1970-05-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a little over two months ago I reported to the House briefly on the results of the student summer employment program conducted last year by my department. Today I wish to tell the House some of the things we are doing, and will be doing, to help ensure equally encouraging results this summer.
As hon. members may know, a National Committee on Student Summer Employment has been set up to co-ordinate efforts in this field. It is made up of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Uni-versi y and College Placement Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Council of Canada and my department. This committee, in co-operation with other interested groups such as labour bodies, provincial governments, business and industry organizations, farm groups and student groups, has been working throughout the winter and spring to see that every effort is made to find jobs this summer for students.
Some hon. members will have total and immediate recall of the importance and urgency of obtaining suitable summer employment as a means of providing for college or university tuition fees and other costs. Some others, although obliged to cast a little farther into the mists of time, will, I am sure, be able to sympathize with the desire of young people to work in order to finance next year's college or university term.
In my last report I outlined the success of last year's campaign which resulted in some 93 per cent of nearly 350,000 post-secondary students who sought work being successful in obtaining it. This summer, we estimate that some 385,000 students who are, or will be, enrolled in post-secondary institutions will
be on the labour market looking for jobs. Over all-taking both secondary and postsecondary categories-we expect that approximately 641,000 students may be seeking employment this summer, an increase of 60,000 over last year.
My department is mobilizing its resources to assist students in search of summer employment. As a part of this effort we will be hiring some 570 students to take part in placement and referral operations and in other departmental work across Canada. In this connec ion, I might say that student help engaged by my department last year was most effective in contributing to the success of the employment campaign. My department as a large employer of students for summer work has expressed complete satisfaction in the type of services rendered and we are in a position to recommend a similar course to other employers.
The federal government will this summer be taking on at least 11,365 students throughout the various departments and agencies. This represents a 27 per cent increase in the number hired in the past two years. These students will earn some $12,242,000, an average of more than $1,000 per student. I want to emphasize that this employment is in no sense a make-work program but that useful and effective work is performed by the students. Because of the very large numbers of students who will be seeking employment, federal government hirings will necessarily be limited to students either entering or already attending post-secondary institutions.
In addition to providing employment for more than 11,300 students the federal government, through my department, is allotting $260,000 for a national advertising campaign designed to enlist the support of employers in providing jobs for students.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Canada Manpower Centres across Canada are offering their services in assisting students to obtain summer work and are working closely with employers in compiling inventories of appropriate employment opportunities. Of the approximately 570 students to be employed by my department, 375 students will assist our regular staff in developing employment opportunities for students and
6512	COMMONS
Student Summer Employment in providing consultative assistance to students interested in starting selfhelp or entrepreneurial projects.
This year, as well, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is making an important contribution to the campaign by encouraging its 125,000 members to provide productive summer jobs to students registered with Canada Manpower Centres. My department has appointed five regional co-ordinators whose special assignment will be to ensure the effective functioning of the campaign in each region.
I should like to emphasize that if we are to match last year's successful campaign a very high degree of co-operation will be required by business and industry in every sector of the economy, and by other levels of government. In this connection I might note the "Hire a Student" campaigns of a number of provincial governments and the practice of a number of newspapers of offering free advertising space to students looking for summer jobs. Summer employment for students is an old and valued tradition in our society. Today it becomes a necessary and useful exercise, both for the students and employers.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the minister is so proud of his statement that he could not let us have a copy until he delivered it or whether it was difficult to prepare and was not ready until the last minute before delivery. However, there are some comments I wish to make at this time.
I hope the minister will make every effort to develop a fully co-ordinated attack on the problem of student unemployment and the finding of adequate employment for students.
I hope the minister receives full co-operation from other governments and from industry.
I wish to spend a few minutes to emphasize that, in addition to any program the minister may mount, it is obvious that the number of students who receive employment this summer will depend not only on his efforts and the efforts of those associated with him but upon the general employment situation in Canada. There can be no question that the general economic policy of the government, justified in the name of fighting inflation, has created unemployment across the country. A situation has been created whereby students looking for work this summer will be competing with those already seeking employment. The general state of unemployment is a
[Mr. MacEachenJ
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
very important factor, although the Minister of Manpower and Immigration did not deem it worthy of mention this afternoon.
There can be no question about the importance of summer employment for students. There can be no doubt about the reac.ion that will set in among young Canadians who are forced to drop out of either high school or post-high school education for financial reasons. There can be no question about the seriousness of this situation to the individuals involved and to the country as a whole. Those who are forced to drop out may never get back to anything like as advantageous a position. So I urge the federal government to review its general policy with a view to increasing the opportunity for students and others to secure employment in Canada this summer.
In addition to special programs such as he has announced the minister should set in process machinery for determining to the fullest extent possible how many students are affected and how many will be unable to obtain employment. He should obtain this information in good time so that in consultation with the provinces measures can be taken to reduce to a minimum the number of students who will have to drop out of school because of unemployment.
I do not want to be unfair to the minister personally, but I suggest that in the circumstances, and given the outlook facing us, he has made a highly complacent statement this afternoon.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkion-Melvilla):: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for having given me a copy of his statement. I might say that in future I would appreciate getting such statements before he begins to make them instead of two or three minutes after he has started.
My first impression is that the statement is highly optimistic, that he did not present the real problem of student unemployment this summer. An article in the Toronto Star last Saturday drew attention to the prospect of serious student unemployment in Ontario this summer. Failure of a student to obtain a job this summer may mean inability to continue his studies, and his dropping out of school or university.
There is a special problem to be faced in areas already suffering from economic depression-the prairie provinces, Saskatchewan in particular, the Maritimes and the rural parts of Quebec. Many of these areas are not
May 4, 1970

able to provide as many jobs for students this summer as they did last year or the year before. The government should take this into consideration and try to work out special programs applicable to these regions. They will need special attention this summer if even a small proportion of the students concerned are to find full-time summer employment.
In the second place, I believe the government should co-ordinate its student employment program as closely as possible with the plans of the provinces. This is of particular importance in the case of Saskatchewan, the Maritimes and Quebec. Last year, even though 93 per cent of the students concerned did find summer employment of some kind it was not, in all cases, full-time employment at a good wage. Just because a student has a job does not mean it will provide sufficient income for him to return to school again. This observation applies particularly to girls who in many cases cannot get jobs which pay wages as high as some of the men can command.
Finally, the whole question of student employment is very much a part of the government's over-all economic and financial policy. Also, it must not be forgotten that there are young persons who are not students and who also need to find employment. Forty per cent of the unemployed in Canada are under the age of 25, and this situation must be borne in mind when we examine any of the plans which the minister may produce.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, according to the minister, there may be about 641,000 secondary and post-secondary students looking for a job this summer.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration will hire about 570 students to take part in placement and referral operations, whereas various government departments and agencies will enlist 11,305, on a total of 641,000.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of summer employment for students is a most urgent and serious one. If we do not take steps to provide them with work during the summer months, they will find themselves something else to do. Of course, this is not the sole concern of the central government. Provinces, municipalities, school boards and private enterprise can also co-operate. We have been told that the Chambers of Commerce are now looking into this matter.
Questions
In my region, for example, the mining companies hire local students during the summer months. The Noranda mine, for one, had between 1,000 and 1,200 students on the payroll last year, but this year they have decided to hire only some 200.
I believe that the government could provide some incentives for private industry in order that students be given summer employment. If the government were to co-operate, I think that many private companies would hire young people. Even if that were to cost something to the government, it would still be less expensive than leaving our youths to their own devices or to activities of which no one approves.
Mr. Speaker, summer employment for students is a very serious problem and I am convinced that the government, with the full backing of the opposition parties, should suggest to the provinces that they tackle this issue so that as many students as possible will find summer jobs.
We have but one wish, Mr. Speaker: that action be taken in order to assure our youths that they will enjoy some security thanks to the summer jobs that will be found for them.



EXCISE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Kon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-209, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the government studied, will it study, or is it studying the possibility of selling all or part of the share capital of Polymer Corporation and, if so, will it table these studies in the House?
2.	Who conducted, or is conducting, the studies concerning the total or partial sale of Polymer Corporation?
3.	Was Polymer Corporation exempted from the provisions of the Government Companies Operation Act and, if so, for what reasons?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1 and 2. The government

May 4. 1970
Questions
has approved some diversification of Polymer Corporation activities and as a consequence the company is studying methods of financing the diversification program. The company will be submitting proposals for financing to the government for consideration.
3.	Yes. Polymer Corporation Limited is in keen competition with publicly owned companies throughout the world and it is essential for its continued success that it be free to act quickly in response to changing business conditions and have the same relative freedom of action as its competitors.


ROLE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT EXHIBITION COMMISSION IN INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Francis: Is it the intention that upon transfer to Information Canada, the Canadian Government Exhibition Commission will maintain its own separate identity and continue to play its role for the federal government both inside and outside of Canada?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes.


APPLICATIONS OF RAILWAY AND HOTEL COMPANIES STILL UNDER REVIEW-LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE, PART I
Mr. Orlikow: 1 How many applications of Railway and Hotel Companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of Part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1.	Thirty eight; 36 for deferment and two for suspension.
2.	The applications for deferment were made prior to July 1, 1965. One application for suspension was made on July 20, 1965; the other application for suspension was made on February 21, 1966.
3.	Information not available.
4.	The applications are still under review because, to date, the department has been

unable to find ways and means of disposing of them in a satisfactory manner in view of the circumstances prevailing in the industries concerned.
5.	At this time it is not possible to anticipate when decisions can be made on the applications.


STUDIES BY LEASCO SYSTEMS AND RESEARCH CORPORATION, BETHESDA, MD.
Mr. Howard (Skeena): ![DOT] Hus LEASCO Systems and Research Corporation of Bethesda, Md. been engaged to conduct any studies or inquiries of systems and procedures within the government service and, if so (a) what amount of money will be expended for these studies and inquiries (b) how long is it expected to take the study or inquiry to be completed (c) will the report thereof be made public?
2.	For what reason was it considered necessary to employ the services of a United States company to conduct this sort of study?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO McCAIN FERTILIZER PLANT, GRAND FALLS, N.B.
Mr. Corbin: Has the federal government granted a subsidy or made a loan to the McCain Fertilizer Plant in Grand Falls, New Brunswick and, if so (a) what is the amount of the subsidy or loan (b) under what terms was this financial help made?


Yves Forest: No.


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION OF WHEAT AND FLOUR TO FOREIGN AID
Mr. Mazankowski: How much wheat and flour in (a) bushels (b) dollar value, did Canada contribute to foreign aid in the past fiscal year?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: During the fiscal year 1969/ 70, Canada contributed, through her international development assistance program, the following amounts of wheat and wheat flour: (a) Quantity: Wheat, 748,697 metric tons equivalent to 27,509,373.871 bushels; Wheat Flour, 105,675.112 metric tons equivalent to 5,411,214.6 bushels of wheat based on 72 per cent extraction, (b) Value: Wheat, $56,950,-
May 4, 1970

Orders for Returns
682.04 (FOB Canadian seaport); Wheat Flour, QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS $11,978,953.72 (FAS Canadian seaport).	FOR RETURNS


EXPROPRIATION AND REMODELLING OF TRANSPORTATION BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Harkness: 1.	(a) When was the Transportation Building, at the corner of Rideau and Sussex Streets, Ottawa, expropriated (b) for what reason was the building expropriated?
2.	What was the cost of remodelling this building?
3.	What has been the total cost per square foot of space for this building?
4.	What was the cost of the new furnishings which were put in this building for the use of the National Capital Commission?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. (a) Expropriated August 26, 1965; (b) redevelopment of Confederation Square area.
2.	$447,892.
3.	$1.43 per square foot per year on a projected five-year occupancy or $0.72 on a 10 year basis.
4.	$221,300 was paid for furnishings which also serve to eliminate the need for internal partitions and increase building capacity.


ASSISTANCE FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND UTILITIES-SPECIAL AREAS
Mr. Moores: 1.	Does assistance for the provision of services and utilities to the special areas include (a) provision of dial telephone service (b) the building of access roads?
2.	Where and when does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion intend to open offices in the Province of Newfoundland?
3.	How many people will be employed by the Department in Newfoundland?
4.	What steps will be taken to ensure that as many Newfoundlanders as possible will be employed by the Department within the Province?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. (a) No; (b) yes.
2.	St. John's; already open.
3.	Nine.
4.	The Director is a native Newfoundlander. The Public Service Commission's interviews for other positions are being conducted partly in Newfoundland.
22218-66J


FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES
Mr. Benjamin: 1.	For the years 1955, 1980, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, how many (a) financial administration (b) personnel administration people were employed by each government department and agency, and for each group, how many are in the following annual salary groups (i) under $5,000 (ii) $5,000 to $10,000 (iii) $10,000 to $20,000 (iv) $20,000 and over?
2.	What individuals who had worked for the Glassco Commission are now employed by departments or agencies of the Government of Canada, and in each case, what is their annual salary?
Return tabled.


PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE COMBINES ACT EXCEPT UNDER SECTION 33(c)
Mr. Orlikow: 1. In the past ten years, in how many cases did the government charge and prosecute companies for violations of the Combines Act except for cases under Section 33 (c) ?
2 In each case (a) what were the names of the companies involved (b) what were the names of the companies found guilty when prosecuted (c) what were the penalties imposed by the Court?
3.	What were the costs to the government of investigating and prosecuting the above cases, exclusive of the salaries of permanent government employees, but including fees paid to lawyers, court reporters and other officials, travelling expenses for officers of the department, cost of transports, etc.?
Return tabled.


SUBSIDY PAID TO SHIP CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 1960-1969 INCLUSIVE
Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to the ship construction industry during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
Return tabled.


CANADA'S GROSS AND NET DEBT
Mr. Caouelie: For each year since 1960, what are the statistics concerning (a) Canada's gross and net debt (b) the gross and net debt of the provinces (c) the gross and net debt of the municipalities (d) the gross and net debt of the school corporations (e) the gross and net debt of the Crown corporations (f) Canadians' debts to finance companies for consumer goods (g) Canadians' debts for the purchase of commercial goods (h) Canadians' debts on mortgage loans (i) Canadians' debts to banks and
May 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry caisses populaires for personal loans (j) Canadians' debts due to installment buying (k) Canadians' debts to small loan companies (1) Canada's total debt to the United States (m) Canada's total debt to overseas governments?
Return tabled.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the seriousness and importance of the charge the Prime Minister made over the weekend that the equivalent of blackmail has sometimes been resorted to too often in the past by the province of Quebec and sometimes by other premiers of other provinces, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to which premiers he was referring?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much that a question asked in those terms is in order. I have some doubts about it. My understanding is that a question may be asked in respect of statements made outside the House to determine whether or not they represent government policy, but I am not too sure really whether the question as asked is in order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has made a serious statement in respect of the provincial premiers generally and it seems to me it is of the greatest importance that the Prime Minister of Canada clarify this statement so that whatever slur he was casting does not fall on every premier in Canada. I suggest, with respect, that this is a matter of importance and that the Prime Minister of Canada, having made a statement like that, ought to clarify it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I have the same doubts I had previously. The point made by the Leader of the Opposition is of interest, but it seems to me that the statement the Leader of the Opposition is inviting now would perhaps be better made on a question of privilege. It seems to me that the question is not one that would normally be acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
[Mr. Caouette.f


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this the way the Prime Minister intends to proceed to prepare the way now for further constitutional consultations leading to reform of the constitution, and does the Prime Minister think a statement like this, without any clarification, is a proper way to prepare for the reform of the constitution?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: One of the proper things to do if one wants to reform the constitution in a realistic way is not to close one's eyes or ears to the fact that there has been talk in parts of Canada in respect of western separation, eastern alienation and so on. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has not heard of these sentiments.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have heard very much of these statements.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us how he believes these attitudes to which he is referring justify his charge that the premiers have resorted to blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the supplementary I repeat that if one wants to deal realistically with the problem of national unity one has to take such expressions as these seriously in an effort to deal with these feelings of frustration or alienation. The Leader of the Opposition now says that he has heard very much these expressions. May I ask whom he has heard them from?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. May I, as a member from New Brunswick, ask the Prime Minister if he was casting a slur on my province and saying we are guilty of blackmail?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: There was a nod of the head.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for Exter-
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
nal Affairs. In view of the renewed and intensified bombing raids on North Viet Nam by United States forces, will the Canadian government make urgent representations to the U.S. government deploring this latest escalation of the war in Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: As hon. members know, it is reported that these latest air strikes against North Viet Nam are specific and retaliatory and that they do not represent a policy of the resumption of bombing. Whatever the case, we continue to be opposed to such action. We had thought that the cessation of the bombing was a fixed feature of the situation in Viet Nam. This action can only further complicate the already difficult search for a negotiated settlement.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister say whether the government proposes to consult or has consulted Secretary General U Thant of the United Nations about the ideas which the Secretary General says he has to prevent the whole of Indo-China from being engulfed in the war?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member may recall that during my intervention in the debate on Friday I said that I thought it might be a good idea if the Secretary General were to send a representative to Indo-China. We are exploring this idea with the Secretary General at the present time to ascertain whether he feels this would be a useful initiative. He has indicated that he has some ideas on limiting the war in Indo-China, and I have asked our representative in New York to inquire about his ideas because I agree with him that it is absolutely essential that some way be found of limiting the war in Viet Nam. Indeed, the latest developments over the weekend confirm the fears that I expressed on Friday about the possible escalation of this war.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Fundy Royal): What information can the minister give us about the progress in the last 48 hours or so in the negotiations with Poland and India on reactivating the International Control Commission?
Mitchell William Sharp: There is no progress. We have not found that our ideas are acceptable. There is some talk about a simple reactivation on the basis of some sort of argument
DEBATES	6517
Inquiries of the Ministry that it would be a good thing if there were the presence of the ICC in Cambodia. We do not agree. We think that the situation is far more serious than that and that if there is going to be meaningful action by Canada, let us be sure we know what it is we are being asked to do.
[Later:}
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): Could the minister indicate to the House whether or not talks have broken off between our country and Poland and India on the question of the International Control Commission? I ask this question in light of the most depressing report today on the lack of progress in negotiations.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman knows that Poland, India and Canada are members of the International Control Commission operating in Laos and Viet Nam, so obviously we have not broken off our discussions. We are continuing them also in the capitals of those countries and with their representatives.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he intend to make clear in a formal way before the world, that is at the United Nations, the position of Canada with respect to the situation in Cambodia?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know whether the hon. member was here but I dealt with this question. I have noticed that Lord Caradon made in New York the same point as I did the other day, namely, that the Soviet Union has objected very strenuously to taking the Viet Nam war before the United Nations. Under these circumstances I am very doubtful about the prospects of success. If there were any at all, Canada would not hesitate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: have a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he received any correspondence or communication from Mr. Chester Ronning, former Canadian diplomat who once headed the Far East division, indicating that the United
6518	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry States is ignoring the rule of law and resorting to unilateral action regardless of decisions of the United Nations in the most recent Cambodian issue and, if so, what action has he taken in regard to Mr. Ronning's advice?


