1970-12-04

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Benson:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the year ending March 31, 1971, tabled in the House this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clermont (Gatineau).
[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION First report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Deachman.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2), I should like to table copies in the two official languages of the survey on the Canadian Publishing industry.
Hon. members can obtain copies from the distribution service.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a motion under Standing Order 43, with which this House is vaguely familiar. The urgent circumstances are as follows: Yesterday the government withdrew Bill C-190, but it would appear that the recommendation from the Governor General still applies. I have today just filed notice of a bill entitled "An Act respecting the Auditor General of Canada" setting out, generally, the terms and conditions which were in a draft bill submitted by the Auditor General to the Public Accounts Committee at the request of that committee.
It is essential that this crisis of confidence in a parliamentary officer be resolved at once in order that the House may proceed to establish, without delay, a proper basis for the responsibilities and duties of the Auditor General. I therefore ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That this House waives the 48 hours notice required under Standing Order 42 (1) and that leave be given to introduce the said bill this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the motion cannot be put at this time.

[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 to request that the government take action to refer a tape of the CBC national television news that was seen at 11 p.m. last night, December 3, relating to the events surrounding the withdrawal of Bill C-190 from the order paper of the

December 4, 1970
Proposed Legislation
House, to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member tor Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
That this House requests the government to refer a tape of the CBC national television news of December 3rd, 1970, seen at 11.00 p.m. in Ottawa, relating to the withdrawal of Bill C-190 from the order paper of the House of Commons, to the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to determine whether or not that news report was biased and slanted in favour of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East.



FINANCE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the newfound spirit demonstrated in the House yesterday toward motions moved under Standing Order 43, I hope the House will continue to demonstrate a positive response to such initiatives concerning matters of pressing importance and necessity. In view of last night s budget presented by the Minister of Finance, I should like to move under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the salary of the Minister of Finance be reduced for the winter months of January, February and March, to the average benefit received under the unemployment insurance fund, which is approximately $36 a week, plus the new increase of 10 per cent for a total of $39.60, and that the minister report back to the House on April 1st the results of his experience in living on that salary.
Some hon.	Members:	Hear,	hear!Some hon.	Members:	Oh,	oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that the Chair has ever increasing qualms and doubts about the use of Standing Order 43. Hon. members know that a motion under this Standing Order requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimity?
Some hon.	Members:	Yes.Some hon.	Members:	No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention
of the House to the fact that on the notice paper notice is given by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion of a bill entitled, "An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act." It seems to me that it would be in the best interests of all of us to have the contents of the bill made available as quickly as possible. I therefore ask for the consent of the House for this bill to be given first reading so that it can be made available to hon. members as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will realize that again unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great courage demonstrated by Mr. and Mrs. James Cross and the services rendered to Canada and, indeed, to humanity at large by the courage, dignity and strength of character demonstrated by them in their time of crisis, would the Prime Minister consider, on behalf of the people of Canada, some appropriate recognition of this courage and service? For example, would he ask, on behalf of Parliament and all Canadians, that the Queen's Privy Council for Canada recommend to the Governor General the appointment of Mr. and Mrs. James Cross as honorary companions of the Order of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the words of the Leader of the Opposition are well chosen. I agree with the statements he has made about Mr. Cross. As to the recommendation he has just made to the government, we will take it under the most earnest consideration. I thank him for the suggestion.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very happy news about the rescue of Mr. Cross, will the Prime Minister indicate whether he and the

December 4, 1970

members of his government are now giving consideration to the termination of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that yesterday, in telling the House how elated we were about the news of Mr. Cross, I congratulated many of the participants in this drama but I omitted to mention the Canadian Armed Forces. I wish to state this morning that they performed a very difficult and trying role extremely well, which speaks very highly of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATUS OF KIDNAPPERS OF JAMES CROSS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice relating to the statement by the minister that the kidnappers of Mr. Cross have been exiled. Is it the intention of the government to take away their citizenship by statute? If not, will the minister outline very briefly to the House the exact status of the kidnappers and their dependants?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the word "exile" is probably inaccurate. As I understand it, there is no intention to proceed under the Canadian Citizenship Act. But I did mention that, subject to any undertaking of which I am not aware which might have been given by Mr. Demers who represented the federal and provincial governments, it is my view that if any person against whom there might be evidence relating to the kidnapping of Mr. Cross were to return to Canada he would be subject to prosecution.



CANADA-CUBA EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS- INFILTRATION OF CANADA BY ADVOCATES OF VIOLENCE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: A supplementary question. I am not dealing with the three or seven persons that have left Canada, but are there extradition arrangements between Cuba and Canada at this time similar to those between Canada and the United States?


John Napier Turner: I have not managed to research that point yet, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary. As the Royal Commission on Security stated very definitely that there was foreign infiltration advocating the use of violence and crime to overthrow governments in Canada, and they mentioned Cuba in particular, will there now be any further investigation with regard to infiltration and, in line with the recommendations of the royal commission, will the necessary protests then be made?


John Napier Turner: I will take that question under consideration, Mr. Speaker. Nothing has changed in the attitude that the government has taken toward this problem over the last few months.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PUBLIC ORDER ACT-WITHDRAWAL OF ARMED FORCES FROM QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Gerard Laprise (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
Did he recently talk with the Quebec Premier and was there any decision about the withdrawal of armed forces from Quebec? If so, I would like to know if the withdrawal will be gradual or total.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity recently-the day before yester-c,ay, I think to talk with the Premier of the Province of Quebec and we discussed the problem. He told me he intended to submit to us a plan for gradual withdrawal which would not be implemented now, however. Perhaps he gave full details to the Minister of National Defence, but I agreed with him on the principle of gradual withdrawal.
Of course, as I had told him before, I stated that the armed forces had been sent at the request of the province of Quebec and that we would not withdraw them before we were asked to do so by the provincial authorities.



ARRANGEMENTS WITH CUBAN GOVERNMENT RESPECTING KIDNAPPERS OF JAMES CROSS

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: May I ask the Minister of Justice what financial or pension arrangements were made with the Cuban government for taking these exiles?


John Napier Turner: I am not
aware of any arrangements, Mr. Speaker.



WITHDRAWAL OF PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When I asked the Prime Minister a question earlier relating to the termination of the Public Order Act the right hon. gentleman apparently forgot my question and referred to the Armed Forces. Can the Prime Minister tell us now whether he or the government are giving consideration to terminating the Public Order Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is a clause in that Act which is a constant reminder to the government that it can cause the Act to be terminated The events of yesterday certainly have not been assessed yet by the government in light of the hon. member's suggestion. I might say that we have plans to get periodic reports from Quebec and from our police officers so that we can keep this thing under review. Certainly it is not our desire to keep the Act in effect any longer than necessary, but there is no new development which can make me say today that we shall seek the termination of the Act now.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the concern felt about the powers conferred by this Act and in view of

December 4, 1970
the Prime Minister's statement that the situation will be under continuing review, would he or the Minister of Justice be prepared to make a statement on motions early next week outlining the reasons, if there are reasons, for continuing the Act over the next few weeks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no reason I can see now for making a statement on motions. The reasons the bill was invoked and supported by all parties in this House, at least in principle, have not changed. It is a question of knowing how much longer we shall need to have the police exercise these special powers before there is certainty that the events which gave rise to the bill are no longer a threat to us.



EXTENT OF WARRANT FOR ARREST OF MURDERERS OF PIERRE LAPORTE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Realizing that the Act in question provides for arrest and detention without warrant, may I put these two questions to the Minister of Justice? The first part is obvious, I suppose. Is a warrant out for the arrest of Rose and his cohorts for the murder of Laporte in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code, and is the power of that warrant in the hands of all police forces in the province of Quebec, namely, the Montreal city police, the provincial police and the RCMP, because these men have not been arrested yet?


John Napier Turner: Because of the details involved in that question I should like to take it as notice and respond early next week.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Might I ask a further supplementary question because of the importance of this subject. Will the minister now seek to make a full statement to the House? It is rather appalling to find we cannot get this information on such an important matter.


John Napier Turner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am in the House today representing the Solicitor General who underwent an operation yesterday and possibly I do not have all the detailed information the hon. member might require-and that was a detailed question. I am doing the best I can for the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask the
Minister of Finance whether he would be good enough to table in the House the forecasts concerning employment and unemployment in the coming winter months with which he has been provided by his departmental or other advisers?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: I did not hear the answer.


Edgar John Benson: No.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister has refused to table those unemployment forecasts. If that is correct, is the minister willing to table material that would indicate to the House how he arrived at the forecast for the growth rate in 1971 in order that hon. members may be able to test forecasts against studies that have been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that it might be difficult for the minister to make this kind of a statement by way of an answer to a question at this stage of our proceedings. The hon. member might try to find some other way to obtain the information he is seeking.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I had asked for a statement. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I intended to ask whether the minister would table in the House whatever material was available to him which he feels free to table in order to give the House the basis of his forecasts of economic growth and unemployment next year.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I could not table in the House all the conversations and information that has come to me from officials of my department. This varies from day to day. It is just impossible to do this. The hon. member's question would in fact mean that I should table all the confidential information of the Department of Finance. This is just impossible.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the forecast by the Minister of Finance is at variance with the forecast made by the Chairman of the Economic Council on December 2, who suggested that to arrive at an unemployment figure of 4 per cent we would have to attain an economic growth of about 10 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Make your speech later.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty difficult to ask this kind of a question without indicating the basis-


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down!


David Lewis: In view of the difference between the minister's forecast and what Mr. Smith said was necessary, will the minister undertake to explain at some point the reason for his disagreement with Mr. Smith?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to make an explanation to the House every time there is a difference in forecasts by various people in the country. I have heard my hon. friend make some forecasts I thought were wild, but he did not try to explain why they varied from the facts.


David Lewis: We will see whether they are wild.
December 4, 1970



ESTABLISHMENT OF ORGANIZATION TO MAKE SHORT-TERM PREDICTIONS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious reluctance of the Minister of Finance to give official forecasts, and in view of the fact that his forecasts have sometimes not been entirely accurate, will he again review the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada that the government should support the establishment of an organizaton in the country for the purpose of making short-term predictions? Will the minister please give us his assurance that he will consider this in view of his refusal to make these predictions himself?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the intimation that I refuse to give information-I do not refuse to give information-the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition is well worth considering and I will give it serious consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: I have been doing so for some time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: For two or three years.


Edgar John Benson: As a matter of fact, it was a matter of my personal view that some such organization might be supported and I got moving on it at one point some time in-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



IMPACT OF BUDGET POLICY IN CREATING NEW JOBS IN QUEBEC

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is d.rected to the Minister of Finance. In view of Prime Minister Bourassa's promise to provide 100,000 new jobs in Quebec whereas in the result only 3,000 new jobs have been found, will the minister tell the House what impact his new policy will have in increasing employment in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that this is a question which can be asked at this time. I am sure he must have in mind the possibility of a statement being made on motions. If he wants to rephrase his question along those lines it would be in order.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would make a statement on motions as to the impact of his policy in respect of the employment situation in Quebec in view of Mr. Bourassa's promise of 100,000 new jobs and the result of only 3,000 new jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of National Revenue.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INCOME TAX


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question put to me on Wednesday last by the member for Abitibi.
His question deals with financial policy rather than the administration of financial legislation and consequently, it comes under my colleague, the Minister of Finance. The minister may perhaps give a further reply in due time.



ABOLITION OF TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the budget speech last night and the statement on western agriculture, can the minister tell the House when he will bring forth legislation abolishing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the exact question of timing on the legislation which may result from final decisions on the implementation of the recent proposals is yet to be determined.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the House what the estimated savings to the government would be this year by abolishing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


Otto Emil Lang: Not at this point in time but I probably could obtain some figures for the hon. member.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-STABILIZATION PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of statements in the budget address last night concerning the grain stabilization proposal, could the minister indicate if it is the intention of the government, on the adoption of such a proposal, to arrange for payments under the stabilization plan to the farmers during the Spring months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the proposal indicates a hope to have a payment made for the current crop year. The final determination of the payment, assuming the legislation required is in place, would of course require figures which can only be final at the end of the crop year so it would likely be made in the fall, but it is envisaged that payment of up to $100 million might be made.

December 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT FOLLOWING MEETINGS WITH FARM LEADERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, in order that these various programs or part programs may be brought into focus, whether, following the meetings with farm leaders which he told me yesterday would take place within the next ten days, he will make a statement to the House setting out the results of those meetings and outlining with some clarity the proposals he intends to set before the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Again the hon. member insists on suggesting dates and times which I do not think I have anything to do with. There will be many meetings, some taking place say two weeks from today or a day or two ago in two weeks, but I am not sure if as a result of those meetings it would be useful to make a further statement. When a decision has been taken as a result of all the consultations which are going on and the many consultations we are having with farmers generally across the Prairies, I shall be glad to enlighten the House further.



EFFECT OF GENERAL MOTORS STRIKE ON AUTOMOTIVE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Mr. Gordon Riichie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the House if the prolonged General Motors strike has reversed the automotive balance of payments in favour of the United States and, if so, has the government any plans to remedy the situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there was a strike in the United States too, by the way, which would have a similar effect on the United States automobile production.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position, in response to inquiries from all sections of the House, to make some further comment about air fares and the possibility of obtaining reduced fares if one can get hold of some United States dollars?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Transport Commission has issued a rather lengthy statement. I think the core of it is
that the Air Transport Committee herewith directs that- this is to all established airlines in Canada-a new currency conversion rate be adopted for effect not later than December 15, 1970, which reflects the closing rate of the interbank exchange market for United States dollars in terms of Canadian dollars for December 1, 1970. The effect of this ruling and directive from the CTC is to correct the anomaly which existed previously.
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Sourish I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the government has acted on this matter, can the Minister of Transport assure the House that there will be compensation paid to Canadians who were bilked under the former policy, particularly in light of the increased profits announced by Air Canada recently?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about increased profits announced by Air Canada. In respect of the first part of the question, my hon. friend knows that is quite impossible.



HOUSING


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. Will some or all of the further $40 million that the Minister of Finance announced last night would be added to the capital budget of CMHC be lent to provide reasonable rental accommodation for men in the ranks of the armed services who are posted to cities such as Ottawa and find that because of the generally high level of rents they must pay more than half their take-home pay for inadequate housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the programs under the CMHC capital budget all across the country are directed to people in the lower half or lower third of the income group. Whether it is this $40 million or other sums that have been spent this year and will be spent next year, these sums are directed to that end. I appreciate the hon. member having drawn that particular situation to my attention. 1 will look into it but, generally speaking, if their income qualifies them for access to this kind of housing we will be most receptive to providing it, within budgetary constraints.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister undertake to discuss the matter with his colleague the Minister of National Defence in view of the fact that these personnel do not come to these areas by choice but are posted because of the requirements of service in the armed forces?


Robert Knight Andras: I will be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Lang.)
December 4, 1970



STIMULATION OF CONSTRUCTION IN HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AREAS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister decided on a course of action the result of which would be to stimulate the building of houses in areas where unemployment is the highest?


Robert Knight Andras: think we have been doing quite a bit of that in the past year. Employment certainly is one of the objectives in respect of the allocation of CMHC funds for next year in addition to providing housing for those areas and those people that need it most.



