the whip of my party, was a member of it. I imagine, knowing him, that he must have fought like blazes to get the amount increased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To $50.


David Lewis: To $50, he tells me. All he could get was the removal of the means test, and he took that. I do not blame him for taking what he could get. What he could get out of that government is about the same as we are apparently getting out of this government, and we shall be glad to take that too even if we do not like it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At that time the federal government was paying only $30 out of the $40.


David Lewis: The point I wish to make, and I should like it to sink in if I can make my point vigorously and sensibly enough, is that at no time has there been the suggestion that the amount paid to the old age pensioner is enough. What there has been is a rather shameful kind of haggling-raise the amount by this or raise it so much. We have had political parties doing what we are doing here, namely, haggling with each other. Should the pension be $75? Should it be $100? Should it be $90? The fact is that even $100 is not enough for those people who have only the old age pension to live in dignity and self-respect. The Canada Assistance Plan will still have to be used for aged people living on a $100 pension.
Like other hon. members, Mr. Speaker, I have received letters from various people about this old age pension matter. What struck my fancy and my heart, if I may say so, even more than any letter I received, is one letter which I read in the Toronto Telegram of Monday, May 9. In the Telegram there is a column entitled: "Ask the Tely". In that column there is the following moving question by an old age pensioner, and it is all

the more moving because of its simplicity than anything else:
Is there a good second hand clothing store in Toronto. I'm an old age pensioner, and find it hard to pay the price asked for new clothes.-O.A.P.
Then the Telegram gives him the answer, referring him to three or four stores where this old age pensioner could get second hand clothing.
I lower my voice deliberately, Mr. Speaker. I say that so long as there is one person who is forced to write this kind of note to a newspaper in a society as rich as Canada, with a government that boasts of its concern for humanity and for welfare-so long as this happens every member of this house ought to be ashamed of the job parliament has failed to do for the old age pensioners of Canada. Whenever one reads this sort of thing in the newspapers of this country, and I have just referred to a mild complaint, a mild request, and remembers that the gross national product has gone up tremendously in the last number of years, I think that the citizens of this country, particularly those who have the means to live with self-respect and decency, ought to be ashamed of their failure to provide for these people.
I have in my hands a letter from an old lady:
I am a widow 70 years old. I have only got my $75 old age pension to live on. I find it very hard with every thing so dear and things always going up.
This is the sentence to which I particularly want to refer:
I wonder if there is any way you could help me.
Aside from any personal assistance, the way I can help her is the way all other hon. members of this party have decided to help her. That way is by raising this issue with all the force at our command so that this government will yield and bring about some humane treatment of the old people in this country. If somebody wants to call this a filibuster, let him do so; let him misuse words and twist the motives and intentions of people.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The fact is that the Social Planning Council of Toronto has pointed out that an elderly person needs $138.96 a month in order to live in some decency. If that sum were brought in line with the present level of the cost of living it would need to be increased somewhat. What we are saying to the minister and to the government is not that $100 a month is
July 4, 1966

enough for the old age pensioner-I am sure no one, even on the other side of the house, believes it is-but that it is essential as an act of humanity to increase the universal pension to $100 a month in order that those who still require assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan may be fewer in number and so that fewer people will be humiliated by having to submit to some test or other.
I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not here. I am sure he has other things to do. I am not blaming him for not being here, but this is my opportunity to speak and I cannot wait for him to be here. But the other day the minister interrupted the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) to say, as reported in Hansard at page 7065:
Yes, sir, I will be very proud to say that no country in the world makes such generous provision for its old people as does Canada. Everyone in this house knows it, and the hypocrisy over there is not going to conceal it either.
The ignorance of the minister, displayed with typical Pickersgillian assurance, is really shameful. When a minister of the Crown makes a statement of that kind to the house with the self-assurance which my friend of long standing used the other day, it cannot help but arouse the ire of anyone who knows a little about these things.
I do not intend to quote large numbers of statistics, but I hold in my hand a report provided by the research and statistics section of the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare. This is not something compiled outside Canada; it is provided by the minister's own department. The date is January, 1965. Let me draw attention to several interesting figures. The report deals with various social security items in five countries, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and the United States. It appears that these five countries were chosen because there is greater similarity in their general approach to social security questions than might have been expected had other countries been chosen as well.
Look at the first table on page 2 of this report. It gives government expenditures on health and social welfare as a percentage of the gross national product in those five countries. Canada comes third. There are two countries below us on this list, the United States with 7 per cent, and Australia with 8.2 per cent. The Canadian percentage is 9.4. However, in the United Kingdom it is 10.5 and in New Zealand, 12.1. I should have said these figures are for the year 1962-63.
Canada Assistance Plan
But on the issue concerning which the Minister of Transport spoke, the issue about which he boasted, namely, the treatment of our old age pensioners, Canada comes last of those five countries. As shown in table 3 on page 5 of this report, New Zealand was spending 3.6 per cent of the gross national product in this field. In the United Kingdom the percentage was 3.4, in the United States 2.7, in Australia 2.3, and here in Canada the figure was 2 per cent. Last of the five. Yet this is the country which is supposed to treat its old age pensioners much better than any other country. This is what the Minister of Transport dares to say. And if anyone wonders what is included in these expenditures footnote (e) at the bottom of the page makes it clear that they comprise old age security benefits and old age assistance payments. So it is the total payments to the old people that are involved. Canada comes last in this series of five countries.
Is there any reason for this? Is our standard of living, or gross national product per capita, lower than that of New Zealand or Australia or the United Kingdom? I appreciate that Australia and some other countries in the world have had old age pensions for a much longer time than we have and that in many instances the payments are more analogous to those under our Canada Pension Plan than they are to the old age security payments. A number of us in this house do, I am sure, regret that we did not begin the Canada Pension Plan at age 65 many years ago so that many of the problems we now face would not have arisen.
I was not a member of this parliament when the Canada Pension Plan was passed, but as I read the Canada Pension Plan and the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare during the election campaign and since, it seems to me that the Canada Pension Plan took the universal payment under the Old Age Security Act into consideration in arriving at the terms of the scheme.
Obviously, no one intended that the maximum of $104 a month, if I remember correctly, was sufficient for a person to live on. Time and time again spokesmen for the government said: When we have both the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security scheme in operation people will be able to breathe more freely than they can now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, $250 for a man and wife. That is what they said.

July 4. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


David Lewis: On that score, even it one looks eight or nine years ahead when the Canada Pension Plan will be fully under way, to add $75 to $104 would produce a total of about $180 a month. No one can suggest that even in 1966, let alone in 1975, it is possible for anyone to live anything but a shabby restricted, undignified and crushing existence on such an amount. This is why I plead with the minister and the government that the old age security payment should be raised now, not only to assist those who are not under the Canada Pension Plan but also to make the total old age pension package, when the Canada Pension Plan is fully in force, a great deal better than it would otherwise be.
Why all this long argument with the minister? Why is the government so adamant about this? Why is it that instead of coming forward with an obvious minimum of justice for the old age pensioner the government is considering plans, as the newspapers suggest, which include a means test, a needs test or some other tests, and all of this to be promised for the fall? Why not now? If hon. gentlemen opposite mean what they have said, if they intend to be recognized as a government of heart concerned about the Canadian people, who more deserve this concern than the older people and why not introduce now the small measure of justice which is represented by an increase to $100 a month?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the Canada Assistance Plan and, because I do support it, I wish it to pass promptly and therefore will be brief. As most members in all parties are aware, this plan has been strongly supported by many leading social workers in Canada, by men and women who are not much interested in grinding political axes but who have a real interest and expert knowledge in the field of social welfare.
This plan extends a bold, new guarantee to all Canadians in need. In accepting it the people of Canada for the first time accept responsibility to meet all the needs, no matter how great they may be, of Canadian children, widows, the disabled, the blind, the elderly and the unemployed. Under this plan we accept unlimited liability. We undertake to charge the public treasury to discharge our responsibilities to the needy throughout Canada. This is a program which I support and of which, as a Liberal, I am very proud.

While I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to consider very seriously certain minor improvements in its administrative provisions. While the basic principle or guarantee to meet all needs covered by the bill is new, some of the administrative machinery is old and I believe can be improved. I urge that before the bill becomes law at least two administrative reforms be made by the minister. The plan now provides for an agreement between the federal government and each province and for the payment under this agreement of federal money to each province to meet the needs of its residents. This tends to make the program dependent upon the initiative of each individual province. This should be improved. The provinces may delay and in the different provinces benefits may not be based upon consistent principles.
Moreover, it seems to me unsound that the spending of money raised by federal taxation should be under the complete control of the individual provinces; nor am I convinced that the administration of this new program is best entrusted to the provincial welfare departments.
How is the problem to be met? I submit that we have sound precedents in our great universities, hospitals, charitable foundations and other public institutions supported by public funds but not directly controlled by governments. I suggest that in each province a joint Canada-provincial foundation be established, to be run by a board of governors on which the province and the federal government would have equal representation but with representation also from the ranks of labour, business, the professions and other interested community groups.
Such a foundation could also serve a very useful purpose in co-ordinating governmental efforts with the efforts of the very large number of private, charitable organizations now in the field. At the present time there is a real shortage of trained social workers and there is a great need for co-ordination of public and private effort in our war on poverty. The federal money paid each year to each such foundation could be subject to the scrutiny of parliament. Parliament would not lose financial control.
Would the provinces object on the ground that such a proposal was not discussed at the federal-provincial conference or that their welfare empire would be transferred to a public foundation? The foundation would not be federally controlled. There could be no valid objection on that ground. If the idea is
July 4, 1966
sound and welcomed by the general public, it would surely be accepted by the provinces. Nor can reforms suggested in this house be completely foreclosed by prior decisions made at federal-provincial conferences.
My second point is that it is vital, if federal money is to be spent, that we should have some say in the method by which needs are to be determined. No member here wishes to impose anything in the nature of a humiliating test: We cannot afford to have social workers, who are in short supply, checking on the needs of our citizens. On the other hand, if we are to eliminate need and poverty in Canada we must make certain that our money is spent wisely and that only those who need it get it.
Possibly we could adopt for this purpose one of the suggestions contained in the very valuable report made by the Senate committee on aging, the Croll report. Needs could be determined upon the basis of a return similar to an income tax return, with spot checks to catch the inveterate cheaters who unfortunately are to be found in some numbers in any society.
While the changes 1 have suggested are minor and administrative in nature I believe they are important. I hope they will secure the support of members of all parties in the house, of the Canadian public and, most important of all, of the minister who is responsible for this bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, in a few brief words I would like to support the fight that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has consistently waged over the years for a better deal for those unable to help themselves. I think the argument he presented in his able speech this afternoon is completely unanswerable by the government, and I make a plea to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who also represents a Nova Scotian constituency, that before the end of this debate he inveigle the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) into the house to make a statement that the request of the Leader of the Opposition is going to be met.
The most compelling and unanswerable statistic that I have found in my study of this problem is printed at the bottom of page 10 of the Anal report of the special committee of the Senate on aging. It might be assumed by a good number of Canadians that older people would have the advantage of some assistance from their families. Yet paragraph 3 of
Canada Assistance Plan this report, at the bottom of page 10, point out that in 1961 there were 570,000 of what are called unattached persons, that is, widows, widowers or older people whose children have moved out, over two-thirds of them women and that their median income on the basis of non-farm sample was $829, with 60 per cent receiving less than $1,000 annually. In an aside the report says that we know less than we should about how these people manage.
An even more compelling statistic is that of the remainder, some 252,000 persons, 63 per cent of them were women living alone or with non-relatives, and were presumably dependent for the most part on their own resources. Of this latter group 53 per cent had incomes of less than $1,000, and among those age 70 and over 47 per cent of the men and 50 per cent of the women received almost their entire incomes in the form of old age security pensions. Thus we have a figure of approximately 130,000 people with no other income than $75 per month.
It is generally accepted that one-quarter of one's income should be spent on providing a roof over one's head. But for people in this category a generous nation suggests that $18.75 or $19, not to cut it too finely, is sufficient to spend monthly on accommodation. Where is it possible to get accommodation at such a rent in Canada today?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It has been suggested by various members who have taken part in this debate that if we pass the Canada Assistance Plan, permitting the federal treasury to enter into partnerships with the provinces which could vary from one end of Canada to the other, we will be applying different standards to help our elderly people in need, depending upon the provinces in which they live. This is quite obvious.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) also drew our attention to the great difference in municipal welfare services across Canada. It could be pointed out that voluntary welfare services provided by agencies which exist in different parts of Canada also do not cover the whole country. We have the Red Feather appeals in metropolitan, city and town areas but no help is provided in many parts of the country by those agencies covered by the Red Feather campaigns. I think this argument tends to snowball in favour of something being done in a dramatic and even generous way by this parliament so that we



July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan do not write off many members of a generation who are unable because of their age to look after themselves.
At page 11 of the Senate report to which I referred earlier there is an interesting table giving the percentages of non-farm population 70 years of age and over with annual incomes of less than $1,000, by sex, age, and marital status. Just dealing with one group, the male group, for the year ended May 31, 1961, the figure for those from 70 to 79 was 37 per cent, from 80 to 89 it was 58 per cent and for those 90 and over was 62 per cent.
One could go into the impelling needs brought about by advancing age, medical assistance and perhaps special foods. The costs of these are mounting inexorably and income is declining drastically. This situation is simply not fair to older Canadians.
Let me make a final point to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) in view of my familiarity with the area from which he comes. He represents Inverness-Richmond and Cape Breton. While prosperity there is not as noted as in other parts of Canada, the people do enjoy a reasonable environment. They have a love for things in Nova Scotia and wish to stay there to make their living. They are very proud people and I am sure if the minister went to their doors and attempted to explain a needs test as opposed to a means test he would not receive a warm welcome.
I am sure that the minister could look about the villages of his constituency and find that many of the people would sooner deprive themselves of the extra help that could be provided under a formula tied in with a test, deprive themselves of the necessities of life, rather than go through the humiliation of filling out such a form. I am sure there are hundreds of people in Inverness-Richmond who have that feeling. I know from my own mail that there are thousands in my particular area who feel that way.
In conclusion let me say that unless we wish to write off and relegate to the garbage heap of Canada tens of thousands of Canadians the minister would be well counselled to bring in the increase suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and others who have taken part in this debate.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, for the past three or four days the members of this party and, I think it is fair to say, the members of all other opposition parties have been urging the government to
[Mr. McCleave.l
reconsider the Canada Assistance Plan legislation and to bring in coincidental measures which would provide a minimum of $100 a month in old age security without a means test. During the three or four days I do not think one day has passed but that the newspapers of this country have reported that the government is considering doing something along this line. We can only hope they are right.
By way of encouraging the government and the minister to take some action in line with an increase in old age security pensions immediately I felt that for my part in this discussion I might do well to point out that it is not only old age pensioners who want and need more money and not only members of the opposition who are trying to get it for them but that some of the leading newspapers in Canada have come out almost daily repeating what we have said here. I should like to quote from one or two of these newspapers which have expressed this point of view.
The other night during this debate my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), said that by and large it would be remarkable to find that the newspapers of Canada were urging action for better social legislation. I think that has been the general case. Quite often in the past when editorials in newspapers have been concerned with social legislation they have said: "No, no, whoa, whoa" or "go slow." At this time it is quite remarkable to find that such newspapers as the Toronto Telegram are encouraging the government to do something. Let me quote from an article in the Toronto Telegram of June 25 this year under the heading "Aged Need Help":
Canada's aged who are forced to subsist on a fixed income deserve additional government assistance. Now.
This is a matter that should not be put off any longer.
The spiraling costs of living have made it impossible for many of our old age pensioners to make ends meet. According to the cost of living index, prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, it requires $1.43 today to buy what $1 did in 1949.
The article goes on to say:
The first payments under the new Canada Pension Plan will be made on Jan. 1, 1967, but these people will not benefit from it. The Canada Assistance Plan will establish what is tantamount to a means test when it is finally launched.
Not only would our aged find a means test demeaning; but by the time the assistance plan is in operation, many of them may not be around to
July 4, 1966

