Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 14 (26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Leg is la tiv e Assembly Of Man itoba DEB A TES an d PROCEED INGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Vol. vn No. 14 2:30 p. m., Thursday, Ma: ch 1, 1962 . , 5th Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Ev�ns. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba3 Winnipeg

ELECTORAL DIVISION ART HUR ASSINIBOIA BffiTLE-RUSSELL BRANDON BROKENHEAD BURROWS CARILLON CHURCHILL CYPRESS DAUPHIN DUFFERIN ELMWOOD EMERSON ETHELBERT PLAINS FISHER FLIN FLON FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE 'G IMLI GLADSTONE HAMIOTA INKSTER KILDONAN LAC DU BONNET LAKE SIDE LA VERENDRYE LOGAN MINNEDOSA MORRIS OSBORNE PEMBINA . PORTAGE LA PRAffiiE RADISSON RffiNE LAND RIVER HEIGHTS ROB LIN ROCK LAKE ROCKWOOD-IB ERVILLE RUPERTSLAND ST. BONIFA CE ST. GEORGE ST. JAMES ST. JOHN'S ST. MATTHEWS ST. VITAL STE.

ROSE SELKIRK SEVEN OAKS SOURIS-LANSDOWNE SPRING FIELD SWAN RIVER THE PAS TURTLE MOUNTAIN YmDEN WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CENTRE WOLSELEY NAME J. D. Watt Geo. Wm. Johnson Robert Oordon Smellie R. 0. Llssaman E. R. Schreyer J. M. Hawryluk Edmond Prefontalne J. E. Ingebrlgtson Mrs. Thelma Forbes · Hon. Stew art E. McLeanQ.C. Wllllam Homer Ham ilton S. Peters John P. Tanchak M. N. Hryhorczuk, Q. C. Peter Wagner Hon. Charles H: Wltney Hon. Sterling R. Lyon, Q. C. Hon. Gurney Evans Hon. George Johnson Nelson Shoemaker B. P. Strlckland Morris A. Gray A. J. Reld Oscar F. Bjornson D. L. Camp bell Stan Roberts Lemuel Harrls Hon.

Waiter Weir Harry P. Shew man Oble Balzley Mrs. Carolyne Morrlsoii. Hon.John Aaron Christians on Russell Paulley J. M. Froese W. B. Scarth, Q . C. Kelth Alexander Hon. Ab ram W. Harrlson Hon. George Hutton J. E. Jeannotte Laurent Desjardlns Elman Guttormson D. M. Stanes Davld Orllkow W. G. Martin Fred Groves Glldas Molgat T. P. Hlllhouse, Q.C. Arthur E: Wrlght M. E. McKellar Fred T. Klym A. H. Corbett Hon. J. B. Carron E. I. Dow Hon. John Thompson, Q. c, Richard Seaborn James Cow an Q. C. Hon. Duff Roblln ADDRESS Reston, Man. 212 Oakdean Blvd. , St. James, Wpg. 12 Russell, Man. 832.

Eleventh St. , Brandon, Man. 2-1177 Henderson Hwy. , Winnipeg 16 84 Furby St. , Winnipeg 1 St. Pierre, Man. Churchlll, Man. Rathwell, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Sperllng, Man. 225 Melrose Ave. , Winnipeg 15 Rldgevllle, Man. Ethelbert, Man. Fisher Branch, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Wlnnlpeg 1 Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Neepawa, Man. Ham Iota, Man. 141 Cathedral Ave. , Winnipeg 4; 56 1 Trent Ave. , E.

Klld. , Winnipeg 15 Lac du Bonnet, Man. 326 Kelvin Blvd. , Winnipeg 29 Nlvervllle, Man. 1109 Alexander Ave. , Winni peg 3 Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Morris, Man. 185 Maplewood Ave. , Wlnnlpeg.13. Manltou, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 435 Yale Ave. W. , Transcona 25, Man. Wlnkler, Man. 407 Queenston St. , Winnipeg 9 Roblln, Man. Holmfleld, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Meadow !lortage, Man. 138 Dollard Blvd. , St. Bonlface 6, Man. Lundar, Man. 381 Guildford St. , St. James, Wpg.12 179 Montrose St. , Winnipeg 9 924 Palmerston Ave. , Winnipeg 10 3 Kingston Row, ·st. VItal, Wpg. 8 Ste.

R�se du Lac, Man. Dom inion Bank Bldg. , Selkirk, Man. 4L ordGlennApts. , 1944 MalnSt. , Wpg. 17 Nesbltt, Man. Beausejour, Man. Swan River, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Bolssevaln, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 , 594 Arllngton St. , Winnipeg 10 512 Avenue Bldg. , Winnipeg 2 Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o' clock, Thursday, March 1st, 1962. Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receivi ng Petitions MR. CLERK: The petition of Capital Funds (lAC) Lim ited, Praying for the pass ing of

An Act to authorize the said Company to carry on business in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting reports by Standing and Special Commi ttees. Notice of Motions Introduction of Bills Before the Orders of the Day, I should like to introduce to the Asse mbly the 4-H Club from Treherne. We have with us this afternoon some 40 farm boys under the leadership of Danny De Paw and Jerry Marginett. I might say that this is only the second year of the opera tion of this club and they have made much progress in their two years of exis tence.

We wel come them this afternoon to our Legislature and we hope that their stay may be instructive and pleasant, and they may see fit in some future time to return again and see us --the future farm- ers of Manitoba. ' MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's) : Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Welfare.

Yesterday I asked him whether it was poss ible that some people staying in institutions--old age pensioners staying in institutions were still only receiving $5. 00 a month for their personal needs, and the Minister said that un der the regulations this was not possible. Now I checked this morning just before I came ln here, and at the Holy Family Home, which is the old Children's hosp ital in my constituency, the Superintendent told me that the people are only receiving $5. 00 a month for their personal requirements.

I wonder if the Minister could make enquiries and poss ibly bring in an amend ed statement as to what the si tuation actually is for people in institutions. HON. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Minister of Public Welfare)(Portage la Prairie) : Yes, Mr. Speaker, we'll be very glad to do that. MR. SPEAKER: Orders fo rthe Day. , MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker·, before the Orders for the Day, I'd like to di rect a question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if he could tell us when he is going to con vene the Minimum Wage Board. HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Labour)(The Pas) : Mr.

Speaker, I'm afraid that I can't give him that exact information. We have called for nominees to this board. Once they are received they will be considered and the board will be called into operation again. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Mr. Spe aker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture and Conservation. A few days ago I asked the Honour able the Minister if it would be possi ble for him to furnish the members of the House with copies of the additional report regarding water resources. I understood him to say that he would make those available.

Realizing that we're coming very close to the Honourable Minis ter's estimates, I'd appreciate it if we could have those reports fairly soon. HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, I can have them for him tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: Orders for the Day. HON. STER LING R. LYON (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, before you proceed wit h the Orders of the Day, I should like to lay on the table of the House the report of the Public utilities Board for the year ended December 31 st, 1961. I may say that this one copy came into my hands today pursuant to statute.