FINANCE


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Have any of the provinces indicated they are prepared to take up their share of the proposed $150 million special loan fund and, if so, will he tell us which provinces?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we are having a finance ministers' and provincial treasurers' meeting on Monday and Tuesday next and I imagine this matter will come up for consideration at that time. In view of the very attractive rate at which the funds can be borrowed compared with what the provinces have to pay in the open market, I would think they would all be quite happy to take up the funds.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries arising out of an answer he gave me a few days ago in respect of the Skagit Valley when I asked what action the government had taken with regard to this question by way of discussions with the United States authorities. At that time the minister said that we had to solve this question within our own country first. Would the minister make a statement to the House on motions early next week indicating where the matter stands in the view of the government, precisely what the problem is and, in particular, what action the government is taking or is proposing to take in respect of this problem?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making certain recommendations to the government in this connection and, assuming that they or some modifications of them are accepted, I think it might be reasonable to make a statement in the House in a few days time.
Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-REVIEW OF CANADIAN ECONOMIC COMMITMENTS UNDER NATO

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday is reported as making an unusual foray into commercial matters at the Brussels NATO ministerial meeting, where he called for a constant dialogue between the United States and Europe to avoid trade confrontation, is the minister now in a position to answer my question of Tuesday when I asked if it was the intention of the government or the minister to press for a complete review of our NATO commitments and responsibilities on economic matters, in the hope of offsetting any economic losses which may occur to Canada if Britain does join the European Common Market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the reason that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Europe now is to amplify what I did on my own tour which was exclusively of economic import. He is now trying to demonstrate the effect of enlargement of the Common Market on future Canada-Europe relations, and in doing so he is mak'ng the sort of comments that have been reported. I do not feel competent to deal with the question as to the effects of this on NATO, and I think I said quite properly that I would bring the hon. member's question to my colleague's attention when he gets back.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED TAXATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES_____

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that family allowances are to be taxable under the proposals in the white paper on social security, can the minister say if there will be increased exemptions for children in families earning over $10,000 per year who will not qualify to receive family allowance benefits?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if this proves to be the case and if the new system of family allowances were adopted the government would have to make a decision in this regard, and indeed it will have to make a decision in any case when the tax reform proposals are brought forward, presumably in the spring.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. W. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries

December 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
and Forestry, and I direct it to him as the expectant minister of environment. Has the government made or is it planning to make through normal channels any representations to the United States with regard to the intentional dumping of excess oil supplies by the U.S. military into the Atlantic ocean?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard any specific reference made to intentional dumping of oil by U.S. authorities, but I will make inquiries.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continued large spills of oil from underwater oil drilling, is the government planning any discussions with the major oil companies that are now drilling off shore, with regard to safety regulations?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, discussions have been going on, and various precautions have been taken in this connection.



COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY-PROTECTION OF MARINE LIFE

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. On November 17 I asked the minister to give the House an assurance that all necessary precautions would be taken against pollution from the refinery at Come-By-Chance, to which the minister replied that he was keeping a close eye on the situation. Is he aware of a report submitted by Dr. Warner, environmental biologist at the university in Newfoundland, dealing with the establishment and construction of the proposed refinery at Come-By-Chance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he may not ask whether the minister is aware of the existence of a report. A question in those terms is not in order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Walter C. Carter: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will return to the hon. member later.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, mine is a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In light of the report submitted by Dr. Warner and the evidence given by Dr. Warner at the recent environmental pollution committee meeting, is the minister now satisfied that all necessary precautions are being taken to guard against pollution from the refinery at Come-By-Chance.


John (Jack) Davis: am not entirely satisfied, Mr. Speaker, and will be making further inquiries.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform
the House whether the Come-By-Chance oil refinery authorities have requested permission from his department to proceed with construction, and requested the approval of his department in accordance with the amendments to the Canada Fisheries Act which we passed last session?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in matters of this kind the initiative must be taken by the officials of my Department. I can assure the hon. member that the necessary initiative has already been taken in this case.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement that the minister made in response to a question of mine in the House on October 13, may I ask him whether the increased costs of the Prices and Incomes Commission are being covered out of the contingency fund? I am sure the minister realizes that he said then that these increased costs would be covered by a supplementary estimate, but in view of the fact that no such supplementary estimate has been tabled can the minister say how these increased costs are being covered?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman assumes that there are increased costs. His colleague was indicating to us yesterday that there would be decreased costs. What I said in response to the question the other day was that if there are increased costs over and above the provisions already made, these will be covered by supplementary estimates. If the costs are less in the current year than forecast the money will not be spent, and there will be no necessity for a supplementary estimate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, may I ask the minister if he is in a position to say that the costs of the Prices and Incomes Commission are being held within the original estimate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge they are.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to the hon. Minister of Finance the question I had addressed to the Minister of National Revenue on December 2 last.

December 4, 1970

I would like to ask him whether, following the requests made by the Quebec Association of school boards, he intends to recommend to the government to consider non-taxable entertainment allowances paid to school board trustees, which is what Quebec is doing at the present time?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that has come up over a period of many years, and of course it is a matter which is under review with respect to the tax reform bill that we intend to bring forward. I think if one looks back one will recall with respect to many of these allowances which are presently tax free that it was recommended that they not be tax free.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As he is no doubt aware of the considerable amount of pollution created by industry, would the minister tell the House if the government intends to grant subsidies or tax reductions to encourage a larger number of industries to ensure treatment of their waste-waters?


Robert Knight Andras: will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
*	* H*


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In order to be prepared for nuclear accident or warfare, and to assist with winter works this winter, would the Prime Minister consider deploying emergency supplies in the next few months to all inventoried public and private fall-out shelters, and cause the public marking of the locations of them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice for the minister, Mr. Speaker.
Hs *	*



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS-IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the recommendation of the four discussion groups dealing with marketing and trade at the recent agricultural congress, to the effect that Canada should take the initiative in improving access to other countries for agricultural products, will the government take steps as soon as possible to implement this important recommendation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will do our best, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Are officials of the Department of Transport consulting with the manufacturers of the DC-8 jetliner for the purpose of perfecting the design of a fail-safe spoiler for that aircraft, which would prevent the inadvertent deployment of the spoilers while the aircraft is still in the air?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that I would not be able to give him a technical answer with regard to the specifics of the question. I do know that there are ongoing conversations with the manufacturers of the aircraft relating to the accident and it is reasonable to suggest that this is the main subject of discussion. I do not want to get too technical because I am afraid I am not competent in that field.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if the minister would inquire of his officials to determine whether this particular safety factor is being looked into, and when conclusions have been reached by his officials would the minister report to the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



EFFECT OF SONIC BOOM

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the government formulated a definite policy in regard to the sonic boom and its effect on Canadian communities in general? If not, what surveys on the problem have been made or are contemplated by the Department of Transport?



GRANTS TO INDUSTRIES FOR RESIDUAL WATER PURIFICATION

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that this is information which might be given by way of a statement on motions or his question could be put in writing or, as a third alternative, it could be considered at the time of adjournment.

December 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF NEW CHIEF COMMISSIONER

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. How soon can we expect the appointment of a chief commissioner for the Wheat Board, and will he be someone from within the grain industry or is the minister looking elsewhere for an appointee?


Otto Emil Lang: 

PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Roberf Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, although I know he is busy enough. Would the minister inquire and report to the House on the progress being made in the transfer of Department of Transport employees at what is now known as the Point Edward Industrial Park, formerly the naval base, to the Cape Breton Development Corporation which comes under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? At the same time would the minister report whether the employees of this department, when transferred, will retain benefits compiled over the years as public service employees?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised of the subject matter of the question and have to report that I have had conversations with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and have also written to him about the details of the various elements involved in the controversy, if it can be called that. I shall be happy to report to the hon. member and the House as soon as I receive a reply.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister now report on the escape of prisoners and the fire at the penitentiary at Prince Albert?


John Napier Turner: Not
completely, Mr. Speaker. I shall undertake to do that on Monday in my capacity as Acting Solicitor General.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it being apparent from the previous answers of the Minister of Justice that the government is not yet fully informed of all the arrangements made for the release of Mr. Cross and the safe passage of the kidnappers to Cuba, will the minister make a full and complete statement on motions on Monday or early next week outlining the agreements which were made relative to that release?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the question. The terms of reference given to Mr. Demers were very clear that while he could discuss the circumstances of safe conduct out of Canada for those having some connection with the kidnapping of Mr. Cross, there was to be no discussion of any such treatment for anyone suspected of having any connection with the murder of Pierre Laporte. Those were the terms of reference. I just want to be assured that no further undertakings were given by Mr. Demers in the conversations he had. In the circumstances, I do not think a statement to the House is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Robert Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister said that he did not accept the premise of the question when I said it was apparent that the government was not fully informed. In one of his previous answers the minister stated that they were not fully informed on the arrangements.



MANPOWER


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador on a point of order.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am not given to asking too many questions and when I do ask a question the House may not regard it as too important, but I do. Today I have what I regard as a very important question and I should like the indulgence of Your Honour to be given permission to ask it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not my indulgence but it is the indulgence of the House that is required. As far as I am concerned I enjoy the question period so much that I would be prepared to go on all day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 4, 1970


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I do not enjoy the question period that much. My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and concerns a publication of an organization called SEE-Students Employment Europe-inviting applications for 5,000 student summer jobs in Germany. Considering that upward of some two million young Canadian students are in the category to which the invitation is directed, can the minister advise if he has investigated the legitimacy of this organization, SEE, and their student employment program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the minister responsible for citizenship indicated in the House earlier that investigations are being made in regard to this organization. While it would appear that the organization was well-intentioned, it has no official connection whatever with the government and indeed had no official means of assuring placement of the students abroad. The activity of the organization is therefore ceasing, although our department and the department of the minister responsible for citizenship are endeavouring to make use of some of the information and some of the interest expressed by young people who have communicated with the organization.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the further indulgence of the House for a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact each student applying is obliged to forward $1 with his application, which would represent a potential return of up to $2 million to the organization SEE, would the minister not agree that since two months have elapsed it is high time Canadian students were advised that this SEE program is legitimate or that it is, as it appears to be, simply a skilfully contrived shakedown?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is obviously of an argumentative nature.


An hon. Member:: It was a good question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services.
Old Age Security
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I heard the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) use the word "demogrant" I was not sure whether I should be insulted, because he kept referring to my party as being in favour of it. I did not know whether it was a bad word or not so I looked for it in the dictionary but could not find it. However, in the white paper it is explained as meaning universal grants. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is a little ahead of the dictionary, indicates that it comes from the Greek word "demo", meaning people and "grant" of course, is self-explanatory.
It may be a good word, and if it means what my hon. friend says it means, then I am in favour of it and have no objection to it being used in that sense. The development of new words runs ahead of the dictionary on the table, Mr. Speaker, and maybe they are more specific than some of the words that have been used more generally in the past.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
I am sure everyone was pleased with the presentation of the white paper on income security for Canadians. Many of our Canadian people are living in circumstances of serious need and changes must be made that will enable those Canadian people to acquire an income which will provide them with the necessities of life. There is great difficulty in determining where the poverty line should be drawn, and especially where it should be drawn for our older people. I am sure everyone agrees that Canada has the resources and wherewithal to give our senior citizens the type of income that will allow them to live out their last years decently, as a reward for their work in developing Canada. This income must be sufficiently large to make sure that our older people are not in want.
Over the years we have changed our old age pension provisions. Every time we have tried to raise pensions some politicians in this House have said that the old age pension should not be raised. Not many years ago some of them were saying that a pension could not even be implemented. I have been interested in the question of the old age pension ever since it was at the level of $40 a month. Going back somewhat, I can remember the time when Mr. Harris lost an election by saying that the old age pension increase ought not to be $10, but that it ought to be $6. After that, the old age pension was increased by $10 every time a new government was elected. Actually, the old age pensioner was the only one who was happy with the numerous general elections that we had in this country over a short period of time.
Last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought down a budget. Many members of the general public who know of the difficulties of old age pensioners and of others receiving assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan as well as other federal programs, realize that there is an anomaly in providing assistance of certain kinds and then taxing part of the money that is

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security
received in this way. Let us take as an example the supplementary benefits to be made available under the bill we are discussing. We shall be granting to a single person $1,620 a year, or $135 a month. That will be paid to persons having no income other than the pension. Such people may be able to get by on $1,625 a year; yet, under our income tax laws, they will have to pay tax on that amount in excess of $1,100 that they receive, because a single person's basic exemption is $1,000 plus $100, for a total of $1,100. As a result we shall collect income tax on the remaining $520 which, at a tax rate of 15 per cent, amounts to $75 per year.
I do not know what the people in the Departments of National Revenue or Finance are thinking. Surely, there is something wrong with our tax structure when old people, and particularly those between the ages of 65 and 70 who receive the supplement on the basis of a means test, must pay income tax. I was surprised that the government should bring forward a budget which made no changes in the personal exemption levels. I am surprised that those on welfare were not considered. The difficulty is worse for a married couple than for a single person.
If a wife is working or obtaining an income, once she reaches the level of $920 she cannot be classed as married for income tax purposes. She is classed as single and must pay tax. If she does not pay that tax, the additional tax is deducted from her spouse's income. Surely, the government could have given some consideration to this specific matter. If it had been considered in the budget, perhaps the bringing down of a budget last night would have been justified. The level of personal exemptions ought to have been raised.
It was said, when we suggested in connection with the white paper on tax reform that the exemption for a single person ought to be increased to $1,500, that such an increase in the exemption would deprive the government of between 15 per cent and 25 per cent of its revenue from income tax. It seems that single people receiving incomes of $1,500 or $2,000 pay between $100 and $200 in income tax. They cannot bear such a burden. The burden could be borne better by those earning $12,000 a year and more, by people such as Members of Parliament. The income tax of several thousands of dollars they pay hurts them less than the smaller sums that the less well off must pay. I, therefore, think that we are being very dishonest with the older citizens of this country.
Farmers have asked me questions concerning income tax, and I admit that perhaps I gave them incorrect advice. I am particularly thinking of a farmer who worked hard all his life on a small farm. He kept his wife and himself, raised a family and sent them to school. He lived all these years without ever earning enough to pay income tax. This man was very religious, very honest and very sincere. As I say, he never was in the category of those who had to pay income tax. Having finished farming-he is 84 years old now-he asked me if I would help him in filling out an income tax form.
Having been left with about 50 sheep, which produced an income for him of between $400 and $500 from the sale of wool and lambs, he thought he ought to pay income tax. He said to me that he ought to start making out his income tax form. I said, "For God's sake, don't get mixed up with the income tax people at your advanced age; they will ask you to go back probably 15 years and produce records of your farm income; they will wonder why you were not paying income tax during all that time." He had absolutely no records to prove that he did not have enough income to pay income tax. I told him that since he had no records of expenditures or earnings, although I was quite prepared to help him with his tax forms, it would be best if he did not become involved with the Income Tax Department. I said, "They will wonder why you did not file any tax forms before this; why you did not file any last year, the year before and in the years before. I am afraid you will not be able to make this kind of arrangement." My advice therefore to that old age pensioner was, "Do not file an income tax form."
I should like to know what other Members of Parliament have said to old age pensioners they represent? I think we all agree that no tax ought to be levied on the pensions our elderly citizens receive. Yet, in the new proposal which is to become effective next April, single pensioners will be required to pay back to the government $75. They cannot afford this. The minute the supplement is paid to old age pensioners, they will be required to file income tax returns and pay back $75. How many Members of Parliament will say to their constituents, "Do not file a form and do not pay the tax"?
I am sure most hon. members realize most old age pensioners will not be in a position in April of any year to pay $75. The tax for a single pensioner will be $75 and it will probably be more than $150 for a married couple, if both are receiving the supplement.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Many members say this is not important. If this legislation is passed, Mr. Speaker, we will have legislation which will cause people to be dishonest. If by this legislation a million of our citizens become liars and cheats, then something is wrong with our income tax exemption system. If we pass this legislation knowing that this will happen, we are dishonest. Something should be done about it. The Minister of Finance should have dealt with this situation in the budget he presented last night. I am sure all hon. members realize that when we establish a guaranteed income supplement with a means test or a needs test, we are not providing extra income for those who will be receiving it. We should establish an income tax structure that will allow these people to keep the money given to them. It should not be considered welfare.
If the family allowance, unemployment insurance and other benefits are to be considered income, there will not be a guaranteed annual income. If these benefits are to be taxed, we should change our income tax structure so that these benefits can be considered as welfare. These bene-