Mitchell William Sharp: Like the hon. gentleman, I read Mr. Ronning's statement in the press. He has not conveyed it to me personally but he certainly intended to convey it to all Canadians. I respect his views, as I respect the views of all members of this House. I suggest it ought to be our purpose in all our actions, whether as private individuals or as the government, to work for a peaceful settlement of this dispute. The way things are going, now the risks of an even greater conflagration are very great.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenf (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House whether or not the disapproval of the Canadian government of the recent action of the Americans in Cambodia has been directly conveyed to the United States authorities and, if so, what response was there?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think that all hon. members noticed that the debate that took place in the House on Friday was being followed very closely by the representatives of the United States government.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister was invited by "Tele-Metropole" to speak on an hour-long television program about the recent provincial elections in Quebec. I do not always agree with the Prime Minister, but that is not the point.
Here is my question: Was the famous corporation called CBC which operates an English and a French network kind enough to invite the Prime Minister of Canada, as it is
[Mr. Nystrom.l
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
usually so eager to welcome such people as Messrs. Levesque, Gregoire, Parizeau and Michel Chartrand?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I was invited to appear on Channel 10 to talk on behalf of the Canadian government about Canada and Canadian unity. But following the attacks of the last few months against federalism the matter had to be cleared up.
The English network of the CBC also extended an invitation but none came from the French network. However, I was told this morning that two days ago they had asked me to make comments on birth control in underdeveloped countries. They are not much interested in the Canadian situation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister finally finished dusting his Chinese vases?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. As widespread lay-offs in the electrical, textile, footwear, rubber, radio, television and other industries have given a very clear indication that unemployment today is considerably higher than the 6.7 per cent reached in March, will the government now give consideration to having the Bank of Canada gradually lower the interest rate so that employment in this country may be stimulated by economic activity to provide the jobs needed not only for the 554,00 people unemployed in March but also for the 650,000 students who, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration told us today, will be looking for jobs this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Could I ask the Prime Minister to answer my question? He does not seem to be interested so I will ask him a simple supplementary question. How much higher does the government intend to push unemployment in its fight to cure inflation, to the last unemployed Canadian?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
May 4, 1970	COMMONS



QUEBEC-SPECIAL ACTION TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In
view oi the statement made last night by the Prime Minister-elect of Quebec that the federal government should devote special attention to provinces of low inflation and high unemployment such as the province of Quebec, may I ask the Prime Minister what special programs or special action the government has taken to cure the very serious unemployment in that province which is suffering the consequences of the government's policy to fight inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he is inviting the Prime Minister or a representative of the government to make a general statement which should be made on motions.



MANPOWER


Mr. Eldon M. Wooiliams (Calgary North):: May I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question in reference to his statement about students as I represent one of the university areas of Canada. In view of the fact that there are 540,000 looking for work, would the government now consider matching, dollar for dollar, assistance to students from industry, business and professional men, thus helping students obtain the money they need so they can continue their courses of study? This is a very serious problem and I mentioned it the last time I was in the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is a serious problem. There is a large body of students coming on to the labour market and we depend upon very substantial assistance from the private sector in placing them. As I mentioned, today the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is beginning its program "Operation Placement" and it is calling upon its membership throughout Canada to assist in placing over 600,000 students. This seems to me to be constructive and in line with the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be good enough to speak to the Minister of Finance and see if he could get him to withdraw the white paper on tax reform in view of the fact
DEBATES	6519
Inquiries of the Ministry that it is discouraging investment and development in this nation and causing unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has made a representation and he has to assume it will be taken into account by the minister.



SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS- ACTION TO ENSURE MAXIMUM WORK PERIOD

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I snou.d like to asK the minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that last year's successful program still left almost 50 per cent of those students who got jobs employed for not much more than half or two-thirds of the summer, what steps is his department taking to ensure that students who need a full summer's work in order to return to university next fall will be able to get it rather than just work for part of the summer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are taking the general steps that I have outlined and which proved effective last summer in obtaining employment for 93 per cent of the students who wanted it. It is true that some of the total number did not work all the months of the summer. This year we hope that the program in which we are co-operating, started by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, will be an added feature and will help extend the period of employment. This is in addition to the heavy advertising that we have done, that provincial governments have done and that newspapers have done in an effort to build up the capacity of employers to take on a very large number of young people for a very short time, creating jobs for them. We think that all these efforts will help generally and also help the specific problem mentioned by my hon. friend.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Should the efforts of his department not meet with the success anticipated in finding employment for students, is he prepared to consider enlarging the scope of the grant and loan provisions so that students can return to university?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will appreciate that the question is hypothetical and cannot be asked in those terms.
6520	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Saltsman:	Mr. Speaker, if I might
reword my question, is the minister considering reorganizing the grant and loans structure for university students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not directly, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.



NATIONAL PRESS CLUB


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, in his capacity as keeper of the Canadian Bill of Rights, express on behalf of the House of Commons our congratulations to the National Press Club for having decided to recognize women?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is making a suggestion rather than asking a question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and has to do with a concern being engendered in all parts of Canada by persons who use the waters of lakes or rivers which have been placed out of bounds for fishing because of mercury poisoning and the like. Is there any danger whatever to the individual in consuming that water for drinking purposes and general domestic use? I think his assurance on this score would go a long way to remove the fears.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that at many levels of government and amongst the people generally it is agreed that many of the waters of this country are polluted and are not safe for drinking purposes. I do not think that the Departments of Health, federally or provincially, would be prepared to give any undertaking that these waters could be consumed safely.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would then confine my question to two particular rivers.

DEBATES	May 4, 1970
What about the use of water from the Ottawa or Saskatchewan Rivers? Has any examination been made?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, without checking into the matter further, at the moment I would not be prepared to give any undertaking with respect to either of these rivers.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he can assure the Canadian people that waters contaminated by mercury, if processed by the filtering plants normally utilized by cities, are thus guaranteed fit for human consumption?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



YELLOWKNIFE-INDIAN DEATHS ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY SEWAGE PLANT WATER

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appalle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary and related question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which no doubt will be of interest to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received a written statement from Mr. Roy Daniels, President of the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, alleging that polluted water coming from the sewage plant at Yellowknife was the cause of a number of deaths among both Indian adults and children during the past winter? If so, what action is the government taking to investigate and rectify this serious situation?


An hon. Member:: Nobody knows.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I had a legitimate supplementary question.


John Carr Munro: I am sorry. I missed the hon. member's question.


Richard Russell Southam: The question is related to the one put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Has the minister received a written statement from Mr. Roy Daniels, President of the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, alleging that polluted water coming from the sewage plant at Yellowknife was the cause of a number of deaths among both Indian adults and children during the past winter? If so, what action is the government taking to investigate and rectify this serious situation?
May 4, 1970	COMMONS


John Carr Munro: I have no knowledge of the letter coming to my attention, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be glad to check into the matter.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government studying the request of the four Atlantic provinces' governments to alter the sharing formula under the Canada Assistance Act? If so when is a decision expected?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I met with the provincial welfare ministers last Friday. They came forward with a proposal which I said I would be prepared to take under consideration and bring to my colleagues. This proposal will need to be examined by my department for some weeks prior to bringing the matter before the whole cabinet.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a rather urgent question for the Prime Minister in view of the absence of both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the fact that Esthol McKella, President of the Charlotteville Federation of Agriculture in Norfolk Country, has called for an investigation into fertilizer prices by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the government will commence or cause to be commenced an investigation into these very serious charges?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture who, as the House knows, is at the moment chairing the two-day ministerial meeting of the grain exporting countries.



MANPOWER


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
DEBATES	6521
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Cosmos textile mill in Yarmouth has started its lay-offs, and in view of the fact that the minister said he would offer special services to the employees, can he tell us what these additional or special services are?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the services that we provide are well known. They are especially geared to each situation and I am satisfied that in the Yarmouth case they will be helpful also.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister spoke about special services. If he cannot give me the answer in the House, would he write and tell me what these special services are?


An hon. Member:: Funeral services.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister indicate how many draft dodgers and deserters have been allowed to enter this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is asking for statistical information. That kind of question ought normally to be placed on the Order Paper.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General in a position to inform the House whether the outbreaks that have occurred in a number of penal institutions recently are under investigation by officials of his department? I refer especially to the grievous attack on correctional officers at Dorchester Penitentiary.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question is in such general terms that it is difficult to answer. As to the latter part, I am not in a position to advise the House fully on the subject today but am having the matter looked into.
6522	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



POSTAGE RATE INCREASES FORECAST BY MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. May I also be permitted to advise him that the Postmaster General is back and making speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In reference to the speech he made today, may I ask if the Postmaster General is expressing government policy in these times of anti-inflationary measures when he speaks of mail rate increases to come with greater frequency than in the past and when he warns people to make allowance in their forward planning for such increases in 1971?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Postmaster General is assuming, and I assume he will be right, that inflation will be licked by then.


John George Diefenbaker: You don't say that
seriously.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister also say whether the Postmaster General is expressing government policy when he says that those who do not use the postal service will not be picking up the bill for those who do? Will this odd philosophy regarding a basic government service be applied to other basic government services such as the RCMP and the CBC?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's assurance to Mr. Bourassa of Quebec that he would help him to meet his pledge to create 10,000 new jobs in that province by the end of 1971, can the Prime Minister give a similar assurance to the Premier of Saskatchewan who in 1964 promised that 50,000 new jobs would be created within four years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
IMr. Mcllraith.)
DEBATES	May 4, 1970



NATIONAL AND ROYAL ANTHEMS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Government House Leader. Since I have not bothered him on this subject for some time, could he now indicate whether we can expect in 1970 legislation dealing with Canada's national and royal anthems?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. member now that there will not be legislation on this question before the end of the present session. It is conceivable, of course, that the legislation might be introduced in the next session.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Government House Leader indicate whether the government would consider bringing in a piece of legislation to deal with the royal anthem at least, because that is not subject to the difficulties the government is encountering in securing the rights to "O Canada"?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that.



THE MONARCHY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I revert once more to the very interesting and revealing performance of the Prime Minister on the CBC. Among other things he stated that one of the difficulties in maintaining a level of expenditures on the part of the government was the cost of the monarchy. I should like him to tell the House what he meant when he spoke of the cost of the monarchy to Canada, or was that just one of those nebulous things that was thrown in to becloud the issue?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think I have to make the same ruling about this question as I did about the question of a similar nature that was asked originally by the Leader of the Opposition. I doubt whether the question can be asked in those terms.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could I ask it without referring to the speech? I thought the Prime Minister would like a reference to his qualities as an actor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 4, 1970	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think the answer would require much information or research. Can the Prime Minister answer? Does the monarchy cost Canada anything directly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question ought to be placed on the Order Paper.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.



EDUCATION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the excellent work Frontier College has done in educating people in the outlying regions of Canada and in view of the current cutback in funds, would the minister, as one method of increasing student employment, reconsider his department's decision not to provide the funds requested of his department by Frontier College?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is some misunderstanding. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is currently making a total grant of $10,000 to Frontier College. This is a doubling of the grant that we made available previously. The college was supported in the past by the Department of Labour and now will be supported by this department at that level for the time being. In addition we are increasing our course purchases from Frontier College, which we hope will be another helpful step in the direction of strengthening its valuable work.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that is supplementary to the one asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. In view of the universal agreement on the part of federal and provincial authorities that Frontier College does really good work in the field of manpower training and in view of the crisis that organization is experiencing and its request to the minister's department for a one-shot grant of $50,000 to help it over its crisis-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly ask his question?


David Orlikow: Could the minister give further consideration to granting the amount requested by Frontier College?
DEBATES	6523
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, naturally I would be glad to consider any suggestion, but my commitment to consider should not be regarded as an indication that the decision might be favourable.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he indicate whether Canada took a negative position against Denmark's involvement in the North Atlantic salmon harvest? Also, would he be prepared to table the contents of the message forwarded to that nation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is right in assuming that we are opposed to the sort of action that Denmark has been taking. I do not think it would be in accordance with established practice nor good for relations between countries to table the note. I might perhaps be able to table a summary of the representations as I have done in other cases.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his co-operation on that matter. In view of the question he took as notice last week, could he indicate whether Canada is involved in experimentation and investigation, with United States authorities, in regard to the pollution of the Alaskan coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the department to inquire but have not received a reply yet.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very friendly and successful meeting he held with the Mennonite representatives in Winnipeg, is he prepared to reconsider their request that Mennonites be granted exemption from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was sub-
May 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry stantially discussed with them and an answer was given to them at that time or in writing in the days which followed the meeting. I can only remind the hon. member that it was not all the Mennonites who were requesting this. It was, I believe, a very small sect of them on behalf of whom the ones I met were talking. They were making representations on behalf of a much smaller group.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-LONG-TERM EFFECTS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Agriculture stating government policy when he indicated he believed that the Lift program, which basically asks the farmers to give up one year of income, would have beneficial long-term effects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking to confirm whether a statement made by a minister expressing an opinion or a belief, does in fact represent government policy. I have some difficulty considering this as a question which can be accepted procedurally. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Paul Yewchuk: I will try to rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether he agrees that the principle of asking a farmer, through the Lift program, to give up one year of income is now government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the member does not understand the policy.


Paul Yewchuk: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A couple of nights ago the Minister of Agriculture indicated on television that he felt the Lift program, which basically asks the farmer to give up one year of income, will have beneficial long-term effects for the farmers involved. Does the Prime Minister agree with this?


Mr. Speaker:: I had the impression this would be a supplementary question by the hon. member. I did not want to complicate matters. This is why I allowed the question. I was not sure if the hon. member was satisfied with the reply he received and a further supplementary question was allowed.
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to try another supplementary. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has expressed the view that the Lift program, which asks the farmer to give up a year of income, will have beneficial, long-term effects, would the Prime Minister and his colleagues, as a show of faith in these people, be willing to give up one year of their income to see whether that will have beneficial long-term effects?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously does not understand anything about the whole Lift program. The object is not to have the farmer give up a year of income but to have him curtail his production for a year and receive compensation. It is only $100 million we are offering. I know this is only crumbs to the opposition; however, we think this is an important contribution to the farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! [Translation]



MANPOWER


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
The minister has announced today his plan to help students during the summer months. Is he ready to grant subsidies or provide incentives to private enterprise, in order to encourage the hiring of students during the holidays?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a very public spirited program, has undertaken the commitment on its own, without subsidy, to encourage employers to take on over 600,000 students this summer. I think that this is the best way to proceed at this time. I hope the response among employer members across the country will be as effective as if we came forward with a subsidy program for them.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LE DAIN COMMISSION

Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a question for the Minister of Nation-
May 4, 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions al Health and Welfare. Has the Le Dain [DOT] <3:10 p m-)
Commission report been received yet?	GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: have a question for the Solicitor General of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that in Montreal on Friday the RCMP confiscated a large quantity of personal documents belonging to United States citizens who recently returned from Cuba, and in light of the fact that this baggage had already been cleared by customs in Saint John, can the minister say whether he has investigated this situation? If so, can he explain to the House why this action was taken?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I first want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice. Unfortunately it was only received after the bell rang at two o'clock today, so I have not a full answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George James McIlraith: In any event, I had looked into the matter and the situation is this. When the persons referred to by the hon. member entered the country, they failed to declare approximately 600 packages of literature. This literature was subsequently seized in Montreal under the authority of the Customs Act. It has not been confiscated. It is under seizure under the Customs Act. After it has been examined to see whether it is in contravention of the law, it will be dealt with either by way of confiscation or return.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give assurance that this baggage will be returned to its owners?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. If this literature is in the country contrary to the laws of this country, it will not be returned.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre) moved:
That this House calls upon the government to give consideration to an immediate and substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension and in veterans' pensions and allowances, and this House also urges that still further steps be taken to improve the quality of life of all our older and retired people.
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before the debate on this motion commences. It was agreed among the House Leaders that today would be an opposition day and that the motion would be put by the New Democratic party. However, it was not agreed that it would be a non-confidence motion. Although notice was given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that he was bringing such a motion, there was no agreement to that effect.
In the past we have proceeded on the basis that a non-confidence motion was the prerogative of the official opposition unless there was agreement to the contrary. I understand there has been discussion among the House Leaders concerning this particular matter, but that no agreement has been reached. In the absence of our House Leader, who is currently away on official business, I rise to give notice that the procedure today should not be considered as a precedent.
There is also some doubt whether the nature of this motion can classify it as a non-confidence motion under Standing Order 58(9) or whether it should more properly come under Standing Order 58(11). The subject matter of the motion is worthy of debate and discussion in this House. We do not oppose proceeding with the debate at this time. I merely rise to file a caveat that a similar procedure in the future will have to be by way of agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I recognize that all he is seeking to do
6526	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions is enter a caveat; that he does not object to the House proceeding today with this motion.
I am afraid I must enter the counter caveat that the rule does not say that all non-confidence motions are the prerogative of the official opposition.
It is true that all the non-confidence motions moved since the new rules came into effect have been in the names of hon. members of the official opposition. We have contended both last session and this session that in view of the relative size of our party compared with that of the official opposition we should be entitled to at least one of the six in the course of each session. We have endeavoured to arrive at this understanding by agreement, but agreement has not been possible and, this day having been assigned to us, it being the last of the six in this session, it seems to me it is our right to ask that this motion of ours be one of non-confidence.
As the hon. member who has just spoken knows, I made it clear to his party on Friday morning that it was our intention to file this motion and ask that it be one of non-confidence. While I am prepared to take part in further discussions, I enter this present statement as a counter caveat to the caveat put on record by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In order to make the government's position clear, may I say that the practice followed has been for myself, as leader of the House, or my representative from time to time to indicate which of the sitting days should be considered as an allotted day for the purpose of Standing Order 58. I have not assumed responsibility for deciding which of the days should be taken up by which of the opposition parties, nor which of the days was to be regarded as a day for putting forward a motion of non-confidence. On this basis, I was not privy to discussions regarding the use to be made of the day between hon. members opposite. I merely gave an indication that Monday would be an allotted day.
It might be of some assistance in this regard if Your Honour could indicate whether, in your view, this motion does in fact constitute a motion of non-confidence or not. In itself, the wording might just commend itself to some of my hon. friends on this side of the House. But, of course, they would not feel obliged to vote for it if the effect would be to cut the government's throat. So it might be useful if Your Honour could rule whether
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
or not a motion purporting to be under the terms of Standing Order 58 (9), while not expressing in its terms any want of confidence in the government should be regarded as a motion under that part of the Standing Order or whether, rather, it should be regarded as a motion under Standing Order 58 (11) which is the one providing for motions other than non-confidence motions, motions in connection with which debate would expire at ten o'clock rather than be put to the vote.
Subject to this reservation, the government takes no position one way or another on the point of order. Nevertheless, if these questions are to mean anything, if they are to be the occasion for more than a ritualistic battle, it would seem to me that non-confidence motions should be expressed in such a way as clearly to indicate non-confidence in the government. The feeling among some of my hon. friends might be that the motion before us does not fall into this category.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should address myself first to the point raised initially by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) about which a caveat, a counter caveat and a non-caveat have been entered by the three hon. members who took part in the discussion.
I doubt very much that the Chair could intervene in this aspect of the proceedings. Obviously, the only way in which the Standing Order can be operated so as to work and make sense is to have agreement between hon. members, in this case between representatives of the parties in the House. As has been pointed out, there has been no such agreement in this case, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on behalf of his party has presented a motion under the terms of Standing Order 58(9). The only role assigned to the Chair in this respect relates to Standing Order 58(4) (b) which states:
When notice has been given of two or more motions by members in opposition to the government for consideration on an allotted day, Mr. Speaker shall have power to select which of the proposed motions shall have precedence in that sitting.
Had there been more than one motion filed within the required time under the terms of Standing Order 58(9), the Chair would have had the responsibility of determining which took precedence-the motion sponsored by the Official Opposition or the motion sponsored by another party in the House. In this case I suggest I cannot go beyond what I have
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
before me and this motion is the one which has to be considered by the House this afternoon.
As to the second point, the point which was raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and to some extent by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, I suggest it would be difficult for the Chair to rule that this is not properly a non-confidence motion and to treat it as an ordinary motion under the terms of the relevant Standing Order. I have some sympathy for the point raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and reinforced by the President of the Privy Council. This motion does appear, on the face of it, to be a substantive motion or even a private member's resolution; it does not indicate that by a vote hon. members would be expressing non-confidence in the government.
It seems to me I ought to remind hon. members that a number of similar motions have been before us in the past, motions which could have been interpreted as being substantive motions rather than as motions expressing want of confidence. It may well be that in future the Chair should look at this matter more closely. My impression, without having gone into the situation in detail, is that motions of no-confidence, or motions alleged to be motions of no-confidence within the terms of Standing Order 58(9) have been put to the House before, in this form, and have been considered under that Standing Order and voted upon at the expiry of the debate at 9.45 p.m. This is my impression. I would have to go over the precedents nad see whether I am right or not. In the meantime, I think this motion should be put in the terms in which it has been presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and be considered as a motion under Standing Order 58(9).
This having been said, I should like myself to enter a caveat. The matter will be looked into a little more closely, and perhaps the next time the Chair is presented with a motion which purports to be a no-confidence motion there will be an indication on the part of the Chair that it should clearly be a noconfidence motion rather than an expression of feeling or opinion in the form of a substantive motion or of a private member's resolution such as this one appears to be. There has been some difficulty in connection with the present motion and I suggest we allow the debate to go ahead on its present basis, reserving the position both as far as the Official Opposition is concerned and as far as the
DEBATES	6527
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions Chair is concerned. It might be very useful for the House leaders to hold discussions on the subject, and the Chair will take the initiative in this regard.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I comment on one observation which has been made by Your Honour in connection with Standing Order 58(4)(b>? It would, of course, have been possible for the Official Opposition to have filed a counter motion under this provision so that Your Honour would have been called upon to make a decision. However, we had made an agreement that this should be a day allotted to the NDP and we did not feel that we would be carrying out our agreement if we tried to block their motion.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Old Age and Veterans' Pensions emment's review of social security policy as a whole. In other words, there can be no increase in the basic pension rate under the Pension Act and no increase in the war veterans allowance until we have the white paper on social security, and for all we know we may not get it then.
I submit that it is most unfair to these people to tell them they will have to wait, and wait and wait. We understand there are to be a few adjustments. The Hong Kong veterans might get into the picture according to the Woods report, as confirmed in the white paper, and there are a number of things to be done in respect of the administration of the Pension Act which are good but overdue. But the basic thing, the need for more money on which to live, is not to be discussed so far as our veterans are concerned until the white paper on social security has been presented.
So, I ask when will this happen? So far as the study is concerned that the government no doubt will tell us is being given to the position of the old age pensions, we know about that. There was the Willard report which at one time we thought we would see soon but which apparently we are not to see at all. Now it is to be the white paper based on that report. This was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne last October. We thought we were going to get it soon, but now apparently we will not have it until just before the end of the session and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has made clear that it is not expected any action on the basis of that report will be taken at this session.
Therefore, the picture emerges as a very clear one that these two main global groups of people about whom I am speaking, those on the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement as well as veterans drawing pensions or allowances under these two pieces of legislation I am talking about, will not receive any attention this session. So, what will happen next session? Will we have the same situation again and no doubt we will have to wait until the session after that, the one just before the election? If that is the case, this discrepancy between the 15.7 per cent increase in the cost of living and the 6.1 per cent increase in the pensions, as in the case of the old security recipients, will become even worse. What I described today as an emergency situation will become one of tragedy so far as Canada's older citizens are concerned.