Other copies of it for the members of the House are presently being prepared and will be distributed when available. The second is a nil report of the Minister of Public Utilities pursuant to

Section 16 of The Greater Winnipeg Gas Distribution Act, 1959. Thls is for the year ended December 31 st, 1961. March 1st, 1962 Page 259

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to lay on the table of the House a nil return--the Annual Report of The Watershed Conservation Districts Act for the year ended March 31 st, 196 1; and The Water Rights Act Annual Report--nil--for the year ended March 31 st, 196 1; and a return to an Order of the House on the motion by tlie Honourable Member for Brokenhead. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. DUFF ROB LIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, I notice that the first item on the Orders is the resumed debate on the Consti tution Amendment about Old Age Pensions. I understand that members are not prepared to proceed wi th that imme diately so I wi ll call the Second Order, namely, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Comm ittee of Supply, which the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has the adjournment. MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Oppos ition)(Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I wa nt to thank the House for allowing the adjournment yes terday on this motion.

We wanted more time to be able to study the estimates. We had received them just the night before, quite late, and our group felt that we should have more time to be able to go into them . This, I think, has been the practice in the past. I appreciate the fact that the House did give us this adjournment so that we were able to do this. Today, we are prepared to proceed wi th the estima tes. Be fore doing so, however, I would like to say a few wo rds of a general nature. I want, first of all, to associa te myself wi th the comm ents of my collea gue the .Member for St.

George in reference to his statement yes terday wi th regard to the Selkirk Settlers. While I did not specifically adjourn that particular item, I do want to refer to it. I think his comm ents were very fitting. One of the matters which we Canadians have to do is t)l ink more of our own historical background and create, or recrea te our history to make sure that those of us who are here now, and our children, wi ll remember and have pride in the development of our province. I have a particular attachment I suppose, in a way, to the Selkirk Settlers.

Last fall, along wit h the Honourable the Attorney-General and the Leader of one of the National Par ties, I had the pleasure of address ing the St. Andrew's Society. I suppose, as is customa ry for people undertaking that task, I sea rched carefully through my background to find some assoc iation with the Scots. Bei ng unable to play the bagpipes like the First Minister, I sea rch ed in other directions and was fortunate to find that my wife was a descendent from the Selkirk Settler s, so I can feel some very definite fam ily attachm ent to this particula r matter.

So I would strongly recomme nd to the government that they do take action in this field and that we should at this stage establish a monument, or a park, and do som ething tangible in this respect. I notice that one of the newspapers rec ently was referring to the piece of ground across from the buildings here and suggesting that it should be called the Lord Selkirk Park.

I think this would be worthy of cons ideration by the government.· I think possibly, also, as the Minister of Industry & Comme rce mentioned, up along the banks of the Red River, where the set tlement wa s first made, that we could proceed to do som ething there as well. Now , Mr. Speaker, I want to turn briefly to the estima tes themselves. I notice that the government has supplied us wi th a se parate sheet again this year listi ng the staff.

I would strongly recom mend to them that instea d of doing this on a se parate sheet, that they go back to the former practice which was to put it right in the estim ates themselves. This had always been done, and not only did we have the figure for the current year, but the figure for the past year was there. This isn't a very serious item, however, it does make it eas ier for members when they are discuss ing estim ates to see what changes the government is proposing in the wa y of staff in these various departments.

It seems to me that hav ing to have a se parate lis ting is only more com plication when it could be done on the basis of the one. Referring to the figures in the estima tes themselves, I don't propose at this stage to go into detailed examination. I just want to refer to two general figures , and the one is the in crease in the unconditional grants . Now we'll have full discuss ion when we qome to that one.

I'm pleased to see the increas e, but I want to repeat the statement I made on the Throne Speech Debate that this, I hope, is an increase in the per capita grant and not si mply an adjustment figures for changes in population. This question of the Rea lty Tax, the load being borne by the lands and buildings, is one of the most serious ones facing our municipalities right now . Their Page 260 March 1st, 1962

(Mr. Molgat, cont•d. ) ..... res ponsibilities have been increas ing and, in my opinion, the load has reached its limit. It�s high time that we have a redistribution of the taxation sources and of income, and certa inly we wi ll look forward to seeing, in that direction, an increase in the grants to the municipalities on a per capita basis and not just on an adjustment basis. I note, too, that on the same page there is Iio allotment whatever for Metro.

It seems to me that in view of the fact that this government has turned down the Blake-Goldenberg Re port, that I was expecting that they would have some alternative suggestions to offer in the case of Metro. I don't see any alternative suggestions in these estimat es . It seems to me that in conjunction wi th an increase to the overall municipalities in this province that they should have considered this as well.

I'm certainly not suggesting that more should be given to one local level of government, but this is the time, in my opinion, for a general increase to all of them; I'm rather surpised that we have heard as yet nothing from the government in the wa y of an al ternative to the financial problems facing the Metrcrol itan Government which they created. Having turned down the Blake-Goldenberg, I think it is their res ponsibil ity to offer an alterna tive at this time. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it had been my intention on this debate, which is actually a general debate in the same wa y as the budget, to refer to some of the state ments that have been ma de previously in this House by the First Minist er him self; by the Minister of Health on other sub jects; and by the me mber from Churchill on that si tuation; but I think I will leave these until we com e along to the estim ates themselves because I wa nt to refer this afternoon to a matter which I consider most urgent and most im portant, and where I si m ply cannot understand the position that this Government has taken. I'm referring, Mr.

Speaker, to the proposed increase in old age pensions that has been suggested by Ottaw a and which is now proceeding to increase from $55 to $65. Mr . Speaker , we've heard a· great deal from my honourable friends across the wa y about the assist ance that they were going to give to the old age pensioners in this province. I have here before me one of the Informa tion Bulle tins , back in January of 1960, at which time the Minister was proclaim ing some of the sections of The Social Welfare Act.

It starts off by say ing that the act went into effect February 1st and will provide extra cash, as need dictates, to an estima ted 16 ,0 00 of the province's senior citizens. We all remember, those of us who have been in tQ.e House, when the Minist er spoke in glowing terms about all he was going to do for the needy old age pensioners in this province. This is one of his great cries and I comme nd him for it.

My honourable friend the First Minister the other night, when giving us a lect ure on the duties of the opposition--a subject on which we will have more to say as the sess ion goes on--at that time when he wa s lect uring us , he said, "they didn't do anything for the old age pen sioners when they were in office. They didn't introduce The Social Allowances Act which ·pro vides--! think the payments average out at $2 0. per case to the people who are being served un der this act". Making a great case again about the assist ance that he was providing for the needy old age pensibners in the Provinc.e.

And now, Mr. Speaker, what do we find? The Feder al Government is increasing the old age pension by $1 0. 00, and what does this government do? It robs a good number of the old age pensioners in this province of that very $1 0. 00. Instead of seei ng to it that this goes to the individual, it says: "no, we wi ll reduce our cash allowances by that amo unt" . Who says that, Mr. Speaker ? None other than my friend the Minist er of Health.