December 4, 1970

fits should not be taxable. We must not create a situation whereby those receiving the benefits will intentionally lie and cheat, with the full knowledge of the legislators.
In the white paper, of which social security is only a part, the guaranteed income is considered as a right of all persons. I am deeply involved in the program under the Canada Assistance Plan as well as the welfare structure in Ontario. I am concerned about the number of people who say to me they will not apply for assistance. These people do not qualify for disabled pensions. They cannot get a job because they are over 50 years of age, have no education and cannot be retrained. They will not apply for welfare because of their Christian heritage. They believe that it is good to work and bad to receive welfare. To receive welfare, in their opinion, indicates that a person is too lazy to work.
While some mistakes do occur, 99.5 per cent of the people applying for assistance do not consider they are receiving welfare. They apply for assistance from the state because of conditions over which they have no control. Their situation has been created by society. The financial assistance provided to these people should be provided as a right, not as welfare.
I am opposed to a ceiling on the old age pension. I can see no reason for a $60 cut-off. It removes the incentive to earn more money. When the government needed more money in order to increase the old age pension, it raised the cut-off to $90. The cut-off is now $120. The cut-off should be removed. A millionaire receiving the old age pension should also pay toward it. It is within his ability to pay 4 per cent, although maybe it should be cut to 3 per cent.
I understand that there is $720 million in the old age pension fund at present. This amount is sufficient to increase this pension. When the old age pension was set at $40, everyone said that it could not be raised. The pension was raised and there is now more money in the fund than ever before. If the ceiling were removed, the pension could be increased to $100 or $150 a month without much difficulty.
The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) stated that he is opposed to the principle of universal payments in this field. The people who have said to me that they will not apply for assistance are not saying that they will not accept the old age pension for which they are eligible. What they are saying is that they will not accept the benefits of a pension to which they have not contributed and to which they do not have a right. Because they do not feel they are entitled to it, they consider it welfare and are therefore reluctant to accept it.
If a person receiving the guaranteed income supplement earns additional money, this additional amount is deducted almost dollar for dollar from the pension. There is no incentive for people to work. If one looks at this Parliament, the Senate and many industries in this country, he will see that many persons over the age of 65 are making a considerable contribution. Our tax structure is set up in such a way that any money they earn above the
Old Age Security
pittance they are allowed is subject to income tax. This structure is not satisfactory and should be modified in order to be more realistic and honest. People should be permitted to earn more than they are presently permitted to earn.
It is interesting to listen to governmental officials stating how much something is going to cost and why it cannot be done. We are told this every time we suggest an increase in the old age pension. The statistical geniuses of the government departments present all kinds of figures. It has been stated that the program to give a guaranteed income of $1,600 for a single person and $3,000 for a married couple would cost $3.8 billion. If the figures were $1,800 for a single person and $3,000 for a married couple, they state this would cost $5 billion. This is probably true, but it illustrates why figures are so misleading. That is not the cost to the treasury. If we made this kind of payment we would automatically get back a very large part of the expenditure. One of the major municipalities in my constituency is the town of Kirkland Lake. The council there is always lamenting that they have the largest welfare expenditure in the Province of Ontario, closely followed by several other northern communities.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
But this welfare business is an industry in many of these communities. All the money that is put out goes back to the municipality, plus 40 per cent from the federal government and 40 per cent from the provincial government. It seems to me any money we provide by way of a guaranteed annual income for our citizens is money which will not be put in banks or hidden under the mattress; it will all be spent on necessities and it will quickly go back to its source as a form of revenue. Even in the area of income tax, if government statistics are right, 20 per cent of the money paid out to old age pensioners is returned to the government at the present time in the form of direct taxation and I suggest that indirectly, after four or five transactions have been made, all the money is returned to government coffers.
In my opinion there is no group of people in the country who deserve a greater degree of security than those who are in the old age category. These are the people who, much more so than my generation, made a contribution to establish this nation on the road to which it has been dedicated. They were hard-working people and in the main they earned their livelihood by the sweat of their brows. They made a contribution which I believe entitles them to the type of security in their old age which we have not been providing over the years. It is time we provided them with a form of income, whether a guaranteed income based on a negative income tax or some other arrangement that does not concern me at the moment, which is not a football in the political arena. There can be nothing much more degrading than to find politicians going around the country during every election talking to old age pensioners and saying "If you elect us we will give you $5 more", while others are telling them "Vote for us and we will make it $10." Old age

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security
pensioners are then supposed to make up their minds on the basis of how much has been promised them. For some time it has seemed to me that this arrangement is unsatisfactory and that a much more satisfactory policy would be one by which pensions were paid, and increased, on a scale related to the gross national product.
Then again, any needs test is bound to discriminate against senior citizens who have been able to save some small amount for their old age as opposed to those who have not. Persons who have been able to save two or three thousand dollars find they have to spend this money before they can receive what someone else may have been paid initially as a right. The present arrangements do not allow for those who have spent all their lives, maybe, trying to save a few dollars for their retirement or for their old age. Anyone who bought government annuities is in a particularly bad position because these are directly related to income from other sources, and any kind of means test or needs test will affect the holder of these annuities severely.
Another problem is presented by the inability of the old age pension branch to establish a relationship with the social security number which most Canadians now carry. When we get in touch with the administration concerning an old age pension cheque we cannot trace that cheque through the social security number because we have not updated our system. The Canada Pension Plan and at least one provincial plan are all related to social security numbers, yet the old age pension plan is not. It seems to me we should update our programs so that old age pension cheques are made out on the basis of social security numbers, thus making it easier to trace lost cheques. It would also be easier to correlate the other data now available for complying with age qualifications than it is under the present system where old age pensioners carry numbers of their own and are not related to the social security system. There has certainly not been a poorer branch than this one, in my experience. In Toronto there is a branch under a provincial director. A request I made the other day was answered by someone on a telephone in that branch. I asked whether I could call him back. He said, no, call this number. I asked how many worked there, and he said 16. I do not know how many social security numbers and pension numbers they have, but I am sure I would not get much satisfaction just by phoning that telephone number to make an inquiry, and I had to relay the inquiry to a much higher level to get any kind of satisfaction. It seems to me this branch should relate its work to social security numbers and operate in a much more efficient manner than it does.
I will give one example. I have a letter which came to me in May, 1970. The writer informed me that his wife had made an application for an old age pension 18 months previously when she was told there was some difficulty about her age. I have written several letters and I have received several replies. I was informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare that a tribunal was to be set up to deal with this problem. I received a letter which informed me that this women, who made the application, had some difficulty in establishing the date of her birth. It was difficult to decide whether she was born in 1902 or 1904. I do not think it makes a damn bit of difference if she was born in 1902 or even 1905. She should be eligible for the old age pension. Because they have not been able to establish when she was born, as yet they have not paid her the old age pension. We are aware of the fact that retroactive payments can only be made for a period of one month.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The government would have a great advantage if it seriously considered programs of guaranteed annual income such as those in the United States. I am aware of the difficulties involved and I know there are differences of opinion as to whether our resources could support such a program. I am aware of the limitations in respect of income tax.
If the government provides a guaranteed income, payments will have to be made at least once every month. Perhaps they could be made more often. Some people will require a guaranteed income payment for a period of only six months per year. There is a wide range of needs and problems. If this matter were referred to a committee, I am sure these needs and problems could be related to a realistic welfare structure and there would be a resultant saving. I understand the province of Ontario has saved a great deal of money as a result of the establishment of the family and social services branch whose inspectors do the work associated with several plans. This work has been co-ordinated under the one department, and it supplies the information to various welfare agencies. This has resulted in a saving.
This idea could be adopted in the federal field. I have a friend who travels around the province conducting this type of investigation. We have discussed this matter of making information available. He made the point that the federal government sends people around to take the census, and the provincial government has people travelling throughout the province obtaining information as to jobs, income and other things at the same time. He suggested this was a duplication of effort. The suggestion was that it would be very easy for him to ask several more questions and obtain all the information which could be made available to various government agencies. My argument was that, while this might be possible, the result would be that many Canadian citizens would have to supply unlimited information and thereby be deprived of their privacy. Individuals in this country are entitled to a private life, even in relation to their income status.
There are several arguments in this regard, many of which have not been understood. I would be very surprised if agreement could not be obtained from many individuals to allow the state access to individual private financial arrangements. This would be particularly true if the government provided individuals with a financial cushion in time of need. Individuals are often in need because of sickness, unemployment or because they are
[Mr. Peters.}
December 4, 1970

attending retraining courses. Whatever the reason may be, it an individual were assured that the state would provide for him I expect he would be willing to give the state access to his financial status.
We are aware of the fact that many well paid individuals evade income tax to some extent. We are all aware of the fact that a well known Canadian in the sports field, because of a technicality, was able to evade paying something in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to $300,000 in taxes. We are also aware of the fact that people in the lower income bracket cheat on tax payments. By correcting this situation, the government could afford to pay more to those people who need assistance.
I was speaking to a man the other day who had worked for many years, but as a result of an accident became disabled. He suggested the amount the Workmen's Compensation Board allowed him was not sufficient. He said he was not able to return to work. I looked at his injured arm and it looked as good as mine. The doctor does not know whether he is capable of working. The only person who knows that is the man. He knows whether he is cheating. I give this example to show that some people at the bottom of the income status cheat in so far as income tax is concerned. The government may also be guilty because it has established a system which encourages taxpayers to cheat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friends say, "Oh, oh", but when it comes to working on the basis of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of hon. members and I shall try to be brief. The point I wish to leave with government members is that this type of program is still a stop-gap program. It has disadvantages in so far as welfare is concerned. The concept of universality is not the answer to everything. This country is rich enough that it can afford to adopt a universal type of assistance for all Canadians who exist at or below the poverty level. When we are discussing the white paper on social assistance we should relate it to the assistance provided in the United States. The assistance provided in that country is much higher. We should adopt a similar program which would be applicable to all persons. In this way, all we would have to do would be to supervise the return on money, making sure it was above the level at which we established the guaranteed income. Then, it could apply to young and old, all Canadians.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
When we really do some serious thinking, we may be surprised to find that the figures provided are very exag-
Old Age Security
gerated and that in the long run our nation can provide people with a much better program. A nation which is not willing to modify its income tax structure, which provides the anomalies our income tax structure provides, is not being fair to the people who in many cases have to cheat. I do not believe the government really expects this will not happen.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, the new pension increases forecast in Bill C-202 will likely receive the approval of all members of the House of Commons, even if there is difference of opinion in respect of how and in what manner the details should be worked out. Yet, I would believe there are significant changes in direction in the government's handling of the problem of old age security. The thrust of this bill is away from the principle of universality when old age security is frozen at $80 to await action by some future Parliament and the 2 per cent cost of living automatic increases will be deleted and will apply only to the guaranteed income supplement. On the other hand, in the Unemployment Insurance white paper the government proposes to sweep into the net a million workers not now covered, such as teachers, hospital employees and so on, many of whom are highly skilled workers who are rarely if ever unemployed except by their own choosing. It is obvious in this case that the application of the principle of universality to those who must pay unemployment insurance will increase their number so that more money will be available to pay for those who are frequently unemployed. It is a form of guaranteed income and wealth sharing device by means of the instrument of universality.
I am most disappointed that the government has chosen to freeze the old age security pension at $80 and not allow any automatic increases of 2 per cent for the cost of living index rise after the taxpayers have contributed to this by means of 4 per cent on the income tax and 3 per cent on the sales and corporation taxes. In other words, it is a form of annuity insurance, even if it does not necessarily bear a return in relation to the input of the individual taxpayer. It was a right of every tax paying citizen and his spouse and dependents as they reached the age of taking the pension to have this money regardless of what his financial situation was. He has earned it by his deductions from his income and the paying of sales tax over the productive years.
As inflation increases and the real wealth of the country grows, more and more money will be collected from the individual taxpayer because of increased incomes, and because of the steady rise of the cost of goods bringing in more revenue in the sales tax, more money for old age security will be in the government's coffers. But the government intends to freeze the old age security pension at $80 and make much less valuable the income tax contributions the citizen will make or the sales tax he will contribute. So far as old age security is concerned, the government has abandoned the annuity principle on which it was originally based and substituted a flat payout that contradicts the annuity principle on which it was first founded. There is a large surplus of over $700 millon in this fund. In the interest of keeping faith with the taxpayers who have contributed to the

teed income is related to what it will buy in the market in food, shelter, and the other necessities of life. It is obvious that this will vary in different parts of Canada, and under many different circumstances in individual cases.
The idea of guaranteed income raises all sorts of questions yet unanswered. In what manner should the level of the guaranteed income be set? The Economic Council of Canada has been widely quoted with respect to its assessment of what the poverty level should be. I have not seen how that level was arrived at, but obviously it is only one person's or a few persons' opinion. Obviously, it will be open to all sorts of opinions and variations. Will it reduce production significantly and, if so, will the benefits received be an adequate compensation for the degree of loss of production should this occur? Will it cause the freezing of workers in areas or jobs, when they should move either their location or their occupation?
In the proposed guaranteed income supplement with the modest built-in incentive to earn more money, there will be an attempt to keep the older worker productive. As such it will be of some interest and value in the assessment of what effect a guaranteed income can have on our productivity as a whole. But it will only be indicative of a segment of our population who, at the end of their productive years will be induced to continue in work habits that they have been used to over the years. Experience here, I would emphasize, will be of little value in the experience rating of incentive poverty programs as a whole, mainly because of the age group to which it will be applicable. There are some other features of the guaranteed income supplement proposals with which I would be in general agreement, and will study them more fully in committee.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) were here today so that he could hear the remarks of the different members, but I understand he is away on government business. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says he is meeting the provinces. However, we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle) here, and I will direct my remarks to him with all the fire and brimstone of a Methodist preacher, so I am sure the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carle-ton (Mr. McBride) will listen attentively.
I would have said to the minister that he has made a mistake with regard to the title of Bill C-202, which it is said is an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I would suggest it is an act to redistribute old age poverty. I suggest the minister should make the appropriate change in the title because really the government is playing a game of charades with the Canadian people.
The minister is saying, "I am going to give you a Christmas turkey," when in fact he is really giving our senior citizens an old pigeon. It is not costing the government one penny to bring forth this bill, Mr. Speaker. Here we have a government that brings forth a white paper on income security for Canadians, and then takes a
Old Age Security
so-called bold first step with regard to implementing its recommendations. All Canadians should be told that Bill C-202 is not costing them one penny. What it really is doing is redistributing poverty amongst senior citizens.
I would think the Parliamentary Secretary would not be happy if he really knew the impact of this bill. Yesterday, in rather glowing terms, he said, "You know, this white paper on income security for Canadians is a masterpiece." I would say it is a masterpiece of deception. It is really a social fraud that is being committed on Canadians.
I notice that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is in his seat, Mr. Speaker. This morning he directed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) seeking to learn the intention of the government with regard to changing the income tax exemption for children in families earning over $10,000. The hon. member knows that the government was clever enough to put through amendments to the Income Tax Act recently, which will mean that families earning over $10,000 will not be able to claim $550 per child exemption as they were able to do if they did not get family allowance, and instead will only be able to claim $300. Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to complete my remarks this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, prior to the luncheon recess I mentioned that I was sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not present but apparently he is away on government business. However, he is ably represented by his Parliamentary Secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I shall therefore direct my remarks to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary, and I am sure he will pass along my words of wisdom to the minister. I said, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-202 should not be called an act to amend the Old Age Security Act but should have a new name; it should be called an act to redistribute old age poverty because that is exactly what it is. I maintain that the government is playing a charade with the Canadian public and in trying to play the part of Santa Claus, instead of giving turkey for Christmas it is giving crow.
The Parliamentary Secretary claimed yesterday that the white paper on income security for Canadians is a masterpiece. I contend that it is a masterpiece of deception, and that the government really is committing a social fraud on Canadians. Bill C-202 is the first step in an attempt to implement this masterpiece of deception on the Canadian public, Mr. Speaker.