enjoy the additional benefits they might have received.
That is why it is essential the government consider other steps with which to help those in need.
The article then goes on to state that the government should proceed with these steps immediately and not confine itself to the proposals contained in the Canada Assistance Plan.
On the same date another Toronto newspaper, the Star, which I believe is the leading Canadian newspaper so far as circulation is concerned, had this to say about the subject we have been discussing for several days and continue to discuss this afternoon, under the heading "We Can Rescue Canada's Over-65s From Want":
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Poverty is the usual condition of Canadians over 65. According to the report of the special Senate committee on aging, 54 per cent of them had gross money incomes under $1,000 in 1961-less than $3 per day.
Compulsory retirement and unemployment keep them away from the Canadian feast of affluence which their lifetime of work helped to create. The committee found more than half of the 1.5 million Canadians over 65 to be in need of help.
How will the country, which clearly owes them dignity and comfort in their old age, give that help? The Canada Pension Plan comes too late for them. And from their standpoint, there are two things wrong with the Canada Assistance Plan which will soon be placed before parliament.
First, it will require each person to take a needs test before receiving assistance. This process will be costly and slow-and the needy aged can least afford to wait for help. Also, many Canadians of the older generation regard any kind of searching means test as humiliating, and may forgo help rather than submit to it.
The Star, like the Telegram, goes on in its editorial to urge the government and parliament to make a study of this matter and take action on the recommendation of the Senate committee on aging, which was basically a guaranteed annual income. I think we are approaching that situation and will come to a guaranteed annual income in this country. I believe this will be a very fair and efficient way of administering our social security legislation in time to come, but it is not going to help today's generation of old age pensioners. What they need, and what I think all hon. members in the house would like to see them receive, is more immediate help in addition to the proposals of the Canada Assistance Plan.
The Canada Assistance Plan has some good elements. It is good housekeeping from an administrative point of view. But the gap left by the failure to provide immediate help in a basic way to the old age pensioner is too
Canada Assistance Plan serious to be ignored by members of this house. I am very hopeful that, as has been reported by the press of Canada, the government will change its mind on this subject and bring in at an early date improved old age pension legislation. As it is now, what is happening, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre remarked during this debate two or three nights ago, is that the minister is saying to the old people, "We cannot do anything for you under the Canada Pension Plan because that legislation was not designed for you, and we cannot do anything for you under the Old Age Security Act because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will not give us the money to raise the pension. Your only recourse is to fall back on social assistance and so we are providing that with the old means test re-introduced."
We in this party, as in the C.C.F. which preceded us, are quite accustomed in fighting for improved social legislation to accepting half a loaf instead of a loaf, and there have been times when we have accepted a slice rather than a half a loaf. But in this particular instance what is being asked of us and the older people in Canada is to accept not half a loaf or even a slice. We are being asked to buy the attractive wrapper that goes around this package, and I believe that many hon. members on both sides of the house do not think this is good enough.
I believe that those persons receiving the old age pension at the present time are probably the last of our Canadian generations left in the valley of scarcity. The rest of us, thanks partly to the work and sacrifices of these older people, are emerging and have emerged into the sunlight of abundance to some degree. I believe that, if for no other reason, this government, parliament and the country should activate themselves more on behalf of improving the standard of living of our senior citizens.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am very hopeful, from what I have read in the papers and have heard from pretty well all corners of this house in recent days, that the minister will do something in this connection and do it in the very near future.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Reid Scott: I notice again that when we rise to speak on this side of the house a member of the government shouts "filibuster." We hear this word every so often in this chamber whenever members of the

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan opposition for one reason or another feel very strongly about a subject and insist, much to the chagrin of the government, upon an adequate examination of it. We heard this word used a year or so ago in the flag debate when my hon. friends in the official opposition felt very keenly on the subject and, at the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself, entered into an extensive debate. But because it did not please the members of the government it was called a filibuster.
Again today, and for the past few days, every time a member of the opposition rises, no matter what party he speaks for, to discuss the Canada Assistance Plan and more particularly the matter of the old age pensioners of this country the cry of "filibuster" is raised. Personally I do not really care whether the Liberals want to call this debate a filibuster. In this party, and I am sure in the other parties, we make no apology whatsoever for taking up the time of the house to discuss this matter. So far as I am concerned this is one of the most important matters that we could be discussing.
I am sure the minister himself was rather worried that this legislation would slip through quickly, because when he brought it in it was accompanied by the usual press agency fanfare and clever public relations that accompanies most of the government's legislation. I am sure the minister was afraid that this legislation would slip through very quickly before the country had a chance to examine it and see just what its ramifications were.
Those of us who are raising this matter are doing so because we have received hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of requests from old age pensioners who write the most pathetic letters, literally pleading almost on their knees, for something to be done to relieve the conditions and circumstances in which they find themselves. We are not going to let this measure pass quickly without using it as a vehicle to place on the record the plight of these people and as an opportunity to make clear the cynical and callous attitude that many members on the government side are taking in this area. I am not suggesting that all members on the government side are adopting this attitude, but it is strange that what we hear behind the curtains never appears on the record and that many members who tell us of their desire to take positive action in this field are, with one or two exceptions, very quiet when the opportunity occurs to make their views known in

public. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said, this whole approach to old age pensions is not an isolated one on the part of this government. It is a typical approach, it seems to me, in handling various pieces of legislation.
The attitude of the government is always: Let us do the bare minimum that we can get away with. Let us never under any circumstances take a subject and treat it adequately and completely. I think, for example, of the field of higher education and even the small gesture of scholarships and bursaries. I think of the election promises of various Liberal candidates of 10,000 scholarships of $1,000 each year. That was the bare minimum. Others went further and talked about bursaries and aid to higher education. A measure was proposed which, although it was recognized as partly beneficial, was the worst kind of aid that could be given to students. It proposes a $4,000 loan to single students and $8,000 to married students. This represents a tremendously progressive and liberal way of assisting students in obtaining higher education.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
For example, let us take the manpower training program which for the past decade has been progressively neglectful. The root of our strike problem is the failure of this government and of some of its predecessors to try to deal adequately with manpower training. Another example is that trade adjustment legislation for which we have pleaded for years. All we got was the usual half measure in the form of the United States auto pact agreement. Another example is housing. In the last few years we have pleaded for an adequate housing program but as usual only half measures were taken.
We can consider almost any area in which this house has acted since the present government took office and all we will find is a psychology of half measures. Never has this government dealt adequately with any measure.
It seems to me that this attitude is being repeated here. As I said at the beginning, we intend to discuss this measure as long as we please. If you want to call it a filibuster you can call it so, but so far as I am concerned I make no apologies for it.
As has already been stated, Mr. Speaker, there are some measures in this bill with which all the opposition parties are in agreement. It is not necessary to repeat them to emphasize those features in the bill which
July 4, 1966

we consider to be an improvement. The government needs no help from us in heaping mountains of praise on itself. The minister and his followers are more than capable in that department.
Our main opposition at this time is twofold. First of all, we have argued that the government is wrong and almost inhumane in its refusal to institute an increase in old age pensions to $100 a month payable at the age of 65. Second, we have maintained and will continue to maintain that the institution of a means test is a retrograde step. I know the soothsayers have changed it to what is called a needs test, but it seems to me that in some ways the needs test is even worse. If it is applied with discretion in a fairly affluent community by skilled social workers, then perhaps it is all right. However, I would enter a caveat and take objection even to this. A needs test means an individual investigation of all the old age pensioners and this, it seems to me, is a retrograde step of the worst kind. I hope the minister will have second thoughts as we proceed with the discussion of this bill in the committee stage and that he will not take this step.
Generations of politicians in Canada, long before I entered this chamber, fought a battle to remove the means test. It was not an easy one.
They were faced with all the time-worn slogans that we have heard from members of the Liberal party in this debate. They were told about all the rich people who did not need the pension and about the hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners who did not need an increase in their pensions. However, over the decades, hon. members in the opposition fought with various governments and finally in 1952 a statute was passed removing the means test requirement on old age pensions. That was a good move. It took place a decade before my election. I am ashamed of being in a chamber in which a proposal is made to apply a means test again because this will do more hurt and humiliate the pensioners than any other possible step we could take.
We have argued that pensions must be raised and that no means test should be attached to them. As I said, Mr. Speaker, various members of the Liberal government-and I emphasize the word "Liberal" -have repeatedly told us that hundreds of thousands of pensioners do not need this money and that it is better spent on those in need. Out of curiosity I placed question No.

Canada Assistance Plan 1743 on the order paper in which I asked for information regarding the breakdown of incomes of Canadians aged 70 and over. I know this information is based on the 1961 census and that the gathering of the information is imperfect. However, I was astonished to find out that there were 433,365 people over 70 with incomes of $1,000 or less. They do not need a means or needs test of any kind. Obviously nobody can live decently on an income of $1,000 a year. The figures I received showed that there were over 158,000 living on less than $1,900. That means that 80 per cent of Canadian taxpayers over 70 years of age are living on incomes of less than $1,900.
Statements have been made by the other side during the debate about all the people over 70 who have incomes of $10,000 a year or more. The return, Mr. Speaker, shows that 1.1 per cent or 8,200 of the people over 70 have incomes of over $10,000 per year, so the suggestions made by the government do not stand up to analysis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most of them are in the Senate anyway.


Reid Scott: As my colleague points out, most of those over 70 getting over $10,000 are probably in the Senate anyway.
We do not need a complicated means or needs test to ascertain whether old age pensioners require money. Obviously facts which are known to us prove they do. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) in his contribution to the debate quoted other figures which I had intended to place on the record but will not repeat. They made it abundantly clear that the vast majority of our old age pensioners are living under circumstances of virtual poverty.
What is so annoying about this measure is that in the face of the undisputed and documented knowledge of the conditions of our pensioners, the only solution that the proges-sive, new left, Liberal government has to offer is a social assistance program based on a means test. We will be awaiting with great interest the contribution of the minister when he rises to speak to see why and under what circumstances he justifies this requirement. Our objection is and will continue to be in regard to the institution of the means test.
I wish to come back at this time to what I said at the resolution stage. There have been rumours that the government will take into account the so-called Croll report, the Senate

July 4. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan study on aging. I wish it would. I do not agree with everything in it but I consider it to be a genuine attempt to assess the problems of old people as indivduals, not as an group. It is an attempt to understand what is really involved in being old in this country.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Recommendation No. 2 on page 17 of their report reads as follows:
Any suggestion that these older people, when the $75 pension is not sufficient, should be expected to depend for supplementation on public assistance after a needs test is utterly unacceptable.
I emphasize the words, "utterly unacceptable". I continue the quotation:
Public assistance should, of course, be available to them, as to others in the population, to meet residual needs and to deal with special circumstances, but it is the committee's conviction that main reliance for meeting their ordinary requirements should be on benefits to which they are entitled as a matter of right and that the proportion of older people requiring needs-tested supplementation should be very small at all times.
This is the end of the quotation. It is a very nice bit of grammar and reads well. What it makes clear is that we do not need a means test in Canada in connection with old age assistance. Mention is made in the report of some problems the committee could not solve. There were some recommendations they did not feel they could make. However, one recommendation upon which the committee was clear was that we do not want and do not need a means test for old age pensions in Canada. Yet what have you lifted from the report, if this is where you got it? You have put into your legislation the one thing this exhaustive study said we did not want, the means test. With the best intention in the world, the means test could mean nothing but humiliation for old age pensioners. I am going to read a few of their letters before I sit down.
The one thing that the Croll report emphasizes again and again is the need for older people to have their income as of right. This is something for which they have worked and is something to which they are automatically entitled. It allows people their self-respect and their self-esteem. In many ways this is just as important to them as the actual amount of money itself. With one blow you are going to take this away or at least you are going to try to do so. It is going to take a lot of arguments to convince us that there is justification for this move. It is significant that the voices on the government side that have been raised in support of this measure have been few and have been rarely heard.
IMr. Scott (Danforth).]
I believe this is because in Ottawa we are perhaps removed from the people a bit. We do not look upon groups in our community as anything but distant groups. The old age pensioners, while there are 1,000,000 or 1,-
200,000	of them, are scattered all over the place. They do not have anybody to speak for them. They have no pressure lobbies like agriculture, the unions, industrial people or those who want tariff protection. We look upon them, therefore, as a group on the periphery of our society. We think of them almost in statistical terms.
The only objection we have heard in the house in so far as old age pensioners are concerned is that it costs too much to help these people. There is a new word being used, "priorities", and they are low on the order of priorities. All kinds of things are elevated above the human needs of these people. I suspect this results from the fact that when you get into these ivory towers in Ottawa you tend automatically to lose touch with many of the people you represent. I believe that is what has happened to the Liberal party over the years. You are the people with the managerial expertise and you think in terms of the cash register rather than in terms of the human need involved. This attitude may not even be restricted to hon. members opposite.
It seems to me one of the reasons for the fed-up attitude toward parties and politicians today is the general feeling the people have that we have lost touch with them and that in Ottawa we have governments and perhaps parties that are losing touch with the realities of the country. This is part of the malaise which I think is building up in the country because people like you, with the authority, the power and the right to reach out and touch these people, refuse to act.
If the government even at this late date wished to retreat from its intransigent attitude and take a step that would establish them as a government that cares about the people, I suggest they could epitomize that by increasing the old age pension to $100 per month without the imposition of a means test. We in the opposition would like to do so but the rules prohibit us from so doing. We have used every legitimate means at our disposal to present this point of view. We are powerless. All we can do is plead. You are the people who have the power and the authority to act. Specifically, this power to act rests with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). He is the man to
July 4, 1966

whom Canadians must look for leadership. We will not get it from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). His sharp thinking has already ruled out this action because it does not fit in with his cash register mentality and that of the majority of the members of cabinet. I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) laughing. I suggest to him that this is no laughing matter which we are trying to discuss.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: You will not make an impression on the minister.


Reid Scott: I would not even presume to attempt to move the minister in this field. The government has made it clear over the past several days, as have hon. members opposite, that so far as they are concerned they will not relent on this point. The only hope we have left is to appeal to the minister himself to give some leadership in this field.
As I was saying, we tend to forget the pensioners. We forget who they are and what they are. The Croll report puts it in understandable language. I should like to quote from page 6 where we find Senator Croll's introduction:
Senior citizens are not some indefinable group, separate and apart. They are our mothers and our fathers. They are ourselves in a few years. They are those who have made contributions to society and to our country. They are those who have given their energies, their skills and their children for the good of society. What the senior citizen needs is to retain his earned right in his own world.
It seems to me that this is the type of sentiment from which we are departing in this legislation. We say that, notwithstanding the fact that there are good features in the bill which have been outlined already. When we were discussing the resolution I had a few words to say on my own behalf and that of my party and I tried to point out that I, along with many members who have had to spend a lot of time with old age pensioners, I presume, am ashamed of the way in which we have handled their problems. The Croll report indicates that over 60 per cent of our pensioners live in urban centres. This trend will continue over the years. Before long the vast majority will live in our cities.
Merely to hand out more money to these people, badly as they need it and desperate as they are for income, is not going to solve their problems. Until we are prepared to deal with old age pensioners as a part of the community and not an isolated group that gets a handout every once in a while or that 23033-453a
Canada Assistance Plan we mention in the house from time to time, we are never going to solve their problems. Until we are prepared to deal with them as part of the community we will never solve the dilemma of the old age pensioners. Their problems are the same as most of the problems of the people we represent. They need decent housing at a price or rental they can afford to pay, but we do not give it to them.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is an apartment project to house old age pensioners in the constituency which for the moment at least I represent. The tragedy is that the old age pensioners cannot get into it if they receive only the old age pension because the income requirement is too high. Instead they have to live in attic rooms for which they pay $32 a month out their $75, which leaves them with less than a dollar a day to live on and to provide everything they need. I could fill 100 such buildings tomorrow if they were available. We have been asking ever since this government took office for a real housing program for our old age pensioners but nothing has been done. We do not even have a housing program in this country.
Until we deal with the problem of price control for these people, handing them more money, while all right for the moment, is no solution because prices are going up and up and next year the increase will be wiped out. So we are back where we started, with the old fight about the amount.
Until we bring in a genuine medicare scheme to help these people we are not dealing with their problems adequately. Until we begin to think of the old age pensioner as part of the community, as being a person who does not want to be shoved on the sidelines but who wants to feel he is part of life and has a useful part to play and role to perform, with a proper place in the community as a whole, we will never get at the problem of the old age pensioner.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we discuss this question at length. We know that the government is not going to do anything about it. At least, I think I know they are not, though I would have great respect for the government if they were to provide tomorrow as a minimum gesture an increase in the pension at least to the $100 figure. But let none of us think that by doing this we will really be going very much for these people. They will not live high on the hog on $100 a month.
I do not want to read into the record all of these social agencies reports, which are