Just the other day in answering a question from one of the members of this side of the House, he said, and I quote from Hansard; "Now the pensions have risen and it is quite true that where we are maki ng cash allowances to old age assi stance people, to people who are on the old age security pension, that the cash allowance under The Social Allowances Act may be reduced somewhat". By his own statement- -the cash allowan ces. What about other people, Mr. Speaker, who are in some of the institutions ·in this province ? What are my honourable friends doing there?

Well I am quoting now from a report in the newspaper, Free Press, of February 27th: "The Lions' Res idence rat es"- -that is where some of the old age pensioners are living--"is $75" --that's for rental--"and until the recent pension raise, the Provincial Gov ernme nt has paid $30 of this in social ass istance. Follow ing Prime Minist er Diefenbaker•s announcement of the raise, Mr. Evans , who is the superintendent of the agency, said he re ceived a letter from the Provincial Department of Welfare stati ng that it's share of the March 1st, 1962 Page 261

(Mr. Molgat, cont1d. ) •.... pensioners care would henceforth wo uld only be $20". And he's quoted then as saying: "I asked him if we could at least let them have another $2. 00 of the in crease because the cost of livi ng for even their few personal expenses has gone up", he said, "but the request was denied". Mr. Speaker, how can this government, how can the First Minist er get up and brag about all they're doing for the old age pensioners.

Here the Federal Government comes along, pro vides an increase of $10. 00 because in their wisdom they feel that this is needed, and if they didn't feel it was needed surely they wouldn't be doing it, but seeing that it is needed, they pro ceed to do this .. And what do, my honourable friends across the way do ? They take it right out of the old age pensioner's pocket and they reduce their own contribution-- and these are the statements of my honourable friend the Minister of Health him self--of Welfare, I am sorry. Mr.

Speaker, this is a straight case of the Federal Government in Ottaw a putting $10. 00 into the pockets of the cild age pensioners, and there immediat ely on the other side this government, that proclaims itself to be so interested in their welfare , taking it right out. This is a straight case of my honourable friends across the way lining their own pockets at the expense of the old age pensioners of this provin ce. --(interjecti on) --Fi ne--say rubbish if you want--t he facts are by the statements of the Minist er himself and the statements in the newspaper.

My honourable friends are proceeding not to pay to some of the people who are presently on soci al assistance the extra $10. 00 that the Federal Government has provided. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this gov ernment change that policy imme diately. This si tuation should not endure any further . If the Federal Government is providing an extra $10. 00, I say it should go direc tly to the old age pensioners. My honourable friends should make this change now and not wait any further. MR CHRISTIANSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it is only fair that some misco nceptions that may have been raised by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposi tion in his , I think rather in tem perate attack agai nst our soc ial allow ances program, should be answered before they get too far from these walls. He doesn't seem to have a very comp lete grasp of our social allow ances program or of the mechanism whereby the various pension scheme� are administered in this province.

He intimat es, in fact, that because Ottaw a has raised the pens ions of the old age--in the old age assistance category, in the -blind persons pension, in the disabil ity allow ance pension and in the old age secur ity pension, that the province wi ll wi nd up the net wi nner because we are reducing our soc ial allow ances grants, which it has been pointed out average $20 per case, by an equal amount. Well I had intended to go into this matter rather fully when my own estima tes come up, but I think I should just review it for you very briefly.

The old age assistance program, the blind persons' pension program and the disabil ity pension prog ram are shared programs wi th the Federal Government, and when the Federal Government said they were going to raise pensions , they• raised their share and we immediat ely raised our share by an equal amount. In other words , the Federal Government put up $5.0 0 of that $10. 00 increase and we put up $5. 00. Now in the case of the old age secur ity pension, the one that is paid to all people over 70 years of age, the Federal Government pai d the total $10. 00.

We also meet the need of all the people in these categories where such need exists . We have not changed our regulations sub stantially since the change in the pensions . We have made some mi n()r changes and amend ments which will cost us a li ttle more money; which will make the program a lit tle more ex pensive; but of a rel atively mi nor nature and they had to do wi th the allowances that co uld be paid for rent.

They were not a change in policy but merely an acce ptance of the fact that inad vertently some people were not being treated quite as fairly as other people and the regulations were straightened out in that regard. Now I am sorry if I mi sled the House the other day, and I am sure I did when I was talking about the $10. 00 for personal needs . The $10. 00 is per mi tted for a person for personal needs when they are livi ng alone . When they are livi ng in in stitutions the rate is $5. 00, or more, at the discretion of the director, and we have not as yet increased this amount.

So the point that the member for St. John's brought up is quite correct. I am sorry and I apologize to the House for having made this mis

interpretation the other day. Now ta go back to the pensions again. There are more people on old age assistance, on blind persons and on DA--or I should put it another way. Not all the people on these programs are also rece iving extra cash allow ances--not nearly all of them--so when we increase the pensions to these people, and the numbers wil l incre ase,_ because the .income limit has been Page 262 Ma:r;ch 1st, 1962

(Mr. Christianson, cont1d. ) ..... raised subst antially, we can't take it all back because we aren't giving it to start with. The matter of fact is that our total·outlay under this program will increase by some $400 ,0 00. Even when you take into account the cost-sharing in the soci al allowances program, an.d the saving there, the total cost to the Province of Manitoba is some $200, 000. a year more. Now the me mber tried to make the case that we were, in effect, stealing from the old age pensioner. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

I would invite him to look at the estimates; to look at the increase in the amount of money to be provided in the estima tes of the Department of Welfare, and particularly the amount of money to be provided under social allowances . Mr. Speaker, if he doesn't think that we're doing a pretty good job for the old people and the needy people in the Province of Manitoba, there isn't much that I can say to change his mind. Now there's one other point that I haven't mentioned.

He quoted the Honourable Minister of Health as having said in days gone by that this would provide extra cash for 16, 000 senior citizens in Manitoba. Well I think that on the basis of our Medicare program which, while not providing cash, provides the equivalent in services where they require it, and the total figure is something beyond 20, 000 now. I think that if he will examine·those facts he will find that we are accepting our responsibility and we are meeting needs as the Minister of Health the Honour able Member from Gimll said two years ago. MR. MOLGA T: Will you permit a question?

Did he not say the other day in this House that now that the pensions have risen, there would be ·a reduction in the cash allowance under The Social Allowances Act? MR. CHRISTIANSON: He said that and it's quite true. In cases where we are paying cash allowances in excess of $10. 00 a month, those people will be losing the $10.0 0 that they are present�v receiving under social allowances. Their total payment will not go up, but I would like to point out to him that in arriving at this figure--Pm glad you brought this up--in arriving at this figure of $20, lt doesn't mean that everybody gets $20.

Some of them get $20; some of them get $3 . 00; some of them get $5; 6, 7, 8, 9; some of them only get a Medicare. card. There are others who get an awful lot more. I had some files drawn the other day just so that I might have them for estimates. I happen to have one here and this person receives $80 a month--(interjection)--That1s quite true, and some get no money and only a Medicare card--only a Medicare card. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest that this is a subst antial item and the fact is that only those people who are receiving in excess of $10. 00 a month will not receive an increase in their pensions .