As is said in our motion, we think there are other things in life than money. We would like to see things done to improve the quality of life of our older and retired people. If there were more time, I could list a whole range of things that could be done in connection with other services such as health, housing, recreation and all kinds of things that could be done not only by governments but by people generally. But it is rather futile to preach to people about improving the quality of their lives if they do not have enough dollars to hold body and soul together.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I submit that the kind of situation that has developed is one in which we have done something for lots of other groups of pensioners, one in which many people have won increases in their wages and salaries, but for this group of a million and a half old age pensioners and 200,000 war veterans, all we have done has been to tell them to wait, and in particular to wait until after we get the white paper on social security. To put it in its simplest language, it is not fair, it is not just, and I think there should be action on this matter in this session.
I have no doubt that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and perhaps someone speaking on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) who, I understand, is in Europe at the present time, will tell us that we should wait not only because these things have to be studied but because there might be some better way to deal with these matters than we have employed thus far. I confess to some fear about these suggestions because I hear so much talk about selectivity as a way of handling these things, and I am still an ardent advocate of the principle of universality. I do not like keeping the poor that way, as Ian Adams says in his current book. I think that the way to go is in the direction of the guaranteed annual income. I think the way to go is in the direction of raising the living standards of all our people, and therefore what we propose in this motion is not inconsistent with what might be sometime later a proper and adequate solution to the whole problem of security for our older people.
For example, I have not raised in this motion questions of detail such as the 2 per cent ceiling on the amount by which the pension can go up each year. I have not raised the questions of the means test or the income test or the guaranteed income supplement.
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
My views about all of these have not changed one iota, but rather than suggest that the House bog down in the details of these things, in view of the fact that a study is in progress and that something more has to be done later,
I simply suggest that we take what we now have and act on it in an interim way because the situation is an emergency.
I say that the basic amount of the old age security pension should be increased immediately and substantially. What I mean by the word "substantial" will be pretty clear if one looks at the Order Paper. There is a notice of motion in my name that calls for the pension to be raised to $150 a month across the board. In that motion I suggest that we wipe out the guaranteed income supplement, wipe out the means test, and go for $150 across the board.
I think that is a better solution than one based on selectivity. But when I ask in today's motion for a substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension, I leave it to the government to decide on the amount. For example, if the government decided to grant an increase from $75 to $100 to meet this request, then may I remind the government that the guaranteed income supplement is defined as 40 per cent of the basic pension. Therefore, an increase in the basic pension from $75 to $100 would increase the guaranteed income supplement up to $40 and produce a grand total of $140 a month.
I offer that as something less than the $150 that I am asking for across the board but I offer it as a compromise because, as I was saying, we have an emergency situation that calls for immediate action, whatever is going to happen with respect to the white paper on social security that is to be presented later. That is the kind of thing I think should be done. I apply the same reasoning to the pensions under the Pension Act and to the allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I think there are some basic changes that should be made there in the way those pensions and allowances are structured. But at the moment we could help meet the immediate emergency by a straight percentage increase in the pension under the Pension Act and by increasing the amount of the war veterans allowance and by raising the ceiling under which those allowances are paid.
There are many other groups. As I said, some were covered, like the retired civil servants, but there are other groups such as the blind, the disabled and the handicapped, who all too often are forgotten. If I brought those in, I would be told there is the Canada Assist-
DEBATES	6531
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions ance Plan and there are the provinces. I do bring them into these remarks because I do not want us to forget them. But I am also trying to avoid confusion, to avoid our running off into a lot of different alleyways and missing the main point. I am asking the House to concentrate on these two main groups-old age pensioners generally, of whom there are a million and a half, and veterans who are recipients under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act of whom there are about 200,000.
I have already said that this motion, although there were some questions about it as to whether or not it was a non-confidence motion, is deliberately drawn to go either way. If the government says no, even if it says this under the pretext that it is a nonconfidence motion, and says it is going to vote against it, then of course we have no option but to force the vote and to let those in the House who believe that pensions should be increased stand up and be counted and those who are not prepared to do that also stand up and be counted. But it is quite in keeping with precedents of the past, quite within the way in which this motion has been worded, for the first speaker for the government to say that the government accepts the intent and the spirit of this motion, that the government believes it should give consideration to an immediate increase in the pensions under the Old Age Security Act and in the pensions and allowances paid to our veterans. If the government does take that position, the motion will not have to be put to a recorded vote at 9.45 p.m. but it will be a unanimous vote and the government will not fall. We do not want the government to fall, not today. There is no point in that at this stage. There is too much to be done around this place to have an election right away. But, to put it in plain language, we do want to put the government on the spot on this issue and we ask the government to face this situation by doing what it ought to do, by saying that it does agree to this proposition. That being the case, there will be a unanimous vote at 9.45 p.m. and all will be well. All we have to do then is to wait for the government to give that consideration and bring in legislation before the end of this session. Failing that, there will have to be a vote and the country will make up its own mind as to the extent to which the government is really interested in our older people.
I have just two more things to say and since only two minutes of my time remain, I shall have to say them fast. First, let us not
6532	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions have an argument from the other side in the course of this debate about inflation, that these people have to be enlisted as soldiers in the war against inflation. They have already had 9 per cent cut off their income for all practical purposes. They are suffering most of all from inflation. While the executive salaries are going up and with all the other things that are happening, let us not put the burden of fighting inflation on these people. These are people for whom we should be taking the action suggested in this motion.
The final thing I want to say-and I say it carefully without any attempt to be oratorical about it, but I say it plainly-this House has a particular obligation at this time, a strong moral obligation, to do something in the pension field. We have done something in this field for ourselves. I am not going to raise those arguments again. Members know where I stand on that. However, I submit, having done what we did for ourselves before Easter, we have as great a moral obligation to our old age pensioners and to our war veterans as we have ever had. I hope we will meet that obligation today with unanimous support for this motion which calls for consideration of an immediate and substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age pension, for an immediate and substantial increase in veterans pensions and allowances, as the first steps toward improving the quality of life of all our older and retired people.
o (3:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this motion that has been placed before the House. I point out that it asks only that the government give consideration to extending something like justice to the older people and the veterans of the country. I, therefore, hope that other Members of this Parliament on the government side might also be prepared to support this motion and thereby indicate that, in their personal view, the poor, the aged and the veterans deserve a higher priority than being always at the bottom of the heap in Canada.
There have been some encouraging news reports suggesting that a sliver of conscience has found its way into the cabinet, and that some of the ministers, and some of the other supporters on the government side, are unhappy about the government's policy of socking it to the poor and the weak in order that the prosperous and the strong might
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
thrive. Today, they have a chance to say the same thing in Parliament they have been saying in private.
It is a shocking comment that, in a country so proud of a high standard of living, Parliament must devote a day to give direction to the government to give consideration-simply give consideration-to stopping discrimination against the people who worked to build up that standard of living, and fought to protect it. The people the opposition parties seek to relieve today are often the people who have spent or risked their lives in the service of Canada, and want now no more than a decent standard of living in their retirement. Quite apart from the total absence of justice in the so-called just society, the refusal of this government to respond to the plight of these Canadians-the insistence of this government to maintain a cruel discrimination against the elderly and the veterans of Canada-is an act of callous and monumental ingratitude.
This motion must have caused great consternation in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) office. They just will not know what the country is coming to. Last week it was the unemployed and now it is the pensioners and the veterans. In the East Block they must be asking, why is Parliament bothering to bring up these problems out of proper order? Doesn't Parliament know that problems must be dealt with in order and that now is the time to fight inflation, so until it is licked we cannot consider the problems of the aged or anybody else?
Don't we know, they say in the East Block, that inflation is hardest on old people and consequently nothing can be done to ease their problem? That argument, of course, is absurd. Fight inflation, certainly! But it is wrong to suggest that those who want to provide some relief for the aged or the veterans want to cease and desist in the fight avainst inflation. It is one of the prime minister's stark and false alternatives that he is fond of putting forth. Certainly, let us continue to fight inflation but let's not allow those who suffer most to bear the principal cost of continuing the fight. If Parliament keeps up these demands to help people, the Prime Minister's flow charts will be thrown out of whack. And it is well known that in this government, flow charts are far more important than people. You don't hear anyone on that side calling a computer a "regrettable side effect".
I want to dwell on that aspect for a moment. It is the claim of this government that they are efficient. Other governments, in
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
other times, have wanted to be compassionate, or visionary, or open. This government wants to be efficient. And when it is obviously being inefficient, it wants to shut the windows on the federal government, cut off the critics and set up "manipulation Canada". Then, when the government is inefficient no one will know. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has a word for that. He calls it being effective. But whether it is efficient or effective, this government has a style it is going to defend against all comers. It is prepared to be tough with the poor, tough with the old, tough with those 542,000 "regrettable side effects" who are out of work in Canada.
Clearly, there has been no adequate adjustment in the cost of living in connection with old age pensions. We know that the adjustment of approximately 2 per cent is limited to the basic pension of a little less than $80. It does not even cover the whole pension, including the guaranteed annual income supplement. I am concerned particularly with the older people who are in need. The resolution speaks of the basic old age security pension, and I certainly hope the government will consider this. Whatever the government may say about the problems of raising the general level of old age security at this time, they should at least give serious consideration to effective revision of the guaranteed income supplement.
I do not want to spend too much time on figures, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already given some. The poverty line indicated by the Economic Council of Canada before the Senate was $1,800 for a single person and $3,000 for a couple. If this is adjusted to 1970, these figures become $1,950 for a single person and $3,250 for a couple. I know that people do not like to think of themselves as being poor or to be called poor, but these are the figures produced by the Economic Council of Canada as minimal for a decent existence in this country. The guaranteed income supplement added to the existing pension gives a total for a single person of $1,336.92, about $600 below the poverty line. For a couple the total would be $2,673.84, also about $600 below what the Economic Council of Canada established as the poverty line.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, about 51 per cent of those receiving the old age security pension are receiving the guaranteed income supplement, in whole or in part. This gives us some idea
DEBATES	6533
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions of the percentage of old age security recipients who are well below the poverty line. I do not want to worry the House too much with figures, Mr. Speaker, but these can be amply documented. Surely, this is a serious situation. The government should consider immediately, without waiting for more white papers, moving to offset the rise that has taken place in the cost of living. It is wrong, as I have said, to ask our older citizens to bear the full cost of the fight against inflation. I say, let us all fight inflation but let the Prime Minister and his colleagues stop using the war against inflation as a club to beat the heads of the weak and old. Let us use antiinflationary measures as they should be used, as a shield, and let us supplement that with justice to those who are being particularly hard hit by inflation.
e (4:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has also, of course, taken the same sort of line against Canada's veterans, many of whom are also on fixed incomes which inflation is eating away and which the government stubbornly refuses to augment. I offer this warning: if the government thinks veterans groups are going to be easy to push around, it is in for a surprise.
This debate today concerns veterans' supplements and allowances. The considerations which should guide our debate are considerations of justice and equity, and of the mean conditions of life which many Canadian veterans are forced to endure today because of the policy of this government. I think it is also appropriate, in passing, to make the point that if any group of Canadians has a special claim on justice from their government, they are the men and women who risked their lives for this country and sometimes suffered disabilities that seriously limited their later private lives and earning power. There is no need for me to dwell on our duty not to be blind to our obligations. Certainly, we should show more gratitude than a stone-cold response to the veterans' request for a just and decent standard of living. In particular, disability pensions must be improved. In the beginning, the veterans' disability pensions were tied to the cost of unskilled labour. These pensions are a long way short of that rate now, and some adjustments must be made to take account of recent changes.
I suggest we should also consider raising the ceiling of income for those in receipt of
6534	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions war veterans allowances. The ceiling today is $245 per month for the married veteran and $145 a month for the single veteran. The last adjustments in these figures were made some time ago. If a man has no other means of income and is not yet eligible for an old age pension, that means he is forced to get by today on $2,940 per year if he is married and $1,690 per year if he is single. That is barely more than $30 a week, Mr. Speaker, for a single man; and while that is the income recommended by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), it is not at all a just or adequate income for a Canadian citizen, whether he is a veteran or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: Thirty buck a month Benson.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suspect that the answer will be that the government has the matter under review. Sometimes I expect that will always be the answer; and the review will never end and will never produce results for the Canadian veterans. It is at this point in the debate that I wish to refer briefly to the growing disenchantment in this government among Canadian veterans. In addition, there is a growing lack of confidence in the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) on the part of Canadian veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Canadian veterans just
cannot understand why it has taken this government so long to make some simple long-overdue adjustments in what they are receiving. They are concerned that the minister has taken the same attitude towards veterans that ministers in this government from western Canada have taken towards the west-that is, that he sees his purpose as protecting the government agains the veterans. That, surely, is not at all an adequate attitude.
This seems to be a government of technocrats and public relations men. The technocrats be.ieve it is enough for a government to be efficient and the public relations men settle for less than that. They think it is enough to seem to be efficient. I have spoken before about the false image of efficiency and the deliberate campaign of this government to eliminate or restrict critics who might point out how inefficient the government really is in fact.
I want to deal briefly with another new, basic ideology, the ideology of efficiency which allows the government to regard and describe half a million unemployed as "re-