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan stacked almost a mile high and have come in from all over Canada, pointing out the very basic minimum upon which people can be expected to exist. One of these reports was featured in an article in the Toronto Star on October 20, 1965, and was headlined: "Aged Pensioner Says She'll Probably Never Eat Steak Again". The article gives a monthly budget of $126.47 for a man and $118.83 for a woman. It is a very generous budget, I must say.
For example, $31.62 is allotted to food and $41.44 to housing. I defy anyone who comes from an urban area-I am not familiar with the country districts-to show me adequate, decent housing in our cities for $41.44 a month. The budget also allows $6.81 for clothing, $3.29 for home furnishings, $2.17 for transportation in metro, and if the pensioner wants to take a trip 62 cents a month is allocated to transportation outside of metro. These are magnificent and generous figures and are suggested as the minimum on which these people can be expected to exist.
I do not want to have to read into the record, though we may do so as the debate continues, reports from one of the senior citizens committees outlining the plight of these people and their need for better treatment. The really pathetic aspect of the problem of the old age pensioners is the letters received from them in which they tell you what they think and how they feel. I have one here in which a woman comments on the proposed needs or means test, and she says that it would be a very humiliating experience to have to go through. She says that many who really need help would have too much pride and selfrespect to apply, and that is true. This refrain runs through all the mail.
What the government seems to fail to understand is that the older people have a great sense of pride and self-respect and that they will be most reluctant to apply for a means test wherein they would have to subject their affairs to examination, no matter how delicately, graciously and sincerely it is done. I am not saying that the people who do apply will be unnecessarily shy, but a good proportion of them are too proud to apply in the first place. They want to live their lives in dignity and independence, and some will not be prepared to apply. One person went so far as to say that she would even give up her niggardly $75 a month rather than submit to a means test.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have been pleading with the minister for some days now to reconsider the position and to give the lead which we hope he is capable of giving. Even at this late date when the debate has gone for several days we hope that he will announce that the Liberal party has decided to become a liberal party on this point and that it is not going to return to the retrograde position it has taken in regard to a means test.
I have read the debates over the years in which members fought for the need for its removal. No doubt the removal of the means test which the Liberal party is imposing will be an issue in another election. And let the record be clear that it is the Liberal party that is doing this over the objections of a united opposition. I do not say that they do not have the right to do this. But there have not been to many issues in this parliament on which the opposition has been united and I would have thought, coming as we do from constituencies all over Canada and speaking as we do for more Canadians than are represented in the ranks of the government, that some consideration would have been given to the views of the members of the opposition in this regard.
After all, Mr. Speaker, it is no longer a question of finding the money for these pensioners. That cat was let out of the bag the other day at the hearings of the committee. It is now quite clear that there is enough surplus in the fund to pay the increase, so the government does not even have the money argument any more. The funds are there, the need is there, and all that is required is the decision of the minister and his colleagues to institute this very needed reform.
I wish that we on this side of the house possessed either the logic or the eloquence to move the minister in this regard. I hope he will yet change his mind, will announce that the house will be permitted to vote on the attractive features of the bill, to which we all subscribe and give our support, and that ancillary and supplementary legislation will be brought down-we are prepared to sit here until it is-to increase the basic pension to $100 a month without a means test and to make it available to all old age pensioners over 65.
This, Mr. Speaker, in no way kills the present bill. It in no way takes away from the bill the areas for which there is support. But it would provide an excellent opportunity for this house to do something to benefit not
July 4, 1966

just the old age pensioners. A move in this direction would indicate that we in Ottawa are in touch with the needs, the hopes and the aspirations of all Canadians. We want to take a new approach and to bring about actions in this house that show we care about people rather than about money.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have been pleased to note the many expressions of support for the Canada Assistance Plan that have been given by hon. members, including those of the opposition. There are exceptions of course, but it would indeed be difficult for any reasonable person not to support a measure which so obviously brings about needed and significant changes in public welfare legislation.
I have been somewhat concerned, however, with the efforts being made to minimize the importance of this bill. The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), for example, has stated that this is purely a tidying-up operation and that there is nothing really new in it. It is true that the legislation does represent in a sense a tidying-up operation since it makes it possible to incorporate the provisions of a variety of federal and provincial programs into one act, and to form the basis for the development of a single, integrated and comprehensive assistance program. In doing so it makes it possible for assistance to be provided under one program for all persons who require it regardless of the particular conditions that have led to their need for such help.
We have come a long way from the days of the English poor law when welfare in parts of Canada was characterized by meagre assistance-the less the better-the placement of indigents in alms-houses, county homes or poor farms, strict residence regulations, grudging acceptance of responsibility for keeping the needy, and an almost total lack of understanding of the causes and effects of poverty. It took time, changes in public attitudes and enlightened leadership to change this approach. It also took federal funds and programs for special groups, developed often in collaboration with the provinces, to improve assistance measures. First came pensions for the aged and then attention to special groups like the blind and disabled and veterans. Statutory payments such as old age security and family allowances, social insurance measures such as unemployment insurance and,
Canada Assistance Plan most recently, the Canada Pension Plan, have also been developed over the years.
Some ten years ago the Unemployment Assistance Act was passed, through which the federal government shared with the provinces and municipalities in the cost of general assistance to the unemployed. This represented a major step forward in providing assistance to the needy and led logically to the Canada Assistance Plan we are studying today.
It is generally recognized now that we have reached the point in Canada where assistance should be based on the fact of need rather than on the cause of need, and that there is no longer justification for setting up special programs to meet the particular needs of various disadvantaged groups. The Canada Assistance Plan provides the basis for a simpler and more efficient means of helping people. At the same time its provisions are sufficiently flexible that special help can be given to persons on the basis of their actual need. Thus it will still be possible to take into account differences between individuals and between various groups of people whose needs vary according to where they live or what are the precipitating causes of their need.
This approach may be characterized as a tidying-up operation, but it is obvious that it introduces a new and important concept, that of basing the amount and type of assistance on actual need and adapting the approach to meet the individual's circumstances.
But the Canada Assistance Plan goes well beyond this because it recognizes that the mere provision of financial assistance in itself is not sufficient. It directs attention to the causes and effects of poverty and provides for measures that will assist people to regain to the fullest possible extent their capacity for self-support. This is not necessarily a new concept, but its recognition in federal legislation and the support given to it is of the greatest significance and will undoubtedly lead to far-reaching developments in the whole field of public welfare. To this extent the Canada Assistance Plan represents an important milestone in the history of public welfare in Canada.
The emphasis the plan gives to preventive and rehabilitative services is in recognition of the fact that for many persons the circumstances that led to their need for assistance could have been and may still be changed to the point where assistance is no longer required. They may suffer from ill health or
7152	COMMONS
Canada Assistance Plan physical disability, in which case medical or physical rehabilitation services are indicated to remove or overcome the limiting condition. It may be lack of skills or training that prevents the individual from securing or retaining employment. This calls for assessment, appropriate training and job placement. It may be family troubles for which skilled counselling and perhaps homemakers' services may be indicated. It may be lack of motivation or loss of the will to work, often a result of prolonged unemployment. Here programs designed to prepare and motivate such persons to take advantage of rehabilitation and training services or other programs designed to keep them in normal employment may be required.
My point is, Mr. Speaker, that the need for financial assistance must in many instances be seen as a result or symptom of problems that can and must be dealt with systematically, effectively and, above all, sympathetically. Dependency is debilitating and often self-perpetuating and, as we all know, tends to be passed on to the children of assistance recipients. From this point of view the provision of financial assistance becomes just one element in the process of helping people rather than, as is often the case at present, the only element. It is a tool to be used when required but used in conjunction with other means of helping the individual to maintain himself and his dependants and then to go on to achieve the maximum degree of self-support of which he is capable.
The Canada Assistance Plan is, then, designed to shift the focus of welfare from relief to prevention and rehabilitation by encouraging, with additional federal funds, development of the wide variety of services which are directed to the achievement of self-support and self-care. Some of these services, of course, now exist in governmental and voluntary agencies and should be more fully utilized.
Federal funds will also help welfare departments and voluntary agencies to engage the additional administrative, professional, clerical and secretarial staff required to extend and improve their administrative procedures and their welfare services.
This social rehabilitation approach is given effect in a number of ways in the Canada Assistance Plan. It appears first in the definition of assistance. While recognizing that basic requirements such as food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies and personal requirements must be provided,

DEBATES	July 4, 1966
it goes on to list other elements that should be taken into account. Contributions will be made for health care services, for example. While most provinces have developed various measures through which public assistance recipients now receive health care services, it is fair to say that in no province have they been comprehensive while in some they have been very limited.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The scope of the Canada Assistance Plan in relation to health care services for needy persons is very broad. For example, it may include medical and surgical services, nursing, dental and optical care, including dentures and eye-glasses, drugs and prosthetic appliances, the additional funds to be provided by the federal government will make it possible for the provinces to develop and extend health care services beyond the present levels and thereby eliminate some of the exclusions which are now characteristic of many of the programs in the provinces, exclusions which have often caused hardship to individuals.
The definition of assistance also includes welfare services. A useful example of the type of service that may be provided is that of homemaker services. The situation often arises where a mother is removed from her home, perhaps for hospitalization, leaving a husband and children to cope as best they can in her absence. If there are no relatives or close friends to care for the children, the father has the option of staying home from work to look after them or neglecting them in order to retain his job or having them placed by child welfare authorities in foster homes or child welfare institutions. The family can be kept together, however, and the mother's peace of mind and eventual recovery enhanced, by bringing in a homemaker who, in fact, takes the place of the mother during her absence. The father is enabled to keep his job with assurance that his family is being looked after, the mother's recovery is hastened because she is assured that her children are being cared for, and the family is held together.
Let me turn now to the definition of welfare services that appears on page 4 of the bill. Welfare services are defined as services having as their object the lessening or removal of causes and effects of poverty, child neglect or dependence on public assistance. Farther down the page hon. members will note that welfare services can be provided to persons in need or persons who are likely to
July 4, 1966	COMMONS
become persons in need unless welfare services are provided. We are not content, as this definition makes clear, to wait until the problems that the individual or family face become so acute that they are forced to turn to the public authority for financial assistance. Where counselling, homemaker services, referral to appropriate community services and the like are indicated, these can be provided and the will and capacity of the individual can be sustained and strengthened with a view to maintaining his all-important self-dependence.
It has been pointed out by some hon. members that much greater attention needs to be given to the number and quality of staff in the field of welfare. I want to emphasize the fact that tremendous strides have been made in recent years in improving the quality of training for personnel in this field. Emphasis is given in their training to the importance of administering public welfare programs in ways which enhance and protect the rights, self-respect, dignity and independence of people. We have come a long way from the days of the depression when so many people did, in fact, suffer from the attitudes of welfare authorities whose main objective appeared to be to discourage them in every possible way from asking for help when they were unable, because of lack of employment opportunities, to provide for themselves. It is this concern, I believe, which has prompted many people to reject the idea of a needs test, and if that attitude were still in effect I also would be among those who would seek for alternative ways of helping people. But times have changed and attitudes have changed. We recognize the right of people to expect courteous and considerate attention when, usually for reasons beyond their control, they find themselves in need of help.
The Canada Assistance Plan, under the definition of welfare services, makes provision for sharing in the costs of staff training and development and thereby acknowledges in a tangible way the need to provide for adequate numbers of properly qualified people who can administer the programs in ways that will enhance the dignity and self-respect of persons who have every right to expect to be treated in this manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Walter Groos: The hon. member for Por-tage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns), himself a professional social worker, has eloquently drawn
DEBATES	7153
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion our attention to the importance of professional training for social work and has urged the importance of a determined program for social work recruitment and education. He has said that in the absence of well-qualified personnel, the availability of additional funds and ancillary personnel will create immediate confusion and may end in damage to the families concerned. I know he will be reassured to see evidence in the plan that funds will be made available to support staff training and development.
I understand that through the Department of National Health and Welfare, provincial departments of welfare, schools of social work, and various voluntary organizations across Canada, determined efforts are being made to extend and improve various necessary educational and training programs for the field of social welfare. It is acknowledged that the Canada Assistance Plan will provide a powerful incentive to these efforts. Given the staff and the resources for which the Canada Assistance Plan makes provision, we can be assured that the social rehabilitation emphasis of the plan will become a reality and that people who at various times now find themselves dependent on public funds may be given every opportunity to achieve the goal of self-support to which we all subscribe.


Mr. Aiken:: May I call it six o'clock?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps I can assist the Chair at this point by suggesting that some thought has been given to whether the house might not rise for the dinner hour until seven o'clock. If that is agreeable, we might do so then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have been such discussions and I think we are all agreed. We would even be prepared to agree that the house should rise between six o'clock and seven each night this week.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the house agree that the sitting be suspended until seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, it is my duty to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan as follows: the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), Finance-housing loans by banks at N.H.A. interest rates; the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), Public Service-immigration staff association communication respecting morale; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), Canadian flag-inquiry as to prosecution for desecration.
In accordance with the agreement reached, this sitting stands suspended until seven o'clock.
At 6.02 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed a 7.00 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker in this debate pointed out many of the attributes of the Canada Assistance Plan and reasons why members should give it their strong and forthright support. I take no great objection to the arguments he advanced, but it seems passing strange to me that the Liberal party which has always held itself out as the party which has endeavoured to do more for the unfortunate of this country should completely ignore and bypass a report prepared by a special committee of the Senate which recommended so much more for this group of citizens, who face real problems because of financial difficulties into which they have been placed by this government.
While I have said that Liberals always hold themselves out as the champions of the downtrodden I must also say that in the field of hospital insurance they managed to accumulate a great deal of mileage because they talked about it from 1919 onwards. Yet it was not until 1957, when the party to which I belong was in power, that it was put into effect. In regard to welfare assistance the

Liberal party is trailing far behind the other parties in the House of Commons today.
The members of the opposition parties have indicated their willingness to give to the older citizens of this nation that which most Canadians believe they should have, a pension of at least $100 a month. There are some who appear to be somewhat concerned about the fact that we did not recess last week end. Generally speaking I am sure that members of parliament went up in the estimation of a great many Canadians because of their willingness to stay here in an endeavour to convince the government that a minimum old age security pension of at least $100 a month is a must. I feel certain that a great many members sitting on the back benches on the government side are as pleased as punch that we are still here today debating this matter, with the hope that the government will move forward with a program to provide this minimum pension for all citizens 65 years oi age and over without a means test. I do not think I need say more on that aspect of the situation.
The leader of our party today performed a job which leaves the remainder of members in our party in a position of having only to agree with his sentiments. He spoke for every member of the official opposition, if not for the members of all opposition parties, as well as for a number of members sitting on the Liberal side of this house. I am sure many of them are dissatisfied with the arrogant attitude adopted by the cabinet ministers in this regard.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
It is my intention this evening to deal with a subject which is not quite as broad as old age assistance and which involves fewer people. The amount of money involved is infinitesimal when compared with the amount that has been paid to date in social welfare and in old age assistance. I refer to the disabled persons allowance. It is my hope that I can convince the minister that the Canada Assistance Plan as constituted will do more harm than good to a great many people who today live in degradation and poverty because the government will not make a move in the right direction. I feel this is particularly upsetting, because there are not enough people in this classification to command the kind of attention that the old age pensioners receive, because of their much greater numbers.
July 4, 1966

I was very pleased to see during the last election campaign that our leader, when outlining the policies which our party would endorse if elected to office, made an unequivocal promise that we would eliminate the means test in so far as the disabled persons allowance and the blind persons allowance were concerned. This meant that any individual who found himself in the unfortunate position of being either blind or disabled would as of right receive $75 a month during the period that he qualified for such allowance, and indeed in most instances for the rest of his life.
I believe there is only one fair way to indicate the great problem that people face when making application for the disabled persons allowance, and that is by reading into the record some of the correspondence that a member has with constituents and cabinet ministers, both federal and provincial. I should first of all like to read a letter written to me by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) on May 25. I had pointed out to him that a certain individual had doctors' reports indicating a significant degree of disability. This man was unemployable and found himself in the position wherein he could qualify for the disabled persons allowance. The minister replied in this way:
As you know, although the federal government shares in the cost of disabled persons allowances, this program is administered by the province which determines eligibility and the rate of payment. After consulting with my departmental officials, I understand that-
-the individual concerned-
-could not meet the definition of total and permanent disability set out in the legislation and the requirement that the applicant be unable to perform activities of normal living, such as feeding, dressing and personal hygiene. It is evident from the medical report that Mr.-
-again referring to this individual-
-condition is controlled by medication and that he is able to undertake activities of daily living.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if you are alive, if you are breathing, if you are able to move, you cannot qualify for this allowance. That is what the minister is telling me. I say that this kind of legislation has no place in the statute books of this nation. When we reach the point that if you move, you cannot get any assistance, then it is a mighty funny kind of welfare program we are endorsing in this House of Commons today. We talk about assistance. This is the most shocking, degrading type of position in which to put any human being that I could possibly imagine.
Canada Assistance Plan
This is the situation faced by people in this nation who apply for disabled persons allowance. Let me read another letter that I think does a tremendous job of pointing out just how bad this act is, as it stands at the moment. Hon. members opposite talk about the Canada Assistance Plan and what it is going to do for these people. It will do absolutely nothing to improve the situation. As the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) pointed out, the government just introduces a new act and says, "Isn't this a wonderful thing?"