All those who receive less than this amou nt will be getting the full increase and they will be left with their Medicare card. So, Mr. Speaker, he may try as he likes, but he'll never be able to prove that this government is not accept ing its responsibil ity in meeting need. MR. MOLGA T: I want to ask the minister a further quest ion. It is correct that you will be taking this $10 increase from certain of the pensioners in this province, is it not? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Well I can only say again, Mr. Speaker ,l 'm a little--(interjection) --we are continuing, Mr.

Speaker, to do the things we said we would do under our social allow ances program, and that is to meet need. These people will be rece iving exactly the same am ount of money. There'll be no reduction. MR. MOLGA T: Is it also correct that in the cases where the province has been paying part of the rent for old age pensioners living in various institutions that now with the increase the province will reduce the am ount of the rent it has been paying? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's a reasonably fair statement, but the to tal amount of money whLch the pensioners are receiving remains the same. MR.

ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a qu es tion to the Minister? I am sorry I was out for a few minutes but I didn't know this was com ing up . Is it true, therefore, that there are many people in institutions to whom this increase of $10. 00 a month announced by the Federal and Provincial Governments is, in fact, only a bookkeeping item, that they will receive not one cent more than they have been rece iving up till now? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the honourable memb er wasn't in his chair, but I don't really think there is any point in belabouring this issue.

The gentle men opposite can do their best to make us out to be mean, hard-hearted old fellows as much as they like, but the fact remains, Sir, that we are and we will continue to meet needs . We March 1st, 1962 Page 263

(Mr. Christlanson, cont•d. ) .. ... have, in fact, been making large payments to these people who are in institutions .--( interjecti on)--We 're getting, yes indeed. we are, we'r e getting some help from the Federal Government. The figures for the aged in institutions is something like $2 million. There is 1, 840 people pres ently in institutions and the average rate being paid is $110 a month. Now we pa y the difference between what the individual has and what is required.

Now I would like to ask the honourable members, in view of the rather large figures in the Es timates, if they suggest we should in fact increase all these pa yments . Now we would like to, there's no question about that, but we have a responsibility. We must not only meet need, but we must exercise the responsibil ity in the sp ending of the money. We can't hand it out in a dilatory manner in one place without some other portion or some other part of the economy suffering . We think, Mr. Speaker, that we are accepti ng our res pons ibil ity and disch arging our duty in this regard. MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr.

Spea ker, this is a very, very serious matter. We ei ther relax the rules and let's finish it today, or probably do it another time. Now No. 1. Is he spea king on behalf of those under the Ministers or all the pensione rs ? That's number one. No. 2. What right has the government to the $10 which is now granted by the federal adminis tration--yes, part of it--those under the ministe rs, of course, comes under the province. Now No. 3. The increase was for the purpose that the public and the government felt it was not suf ficient.

Now if you are taking away from them, in most cases, then where is your Christmas present? I think that this is a very, very serious import ant matter. Ei ther give us an oppor tunity to break the rules and ask questions as often as we like, or let us leave it for .another time. MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q. C. (Ethelbert Plains ): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like some clarification from the Minister . He has given us part of the answer, but I don't think we've got it all.

Now as I understand it, when you.have an old age pensioner, or a secur ity pensioner, or a disabled pe nsioner, or a blind pensioner in an institution, and the cost of main tenance is say the $110 figure that the Minister po inted out here just a few moments ago. Be fore the increase was made in the pens ions, $50 towards the $110 came out of the pensioner's cheque--correct? Fi ve dollars was left for his personal requirements--right? After the pen si on was increased by $10, here is what happened.

Where previously this government contri buted $60 towards the cost of maintenance, there is $60. 00 plus the pens ioner's $50. 00 made it $110, now this government does no longer contribute the $60 but it contributes $50 and the $10 additional pension has gone towards the cost of maintenance. Now the po int is this, Mr.

Speaker, if this information is correct--and I hear no objections to it so I must be correct- the point is this, that where we have shared programs, that is on a 50/50 basis , the Federal Government contributes $5 and the Provincial Government contributes $5, but you are not de ducting only $5 for this maintenance you're deducting· the $5 contribution made by the Federal Government.

So, in actuality, you are taking the government contribution of $5 and usi ng it in place of your social ass istanc e, that's where the pensions are shared; but under old age security, you're actually taking the $10 that are contributed by the Federal Government and us ing it where previously the social ass istance, the provinc ial social assis tance was making the payment. So our leader is correct, you're us ing federal funds to reduce your own costs by the amount of those contributions . Thank you. MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the NDP)(Ra disson): Mr.

Spe aker, I think I should like to ask a question or two in connection wi th this. I find it most interesting. I haven't had an opport unity of perusing completely the reports, which the Minister was so kind enough to send me by his stenographer after we rose yesterday, of the Department of Welfare, but I have had some short time to consider it. Now it appears to me that the average pension in respect of old age assist ance of last year amounted to $51- odd--$51. 30; Blind persons' allowances $53 . 07 ; and so on.

Now I presume that this is the amount averaging out towards the former $5 5. 00 a month comp lete pension. Now then, I would like to ask the Minister, and I think poss ibly this would clarify the matter under discuss ion at the present time, previously we had a cei ling, if I remember correctly of $980. in respect of a si ngle person and it was $1, 670 in respect of a married couple, before they were eligible for consideration. If they were over the cei li ng then they weren't eligible for consideration for the basic old age ass istance pension.

Then, in addition, after they had become eligible for some pension, based on these figures , they were Page 264 March 1st, 1962

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd. ) ..... entitled to--give the former Minister of Welfare, use his state ment--a needs test .rather than a means test. --(Interjecti on)--Pardon? HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health)(Gimli): You'll get down to it in a few min- utes. MR. PAULLEY: Yes. But on the basis of so-called need, another figure of the contri bution was arrived at. Now then, has the basic minimum --or maximum rather, not minimum -been raised in respect of total income for the persons concerned before they become entitled to the full amount of old age ass istance.

Now it would appear to me that if they have been raised and people are be ing reduced from the overall amount that they formerly received, then they are be ing deprived of some personal increase in comforts or cash. I would like to hear from the Minist er--he may have mentioned it the other day, I don't recall--as to what the pre sent maximum of income are in respect of applications for old age assist ance. I think this has a bearing on the overall picture. It does see m to me that on the surface that those in re ceipt of social allowance--( interjection)--I beg your pardon?

I am talking into the microphone. ' Those in receipt of soc ial assis tance, and also those on old age se curity in receipt of social allowance, are not recei ving an across -the-board $10 increase due to the figures that are used-for com puting what is so-called need. Now if those figures haven't been increased sub stantially or accordingly, then it is understandable that they wi ll not be rece iving the $10 in crease.

I don't know if I have added to the confusion or not, but I would like to have the new figures of the maximum allowable income for the com putation of the now $65 pension; and al so, whether the basis of arriving at a maximum amount or a minimum amount of need for a single and married couple before they received additional soc ial allowance, where that started again because of the increase federally of the $10. in respect of old age security and jo intly with the old age ass istance. MR.