DEBATES	May 4, 1970
grettable side effects", This government has a computer for a conscience. As it turns out, the computer usually cannot count. But at least it cannot be said that the mistakes of this government are human mistakes. There is a machine on which to put the blame, and probably that is appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know this attacks the basic faith of the technocrats in the East Block, but the government in a civilized country has a larger responsibility than just to be efficient. It must do more than make the trains run on time.
This government, in the false name of efficiency, has consistently set itself against the weak and the dispossessed. It is not clear whether their guiding philosophy is that the poor deserve to be poor or else they would be cabinet ministers, or whether it is that someone always has to sacrifice and suffer when a new approach is being introduced. If the new theology of efficiency is going to claim some victims, it might as well be the poor and the dispossessed.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is better, sir, that someone strong enough should complain and get in the way of "progress". I repeat, this government has taken a consistent, hard line against Canadians in need. Earlier this year I proposed that the government immediately take off the tax rolls those Canadians who were paying income tax and living below the poverty line. But the government refused. The Economic Council of Canada has indicated that one Canadian in five is living below the poverty line in this rich country. The government could act. It has refused to do so thus far, offering as an excuse that it has another policy review in progress.
Inflation, which the government claims to be fighting by creating these 542,000 "regrettable side effects", is still like a thief, stealing every day from Canadians on fixed incomes. Some Canadians with comfortable incomes might be in a position to hold the line on incomes and join the fight against inflation. But when you live in hardship, when inflation cuts into your ability to buy basic necessities, you should not be asked to stand in the front line of the fight. You are in it already and the government has no moral right to load on a greater burden. As I said before, the government can claim it is being tough; it can claim
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
that it is taking a hard line if it wants to do so. In fact, this government is being revealed to the nation as cold-blooded.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is against the poor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They will certainly hold the line. Yet I suggest that we owe the elderly people of this country not only gratitude but justice. They have a special claim to the attention of the government, because it is difficult to be old in a country that is so consciously young. Already, and often with adequate reasons, governments have changed traditions that were part of life to many older Canadians. Urbanization has changed then-landscape and broadcasting and other influences have changed their sense of standards. A good many of the events of the last few decades in Canada have militated, in effect, against the elderly. This country which they built is less easy for them to live in than it was for their parents or grandparents. These are the people who built Canada when they were young and who are eligible for pensions today.
e (4:10 p.m.)
These people are the psychological victims of change. Instead of adding to their discomfort by making them the economic victims of deliberate government policy, this government should go out of its way to show its older ci-izens that this is their country too, that we are grateful for their service and determined to ensure that they live their last years in as much decency and comfort as is possible. Therefore, I sincerely press the government-
The Acfing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was just finishing my last sentence, Mr. Speaker. I urge the government to seriously consider the contents of this resolution and the recommendation contained in the resolution, that financial relief be granted to our older people and veterans so that we can feel we are doing something like justice for these people.
DEBATES	8535
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us deals with a most urgent matter since, as far back as 1962 at least, hon. members were recommending the adoption of measures similar to those suggested in this motion which reads as follows:
That this House calls upon the government to give consideration to an immediate and substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension and in veterans' pensions and allowances, and this House also urges that still further steps be taken to improve the quality of life of all our older and retired people.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I met retired CNR employees, one of whom receives a monthly pension of $28.
It is so ridiculous that I even advised him to return his cheque, because it was not worth it cashing a $27, $28 pension cheque after having worked 30 or 35 years for the Canadian National.
As social security, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned that the white paper was about to be brought out, as announced at the opening of the session. This was referred to several times last year and two years ago, and in the meanwhile, our pensioners are still barely able to keep body and soul together, living in need.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said of the veterans, they are the very ones who from 1939 to 1945 were on the other side of the Atlantic, ready to shed their blood for country, civilization and Christendom.
Mr. Ralston, then Minister of National Defence, visited them in Europe. The Right Hon. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister, and the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, Deputy Prime Minister, enjoined our soliders to fight gallantly. When you return to Canada, they said, you will never know want, recession or insecurity.
During the four or five years that the war lasted, young people were encouraged with brazen lies since today, married veterans get $245 a month and unmarried ones, $145. I think these allowances are not enough, and it is a shame to treat these veterans this way.
If war were declared tomorrow, the same promises would be made to the new generation of soldiers. They would be told: When the war is over, you will never have insecurity again.
Right now, in Canada, veterans have no security at all and they are worried.
May 4, 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions
Mr. Speaker, the motion before us concerns several other categories of citizens who need help. This is the reason why I give it my wholehearted support.
I regret that neither the mover nor the Opposition Leader who both support the same resolution, have not the same aims and did not indicate by what means these pension increases would be made possible, because, finally, everybody will ask again: Where will the money come from? This is the problem.
Why not pay $150 pensions to old people? I remember that in 1962, when the old age security pension was $65 a month and that my colleagues and I called for it to be raised to $100, we were literally told that we were crazy, that we were asking for the moon. Now, in 1970, the same pension has reached $111.41 a month. This means that the government is crazier then we were then by $11.41 a month.
The question remains the same: Where will the money come from? When it was decided to increase the pension of hon. members, did anyone ask where would the money come from? Nobody did. It was like an electronic system-so smoothly it went through.
The pensions are there. As far as the wage increases are concerned, they were granted without too much difficulty. The delivery was not too difficult. Things run smoothly when we are the ones concerned, but for the disadvantaged and the aged, the story is different.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, can an older person live on $111.41 per month in present circumstances? What about needy mothers, widows, the blind and the disabled who receive only $75 or $65 per month? How can they live on so little? It is impossible.
If the minister believes that it can be done, why does he not publish the "recipe" in order to teach people how to live, in 1970, on $65 per month? Of course, no such recipe is sent with the cheque because everyone knows that it is impossible to live on such a ridiculously low pension.
Mr. Speaker, is it normal that needy mothers on social assistance, who often must provide for four or five children, should receive only $130 or $135 per month?
Let us suppose that a mother has five children and they are placed in a foster home. The home would get in such a case $50 a month for each child, which means $250 per month. And when the mother has the courage to support her own children and look after them herself, she only receives $135 per
[Mr. Caouette.l
month. If this is what we call social justice and a just society, I fail to grasp the meaning of words.
It is a shame to treat people so, although this is what we see in our midst. Mr. Speaker, such situations exist in the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and each minister can see in his own constituency cases of the most distressing poverty. Why? Is it because there is a shortage of goods? No. Because the stores are empty? No. Because the factories are unable to produce? No. It is because people have no money! That is the problem. And instead of tackling it all kinds of other things are given consideration.
The Leader of the Opposition was not much clearer than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he offered his solution. In their opinion, taxes should be increased, a floor on poverty and a ceiling on wealth should be established. When a certain level of wealth has been reached, we should take from the rich and give to the poor so that they may reach the set minimum.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the floor is concerned, I agree. We should set one, so that everyone may at least be on the same minimum level. From there on, people should be free. A vital minimum should be set, allowing for decent living conditions and not dismal, pitiful and shrunken ones.
That principle once applied, let personal initiative do the rest. If someone becomes a millionaire, good for him, if another becomes rich, good for him; if still another remains at a lower level, it is just too bad. If he cannot do better, it is unfortunate, but at least he is free to use his personal initiative.
We should leave it to competition in private enterprise to settle the price problem instead of using government gimmicks or unrealistic schemes which only lead to price increases.
When will prices go down? When will the government consider the consumer problem instead of thinking only of controlling production?
In western Canada, $100 million were paid to farmers with instructions not to grow wheat for a year. In eastern Canada, they were asked not to produce milk. Even in the constituency of Bonaventure and in Abitibi farmers were requested not to produce milk. It is dangerous to reduce production. Any such reduction entails an increase in unemployment and this not only in Quebec.
I recently went to the Magdalen Islands where 80 per cent of the population lives
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
exclusively on welfare allowances. In fact, conditions are not good for fishing at this time of year. Income is limited and people live on social welfare. Election convassers even told the people that if they did not vote for their party they will lose their family and social allowances. I advised the mothers to throw out those canvassers with a broomstick. I do not if they did it, but at least that was what I suggested.
In any case, this is an important matter. The government is racking its brains trying to work out a production policy, but it is ignoring the consumers who should normally benefit from it. Then, why does it not tackle the true problem, that of production? Indeed, the whole production cannot be used up.
Just let the producers produce and give the consumers the means to purchase the products. And how can we do that? By allotting additional purchasing power to the consumers. They would then command production. So that our senior citizens might buy more products, and they are in abundance, or at least be able to get the necessities of life, we must first increase the old age pensions to $150 a month. No pension must from now on be less than $150 a month.
Where will the money come from? From the pockets of those who have money? No. That is the solution of socialism. Some European countries adopted it but the situation was not much improved. Such a policy crushed the rich but did not help the poor very much.
As I often say, millionaires do not pile up their money in a corner of their bedrooms. They use it in a productive way. Plant extensions, new industries, new jobs and respect of personal initiative are the products of private enterprise. If people were roused against millionaires because they live in castles, if 10,000 poor people who live in shacks were brought together to fight the rich, there would come a time when the castles would be blown up. The poor would be satisfied because the castles would be destroyed. They would return home and find out that they still live in the same shacks. This action would not have improved their standard of living, but would have destroyed what was good. This solution is not the right one. It is bad to take something from those who have and give it to those who have not.
That is done in Russia, Czechoslovakia and other Communist countries of the world. We do not want that regime. If we do not want it, the time has come to consider seriously 2221&-67
DEBATES	6537
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions the problem of consumption in order that those who have something keep it. It is difficult to convince people of this. Still, it is possible to convince those who have time to think. It is a waste of time when one is dealing with press gallery correspondents. Incidentally, I see there is nobody in the press gallery. It is impossible to convince the CBC of this. The CBC advocates that we must take from those who have, stir up people and give to those who have nothing. It comes to the defence of the poor, but fails to take the means required to help them.
As for us, we talk about monetary reform and people say we are lunatics. And while the lunatics are shouting, Canada is in the throes of a recession. The poor, the disabled, the blind and the old are at the mercy of economic conditions.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, production in Canada this year will amount to $72 or $75 billion. Compared to this production achieved by Canadians, we will have a total national income of some $50 billion. This means that there will be from $22 to $25 billion worth of products for which we will not have the purchasing power. There is no money for that. That means that the total income cannot buy the total production. It is as simple as that. Neither the journalists nor the CBC people can get that through their heads. I do not mean the small employees of the CBC, no, but the big shots as they are called.
Mr. Speaker, other countries have run into similar problems. Must we necessarily follow in their footsteps? Are we waiting for a revolution to break out here in Canada, for the poor to revolt? An old proverb says: It's no use preaching to a hungry man. Now, if we allow those people to revolt, there will be no point in preaching to them. If the husband, the wife and the child are hungry, eventually they will act. Hunger will not be tolerated in as rich a country as Canada. That is obvious. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) knows it as well as I do.
We had a depression from 1929 to 1939. When we speak of that depression to the young people of today, they think it is a fairy tale. Only, we "wi.nessed the fairy and the tale" at the same time. And today we seem to be heading towards a new depression.
Mr. Speaker, I say it again: a floor for poverty, yes; but a ceiling, no. That is clear. If we impose a ceiling, as soon as it is reached, people with initiative will say: Before work-
May 4, 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions ing for the government, to hell with everything. I will go further. We already see that in the case of those who, for instance, work overtime in plants, and are literally robbed of the fruit of their overtime through income tax. What does that fellow tell himself? He says to himself: Do you think I am going to work for the government? To hell with the government, I am going home. I am not doing any overtime. And who could blame him?
The ceiling, that is what discourages all personal initiative. Everybody admits that all minds are not equal. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people have inventiveness while others will never invent anything. The government in power now will not invent much in the years to come.


An hon. Member:: Taxes.


David Réal Caouette: That's right, taxes. It is the only invention we have, taxes.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes come up with a reasonable solution. The ministers and the government members know that. If war broke out tomorrow, would there be a money problem in Canada to supply our soldiers with equipment and weapons. Not only "pea-shooters," but good rifles. Would there be a lack of money to feed those soldiers and clothe them decently?
In 1939, when war broke out, there was a great economic crisis in Canada. We did not get money from those who did not have any. We created $200 million in the Bank of Canada, through the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Ilsley. I say it once more, we found $200 million. Then Saint-Pierre l'Er-mite and all kinds of war plants sprang up. They provided work for all men, women and young girls. There were 800,000 soldiers and now we cannot create 600,000 jobs. But to create 800,000 jobs for soldiers in time of war that is something we are able to do. It is preposterous, but we tolerate it.
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad to hear all the time that we have no money. And all that time old people are getting older and are worrying too. There is no security for them. Medical cards that are granted when a supplement is provided. But all our older citizens do not have that card. They have to ask for it in writing from the government, and some cannot write-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired, and unless the House

gives unanimous consent, he cannot proceed. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, for five minutes.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues. I will need only two more minutes, even if I am offered five. Therefore, it cannot be said that I am greedy and demanding a national dividend immediately.
Mr. Speaker, all this to say that the motion as drafted is very much acceptable. We support its intent because all the people and groups mentioned in the motion interest us to the utmost.
For many years now, we have been asking for $150 per month for old age pensions. We are now asking for a similar basic pension for the blind, the disabled and for each and every category of people since production in Canada can sustain it.
If our production failed, we should necessarily have to turn to it, but that is not the problem. The problem is that we are saddled with a production surplus. I see that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) is supporting me. He knows there is a production surplus, even in his own province and in his own riding.
The other day, I was strolling down St. Catherine Street, close to my hon. friend's riding and there were sales advertised in every shopwindow: season sales, off-season sales, quarterly sales, underwear sales, for my very good friend over there. Sales everywhere. Unfortunately, people walk right by because they have no money.
The problem is a pocketbook problem.
I am asking the government to think in term of pocketbook rather than in terms of production.
When our Canadian housewives have enough purchasing power to go and buy themselves clothes, food or what not, and when our breadwinner enjoy security through the purchasing power that will assure them of at least a fair standard of well-being, then, the government of Canada will have served efficiently the nation.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise to take part in this debate which is one that touches us all very deeply. I regret that the motion is worded in such manner that many of us who sympathize with its spirit and intent cannot
May 4, 1970

vote in its favour. I hope that the hon. member who moved it, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), takes some time to learn something about the rules of this place so that in future we can do this in a different way. But as I say, many of my colleagues share both his concern and sympathy.


Mr. Benjamin:: The hon. member was quoting rules here before you were born.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am sure he was. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made some interesting comments. He felt it was not enough to appear efficient, but certainly that is not a problem that he will ever have. I was disappointed in the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) when he made some remarks about "Thirty dollar Benson". I think that is unworthy of "Two-bit Bell"; but I hope we can raise this debate to a higher level.
I think this debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on the role played by our older people and our attitude toward them in this society of ours, which really, with all its problems, is an affluent society. We have the second highest standard of living in the world. Some claim we have the third highest; but from what I know of Sweden, while I admire that country and its people greatly I suggest that Canada still has the second highest standard of living. Most of us today are living better than we have ever lived before, most of us better than we ever really expected. Yet our older people, though perhaps better treated than they were in former times, are not treated as well as they should be.
I think the approach to the matter is a purely selfish one on the part of us here. God willing, most of us will ourselves be old some day. Perhaps this is a cynical way of approaching old age, but if we can develop our society to the extent that we will not have any fears, trepidation or uncertainty about getting old, about security in our senior years, then we can devote our thoughts and energy to the future, to things which will be productive in themselves, which will help us fulfil ourselves as Canadians and which help Canada fulfil its destiny. I don't mean adopting the approach of "live for today and to heck with tomorrow".
Another reason for our approach to the elderly, apart from the selfish motive I have mentioned, is that there is nothing in it for us. The elderly themselves are a defenceless
22218-67J

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions group and will not be around much longer to vote; no one cares much about them. It would be better to put them away and forget about them. However, we feel that, as human beings in a civilized society-and I hope we are that-we must come to the assistance of our senior citizens. The youth of course are important too, and I think we should give some attention to them but the number one priority of politicians and society as a whole should be our senior citizens. The youth have the future ahead of them. We, more or less in middle age, have problems which must be looked at and handled in the best way possible but the older people do not have time. They have concerns and one thing which concerns them so much is money. The motion says that consideration should be given to an immediate and substantial increase. Well, I realize the problems involved but somehow, as a Canadian and as a member of this House, I am not satisfied yet that we are doing all we can, particularly in view of what I consider to be the rather immoral and unconscionable pension increase for ourselves which could have been handled in so many other ways. That was indefensible, as I see it.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you vote on it?	:


Barnett Jerome Danson: I did not vote on it because I was not here. I do not apologize for that. I do not know what I would have done had I been here. I was at a meeting of the Canadian Tax Foundation in Montreal with my committee. I apologize for digressing, Mr. Speaker.
The senior citizens have made this country the type of country it is, in the main. We have inherited the benefits of their investment. I think it is time we gave them a proper return on their investment. I say we should give it to them, and when I say that I do not mean we, as members of a government or as politicians. It should be given to them by all Canadians of conscience and goodwill. Really, we would not be giving them anything because it is their money. They have been paying their dues a lot longer than we have. Parliament and the government of Canada give nothing to the Canadian people. We just redirect our resources in order to reflect the objectives of this society. If we on this side do not succeed, then somebody else will be sitting on this side and we will be on the other side. That is as it should be.
Previous speakers mentioned the quality of life. It has been suggested that dollars are
6540	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions nothing, but it is only with dollars that people can buy many of the things they need today, even though the value of the dollar is shrinking so much. On Saturday of last week I attended the laying of a cornerstone of the Union Villa, a new home for the aged in my constituency near Unionville. It is a lovely place. They even have a greenhouse in which these people can work. This is a semi-rural area and these older people have grown up in farming areas. They will have the opportunity to grow things as they had in their earlier days. Incidentally, there is also a child care centre. I was concerned about this at first. I did not think that geriatrics had developed to such a science. Apparently, however, this is a child care centre where these people will look after the children of working mothers and so on. There is even a bar so that the old people will not have to sneak a bottle under their pillow but, can live with dignity.
Despite all the dignity these people may have, there is the terrible fact that some of them have a fundamental insecurity. Some of them are able to look after themselves. Many of us have seen parents and grandparents who, because they have known other older people in difficulty, are afraid they might end up in a similar situation. One gentleman at Union Villa, who had been secretary of a senior citizens group, told me he had quit because they were a bunch of old fogies and he didn't want to live in a barrack with old people. There is also a sad side to it. I saw two old ladies who were to be the first persons admitted to this place. They looked as if they might not make it while they were sitting there waiting to be admitted. Here we are talking about something that is within our power, and I believe within our resources, that we should look at very carefully and give high priority to in government.
I refer to the simple dollars that are not easy to raise. When we speak about a guaranteed annual income, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) does, some people scream about socialism. These are the people who run to the Leader of the Opposition when we discuss the tax reform. Perhaps a negative income tax, combined with a guaranteed annual income, might be something for the future, but we are discussing the present. Of course, this must be examined. Perhaps something in the form of a negative income tax plan could be applied to the guaranteed income supplement so that those who do have a little ahead of them do not lose it.
In so far as the veterans are concerned, I speak with a certain conflict of interest.
[Mr. Danson.l
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
There are veterans who are disabled and there are veterans who are inconvenienced. I am talking about pensionable veterans. I think we should take a look at and review the situation in respect of those who are really suffering and who are desperately dependent upon their disability pension. There are also those, such as myself, who are simply inconvenienced. There is a difference. I am not as thoroughly familiar with the activities of the Veterans Affairs Committee as I would like to be in respect of its study of the Woods report, although I have attended some of their sessions and I am sure the committee will come up with a report that will be very worth while. But I think this differentiation is terribly important at a time when we are talking about the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which calls for immediate consideration and for immediate action.
Perhaps in this context we can differentiate in respect of those veterans who are truly disabled and urgently in need of additional assistance. It is difficult to say more, Mr. Speaker, because one really wants to express sympathy, if that is the right word, with the intent and spirit of this motion. It would be difficult for any of us to be against it. I regret that it is worded in the way it is because I do not think it is a motion that should be one of confidence in the government. Because it is, I must vote against it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the hon. member not aware of the fact that the motion is worded differently from motions of this kind? It does not use the word "condemns". It was worded deliberately so that the members on the government side could vote for it and call upon the government to take action now to increase pensions.


Barnett Jerome Danson: But it is still a motion of non-confidence as I read it on the Order Paper and I have great confidence in this government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
depends on how the government votes.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, while walking on the
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
street in a town in my riding, I met an old man about 85 years of age or so. He had immigrated to this country in the 1920's settled on the land and farmed about a half section, using up most of his physical and emotional energy in so doing. Finally, he retired after buying a small house in a small town. He is a tall, thin fellow with a bald head and a heavy handlebar moustache; I suppose the moustache was partly an effort to make up for the lack of hair on top of his head.