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security
I pointed out that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) had picked up another point with regard to family allowances. In a rather clever way, the government amended the Income Tax Act with the result that people earning over $10,000 a year will not be entitled to family allowance nor, Mr. Speaker, will they be able to claim the $550 deduction previously available. This will now be reduced to $300. This move is the second stage of the government's masterpiece of deception.
o (2:10 p.m.)
The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned yesterday that he had received many phone calls and letters from constituents in praise of the bill. In one of my question, I pointed out that he should consider replying to these people by informing them what will happen if the bill passes prior to Christmas. If the bill passes prior to Christmas, the people who are receiving the old age security pension, but who are not entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, will get a mere $80 as of January 1. Those who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement will receive it as of April 1. On the other hand, if this bill does not pass, and I expect Liberal members will try to help their aged constituents, the automatic 2 per cent escalation provision will remain in effect and those people, instead of getting $80, will receive $81.17. I am sure that government supporters will want to delay the passage of this bill so that our older people can obtain slightly more money.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is Winnipeg North Centre.


John Gilbert: I meant to say the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Speaker. He is our leading spokesman in this House on the matter of pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Gilbert: The poor old minister had difficulty in understanding what the hon. member said the other day in his speech. Clearly, the poor old minister had difficulty in understanding what was obvious. The hon. member, in his opening remarks, said that not only will this measure redistribute old age poverty, but that it is a bad bill. He set out his reasons for that and I shall develop his reasons as I go along.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this bill was a good bill and that he had received many compliments from his constituents. I think the minister and Liberal supporters ought to hear what other experts have to say about the bill and the white paper on income security. I wish to read an excerpt from the Toronto Telegram, of Tuesday, December 1. The article deals with what Dr. Frei, the director of the Metro Social Planning Council of Toronto and others had to say about the matter. The article reads in part:
Increases proposed for old age pensioners-minimums of $135 for single persons and $225 for couples-were less than our organization had asked the Government for, but a lot better than they have been getting.

'At least now pensioners shouldn't have to scrounge for food the way they have been.'
Dr. Frei-the director of the Metro Social Planning Council said the pension increases proposed would mean that pensioners 'are now slowly approaching the position where they can at least exist."
I thought the Parliamentary Secretary ought to know what the director of the Metro Social Planning Council of Toronto had to say about the subject. The article goes on to report what Miss Ethel Neilson, president of the Senior Women's Committee for Pension Increases had to say: The article reports that she:
-did not lament the proposed dropping of cost-of-living increments to pension.
'The increases were so small they really didn't make much of a difference anyway.' she said.
Although she said her group had been hoping for an increase to $150 a month for single pensioners, the proposed $135 would be a significant improvement.
'At least now people will have enough to buy adequate food.'
She voiced a fear that was repeated by several of those commenting on the proposals-that landlords would nullify proposed benefits by increasing pensioners' rents.
'I would like to see them freeze rents for old age pensioners', Miss Neilson said.
According to David Maben, head of St. Christopher House, which is in constant touch with pensioners in the city's depressed west end, increases in rent take place whenever pensions are raised.
Miss Neilson added that even with the proposed increases, pensioners would not be able to afford to buy new clothes. And the lodging they would be able to afford would still consist of shabby one-room fiats with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be acutely aware of the comments of people such as these. I hope, after the bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for study, that the committee will travel across Canada, meet in the different highly populated centres, and hear representations of bodies such as the Social Planning Council, various welfare organizations, and so on, in order to gain an inside view of the difficulties of those old age pensioners with whom such organizations must deal. The committee ought to travel across Canada and listen to the views of pensioners. Not only that it should, as a group, go into the homes of pensioners, into the shabby flats that Miss Neilsen mentioned, and see how they live every day. They should see what food they buy, partake of a meal with the pensioners and see what sort of clothing pensioners can afford. That ought to be done before the legislation passes. That is the type of study we need in connection with this particular bill.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Tell the committee to bring their lunch and not partake of a poor pensioner's meal.


John Gilbert: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take notice of this advice, and 1 hope the committee will travel across Canada to hear the views of those different organizations that deal with our senior citizens.
December 4, 1970

You know, Mr. Speaker, it is about time we took pensions out of politics. I recall that in 1957, after the Liberal government of the day attempted to increase pensions by $6, from $40 to $46, it was defeated. The Conservative government was elected in 1957. As I say, they won the election and the Liberals were referred to as the "six buck boys" On assuming power, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), immediately increased the old age pension to $55. This was welcome news for the senior citizens. Since then, the pension has been increased by amounts of $10, and now it is at the level of $75 plus the 2 per cent cost of living provision. As a result of the legislation we are now considering, Liberal members will not any longer be called the "six buck boys"; they will be called the "ten cent boys". Let me tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
As of January 1, our old age pensioners will be receiving $80. That is an increase of 42 cents over the present pension of $79.58. That 42 cents a month works out to approximately ten cents a week. For that reason, instead of being tagged as the six dollar boys, the Liberals will be tagged as the "ten cent boys".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The pensioners will get less than ten cents a week.


John Gilbert: As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says, our pensioners will get less than ten cents a week. That is a fine Christmas gift for our government to give our pensioners. I am sure that hon. members will be proud to tell the senior citizens of their ridings that they are to get an increase of less than ten cents a week.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Brother, can you spare a dime?


John Gilbert: Nor is that all. Beginning on January 1, many of our pensioners will be denied the benefit of the 2 per cent escalation clause. Can you imagine that! If this bill does not pass during the present session, some of our pensioners will get $81.17. If it should pass, they will get only $80. In addition, they will be denied the benefit of the 2 per cent increase that is designed to take care, in part, of increases in the cost of living. Is this something that Liberal members ought to be proud of when they return to their constituencies and face the senior citizens of their ridings?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: No, certainly not.


John Gilbert: I am not proud of this bill, and I would not wish to be part and parcel of this type of legal chicanery that is being imposed on Canadians at this time.
Not long ago the Minister of Finance, in one of his ebullient remarks, said that a single person could live on $30 a week. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took him up on this and proposed a motion for testing the Minister of Finance. The motion asked the minister to live on $30 a week for a few months, and then report
Old Age Security
to the House his experience. The minister did not accept that challenge. This morning the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) invited the Minister of Finance to attempt to live on approximately $39 a week. This is the amount the average unemployed person receives in unemployment insurance benefits. The Minister of Finance did not accept the challenge. Is it any wonder?
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The Senate Committee on Poverty, and other committees, found that it cost $1,800 for a single person to exist in Canada in the year 1968. The figure for 1970 is $1,944. In 1968, the amount a married couple needed to exist in Canada was $3,000. The figure for 1970 is $3,240. A single person receiving the basic pension of $80 and the income supplement of $53 a month receives $1,620 per year. This is far below the poverty line set by the Senate Committee on Poverty. The amount required by a married couple in 1970 is $3,240. Under the proposed legislation they will be receiving $255 a month or $3,020 a year. This is the type of legislation the government has introduced.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) stated this morning, these people will not only be living below the poverty line, but they will be taxed as well. A single person will be taxed on any moneys he receives over $1,100. In other words, a single person who receives $1,620 will be taxed on $525 at a rate of 15 per cent. This amounts to $75. With a deduction from the pension of $75, a person will be living far below the poverty line. The same situation applies to married couples. There was no magnanimity on the part of the Minister of Finance with regard to removing these people from under the income tax umbrella. Is it any wonder the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has called this a bad bill?
We must not lose sight of the fact that it was Mr. J. S. Woodsworth who forced the government to introduce pensions. When they were first introduced, they were in the amount of a miserable $20 a month. In addition, a means test was required. Since that time there has been a steady progression with regard to increases and changes in principle.
In 1951 a very important principle was implemented, the principle of universality. From 1951 to 1966 all Canadians, regardless of their income, received the basic pension. In 1966, the guaranteed income supplement was introduced. Attached to that guaranteed income supplement was an escalation clause which provided that if the cost of living increased more than 2 per cent in any one year, the old age pension would be increased by 2 per cent. Experience has shown that in Canada the cost of living has increased substantially more than 2 per cent per year since that time. Old age pensioners have not only received the basic $75, but the 2 per cent escalation.
We have developed two principles. One, the principle of universality and, two, the principle of the escalation clause related to the cost of living. "What are we doing in this legislation? We are casting aside the principle with regard to universality and limiting the principle related to escalation. Hon. members should realize that experi-

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security
ence in European countries indicates that they moved first with regard to the principle of universality, then to the principle of selectivity and back to the principle of universality. I think the reason is obvious. I think it will become more obvious to Canadians if this legislation is adopted. Selectivity creates a tremendous divisiveness between members of the community. Some senior citizens will be receiving $80 a month, some will be receiving $135 a month and some married couples receiving $255 a month. Instead of applying the principle of universality, the principle of selectivity is being applied. Experience m different countries has shown that the divisiveness created between members of the community cannot be tolerated. These are the reasons that we say this is a bad bill.
A.	few years ago the Liberal government adopted the famous phrase "war on poverty". They have not yet fired a single shot. They have not yet even coped with the battle. In fact, they have copped out. They have not even attempted to get on to the battle ground in order to fight. At one time poverty was considered in the sense of absolute, total deprivation. Today, it not only means a lack of income, but a lack of opportunities for good health education, meaningful employment and recreational facilities, the things that develop self respect, a sense of worth and integrity which should be regarded as normal in the community.
I can do no better, Mr. Speaker, than to quote from the Fifth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada with regard to the approach to poverty in this country:
We believe that serious poverty should be eliminated in Canada, and that this should be designated as a major national goal. We believe this for two reasons. The first is that one of the wealthiest societies in world history, if it also aspires to be a Just Society, cannot avoid setting itself such a goal. Secondly, poverty is costly.
It also said that poverty in Canada is real, that the numbers affected are not in the thousands but the millions, and that there is more of it than our society can tolerate or our economy afford.
And the council defined a poverty line, in money terms. This summer Senator David Croll, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Poverty, took the council's figures, made the adjustment for an 8 per cent increase in the cost-of-living since, and came up with the following:
Poverty, for one person, began in 1968 at $1,800; in 1970, this was $1,944. Two persons, $3,000; now $3,240. Three, $3,600; now $3,888. Four, $4,200; now $4,536. And, he said, the point below which poverty begins rises thereafter by $600 for each child.
If, as the government wants, we are to have a just society, surely this should be one of our national goals. Bill C-202 is not the proper approach. When we talk about poverty, we should talk about the over-all situation. \\re should not merely talk about income for senior citizens, but decent housing, medical and recreational services for these people. With regard to decent housing for senior citizens, we have barely scratched the surface. There is one senior citizens project in my constituency. Names must be placed on a waiting list and the waiting time varies between four and five years. Is it any wonder that I say this proposal merely scratches the surface?
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
As to medical services, when these people require hospital treatment they get it, but after treatment they are often obliged to move to a convalescent home and most of our hospitalization schemes do not cover the costs of these homes. So, whatever money they have saved is quickly depleted by the cost of nursing services. Surely, when we are dealing with senior citizens we should concern ourselves not only with income at these levels but with housing and medical services, the total picture.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, in his eloquent speech on Wednesday, set forth his reasons for calling the government's proposals a "redistribution of old age poverty". Some hon. members who are in the chamber today were not present on that occasion and I think I should attempt again to impress upon the government just what he meant. As of January 1, a single person will receive $1,620 a year and a couple will receive $3,060. At the present time a single person receives $111.41, and under the new provision will receive $135.70, a net increase of $23.59 subject to income tax. This is, if he is entitled to the full income supplement. A couple now receives $222.82 and under the new provision they will receive $255; the difference is $32.28, or $16.09 each. This is the so-called gift the government is making-a difference of $23.59 to a pensioner who is entitled to a full guaranteed income supplement and $16.09 to a married person and also to his wife.
All we are doing is shifting poverty around, and my friend was perfectly right in his assertion. The figures show that 60 per cent of those receiving old age pensions will be receiving some form of guaranteed income supplement and that the other 40 per cent is made up of people who are receiving only $80. Ten per cent of these are in the wealthy class, probably like some of the members of the Liberal party who have additional incomes.


David Anderson: Speak for yourself; you are a lawyer in Broadview.


Mr.   Olio@: A rich lawyer from Broadview.


John Gilbert: The other 30 per cent are people whose incomes range from $2,200 to $4,500-$2,200 for single persons and $4,500 for married people. Would you say, Mr. Speaker, that these are rich persons in Canada today? I would not think so. These incomes place them almost below the poverty line. Yet, these are the men and women who would be denied the benefit of the 2 per cent escalation provision and be given an increase amounting to less than 10 cents a week. We are certainly fortunate to have among us experts on pensions, such as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, who can point out to us that the people who will suffer, 30 per cent, or 510,000 of the 1,700,000 drawing pensions, are people receiving total incomes of between $2,200 and $4,500. Is this being fair to our senior citizens?
I have a few minutes left to me, and I should like to direct my attention to the idea of a guaranteed annual

December 4, 1970

income. Yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) spoke forcibly and eloquently on this subject. In substance, he said we could not afford it. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre reminded him that this has been the story of every Liberal government in the past when increases in pensions were proposed.


Mr. Francis:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has referred to my remarks yesterday and I believe he is obliged to quote them correctly. The context of my remarks was not the guaranteed annual income proposal but the universal payment of $150 a month to pensioners proposed by his friend from Winnipeg North Centre.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I must bring it to the attention of the hon. member that his question of privilege is merely a point of debate. If we were to allow questions of privilege with regard to the interpretation of speeches by hon. members, it would prevent us from progressing in the debate.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With the greatest respect, the hon. member is misquoting me. That is not a question of debate; it is a fact which can readily be verified by reference to Hansard.