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend would tell me if he is aware that the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan will remove the necessity for meeting the medical test of total and permanent disability; that under the provisions of this plan his grievance, which I think is a justifiable one, will be removed.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the plan proposed today do not meet the situation to which I am referring in the slightest degree. They do not meet it for a number of reasons. The main one is that a person has to pass a needs test in order to qualify for assistance. It does not make any difference whether you are laid out on a bed, incapable of movement; you still have to qualify. It does not make any difference who puts up the money to keep you alive; the government says that you have to pass the test, and if you cannot pass it you will not receive assistance. Let me read what was written about another gentleman. He was known to me for many years. I do not mind putting his name on the record because he is not longer with us. He came to me in August, 1965 and said he had made application for the disabled persons allowance and had been turned down. I received a letter from the Minister of Public Welfare of Nova Scotia informing me that this man applied for the allowance and in September, 1964, was first turned down. I had a great deal of correspondence on this subject and on February 17, 1966, received this letter from his wife:
This is to thank you for your efforts on my husband's behalf re the disability pension. Unfortunately, the day I received word that he would get his cheque in February was the day of his operation and as he never regained consciousness he never knew he finally qualified.
If Blair had received even three or four of these cheques he would have been able to spend these months, at least, feeling a small measure of security which would have lessened his worries to some extent.

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
This situation must occur in a great many cases, as I know of a similar one myself. Surely, there must be a way to eliminate a lot of the red tape so that if one is really disabled he could receive help at least within three months after the application has been filed. Perhaps an adjustment can be made so that others may be helped quicker.
I know your letter played a big part in helping Blair get the pension. It was just too bad it took them so long to realize his urgent need. Many thanks for doing what you could for him when he asked for your assistance.
That is an example of the kind of degradation that this legislation, and any legislation that demands a needs test, puts people through. Are we being good Canadians when we ask our fellow citizens to subject themselves to this sort of thing for years and years in order to receive a pittance that is really not enough to survive on, and is only enough to slowly die on; because $75 a month does not really maintain anybody in health and happiness, it just allows one to survive for a certain number of years.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
What else do we do when we put this requirement of a means test on a disabled person's allowance? In effect we say to this person: "You have worked for a great many years and probably you have made some savings. When you have spent your savings on obtaining the medical attention you require, come up to us and we will investigate how you have spent the $3,000 or $4,000 you had saved. We will then give you $75 on which we know you cannot exist." This is what the needs test does to Canadians.
We then hear someone else saying to us: There is nothing wrong in asking people to subject themselves to a needs or a means test; there is a different philosophy in the world today than there was 20 years ago. Apparently, according to some speakers, there is less dignity in the world today. There is only less dignity in the world when you push people down and will not let them up.
If you adopt the attitude which was taken by the Senate committee on aging, you will not subject these people to such a degradation but you will recognize the fact that dignity and pride are necessary to every individual. You will endeavour to maintain these qualities and you will not try to destroy them. In effect we do destroy them when we demand a means or a needs test. Both these tests mean the same thing to every individual who has applied for one of these social assistance schemes.

If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is anxious to put forward far-reaching legislation which will maintain the pride and dignity which we desire for all individuals in this nation, he will eliminate the needs or means test from the Canada Assistance Plan and put into effect the system which the Senate committee on aging has recommended. This will eliminate the necessity, to which many Canadians are subjected, of going to the office or home of a member of parliament, of a member of the legislative assembly or of a county councillor and asking him to intercede, in the hope of obtaining some kind of financial assistance which will enable him to survive. If we continue to demand that a means test be made a requirement, we will not move very far ahead of the legislation for the relief for the poor that was so common in the thirties. We will not be progressing and we will continue to subject Canadians to the same humiliations which they have had to suffer in order to get the sustenance of life.
We have to change our philosophy in this respect. The sad thing about this is that I think most hon. members, both on the government side and in the opposition, believe that a change should be brought about. The administration, however, has not yet arrived at this conclusion. The best indication of that is their stubbornness-there is no better word for it-in not bringing forward an increase in the old age security which would be acceptable to every Canadian everywhere. I think any hon. member could go into the street and ask any individual he meets whether he is in favour of immediately increasing old age security by $25 a month, and whether he be a 10 year old boy or an 80 year old man, the reply would be "Yes, we are in agreement".
This measure should have been taken a long time ago because I think that is the way all Canadians think. If the cabinet ministers went back to their constituencies and talked to their supporters a little more often, they would discover that that is the way the average Canadian thinks. The sooner the government eliminates it stubborn attitude in this regard, the sooner the business of this nation will move forward.
I believe members of this parliament have put up with this stubborn arrogance long enough and they will not continue to fool around any longer. We want that increase and we will stay here until we get it. I am all in favour of staying as long as is necessary to get it.
July 4, 1966	COMMONS


David Orlikow: wish to say at the start that, like other members of the party which I represent, I am in support of this bill. However, I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I disagree with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) who spoke late this afternoon, and I cannot help but believe that we will not have reached the millennium in Canada after this bill is passed and brought into operation. I believe that it will provide services which are long overdue in a number of areas. It is only after this bill is put into operation and after some of the needs for which this bill will provide have been implemented that we will begin to realize how much more remains to be done before we have instituted in this country a really comprehensive social security system about which so many people have talked for many years.
This afternoon I read the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) in introducing this bill. In studying it paragraph by paragraph I realized again that after this bill is implemented we will still be very far from accomplishing the aims which the government has set out for itself in this bill. I will say again that it is my intention to support it and I will list the fields in which the minister has indicated financial assistance will be provided.
They are: people covered by the old age assistance program; people receiving blindness allowances; people receiving disabled persons allowances; needy mothers with dependent children; people receiving assistance in general; people who now receive assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Act; and children in the care of welfare authorities.
This is a good Bill as far as it goes, but it seems to me that when this bill is implemented we will find that we will provide most assistance to people in these categories who reside in the provinces which now have the best programs, that is to say Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. What we are proposing to do in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is no more and no less than help the provinces share the cost. There is no provision in this bill to help the people in the provinces in which public assistance programs have been, and still are, almost totally inadequate. The people in New Brunswick or in the rural areas of my own province of Manitoba are not getting the assistance they should get. If the rates which have been set are inadequate, or if the staff to service their needs is inadequate, as they
DEBATES	7157
Canada Assistance Plan are, then there are no provisions in this bill which will help.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I am not thinking of a rural area at the moment, Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of a village which happens to be in the constituency of my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in which there is no trained staff, in which the decision as to who gets assistance and how much, is made by members of the local village council. They are estimable people, Mr. Speaker, but they have no qualifications and no training at all. In addition, they are people who, as a result of good health and good fortune have, as our young people would say, got it made themselves. They look down on these people requesting assistance. I have been told by social workers as I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has, that the council looks down upon these people and they are tough with them.
A person really has to crawl on his belly in that village before he can get assistance. There are no provisions in this bill which will help these people at all. I am not going to go into details. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said much better than I could this afternoon that what we need is a national standard. I say again that it is not my intention to vote against this bill. I wonder if the minister has really given any thought to whether the federal government should be giving financial assistance to provinces and municipalities where the standard of assistance given to people who are in need is not adequate? It seems to me it would be a good idea if the federal government, in implementing this program, were to say to the provinces and let the provinces say to the municipalities: There is the Canada Assistance Plan; there is money available from the federal government, but that money is only available if the assistance which you give is sufficient to permit the people who are getting assistance to live with some dignity.
I do not hold any brief for the Manitoba government. Hon. members know it is a Conservative government and that it has a smaller majority this week than it had last week. But the Manitoba government has one of the most constructive programs of any province in Canada for the assistance of the Indian and Metis people who are not living on reserves and who therefore do not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, I have seen how many of
July 4, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan these people live. The way in which they exist is a disgrace to any country as wealthy as this one. I question very much whether the federal government should pay one red cent to Manitoba or any other province for that kind of assistance, until the standard of assistance given is such as would permit these people or any other people who require assistance, to live in some kind of decency.
It so happens that today I received an answer to a question I put on the order paper a month or more ago. It relates to the kind of housing in which the Indians in Canada live, as compared to the rest of the population. Let me just call attention to certain facts. Of the
4,617,000	households in Canada, excluding the Yukon and Northwest Territories and the households of Indians living on reserves, 4,-
600,000	have electricity. When you come to consider the Indians you find that only 12,773 households out of about 60,000 in Canada have electricity. If you look at the problem of running water, you find that of the 4.5 million homes in Canada, 4 million have running water. If you look at the situation with regard to Indians you find that less than 10 per cent of the Indian households have running water, and less than 5 per cent of Indian homes have indoor baths. This is a situation which exists for the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country. I suggest that not only is there nothing in this program to help these people, but there should not be a nickel paid to the provinces until the provinces devise programs which will set standards somewhere close to the standards enjoyed by the rest of the population.
According to the minister, Mr. Speaker, there will be a real effort made to get municipalities to improve the standards of assistance which they now provide. Upon what does the minister base that statement? The fact is that the provinces have not, until now, devised such programs. The fact is that the provinces, in nearly every case, have left assistance to the local governments. This government will be giving a certain amount to the provinces, but the municipalities will administer these programs. This is fine for the urban areas. This may be fine in cities which have full-time welfare departments and which have at least partly trained and qualified staffs to do this job. However, this bill will mean virtually nothing to the people who need assistance and who live in the rural areas of this country, where the kind of program which is required has not even been thought about, let alone instituted. fMr. OrlikowJ
The minister talks about how much better a needs test is than a means test. I am not being critical of the minister when I say this looks and sounds good, but I can tell him that I have had considerably more experience with this question of the needs test as compared to the means test than the minister has. One of the first things which the Conservative government of Manitoba did when it came to power in 1958 was to enact a law called the social allowances act. What Mr. Roblin was proudest of was the fact that in the province of Manitoba, as a result of the social allowances act, the people of Manitoba in 1959 in effect wiped out the means test, substituting for it the magic phrase which years later the Liberal party has come up with-as it does with so many things-namely the needs test.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I have news for the minister. I would challenge him or his officials to come to Manitoba, where I will be glad to be their guide. After all, there is only one Liberal member from the province of Manitoba. I will take the minister to visit 10 or 20 people who now receive assistance under the social allowances act of Manitoba, which has been in effect since 1959. I will let the minister and his officials ask these people to explain, not the difference in theory or in fine print, but the difference in actual fact between living under the needs test, which has been in existence in Manitoba since 1959, and the means test which existed before then. If the minister does not wish to come with me he could go with the provincial minister of welfare of the province of Manitoba; but I am certain that nine out of 10 of the people the minister or his officials would meet, who receive assistance under the social allowances act and who undergo a needs test instead of a means test, would be unable to explain the difference between the two.
I do not oppose a needs test, though I do not think it is much better than a means test; but when you strip away all the fine language and theory I would suggest to the minister that the people do not know the difference because there really is not any difference. I suggest that most people would consider the two tests exactly the same.
While this bill will mean improvements in the categories listed by the minister, some of which I have already mentioned, it completely ignores two of the major requirements of people who are in need, particularly the older people. It completely ignores the fact that we
July 4, 1966

in Canada-and we all ought to hang our heads in shame for this-have done, I was going to say virtually nothing, but this would be too kind. We have done nothing by way of providing housing for those in need, particularly housing for people who are retired and are now receiving the old age pension.
It is true that in most cities in Canada one can find a few housing projects for people of this type. A month or so ago I was present at the official opening of a very fine housing project in my constituency built under the auspices of the United Church of Canada, named-I am not being critical here-the Fred Douglas Home. Fred Douglas was a leading figure in the United Church in Winnipeg and was also a candidate for the Liberal party during the last two elections in the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre. This project is a very fine one, Mr. Speaker; but if you were to count the units in the city of Winnipeg built under the auspices of the United Church and the Roman Catholic Church, the Lions club, the Kiwanis and the Canadian Legion-and perhaps there are other organizations which have participated which I have not listed-the available units would number merely several hundred, certainly less than a thousand.
When one compares this with the needs of the elderly people who are on low incomes or on pensions in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal or any other city in Canada, it is apparent that this bill or anything which has been proposed by the government will be of little assistance.
We know from experience that unless this housing problem is solved, no matter how the pension is increased-and I will come to this later-what you are saying to the landlords who rent single rooms to the elderly people of this country, which are very often miserable, shabby and inadequate, is that any increase of $10 or $15 a month is an official notification that now is the time to raise the rents. This is what happens, and the old people have to pay these increased rents because they have nowhere else to go.
There is one other matter of tremendous importance, and this is the need of our elderly people to meet in one way or another their health requirements. In the province of Manitoba there is a provincial medicare program. I am not going to say that this program is of no use at all. Several thousand people have their bills paid by this program, and it is voluntary. Under this voluntary program several very serious shortcomings have already become apparent.
Canada Assistance Plan
First of all, thousands of old people, who could have their medical expenses paid by the provincial medicare plan, do not. This is because having already had to pass through one means test-described as a needs test in Manitoba, though there is really no difference, as I said-in order to receive their pension, they simply refuse to go through what they consider, and what I agree to be, the humiliating experience of another interview with some government official, baring all their problems, expenses and financial resources.
I think in particular of a woman in Winnipeg who was born in the province of Manitoba, has lived in the province all her life and is now 83 years of age. She has no income except the old age pension of $75 a month. When I was talking to her recently she told me that she had to pay her premiums to the Manitoba medical service. I told her she was certainly entitled to have her medical insurance paid by the province under its medicare program. But she told me-and I can understand how she felt-that she suffered one means test in order to get her pension when she was less than 70 years old, and that she had no intention of going through another. So with a total income of $75 a month she pays several dollars a month to cover her medical insurance costs. There is nothing in this program which provides for that type of contingency.
We have a situation in the province of Manitoba where it is possible under the voluntary medicare program-and perhaps on the occasion when we debate the medicare legislation I will bring actual cases to the attention of the house-for a person getting the old age pension of $75 a month to apply for coverage under the provincial medicare plan, and to be turned down on the basis that his or her income is such that he or she is not entitled to assistance from the province.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
This is the kind of program, Mr. Speaker, which under the Canada Assistance Plan it is proposed to subsidize. We are proposing to the provinces that even though they have an inadequate program in any of the categories mentioned, we will pay 50 per cent of the cost. I think that, not only does this not meet the needs of the people who are in need, but it is wrong in principle, as every other hon. member has said during this debate.
The problem ought to be one that sets national standards-minimum standards at least-and which says to the provinces: The

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan federal government will pay 50 per cent of the cost, provided the provincial programs meet the minimum standards.
I am not suggesting that the standards be the same in all provinces. I am not suggesting that the provinces cannot give more assistance than is envisaged in the program, and I am not suggesting that the federal government in that case will say: We will not pay. I say that the federal government must set standards, just as it will set standards, I hope, in the months to come with respect to the implementation of medicare.
Were the federal government to say to the provinces: "We are prepared to share in the cost of a medical insurance plan for the payment of doctors and other health needs, provided the provincial plan meets certain requirements, namely that it is universal in character, that it is administered by a public agency, that it is portable from province to province," I see no reason why such program should not be adopted, and why such principles and standards should not be set for the provinces.
I want now to deal with a matter that has already been dealt with. I know it shall be repeating what has been said by many speakers, but I want to deal with the specific problem of those who are now receiving old age pensions or old age assistance. I am referring to those people who will never be able to get the extra income that will be available to people who are working, and who will be able to qualify under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan for certain benefits.
It has been said by members on the government side of the house, by members of the press, by radio and television commentators, that we in this group are filibustering; that we are holding up other hon. members. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was away for several days and am not certain what others have said about this subject. I have no objection to being labelled a participant in a filibuster. I am only sorry for one thing in this debate: I am sorry that the rules of the house prevent our conducting a real filibuster.
I am not different from other hon. members. I have not been able to spend much time in my home city since coming here in 1962. I, in common with other hon. members, was looking forward to spending most of the summer in my home town, in this case Winnipeg. Nevertheless, if I thought that by keeping this house in session all summer we would get an extra $25 a month, which I think is the minimum additional amount that

every person receiving an old age assistance or old age pension should get, I should be very happy to stay here for the rest of the summer.
In a country with the great wealth, tremendous resources and small population that we have, for the government to say that the country cannot afford to give every person now receiving old age pension or old age assistance $100 a month, I think is disgraceful. We are all to blame for that, and we all ought to be ashamed of that.
An organization in the city of Winnipeg which works with elderly people, known as the Age and Opportunity Bureau, has estimated the minimum cost of living in that city. I know that other hon. members have referred to this question as it relates to the cities of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. I am concerned with all people across Canada, of course, but I am primarily concerned with the city of Winnipeg, because I represent that city.
The organization in question has estimated-and this was done more than six months ago, and I do not need to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the cost of living has risen very substantially in the last six months-that a single retired person needs a minimum of $111.75 a month to live. I want to tell the minister, in case he does not know, that on such a sum people will not live high off the hog. Here is how the budget is broken down-and I quote from the Winnipeg Tribune of January 25, 1966:
Food, $35.45; clothing $6.45; personal Incidentals, $2.29; household supplies, $1.63; electricity, $2.02; housing, $35; reading material, $1.73; religion, $1.08; recreation, $2.09; transportation $3; entertaining, $1.28, personal allowance, $2.87; replacements, 80 cents; telephone, $3.41; health $12.65.
Let us look at these figures. I wonder how many members of parliament or other people in Canada would like to live on a food budget of $35.45 a month.