An hon. Member:: A lot of people do that.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Paul Yewchuk: That is right. He stopped me and had a very sad story to tell. He had spent all his years on the land and retired into town where he was occupying a small house on a grand pension of $110. When you consider the cost of maintenance of a house, the payment of taxes and utilities, the purchase of groceries, etc., you realize that it does not take long to spend $110. The basic pension together with the guaranteed income supplement, in no way covers the cost of living. I listened to him for some time. He told me that he had obtained a small job for a few days somewhere and earned a small amount of money. The authorities involved found this out and deducted around $30 from his guaranteed income supplement. He gave me a slogan that I had not heard before. It goes like this:	"Liberale meni chobuti widdibrale". The translation is: "The Liberals took my boots away".
This is only one story. A few days ago I met another man. He came to my office complaining about the same thing. He happens to be a man of 65 who receives a pension at the rate which I described previously. His wife is only 55, however, and this meant that when he retired two people had to live on a pension of $110 a month. She was not old enough to qualify for the old age pension, so the only choice she had was to go on welfare or go to work. She opted for the second choice and she went to work as a cook in a bush camp. This fact was immediately noted by the authorities, and again the guaranteed annual income supplement was cut off. In addition, she had to pay some income tax.
I go home fairly frequently and there is another man who comes to my office once a month. He has done so for the past two years. He has asked me the same question 24 times in two years: "When will the old age pension go up?" All three of these people have asked
DEBATES	6541
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions me what I can do for them and whether I can see to it that their pensions go up a bit. I say that I will do my best to see that the pension goes up, knowing full well that anything I can do, judging by the response of this government in the past two years, will amount to a big zero. I realize that this speech will have the same effect on the government, but I decided to make it anyway in the hopes that somebody would listen. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not listening. That is a habit of his. He never listens to any of these speeches on these very important issues that are raised on opposition days. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that government members scoff at opposition days. They look at them as a necessary evil or a concession they had to make in our rule changes, and they consider them as not worthy of attention. I am very sorry that this is the attitude of the government to opposition days because these are the days when the most pressing problems that face the country are usually discussed. These are the problems which should receive top priority but, by a stroke of the hand of fate, seem to be relegated to areas that will not receive consideration from this government.
This question of pensions for the elderly is a very serious one. In the fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, which was carried out in 1961, the following poverty lines were established: $1,500 a year for a single person and $2,500 a year for a couple. These figures were revised in 1968 to $1,800 for a single person and $3,000 for a couple. In 1970 they were revised again to about $1,950 for a single person and $3,250 for a couple. If we look at the pension that people actually get we find that, in the case of a single individual, by adding the basic pension of $79.58 per month to the guaranteed income supplement of $31.83 per month we arrive at a grand total of $1,336.92 per year. When we compare that to $1,950, which is defined as the poverty line, we can see that individuals in this area are living on a level far below the acceptable poverty line. If we look at the pension of a couple, assuming they are both 65 and both receive pension, we find that their combined income is around $2,673.84 a year, which again is far below the $3,250 which is considered acceptable by the Economic Council of Canada.
These two examples do not cover the whole gamut. As a matter of fact, these examples miss a very important aspect of old age pensions. This important aspect relates to the fact
May 4, 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions that most men are older than their spouses, at least a couple of years older. In almost every case a married man who goes on old age pension, while waiting for his wife to become 65, has to try to maintain both of them on a pension which was designed for only one person. This pension would still be below the poverty line, even if only one individual were dependent upon it. I think this is a gross injustice that has to be considered immediately. I suggest that one way to approach that problem would be for the wife to receive her old age pension at the same time as the wage earner or the husband does, whether she is 65, 55 or even 35. In the case of the woman I mentioned she might have to go to work after he died until she reached 65. The action I have suggested would remove a tremendous burden.
I have been talking about the poverty line, so I think perhaps I should give a definition of poverty to emphasize that it is not a good State in which to be. The dictionary definition of poverty is: "indigence, want, scarcity, deficiency, poorness or meanness". The dictionary points out that the dominant sense of present day usage of the word is that of having little money or property. Poverty also connotes deprivation in respect to various aspects of consumption, and is often accompanied by malnutrition, inadequate health care, poor housing, and all the other things that go with poverty.
When we consider the three men whom I mentioned in my introductory remarks, all of whom immigrated to this country some 30 or 40 years ago and slaved away on agricultural units which eventually grew to be uneconomic, and who were then relegated to a role of living in poverty, one realizes that this is the reward that this great country of affluence gives to its senior citizens.
I might point out that the total number of our senior citizens who have been relegated to this role of living below the poverty line is 474,091, or 31.1 per cent of the total population of old age pensioners. Those are the people over 65 who receive the full benefits, including basic pension as well as guaranteed income supplement and have no other income. The second group, totalling 310,946 or 20.4 per cent of the population of pensioners receive the basic pension plus a partial guaranteed income supplement which is still below the poverty line. Combining the two groups, we find that 51.5 per cent of our elderly people live in conditions of poverty. How can we justify this situation in such an


affluent country whose government won an election on the slogan of justice in our society? Since that time the government has been turning a blind eye to this very serious social problem.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It has been said that people should not pay more than 25 per cent of total income toward rent but in many cases an old age pensioner has to pay as much as 30 per cent, which does not leave sufficient funds to provide a well balanced diet. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many old age pensioners receiving the full amount of the basic pension and the guaranteed income supplement eat steak once a week? Not very many I would say.
One way to improve the situation would be to increase the basic pension, to bring it at least to the poverty line. But that pays no heed to the individual in greatest need, and therefore I think it would be wiser to increase the guaranteed income supplement which is applied more to those with no other income. Unlike the popular socialistic belief, I do not think that everybody should be treated alike, because everybody has not the same needs. Attention must be paid to the individual, so that the individual with a greater need gets a larger pension. If the pension is the same for everyone, then those in need don't get enough and those who are not in need get too much, creating a situation which is unjust.
Another remedy for the low income problem of senior citizens would be the provision of fringe benefits, for instance a travel subsidy. Air Canada provides half rate travel for senior citizens on a standby basis. This can be a hardship on old people, sitting around an airport with their baggage hoping for a cancellation in order that they may make the journey for half fare. This is most unfair and the standard of CP Air should be adopted which allows them to make reservations and to be treated in the same manner as other travellers.
The universal pension is $79.58. The pension index developed for the Canada Pension Plan indicates that provision is made for an increase of 2 per cent in any one year. This is something of a joke, considering that in the past two years inflation has caused a rise in the cost of living of 8 to 10 per cent. The 2 per cent increase in the old age pension, therefore, cannot possibly be sufficient. This is a matter which should be corrected without further delay. When the old age pension was first introduced about 1951, it was set at $40 a
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
month. True, it has nearly doubled since that time, but when compared with weekly industrial earnings which have increased 138 per cent it looks a little ridiculous.
1 wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I hope the government will take a more serious view of this problem than they have so far. Old age pensioners have enough worries, health and the difficulty of getting around, without having the constant worry that they may not have enough to eat. I, therefore, plead with the government to take speedy action on this matter.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, about 11 months ago, on a day allotted to the official opposition, this House dealt with a report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The debate disclosed no secret. It was apparent that members participating agreed that the welfare of our comrades who fought in the course of two world wars and Korea was paramount in their minds. Today, we are dealing with pensions in general, including old age security and pensions payable to the disabled, the blind and to veterans. I would like to touch on the pensions of veterans.
That a parliamentary committee sat through part of the last summer holidays, and held countless meetings since, in an endeavour to arrive at possible solutions for the benefit of the war veterans, should be noted as an indication of the government's desire to keep faith with our comrades in need of assistance. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) has pointed out on several occasions that it is the government's duty to consider the problems affecting the one million veterans of Canada. Happily, not all of them require assistance, nor do all especially need to appeal to the government. However, of the one million veterans, 14 per cent are in receipt of pensions, about eight per cent are in need of veterans allowances, and one per cent are continuously in need of hospital care.
For those in need, and an appreciable number of our veterans are in need, provision was made and included in the 1968-69 estimates to the extent of $426 million, and for the year 1970-71 $493 million. I should also point out that there have been three revisions in the pension rates since 1964.
About a year ago, the minister pointed out to the committee certain matters of importance to veterans, and I think I should quote what he said on that occasion:
First, the program of welfare services, allowances and other benefits is one that seeks to ensure that

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions all persons eligible for war veterans allowance, civilian war allowance and other veterans benefits are assisted to the full extent of the provisions of the various statutes affected.
The second is the pension program administered by the Canadian Pension Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Under this program, pensions for disability and death are provided as set iorth in the Pension Act. The program also includes the adjudication of claims for pensions under several other statutes including the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the RCMP Superannuation Act, and the RCMP Pension Continuation Act.
A third program is concerned with the provision of treatment services to veterans and to other designated classes of patients as authorized by the veterans treatment regulations.
Fourth the Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act program seeks to effect the successful settlement of qualified veterans as farmers, small holders, commercial fishermen and homesteaders, including Indian veterans on reserves.
The fifth of the programs, departmental administration, is concerned with the effective and efficient provision of a number of common professional and administrative services.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I recall, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was on that occasion sarcastically critical of the minister when he introduced the motion to refer the Woods Committee report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The government did come through with the approval of an unprecedented number of recommendations contained in the Woods Report, and the committee has practically arrived at the point of writing the final report containing its recommendations. The hon. member believes that the old age pension for everyone should be raised at once to $150. No one is opposed to any increase to old age pensioners. We all know the hon. member's obsession with his own belief that he is the only member who cares for the welfare of the needy. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that he has no monopoly on compassion.
With regard to the Canadian Pension Commission for war veterans, the committee listened to presentations on this subject. The rates now in effect, in their relationship to the Canadian standard of living, were studied and I am sure the government will consider the various recommendations in relation to the general assessment, as promised in the white paper on veterans pensions. Pensions to other dependents vary according to circumstances, the maximum being $1,980 per annum for two dependent parents of a deceased pensioner where there is no pensioned widow.
6544	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions
At page 14 of the white paper on veterans pensions is the following statement on improvements in effect, and I quote:
In addition to the recommendations of the Woods Committee that have been accepted in principle, but which cannot be put into effect until the legislation is amended, about one-third of the 148 have been accepted and can be implemented under existing authorities. These recommendations are already in effect, or they will be as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made by the Canadian Pension Commission or the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Some of them concern existing procedures or are the responsibility of sections of the Commission which, when the Pension Act is amended, will become part of the department, at which time they may be further adjusted. Meanwhile, however, the improvements these recommendations afford are being made available to pensioners and to pension applicants.
Several recommendations, being implemented by the Commission, are designed to give maximum consistency to its decisions through the issuing of policy directives, administrative instructions, procedural directives and memoranda relating to the interpretation of the various sections of the act, the purposes of compassionate pensions and guidelines relating to them, Medical Advisory Branch matters, supplementary benefits, etc.; and by the preparation of a digest of relevant decisions and related comments.
In addition to that, further improvements will, I am confident, be included in the final committee report.
The proposal contained in the hon. member's resolution is such as every hon. member would like to support. Canada's record in comparison with that of other western countries ought to make Canadians feel proud. While the minimum monthly pension payable to every person 65 years of age and over is approximately $75 a month in Canada, in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world, the pension is only $55 a month. If an aged person in Canada has no other income except his pension, he can receive $109.20 monthly. In the United States there is no provision for his receiving more than the $55. In Britain, the minimum monthly pension for a single householder is $56. In France, the pension is 20 per cent of previous earnings if one retires at 60, or 40 per cent if one retires at 65, or 60 per cent if one does not retire until the age of 70. In West Germany, it is 45 per cent of previous earnings if one has contributed for 30 years.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), replying to a brief presented by the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation last October, which asked for an increase in the old age security pension to $150 a month and for personal income tax exemptions of $2,000
[Mr. Badanai.l
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
for single persons and $4,000 for married couples, said and I quote:
A few weeks ago, referring to inflation, I told a conference of business and labour leaders that "the true measure and the true cost of what has been happening can be found only among those unprotected Canadians whose incomes are fixed and who each year have watched their purchasing power and standard of living drop by 4 and 5 per cent". I pledged then, and I pledge again to you now, that the government will do everything in its power to ensure that your $100 will not dwindle in worth to $75 five years from now, or $50 ten years from now.
Fighting inflation, fighting the spiral of ever-rising costs and prices which so affects you in your daily life, has been and must remain our priority.
This does not mean, however, that we are not also moving in other ways to help alleviate the very real difficulties which so many of you face in trying to meet the monthly rent, the weekly grocery bill, the medical expenses, the small luxuries to which everyone is entitled.
In your brief you called for an increase in personal exemptions from income tax. The White Paper on Tax Reform tabled on November 7th by the Minister of Finance proposes that basic tax exemptions be increased from $1,000 to $1,400 for a single person, and from $2,000 to $2,800 for married couples. In addition, it is proposed to retain the special deduction of $500 for all persons 70 years of age and over; the standard deduction of $100 would also be retained. If adopted, therefore, these proposals will ensure that a single person who has reached the age of 70 will be allowed an income tax exemption of $2,000; married couples will be allowed $3,400. Again, if adopted, these proposals will go a long way towards alleviating the tax burden for senior citizens between the age of 65 and 70.
Your Brief also calls for an increase in the Old Age Security to $150. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out in his reply to the Brief presented by the President of the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, to replace the existing Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement with a pension of $150 would mean an additional cost of $1 billion over and above the present cost of the pension and supplement. Furthermore, because the increased pension would be paid to all pensioners regardless of their need, this very substantial expenditure would be made without in fact achieving the objective of ensuring that it is those most in need who would receive the greatest assistance.
This is one of the many questions in the field of social security legislation which is now under intensive review. We must give most to those whose need is the greatest.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
To achieve this aim however, in so complex a field as social security has required many months of study and will continue to receive our urgent attention in order to arrive at an equitable and practical formula.
At this stage, I cannot name a magic figure and say "yes, this is what we promise". What I can do is to assure you that your voice has been heard
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
and listened to, that your needs are not only appreciated but that they are prompting our thought and action in many, many areas: in our determination to curb inflation: in our new tax proposals; in our study of all social security measures.
The government has given a great deal of consideration to increases in federal pensions, old age pensions, retired civil servants, as well as veterans. I am confident that when the whole social security review is completed, a policy will be established in keeping with our well-rounded national social welfare program.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on August 21 last, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) announced increases in pension benefits. In fact, the headline on his announcement was "Pension Benefits up Again in 1970". In the course of that announcement, the minister made much of the fact-and they are certainly correct figures-that 1,600,000 Canadians would benefit under the increase in the old age security pensions and that over 780,000 old age security pensioners would receive the guaranteed income supplement. If we look at that announcement of last August and at the record and attitudes of the Liberal government, we can only think "big deal". In their usual, inadequate, too late fashion, the announcement, which was in accordance with the 2 per cent allowable increases provision, amounted to $1.58 a month for old age security pensioners and 63 cents a month for those who receive the full guaranteed income supplement. If you were receiving the full $30, you would receive an additional 63 cents.
The five and dime store attitude of this government is apparent when it comes to old age pensions, but when it comes to themselves and their corporate friends they have vision, imagination and lots of money. The government acts in a manner similar to the attitude of certain persons to the south in the United States when referring to the poor and the coloured. It is said they need now to be treated with benign neglect.
Any Member of Parliament who says he cannot support this motion, particularly if he is on the government side, and at the same time approves expenditures of public funds for other purposes not nearly as necessary or urgent, is either being hypocritical or is purely partisan and cold-hearted. There have been increases in the salaries of executive assistants, the regional desks and the staff of the Prime Minister. Some of these increases may have been necessary in the name of 22218-68
DEBATES	6545
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions better government, but no one can suggest that they have a higher priority than increases in the old age pensions.
Millions of dollars were spent on the Bona-venture. Everyone, including the Liberals, admits that this was a mistake. However, it did have a very high priority. An obsolete and ineffective non-defensive air defence system is being maintained. Surely, what we are doing in the way of pensions for Members of Parliament, and the almost indecent gabble by some backbenchers about what they need in the way of indemnities and expenses, should not have near the priority that is due old age pensioners. We do not need any more patronizing, gratuitous and unconscienable remarks such as "We have had enough of this free stuff" by the Prime Minister and others.
These kinds of pensions are a matter of right, not of privilege. When this Parliament refuses to act quickly on them, it is in fact denying the rights of Canadians. Much is made of how we must fight inflation. It is said these increases would be inflationary. The government asks where the money will come from.
In their fight against inflation the government attacks those who cannot defend themselves. They attack those who not only did not cause inflation, but who are the first and worst victims of inflation. Others can defend themselves in an inflationary situation. They can not only defend themselves, but they can live with it. Corporations do very well defending themselves. Organized workers defend themselves through bargaining and, if necessary, strikes. The wealthy individuals can defend themselves. In an inflationary situation the unorganized, the farmers, fishermen, recipients of veterans' allowance and old age pensioners are victims who cannot defend themselves.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) stated that an increase in pension to $150 a month would cost $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, I only say "So what?" There are places where this money can be obtained through a reallocation of priorities in present government expenditures. There should be a proper levying and more taxing of those who have the wealth in Canada. One need only look at the latest figures on net profits of corporations after taxes to see what is happening. They escape paying their fair share of the tax burden in Canada. If one wishes to accomplish two things at the same time, raise additional funds for old age pensioners and
6546	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions fight inflation, one only needs, to attack those who have been well able to defend themselves.
According to figures received from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the mines, quarries and oil wells, the poor social aid candidates, had a net profit of $417 million at the end of 1968. This group of industries, along with the Manufacturers' Association and the Chamber of Commerce, indicated they would co-operate to fight inflation. How did they co-operate, Mr. Speaker? At the end of 1969 their net profits after taxes were $798 million, an increase of $381 million in one year. This does not even remotely resemble good conscience and good corporate Canadian citizenship.
The food and beverage industries, one of the worst perpetrators of cost of living increases for old age pensioners, had an increase in their net profit of $47 million from 1968 to 1969. The chemical and chemical products industries, our friendly polluters, did not do quite as well. Their net profits after taxes were $151 million at the end of 1968 and $156 million at the end of 1969. Surely, some of this money could be made available to old age pensioners.
Among the most guilty of all who perpetrate hardships upon those who are old and poor are the financial and insurance industries. At the end of 1968 their net profits after taxes were $530 million. In 1969 this increased to $586 million. This is the area the government should attack when fighting inflation, not old age pensioners and veterans. The list I have is even longer. I have already said that the trade unions can protect themselves. However, in the course of protecting themselves they must justify any increases they receive either to offset increases in the cost of living or by a comparable increase in productivity.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
One reads accounts of weeping and wailing in the financial press during the last several months because dividends are down by 50 cents or a dollar from this or that corporation for the quarter or for the year. Isn't it too bad? Isn't it about time they made a contribution toward fighting inflation? The increase in old age security pensions announced last August does not come close to keeping up with the increase in the cost of living.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out there has been an increase of 17.5 points in the cost of

DEBATES	May 4, 1970
living index since 1966, an increase amounting to 15.7 per cent. In that period old age pensions have been increased by 6.1 per cent. To keep up with the increase in the cost of living would require an additional 9.6 per cent, bringing the present pension up to $87.22 a month instead of the present $79.58. It would mean increasing the guaranteed income supplement to $34.89 from $31.83, for a total maximum of $122.11.
This, surely, ought to be acceptable to the "nickel and dime store" attitude of the Liberal government. This would be a minimum. We believe $150 would be more like it, or even the $140 which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre would agree to, very reluctantly. The hundreds of thousands of families who are attempting to live on these pensions are existing at the poverty level or just below. Every hon. member gets letters drawing attention to such people. I have had my share of these letters. I have received good co-operation and sympathy from the members of the Pension Commission and the Veterans Affairs Department, but these people can only operate within the terms of the regulations and legislation. All one can do is hope they will interpret a piece of legislation widely enough or that there will be enough flexibility in some regulation to enable a small, additional amount to be paid to a worthy and worth-while citizen who desperately needs it.
Another group is still left out-the CNR pensioners. I hope a standing committee of this House will deal with their situation this year. Something has been done about those who have retired from the public service, and retired armed forces personnel. Here is a group whose needs have yet to be considered. The hon. member for Fort William told us about the work the parliamentary committee has been doing during the summer holidays and since. I am sure the committee has met for many hours and done much hard work. But the hon. member neglected to tell us that the committee had been denied any authority to recommend pension increases. This is an emasculated committee. It can recommend changes in the regulations and minor administrative changes; no doubt these are necessary, and the recommendations made are good ones. But it cannot recommend what is really required. It can report on statistics, hear briefs and review the regulations, as the hon. member did; and it can end up, as the hon. member did, with a lot of platitudes. We have been given a white paper on veterans
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
pensions and now this white paper must wait for another white paper on social security measures. No doubt a further white paper will be published, following that, telling people how to spend the money.
The hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) regretted that the motion is worded in such a manner that he cannot vote for it. I tried to note as accurately as I could some of the words he used. He said priority should be given to the needs of our senior citizens, but he cannot vote for the motion. He said we were giving the pensioners their own money, but he could not support the motion. Again, we heard more of those patronizing remarks, those platitudes about pensioners, those phrases in favour of motherhood and against sin. I hope that when the minister speaks he will take the hon. member for York North, the hon. member for Fort William and others on the government side off the hook by announcing that the government accepts this motion; or he should tell the House or make clear to his hon. friends behind the curtains that as far as the government is concerned, any hon. member can vote as he wishes-in other words a free vote. Or a third alternative is that hon. members, including government supporters, should vote as they wish.