John Gilbert: If I misquoted the hon. member for Ottawa West, I will rephrase what I said. He may be right with reference to his remark concerning the demo-grant of $150 in accordance with the universality principle. He said it would cost too much. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre reminded the hon. member for Ottawa-West that this was the story which has been told time and time again with regard to any proposal for increasing old age pensions.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: But it was not a guaranteed income I referred to.


John Gilbert: Hon. members will recall when another Liberal government was defeated in 1957 in connection with its proposal to increase the old age pension by $6-they were called the "six buck boys". Perhaps they will now be known as the 10 cents a week boys, or the 42 cents a month boys. I thought there was at least something they could learn. When we establish the principle of universality, and make looking after our senior citizens a national goal, surely we can find the money to take care of them.
We in the New Democratic Party say there should be a demogrant of $150 a month. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre says that if this is not considered possible we should take a first step by making it $100 a month for each person with a $50 supplement. The hon. member wrinkles his nose like a ravished virgin and asks: Where does the money come from? He cannot come up with the answer. It is unfortunate. We are in favour of the demogrant because it affirms the principle of universality, because it minimizes the division within the 23565-41
Old Age Security
community and gives to Canadians a sense of dignity, a sense of worth and a sense of accomplishment.
A few months ago a debate took place on the subject of a guaranteed annual income and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) set forth our beliefs. He told the House that two myths had arisen with regard to this proposal. The first was that any such scheme would be abused. I am not going to take the time to quote the experts, but these studies have shown that less than 5 per cent of the people in receipt of welfare abuse that privilege. Therefore, the myth of abuse is exploded.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Second, we have the myth that if you give people money, they have no incentive to work. In this regard we are fortunate that a welfare experiment was carried out in New Jersey, because that experiment revealed that people who do receive money of a welfare nature do not lose their incentive to work. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) is a United Church minister, one who I am sure would want to translate the mind and the spirit of the Christian doctrine into lay action. He has agreed that the exper'ment conducted in New Jersey was one which had exploded the myth regarding abuse and regarding removing incentive to work. I would expect him to rise in his place and speak with the eloquence of a Cicero and the strength of a Billy Graham and let the Canadian people know that it is about time we maintained the principle of universality; that the principle of selectivity will create a divisiveness that is not worthy of Canadians. I am waiting for his speech and hoping that he will oppose this niggardly approach to the senior citizens of Canada.
In closing, may I say I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have the strength and courage, when the bill is referred to the committee, to travel across the country to hear the representations of different groups and will reconsider this poor principle of selectivity as well as the restriction on escalation. I trust he will rise and speak against it, indeed that we will all speak against it. I hope the government will bring forth a bill that wih not only provide for $150 a month but an escalation provision that will keep pace with the cost of living. This will be our goal, and we shall strive hard to achieve this end.


David Anderson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich rising for the purpose of asking a question?


David Anderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Broadview would permit me I would like to ask him a question with regard to the motion that was refused earlier this day requiring the President of the Treasury Board to live on $58 a week for one year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the Minister of Finance.

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security


David Anderson: My apologies, I should have said the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). If the hon. member is putting this forward, as did his colleague for Regina East today, in a serious way, I hope both he and the hon. member for Regina East, not forgetting their wealthy colleague from York South, have taken steps to do this very thing. Otherwise, it appears to me that once more the members of the New Democratic Party are saying: "Don't do what we do, do what we say", which is the double standard and the double talk that we so often hear from the members of that party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Broadview.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as Your Honour so often says, I am wondering just when the hon. member is going to get to his question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Broadview for the purpose of answering a question. Is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni rising for the purpose of speaking in this debate?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member's question. I am happy to see so many members in the House this afternoon, since attendance on Friday afternoons is usually pretty thin. When we proposed to the Minister of Finance that he live on $39.60 a week, which is the average unemployment insurance benefit a person would receive, we were challenging the Minister of Finance to do just that. One thing I like about the type of government we have is that there is a front bench on which sit men who are attempting to lead the country. If these men do not accept that challenge, then it does not give us very much strength to proceed. What we need is acceptance of such a challenge, in the same way as yesterday they accepted the challenge to withdraw the Auditor General bill.
I am sure that the hon. member for Eskimo, or rather Esquimau-it sounds to me so much like an ice cream sandwich I have difficulty remembering his constituency.


Mr. Dinsdale:: "Boloney sandwich".


John Gilbert: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is a single man, one who has not had the responsibility of marriage or children. Nevertheless, he could be representative of single people in Canada, and if he could live on $39 a week and accepts the challenge, I too will accept the same challenge and live on $39 a week, plus an allowance for a married man and for children. Then, we will have a real battle.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's failure to answer my question, I think a supplementary question is in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret I must advise the hon. member for Broadview that his

time has expired, and it is not in order to accept a further question unless he has unanimous consent of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us hear the supplementary question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take but a few minutes to comment on item 44 standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). I think the speeches so far in this debate from both sides of the House have pinpointed most of the issues. I want to add my few words and say it seems to me that, although this bill is essentially a limited one which seeks merely to amend the Old Age Security Act, what we have before us is but one approach in a broad spectrum of approaches to attempt to eliminate and reduce poverty in Canada.
Poverty will be attacked through various mechanisms, such as family allowance, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Act and other measures. I shall not go into any of those in detail; this can, and I hope will, be done in committee.
It is my opinion that a guaranteed income in Canada in this technological age that we have entered, and in which we are destined to live for some time, is inevitable. Sooner or later we will have to have a total, integrated plan for a guaranteed income that is apphed across the board. What we have at the present time, if I may be permitted to describe it in the broadest sense, is just that, a guaranteed income. If you consider the programs to which I have just referred, plus the additional programs administered by the municipalities and provinces with the aid of federal financial assistance, there is no way a person, regardless of age can live below a certain economic standard. The problem is that that standard varies depending on a person's age.
For example, a man who is 64 is not eligible for certain benefits which he will receive only when he reaches the age of 65. The question is really a philosophical one. No member of this House would want to see a citizen of Canada forced to live below a certain level; but the issue boils down to one of finance. Can we afford to give people a certain income? Can we afford to establish a higher guaranteed income in Canada? If we can we must then ask ourselves how much it will cost. I suppose some hon. members might quite logically ask whether we can afford not to provide it. It seems to me there are good arguments on both sides.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
If I can deal with those arguments for a moment, I should like to say that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) quoted accurately from what I said as recorded in Hansard for April 6, that the research done
December 4, 1970

in New Jersey and also in Calgary, Alberta, confirm the fact that, contrary to what most Canadians continue to believe and which our culture tends to support, aid to people in the low income bracket does not take away or diminish initiative.
I think if we are going to talk about this we have to recognize that our culture, as it is today, still has a kind of hangover or legacy from the day when it was accepted that it was good to work and bad to be unemployed or shiftless and not to work. Therefore people, even if they wanted to work but could not find employment and were forced to go on any welfare scheme, because of the nuances of our culture, were prodded very quickly to go to work again. This is not a personal opinion. I can substantiate that statement very thoroughly by the excellent study done by the University of Wisconsin through an organization known as Mathematica Incorporated of Princeton, New Jersey. It can also be substantiated by the work done in Paterson, Passaic and Trenton as well as a number of other places including Princeton, New Jersey. These studies revealed that when people were given more assistance they helped themselves and moved away on their own initiative from the poverty line.
It might be worth while to read their conclusions. The data suggests there is no evidence that work effort declined among those receiving income support payments. On the contrary, there is an indication that the work effort of those receiving payments increased relative to the work effort of those not receiving payments. The study goes on to state that a number of in-depth interviews of participants in the project were conducted in order to determine the attitudes of individuals toward work. These interviews clearly indicated that low income people are strongly motivated toward work. The majority of those interviewed indicated that they aspired for better jobs and were willing to move to another city or take training even if it meant a pay cut, on a short term basis, in order to get the jobs. The majority also indicated that they were willing to work at two jobs in order to support their families.
Research in England has also shown that high tax rates on those of high income, and this is putting a lie to another widely held opinion in our culture, does not lower the incentive to work. It seems to me if you combine that with the Calgary research, which indicates that about 95 per cent of those who receive assistance did merit it, a fairly substantial case can be put forward for saying that assistance does not diminish the work effort of people.
However, there is one question still unanswered toward which we have not directed our attention, and that is: What would happen in a culture where everybody thought it was a respectable thing not to work and pay your own way? This is really an unanswered question, but this is an area which leaves me with some doubt. The work incentive was the subject of the New Jersey and the Calgary research and other projects, but did these projects produce the results they did produce because those, studied were a microcosmic group within a total culture that still continues to be work-oriented? I suspect they did.
Old, Age Security
We cannot simply assume, since in a work-oriented culture most of the people are providing themselves for their advanced years and putting some money aside, that if we help some who are, shall we say, honestly poor through no fault of their own and they take the aid they receive and use it to better themselves because they want to be like the majority that the same would happen in a new culture. We have to ask a more profound question. You see, this would be a turnabout, a different issue altogether. What happens when the majority is in the position of being the recipients of guaranteed incomes and it is only the minority who are the producers, the workers or self-motivators? What would be the cultural pressures at work then? Would research like that in New Jersey produce the same results?
I think that the principle this bill suggests is a good one because it says that we in society have an obligation to help those who are indeed poor and who cannot help themselves. But we also have an obligation to continually encourage people to help themselves. It is one thing to help someone who cannot help himself, but it seems to me it is another thing to take any steps which would prevent a person, who could very well help himself, from doing so. In spite of the problems inherent within the selectivity scheme, and in spite of the fact that there will be times when people will be dishonest, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out this morning, and in spite of the fact we are going to have this divisiveness mentioned by the previous speaker, namely that it will be possible to have two persons'^ receiving old age pensions, one, of whom will be receiving a lot of supplement and the other receiving hardly' any, I do not see any better way now available to us in Canada to help those who genuinely need to be helped short of a guaranteed income across the board.
If we provide a guaranteed income across the board we must again ask how high we are prepared to go? If we put it too high, we are going to be in the position of literally changing our culture. I am not afraid of turning the culture around. It might well be that the time has come, again in a modern age, when we ought to turn the culture around and look at it from the other side. But before we do turn it around so that we conclude that to look after one's self is no longer the ideal, let us remember that in Canada at this moment there are many hundreds of thousands of citizens, whom we all here represent, who feel very strongly that there ought to be more ot us stand in this chamber and say: Look, Mr Citizen you also have a responsibility for yourself.
And that too is important. As an hon. member has mentioned, I am in my third profession, but one of them is being a clergyman. When I went to my first parish in northern Ontario, before I lived in the residence for two hours I had 20 transients at my door. So, you have to do a lot of thinking about whom you do or do not help, who is in need and who is not. Then, you begin to take seriously how you help people who are transients off a rail line. You have to ask yourself a more searching question.	&
I used to say this to the men who would come to my door: Do you really think I should help you to keep doing
23568-4U

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security
what you are doing? In other words, I had to choose to terminate their existence as bums or help them continue living as bums. It is the same thing for the government [DOT] if Canada in respect of poverty in Canada. No matter what you do it is the wrong thing. If you say no, you are always left with the haunting feeling that perhaps this was the one of two or maybe the one out of four-take your fractions any way you wish-who was the honest man who was down on his luck and whom you should have helped. We must help the poor. But we must not help or encourage the poor to live as they do. In any individual case you must ask whether this is the honest type of man who is down on his luck and who should be helped. On the other hand, perhaps it is the type of person who would, as so many do-and I am giving an extreme example here-take the aid you would give him or them, as in an example I remember, and cast it aside.
I recall once being rather taken in by a fellow, in retrospect. I obtained a good pair of boots for him and was disturbed to find that he had thrown them over the fence into the yard of the next door neighbour. If you help a person who is honest and genuinely poor, no sooner than you do someone else comes along who will spoil the situation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
If we can retain a culture in North America in which it is good to work, then we should have no fear of having all the income security plans we wish and all the guaranteed income we can provide because people will reluctantly live in that manner. But we must always be looking further and further ahead and asking ourselves whether we possess a culture in which the day will come when the majority will be among those who are willing to take what is handed out, ride free on someone else's ticket without qualm and the social pressures to work which surrounded the people studied in New Jersey.
Recognizing the monetary limitations we have to accept within our nation, recognizing the desperate need to do something about the genuinely honest poor, and recognizing-as many members have pointed out-the fact that when you come to the breakoff line of any program that is attached to a selectivity or means test type of approach there will be a large area in which there will be discrimination between honest and responsible people and some dishonest people who will take advantage of the program, the step we have taken is really the only one open to us.
We must remember that we must inevitably move in the direction of a guaranteed annual income, adding the caveat that as we do that I hope some organization or institution in Canada will begin massive research into this question: When the general attitude prevails that people ought to provide for themselves, one can receive aid and at the same time have a greater incentive to help oneself. But if the whole culture was no longer work-oriented, could we expect these same benefits to accrue from the same program? This is a fundamental question of urgency now. With those remarks I would hope this bill could be referred to the committee as rapidly as possible, where it can be dealt with in detail.
[Mr. McBride.l