Reid Scott: It would be all right if you did not eat.


David Orlikow: It would be all right if you did not eat. It might do some of us good to try it for one month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for yourself.


David Orlikow: I am speaking for myself, but certainly not for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this respect.
July 4, 1966

Do you want to know how people can live with a food budget of $35.45 a month? This is what is stated in the Tribune article:
Only the cheapest cuts of meat are on the food list. The highest-priced roast is 59 cents a pound.
You could spend a whole day going from supermarket to supermarket in Winnipeg or Ottawa to find any roast selling at 59 cents a pound. Continuing the quotation:
A total of $1.19 a week is allowed for meat, fish and liver. For vegetables, fruits and juices, $2.06 a week is allowed.
Food is recognized as the most flexible item for a person living on a low budget, as compared to housing, for example which is a fixed cost.
Out of a budget of $111.75 a month a person has to spend $35 for housing. I should like the Minister of National Health and Welfare to come to Winnipeg for a couple of days. I shall be glad to take him around the city to show him the kind of accommodation he could get for $35 a month. We certainly would be ashamed to have anybody we know or related to us living under such conditions.
The minimum amount required, then, is $111.75 per month. That is why members of the house from all parties on this side, as well as many members from the other side would like to see, under the provisions of this bill, an immediate increase in the old age pension to $100 a month, and the age at which that is payable to be immediately brought down to age 65. I have heard comments to this effect during this debate, as well as during the session before the election, and during the election campaign. I have heard the argument put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), by the former minister of national health and welfare, by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and by other members of the government that, after all, people would be able to get more than $100 under the provisions of this bill if they needed it. The amount mentioned depended on the city in which the statement was made. If it were in one of the big cities it was $125 or $150; if it was made in one of the smaller cities it was $105.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
There have been many stories, I do not know who inspired them, that the minister would get up and make a statement, when he was given an opportunity to speak, about increased pensions. Anyone would think that members have been breaking their necks to prevent the minister from making this important speech which would solve the problems of the needy. We have read stories about an
Canada Assistance Plan announcement to be made by the minister that an extra $30 a month would be available for everybody. Even if this were true it would be a lot less than the $125 the Prime Minister talked about from one end of Canada to the other.
Even if it were true, as I say, it would only, I am told, be true provided the people who are in need agreed to submit themselves to the indignity of a needs test. I am not opposed to some kind of examination, some kind of test, some filling out of a form for supplementary needs. I suppose in our time there will always be some kind of examination in respect of what might be considered luxuries. But I am opposed, and I will always be opposed, to any program by which the older people of this country who have made their contributions in the years during which they worked would have to submit to any kind of test, whether it is called a means test or whether we gild the lily and call it a needs test, before they can get the basic necessities they require.
I have a good deal of respect for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He comes from a region which is one of the have-not areas of this country. Looking through the parliamentary guide I notice that he himself came from a family which had known want in the early days. Surely he does not need any more convincing that the older people of this country will not be living very affluently if they are given a minimum of $100 a month. Surely all the evidence of every interested organization, whether it be the age and opportunity bureau to which I referred earlier, or the Montreal Welfare Council or the Senate sub-committee on aging, points to the conclusion that the payments now being provided for our old people are insufficient and that they ought to be raised, and raised immediately.
I wish to close by adding my words to the words of so many members of this house from every party, including the Conservative party, who have urged the minister to reconsider his adamant position that the present pension of $75 a month shall not be increased except on the basis of a needs test. I hope the minister will announce when he speaks, whenever that may be, that the government has reconsidered and that the legislation will be amended to provide that the pension shall be increased immediately to $100 a month at the age of 65.

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan [Translation]


Mr. J. P. Goyer (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, nobody will be surprised when I say, like the previous speakers, that I am in favour of the resolution under study. They indicated, however, that they would vote for the resolution, but they spent their time stressing its omissions. I feel personally that it is a good piece of legislation and surely the best on which we shall be called upon to vote.
To hear members of the opposition, the federal treasury is like some manna or an inexhaustible treasure able to meet any requirements and aspirations. But if these members stood by their principles, they would say at the same time how much the measures they propose would cost and what tax increases they would entail for the people. If they were really honest, I think it would be easier for me to appreciate their position.
But it is obviously a good thing to make promises and support popular measures but, on the other hand, the cost involved to implement them is being overlooked and the truth is hidden from the people.
Older people have been mentioned mostly since we started studying this bill. Another measure that needs to be revised has been forgotten, the one concerning family allowances. In the last 13 years, expenses for old age pensions have increased by 150 per cent, whereas, during the same period expenses for family allowances have only increased by 50 per cent.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This means that while speaking, reminiscences of the last election campaign crop up. While emphasis is laid on assistance to the old people in Canada, the fact that there are still needy families in Canada is totally overlooked; there are parents who have to raise their children with the bare necessities of life. While old age pensions have increased 150 per cent and family allowance by 50 per cent, that fact overlooked perhaps intentionally, and the house is carrying on with what I call electioneering.
Much has been said since the beginning of the session about war on poverty, but when a bill is introduced for the purpose of helping the needy, and only the needy, efforts are made to extend such help to middle class people or those who have the minimum required to meet their obligations.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
The New Democratic Party seems to be hanging on to socialism that was sound in the thirties in objecting to a needs test related to income in the social field. It is being recognized that gradually socialist parties all over the world are giving more and more support to assistance to the needy and are moving away from universal plans and when the New Democratic Party which, apparently, is the socialist party in Canada, steers clear of this 1966 socialist policy, I am surprised, because I thought these people were much more aware of the world trends of socialism. The sums of money made available to the needy and earmarked for the operation of social measures in Canada are getting larger and larger. Of course, when only $20 was being given to the old people, it was not sound business practice to have means and needs tests; it would have been much too expensive with regard to the money being given. But as far as the present bill is concerned, there are sound administrative reasons to justify an investigation of the income related needs, because the sums of money we are voting today for social assistance have become so large that it is economical for a government to investigate, in order to have more money available for the needy and to have money which, otherwise, would go to people who do not need it.
Exactly the same policy is being applied in retraining. The Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) has brought down a retraining program under which a worker who is unemployed and who refuses to make an effort to adapt himself to modern methods will get a minimum basic amount, whereas one who is willing to try to become reinstated in the labour market and an asset to the economy of the country is entitled to more which is necessarily an incentive to fit himself for present-day requirements. Consequently, in such a definite field as labour, we have legislation which is not uniform and provides not only for the individual but also for his wishes and for the situation in which he is living. It is only an extension of this political thinking into the social field to support an investigation of the income related needs.
This afternoon, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) stated that an inquiry similar to the income tax statement, for instance, should be preferred, where, in order to get a higher pension, one would simply have to fill out a form along the lines of the income tax statement. The member for York South is surely aware that the Minister of
July 4, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan
National Revenue (Mr. Benson) is empowered to investigate the statements an individual makes to the income tax. And more and more, the income tax-


David Lewis: It is only to make sure that it is honest.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I am sorry but I did not get it.


David Lewis: It is only to make sure that it is honest.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: To make sure that it is honest. I am not saying that those who would ask for more money as people in need are dishonest. I would not like the hon. member for York South to get me going on that subject but I only wish to tell him that he could have carried his idea to the end and said that we could have an investigation system to establish if the individual has made an accurate statement. And the hon. member for York South also said that it is odious. Is it odious as far as income tax is concerned? I do not think so. Would it also be odious to make an investigation about the income of a person who applies for assistance? I do not think so either and when the hon. member for York South spoke on behalf of his party-I think that is what he was doing-and said that the administration of the plan should not be turned over to the provinces because the per capita income was not the same, the way of life varied from one province to another-and he is right about that-and that therefore the central government should standardize the assistance, I think he was overlooking the constitution. To say only that in Canada we get too deeply involved in constitutional measures is to disregard the whole matter which is now in the air about the Canadian constitution. And it is to disregard the main lieutenant of the N.D.P. in the province of Quebec who claims loudly the respect of the N.D.P for provincial autonomy.


David Lewis: That is right.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: When we hear about a policy in parliament and about another one during an election campaign, we are shocked and have good reason to be.


David Lewis: It is the same policy.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: And I think that in taking into account constitutional requirements, in proposing that this plan be administered by the provinces, the federal government shows a constitutional realism which does it credit, all the more since as far as efficiency is
concerned it is better that this plan be administered by the provinces because the provincial governments are nearer to the people and know better the needs of the people and the individuals. And if we are afraid of provincial governments, we must tell ourselves that they are neither more nor less virtuous than the federal government or the municipal governments.


David Lewis: That is true.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: We must necessarily have faith in the other levels of government which know the needs of the population and which can therefore better assume their responsibilities. That is why I think that the government is introducing here its best piece of legislation. To be content to criticize it, to run it down, is not a very progressive attitude. Therefore, I think that one should rather see it as a good measure that can be further improved later.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I presume this debate is coming to an end. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), unlike many of his backbench supporters, knows that a filibuster is not taking place and none is likely to take place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Those hon. members on the back benches opposite have not been here very long and are not very smart. If they thought it was a filibuster they should know I would be standing up moving an amendment, whereby all hon. members could speak again in the debate. But I am not prepared to do that because I am not sure it would be supported.
The government should be more aware of the fact that the measure before us is an important one, not because of what it contains but because of what is omitted from it.
There are very few benefits provided by this legislation which are not already in one way or another being provided by provincial governments. This proposal will bring together many pieces of social legislation which have been enacted by the federal government and will provide enabling legislation for provincial governments, through which they can assist people in fields now participated in by provincial governments.

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
As stated by the last speaker, the Liberal party has been very backward in bringing forward legislation with strings attached, making it necessary for provincial governments to provide certain minimum programs before they are acceptable. That is an argument I have listened to with some interest because it has been advanced on many occasions, and has provided something for the Liberal party to hide behind. The Liberal government, in so far as social welfare legislation is concerned, has been a conservative government with a small "c". It has never stepped forward farther than it could step back at the same time. In fact it has often been said that this government has taken two steps backward for every one forward.
Let us consider what was said in this house when the family allowance program was originally introduced. Children in all parts of the country were supposed to be provided with an amount of money sufficient to cover the costs of the basic necessities of life. No suggestion was made at that time that one level of assistance would be provided in one province and another level in another. This type of assistance was to be provided on a universal level in all provinces.
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who said a few minutes ago that in respect of this kind of legislation the government should provide substantive measures allowing all provinces in Canada to take advantage of the federal lead and provide minimum standards throughout the country. It is a shame that people living in the province of Quebec are forced to exist as second-class citizens because of our social welfare legislation. I am sure that in each province in Canada some citizens are second-class because of certain legislative measures. People who live in one province should be in the same position as those who live in others, so far at least as social welfare is concerned.
Obviously it is because of a lack of foresight that this government particularly has been prohibited from adopting certain types of welfare legislation which would set minimum standards for all provinces. I have known our present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) for some time, and I have known something about his background, education and attitude. I have gained this knowledge through talking to him, listening and reading his speeches. He is one of the brighter young members of the Liberal party. Because of the obvious

inadequacies of this Canada Assistance Plan the responsibility for it should remain with some of the minister's colleagues. I am sure the minister asked for a great deal more on behalf of the old pensioners of this country than is being provided by this measure. If that is not true, I am sure he is out of character in presenting and supporting this bill.
Let me indicate my support for what was said by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) when he suggested that the responsibility for this bill must rest with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). Unfortunately, very often when members of parliament discuss legislation placed before them they do so in terms of what it does not provide. There are very few who will disagree with me when I suggest that the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan are such that a large number of people in this country will suffer. Many people have been told for a long period of time that the Canada Assistance Plan would be the Prime Minister's answer to his promise made in Timiskaming to provide $125 per month for those older citizens who are needy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) may have intended to raise old age assistance from $75 to $125 per month, but of course, as we all know, he is a slow starter. This is the same Liberal government which said a few years ago that a $6 per month increase in old age pensions would bankrupt this country. This is the same government that said because people demanded a $10 per month increase to old age pensions they should get it, whether it would bankrupt the country or not. Apparently this increase has had little effect on the financial resources of Canada.
It makes little difference that the test has been changed from a means test to a needs test. What the old age pensioners of this country need is an increase now. These people need more to live in relative decency, and they need more at this time and not three or four months from now. The Minister of Finance is the individual who has really set the pattern of the Liberal party's approach to old age pensions. Walter Harris started that pattern years ago when he was minister of finance, and it has been followed by successive ministers of finance.
It is interesting to note that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare said that an increase of $25 per month in old age pensions payable at age 65 would cost in the neighbourhood of $800 million. I am not
July 4, 19G6