An hon. Member:: But it is supposed to be a non-confidence vote.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In any of these circumstances, if the motion passes, the mover of the motion and the NDP group generally would not consider it to have the effect of a vote of no-confidence.


An hon. Member:: Then why did he move it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We consider the interests of the old age pensioners as having greater priority than any partisan, political interest there might be in trying to win a non-confidence motion and forcing all the members on the government side to vote against it.
The motion is deliberately worded so as to be identical, almost, with the wording of a private member's motion. I am no expert on the rules or on the Standing Orders, and I realize this is no time to brag about it. But this was the only way in which my hon. friend could get a motion on the Order Paper upon which a vote would be taken. Had he put the motion forward under the other Standing Order, no vote would have been taken and I suspect the platitudes from hon. members on the other side would have
22218-68a
DEBATES	6547
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions increased in number and volume. The motion was deliberately worded so as not to express non-confidence. It was deliberately designed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre so as not to condemn, and there is no member of this House who can carry water for him when it comes to understanding the rules and procedures of this chamber.


An hon. Member:: Who would want to?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The motion can be voted for by any hon. member with or without the approval of his party. It cannot be considered a motion of non-confidence. I ask hon. members to consider the number of times they have called on constituents who live in housing fit only for cattle, who have to meet drug bills which eat up a great deal of the old age pension money which should be spent on food, clothing and shelter. These people do not receive sufficient income to enable them to move into senior-citizen housing. Homes operated by voluntary institutions have waiting lists as long as your arm, and as for those privately owned, only the relatively well-to-do can afford to move into them.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is not a motion of non-confidence. All the motion asks is that the government consider. Whether or not the government does so is for the government to decide; there is nothing in the motion requiring the government to consider. Should this House pass the motion, there is passed on to the government, for the government's information, the views of the members of this House of Commons. Thereafter the responsibility is the government's, to take whatever action they so choose, whenever they wish to do so. That, purely and simply, is the entire intent of this motion; it asks the government to give consideration to, taking action now while we are waiting for the white paper on social security.
Every member of this House knows that it will be some time before the white paper is published, and I hope the minister will indicate today when that will be. Then some time will be required to study the white paper and to hear briefs. No doubt a standing committee will spend weeks, perhaps months, studying the subject. At the earliest, legislation will not be introduced until one year from now.
Surely action retroactive to January 1 last can be taken now in order to provide an increase in the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement to tide our pensioners over. Their need is urgent. I agree
May 4, 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions with my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre that tens of thousands of Canadians are facing an emergency situation. I am certain no member of this House would disagree with the intent of the motion. Therefore, I plead in the name of humanity that tonight this House vote unanimously for the motion on a recorded division.


Mr. David Wealherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this motion which is so important to many senior citizens, veterans and their dependants in my riding, and indeed all across the country. As a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of the House of Commons, I intend to spend much of the short time allotted to me today in discussing the government's white paper on veterans pensions which is now before the committee. However, before doing so I should like to comment on that part of the motion which relates to the old age security pension and to improving the quality of life of all our older and retired people.
In a speech I made in the House of Commons on October 28, 1969, I stated that I could see no reason why the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement could not be at least increased annually at the same rate as the cost of living increased. I also suggested in my speech that the guaranteed income supplement be increased by at least $25 a month, at a cost of about $150 million a year, in order that the 500,000 of our senior citizens with no other income at all should receive substantial help.
In addition to that, in a speech I made here last April 6 I gave detailed reasons why I am in favour of a guaranteed annual income plan linked to work incentives. While I am still of these opinions, I am willing to wait for the white paper on social security reform which is to be issued in the next couple of months to ascertain how the government proposes tying in and co-ordinating proposals regarding senior citizens and social welfare proposals affecting all age groups of our population.
We have before us today a very strangely worded motion as it relates to veterans benefits. Not only is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) aware that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) is heading a delegation of Canadians at important ceremonies in Holland marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of that country's liberation; he is also fully aware that the minister has stated repeatedly in the white paper, in the committee and in this House that the

rates of both pensions and war veterans allowances are currently being carefully reviewed by the government.
The hon. member would have the government effect increases immediately-this afternoon. It seems to me that the government's approach is a very clear and rational one which will ensure greater benefits for all Canadians and for veterans in particular. The reasoning behind this course, this assessment of all aspects of social legislation, has also been made very clear and is, to me, unimpeachable. I for one do not want to see a hodge-podge of social programs developed much further without this serious effort to co-ordinate our approach.
On June 17 last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made this clear in an answer he gave during the question period, when he said as reported at page 10242 of Hansard:
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is linked to the policy which has been acknowledged by the government, that we have to review all aspects of social legislation. We are doing this; we do not want to settle special cases. A special plea can be made not only for the veterans but for old people, for retired civil servants, and for all sections of people in society. We are trying to establish a policy that will review this legislation at as little cost to the Canadian people as is necessary.
In the white paper on disability pensions, the government also stated:
There have been far-reaching changes in Canada's social and economic environment since the pension program was first introduced 50 years ago, and in particular many new social development programs of various kinds have meanwhile been initiated. These numerous plans have evolved individually over the years, and the government considers that the time has come to examine the entire fabric in order to achieve greater consistency between the various elements, and to eliminate unintended gaps or duplications.
Since that time, of course, the minister has repeatedly assured this House that these rates were very seriously being reviewed in their context of the whole fabric of social legislation. Furthermore, both the Prime Minister and the minister have assured the House that the fact these rates are included in a review of social legislation in no way implies that the government looks upon them as social welfare. Quite the contrary, it has been repeatedly stated that veterans legislation is, of course, social legislation. It is certainly not economic, cultural, external affairs or defence; it definitely falls under the broad category of social legislation.
However, no one on this side, to my knowledge, has ever said that veterans pensions are social welfare-because they are not. They do
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
fall under the broad heading of social legislation, but are more akin to workmen's compensation. There is no means test involved; there is no needs test involved. Disability pensions are awarded to veterans who are entitled as of right, and are based on degree of disability and not on other earnings.
While on the subject of pension rates, may I say that substantial increases have been implemented during the last six years. For instance, in 1964 there was a 10 per cent increase, in 1966 a 15 per cent increase, and in 1968 a further increase of 15 per cent. In other words, over the last six years we have had increases amounting to more than 45 per cent on a compounded basis, and I am confident that this government will continue to meet its obligation in this area in an even more co-ordinated, thorough and effective way.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may try to take advantage of allotted days if he wishes, but this government is taking advantage of planning, co-ordination and progressive thinking to provide the very best in all its social programs.
I have spoken about pensions and I should like to comment briefly on war veterans allowances. The War Veterans Allowance Act came into force in 1930 and has been referred to by legislators and veterans organizations as "the burned-out pension". It was so-called because the studies which led to its being came to the conclusion that returned servicemen of World War I were pre-aged by reason of the hardships of wartime service. A means of maintaining the veteran who had no disability pension or a small pension and who was unable to provide for himself in the employment field, was provided through the act.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Over the years the act has been changed many times and the results have been the liberalization of the legislation. At the present time the act provides for an allowance to be paid to any male veteran, most commonly a Canadian veteran of World War I or World War II who served in a theatre of war or who is in receipt of a disability pension. In addition, that veteran must have attained the age of 60 years and be permanently unemployable because of physical or mental disability, and so on. The allowance may be paid at age 55 to a female veteran or to the widow of a veteran with the disability clause applying at a lower age. The payment of the allowance is subject
DEBATES	8549
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions to a means test. At the present time there are
82,000	recipients of the allowance, about 35 per cent of whom are widows. The cost of the allowances over the past year has been about $92 million.
In 1962, part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act was approved by Parliament to provide benefits, similar to those provided to veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act, to certain groups of civilians who performed meritorious service during World War I or World War II and to their widows and orphans. There are 2,200 recipients under this legislation, and they receive allowances totalling about $3 million.
In addition to the war veterans allowance there is also the assistance fund regulations which provide for the payment of supplementary awards to the recipients of war veterans allowance and civilian war allowances by way of continuing monthly supplements when the recipient's income is insufficient to meet the basic monthly cost of shelter, fuel, food, clothing, personal care and specific needs of dependants or single payments to meet emergencies, or when it is considered that such alternative form of assistance would best meet the established needs of the recipient. There are some 17,400 recipients who were assisted by these supplemental moneys during the last fiscal year, involving a total expenditure of about $7.3 million.
Recipients of war veterans allowance and civilian war allowances are provided with free medical and hospitalization coverage in Canada. This care may be provided in a departmental hospital or a contract hospital under the veterans treatment regulations. With the commencement of the provincial hospital insurance programs, financed through premium payments and/or taxes combined with cost-sharing arrangements made through federal-provincial agreement, it was realized that recipients would often prefer to be hospitalized in hospitals as close to their homes as possible. Provision was therefore made to pay the appropriate premiums on behalf of the veteran and civilian recipient. The cost of these premium payments in the last fiscal year amounted to about $1,146,000. By these means veteran and civilian recipients receive full hospital and medical coverage either in a DVA hospital or through the hospital or doctor of their own choice.
Not only has this government undertaken to review pension rates and allowances; it has; quickly moved ahead in another area of tremendous benefit to veterans-the white paper
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions on disability pensions, mentioned here previously by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), which undoubtedly is the most comprehensive overhauling of veterans legislation since the end of the second world war. This white paper which is before the standing committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, is of course based on the 148 recommendations of the Committee to Survey the Work and Organization of the Canadian Pension Commission or, in other words, the Woods committee.
As the full name of the committee indicates, basic rates were not within its terms of reference. The essence of the white paper, which incorporates roughly four-fifths of the 148 Woods committee recommendations, is of course to streamline the Pension Act and its administration and to place more emphasis than ever on the human element to ensure that the Pension Act is up to date and designed to serve our contemporary standards of efficiency and social justice.
- Mr. Speaker, at present there are about
950.000	veterans in Canada. Of these, some
136.000	and some 30,000 widows and dependants receive disability pension as of right amounting to nearly $250 million every year. Therefore, these pensions and the way in which they are administered under the Pension Act by the Canadian Pension Commission are a very important contribution to the improvement of the quality of life of these very special people to whom we all owe so much.
Perhaps it would be in order to give a little more of the background of the Woods report and the white paper. In 1965, Hon. Roger Teillet, the then Minister of Veterans Affairs, appointed a three-man committee to survey the work and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission under Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods as chairman. This committee Conducted hearings in Toronto, Quebec City and Ottawa over a period of nearly three years, and reported in March, 1968. Subsequently, an interdepartmental committee was set up to study in depth the 148 recommendations.
When this committee concluded its exhaustive review, the minister conducted an extensive review in order to make his recommendations. These were considered by his cabinet colleagues and in September, 1969, a white paper was published setting forth a general policy standard of the government relating to veterans pensions. In his remarks today the hon. member for Fort William indicated that the Woods committee
[Mr. Weatherhead.l
May 4, 1970
report and the white paper were referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which commenced its hearings back in September, 1969. The committee held 35 meetings and heard witnesses representing the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Canadian Pension Commission, the Veterans Bureau, the Royal Canadian Legion and 14 other national veterans organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six oclock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Bennington Weatherhead: Mr. Speaker, in resuming the remarks I began before supoer time, it now appears from the testimony of the witnesses that the government and the veterans organizations are in agreement on the substance of 103 of the Woods committee recommendations. There remain only 33 recommendations on which the government and the veterans organizations are not in complete agreement, 12 of which are under review by the government. However, even among the 33 recommendations on which full agreement has not been reached, the differences in some instances are about the best means of giving effect to an agreed principle.
I should now like to mention a few of the beneficial proposals of the white paper. The first is in respect of Hong Kong veterans. In view of the evidence now available, the government believes that the Hong Kong veterans deserve special consideration. As outlined in the White Paper, the government proposes to introduce legislation which will provide a minimum pension of 50 per cent for all Hong Kong veterans who apply for it and who have assessable degrees of disability. An important result of this legislation will be the full protection of dependants of Hong Kong veterans.
The second proposal is with respect to exceptional incapacity allowances. The government recognizes that many pensioners with 100 per cent disability suffer, because of the nature of their disability, extraordinary physical, social and psychological impairment for which there is no adequate compensation under the present pension system. In order to

May 4, 1970	COMMONS
provide additional relief and support to these pensioners whose disability is exceptional in degree or scope, the government proposed to introduce an exceptional incapacity allowance of not less than $400 and up to $1200 per annum.
This proposal was made after exhaustive study of the whole question of disability compensation, and it is designed to assist all categories of 100 per cent disability pensioners ranging from multiple amputees to polio victims. In his statement to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on December 4, 1969, the minister outlined in detail the principles which will govern the awarding of exceptional incapacity allowances. They are ten in number and clearly indicate that this important new measure will be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of this special category of pensioner.
With respect to pension adjudication, it has now been generally accepted that one of the key recommendations of the Woods committee report is the establishment of an independent appellate body with the power of final interpretation of the Pension Act and with final power of adjudication in all pension matters. I am pleased that the government has accepted the principle of this recommendation and proposes to restructure our pension system to include a forum for pension appeals.
The proposed new pension structure really provides for three independent levels of adjudication and divorces the purely administrative function from the judicial function as much as possible. Furthermore, it ensures that at no time will the pension applicant's case be considered by persons who have previously adjudicated at any stage. The new structure thereby meets one of the major criticisms of the current pension adjudication system. There are, of course, other methods of effecting the introduction of an appellate system in the field of pension adjudication, and much evidence has been presented to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs by veterans organizations in this regard.
I am pleased that the minister has made it quite clear that these other alternatives will be given full consideration and that the white paper is not an immutable government position. Whatever structure finally evolves, I am confident that it will provide the best solution to the problems relating to pension adjudication in Canada.
There are many other important benefits in the white paper upon which I do not have
DEBATES	6551
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions time to comment tonight, but I am confident that when all the white paper proposals are implemented, Canada will have one of the most generous and equitable war disability pension schemes in the world.
It is with a dedicated staff of over 10,000 and an estimated budget this year of nearly half a billion dollars that the Department of Veterans Affairs carries out the obligations set out in the Veterans' Charter. I have not even touched upon the many important facets of their work which contribute tremendously to the quality of life of Canada's veterans. The hon. member for Fort William referred to the Veterans Land Act and to the very effective treatment services program which is carried out in our nine veterans hospitals; and there is a new hospital being built at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, near Montreal, to be completed later this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating is quite specific, clearcut and restrictive in its application. This being so, I indicate at the outset of my remarks that I strongly support the resolution. Because it is worded in such precise terms it should be quite easy for the members of the House generally to lend their support to it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Even the Grits.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, even the Liberals, as my friend the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) indicates. It should be quite easy for all members of the House to support the resolution. It asks the government to give consideration to an immediate and substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension and in veterans pensions and allowances. This focuses on the area of greatest need in our social security programs as they apply in the first instance to our senior citizens and then to the veterans of Canada. It also contains the important proviso that further steps be taken to improve the quality of life of all our older and retired people. The resolution is couched in such general language that I do not think it presents any formidable barrier for hon. members on all sides of the House to support it.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
During the course of debate thus far, those who have spoken on behalf of the government have tended to resort to the red-herring
May 4, 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions technique and point out all the wonders in the brave new world of the future. When we have deliberated at length upon the white paper arising from the Woods report, and after the government in its wisdom has digested and dissected the contents of that report, we will arrive at the most comprehensive welfare program for all the needy citizens of Canada. I say this is a red-herring technique because it begs the question before us today, which is the immediate needs of the two groups, our senior citizens and veterans. I want to concentrate on these two areas this evening.
In this discussion, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with the matter of pensions generally. We are concerned with pensions as a means of providing continuous income following retirement or, in the case of veterans, because of disabilities and problems contracted in their service to Canada. Sometimes I think that the private sector of the economy is much more alive and alert to the need for an adequate pension program than is the public sector. Pensions are the most important means of maintaining income beyond the productive years of all Canadians. This principle has been well recognized over many decades so far as the special service of our military is concerned.
The old age security pension was established as a matter of right back in the 1950's. It was placed on a self-supporting basis by the Parliament of that day and it is largely on that basis that this fund is maintained. I am sure everyone who looks at the matter objectively will agree that inflation has placed the rate of payment under the old age security program away out of line with the cost of living. There is no reason at all, Mr. Speaker, why the intent of this resolution should not be carried out immediately-and "immediately" is the operative word-by the government. Pensions of all kinds, whether they be in the private or public sector, are awarded for services rendered. I think this government would be remiss in its duty if it did not accept the suggestion in the resolution and proceed to deal with obvious inadequacies in this area.
A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I said that sometimes I get the feeling that the private sector is much more alert and conscious of its obligations in this regard than is the government. In this connection I should like to bring to the attention of the government and the House the action being taken on behalf of employees of Canadian National Railway who