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my few remarks with an expression of thankfulness in respect of this bill. Long ago I was taught to be thankful for small mercies. By Zeus, this is a small one! I notice the Ciceronian member who preceded me ended in the growing tradition that once an individual expresses himself, he then suggests the matter move on quickly to the committee. Surely he will allow me a benediction after his sermon.
I enjoyed the hon. member's remarks both this afternoon and when he made them earlier in another debate. I appreciate the fact that he is sticking by his convictions.
I was a little surprised when my hon. Presbyterian friend from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said this morn'ng he was going to act like a Methodist preacher. I thought that was carrying the ecumenical movement a bit too far! I also enjoyed his remarks. I think a matter of this kind requires that we look a little deeper than usual and that we do not fear being profound on these matters which are in large measure a general appraisal of some pretty fundamental things in our society.
I mentioned the small mercies and I do confess, as did the leader of our party the other day, to a feeling of intellectual deflation

an unusual word at this time-concerning the presentation of this measure and, indeed, the white paper by the minister. It seems that in recent years the political life of this country has been characterized by a deliberate process of inflating the expectations of the Canadian people. It seems to me there is always an immense governmental and administrative labouring, followed by an overdue birth of some legislative mice or, to use the jargon of the day, some dwarf demogrants.
So often we are presented with white paper upon white paper and have a study following a series of preceding studies, and always there is dripping from this process the expectations of tremendous things to come for the Canadian people. I suppose that is part of the charismatic age. Charisma was a concept once known to political scientists and theologians; now it is a handmark of the practising politician in some sectors and in some countries. Very careful use of slogans is adduced to bring forth a response of great expectation. One of the great elections of this country was characterized by a couple of slogans. One was the just society, and another was the appeal to preserve national unity. I read now that even the slogan "the just society" has been discarded. I feel that if the slogan is gone, then it is all gone.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is all there ever was.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In this debate I cannot talk about national unity but I do think an awful lot about what has happened to it. This should not surprise me, because even Dickens' "Great Expectations" had a sad tone. We never seem to end this process. I was wondering where the man now in charge of the Post Office was. I am not referring to the incumbent Postmaster General, who is present, but rather the other one. I discovered he is in Britain and that we are studying, through the minister, something we have studied in the last few years through all sorts of research. I refer to the questions of the zip code and the
December 4, 1970

transfer to a Crown corporation. How much studying do we need?
Today hon. members have discussed, and could not help but discuss in respect of a bill of this kind, the question of poverty. We have had wars on poverty, committees on poverty, studies on poverty and hearings on poverty. We are investigating it, we are fighting it, we are trying to measure it, and the poverty line seems to be moving. There are differences of opinion concerning who is poor, but there is a profound feeling that there are far too many poor people today. If I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) correctly last night, 10 per cent of the people are in the rich category and the rich category starts at $10,000 a year. So the poverty line is a mighty big net which draws in a great many Canadians. Whatever the statistical precision of this day on the poverty line's location, there are far too many people below it.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is a terrible thing that this country that we talk about as proud, as glorious and as free, this country that Laurier said would have the twentieth century in its hands, should be a country in which there is so much unemployment, so much poverty, so much drag upon economic growth and so much dissatisfaction from people who look to the state for a return for their efforts on behalf of the state.
On this quiet, thoughtful, friendly afternoon it is not my intention to say everything I would like to say, or indeed to take all my time. I would like to be generous and give a few minutes to the other fellows. But I am troubled by many things in this measure-not just the amount. 1 think a lot about this whole question of the means test, if that is not too archaic a word. I am just old enough, at 51, to remember some of the pitiful, painful degradation through which Canadians passed as, in an earlier day, they tried to qualify for the mere pittance of old age pensions, as they were then called, which were doled out by penurious and callous governments of all sorts.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) spoke about people cheating. I am too gentle a man to use that word, but certainly people did present themselves in lights which were probably not quite accurate, and many people turned over property to others. They thought it was a gesture, so that they could prove to the state that they were impoverished. And the poor devils discovered the only reality perhaps in the whole wretched business was the divesting by themselves of their little bit of property. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a built-in concern about the means test. I think it is an iniquitous thing which has blighted people. It made people do things before the emanations of the state that citizens should not be called upon to do.
Perhaps we have reached an age of sophistication where just because we have changed the name-we do not use means test any more; we talk about negative income tax and the needs test-we have reached the stage where we can obviate the necessity for these degrading procedures. But I am not yet convinced of that.
Old Age Security
I wish I were, because I know that the people in the elder group in our society today are having a very, very hard time. In earlier civilizations, to be old was to be honoured, perhaps to be revered, and the expression "the elders among us" was an accolade. Now the older citizen is apt to be thrust aside because we live in an age where one has to be new, modern, or young, or pretend to be one of those. Perhaps the virtues and values which a long life gives are improperly regarded and insufficiently valued. And so, to the economic problems of the old comes the social problem, and at times indeed perhaps it is a spiritual problem.
I am troubled and others have mentioned this-that those in the old age pension sector are regarded as pawns in political infighting. That was certainly the case, Mr. Speaker, and there is a little of that yet. But I think there is less of it because of the government which was led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
There was a very clever sort of campaign for years that unless you were a supporter of the party of Mackenzie King, you were somehow likely to be opposed not only to old people but to welfare generally. I can well recall campaigning in 1956 for the election of 1957-1 knew I needed a head start-and a dear old lady saying to my colleague, now the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), and to myself-there was nothing senile about the lady, but she was very concerned-"They tell me that if you people get in we will lose our pensions." I thought how base, how terrible for someone to try to indoctrinate that poor soul with the evil consequences of a Conservative victory.
That is why I have always been proud of the fact that the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert laid at rest those Kingsian suggestions and post-Kingsian suggestions that the party of Macdonald and the party of Borden had any lack of concern for the social welfare of Canadians, old and young. So I think it is less an issue today than it was, and I think that that is an improvement.
Thoughtful students of gerontocracy and the care of the aged are concerned today that our society is not doing enough to find useful activity for older people. I do not want to quote New Jersey, Princeton, or even Cal-fiury, but careful, thoughtful studies in this area reveal a tremendous area of useful activity for people who, according to our public service regulations and according to the personnel requirements of the private sector, are too old, are on the shelf. It is well known that useful, creative activity is of tremendous value in enriching the life, physical and spiritual, of older people and indeed perhaps in prolonging it; and the prolongation of useful life is surely a cherished goal of our society.
But if we have a system whereby the useful activity and the creativity of the elderly person puts him in the situation where his earnings are diminished, then you are back to where you started when the means test was abolished, because the big argument for the abolition of the means test was that it discouraged savings, the frugal habits of life. Now, again, when I use those expressions I show myself as someone who is very old or who reads

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security
history because now, of course, we must talk about incentives. This is one aspect that troubles me. I do not think we should make it more difficult for people to be active and, indeed, to be gainfully active.
Another observation that I must make in connection with the white paper and the general approach which is put forward-I do not pretend to disagree with everything in the white paper; it would be both narrowminded and dishonest if I said that-is that I think there must be greater sensitivity on the part of government as a whole and all emanations of it. The thing that troubles me very much is the way in which senior citizens are put to great discomfort. I know many, many people who receive war veterans allowance. Then they reach a stage where they come up against the guaranteed annual supplement, and there are months when they are cut down in their payments and they do not know why; they cannot understand what bureaucracy, what the government, the state, is doing.
I find great areas of insensitivity. For instance, one I have been troubled about for a long time-and I am meeting insensitivity myself as I take it up with government-concerns a person who was confined to a nursing home, an ill person. An up-to-date nursing home if at all possible will get the patient out of bed for a little exercise. That is good medical care. But, by Jove, the person will discover that unless he or she stays in bed for ever and ever, the expense will be disallowed. That person is not considered a bed patient, yet those who are looking after his or her health will properly make every effort to get them out of bed on all reasonable occasions.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A little while ago I had a conversation with a political observer who said, "I believe this government is going to call an election. In this country, when governments start jacking up old age pensions it always means they are going to call an election." I reflected upon that for a moment and felt that it was unlikely because it was only a few years ago that we had one.


An hon. Member:: That is a Tory tactic.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But when the book was opened and I saw the 42 cents there, I was convinced that no amount of charisma, no prolongation of Information Canada-


Gerald William Baldwin: And no slouch-hat!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -no appeal, re-appeal or white paper could make that look sufficiently attractive. No one can make 42 cents look like a munificent abundance, even at the Christmas season. So I told this man I did not think there would be an election over this issue or any other; but I think he had long since divined that such was the case.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, again and again the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro)
have told the people of Canada that the government proposes that the rich will be asked to pay the cost of meeting the needs of the poor, the old and the sick. This bill which we are discussing is supposedly the first step toward the bright new world which this social security system will bring.
It would be interesting, however, if this House and the people of Canada could see what the government has successfully hidden; if they could see the study on social security prepared by Dr. Willard, and the white paper tabled by the minister. In the light of past studies and testimony given by Dr. Willard, I am sure there is a world of difference between what he proposed and what the government has decided is politically feasible and attractive.
There is nothing in these proposals, Mr. Speaker, which can be taken to mean what the Prime Minister has said so often, that the rich will be asked to pay to help the poor. What is being asked is that the poor pay to help those who are even more poor. It is obvious that the payments already made to the old age security fund, and the increased payments which are now called for, will provide sufficient money to pay the increased benefits proposed for those who qualify for the supplement.
I am sure many members on the government side share our concern about this division of people receiving old age pensioners. Many of us are concerned about 800,000 people now receiving the old age pension, those who have been getting the basic pension of $75 a month set forth in the legislation of 1966 plus the cost of living bonus which brought their total up to $79 a month. As of January, 1971, they would have received $81 a month, but with the passage of this bill that $81 will be reduced. In fact, we will be telling those 800,000 people that from January, 1971, they will receive not more than $80 a month and there will be no increase in that fixed amount.
In the province of Manitoba, almost 50 per cent of the
94,000	people receiving old age benefits receive no guaranteed income supplement. Are they rich people, as implied by the Prime Minister? Are they so wealthy that they do not need the extra income? Of course that is not true. A few of them may have supplementary incomes but most of those receiving the old age pension alone are existing because they have modest savings or a pension, in many cases, based on employment before or just after World War II when wages were very much lower than they are today so the pension is relatively low.
I do not intend to put the figures on the record but hon. members know that over the years the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has asked many questions about CNR and CPR pensions. Members know that only a small percentage of former employees of the CNR, Air Canada, CPR or even of the city of Winnipeg have any other pension. For the most part, these people have incomes of between $2,500 and $4,200 a year. Not only will they be denied a supplement to their basic pension but it will be fixed at the niggardly amount of $80 a month.
Senator Croll's committee on poverty has done important and useful work. It is not often that I feel inclined to

December 4, 1970

compliment members of the Senate, but this committee has been doing fine work. The Economic Council of Canada had issued figures establishing the poverty line and Senator Croll's committee brought these figures up-to-date. Now it is estimated that a single person with an income of less than $3,200 a year, or a family of four with an income of less than $4,500 a year is living in poverty. This means that a large percentage of the people who do not qualify for the income supplement are living in poverty, yet these are the people who will be locked into poverty in the future by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, who are these rich people who will not receive the guaranteed income supplement, who will be limited to an increase of 42 cents a month-less than ten cents a week, as estimated by my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)? The single person over 65 years of age who has other income of $110 a month will not qualify for the supplement. Is the single person earning $190 a month or $2,280 a year the person the Prime Minister was referring to when he said that the rich would have to pay to help the poor? I do not accept that. I know that the people of Canada will not accept it. I suppose we ought to be thankful for small mercies. Because of the increased benefits to be brought in, the number of people in the group I have talked about will be reduced from 800,000 to 500,000. I am referring to people with incomes between $3,500 and $4,000 a year.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What we are proposing to do in this bill is much too little for our citizens who will live in the affluent Canada of the 1970s, and it is much too late. We in this party have proposed a pension of $150 a month payable at age 65 without any means or needs test or other income qualification. I expect it is too much to expect this government to accept that proposal. They would say it is too generous and that we cannot afford it. I deny that. This debate is not an occasion for discussing what we can or cannot afford in this country. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare really want to know what we can afford, I suggest they should look at the recommendations of the Carter commission and then scrutinize the tremendous tax loopholes as a result of which oil companies, gas companies, land speculators, builders and others like them either escape the payment of taxes or pay very small amounts in taxes.
If we were to plug these tax loopholes, our proposal for paying $150 a month to everyone aged 65 and over would not be impractical at all. Even in the present circumstances I suggest that we could very easily think about a pension of $100 a month for those aged 65 and over, plus a guaranteed income supplement of $50 a month for a total of $150 a month. I do not for a moment believe we cannot afford that. I do not for a moment believe that if we had a fair taxation system, which at present we do not, the people of Canada would object to that kind of pension being given to our old people.
I now want to deal with another subject that has arisen repeatedly in this debate. The other day the hon. member
Old Age Security
for York East (Mr. Otto) castigated members of this party because we kept pleading for a universal old age pension plan. As we listened to him, it became obvious that for him and the government as a whole universality has become a dirty word. May I remind hon. members that it was a Liberal government which first eliminated the means test from the old age pension legislation; it was a Liberal government which made the old age pension universal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After 20 years of prodding.


David Orlikow: Of course, they had to be prodded. We shall continue prodding them. But it was a Liberal government which did that. I felt sorry that Liberal members such as the hon. member for York East virtually apologize for that. I think they ought to be proud of it. It was a Liberal government that established the hospitalization insurance plan. When the debate on the hospital insurance plan was taking place, I remember that the former Conservative Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin, argued very vehemently that the people of Canada did not need a universal hospital insurance plan and that all that was necessary was for the government to implement a hospital insurance plan for those who could not afford the sort of private plan to which others already belonged.
A former Minister of National Health and Welfare who is now the government House leader in the Senate, Senator Martin, demolished that argument completely and proved that the best way of providing for hospital insurance was through a universal plan to which everyone belonged and to which everyone contributed. It was a Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, which established a medical insurance plan based on universality. The same arguments were advanced then.
I remember the Conservative Premier of Manitoba arguing that we did not need a universal medical insurance plan, that we already had plans such as the Manitoba medical services private, non-profit plan and that there were commercial insurance companies such as the Great West Life which already insured a substantial percentage of the Canadian people. He argued that therefore we did not need a universal medical insurance plan. Mr. Roblin proposed that the medical insurance plan should cover only those people who were not already covered. Yet it was a Liberal government which decided, correctly, that the best way of meeting the needs of the Canadian people was through a universal insurance plan, a plan into which every citizen of Canada paid what he was required to pay and from which every citizen of Canada received benefits. The plan would pay certain of his medical bills.


Mr. Rock:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: I see the hon. member from the area of Montreal, who perhaps is the greatest exponent of private enterprise in this House, applauding what I have

December 4, 1970
Old Age Security
said. Previous Liberal governments thought everybody should be covered.


Raymond Rock: Of course they did.


David Orlikow: We in this party urged the government to adopt the universal approach.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member who has the floor. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is inquiring whether the hon. member who has the floor will permit a question.


David Orlikow: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has advocated a universal old age pension of $150 a month for every Canadian, without a means test. I should like to know whether he has an estimate of how much such a program would cost in addition to our existing program.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, these estimates have been made. When the bill is before the committee we shall bring the figures forward. I do not have them with me today, but they are available. I am not worried about the cost. My position is similar to that of a former Liberal Prime Minister, Louis St. Laurent. Although he had been a successful corporation lawyer he was not ashamed to take the old age pension. When questioned about it he said that he would pay back in taxes all the money which was required to pay his pension.
I have no doubt that the taxation system could support a pension of $150 a month which we have been proposing. I say to the hon. member for Algoma and to the hon. member for York East, do not be afraid of universality. It has been part of the program of Liberal governments over the years. If it was a good idea in the past, it is a good idea now. What interests me about the arguments being trotted out about the dangers of universality is this. The people who are arguing against universality and saying, "Let us devise an old age pension plan, or a welfare plan or a medical insurance plan only for those who need it," are the same people who so often make certain kinds of speeches in Parliament and outside.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If one reads the annual speeches of the president of the Chamber of Commerce or the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, he will again and again read strictures about how terrible it is that the number of civil servants in Canada continues to rise, and how terrible it is that the bureaucracy increases and becomes more expensive. I can think of no more simple way of increasing the number of civil servants than by having a needs test, means test or income investigation with
regard to the old age pension or the guaranteed income supplement. People will be required to carry out investigations. Accountants will have to ensure that people have not miscalculated.
I do not intend to deal with those who supposedly want to "milk" the plan. I believe the vast majority of people are inherently honest. They sometimes inadvertently make mistakes because they do not understand all the provisions of the plan, or for similar reasons. If this plan is accepted, accountants, bookkeepers, social workers and others will be required to investigate the incomes of those people applying for the supplement, to ensure that they are entitled to it. It is ludicrous that those people who argue that the plan should be based on need rather than being universal in scope are the same people opposed to increasing the number of civil servants.
This is not the time to discuss in detail a guaranteed annual income, a negative income tax or any of the other proposals which have been made. But these would cut down the number of civil servants required and would make life easier. They would eliminate the feeling of people who qualify for the old age pension or the guaranteed income supplement that there is something degrading about applying for it. If there were some form of annual guaranteed income or negative income tax, a person could simply fill out a form requesting assistance. I am referring to those who have reached retirement age, are sick, widowed or require extra income because of a chronically ill child. We would eliminate the fragmented and complicated systems which we now have in this country.
In the time remaining to me I wish to deal with the situation with regard to pensioners since the pension legislation was last amended in 1966. Many members of the government have tried to create the impression that through this legislation the government is proposing something very radical and generous. Under the new regulations, only 60 per cent of the people over 65 years of age will be entitled to the old age pension. If we look at the record of what has happened since 1966, we will see that this legislation is not in fact generous.
In 1966 a pension of $75 a month was set for everyone over the age of 65. It provided for the payment of a supplementary income of up to $30 a month for those who had little or no income. Since 1966 the consumer price index has increased by approximately 16 per cent. The 1966 legislation provided for an annual increase in the pension of 2 per cent a year. Members of this party yarned the government that they were making a serious mistake by shortchanging the old age pensioners. As a result of limiting the cost of living increase to 2 per cent a year, the old age pension has been increased by 6.1 per cent since 1966. The position of those receiving the old age pension has grown worse each year. Since 1966 they have suffered a reduction of 9.9 per cent.
By this bill the government intends to increase the supplementary payments only to those who qualify. A single person will be entitled to $135 a month, and a