SPEAKER: I might point out we're on a debating here and we 're almost follow ing the procedure that we do in the com mittee where members get up and speak and si t down and get up again. They don't have that right to do that in the House. Also, the Honourable Minis ter is continually asked questions and he only has the right to speak once on this question. MR. ORLIKOW: l\ir. Speaker, I think I only asked a question--! don't think I have spok e!! on this.

I think that between the statem ents which the Minister- -the corrected statements which the Minister gave today and the summa ry which the memb er for Ethelbert-P lains gave , which I think is pretty correct, I think the picture which we are now getting is pretty clear, and that is, that while the government is correct, the Minister is correct, that what they are doing is legally proper, that in fact what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that as far as I am concerned I can honestly say I have never had the number of complaints and the number of 'phone calls which I have had the last few days on this issue.

I don't know if I am alone in this but I make this as a statement of fact, that I have never had on any single issue the calls which I have had on this matter; and that the people concerned, and there are a large number of people who are in the institutions--! don't question the Minister when he says that the Prov ince of Manitoba is paying out a very subs tantial amount of money for the assistance to people who are in institutions, but they were doing that last year.

Now the Federal Government has announced an increase of $10 a month for people re ceiving_ old age ass istance, for people recei ving old age pensions, people in receipt of blind pensions, and so on. Now I want to take Mr. Diefenbaker•s word for it. He didn't do it be cause 1962 happens to be an electi on year--not at all--he did it because the needs have in creased. He did it because the cost of living has gone up, and so these people took Mr. Dlef enbaker and this government at their word. They were going to see som ething.

They were going to see an increase which they could see, something which would help them meet their needs better , because their needs have gone up too. While in fact, Mr. Speaker, we now have the fact. In fact, as far as the person in the institution is concerned, they are not getting a five-cent piece more. What the Honourable Member for Ethelbert-Plains said today, and what I said when I raised the question two days ago is exactly correct. If there is any saving it is to the Province of Manitoba in its soc ial allowance program.

I want to tell the Minister and the First Minister and the members of the government, lf they don't know it yet, that these people feel that the matter has been misrepresented. I want to use parliamentary language, but they feel that they're not getting a fair deal. They feel that they're not getting what the March 1st, 1962 Page 265

(Mr. Orllkow, cont1d. ) ...•. Federal Government and this government said they were entitled to. Now having said that I just want to say one more thing, Mr. Spe aker. We know, and ev erybody knows, that costs are up. We know, for example, that the Blind Institute raised their rates for staying in their res idence by $10 a month. Pm not questioning that, the costs are up.

But the costs to the people are up too, and the magnificent amount, that very generous amount we leave them, which two days ago the Minister said was $10 and today he's amended it to say that in some cases it's $5, that tremendous amount with which they're left to buy shaving cream and toothpaste and razor blades and tobacco and all the rest of the things. The cost of those things have gone up too, and they have to meet those costs out of that tremendous amount which we leave them--$10 or $5. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm disappoi nted in this government--! really am .

I thought the First Minister had more com passion than he seems to have on this matter. While our costs are up, I think it would have been quite a nice gesture , Mr. Speaker, if this government had said: "Well, it's true that for the people in the institut ions we're already paying $20 or $30 or $40" --now the Minister tells us $50 a month--"to keep these people ln the institutions, but the Federal Government is paying $10 a month more to these people, or $5 in some cases, and we share it, so we won't take it all, we'll leave them with a couple of dollars.

We'll leave them with $2 or $3 on top of the ten or the five they had before". I want to say, Mr. Speaker,,_and I'm going to sit down, that I for one, and I think I speak for all the people concerned, am disappoi nted at the decision, I think a penny-pinching decision, made by this government. MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, just a few· days ago the Hon ourable the Leader of this House told the members on this side of the House --gave them a lesson on the duties of oppos ition--and I think that today's an example that the Opposition is really doing their work.

I think it is helping the Minister--he hasn't been there very long- and I think it is a good thing to help him, to tell him from this side of the House that the people that are kept in these hom es receive only half of what he thought just a few days ago they were receiving. As the member from St. John's said, it's not $10 but $5 a day, and it was correct ed by the Minister him self--a month. Now that might be the reason why they didn't change their system. When they' took this money, maybe it was thought that Mr. Diefenbaker was giv ing a larger grant to the Province of Manitoba.

This might be why we're satisfied with this new arrangement with the Premier of the country. But if this is a grant, we want to know. Another thing that the Honourable Minister should check when he reads Hansard tomorrow , he made a statement, if I'm correct, a while ago that the government had not changed anything; that the pensions were exactly the same. Well maybe it's correct. If that's true-- :MR. CHRISTIANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I said that the regulations had not been changed under The Social Allowances Act. - :MR.

DESJARDINS: Well then, isn't it a fact also that the Minister said that the pension had not been increased; neither decreased. Is that right? Wasn't that som ething that was said just a whlle ago in the House? Well, as I said, he can check that. This is the way I under stood, that the pension had not been increased, or the pension had not been decreased.

But if the Federal Government is sending $10 to help a person, the government feels that that's not enough, and if the Provincial Government is taking that $10 , which they have no right to take because it's not theirs to take, this was sent to an individual, therefore, they are in fact re ducing--there is actually in fact a-reduction of $10 in the pensions that_ are given the people in Manitoba now. So I think what we' ve got to realize, is this a pension given by the Federal Government to each individual or is that a grant for welfare or for some other reason that the Provincial Government wants to do?

I think that we are entitled to an answer on this. I think that if the government didn't realize that the people were only getting $5, that the government thought that they were getting $10-- maybe they felt it was enough--that they better look into their policy and maybe have a study of this system of trying to give this $10 where it should go--give it back to the individual. MR. ROBERT GORDON SMELLIE (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in this debate we've had some rather fuzzy thinking on the part of some of the members of this House.

I don't know whether I can assist this process a grea.t deal or not, the process of prog nosis that the Honourable Minister of Health refers to seems to be a very slow process. In Page 266 March 1st, 1962

(Mr. Smellie, cont'd.) ..... the first place, Mr. Speaker, a soc ial allow ance is not a divine right. This Social Allowances Act was passed in the hope that through this government action we mi ght meet need.where it was found in certain areas . I think The Social Allowances Act has done a great dea.l to meet need where .it is found. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that this need was being met long before the Federal Government, in their wi sdom, made this $10 across-t he boa rd increase in certain pensions. The $10 increase across-t he-boa rd didn't change the need.

You can't tell me that the need of these individuals who are on soc ial allowances changed $10 a month between January and February. In January their needs were being met under The Social Allowances Act, and their needs are still being met between the com bination of their pension and The Socia l Allowances Act. Their total needs under this program are assessed, and in that are a between what their pensions allow and what their needs are, the slack is taken up under the social allo w ances program .

If the allow ances continued at exactly the same rate they were be fore the $10 across -the-board increase, some of these people would, in effect, receive $10 more than their total need. is at the present time. There has also been some misst atement of fact, Mr. Speaker, by some of the honoura ble memb ers in this debate. The Honourable Member from Ethelbert-Plains suggested that a per son in an institution receivi ng a pension prior to the increase of $55 was paying $50 towards the cost of his ca re and the pensioner rece ived $5 of that pension. This is not correct. This is not correct, Mr. Speaker.