convinced of that fact; but using the minister's figure one must conclude that our present program is costing us in the neighbourhood of two and a half billion per year, or about one third of our national income. That being the case I am surprised that the Prime Minister would even consider it possible to pay $15 per month. Such a program would cost us in the neighbourhood of $1,600,000,000 in addition to what will be required by this measure.
Surely it is time to stop members of parliament from making speeches such as the one made this afternoon. It was obvious that this speech was written by the officials who now sit in the gallery, and read by the hon. member. Let me suggest that those officials have little understanding of either economics or the needs of people. Certainly they do not have an understanding of those needs and the means of meeting them under our present economic structure. The speech made by the hon. member was very nice, but I felt I should have used the provisions of a standing order to question his right to read it. The thinking displayed by that hon. member is the type engaged in by members of this government. It believes that the establishment is always right, and that if those officials in the gallery say something is true it must be true. The government repeats those truths as gospel. It talks about $85 million being placed into the Canada assistance fund, and how wonderful this is going to be for the one million people who will be assisted in one form or another. If it does, it will amount to $85 a year for each of these one million persons, $7.83 a month or 23 cents a day, provided the provinces decide to pay their 23 cents a day. In other words, the federal government will not be contributing a quart of milk to most of the persons to whom they say they are giving this great deal of assistance. Twenty-three cents a day will constitute an improvement, but there are people in this country who write to their members of parliament-and I am sure the minister receives as many letters as the rest of us-pointing out some of the limitations of the legislation operating in the various provinces. I think the minister would agree with me that it is time we achieved some uniformity in this type of legislation and should be spending a lot more than 23 cents a day on a program for those in need.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The previous speaker mentioned provincial rights, but there are other rights. We are
Canada Assistance Plan talking about the Canada Assistance Plan and the bringing together of all forms of assistance whereby we can assure that assistance is provided to those persons in need, if the province wishes to put the program into effect. Ontario has done very little in this field.
I refer to the Disabled Persons Act, the mothers allowance, unemployment assistance, children's welfare and assistance, and so on. In each of these cases we leave the final decision not only to the welfare people, but worse, to the small municipalities in communities across the nation. I have often had occasion to speak with clerks of municipalities. In the case of a person obviously not capable of looking after himself or herself, a person who is in need and has a problem that could be met by receiving assistance in one form or another, I am told, "Yes, we agree that this assistance should be granted; but Mrs. Jones is no damned good. She is living part time with somebody else, and we won't give her any welfare."
The fact that she should be assisted for other reasons does not make any difference. The fact that her children are the same as other children who may be in more favourable circumstances morally, but that her children are in less favourable circumstances financially, does not make any difference. I am pleased that in my area there is a large, unorganized block of townships in which assistance is administered by the provincial welfare people and I am quite happy to have as our welfare district administrator a relative of a member of this house. The assistance granted under provincial welfare schemes by qualified people differs radically and is certainly much more humanely administered than the assistance being provided in many instances by municipal councils, who are still going by the old adage that was true some time ago and is becoming less true, that work is good and no work is no good, and if a person is not working, no matter what his reason, he is obviously no good and should not be supported by municipal funds, even if most of the money comes from provincial or federal government sources.
Although this measure is not very satisfactory, in that it does not contain anything for the old age pensioners of this nation, I would be very remiss if I voted against it. The things in this measure are worth while. Certainly, like most Liberal legislation, this measure will be amended in a couple of years because it has not been very well thought out. But there is really nothing new in the
July 4, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan legislation and there is nothing radical about any of the proposals being made. The old age pensioner in this country has not been given any increase, except by those provinces which have had election campaigns recently. I will be interested to know what the minister has to say about the situation in Prince Edward Island, where the old age pensioner had been promised a $25 increase in pension immediately after the election. I wonder whether provincial elections will decide whether an old age pensioner should receive needed assistance.
I am sure that any province of Canada would be stupid to go into an election without promising an increase in the old age pension, but is it not a very odd situation for the federal government to allow the provincial governments to do what we should be doing for the old age pensioners, to decide when it should be done, when federal government money is involved? I believe this is a poor reflection on the responsibilities and powers granted to the federal government many years ago in respect to this kind of legislation. This responsibility and these powers have not been questioned in the field of old age pensions. We have decided, it appears, to renege in this connection and allow the provincial governments to decide haphazardly whether additional assistance shall be provided.
This is one of the few issues over which I should like to see an election. I make no bones about it. If I had the operation of my party there would be a filibuster and all kinds of motions, including motions to kill the measure if necessary. I would have this kind of filibuster because I believe that if an election were called everybody in the country, and this includes the old age pensioner, would know exactly what the situation was and would be able to vote as his conscience dictated. I would be very happy to leave it at that. This obviously will not be the case. However, the old age pensioner has a right to look to the federal government for protection.
In the budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said that he anticipated an increase in the cost of living of 3i per cent.
I think it is ridiculous, in these circumstances, to say to the old age pensioner: Hold the line at $75. Believe me, most of them live entirely on this $75. It is ridiculous to think that these people can live on $75 a month when the cost of living will increase by 3J per cent. It is not only ridiculous but, yes, it is criminally irresponsible for a government to allow 
the negotiation of contracts that increase the wage structure by 30 per cent and at the same time say to the old age pensioner: Hold the lid on in this regard, you are doing fine on $75.
We should take the problem of the old age pensioner out of politics and apply an escalator clause to the pension. Most of us thought when passing the Canada Pension Plan that an escalator clause should have been included therein. This is the way in which to handle many of the social problems facing Canada. The minister said that it would cost $800 million to increase the old age pension. It is said we would need $2J billion to increase the old age pension, coupled with our other expenditures today. If we were to go back to a recession in this country such as we had in the early 1930's, when our total budget was less than $1 billion, we would immediately as politicians commence a downward movement on the old age pension; every time we found we were in difficulty we would affect the pension by moving it downward dollar by dollar. I believe it is not fair that the senior citizens of this country should find themselves pawns in a political game such as we have been playing ever since 1957 with respect to the old age pension.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It has been a case of "After you, Alphonse. Elect me and I will give you another $10." We have seen the Liberal party members promising in various constituencies from $46 to $125. It may be fine to have an election every year, because this is the only way in which old age pensioners can ever get a fair deal. If that is the way it has to be, then I am quite prepared to have an election. However it seems silly to spend 10 million or $15 million when we could sit down and intelligently discuss with the finance minister the minimum amount that should be established for the old age pensioners. He could tell us in a straightforward and honest way how we could introduce an escalation provision into the old age pension legislation to take care of the fluctuations in the cost of living. If the cost of living goes down, then obviously the old age pensioner living on a fixed income may find himself the richest man in the country, and those who work eight or ten hours a day would be earning less than he is. It is a fact that there are many Canadians, and there are probably some hon. members in this house, who have worked for less than $75 back in the thirties, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the economy of this country may some some day revert to this situation.
July 4. 1966

The government has clearly stated that the basis of our social security system is the old age pension scheme. Our disability pensions, our veterans allowance pensions and all other types of pensions are geared to the calculations on which the old age pension scheme is based. For this reason I believe that the federal government is not being fair and honest with the old age pensioners, for whom they promised to provide in their election campaigns. Their speeches were made up of very confused phrases which may have meant anything, and they continue to be confused. I defy any hon. member in the house to say what is the Liberal policy in relation to old age pensions. One hon. member says the government accepts the resolutions of the special Senate committee on aging and that this plan will provide a varying scale, according to the needs of old age pensioners. Others say that this special piece of legislation will provide a fixed income.
I believe the old age pensioner in Canada should be able to look forward to retirement in some comfort, because of the contribution and efforts he has made in the formation of this country. Our moral attitude has changed, since the days of my great grandfather and grandfather, who felt a moral obligation toward their parents. Today this is nearly impossible, because most young people cannot support themselves let alone support their parents. I believe it would be civilized of us to provide, through our tax structure, the necessary minimum for the elderly people of this nation, to provide them with a decent standard of living which they have so well earned. I do not believe we are now doing this. Those who have to live on old age pensions and on fixed incomes, including those who live on the pensions provided by the Canada Assistance Plan as enumerated in the various clauses of this bill, are not able to live with the minimum comforts they require.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) said that if he had to retire on $75 a month he would move into the hills, build himself a log cabin and live on bannocks. Most people do not know how to make bannocks or how to build log cabins, and anyway most people would not like to live in the hills. They could just as well be moved out into the snow and allowed to freeze.
We have reached the stage of affluence in our country which would allow us to provide a decent standard of living for these people. I defy hon. members on the government side, who are so opposed to spending a few days in

Canada Assistance Plan discussing this matter, to stand up and say they represent ridings where there are no people in need. If there are such places, I would like to see them. It is more likely to be true in the riding represented by the hon. member from the west coast who spoke earlier today, where there are more old age pensioners than in other parts of the country because of the temperate climate and other considerations. However, even he will tell you that even living indoors in the rainy weather and sleeping under a lumber pile in good weather costs money.
There are many people in desperate need. I have met many Canadians who have spoken of needs of which most of us probably never think. Some people cannot afford to have their glasses changed to permit them to read or look at television. A few dollars would provide them with this necessity, but unless the Kiwanis or some other organization gives them a donation they are not even able to see what goes on around them.
I will conclude by telling you a story about an old fellow I met in the bush near a little town called Cheminis on the Quebec border in the north end of my riding. I went to see him there, together with a reporter from the Toronto Telegram. This old man was living on an old mine site in a shack in which coal was kept. He was sitting on the porch, rocking. I asked him how he was, to which he replied he was not well and had not been well all winter. I asked him why he did not go to a doctor. He said he could not afford it and besides he had no means of transportation for getting to one. I said "Your days must seem long". He said "Yes, they are very long. I am just sitting here, waiting to die. It cannot come too soon to suit me." The reporter from the Toronto Telegram interviewed this fellow on several occasions and wrote a series of articles about him. Later on he wrote his obituary. It did not take too long for him to die. The reporter was surprised and shocked to find that any man who had lived a fairly extensive life and had travelled over many parts of our nation should finally end his days sitting on the porch, waiting to die, too sick to worry about getting better and too poor to go to a doctor.
When I hear hon. members in this house saying Canada has the best social security system in the world, then I really feel sorry for underdeveloped countries such as Norway, Sweden, Great Britain and France that are worse off than we are. If they are worse off, then we should all be thinking about
July 4, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan getting rid of a few billion dollars worth of arms and setting up a social security program which will be a credit to the Canadian nation. We have worked hard in this country and we have developed as rapidly as we can in our harsh climate, making the best of our abundant resources. I believe it will be a very sad day when a member of this parliament will rise and say that most of the people whom we are supporting under this legislation will have to go to bed in hunger and poverty in a country which, by the government's own admission, has the best social security legislation in the world. If this is true, then I believe the day has arrived when we should really do something about this situation.
I have known some of the Liberal cabinet ministers and backbenchers when they were sitting in opposition. At that time I found them to be as interested as I am in providing social security for the elderly in this country. I am shocked and disappointed to hear them thumping their desks, when they are not providing anything more for those people for whom they were so sorry when they were in opposition. I think if it were not for the fact that the finance minister has said that all our economy would be geared to the $75 a month for old age pensioners, we would hear the backbenchers in the Liberal party demanding a decent standard of living for the elderly, the disabled, the blind and the widows.
* (8:50 p.m.)
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would hear demands for much of the legislation to which hon. members have referred in relation to child care, nursery care and kindergarten care. Let us at least look at this piece of legislation we have now, under which we can provide an old age pension of at least $100 without a means test. Let me tell you that anyone who needs that money really does not need to explain why he needs it. All you have to do is go to his home and you will understand why he needs it.
I should like to conclude my remarks by giving one illustration of a family that had to meet a needs test. The gentleman of the family, who was badly crippled, lived on a farm all his life. He was the victim of some disease such as poliomyelitis, or some other disease which hunched him away over. He farmed for many years and received a small disability pension. Finally after 40 years he sold the farm, and put a few dollars in the bank for a little bit of furniture. His pension was cut oil and he had to make some repayments to the government.

Finally, this family had $1,200 left in the bank. I went to see them and found they had no food in the house. I asked them why they did not take the $1,200 out of the bank to buy food. The answer I received was that they had been honourable people all their lives; they had worked hard all their lives on a farm which was not particularly good and upon which they had built a nice house. They said they had mortgaged the farm when the children were sick and when they had to goto school. They had worked all their lives to provide themselves with enough money, not to keep them but to bury them in honour. I had never thought about how people who were on welfare paid for a funeral. I know you did not leave them lying around. However, these people wanted to have $1,000 in the bank so that if the woman died first she would get a funeral that would be matched by that of her husband when he died, or vice versa. They had been partners all their lives and they wanted to get the same kind of funeral at the same cost. They wanted to pay for their own funerals with the money for which they had worked all their lives.
Perhaps some people can understand this point of view. I really was not that sympathetic to it. I really thought the welfare people would have allowed them to keep the money, because I could not persuade them to spend the money and go on welfare. I was finally able to convince the welfare people in Ontario to allow these people to go to the funeral parlour and buy a $500 funeral for each one. Then the welfare people would consider this a legitimate expenditure and these people would be able to get enough money to eat. The minister may say, well, there was not any need. I do not know if this situation would meet the needs test or the means test. It certainly indicates to me that any family that had worked hard to provide themselves with decent funerals ought to be allowed to go on welfare. These people really did not have enough money. I think this is the way we should handle welfare. So far as I am concerned this situation indicates the need for establishing the old age pension on a reasonable basis so that people would be enabled to live and die in dignity. Until this is done, I think the rest of the world will look at us and say we have not really accomplished very much during the one hundred years we have been a country.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to make a brief intervention in this debate. It is not my intention to make a comprehensive
July 4, 1966	COMMONS
speech on this matter, although I recognize it as being a very important one. All of us realize that at the moment time is at a premium, and only things of prime importance merit exhaustive study. I do beileve that things of such prime importance as the welfare of Canadians generally and of our older citizens in particular, do merit exhaustive debate if a solution of their plight cannot otherwise be found. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that I concur wholeheartedly with the views expressed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon with regard to the crying need for a significant increase in the old age pension, without a means test. It is not my intention to review or to buttress this argument because I think all reasonable Canadians recognize this is a valid assertion.
The increase in the cost of living has made it impossible for Canadians to live adequately and with any degree of dignity on $75 per month in the many cases where that is the only income. I believe all Canadians have a right to be able to live in dignity in their declining years. I believe all Canadians who are now 65 or over richly deserve this minimum standard because people who are now 70 years of age were in their forties during the depression years, so that the years which should have been most profitable found them unable to advance their economic position sufficiently to provide for their old age and educate their families.
I want to raise a point with the minister which is of special concern to me. The government of Prince Edward Island has recognized what I believe to be a fact, namely that people who are not benefited by the Canada Pension Plan cannot live decently on $75 a month if that is their only income. The government of Prince Edward Island has already undertaken to pay a supplementary benefit of $25 a month to the recipients of old age security pensions. I have been informed that the government of Prince Edward Island-I stand to be corrected on this-has asked the federal government for a list of recipients of old age security in Prince Edward Island but it was not forthcoming. In any case, the government of Prince Edward Island has found it necessary to establish a system of registration for older citizens so they can become eligible for these supplementary payments.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I cannot credit the fact that the government of a province in this country which
DEBATES	7169
Canada Assistance Plan asked for this kind of co-operation from the federal government would not find it forthcoming, but I should like the minister to clear up this point. It would be of tremendous administrative benefit to the government and, more important, it would be of advantage to our senior citizens if supplementary payments from provincial sources could be made expeditiously by the federal government furnishing a list of recipients of old age security to the provinces. Before I leave this point I want to say that if the minister has not received this request I would be most grateful if he would co-operate with the government of Prince Edward Island in providing a list, in order to help that province expedite such payments.
I want to turn now to another matter. I do not intend at this stage to refer to the various clauses of this bill, but part V is entitled "Amendments to other acts''. I have looked through this part very carefully and I am most disappointed that no amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act are mentioned. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because there are many cases where war veterans are in receipt of war veterans allowance, and I should like briefly to review the eligibility requirements for veterans to receive war veterans allowance.
From a service point of view, veterans of the Canadian forces are eligible if they served in a theatre of war: or if they are in receipt of a service disability pension or have accepted a commuted pension; or if they served in both world wars and were honourably discharged from the last enlistment in each; or if they served in the United Kingdom during world war I for at least 365 days prior to November 12, 1918, including sailing time between Canada and the United Kingdom.
The theory of the payment of war veterans allowance is that veterans who have done their service are paid war veterans allowance without medical examination at the age of 60 on the presumption-which I think is a good one-that they have been prematurely aged by their service. Therefore, generally speaking they cannot receive both war veterans allowance and old age security at the same time. However, the recipients of war veterans allowance in which I am especially interested are those who receive the maximum allowable under the War Veterans Allowance Act and yet, due to conditions over which they have no control, have extraordinary expenses due to disability, blindness or sickness in
July 4, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan their families, or matters of this kind, and who, in spite of the fact that they are receiving war veterans allowance, are in dire need of additional social security of some sort.
The responsibility for providing this additional security falls either on the municipality or on the provincial governments. But when the municipality, the provincial government, or any welfare organization tries to provide this additional security to the recipient of war veterans allowance in order to make his position in life tolerable, his war veterans allowance is cut down by a similar amount and he is no better off.
It may be argued-and perhaps this is the case-that in the bulk of cases the recipients of war veterans allowance should not be entitled to receive old age security as well. With that I do not argue. But I would argue that there are many cases where under the present ceilings war veterans allowance is not adequate to meet the needs-and I use that word intentionally-of our war veterans. I know of no possible way at the present time in which the provincial government or the municipality concerned can improve the lot of the veteran who is dependant on war veterans allowance. If they give him any assistance his war veterans allowance is reduced by a like amount, because of the fact that these additional payments are reckoned as income.
However, income or revenue which the war veterans allowance recipient may have from other sources is not necessarily calculated as income. As a matter of fact there is a fairly wide range of sources of revenue to the veteran which are not calculated as income.
I should like to quote from a pamphlet produced by the Department of Veterans Affairs and which deals with war veterans allowances. Page 14 refers to exempt income, which is income not calculated in determining whether or not the veteran passes the means test for war veterans allowance.
"Exempt income" means receipts which are not considered when calculating how much allowance may be paid to a recipient. It includes income from the following sources:
(a)	Allowances under the Pension Act and certain other laws for the service of attendants, or for the wear and tear of clothing;
(b)	An additional allowance under the Pension Act for any dependant child or parent of a veteran;
(c)	A pension or grant received in connection with a military decoration;
(d)	Any casual earnings;
(e)	War service gratuities or re-establishment credits paid under the War Service Grants Act;


(f)	Mother's allowance or relief for dependant children paid by a province or municipality;
(g)	Family allowances and youth allowances;
(h)	Bank interest or dividends of $50 or less per year;
(i)	Compensation for maltreatment while a prisoner of war (for a period of two years following payment thereof, after which it is regarded as "personal property");
(j)	Scholarships or bursaries to orphans.
I would suggest most strongly to the minister that this act be amended so that payments under the act in the relatively small number of cases where they might be paid to recipients of war veterans allowance will not be calculated as income. In other words, payments under this act would fall within the definition of exempt income. In cases where war veterans allowance is received by war veterans, but because of a combination of unusual circumstances the war veterans allowance is not adequate to give them a reasonable standard of living, a supplementary payment could be made under this act without that payment being calculated as income, thereby causing the war veterans allowance which is paid to be reduced.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we must consider the problem of giving all Canadians a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable sense of fulfilment which is necessary to a satisfactory life. I think we must recognize that although all humans may be equal in the sight of God, all humans are not in fact equal because some are underprivileged while others are underendowed. The underendowment may be due to hereditary factors or to unpreventable experiences over which there has been no control, which makes it difficult or impossible for those people so afflicted to compete with their fellowmen at a satisfactory level.
The underprivileged are underprivileged perhaps because they have had an unsatisfactory environment, or an unsatisfactory home life as children, inadequate schooling, or perhaps because they have found themselves in a segment of our economy which has not given them opportunities they have needed. I feel that it is without doubt the responsibility of the various levels of government, public minded organizations and public minded citizens collectively and individually to try to do everything in their power to remove the things that cause some Canadians to be underprivileged. I think we have a responsibility to correct the effects of bad environment.
July 4, 1966