have been endeavouring to have discussions with the government in order to bring their pension scheme into line with changing economic and social circumstances. I shall read briefly from the petition of the CNR employees to indicate how reasonable are their requests. This petition states in part:
At a time of rising cost of living, at a time when the railway worker is being held the hardest to the government wage guidelines, we need the right to adequately provide for our own future, we need the right to provide adequately for those who retired ahead of us, we need the right through our own union to negotiate the following changes into the plan.
These are the reasonable requests that the employees of the CNR are making at this time. It is my understanding that the government, as it has in so many instances, is failing to come to grips with this aspect of pension problems. The CNR employees make the following suggestions:
1. Increase the benefit to not less than 2 per cent per year.
2 Widow's allowance to be increased to 75 per cent.
3.	Voluntary retirement at age 55 with no deduction for early retirement.
4.	Cost of living clause to cover past, present and future pensioners.
5.	All improvements to be retroactive to cover those persons on pension.
6.	The pension board include a pensioner, and the chairman be neutral.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that this petition is eminently reasonable and there is no valid reason for the government having thus far neglected to respond to it. This resolution is necessary because the government is dedicated to the pursuit of the just society-we might use the phrase "social justice"-rather than pursuing social justice with alacrity and has been using the old stalling devices of delay and buck-passing.
It used to be that politicians, particularly when in power, resorted to royal commissions as a basis for delay. This government has a new technique, the establishment of innumerable committees. In the first instance a royal commission report comes into the hands of the government. Then the government prepares a white paper. The white paper is referred to a Parliamentary committee, where it is deliberated upon for an interminable time. Months and even years go by in the process. This has resulted in the situation where we have disparity between the rising cost of living and the level of compensation payment under the two pension plans being discussed today.
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
This, Mr. Speaker, is the technique being used by this government dedicated to the pursuit of the just society. It was used in the war on poverty, which has obviously died completely and now has been relegated to the obscurity of a Senate committee which I understand will be proceeding for many more months. In the meantime, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Certainly it is the technique that has been adopted in handling the excellent report of the Woods commission. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weather head) has given us a summary of some of the features of the white paper arising from the Woods commission report on veterans pensions.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
We agree that many of the suggestions in that report will be of benefit ultimately to the veterans of Canada. The problem, however, is that it has taken months, if not years to survey the problem up to the present time. The level and rate of payment right across the board on veterans pensions is way out of line because of the runaway inflation which has exercised the government to such a great extent during the past two years.
I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), who is in the House tonight will enlighten us and give some assurances on the progress of this comprehensive review that has been under way for a considerable length of time. I read a speech that the hon. gentleman made to the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce in Hamilton in October, 1968. On that occasion the minister gave the definition of social welfare in the modern context. It is a definition that resulted from an international meeting of experts on welfare programs under United Nations' auspices. The following is the definition which the Minister of National Health and Welfare obtained from that source. According to him, social welfare is:
___a body of activities designed to enable individuals, families, groups, and communities to cope with the social problems of changing conditions ... ensuring that the human and material resources of the country are effectively mobilized and deployed. to deal successfully with the social requirements of change-
The minister then added this postscript:
This, I think, is an excellent definition of the new role of welfare, so good, in fact, that one almost doesn't know where to begin in seeking to carry it out.
I think this explains the reason for the protracted process this government has adopted in approaching the solution of welfare
DEBATES	9553
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions problems in modern Canadian society. It has been stalling its action because, as the minister said, it does not know where to begin. Well, you have to begin somewhere, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the excellent suggestions brought forward tonight that would deal with the two areas of urgent need. The first is, bring the pensions of our senior citizens into line with the cost of living immediately. That could be done and would have the unanimous support of members on all sides of the House. Second, let us deal with the disparity that has developed because of the long delay in the area of veterans benefits.
There is another aspect of the veterans program that I want to deal with specifically tonight. It concerns the suggestion that has come from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) that the government, in its social planning, internal discussions and deliberations now in process, is moving in the direction of classifying veterans benefits as part of the general social welfare or social policy program. The hon. member for Scarborough West dealt with this matter and seemed to give his blessing to the current process. I do not want to misquote him. I listened carefully to what he said. He skirted around the subject by saying that veterans benefits are for special services rendered, but at the same time are regarded as coming within social policy as, for example, does the Workmen's Compensation program.
I disagree strongly and vehemently with this interpretation, Mr. Speaker. The Veterans' Charter in no way can be compared or related to the sort of compensation that is available under the Workmen's Compensation program. The very term Veterans' Charter indicates that the charter is a bill of rights, a separate Magna Carta given to the men and women who have served this nation, during World Wars I and II. It is unique from that standpoint. Any attempt on the part of this government or spokesmen for the government to downgrade that basic bill of rights for the veterans will be strongly opposed by the members of the official opposition, by members of veterans associations, and by the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?
6554	COMMONS DEBATES	May 4. 1970
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their consideration. I will try to bring my remarks to a conclusion as quickly as possible. The point I want to make is that the veterans charter is a unique method that the country has adopted of rewarding the men and women of Canada who served this country in time of war. The government's shilly-shallying and procrastination, and the minister's statement that there will be no increase in veterans benefits until the over-all welfare review has been completed by the government and that these benefits are part of the social policy, giving rise to the suspicion that the government is attempting to remove the fundamental rights of the veterans of Canada.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or whoever speaks for the government, tonight will end once and for all this element of uncertainty that has been introduced and will state in specific terms that the discrimination against the veterans of this country will be removed immediately as the resolution suggests. I hope a spokesman for the government will state unequivocally that the Veterans' Charter, the fundamental bill of rights of the veterans of Canada, will not be violated.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I support the general intent of this motion but I will not vote for it, for two reasons. The first is that despite its non-critical wording, it is in fact a no confidence motion. In answer to a point of order raised this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), Your Honour ruled that in his opinion this would be a no confidence motion in view of the fact that it was made under Standing Order 58(9).
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) maintains that it is not a non-confidence motion, but I feel we must respect the opinion of Mr. Speaker and not the hon. member who introduced the motion. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had really wanted the members of this House to unanimously vote in favour of his motion, he would not have presented it under Standing Order 58(9) which explicitly uses the wording "no confidence motion". It states:
In each of the periods described in section (5) of this order, not more than two opposition motions shall be no confidence motions against the government.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
The Standing Order then provides for these no confidence motions. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was sincere in the statement that he would like to have unanimous support for his motion, it is hard to understand why he presented it under this Standing Order. Members on the government side are faced with a dilemna. To many members of this House the wording of the motion is acceptable. It is therefore unfortunate that it has been moved under this Standing Order. Many members would like to vote for the motion, but they are faced with the dilemna of not only voting for a motion which asks that the government give consideration to certain proposals, but also of supporting a no confidence motion.
I have another reason for not supporting this motion, although I accept the general intent and sentiment behind it. It is a much more important reason. In the motion, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre states that we should give consideration to an immediate and substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age pension. I disagree with him. I do not believe we should increase the basic amount of the old age pension. Any increase should be directed to the guaranteed income supplement. This matter was debated at great length when the guaranteed income supplement was introduced three years ago. At that time there was a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself as well as many members on the government side. My position is that we should direct the limited resources of this country so that those who really need assistance will receive as high a pension as possible. I cannot see any reason for giving flat, across-the-board pensions to those who are still earning salaries. Some members of this House are old enough to receive this pension. I cannot see giving across-the-board pensions to them and to people who are receiving large pensions from their companies, rental income or income from interest and dividends.
Since we have to raise the money we pay to pensioners through taxation, we should direct these moneys to those who really need assistance and who are old. I would change the wording of this motion to read, "give consideration to an immediate and substantial increase in the guaranteed income supplement".
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested a pension of $150 a month. I would support that, but not as a basic, flat
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
pension payable to everyone 65 years of age or over. I would pay it only to those who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. It should be paid to those whose incomes from all sources is below $150, under the same system as the $30 income supplement is now paid.
I think the supplement should be raised from $30 to $70. Also, instead of the 2 per cent maximum that we now have on the cost of living increase each year, we should have an increase fully measurable with the cost of living increase which would be payable to those who receive the supplement. I think we should freeze the basic pension at what it is now and in the future pay extra money to those who qualify under the guaranteed income supplement system. I would like to see that supplement as high as $150.
I merely wanted to put these comments on the record. I support increased pensions for the older people, but I think they should be based on a supplement system. I reject a flat increase in the basic amount. 1 would remove the maximum 2 per cent cost of living provision, to be replaced with a full percentage increase in the cost of living each year.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, quite frequently when motions come before this House there are speakers who make cogent arguments to oppose them. This motion is somewhat different. I do not believe a single member in this House would say tonight that there is no need for an increase in the basic pension of old age pensioners or veterans. If there is anyone here who will state it on those grounds without quibbling about language or because it might be a no-confidence motion or because they believe that the pensions of old age pensioners, veterans and their families are presently adequate, now is the time for him to rise and let us know. Speak now or forever hold your peace!
For those who spoke in this debate indicating sympathy for those people who are suffering because of inadequate pensions, people who have given the best years of their lives to this country, whether on the battlefield or in the pioneer industries or services of this country, to be prepared to vote solidly against increasing these pensions at this time is not honest or straight thinking. I do not think this is even wise from a survival point of view.
Canadians are pretty sick of double talk. They are sick of hearing committees, investigations, white papers, task forces and all the other means of procrastination and prolonga-
DEBATES	8555
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions tion being carried on day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year and receiving nothing in the line of increased pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wish to deal very briefly with the bald facts of the situation as put forward this afternoon by my colleagues for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I wish to indicate why I believe that this is an emergency situation at this time. I read the words of the motion at this point:
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
That this House calls upon the government to give consideration to an immediate and substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension and in veterans pensions and allowances, and this House also urges that still further steps be taken to improve the quality of life of all our older and retired people.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) does not need to worry about his pension. That is the case of a lot of us here. If we were less secure ourselves we would be of more use to the pensioners and to the old people generally.
This is an emergency situation. Since 1966 when the supplement came into force the cost of living has risen by 15.7 per cent. That is more than two and a half times as much as the increase in the pension and supplement together, which rose from $105 to $111.41, a total of 6.1 per cent. By what logic can the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace maintain that he does not favour an increase in the basic pension when he knows that the cost of living has more than doubled in the period we are considering? Let no one bring forward that old chestnut-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: -about giving the pension to millionaires who do not need it. What is the income tax for, if it is not to bring back the amount of such a pension from people who do not need it? I am tired of that argument, especially here in the House where we ought to know the facts of the situation. I imagine the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace can find some audience in his constituency which does not realize it is possible to get back this money in income tax.


Mr. Allmand:: Can I ask the hon. lady a question?
May 4, 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions Mrs. Maclnnis: If the hon. member is quick about it; I have only a few minutes left.


William Warren Allmand: Does she feel the government gets back the whole amount of the basic pension through the tax system?


Winona Grace MacInnis: If the government does not get it back, it should. Under a fair tax system, it would. We are saying that taxation should be based on ability to pay. We shall go for the full amount in that line. If the amount is not retrieved at the present time, who is in the driver's seat? It is not the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: The situation is similar in the case of veterans and their families. I did not realize until I heard it today that the terms of reference of the Veterans Affairs Committee specified that it can make no recommendation for increases in the pensions of veterans and their families. I do not think the veterans of this country have caught on to that, either; from now on I will make sure that the information reaches as many of them as possible. I think it is shameful that at a time when such a gap exists between the cost of living and the pitiful pensions of veterans, a committee of this House should be given terms of reference which preclude it from making recommendations to increase pensions and allowances. I think it is perfectly disgraceful.
Hon. members may think I am particularly indignant tonight. I have just come back from spending the weekend in my constituency and I have seen some of the results of this inflation-fighting of which hon. members on the front benches over there are so proud. I have seen what the war on inflation is doing to the people on old age pension and veterans pension, people who have been laid off because of restraints which1 amount of moral restraints as they apply to the rich and economic compulsion as they apply to the poor. I have seen elderly people in their pitifully small places trying to keep themselves dignified, neat and clean, and I have seen them trying to save a few cents on grocery items here and there. Yet we in this chamber are saying there is no emergency and that there is no need to increase the basic pension.
The worst of it is that every one of us here has had a similar experience. Every member knows that an increase in the basic pension is necessary. The other day I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) when we might expect an end to this period of wait-
ing-when the veterans could expect to learn that an increase was coming. He said he could give no idea of a date at the present time. We are told nothing can be done about it or any of these social security items until the entire white paper on social reform has been completed. We now learn that it will not be ready in time for action to be taken this session. In these circumstances the argument for an interim increase in pensions is irrefutable. There must be an immediate interim increase until we have had a chance to look after the long-term needs in the light of the white paper studies.
We in this party are not insistent about taking credit for pushing these ideas and urging that there should be an increase in the pensions. This afternoon we heard members on the other side quibbling about the motion and saying they would vote for it if it were worded just a little differently. I thought then, and I think now, that if the government cared a hoot for the old people and for the veterans of this country it would long ago have introduced a motion with the right words in it, one for which we could all have voted, without waiting for members on this side to find the proper words. It is hon. members over there who are under an obligation to introduce these things. Or, if they prefer, they can take the motion before us and change it around. I do not care what they do as long as they increase the basic pension. The minister knows there must be an immediate increase, bearing in mind that the cost of living has risen by almost 16 per cent since 1966, two-and-a-half times the amount of the increase in the pension.
We in this group have put forward various possibilities. We have argued that the least which should be done is to raise the basic pension to $100 a month plus $40 in supplementary benefits to bring the amount to $140 pending the white paper settlement. We accept that figure because the supplementary payment is 40 per cent of the basic pension. We have said: Raise the basic pension to $100 and the supplementary pension to $40 and the old people will be content to settle for it until the white paper is forthcoming.
I believe every member in this House wishes to see exactly that happen. All right, then. Why do they intend to stand up and vote against it? A great many members on the government side will do just that. Is it because the wording is not quite right? No, because it was possible for them to have brought in a motion of this kind, at any time, worded correctly. Or they could take it now
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
and change it, if it were only a matter of wording. This is the only way in which we could introduce such a motion and take it to a vote. We are sick and tired of listening to their expressions of sympathy, letting their hearts bleed red all over the green carpet while refusing to take action.
Why are they speaking in this quibbling way? They are doing so because they feel black guilt over the way they are treating the old people of this country. They find it hard to face them when they go back home, when they go into these places where the people are. The people know perfectly well that we Members of Parliament have been well looked after here and that other sectors of society are being looked after well. Yet we have no time at all for the people who pioneered and worked hard in this country and risked their lives in the wars.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Some hon. members have said that this is a want of confidence motion. Although I was not here for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I understand that you ruled to that effect. Let me point out that it is entirely a matter for the government whether they make a big production out of it and try to score points. Perhaps they want to salve their consciences and save face on behalf of their backbenchers.
But the government, if they wanted, could recognize this for the challenge to find a solution that it is. The situation facing the elderly people and our veterans can be likened to the Red River flood a few years ago, or the Fraser Valley Flood, or similar catastrophes or disasters that have overtaken the people of this country. As the water creeps higher and higher, thousands and thousands of our old people are becoming increasingly frightened and bewildered, and indignant at the lack of government action to help them.
I receive letters from pensioners saying if only the government knew what their situation was they would surely do something about it. I try to tell these people that some government members do go into the homes of ordinary people and see conditions there. Or I tell them that surely the government has enough task forces, white papers, regional desks and all the rest of it to be kept fully informed. But still the government takes no action.
I remind the government that this does not have to be considered a want of confidence motion; the motion is not worded in that way.
DEBATES	6557
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions If the government had one iota of statesmanship, it would not make a big production out of the motion by regarding it as a vote of non-confidence; instead, the government could regard it as a problem that needs to be solved.
When there is no agreement that a problem exists, then understandably members of the House become partisan in their politics. But with a question like this one that has got to the stage where everybody agrees that the need of the people involved is desperate, this is no time for any quibbling as to whether or not the motion is one of non-confidence. This is the time for action.
The minister would not lose face if he were to provide for an interim increase in pensions. He has said-indeed, spokesmen for the government have said this

that the government cannot do anything final until the white paper comes down. But I have yet to hear anybody say that the government could not make an interim increase pending the white paper proposals. I therefore plead with the government to accept this course of action. I ask them to treat this problem as they would a national catastrophe, when all the forces of the government and of the public in general would be mobilized to help those in desperate danger.
If the government does not do this, then I should like to indicate what is going to happen. I can remember quite well what was the situation before we had old age pensions. I remember the despair of the elderly who in many cases could not get support from their families simply because these young families did not have enough money to go around. In any case, these elderly people were terribly anxious not to add to the burden of their sons and daughters with growing families. In those days there were cases where elderly people were actually hailed before the court and had to establish in court that their sons or daughters could not support them. Only then could they qualify for welfare or state hand-outs.
That was the position in which we put our pioneers nearly half a century ago. These people suffered privation, humiliation and indignity. Finally, we passed pension legislation to care for these people and to give them some measure of dignity; a measure of dignity for them and a measure of decency for ourselves. At least, we gave them a modicum of respect.
What is happening to these pensions today? They are being chipped and chipped away by an unhampered increase in the cost of living.
6558	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions If we do not take the sort of emergency action that I have described, these pensions will erode in value to such an extent that our pensioners will be where they were 50 years ago, back on square one, to the days when we did not admit that we should even provide an old age pension. I remind the House that it was not easy to get the first old age pensions legislation through. Of course, it was said at that time that we could not afford it. After all, we never can afford social welfare legislation; it is always a case of jam tomorrow but never jam today. Every piece of welfare legislation has had to be fought for.
I urge that the government take the chance to do something for our pensioners now. We have been listening to expressions of sympathy from members in all parts of the House. However, I appeal to the members on the other side of the House to do something besides crying tears and shedding blood in this House. The place is getting a little messy with all that liquid floating around. If half a dozen members on the other side would vote for this measure, it would do more to move the government and to help the elderly people of this country than anything that even the eloquence of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace might accomplish. He ought to know about conditions in some parts of his riding.
Further, I suggest that if these hon. members would take this course, there would be no retaliation on the part of the government. Much as the front benches of the government would like to cow the backbenchers into submission, they would never dare discipline half a dozen of their own members who had the courage to stand up for the old people and veterans of this country.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me at this time to speak out in this chamber on behalf of our pensioners in Canada. We Canadians are living in a very affluent age. Through our own efforts we have raised ourselves to a standard of living that is envied by most of the world and we should be extremely proud of our achievements in this regard.
However, I suggest that we cannot be entirely proud of our accomplishments until we have remedied some of the serious injustices that exist in this country. Thousands of Canadians through no fault of their own are becoming increasingly deprived with each passing day. Canadians who have worked for a lifetime in Canada and have contributed to
[Mrs. Maclnnis.j
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
the nation's development find themselves trapped by inadequate pensions and incomes. Daily they watch helplessly as their pensions shrink further as a result of an inflation that has been brought about by many years of callous Liberal spending.
Some of these Canadians to whom I refer made special sacrifices in the defence of this country during world wars, though this is something that does not concern the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), among others in the cabinet. But these veterans must not be forgotten. Others of them served in the government service, and often felt honoured to do so. Yet today people such as retired CNR employees must feel just a little bitter about the callous disregard of their plight by those in power. Therefore, we are here tonight to end this bitterness. We are here to prove to the Canadian people, and to our veterans and retired Canadians in particular, that although the Liberal government is cold and uncaring, Parliament is just. As members here, we can do nothing but plead their cause.
Let me speak for a moment about the old age security pension. Quite obviously, it is inadequate. This year the basic pension is $79.58. For those with no other income the government will provide an additional amount of $31.83. This provides a grand total of $111.41 a month, which comes to $1,336.92 a year. In this way it sounds even worse. There was a time when this amount of money represented a decent income, but it is completely inadequate in the Canada of the 1970s. It does not even reach the dizzy heights of the $30 a week which our friendly, smiling finance minister has indicated is sufficient to live on in this country. Even by his penny-pinching standards the pension must be raised.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I hope he will be here tonight to vote with his conscience, and I like to think he would vote in favour of the motion. However, I would hate to count on it. The sad thing is that we are not speaking of a small minority of our elderly Canadians. According to the government's own admission in the brief the Department of National Health and Welfare presented to the Senate Committee on Poverty, 474,000 Canadians, almost half a million, and 31 per cent of all elderly Canadians are trapped in this situation. These are the Canadians who have no other income and therefore receive the full guaranteed income
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
supplement. They are the Canadians who are attempting to eat, live and house themselves on $27 a week.
Mr. Speaker, this is impossible. Yet thousands of these people struggle on because their only alternative is to seek municipal welfare. We must take immediate action to allow these people to live with a little more comfort and a lot more dignity. The basic fact is that the pension is inadequate. But how should we, as concerned Canadians, go about increasing the support for these people without vastly increasing the onerous tax burden that the Canadian taxpayer is now carrying?
I suggest that one way to minimize the cost of these much-needed increases is to raise the amount of the guaranteed income supplement rather than simply increase the basic old age security pension. In that way we could assist those who are most in need, such as those who have no other income, and not incur the very heavy cost of paying higher pensions to everyone, including the well-to-do. This is a course which we should consider very closely so that we might balance the very pressing needs of our retired Canadians and the obvious frustration of the Canadian taxpayer.
The effect of inflation on the position of those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, has been mentioned in this debate. Inflation plays on the weak members of our society who cannot help themselves and who do not have the power to increase their level of income. Pensioners are the most tragic victims of inflation; they do not contribute to it but they suffer most from it. The present 2 per cent limit of inflation adjustment in respect of old age security must go. Its halfhearted defence is the most cold-blooded act ever perpetrated in this House of Commons. It simply is unjustifiable.
These comments, Mr. Speaker, apply with equal force to the situation of our veterans and retired employees of companies such as the CNR from whom all of us have heard in the last few weeks. These people cannot wait for government reviews, white papers and task forces because such things do not pay the grocer or the landlord. These people deserve more justice right now and not at some time in the future.
One might be tempted to ask how we propose to pay for the increases which are proposed. Our Prime Minister has a had habit of saying that if proposals cost money, then it is just too bad. The problem is assumed to disappear with the accompanying shrug of the shoulders with which we are all too familiar.
DEBATES	6559
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions The plight of Canadian pensioners cannot be shrugged off in this way by our Prime Minister or by any other government official who takes his responsibilities seriously. Yet it would seem we could pay for a large part of the cost of the essential increase in pensions by the elimination of much of the waste and the purposeless squandering of public funds by the government.
We might start with the Prime Minister's office. No concerned man could argue that there is a good deal of money for his own office but none for the poor pensioners of the nation. Other examples abound. The reports of the Public Accounts Committee are full of them. The Auditor General constantly points out the waste in this country, and all he receives for his trouble is criticism.
Let us be perfectly clear on this point. If there is insufficient money to pay for increased pensions, it is because of this government's mismanagement. Once again it is our senior citizens who must pay the price. This must end tonight. This House must express its conscience on behalf of those Canadians of whom I now speak. Unless this is done, we will have failed in our job and we might as well go home.
It is easy to demonstrate the callous attitude displayed by this government toward the people on pensions. Let us take a look at the white paper on taxation. The government is proposing to make it harder than ever for people to take care of themselves in their old age. I refer to the proposed plan to use profitsharing as part of the pension base. I am quite sure many members in this House have received much correspondence recently in this regard. Some of you will be aware that I feel rather strongly about profit-sharing. I believe it has a great potential for this country and I feel it deserves every encouragement, especially in cases where people wish to use such an arrangement in providing for their old age.
A number of companies operate profit-sharing plans with taxation deferred for pension purposes. In one group of six companies some 40,000 Canadians are covered and more than $240 million is involved in employees shares of the profits of those companies which are being set aside to allow those employees to take care of themselves in their old age. Profit-sharing plans have been in operation for many years. They have been highly successful whether measured by the appreciation of the staff, the amount of pension benefits paid out
6560	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions or the size of the accumulated funds. It is generally agreed that profit-sharing improves morale and provides an incentive to employees. But this government proposes to penalize all the people involved in such plans if they should happen on retirement to take their money out in a lump sum. Experience has shown that lump sum payments are used wisely. They provide the retiring employee with the flexibility to reorganize his affairs on retirement. He may pay off a mortgage or other debt or even start a small business.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In these and other ways the employee may use his lump sum to help him become selfsufficient in retirement. Many have found that through careful investment or the retention of common stock acquired through a plan they have been able to offset the inflationary pressures that beset those with fixed incomes of whom we are speaking tonight. The advantages of lump sum settlements are recognized in several countries where they are permitted on a very favourable tax basis.
Three changes are proposed in the government white paper that will affect these people: first, repeal of the present section 36, which is a three-year average provision; second, adoption of an unfair general averaging formula to cover all cases, instead of the present variety of different formulae for different situations; and third, higher rate schedules.
I should like to give hon. members some examples. Let us take a look at a married employee earning $8,000 in each of the last four years and with deductions of about $3,000. If he retired now and took a lump sum payment from the profit-sharing plan of about $30,000, here is what would happen. Under the present system and rates, his tax on the $30,000 is $5,202. I submit that that is quite serious enough. But the system which the present government is proposing in the white paper would more than double the tax to $10,688 if the payment were treated as ordinary income, which it would be if taken in a lump sum. If he is allowed to use the very poor averaging formula referred to in the white paper, his tax on this amount would still go up by over $4,000, to $9,333 on the $30,000.
One should not have to justify employee profit-sharing as a contribution to the common good. Surely our governments should be encouraging, not discouraging, profit-sharing plans. It is one of the best possible ways