The whole of his $55 went towards the cost of his care, and this $5 pock et money that the man received actually came to him through Soct al Allow ances . The fact, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a $10 across -the-board increase in certain pensions has not chang ed the need, merely because of that increase, of the persons who were drawing social allow ances. This government, Mr. Speaker , wi ll continue to meet that need where it is found under The Social Allow ances Act as we have in the past. MR. HRYHORCZUK: Will the honourable member permit a questi on? MR. SMELLIE: Sure, I'd like to. MR.

HRYHORCZUK: Does the honourable me mber think that it is fair that the $10 contri buted by the Federal Government towards increases in old age security pensions should go to the Treas ury of the Province of Manitoba ?- -(interjection)-- It sure does. MR. SMELLIE: I don't think it would be fair , but it does not in fact do that. One other point here in answer to this question, Mr. Speaker, is that the fact that the pensions have gone up. is not the whole story.

When the pensions went up, also the allowable income of the pension er we nt up; and because that allowable income has gone up, in many cases the increase in the pension has been more than $1 0 a month because of the allow able ceiling, and those persons who were not receivi ng the full pension before because they had income over the permissi ble ceiling, many of them are now receiving more than a $10 increase in pension. The net effect of this $10 across -the-board inrease and the increase in allowable income ce ilings has cost the Province of Man itoba money.

We are not saving money by the reduction in certain areas of Social Allow ances. · MR. GRAY: ... ... the $5 which he makes and the institutions receive was long, long be- fore the soc ial legis lation came into being. MR. T. P. ffiLLHOUSE, Q. C. (Selkirk) : ...• .. ask a questi on? I think the only basis upon which we can accept the argument advanced by the government side of this House is on the assum ption that the inqrease in old age pension was granted for political expediency. I cannot accept that premi se.

I accept the premi se that the increase in old age pensions was granted be cause the $55. a month which was being paid to pensioners was inadequate. In other words, the base of the pension had to be raised right across -the-board. Now once you accept that premise, Mr.

Speaker, I submit that you must try to retain the relative position between the basic pen sions and those who are in receipt of social allow ance, and that the only wa y that you could re tain that relative position in the same degree of relativity as lt was before is by not taking any money aw ay from those recip ients of soc ial allow ance, otherwise you are discrim inating against them. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Comm ittee of Supply, wi th the Honourable Member for St.

Matthew s ln the Chair. March 1st, 1962 Page 267

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, now that we have a little e1bow room, now that we can really get to grips wi th this interesting topic that's been raised, some of us on this side would like to say something, who previously were barred from do ing so by the rules of debate. I think there are others beside myself that would like to join in this debate and I want to give them that opportunity. I just want to start the discussion this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, by saying that we will be proceeding wi th the follow ing order of business after we have disposed of the in teresting topic that is occ upying our minds at the moment. We'll be dealing wi th Legislation, Executive Council , Treasury, Prov inc ial Secretary. After that, and this is the change, we will be proceeding to Industry & Commerce. I shall give members further notice as we proceed through the estimates as to what items will be called. The first four items: Legislation, Execu tive Council, Treasury, Provincial Secretary. That's all in order, then we go down to Industry and Commerce.

Now let's get back to this question of pensions . MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, are we going into the Department of Health imm ediately then? MR. ROBLIN: We're going to talk about pensions for awhile. MR. MOLGAT: Well on the Department of Health then I presume. That's fine wi th us- or Welfare. If we're going into Welfare that suits us fine. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker; I would like to 'take this opportunity of saying a few words on all the allegations"-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. CAMPBELL: What item are we discuss ing? What item has Mr. Chairman call ed? MR.

ROBL IN: Well, Sir, I think we'd better--we can certainly proceed wi th the first item, and when we are talk ing about indemnities , the Minister of Health can justify how he earns his indemnity on the subject of pensions . --( interjection)-- We couldn't speak. MR. MOLGAT: Why not? MR. ROBLIN: Because I had already spoken; you know why not. A MEMBER: Well, he's going to speak. MR. PAULLEY: I just--Mr. Chairman, if I may, let's be fair about this. It .seems our desire on this side to have a debate on it, let' s-have it, irrespective of the departments. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Chairman, as far as I am concerned I'll raise no objection to that, if it's understood that we can do the same thing at any other time. But if we 're going to be held down to discussi ng, as the rules say, the item under consi deration, then we're not going to allow it to be done one way one time and another, another. The rule is that in the Comm ittee of Supply that discuss ion shall be relative to the matter before us, and if it's going to be chang ed, then we'l l change it any time we want to on this side of the House. MR. ROBLIN: .... •. the exami nation of the estimates and the subject is before us.

We're not into the individual items. MR. MOLGAT: •..... to discuss this. We can only discuss something once the chair man calls an item. Once the chairman calls an item we can discuss it. Now I want to make it very clear . We're quite prepared to cont inue this discussion on pensions , quite prepared to con tinue it, but on the understanding if you 're going to do it on a general item, then we can discuss any general matters on any item. Well then, go into the Department of Health. Call the first item in Department of Health--minister's salary--or Welfare--and we can have all the discus si on that you want.

MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the House just finished telllng us that first of all we would start wi th Legisl ation and so on, that he would change this later on. Now if we're going to start wi th Legislation, let's start. If not, let's know what department we're wi th. MR. ROBLIN: I think I'd better put the matter to the com mittee in this way; that prov ided we ·have the unanimous consent of the comm ittee, we would like to continue this discussion on the matter of Welfare--on the matter of pensions that has been raised.

If we do not have the unanimous consent, because I must agree wi th those who have said that this does not conform to the usual procedure in the comm ittee, I must agree wi th that, that if we do not have the unani mous consent then we'll proceed in dealing with the items in the estimates. But if we have una nimous consent, then I think we might spare some of our time this afternoon to continue this discuss ion, because there are a number of points in it which I think perhaps could well be Page 2tiS March 1st, 1962

(Mr. Roblin, cont•d. ) ... ... cleared up at the present time. I would like to say that we must regard this, if we do agree to it, as a special occasion, not constituting a precedent and which it can only be repeated again if we have unanimous consent. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, as far as our group is concerned we are quite prepared to give the unanimous consent in this case. I would only say to the government that on other occasions when there is something we want to discuss, that we'll expect their co-op eration in it as well. My honourable friend the other day broke the rules . He spoke for an hour and a half.

We didn't object, now I want reciprocal treatment. MR. ROBUN: ...... agree that the rules were broken the other day. MR. MOLGAT: But they were. MR. ROBUN: They were broken by the Honourable Mem ber for La Verendrye because my honourable friend had spoken for 48 minutes when introducing his amendment, and there- fore my honourable friend- · A MEMBER: And the Minister of Agriculture had spoken for about an hour and a half. MR. ROBLIN: All right. I think it would be a good idea if the 40 rule was more strictly enforced and I think that's something we should look at.