December 4, 1970

married couple to $255 a month. This will merely put those people, with respect to real income, in the same position as they were in 1966. I submit this country is substantially more affluent than it was in 1966. In terms of real income we can afford to give them more than we could in 1966. By this legislation, those who qualify will return to the same position as in 1966. Those who do not qualify, 40 per cent of those now receiving the old age pension or approximately 500,000 people, will receive almost 10 per cent less than they received in 1966. In fact, they will continue to receive a fixed amount regardless of the increase in cost of living in future years.
Approximately 40 per cent of those now receiving the old age pension will not receive increased benefits because of the pension they receive as a result of employment before retirement. That amount is also fixed. In addition to their old age pension being reduced by almost 10 per cent, their cost of living will rise in the future. For those whose benefits will be increased to the same level as in 1966, their future increases will be limited to 2 per cent a year.
When introducing this bill, the minister made the astounding statement that he expected the cost of living would not rise more than 2 per cent a year, and therefore these people would be protected. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have not had a year in the last couple of years or more in which the cost of living index has not risen by more than 2 per cent, and there is no indication at all that in 1971, 1972, or 1973 the increase in the cost of living will be restricted to 2 per cent a year.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
What we are saying to these people is: We assure you that in 1971 your real income will be about the same as it was in 1966, but in 1972 or 1973 you will begin to fall behind again. This is not good enough for people who have spent their lives working and building this country and providing the basis upon which most of us are living pretty well. It seems to me we can do, and ought to do, much more for the old people than the government proposes.
In the few minutes I have left I wish to deal briefly with one other matter which it seems to me has been completely overlooked in the proposals the government has put forward. My hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) quoted what has been said by people working full-time with pensioners in the city of Toronto, but I am sure the same could be said of every city in Canada. What has happened every time there has been an increase in pensions is that to a large extent the increase has been eaten up almost immediately by an increase in the rents which people receiving the old age pension must pay. Few old age pensioners can afford to live in their own homes. There is not a Member of Parliament who does not receive every year scores of letters from old age pensioners complaining bitterly that as a result of increases, not just in the cost of living in general but in their local realty taxes, they cannot afford to continue to live in their own homes.
Old Age Security
In addition to these people there are thousands of old age pensioners who have never had their own homes, who because of the shortage of housing for people in the lower income brackets have always been restricted to living in one room or in shared accommodation in a house in the central part of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver or in other cities in Canada. For these people, the increase the minister is proposing will disappear in a month or two because the shortage of housing accommodation will permit landlords to increase rents. I had hoped that this government, which was elected largely on the slogan of the just society, would by now have come forward with an imaginative, aggressive program to provide housing accommodation for those who have retired and who simply cannot afford to live in accommodation provided by the private market.
We have made progress. My hon. friend from Broadview talked about the one old age housing project in his constituency. There is one in my constituency. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has one in his constituency, and I am sure there are similar facilities in every city in Canada. One needs to spend only a few minutes, although I have spent hours, in these housing projects which have been designed and built specially for old age pensioners, to realize the fantastic difference it has made in their lives, to realize that for the first time many of them have decent accommodation. For the first time they have recreational facilities, a place where they can get together with people of their own age, people with their own interests, to play a game of bridge or, as I saw in one of the old age projects in a constituency, a game of bingo in the afternoon, which they all enjoy.
But the number of old age pensioners who have this kind of opportunity is very small, probably not more than 5 per cent of the total and certainly not more than 10 per cent; and, as my hon. friend from Broadview said so eloquently a short while ago, the waiting period for those who want this kind of accommodation can be anywhere from three years to five years. Time after time, in the period between a couple making application for accommodation and the time the room or apartment becomes available, one of the applicants, the husband or the wife, dies. This is not something of which we can be proud. It was my hope that the government would have brought forward measures to indicate their real concern for the old people, a real program aimed at providing adequate living accommodation for them.
I wish to close by repeating what I said as I began my remarks. This is not a plan by which the rich will help to provide for the needs of the poor. It is a plan, deliberately designed, by which the poor will be called upon to make sacrifices in order that those who are even poorer may receive a little more. I think this is not good enough for the people of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.

December 4, 1970
Family Allowance Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance about the forthcoming business for the House? Yesterday the government House leader indicated that Monday would be devoted to the indoor pursuit of the budget. I now understand that according to arrangements made, Tuesday will be set aside for the budget as well, with a vote on the NDP subamendment if they think they can improve on our amendment. Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm this?


Mr. Mahoney:: That is correct. Monday and Tuesday will be devoted to the budget debate, and assuming an amendment and subamendment are forthcoming there will be a vote on Tuesday evening. On Wednesday I assume the old age security measure which we are now debating will again be discussed. However, that is a subject for further discussion among the House leaders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is good to have this information. I can assure the hon. member for Peace River that we shall improve upon his party's amendment.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the present Family Allowance Act to the advantage of all children in Canada less than 16 years old, to provide for increases to an amount of at least one dollar per day, increases which are absolutely necessary to justify adequate support to parents who still consent to prepare for our country the future generation of workers and, if necessary, of soldiers capable of defending it when needed. In addition, the House should study the means of earmarking the necessary amounts for payment of these family allowances from the national production of goods in order not to increase personal or corporation income taxes, or the cost of living, or the cost of any goods or service, for this purpose, which is perfectly possible, easy and to the advantage of all the citizens of Canada, as well as very profitable for the whole general economy of all the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once more to discuss the same motion that has appeared on the order paper for several years. Last year, the House was unable to grant me time to discuss it. This year, I am happy to explain the motion that reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the present Family Allowance Act to the advantage of all children in
Canada less than 16 years old, to provide for increases to an amount of at least one dollar per day, increases which are absolutely necessary to justify adequate support to parents who still consent to prepare for our country the future generation of workers and, if necessary, of soldiers capable of defending it when needed.
In addition, the House should study the means of earmarking the necessary amounts for payment of these family allowances from the national production of goods in order not to increase personal or corporation income taxes, or the cost of living, or the cost of any goods or service, for this purpose, which is perfectly possible, easy and to the advantage of all the citizens of Canada, as well as very profitable for the whole general economy of all the nation.
Mr. Speaker, since I was elected in 1962, my party has entrusted me with putting the case for family allowances. I have been doing so for eight years and I have not won anything so far. My statements on this matter would fill quite a book.
Today, I would like to make a summary of my numerous remarks on this issue which, in my opinion, is the most important one ever discussed in the House.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most important question, as it affects seven million citizens, namely more than a third of Canada's population. It is an important subject because seven million children, the hope of this country, cannot provide for themselves and must, of course, rely on their parents and on the society in which they live.
If parents have the first responsibility as far as the life and education of their children are concerned, we must recognize that they assume that responsibility within an organized society, under the federal government's authority.
Let us remember that in all matters concerning the monetary system, currency, the banking system, rates of interest and the issuing of money or credit, the federal government retains all powers, but it must also respect the life of every Canadian citizen.
More and more money is needed in order to live in our society today. Even if 8,500,000 adults can earn money from work or from investment of their capital, there are still 13 million other citizens who have no cash income at all and therefore no purchasing power neither from work nor from their capital. But the latter are all entitled to a standard of living based on the annual national production.
That is the basis of any study on the importance of the amounts of money that are to be guaranteed to each Canadian as a guaranteed personal income from birth to death. That is the first right of the citizen.
The government must recognize its economic and monetary responsibility in connection with the right to live of each Canadian citizen.
Children, who cost a lot, cannot earn their living. The father works at the same salary as the bachelor. The housewife does not receive any salary.

December 4, 1970

On the other hand, companies have nobody to support, they make very big profits, they pile up the greatest reserves and make the biggest capitalizations with billions every year from the annual national production.
This year, on a production of $84 billion, $34 billion is capitalized and only $50 billion goes to consumption. Let us face those known facts before taking decisions in connection with family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, it is before the prospect of a deficient consumption of $50 billion and a capitalization of $34 billion that we have to place ourselves to study the case for family allowances. Indeed, in 1970, seven million Canadian children or students are dependent upon their parents or society in general under the responsibility of the federal government. In 1970, consumption is deficient at $50 billion compared to an extravagant capitalization of $34 billion out of a production amounting to $84 billion.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Those figures are recognized by all those responsible for our economic policy and we should reach logical conclusions and work out easily applicable solutions.
First we should guarantee every Canadian citizen a decent income that will provide for the necessities of life when he gets no personal income through his work or his capital.
Secondly, we should get the required funds not from working people but from capitalized amounts mainly from major companies.
Mr. Speaker, before too much capitalization is allowed, consumption should be high enough. Prior to facilitating the expansion of companies and providing for the future, we must, as of now, see to the survival of Canadians.
The most elementary common sense compels us to draw such conclusions.
In the present circumstances, our economy is out of balance. A m nimum of thinking leads one to realize that each citizen's primary right is his right to live.
At the present time, their work and their capital provide 8,500,000 Canadian citizens with purchasing power, whereas 13 million Canadians have no work nor capital. Shall we condemn them to die or to disappear from our society?
No, Mr. Speaker, nobody will admit such conclusions. If, in my notice of motion, I am asking that a monthly allowance of at least $30 per month be paid to each Canadian child and that this amount be taken from the huge reserves of the large companies and the amounts they capitalize each year, the reason is that we should not reduce the other citizens' purchasing power, nor increase taxes or the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, I am today suggesting a complete revision of our economic system; however, it would be adaptable to the present mechanisms of our monetary, economic and political systems. The only thing to do is to impress on our governments the need for a sense of direction in our economy.
Family Allowance Act
What is today recognized as the established order is economic unbalance or organized disorder. This is the reason why all the government's new decisions embodied in the white papers and the estimates can only spread confusion all over Canada. I know very well that my proposal can be implemented only in a new economic perspective. This is why my notice of motion states very clearly that the House should study the means of paying a monthly allowance of $30 and, and I quote:
-earmarking the necessary amounts for payment of these family allowances from the national production of goods in order not to increase personal or corporation income taxes, or the cost of living, or the cost of any goods or service-
I am not asking that $30-a-month family allowances be paid immediately for all children below 16 years of age; what I want is that a study be undertaken to determine the possibility of changing our way of managing the economy of our country. No longer are we endeavouring to fulfil the needs of our fellow-citizens. Instead, we are working toward the development and the financing of companies which are getting richer every day while numerous citizens are being gradually denied the income with which they would fulfil their own physical, intellectual and spiritual needs.
Therefore, I recommend that a study group be instituted and charged with the responsibility of finding means of achieving a national economic balance between incomes, expenditures and profits, between individuals, families and companies, from the national production of goods, which must be adjusted to consumption and capitalization, in order to provide for our citizens' needs. We must do so before allowing corporations as administrative implements to earn and capitalize too much for our future development.
Remember that other capitalist countries, including Germany and Japan, have practically achieved full employment, while our own situation in Canada is deteriorating. We must find ways to produce more by employing the full work force in order to create even more income and to stimulate production.
However, persons without employment or capital should have sufficient purchasing power to provide for the bare necessity, which would result in a better flow of consumer goods and daily personal services. This would contribute to increase the number of jobs at all levels, not only in big cities but also in the smallest parishes.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my notice of motion will be considered and that a study committee will be established to examine ways of considering the whole orientation of our national economy, in order to achieve the economic balance between capital, labor and the vital rights of unemployed and poor citizens; between management, employees and dependent citizens; between production, consumption and capitalization; between personal requirements, production costs and prices and also the gigantic capitalization reserves.
All those words are most meaningful. They all are important in building a balanced and orderly economy, aiming towards its true goal: to meet the needs of living
23568-42*

December 4, 1970
Family Allowance Act
citizens, and also to strive for profits and capital investment by institutions.
Both these things are necessary, but meeting the present needs of citizens in 1970 should not be sacrificed to seeking over-ambitious capital investments in view of our future development.
Each year's production should provide for the current year's needs before it is applied to the needs of subsequent years. Instead of using $34 billion for capital investment out of a production of $84 billion in 1970 and consuming only $50 billion, let us consume $12 billion more, deducted from the $34 billion for capital investment. That wifi still leave $22 billion for capital investment for our future development, still more than $1,000 per capita. Those $12 billion added to consumption would provide monthly family allowance payments of $30 for the 7,000,000 school-children under 11, $60 for students between 12 and 17, $90 to each citizen between 18 and 59, without work or capital, and $120 to all citizens of 60 or over.
Every citizen would thus be assured of a guaranteed income, either through his labour or through his capital, from the national product in each fiscal year. The 21,500,000 people who make up the Canadian population would thus be assured of a decent purchasing power.
As all those figures are accurate, they should be carefully studied. If we set aside $12 billion for purchasing power from a capitalization of $34 billion, $1 billion would be circulated each month to assure a minimum guaranteed income to each citizen. And, should we do this under our present system, nothing would need to be changed, except that the government would have to make a decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.
Does the House agree that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) should finish his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Compton.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. members for allowing me to continue but I have nearly finished.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I was saying earlier that if we put more money in circulation fewer people will have to receive unemployment benefits and welfare allowances. We could solve this problem, and it would not cost the government any more to give away money as guaranteed income than as family allowances or social welfare benefits. All the plans now implemented could disappear and be replaced by the guaranteed income to every Canadian citizen. It is possible, if we rely on the economic reality of our country. If we provide work to almost all citizens, the national product will double and it will be easy to find a billion dollars a month to assure Canadians of a viable and well balanced economy that will satisfy them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) presented his motion at four o'clock, His Honour the Speaker discovered that my hon. friend did not have any of his party colleagues with him to second the motion and therefore he took the liberty of naming me.