DEBATES	May 4, 1970
of allowing employees to participate in their companies. It makes clear to them their stake in the economy and it encourages savings and capital formation, something this government is trying to destroy. I maintain that this is a good example of the government's callous and hard-hearted attitude toward the problems of those people who are retired and on fixed incomes. I plead with the government to do something about this problem quickly, earnestly and with sincerity. These people have waited long enough.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of listening to many of the official opposition spokesmen speak today about the plight of the old age pensioners and the veterans. Of course, the old age pensioners are my primary concern tonight in terms of my immediate responsibility as Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I am not going to contest the fact that we must pay constant attention to the needs of our senior citizens to ensure that age does not become a financial penalty for them. Nor will I contest the fact that our older people deserve a decent standard of living and that for some, especially for those in the larger urban centres, the present pension level does not always guarantee in complete terms this type of standard of living. However, I wish to remind members of the opposition and the general public that the government is fully conscious of these facts and that over the past six years it has taken a number of important steps toward making old age pensions more adequately conform to basic security needs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't be ridiculous.


John Carr Munro: Many of these steps have implications that go on into the future and form real considerations when we give thought to any new, comprehensive, over-all plan to deal with this poverty area.
The most important step, of course, was the passing of the Canada Pension Plan. When fully operative, this plan will provide a national portable contributory pension which will finally provide an adequate income floor during the retirement years, completely adjusted to cost of living, using the wage index. This legislation, put through by the Liberal government in the last few years, exemplifies this type of approach which should be preferred in dealing with matters of basic social justice, for it does make a comprehensive and continuing attack on the
May 4, 1970	COMMONS
root-problem rather than a long series of stop-gap or band-aid temporary improvements. It is this comprehensive approach to income security that I personally prefer and about which I will speak more fully later on.
In any event, the coming into force of the Canada Pension Plan should largely remove the use of pensions as a political football in the years ahead and I remind the opposition that the plan is being phased-in over a ten-year period, a far shorter time than Is normal in other countries with a social insurance scheme of such magnitude. It is being phased-in over the shorter period because we realize we cannot waste time when the well-being of such a large portion of the population, both now and throughout the years to come, is at stake.


An hon. Member:: What about today?


John Carr Munro: Even the ten-year period is not being allowed to languish in some sort of vacuum, as a means of making time. Already the fund has began to pay out to people-and as it grows, so do the benefit levels. Roughly speaking, for each year of contribution a person is entitled to 10 per cent of his eventual pension. For example, after four years of contribution-roughly the current input of most people contributing-the entitlement is about 40 per cent. Thus, in ten years it will be at 100 per cent. Just to give an illustration of the changing and growing benefit levels, let me point out that the figure for February of this year was $44.24 a month.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


John Carr Munro: I should like to finish the point I am making. The figure I mentioned is over and above the old age security pension and still entitles the recipient to draw guaranteed income supplement benefits. I believe the hon. member wishes to ask me a question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wish to ask the minister what he would do about the pension of a widow whose husband paid his contribution for six months over and above the required amount laid down in the legislation. He is fully aware of the situation and offered to meet with the officials, but nothing further was done about it.


John Carr Munro: Many of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan did provide for survivors' benefits, but periods of contribution were set down to which a person was qualified before these payments could take place.
DEBATES	6561
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions In many cases this turned out to be very arbitrary indeed and caused much hardship in many cases to surviving widows who did not qualify. This is just one of the many anomalies that have been revealed in the Canada Pension Plan, and it is our hope that they will be taken care of in our over-all review. In the meantime, the present legislation does not permit a payment to the particular widow referred to by the hon. member.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Talking about the Canada Pension Plan again for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, it will be a number of years before the full impact of the plan is felt, as I have already indicated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the meantime, people die.


John Carr Munro: So the question can legitimately be put, as many hon. members have asked: What about now? What have you done for us lately? What about those who are unable to reap the full advantage of the Canada Pension Plan?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about those who could not afford to pay the contribution at all?


John Carr Munro: We know that those who could not afford to make a contribution will not be many, because one only has to earn in excess of $600 a year to qualify for the benefit structure. We have brought in other schemes such as the guaranteed income supplement to help those near retirement or already retired who could not afford to be covered. This was one feature of the plan in terms of extended coverage and, as I recall, the official opposition fully supported the $600 earnings at the time the plan went through this House.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the alternative measures must provide for more than token raises and we feel that the whole review must be dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. In doing this we have to take into consideration, not only the raise in benefit structures over the years to assist people in the retirement class through the Canadian Pension Plan but also a number of other plans which we have brought in during the last six years, the full impact of which is now being felt. In some measure this is a reply to those who argue how callous we are in not providing adequate pensions for the elderly.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?
May 4. 1970

Old Age and Veterans' Pensions


John Carr Munro: Certainly.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Before you leave the
Canada Pension Plan, is there any provision in view to enable housewives to qualify under the Canada Pension Plan so that they will have some opportunity to participate?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member knows, if the housewife is working-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But not on a salary.


John Carr Munro: -and earning in excess of $600 a year-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Husbands don't pay them.


John Carr Munro: -which is not a great deal in terms of our modern society, and if the housewife earns more to supplement the husband's income, she can now qualify under the Canada Pension Plan. If the hon. member is suggesting she be covered under a contributory plan and not make any contribution at all on any earnings, the whole structure of the plan would have to be altered.
I was going to comment on many of the other questions. Very widespread changes have been made over the last four or five years and are now having their impact, Mr. Speaker. The first, of course, on these three broad fronts where we have brought in changes is the matter of coverage. We were faced with the situation where people were retired at 65 but not receiving the old age security pension until 70. To cope with this situation we had only the traditional old age assistance plan that paid out money on a means test basis which, I think all hon. members would agree, was a very demeaning process.
We brought in amendments to the old age security provision. We lowered the age to the point where it is now, where this year it was being paid at age 65. As a consequence, many more people are covered than ever before. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, more than 11 million people in Canada were over 65 years of age but less than one million of those were in receipt of federal pension, a figure amounting to only 66 per cent of the total. In 1969, however, there were slightly more than 1,600,000 people of 65 years of age and over. Of these 11 million, or almost 92 per cent, were receiving federal assistance through these schemes. Because of these vast increases in percentages it is anticipated that in the next year or two we will almost surely reach 100 per cent. That is another area in which we are moving, that is, in lowering the age to 65.

The second front in which we have moved within this relatively short period of time is that of adequacy of benefits. When the party which I represent took office in 1963, individual payments were $65 a month. We raised that to $75 a month soon after taking office. At that time we realized it was still insufficient, so we brought in the guaranteed income supplement of $30 a month on an income test basis. I think our experience with this program has been very successful. It has allowed us to get around the necessity of resorting to the old needs and means testing which involved all sorts of investigators invading one's privacy and had little rehabilitative value for people in need.
This is fairly routine. Most people, whether in need or not, fill out forms each year for income tax purposes. In our scheme they fill out forms showing income, and if it falls short of a set level the federal government makes up the deficiency within the limits of the scheme. This has worked well and has allowed us to gain administrative experience on how income tested programs of this nature can work. It falls in very well with expertise in this area that is required in terms of any approach to a guaranteed income program on a wider scale.
When I speak of this particular area I am faced with the difficulty of trying to reconcile the various points of view expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In his speech today he indicated that he thought the guaranteed annual income approach was a good one, yet in his motion he talks about the traditional approach that has been used over the years of raising the basic rates of pension. I do not think the two can be reconciled. I think the total concept of the guaranteed annual wage means that the person who wishes to qualify for it must submit to some type of income test.
In terms of the forms to be filled out it is very similar to the procedure when paying income tax. When you fill out any type of form indicating your level of income as a means of determining whether you should pay something or receive something, I think that is a selective process. That is implementing the principle of selectivity and it is what we mean when we speak of selectivity. How the hon. member can say that he is for a guaranteed annual income approach, and yet find any type of implementation of selectivity repugnant, is beyond me.
May 4, 1970	COMMONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Does the minister not realize that there are different definitions of a guaranteed annual income? Calling the one that he defines as guaranteed annual income the only one, does not make it so. I suggest there are different definitions and he and I happen to differ.


John Carr Munro: When I looked at the references to guaranteed annual income in the hon. member's speeches, I thought he was taking income levels into account in determining benefit structure. If he has other concepts than that approach in mind, I would be glad to hear them, but I did not hear them today. I do not imagine the hon. member is talking about any type of annual income payable on a universal approach to all Canadians irrespective of their earnings. I am sure some measure of selectivity would have to be introduced in any such scheme.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
the minister not hear me say this afternoon that that is precisely what I favour, namely, the universal approach, but that because of the emergency situation now facing our older people I would accept an adjustment in the program we now have?


John Carr Munro: If by that the hon. member means that he would favour an increase in the guaranteed annual income supplement as divorced from any increase in the universal old age-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the motion.


John Carr Munro: You are talking about basic pension rights in your motion. If the hon. member is talking about immediacy, action can be taken in the guaranteed income supplement area exclusively, rather than the basic OAS, just as quickly.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: have just one more question; then I will sit down and shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: knew that remark would bring applause. Does the minister not realize that the guaranteed income supplement under the Old Age Security Act is defined as 40 per cent of the basic rate? When I ask for an increase in the
DEBATES	6593
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions basic rate, I mean two things: I mean the basic rate has to go up, and it follows that the supplement must go up accordingly.


John Carr Munro: I fully realize that, Mr. Speaker. I suppose what I am saying is that no one has to be wedded to the 40 per cent formula when dealing with the principle of the guaranteed income supplement in isolation from the OAS.
I have now dealt in a very summary fashion with the areas in which we have moved and which will have implication in the future for our senior citizens, namely, the Canada Pension Plan, the increase in benefits under the OAS, the GIS and the lowering of the age to 65. I should like to talk about another area in which we have moved. In this restricted period of time I wish to talk about the fact that we have tied an escalation feature into our old age security and guaranteed income supplement pensions. There will be a maximum in escalation of 2 per cent, in line with the cost of living. So I do not believe it can be said that when we considered all these measures we were totally ignorant of the need that is being experienced by many of our older citizens today.
What have been the results of this over-all approach? Let us look at the figures with regard to individual payments. As I mentioned, when my party came to power in 1963, the maximum federal pension was $65 a month for those over 70. The maximum this year is over $110 a month and available to people five years earlier at age 65. This represents an improvement of better than 70 per cent over a seven-year period, or approximately 10 per cent a year. It also represents a 70 per cent improvement over the rate of increase in the previous seven-year period from 1956 to 1963.
I believe this is an improvement that one need not be ashamed of. And these improvements do not include an individual's potential for receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits right now. If eligible, an individual can receive roughly $60 a month in Canada Pension Plan payment while retaining a certain amount of his guaranteed income benefit and receiving, of course, the basic OAS. For example, at the February Canada Pension Plan level a person eligible for the full guaranteed income supplement could receive a basic pension of $79.50, plus $34.20 Canada Pension Plan, plus approximately $10 in the form of guaranteed income supplement, for a total of $123.40.
6564	COMMONS
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions
Moreover, owing to the improvement in over-all health standards we have found through our research that both the absolute number and the percentage of the population represented by recipients of old age assistance has increased. Thus, the increase in the federal government's financial commitment toward improving the economic conditions of our senior citizens has grown even more than the rate of increase in individual benefit. Starting figures, the federal financial expenditures in the fiscal year 1962-63 were approximately $770 million a year. In 1964-65 these had grown to $930 million a year. That increase will be demonstrated even more when one sees that the estimated expenditure for 197071 will be over $1,950 million. This means that in less than ten years federal expenditures have increased by 2J times since this party first took office in 1963.
I should like, if I may, to say a few words about veterans and the adjustments made under that policy. Since other spokesmen have dealt with this, I will not go into the matter today. I must, however, express to hon. members the regrets of my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). As many may be aware, he is in Holland joining with our Dutch friends in the twenty-fifth anniversary celebrations commemorating that country's liberation from Nazi rule. This is a long-standing engagement which he felt it would be unjustifiable to break.
Having spoken about some of these areas that contain implications for the future, may I mention the Canada Assistance Plan and what it can do in this area. There is a section in the Canada Assistance Plan under which the federal government will reimburse 50 per cent of the cost incurred by any province which wishes to supplement the old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments. There is no ceiling on the amount of supplementation than can be allotted, nor are there any complicated forms, terms or conditions that must be complied with. Payments are made merely on the basis of need, and this is in line with all the other programs similar to the Canada Assistance Plan.
Only one province, to my knowledge, has gone into this matter at all seriously, and that is British Columbia which I understand is now providing supplementation under the Canada Assistance Plan to senior citizens receiving benefits both under the Old Age Security Act and the GIS. Most provinces could benefit more from this particular scheme if they wished to, and that remark applies to the
[Mr. Munro.l
DEBATES	May 4, 1970
province which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) led when he was its Premier.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Is he suggesting that the less wealthy provinces are in a position to supplement the old age security payments and the GIS? Is he putting this forward as a realistic national program at this time?


John Carr Munro: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Assistance Plan in all its provisions was discussed in great detail when the hon. gentleman was Premier of his province. It was worked out in combination with the provinces and endorsed by them. The welfare administrators of the provinces concerned were fully cognizant of all the potentialities of this program. I think they must have realized that they could assist the older people in their areas who were in need, by taking advantage of the federal payments referred to. Some provinces are prepared to do it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has not the minister just received a delegation consisting of the welfare ministers of the four Atlantic provinces, and have they not indicated the grave difficulties of the four Atlantic provinces in the area of welfare and sought a different formula?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. But inasmuch as we all appreciate the needs of the less fortunate provinces, I think all provinces are complaining very seriously about their inadequacies in responding to federal initiatives in those areas we have already entered extensively. Need I remind the hon. member about medicare and the complaints the provinces have made with respect to it? It is really a question of what the provinces want to do in terms of their own priorities, which needs they are prepared to recognize most and in which order.


An hon. Member:: What about Saskatchewan?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want the minister to be realistic, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That's impossible.


John Carr Munro: The Leader of the Opposition has said that the Atlantic provinces rank other priorities more highly-


An hon. Member:: What about Saskatchewan?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let us be realistic.
May 4, 1970	COMMONS


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition going through a litany of excessive statements today. He said we had a computer for a conscience, wondered if members on the government had any sliver of conscience, said they were completely lacking in a sense of justice and that they were callous, said they showed monumental ingratitude, were inconsistent, against the weak and the poor, and so on.


An hon. Member:: All true.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that may have been great stuff 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but I cannot believe the Leader of the Opposition really believes this now. Surely he could have suggested what he would have done, in his statement. The Leader of the Opposition could have suggested what he would have done. He could have suggested how much he would have increased the pension and how the federal government should be prepared to absorb this particular cost, what programs must be cut in relation to payments in this area or what other programs he feels should be ranked lower in terms of priority than this particular one. He could have suggested that we should have gone into guaranteed income supplement and not used the basic rate.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is what I did.


John Carr Munro: He could give us some guidance about priorities. The Leader of the Opposition really did nothing other than make a blatant political appeal to the old age pensioners of this country. The blatant political appeal, with no substance, that the Leader of the Opposition had to revert to today is one of the reasons why many of our senior citizens are very cynical about politicians.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister must have been engaged in conversation when I spoke, because I suggested that he could not do anything beyond the resources of the government regarding the general old age security. I suggested that he concentrate on increasing the guaranteed income supplement.


John Carr Munro: As the leader of the official opposition knows, in the programs in my department alone we are spending approximately one-third of the total federal budget. Counting the health and welfare sides, we are spending in the vicinity of approximately $4 billion a year or more. We must now look at the situation in terms of priorities, recognizing the needs of the old age citizens and
DEBATES	6565
Old Age and Veterans' Pensions veterans of this country as a very high priority indeed. But what about the working poor, the deserted wives and children, the crippled and disabled who are not in this category? What about some of these people whose financial structure is not as rich as those with whom we have been preoccupied today? Where do they rank in terms of priority?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The only way a question can be permitted is by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wish to remind the minister, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: The point of order will be phony.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It may be phony, but you will have to listen to it just the same. The time allowed members in this debate was certainly violated by the minister, who spoke longer just to cut off questions that he cannot answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: I spent half my time answering questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
remind the hon. member that Standing Order 61 provides-


Winona Grace MacInnis: You should have reminded the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Standing Order allows 30 minutes for the minister's reply. We have taken that position in the past whether it is during the debate or at its conclusion. That practice has been followed today.
It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 8 of Standing Order 60, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.

May 4, 1970
Division
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 5, 1970