But on -this particular matter I am on ly saying that we can only proceed with this if we have unanimous consent. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, as far as the group I lead is concerned, we're prepared to give, as far as my group is concerned, the consent without reservations at all. If any other occasion arises where it may be desirable to discuss matters out of order, then we'll judge our actions at that _particular time. MR. A. H. CORBETT (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I think it's time that a genuine old age pensioner gets up and says something.

When you reach the old age pension you're suppos ed to be somewhat senile in your remarks, but after listening to some of the senile arguments presented by the op position and others today, I begin to think that maybe I'm not as senile as they are, but the Honourable Member for Russell explained this thing clearly--we should be no more debated. MR. MOLGAT: What is the honourable member speaking on? MR. CHAffiMAN: Are we agreed? MR. CORBETT: We had unanimous consent. MR. CHAffiMAN: Order!

Are we unanimously agreed that this matter of pensions can be discussed at this time before we proceed with the Department of Legislation? All agreed. MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, I am quite in agreement and I expect the same reser·vations as the other Leaders of Opposition do. MR. CHAffiMAN: Agreed? MR.

CORBETT: The Department of Welfare set up a standard of liv ing--the cost of a standard of living which they figured was acceptable to the needy people in this province and they augmented, in certain cases where the need was established; they augmented the old age pension· sufficiently to meet that standard of living. I am quite sure that if it can be proven that the cost of living is going up any reasonable amount--I believe they have made some changes quite recently--they wlll bring that standard of living up to the amount necessary. They'll aug ment the pensions.

Well the people that were drawing soc ial assistance through the Provincial Government were getting what was recognized as sufficie nt to live on. That's very sim ple and 1 can't see what all this howdy-do is about. Now the Federal Government has increased the old age pension by $10, which means that the assistance they need from other sources is only re quired enough to reach that standard as set. So what is all this howdy-do about the Provincial Government. reaching into the pockets of the old age pensioners and stealing his money from them. It's a lot of nonsense.

The old age pensioners are getting $65. a month from the Feder al Government, of which a certain amount is alw ays left them for their own personal purposes, and if they were getting $20. a month from the Provincial Government which brought their needs up to the standard set, well what is the difference if the Provincial Government only gives them $10 and they still have the amount required to . . . . . .

The minute the need becomes greater, and the cost of living goes up, I am quite sure that the Department of Welfare and this govern ment will see that their needs are met, but in the meantim e this is a "tempest in a teapot". It looks to me as if--I'll probably be ruled out of order for this, but it looks like as if they're speaking for those wonderful newspapers of ours rather than for any particular deep-down) March 1st, 1962 · Page 269

(Mr. Corbett, cont'd. ) ..... heartfelt convictions that the old age pensioners are being exploited. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the last speaker just finished saying that as soon as the cost of living will rise, then the government will see that they will receive a little more- the old age pensioner will receive a little more. Could we be told then why this increase in this pension of the person if it was felt that it wasn't needed? Is it a fact--would it be then what everybody believes, that it's just a promi se before an election ?

The honourable member tells us now that it's not needed; there's no increase in the cost of living. It's needed for everybody else but not for those people. MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this debate a little bit. I think we're all--I'm not trying to institute sweet reasonableness into the House, but I think if we have the real needs of the pensioner in mind we should come down, to earth here and get our facts straight. What is the federal old age pension? The federal old age pension is a dividend paid by Canada to citi zens of t� is co untry who reach a certain age.

The age is 70 without a means test, and it is 65 under the old age assistance, blind, and DA with income ceilings. In introducing The Soci al Allowances Act in this province it was our sincere desire to meet need where it existed. It was only too apparent to me and to my colleagues, and certainly I under stood all the members of this House who stood up and voted for it to a last man, that we did want to meet this need. Here we had introduced--this was precip itated in our time in office be cause of the im plementation of hospitalization and the changing welfare concept.

Not only after we paved the way in Manitoba, blazed the way, we find governments of every political faith across this nation copying verbatim The Social Allowances Act of Manitoba. Saskatchewan has copied it, and incidentally New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia have lifted whole sections of our act out. Now these are the facts of the matter. And why have we this concept? Because we believe in the need principle. I want to tell you what the impact of this is on a pensioner say in an institution in the town of Gimli. The rates in that home used to be $38 a month only five or six years ago.

As the standards of care in the institution, like that in other institutions have risen across the pro vince; as more care element.:_-some nursing care needed for these frail elderly--more nursing care and activity areas are established in these institutions; the cost of care in many of these institutions has risen to around $90 to $125 up to say, $150-$165 a month. These are people who don't need acute and constant medical and nursing care, but they need some help with dally activities .

Under your Social Allowances Act, there was the instrument by which you were able to supplement the basic dividend paid by Canada by an amount to meet the care of that patient or that individual, and also to give him $5. 00 extra comfort allowance when they are in institutions. Under The Social Allowances Act, to an individual you offer $10 in cash if they needed it and, to a couple, up to $15 in cash over and above their basic needs, plus the provision of medical care in all of these institutions and the Me(iicare card to those outside of institutions.

The Minister has indicated that, on the whole, roughly these average around, I think it's now, ...... • --I don't know the latest figure of the number of our senior citize ns over 65 who have been able to take advantage of this principle. Many we have found getting along on their means, on their needs, the monies they have, but requiring freedom from catastrophic care and medical and hospital care and the Medicare is still a real breach in this area.

Now it doesn't matter how much the--in working on this principal, the idea is that some people need an awful lot of support, and I am sure we all agree that to give everyone over 70 $150 a month would be very wonderful if the country could afford it and our resources were able to permit this, but it's up to the federal authorities in pre-conservative days, as in con servative days here, to give this pension and to increase it within their ability to do so. Many thousands of pensioners receive the $65 of course as a matter of right, as we pointed out.

The accusations in this House today are to the effect that we are, in some way, denying the pension er who is receiving, whose pension has gone up to $65, we are somehow withdrawing these mon ies and not allowing them to accrue to his cash benefit. But I think you then have to say to your self, is the needs test under The Social Allowances Act phony? What do you want? Here we have an old couple in a home, where one may have a stroke, which has happened and it's re peated many times, where the wife who is looking after him may become ill, they wanf to be together in their own home.

The Social Allowances Act is permitted up to $90 a month to be paid and more, whatever was the need for say a housekeeper plus the laying on of essential Page 270 March 1st, 1962

(Mr. Johnson, cont'd. ) ..... health services to keep them together in their home. It would be pretty hard, except under a needs principle such as I have enunciated, to truly meet the needs of people in this category; and there are somewhere over 260 of these people being supported in home- care situations under the soc ial allowances legislation. There are many getting this extra cash allowance and we think this is a sensible, practical method of the resources of the province being diverted into true need, rather than putting money indiscriminately into ever increasing across-t he-board -allowances.

I think we hear in public today that people are con cerned, that we hear all this talk of political parties out-bidding one another in this area of across -the-board pens ions. I think and I always will say this, that it is up to the Federal Government to say what the basic dividend to our senior cit izens should be and it's up to us at the local level to compleme nt, in partnership with the federal authorities, the needs as we see them in our particular jurisdic tion. And I make this plea again.