Regardless of how successful we might be in those endeavours of which I have just spoken, there are those who are still underendowed. It is my feeling and my belief that we should also accept their welfare as an obligation, so that the underendowed may still have a reasonable standard of life and partake of the benefit of what we like to think is the privilege of being Canadians.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, on entering the house about an hour ago, the member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) was speaking. He spoke highly of the blessings of Bill C-207 for the destitute, the unhappy, the poor, the state pensioners, the old, the children of Canada. He stated that this bill would solve every problem, do away definitely with poverty in Canada. A few days ago, some of my colleagues took part in the debate on the motion for second reading of bill C-207. At that time we heard members on the other side of the house tell us, naturally, that we were playing politics, that we thought we were in full electoral campaign and that we lied to the people when elections took place.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to point out what the present government promised at the time of the last elections with regard to social security, welfare allowances, old age security and other matters. There was nothing the Liberal party did not promise. And now that it is in power, in Ottawa, it dares accuse others of playing politics.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Dollard was praising Bill No. C-207 entitled:
An Act to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare to and in respect of persons in need.
Its preamble is as follows:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada, recognizing that the provision of adequate assistance to and in respect of persons in need and the prevention and removal of the causes of poverty and dependence on public assistance are the concern of all Canadians, is desirous of encouraging the further development and extension of assistance and welfare services programs throughout Canada by sharing more fully with the provinces in the cost thereof.
This implies, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government does nothing by itself and, moreover, that it is ready to share with the provinces. Now the Quebec government, the former as well as the present government, has clearly stated its opinion on the subject of social assistance and social welfare: the province does not want any interference by the federal government. That is quite clear.
Canada Assistance Plan
The former premier of Quebec, Mr. Lesage has said so; the new premier, Mr. Johnson has repeated it: Ottawa is not wanted in social security programs for the province of Quebec, because they do not want to pay double administration costs, nor double taxation, nor be at the mercy of Ottawa. As I said the other day, let Ottawa mind its own business; Quebec will mind her own.
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-207 is a hoax, a lot of words, a lot of statements offering no solution. What, for instance, is being suggested concerning old age pensions? Will we raise the old age pension from $75 to $100 a month, as the official opposition asks? Will we raise it to $125, as the present premier promised in Prince Edward Island during the last election campaign? Will we raise it to $125 a month, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) promised in the western provinces, barely a month ago?
What does the bill say, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing. For family allowance, absolutely nothing. As for assistance to needy mothers, to those in want, what amount is suggested? Absolutely nothing. And the government brings forward a 19-page bill to set out its concern for those poor Canadians, for those who suffer hardship. But what action do they plan to take to solve the problem? Absolutely none. Mr. Speaker, we will be accused of politicking here in the House of Commons when we make representations on behalf of the aged.
The hon. member for Dollard said a few moments ago: I support the increase in family allowances; I support the increase in old age security pensions; I support the increase in allowances to needy mothers. Support of what, of what amount, to relieve hardship and poverty in Canada at long last? Absolutely nothing. Those are the people who in the middle of the election campaign call us demagogues. Yes, they say we stir up people's passions. Mr. Speaker, my group, the Ral-liement Creditiste, and myself voter for the Conservative amendment for giving $100 per month to the aged in this country. We voted in favour of such a pension. But I would now rather support the idea set out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in Prince Edward Island. One hundred dollars a month for a senior citizen in Canada no longer makes sense with the present cost of living. The Prime Minister mentioned $125 per month. Now, we in the Ralliement Creditiste support the Prime Minister when he says $125 per month. But let him grant it now that he is in

July 4. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan office. That is what we want. Where are the elderly people who are not in need? Perhaps the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Louis St-Laurent, who gets $75 per month. Show me a Liberal member on the government side who did not promise an increase in the old age pension in Canada during the last election? My friend, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) made that a big promise.


Mr. Caron:: No, I never promised that. That is false.


David Réal Caouette: I was in Gatineau riding then.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Alexis Pierre Caron: Never.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Hull guaranteed the old people in his riding an increase in the old age pension.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is absolutely false: I never said that.


David Réal Caouette: I met some of his close friends, old people who are entitled to the old age pension-


Alexis Pierre Caron: They made a mistake.


David Réal Caouette: -to whom the hon. member for Hull had promised that he would strive for an increase in the old age pension.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I never said that.


David Réal Caouette: I am convinced, knowing the sense of responsibilities of the hon. member for Hull, that when the time comes to vote for a higher pension, he will raise both hands in favour of the old people in his riding.
Mr. Speaker, we heard a while ago, as I have already said, the hon. member for Dollard tell us that he was in favour of those pensions, those allowances, etc. But when the time came to vote, the member for Dollard voted against them. When the party now in opposition introduced a resolution designed to pay a $100 monthly pension, the member for Dollard voted against it under the pretext that a government defeat was to be avoided. As I said last week, if the government allowed a free vote as the one we had on capital punishment, I wonder who would vote against increasing old age pensions to $100 or $125 per month? Nobody in this house would vote against it. But no, at this very moment, we stick to the party line: whoever does not support the party leaves the party. Let us do this for our old people in Canada, for those who built what we now have, those who left

us a heritage. Let us allow a free vote in the house and grant them this $125 monthly pension from the age of 65, because as everybody knows, no jobs are to be found at 65. Nowadays, a man of 45 is unable to find a job. It is impossible for a man of 50 to find employment because he is too old and the young people invade the labour market. Now, should all employers be asked to help those who are being replaced by the newcomers on the labour market? Mr. Speaker, such a solution would settle next to nothing.
The House of Commons, Canada, the Canadian provinces have been hearing about Social Credit since 1932, 1933, 1934, that is, for 33 years, and there are still some people who do not understand anything.
I see some of my hon. friends opposite find that funny, because they go through Quebec saying: "Social Credit is a question of printing money without consideration", just as the hon. member for Montamagny-L'lslet (Mr. Berger) likes to say in some parts of Quebec: "Creditistes want to solve everything with money, money, money". It is funny that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet should be the first to run after money; he is the first to run after it, but he does not think it a problem. You do not And it a problem when you do not have this problem; but for the people, generally speaking, it is a problem, and that is where the solution lies, in the money problem.
The Creditistes never said that money should be printed without consideration, and all the members know it. We said: According to facts, to realities. When there is $1 of production, there should be $1 in circulation, that is a balanced economy. What change-


Mr. Watson:: Ah.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie. Where has my hon. friend heard about Social Credit? Where has he studied Social Credit? The same thing applies to my friend from Montmagny-L'Islet; where did he study Social Credit? In his riding, on the north shore, or at sea, as he was the other day when he spoke in the house against Social Credit?
Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of those people who invent all sorts of stories about Creditistes and against the solution we advocate as an alternative to this Bill C-207 that leads nowhere, which does not point out where we are going, which does not show us the way, which settles absolutely nothing because it is based on the decisions of the
July 4, 1966

provinces. Inasmuch as the province will decide, inasmuch as the province will share, inasmuch as the province will want to share, that is Bill C-207.
Mr. Speaker, our solution is not that. What we want and what we require from the government, from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), is that they consult the Bank of Canada and especially its department of national statistics in order to get information. What is the gross production of Canada? We are told it amounted to $52 billion last year. What was the overall purchasing power or national income of Canadians for the same period? We are told that it amounted to $41 or $42 billion. There is therefore a difference of about $11 to $12 billion between our production and our earnings in Canada.
Is this purchasing power not enough to give old age pensions of $125 a month to all our senior citizens? Is that not enough to double family allowances? Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. Those are the figures, and there are still persons who expect people not to know chalk from cheese.
Mr. Speaker, we have a solution. We say to the government: Distribute to the Canadian people a national dividend based on the difference between the gross production and the national income of Canadians. Then, we could provide all those pensions without' exception and we would not need C-207 to tell us that we do not know where we are going.
Mr. Speaker, the national dividend has made a great many people laugh in the past. Even members of parliament joked about it, but the national dividend is still the solution not only to the problem of social legislation itself, but to avoid for example the increasing number of strikes in Canada. What has the government to offer; what is the government doing in that field? Absolutely nothing. What are the workers demanding: their due and their due is precisely included in the national dividend advocated by Social Creditors. That is why all workers or the great majority of them take an ever increasing active interest in Social Credit proposals.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, this theory is being expounded in the house since 1935, mainly because of the fact that there has always been a Social Credit representation here in Ottawa except for the 1958-1962 period. In 1962, we came back and demanded and claimed; we got nothing. Sure, we are
23033-454}
Canada Assistance Plan given a post office, a wharf, an airport terminal, a landing strip, but what are we granted by way of social security? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because the government is in bondage to the financial system, and I am not the one who invented that. One day a prominent and mainly dominant financier, one of the Rothschild Brothers said: "Give me control over a nation's credit and I do not care who makes the laws of that nation".
The Rothschilds practised what they preached at that time. And that is what we heard with our own ears what we read with our own eyes in the Quadragesimo anno encyclical of Pius XI, in 1931, 35 years ago already. There are people aged 35, 40 or 50 here in this house who never understood what Pius XI meant when he said: "Those who control money and credit are the masters of our whole lives, and without their permission nobody has the right to breathe".
Without those people's permission we cannot pass legislation in Ottawa; without those people's permission we cannot legislate in Quebec; without the permission of those who control the nation's economic blood stream, no member can assert himself or prove his worth in the House of Commons of Ottawa, on behalf of his nation, of his people, of his country.
Mr. Speaker, it is that control which we are fighting; there are only nine of us and there are 128 on the other side to fight us. There are 96 or 97 in the other corner of the house to fight us but those two groups work hand in glove when it comes to controlling the economic blood of the nation. Those two groups get along very well when it comes to leaving the control to international or national financiers. To go down on bended knees to Washington or New York to borrow, to beg the right to develop our natural resources, those two groups get along very well. But there is only one group which fights with us against that, without going, however, to the heart of the matter; it is the New Democratic Party, the former C.C.F. They are not going quite to the core of monetary question; when they get there, they will be sitting with us here among the Creditistes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the proof of what I am saying is so obvious. I understand that when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister of Canada, his government increased the old age pension to $75 per month but that was only three years ago and the cost of living was

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan practically as high as it is today. Why then did not the Leader of the Opposition introduce legislation to give $100 a month to the old people of Canada? Why?
The battle-cry today is: Grant those $100, otherwise we shall defeat you. Had he granted them at the time, he might not have been defeated, but he refused to do so. If the present Prime Minister were replaced today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker), the present Prime Minister, as leader of the opposition, would be heard telling the prime minister, who was the Leader of the Opposition: $100 per month makes no sense; it is not enough; grant $125 per month.
They try to outbid each other, whereas we should be doing what is absolutely necessary for the old people, the children, the needy mothers of Canada.
What is necessary to live decently? Not to starve decently; indeed not, but to live decently?
I see members of the cabinet here: the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who knows all about it; the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury); the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen); the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hell-yer).


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you, sir.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, do these people ask themselves whether Canada can produce enough wheat to feed elderly Canadians, whether it can supply or produce enough shoes and clothing for our old people, our children, our needy mothers, when the stores are full of all kinds of things? The Minister of National Defence knows all this; he knows how the National Defence stores are chock-full of all kinds of things-long johns for a thousand years to come-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: -to clothe Canadians. He knows all that. We are not short of clothes, in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Sales of long johns.


David Réal Caouette: Long johns. You can see all sorts of sales organized by the Liberals these days. Especially in the Department of National Defence.


An hon. Member:: And liquidations.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, liquidations, surplus sales, season sales, mid season and quarter-season sales and it always ends with long john sales. That is clear. There is all that in the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should use that clothing to help clothe those who need to be clad in our country.
Mr. Speaker, no one, no minister asks himself the question. Even the Minister of Forestry knows that I am right and he fully agrees with me in that respect. Canada can produce anything we need to meet the needs of our older people, our needy mothers, our children. We can produce anything in Canada. But because of financial considerations, we are told: "Holdit; do not distribute," while, on the other hand, economists speak of a break-down in distribution.
To distribute, what do we need? We need purchasing power. Given that power we will at long last get what we need. The other alternative is Bill No. C-207. In that respect, the government will decide to whom to give and not to give, to whom to distribute; the party or government backroom boys will go here and there to find the under-privileged, the poor, provided they are not too clearly tories. Mr. Speaker, I think it is riduculous-
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: I do too.


David Réal Caouette: -that the house should be asked to study such bills as No. C-207 which tells us absolutely nothing.
Even the government members are in a spot; they cannot explain this bill, because it provides nothing. We are waiting for the provinces to ask for something and we want to help the provinces.
Let us leave the provinces alone. If, in Canada, nine provinces out of ten want to accept Bill No. C-207, emanating from the federal government, let them do it. We shall not stop them. But the province of Quebec will not accept it. The province of Quebec will have its own social assistance plan. This is what the province of Quebec asks Ottawa: Give us back our sources of income so that we can apply this plan. In Quebec, we have no need for Ottawa to make our decisions. This is what Quebec wants. And this is where it is right. In this way, each of the provinces would be right. Only the other provinces prefer to take part in the federal assistance plan.
Mr. Speaker, let the other provinces decide otherwise, we do not care. Only let the
July 4, 1966

province o f Quebec be respected. We ask nothing from others but respect for our rights, our freedom and our autonomy. This is what we demand.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say about Bill No. C-207. It is 21 pages long, but contains no constructive or precise measure to fight poverty. As for the co-operation of Quebec, let us wait. Let us see what the Prime Minister of Canada will do with the premier of Quebec before saying what Quebec will get under Bill No. C-207.
I think the new premier of Quebec does not want to be stepped on.
Today, you can no longer say Liberal in Quebec, Liberal in Ottawa. I am convinced the present premier of Quebec will have the rights of the province of Quebec respected.
I see that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) is shaking his head; it is because he is afraid for his seat in the next election. There is nothing, apart from that, in which he is interested.


Mr. Guay:: Let the hon. member meet me again in my riding, as he did during the last election, because he is the one responsible for my election.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you know very well I can meet the hon. member for Levis any time, anywhere, any place, in any hall, in front of any gathering. He knows that. He does know it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak any longer on this bill; only I am waiting to see what the stand of the government of Quebec will be; after that, we will be able to fight, in full light, for the rights we have and not for those we do not have. Until then, 1 am still convinced that there should be a way of passing a social piece of legislation in Canada, in agreement with the provinces, so as to make Canada a country where those who are in need get more, receive the best treatment, in brief, enjoy at least security while preserving their freedom.