Mr. Walker:: Politics make strange bedfellows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go back to sleep, Jim. I had not given my prior consent, but I have no objection at all to being the member who makes it possible for the hon. member for Compton to have his motion discussed during the private members' hour this afternoon. I confess that the motion is worded in language I perhaps would not want to place on the order paper, mainly because even if we should pass the motion I do not quite know what would be the result. It seems to me, however, that the hon. member has a point. He emphasized it in his remarks and it is a point which Parliament and society as a whole one day will have to consider.
I know my hon. friend is criticized because he and his colleagues talk about providing increased benefits without increased taxation. Indeed, the immediate response to that is that it cannot be done. I should simply like to put it this way. Twenty, thirty or forty years from now no doubt our productive capacity will have resulted in an even greater quantity of goods and services than we now produce, and I just cannot imagine that we will continue to divide an increased quantity of goods and services among our people in such a way that a few are fabulously wealthy and a multitude are grievously poor.
I think we will find a better way to distribute the goods and services we produce. I believe we will get over the idea that it is good enough to increase the standard of living of those at the top by three or four times the extent to which we increase it for those at the bottom and that we will find a better way to distribute our goods and services. Perhaps in the 20, 30 or 40 years to which I have referred we will not achieve economic equality in a country like this, but unless we move toward greater equality and away from an era in which we forever widen the gap between rich and poor, our society will be in a bad way.
I do not subscribe to the economic theories of my hon. friend who moved this motion of which I am now the seconder, but I am glad to see the subject discussed. I commend him for raising it year after year, and I think hon. members who wish to criticize my hon. friend's proposals should come up with something better or we might as well call it five o'clock.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will

December 4, 1970

be brief because I know that other members have something very important to say on the motion moved by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe).
As I always do, I have listened closely to his speech delivered with the impassioned spirit which always impresses the House. His determination to conquer straight off and to revolutionize the whole modern society of our time at one swoop does him credit. The member is very honest, very nice and pleasant, comes from a good family, is a shrewd businessman, but when he makes a speech like the one we have just heard, especially on the theories that he has outlined, I wonder if he is serious, because he knows very well that what he said might possibly apply in a society without any inequalities.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) claims that unless inequalities are removed, there will be problems. That is obvious, because we cannot all be equal. There shall always be more intelligent, more successful people. Short of living in an ideal society, it would be absolutely impossible to achieve this. Socialist and communist states have tried to achieve it, but they have failed.
The hon. member would have us increase allowances by $1 a day. That is the theory that he would have us consider.
The hon. member referred to capitalists and that is why I say again that it is impossible to achieve equality among citizens. There always will be rich and poor people. It is not because needy persons are more stupid than the rich. It is because they cannot improve their lot in their environment. In my opinion, the government must play a suppletory part. Basing ourselves on that theory, we must admit that the rich people must help those of slender means, not to make them richer, but to enable them to lead a normal life and to become first class citizens.
The member is well-intentioned, but his proposals are impractical, except in an ideal society. But if we were living in an ideal society where everyone would be honest and enjoy the same standard of living, jails, schools and Parliament would be useless. In fact, as long as there is people on earth, some will suffer, there will be happy people, poor ones, rich ones and dishonest ones. In a word, there will be all kinds of people.
That is why any good society adopts democracy, because it allows it to make a choice which, in this case, consists in taking from some people to give to others in order to make everybody happy.
That is all I had to say. I believe the hon. members who will speak after me will be able to give figures to support what I have just said. But it would be unthinkable for a self-respecting society to resort to such solutions, particularly to help children who expect so much from politicians!
I hope that when they read our speeches, they will at least be able to say that government members could submit significant data. A close study of the notice of motion now before us makes one realize that it would be practically inconceivable to adopt it.
Family Allowance Act
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make a few brief comments on the motion put before the House this afternoon by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe). In many ways it is a very fitting day to have this private member's motion before the House because we have been debating social security, including the guaranteed income supplement, and his motion refers to an improvement in the family allowance program.
I congratulate the hon. member for being so persistent with this motion. He mentioned that for the past eight years, since 1962 I think, he has been placing this motion before the House and debating it each year, and today he was good enough to go through all the details of the ideas and theories which he has developed over those years. I do not think the hon. member should be too disappointed, because on reading the white paper on social security we find that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) proposes to bring in a new family income supplement plan on April 1 next, which will in effect provide the equivalent family allowance of $16 per month per child to families earning up to $10,000 a year.
The hon. member is proposing a family allowance of a dollar a day per child, which is about $30 a month, so we are almost half way to meeting his proposal. However, to implement his proposal immediately, a quick calculation shows that if it were to be a universal program it would cost something like $2.7 billion. At present, family allowances cost something like $560 million and with the increase proposed by the minister I understand the cost will be $660 million. Therefore, a tremendous cost would be involved if we were to implement the hon. member's plan.
Someone recently carried out a study on the cost of implementing a guaranteed annual wage with the floor being the 1967 poverty line. Of course, we have had much inflation since 1967 in the Canadian economy and the poverty line established in 1967 by the Economic Council of Canada is out of date. But even to implement a guaranteed annual income at the 1967 poverty line would cost something like $2 billion in addition to our present social welfare program.
I would like to take a moment or two to look at the other end of the spectrum. This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said his party advocated setting up a universal old age pension of $150 a month across the board and without a means test. I asked him what the cost would be and he was not able to supply it. Since then I have ascertained that there are 1,670,639 people over 65 years of age in Canada, and if you multiply that number by $1,800 you get a figure of slightly over $3 billion. Of course, many people are already receiving old age assistance and the old age supplement and this amount would have to be subtracted from that figure. Therefore we are talking about an additional $1 billion or $2 billion. These programs are very costly if they are universal. If the proposal of the

December 4, 1970
Family Allowance Act
hon. member for Compton were adopted and we were to give each child a dollar a day up until age 16, we would be paying $30 per month per child. To pay a pension of $150 a month at age 65, as advocated by the seconder of the motion, would cost $5 a day from age 65, across the board to every Canadian.
Our primary concern this afternoon is to discuss the family allowance program which first came into being in July, 1945. From July, 1945, until April, 1949, the family allowance was paid on a selective basis depending upon a family's income. In 1949 the income tax exemption for children was made the same for everyone, whether they accepted family allowances or not; therefore, it was to the advantage of most families to accept the allowance. Since 1949, therefore, it can be said that family allowances have been truly universal.
Until September, 1957, there were four rates payable under the family allowance program. For children under six the rate was $5 a month. For children between the ages of six and ten the allowance was $6 a month. For children between 10 and 13 the allowance was $7 a month, and for children between 13 and 16 it was $8 a month. In 1957, however, the $5 and $7 rates were dropped so that a child under ten received $6 a month and children between ten and 16 received $8 a month. The effect of this change was to raise for the majority of children the amounts payable.
In September, 1964, the youth allowances program was introduced. This scheme provides for payment of $10 a month in respect of children aged 16 and 17 who are in full-time attendance in school or university or who by reason of a severe physical or mental ailment are precluded from attending school. At present the youth allowance program is costing in the order of $55 million annually.
In the province of Quebec youth allowances are not paid. In Quebec a similar program entitled "schooling allowance" is in effect. The federal government makes a grant to the province to cover the cost of this schooling allowance. For the fiscal year 1970-71 it is expected that the Quebec program will cost the federal treasury approximately $22,350,000. The current cost of the family allowance program is in the neighbourhood of $560 million. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the minister has tabled a white paper which proposes the introduction of a family income security plan. The family income security plan is one of the measures designed to give greater emphasis to anti-poverty measures. This emphasis should be effected in a manner which enables the greatest concentration of available resources upon those with the lowest incomes. For this reason, selective payments based on income should be made where possible, rather than universal payments which disregard the actual income of the recipient.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The family income security plan, which replaces the family allowances plan in effect, is applicable to all children under 16. Its major proposals are: first, the benefit to be increased to $16 for each dependant child under 16 in families where income is not more than $4,500 a year;
second, where family income exceeds $4,500 a year, the rate of benefit will be gradually reduced until a benefit of $5 a month for each child is payable to families of a combined income of $10,000 a year; third, families with incomes in excess of $10,000 a year would no longer receive any family benefit; fourth, family income security benefits would be treated as taxable income of the person who claims the child as a dependant for income tax purposes.
To illustrate the approximate amounts of benefits which will be payable under this proposal at different income levels, I would like to quote the following figures: for incomes up to $4,500, the monthly benefit per child will be $16; for incomes between $4,501 and $5,000, the benefit will be $15; between $5,000 and $5,500 the benefit will be $14, and so on until we reach a family income of between $9,501 and $10,000 when the payment will be the minimum, $5. Over $10,000 the benefit will cease.
Mr. Speaker, what will be the effects of these proposed changes to the family allowance plan? First, the universal payment will no longer be paid to families with higher incomes and resources will be concentrated on those people who are in real or potential need. The proposal will give additional money to people whose own resources are not enough to meet the needs regarded by society as basic. Thus, for the children of families who through no fault of their own are in the low-income bracket the program will provide funds necessary for the maintenance of their children.
The family income security plan will provide real and direct benefit to over 640,000 low-income families. For families with a combined income of $4500 or less the plan will provide payments of $16 a month for each child. This represents a 100 per cent increase for children ten through 15 years of age, and a 167 per cent increase for younger children when compared with the family allowances program of today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, of 3.1 million families with children under the age of 16, three-fifths will receive higher benefits than those they receive at present under the family allowances plan, and approximately one-fifth of these will receive the full $16 a month benefit.
The family income security plan will increase the incomes of families on social assistance, including most of the 150,000 mothers who are by themselves raising some
330,000	children. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the program is amendable to future increases in benefit level and to extension to adult family members and to childless persons. The cost of the family income security plan in its first year of operation will be in the neighbourhood of $660 million, or about $100 million more than at present. The higher benefits of the new plan which is proposed will be financed from approximately $270 million of benefits withdrawn from higher income families and by tax recoveries from beneficiaries.


An hon. Member:: A lot of research there, Maurice.


An hon. Member:: He did his homework.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the family income security plan proposed by the Minister of National Health and

December 4, 1970

Welfare will have the effect of redistributing the present allowances received by families in higher income brackets to those in lower income brackets. This, Mr. Speaker, is a direct attack on poverty. Surely this proposal is putting the dollar where it is needed most. Were the motion of the hon. member to be adopted, and were allowances for all children in Canada less than 16 years of age to be increased by $1 a day, the cost to the federal treasury would be a total of $2.7 billion a year.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Maurice Brydon Foster: A total of $2.7 billion a year. This is four times the current expenditure of the family allowance program, which costs approximately $560 million. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the proposed family income security plan contained in the white paper on income security proposes the strengthening of the concept of providing guaranteed income support, not universally but on a selective basis related to family income and family needs. The guiding principle in the proposal is to ensure the greatest possible concentration of resources upon the people in greatest need. It reflects a new sense of purpose and social relevance and is a specific response to the particular problems of those in the low-income bracket.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak only for a few minutes because I am convinced the hon. members will want this motion to be put to the vote.
The motion is interesting in that it ties in with the discussions we have had since the white paper on social security was tabled.
I do not agree whole-heartedly with the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle) who says simply that there will always be poor people and rich people.
That argument is not valid, when an attempt is being made to solve the problems of the needy. I blame the government on that score.
Something must be done for the poor.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, that attitude is realistic, though.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry says that we must be realistic and I agree with him. But, when older people are paid $80 per month, when war veterans get a mere pittance and mothers receive $6 per month per child, I do not believe this is being realistic.
This morning I received a petition signed by about a hundred mothers, asking for an increase in family allowances.
It is quite true that the white paper published this week by the government suggests increasing to $16 per month family allowances for families having an income of less than $4,500.


An hon. Member:: Very good stuff, Louis!
Family Allowance Act


Louis-Roland Comeau: Very good stuff, I agree.
I congratulate the government: at last it has seen the need. If it also agreed to increase the old age pensions and veteran's pensions in the same proportion, I would be very happy.
It is my understanding that this change will take effect in September 1971, and I for one shall certainly support it. However, I fail to see why this measure should disregard a person whose annual income is only $10,000.


Eymard G. Corbin: Poor people!


Louis-Roland Comeau: It is true that in the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, some make thousands of dollars and can pretty well get along without that. It is perhaps not logical that I, with only two children, should receive that $12 a month.
There are still families with 7, 8, 9, 10, and even 12 children who absolutely need allowances. Indeed a family, especially in the city, with a salary of only $10,000, is certainly not rich.
I commend the member for his arguments. I do not quite agree with him. Perhaps he is exaggerating when he says we should provide allowances of $1 a day. I wish to commend him as there is no doubt that we must increase them. I think they will be increased again soon.
I do not agree with the member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) whose arguments were based on the cost of the allowances.
Mr. Speaker, money is always available for what one wants to do. After a degree of priority is agreed upon, the required money is easily found.
Talking about cost is not necessarily a good argument since everything is costly nowadays.
Although I did say that I do not accept all of what the hon. member for Compton advocates, I believe the situation can still be improved.
The cost argument is not valid: if there is a will to find money, there is a way. Indeed, if the government should present a policy liable to bring about the harmonious development of our country, everybody would make more money and would pay more taxes. Government revenue would grow and, consequently, pensions could be raised.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit me a question?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Provided it is brief.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he considers that the increase in family allowances has priority over the development of the Bay of Fundy tide-driven plant.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Both these projects, Mr. Speaker, should be given top priority.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder, please.

December 4, 1970
Family Allowance Act


Raymond J. Perrault: -the matter before the House relates to an important aspect of income security, namely, the present Family Allowances Act. I should like to say, however, that in the past two days we have heard an incredible amount of pathos and bathos from opposition members who have been suggesting that this government is made up of a group of hard-hearted, tight-fisted, flint-souled people who are not concerned about the welfare of the underprivileged.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That is quite right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well put.


Raymond J. Perrault: We have listened to this great outpouring of sentiment for the underprivileged in our society. I remind hon. members that not only does the present government feel great concern for those with large families who need improved family allowances, to whom the hon. member has referred, but that the members of this party are willing to act on behalf of the underprivileged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: We recognize, on this side of the House-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the Liberal party is willing to undo what it has done.


Raymond J. Perrault: -that the families of our nation deserve more help, as do our senior citizens.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Then why does the government not help them?


Raymond J. Perrault: The unemployed need more help, also. 1 say this to hon. members: No nation in the world is doing more for its senior citizens and families, and for those who are dispossessed and underprivileged, than is this nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder!


Raymond J. Perrault: This is a matter of record. Oh, we have heard the other parties, the Social Credit supporters especially, saying that we must help families. Last night the financial critic of the Conservative Party sounded like the voice of Christmas past when he said something like, "We want to see Liberal proposals that will bring about improved assistance for the underprivileged in society." What about the record of Conservative governments, provincial and federal, in these areas?


An hon. Member:: Right.


Raymond J. Perrault: They have not matched, in any sense, the generosity shown by successive Liberal governments, federal and provincial. And what about provincial Social Credit governments in Canada? Not one of them has a record that is as creditable as that of the federal Liberal government of today. Last year an NDP government was elected in the province of Manitoba. The unemployed, at a special convention condemned the NDP for failing to assist the unemployed who were suffering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder!


Raymond J. Perrault: And then they proceeded to move resolutions showing they wanted to chuck that government out of office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Smile, Ray.


Raymond J. Perrault: You know, Mr. Speaker, these other parties discovered when they were in government that there is an inevitability to financial laws and that governments must bring order to their priorities. Surely, we must help the families of Canada; but we must help those families which need our help most.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: No doubt the hon. member is asking for unanimous consent to allow me to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is this. I believe the House is so enjoying the hon. member's speech that it would like to hear the rest of it.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bell:: It is too hard on the staff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said no?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: According to the rules of this House a certain procedure must be followed if we want to extend the hours of sitting. Since this procedure has not been followed, I have no choice but to say that the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Standing Order 2.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 7, 1970