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, even at this stage in the debate I find it necessary to rise to speak on behalf of one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever presented to this House of Commons. The Canada Assistance Plan, and I say this with all due respect, enters into an area which has been the responsibility of the provinces, the administration of welfare.
Canada Assistance Plan
Unfortunately in this debate another matter has been introduced which has clouded the issues in this piece of legislation, and has introduced a problem of which we on the government side are very much aware, the question of the inadequacy of pensions as presently provided by the Old Age Assistance Act.
Let me remind members in all parts of the house that it was the Liberal government which introduced the Old Age Assistance Act, and that it was the Liberal government which provided $56 of the $75 now allowed our elderly people. The present Liberal government, including all hon. members on the back benches, are just as much concerned about the senior citizens of this country as are hon. members on the opposite side.
It is very difficult to follow the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, whan speaking in this house. I have not spoken too often, but perhaps what I will say now will be much shorter and much more to the point. I abhor the parochialism which is often introduced in the House of Commons by the continued reference to the province of Quebec. I lived in that province and I think I know the aims and the objectives of the French Canadians just as well as, and probably better than many individuals still living there.
We need Quebec, just as much as Quebec needs the rest of the Dominion of Canada. Perhaps my remarks are now not too closely related to the subject matter of the bill now before us, but I feel obliged to make them. I have been the head of a small municipality and I know their problems. At pages 5 and 6 of Bill C-207 municipalities are mentioned. They are of course, the creatures of provinces, and provinces according to the B.N.A. Act, are responsible for welfare. There are widow, children, blind and disabled who need assistance; but because of the lack of funds available provinces, including the affluent province of Ontario, they cannot be provided for adequately. The Dominion of Canada is providing extra assistance up to 50 per cent for these people and many, many others in the way of surgical, medical, obstetrical, dental and nursing services.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I noticed this afternoon that the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia (Mr. Groos) mentioned homemaker services. I have had something to do with the local Red Cross board that is concerned with the provision of these services in a temporary situation in

July 4, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan order to keep the children in the home. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), who represents an area 12 miles from the area I represent, last week suggested that if the extra assistance were provided for senior citizens we could do away with the Canada Assistance Plan. I deny this because an entirely different situation prevails. The people receiving benefit under the Old Age Assistance Act have been provided with an income and have worked for the pension they receive. They are entitled to extra assistance in their old age.
I noticed that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) took some exception this afternoon to a suggestion that the official opposition were filibustering in this debate. I believe that members of the Conservative party have every right to state their views, but would point out that in the last election campaign the official advertising of the Conservative party stated that $100 a month would be paid at age 65 and it was changed to $100 a month at age 70.
I feel obliged to speak in support of this bill. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was on his feet to speak, but I feel obliged to state my views because I believe this bill will provide much needed assistance in an area entirely separate from people who are recipients of the old age pension and will provide not only $100 a month but $125 a month, and with the assistance of the federal government probably more than that, for every person really in need.
I suggest that the $100 a month, which is an extra $300 a year, for the people at present receiving the old age pension might have been sufficient in 1965 but in 1967 it will be less than sufficient. I think that the Canada Assistance Plan and the provisos in respect of the disabled, blind and people receiving benefit under the old Age Assistance Act, will provide a great deal more money to those in need.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Hymmen) emphasize that our senior citizens are entitled to fair treatment in their advancing years. Before the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) speaks I think that more members on the government side of the house should rise and express their views, as did the last speaker. I believe it is the duty of each member of this

house to express his or her views on the problems that has been before us during consideration of Bill C-207. I refer to the problems of so many of our senior citizens in trying to live on the present old age security pension of $75 a month.
The plight of so many of our old age pensioners was very clearly presented earlier today by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). He also very clearly outlined the efforts of those on the opposition side of the house-I refer particularly now to the Progressive Conservative members-ever since the session started to induce the government to raise the pension to $100 a month.
There is no need to repeat the statements of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, although I have many of them here, because they have been placed on the record so forcefully and I am sure they will go all across the country in outlining our stand with regard to this problem. All I wish to say now is that I fully support all the statements made by our leader.
Bill C-207, known as the Canada Assistance Plan, has a great deal of merit. Speakers on this side of the house have agreed with this statement. The merit of this bill will become more apparent in the years ahead. We are not criticizing the bill for what it is intended to do in those years. As has been pointed out, the federal government will join with the provincial administrations in providing greater benefit for the disabled, the blind and the aged. All we are pressing for is the need for definite and immediate action for higher old age pensions. We are not advocating something new. An old age security pension of $100 a month was a plank in our platform in last year's election campaign, prior to the vote on November 8. I wish to emphasize this statement, Mr. Speaker, that the call for $100 a month was in our platform in the election campaign prior to the vote of the people on November 8.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader to tell us the business of the house before he leaves?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider the resolution preceding the Bank Act revision; the second reading of the crop insurance bill; the committee stage of the National Arts Centre bill; and the Canada
July 4, 1966	COMMONS
Assistance Plan. These items will not necessarily be taken in that order. We would like to feel free to call them in any order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What will be the first item?


George James McIlraith: It has been quite apparent to all hon. members that it is not very easy to assess whether the house is interested in proceeding with the consideration of the Canada Assistance Plan. If hon. members are not interested in doing so, it may be better to try to bring legislation before the house with which the house will be willing to deal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the minister had an important statement to make.


George James McIlraith: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should know that the continued opposition to an important piece of legislation such as this is not conducive to maintaining the high opinion which we hope this parliament holds in the minds of the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a completely unwarranted statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And it is untrue.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should pause momentarily to let the house empty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Reid Scott: I want to give the hon. members time to go to their offices and sign their names.
I have certainly heard sanctimonious bunk before, but the last statement tops them all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And said with a straight face.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to raise tonight deals with the continuing difficulty that we are having in this country in dealing with the financing of housing expansion. Over the last several months hon. members have continually raised with the government the difficulties which the housing
DEBATES	7177
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion industry is experiencing because of the shortage of mortgage money. We have tried to point out to the government the fact that a good many of our builders are closing down their operations, and that the number of applications for the approval of mortgage loans has been dwindling. Recently I placed a question on the order paper to try to ascertain the number of direct mortgage loans that have been granted in my home area of Toronto. I discovered that six, I think, have been provided during the month of June and five or ten during the month of May.
The whole housing industry in Canada is experiencing at present a very severe drought in the provision of money with which to finance building construction. We have tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for C.M.H.C. in the house, that this is a serious problem. He has replied with the usual parade of statistics supplied by his officials, which would seem to indicate that the situation is not at all serious. We have tried to show him the large number of builders from coast to coast who are gradually closing down their operations because they simply cannot finance building any longer.
We suggested to the government that one solution would be for the government to directly enter into the mortgage field, instead of having the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation become a secondary lender who picks up the slack when the conventional lender is not prepared to enter the field. We have suggested that the government become the primary lender. After all it is the government which arbitrarily sets the rate-and I do not quarrel with that-restricting the C.M.H.C. to 6.75 per cent. If the government decides to limit that interest rate, then it should ensure that sufficient funds are available to meet the demand for housing loans. In the last two or three weeks this has become a highly critical problem, certainly in the area which I represent and which many of the members on the government side represent.
Quite frankly, at the present time the conventional lenders are out of the housing field pretty well for the year. Not unwisely, they have diverted their lending facilities to areas of higher yield. They are required to provide the maximum returns to their shareholders, and therefore are naturally going to lend in areas in which they can get maximum returns on their investments. I do not quarrel with this idea, I ask the Minister of Finance
7178	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion (Mr. Sharp) what consideration the government is giving to making it possible for our banks to re-enter the field of housing loans. A few years ago the banks suddenly became very active in this field, and that was most helpful. Lately they have not been interested. What we really need in this country is some assured source of mortgage money.
In the past the government at Ottawa has tended to turn mortgage money on and off like a tap, not to provide housing but to provide employment or to influence the economy up or down. When things begin to slow down the government makes much more money available to make the construction industry boom. When the government feels the economy is becoming overheated, the money supply is turned off. This has a most unsettling effect on the whole housebuilding industry, because we have no real assured source of mortgage funds in Canada. I was interested, therefore in finding out what the government has in mind, if it has anything in mind, which would permit the chartered banks to go back into the field of insured lending under Central Mortgage regulations. After all, the banks cannot lose. Everybody is insured except the poor fellow who buys the house. They really have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Some bankers tell me that these poor, under-nourished banks would be prepared to enter the field. I was wondering what the government had in mind. Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, ruled my question out of order, but we would be interested, as I am sure would thousands and thousands of builders as well as potential purchasers of homes, in ascertaining what the government intends to do in this field.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), it affords me pleasure to thank him for his remarks.
Of course, as far as mortgages for the construction of private homes in Canada are concerned, I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) has clearly indicated on several occasions in the house that the situation is not as bad as the member for Danforth would have us believe.
The question I wish to answer this evening deals with the point he raised, namely whether the government intends to implement policies designed to enable banks to grant mortgage loans. Of course, this is a matter of government policy which, according to tradi-

DEBATES	July 4, 1966
tion, will be announced in due course, but I may say to the hon. member that within a few days, if our debates resume their normal pace, we shall be able to study the resolution concerning the Bank Act and he will then have the opportunity to raise this matter. I am pretty sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will be in a position to answer this worthwhile question.



PUBLIC SERVICE-IMMIGRATION STAFF ASSOCIATION COMMUNICATION RESPECTING MORALE

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: On
June 17 I directed a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) in his capacity as vice chairman of Treasury Board. The question arose from a series of most disconcerting letters which reached me, as well as every other member, in which a very positive indication is given of a dangerous situation resulting in a serious loss of morale within the civil service. The specific letter which prompted the question came from the central branch of the Canadian Immigration Staff Association, and I quote from that letter:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The situation being created by this apparent "foot dragging" by the government in concluding these promised pay increases is quickly reaching the critical stage with regard to employee morale.
This was a letter directed to the Minister of Finance and written by D. R. Davies, the representative of the Kitchener branch. In the accompanying brief by Mr. C. A. Edwards, who is chairman of this group, he stresses the following point:
The point has now been reached where the discontent and dissatisfaction expressed by our members in these two categories can no longer be contained and I want to advise you in all seriousness that if the Treasury Board is not prepared to recommend an adequate adjustment forthwith for the employees in these categories then I cannot, as chairman of the staff side conference, be responsible for the crisis that will surely develop. The Treasury Board has the authority to avert such a crisis and I would strongly suggest that you take the necessary action to avert it before it is too late. We are all aware of the pockets of discontent and dissatisfaction that are increasingly appearing throughout the service at various levels. This will surely soon develop into a full scale crisis of unprecedented dimensions unless the Treasury Board stops ignoring these developments and takes the necessary and required action in the form of adequate pay revisions forthwith and without delay.
We are all aware that in the reclassification that has recently taken place in the National
July 4, 1966

Employment Service and in the accompanying examinations for this reclassification, a great deal of uncertainty has been created within that particular division. The basis on which these examinations were conducted is being questioned. The matter of adjustments and the question of review has been left up in the air, and serious dissatisfaction exists within this service.
Last week I had a call from an employee at the central post office in Ottawa who complained about working conditions in that building and asked me to take a look for myself. I availed myself of the opportunity to inspect the premises, and although some of the criticisms made by this employee were borne out by my inspection-the fact that the building was not kept as clean as it might have been, the overcrowding in the building and the poor ventilation of the building-in fairness I think it might be pointed out that perhaps the Post Office Department cannot do a great deal about these matters, with the exception of the cleanliness of the building.
I think that what was probably more significant about my visit was the fact that these are only symptoms of a far more serious situation, which is the loss of morale that is occurring within the civil service because of the refusal of the government to take action and to look into these various complaints that are being brought to its attention.
I received a letter this morning from an officer in the customs and excise branch, and among other things he says:
I expect by this time you will have become aware of the extreme dissatisfaction created amongst federal civil servants by the implementation of the government's reclassification plan.
He goes on:
No doubt others will be writing to you in the same vein, and probably the various branches of the departments concerned will provide you with details of the retrograde steps being taken. Salary cuts, to my mind, are symbolic of depression days, and it is hard to reconcile such acts in times of what our political leaders constantly assure us are "booming". The only boom we have experienced is the one they have lowered on us.
This morning I received a telegram from Mr. John Jackson, the national president of the Customs and Excise Officers Association, in which he says:
At a meeting of branch presidents held in Toronto this week end the Customs and Excise Officers Association protests against the implementation of the classification revision program because, one, we believe classifications should be bargainable, two, salaries should be bargainable and the government has effectively downgraded the salaries of as many as 40 per cent of our members in the administrative support categories; three, we want 23033-455
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a regulatory group distinct and separate from the clerical group for people performing regulatory functions; four, we want people in holding positions to be able to maintain their standard of living by receiving the full benefits of salary revisions as though classification revision had not taken place until the holding situation is relieved by natural attrition such as staff turnover promotions and retirements; five, we believe that if the salary levels announced for October nineteen sixty-six were effective October nineteen sixty-five the situation would be greatly relieved.
A number of things are evident from these letters, the most serious of all being that the government's refusal to take action may result, if that has not already taken place, in a serious loss of morale in our highly valued civil service.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamenary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Boom boom Munro.


John Carr Munro: I believe there has been some misunderstanding from the question as put by the hon. member. He indicated that he wanted to debate the question of morale in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, without any particular reference to the cause-if you will check Hansard you will see what I refer to-of that loss of morale.
I am here on behalf of the minister to go into the question asked. From listening to the hon. member it seems that his complaint has more to do with the reclassification process within the civil service, pay increases, and so on, than with anything else. A good many of his remarks had to do with complaints emanating from officials in the customs and excise branch. I think, therefore the more appropriate answer should come from the minister responsible, the Minister of National Revenue.


Max Saltsman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret that there can be no point of order at this time.



CANADIAN FLAG-INQUIRY AS TO PROSECUTION FOR DESECRATION

Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I directed a question to the Minister of Justice, asking him if there was any means available which would allow for the prosecution of those who desecrate and/or destroy the Canadian flag and other national symbols. I
July 4, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion asked this question on the day before Dominion Day, because of the unfortunate incidents which took place on that holiday in 1965. Many hon. members will remember how last year some ungrateful and irresponsible persons in Montreal tore down our flag, ripped it and burned it. Similar incidents have been repeated on too many other occasions. In asking this question I was hoping that the government might give notice of stiff sanctions to those persons who might think of repeating this behaviour.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that similar demonstrations were planned this year, but they were broken up by the Montreal police before they could start. The Montreal Gazette of July 2, which is this past Saturday, reports as follows:
A highly-organized force of 250 police put a damper on an attempt to stage a parade protesting against Confederation.
Further on it says:
The police took 50 persons into custody as the group did not have a permit.
And further on, still talking about this group:
They were to surround the statute of Sir Georges Etienne-Cartier and denounce him as a traitor to French Canada.
I am not an extreme nationalist, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact I favour nationalism only as a means of bringing a more total and more significant contribution to internationalism. I believe that if we are going to make a proper contribution on the international level, then we require a certain national unity and a certain national purpose. National symbols are a means of unifying people. They represent in a graphic way the unified feelings and history of a people. Although the people are free to democratically change their institutions, their laws, and their symbols, they should not be free to blatantly insult and desecrate these institutions and symbols. Such acts only cause unrest, conflict and vengeance. They are not the acts of a civilized and mature society.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken thus far of those who actually desecrate and insult our national symbols, but I must also mention those who fail adequately to honour them. We have just completed our 99th birthday and celebrated Dominion Day, but how many Canadians took any time to honour their country's institutions and symbols? We set aside only one day in the year for this purpose, yet for many Canadians this seems to be too much. Many of these people will

quickly criticize those who tear and burn our flag, yet they will do very little to honour it. If these Canadians who supposedly support our institutions and our way of life do not show the way by honouring their symbols, then how can they expect to have them honoured by others?
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will tell us what can and should be done to discipline these people, and if the law does not presently provide any such sanctions, then I hope they will bring forward some legislation to deal with them. I might in this regard refer to Bill C-209 introduced recently by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmo-rency (Mr. Laflamme). This bill would introduce a new section in the Criminal Code which would read as follows:
Every one who fails to pay proper respect to, causes damage to, destroys, alters, defaces, or desecrates the National Flag of Canada or a recognized national symbol of Canada, is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction-
And so on.
Mr. Speaker, we need some law to sanction those who insult our flag and other national symbols. If there is no such law at present, I would strongly recommend Bill C-209-or a similar measure.


Robert Henry Winters: I wish to reply only briefly to this important question on behalf of the government, and to say that in my opinion the adoption by parliament of a Canadian flag was one of the greatest steps forward to Canadian maturity. The new flag is a sign of our maturity, and merits proper recognition, as one of our national symbols. All those who do other than honour something which was achieved through such great agonies of parliament-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were not here.


Robert Henry Winters: I was not here at that time, but I suffered with the nation. Those who desecrate the flag are, I think it is fair to say, almost to be pitied because they are demonstrating a lack of maturity and a real want of understanding of the meaning of our national symbols and of the state we have now reached in the development of our history.
In the last election campaign in which I participated, I detected a greater response to this new symbol of Canada's unity than by almost anything else. While we are all aware of the arguments which were presented to parliament at that time, I believe it is generally accepted across the country that the fact
July 4, 1966	COMMONS
that we now have a flag of our very own is a great step forward in our march to maturity as a nation.
I am glad my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has raised this point. I must say I was impressed by the attention devoted to the recognition of our national holiday. Those of us who were here in Ottawa had an opportunity of seeing the great demonstration before the parliament building in which many of the nationalities which compose the totality of Canadian citizenship were represented.
DEBATES	7181
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thousands of Ottawans on the lawn did not think much of it.


Robert Henry Winters: I thought it was a splendid demonstration, an outstanding recognition of the total composite of Canadian citizenship based on the two founding races, and I am very happy on behalf of the government to tell the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that we will take full note of the important contribution he has made here this evening.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
23033-455}

Tuesday, July 5, 1966