Now I don't think the members opposite, especi ally in the Liberal side of the bench, can make too much hay on this question, and it may be that they nev er will understand the concept under the needs test. Again, I can only make the plea that we are moving in this area; we are trying to play it straight, as I say through our individual assess ment; by a staff who conscientiously are trying to bring the spirit of the act to these people and to give the assistance where needed. But this only applies to those people who write in and who are enrolled on extra cash allowance at this time.

I just thought that this may be in some way helpful. In case some of the members have overlooked some of the points as brought forth by the Minister this afternoon, we must look at this in a very sane and practical manner because this is of the utmost impo rtance to these old people. I would like to know· what policies the Opposition parties have to truly meet·n eed other than the policy which we have enunciated under The Social Allowances legislation. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would permit a question.

Is the Minister satisfied that the $5 or $10 which is left to these people in the institutions is enough to meet their needs--to use his own phrase? Is he satisfied that those amounts are enough? MR. JOHNSON (Glmli): Having attended an institution of 115 people for some years, i would say that when the total needs of the individual are me t and provision for health services added, 'that $5 is the minimum for comfort certainly.

The comforts allowance of $5 to people in institutions, and nothing further in many cases, I admit may not be enough, but it certainly meets the minimum needs of the patient as a comforts allowance when all the other total care is provided. MR. PAUL.LEY: Mr. Chairman, I think to me the whole thing evolves around the base upon which we ascertain the minimum requirements on the basis of need.

Now the Minister, I think quite properly, the Minister of Health quite properly I think a moment ago, and also the member for Selkirk mentioned that--Well, first of all, the Minister of Health mentioned the div idend of now $65 a month in respect of those over 70 under the social security allowance.

The ·member' for Selkirk speaking before we came into the Comm ittee mentioned the fact that he thought that the increase, I think he was most generous to the adm\nistration at Ottawa when he said that party politics decide they had come to the conclusion that a more proper figure of this divi dend should be increased from $55 to $65 a month in respect of social security, and conse quently, of course, this affected the social assistance allowance. That was raised also.

But it seems to me, now I would like to be corrected by the Minister of Welfare if this is not cor rect, but it seems to me that in arriving at the figure of the basis of need, that before anyone can really recei ve any increase, any recipient of need can receive any personal increase, that the regulations setting up those amounts must be changed. I believe these are the latest figures. They are the Regulation of (7) 19 60, which sets forth the amount that is considered for the pur poses of the regulation of the basic ne cessity under The Social Allowances Act.

For food--a single adult, or the first adulf in a family of two beneficiaries, $23.0 0 a month, and then it goes on a scale of different amounts.

For clothing--each adult, $5. 00 per month; rent, $25. 00 per month for a single person living alone; for fuel, $15. 00 a month for each single person living alone in an unheated room, each fam ily $15. 00 per month in an unheated room, or in an unheat ed house, $19. 00; household and personal needs for each single person living alone, $10. 00 a month; $5. 00 for a person in an institution except where different amounts are set by the instit ution and authorized by the director. I think that's the point the Minister of Welfare made March 1st, 1962 Page 271

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd. ) ....• earlier this afternoon. Now, it seems to me that if the govern ment is not changing the regulations in these amounts, then they are not taking into considera tion what we presume is the reason for the increase in the base pension from $55 to $65 per month, that basic reason being, if we take the remarks as I interpret them of the Minister of Health and also the Minister himself, is a realization of the increased need or an increased div idend to the elder citi zens of Canada.

If this government is still going to retain the base of the necessities as contained in this regulation of 1960, then the government is going to gain as a re sult of the increase in file old age security pension and the new change in the old age assistance, because they are going to use the total amount of the income, which of course includes the pen sion, in arriving at the amount of difference it has made up between the total income of the per son and the amount of contribution under The Social Allowances Act. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that is the point that requires clarification.

If these regulations which were announced in the Gazette on March 5th, 1960 are still the basis of arriving at what is deemed the basic necessity for the purpose of the soc ial allowances , if they haven't been increased and the increased contribution from old age security is increased by the $10 a month, then the gov ernment oppos ite, or the Treasury should I say, will receive benefit as a result of the increase in the base pension. That is, I think, the matter that should be cleared up first. MR.

ROBLIN: ...... hope on my part that I would add anything very much to the discus- sion at this stage or perhaps to clear up some of the confusion that appears to exist, but probab ly I might be allowed to try.

I think you have to get down to some pretty basic fundamentals which have been compl etely ignored by some who have contributed to this discussion, and that ts this, that regardless of what took place in Ottawa in the minds of the Ministers when this in crease of $10 was proposed, we in this Hou se, this government, the people of this province de cided some time ago, two or three years ago, that a $55 pension in some ci rcumstances was simply not enough for people to live upon.

We dec ided two or three years ago, long before the federal decision, that the cost of living demanded some further assistance for those in need. So we take our whole approach to this matter, do we not--and as far as I know it was accepted by the Liberal Party, and perhaps not approved but accepted by the CCF Party at the time, are we not forced to consider the basis of the whole of .this legislation which has been said is based on need. So we took the level of $55 and we devote a. scale of additional assistance which we would pay to meet the need, and that is the scale of assistance that is paid today.

Now it should be pointed out that we have no objection, we welcome the fact that the floor is raised for everybody whether they have any need or not, that's all right with us, but when it comes to the im plemen tation of our policy, which the whole House voted for let it be remembered, we are still wedded to the principle of need; and we therefore say that when the needs change then our standards of care will change, but if the needs are relatively the same, then the same standard of assistance prevails; and that is the basis on which we decide whether or no.t some portion of this $10 shall be retained or whether it will not be retained.

Now the Leader of the New Democratic Party raised a very good point a minute or two ago when he said: "What about your standard of need?" That's what he now brings into question. I rather think that he understands what we're trying to do and he is now saying to us: "That's all very well, but what about your standard of need? It's dated 1960", Well now I have to con fess to him that we do have to have some regard to that standard of need, and as the cost of liv ing changes and circumstances change, we have to consider making changes in that standard of care. That standard is now some two years old.

I know that there may be some debate about this but, by and large, with respect to the essentials of life, the cost of livi ng has remained relatively standard. There have been some changes but they have not been of great im portance . We check those figures against our standard of need regularly to see whether alterations are called for.

In fact, as the Minister said sometime ago, some small changes have been made in the standard of rents because we found that the rent allowances that we were making available in the Winnipeg area simply wasn't fair in respect of particularly single people who were living alone, so we increased the allowances for rent. A MEMBER: When?' MR. ROBLIN: Just recently. About, I think, --subsequent to that it'll probably be pub _lished in the next issue of the Gazette. --(interjection)--! don't know. I haven't seen it but the regulation was altered within a matter of a month, let•s· say.

So we keep these matters under Page 272 March 1st, 1962

(Mr. Roblln, cont•d. ) .•.•. review to try and make sure that our standards of need are kept in touch with the circumst ances in which we find ourselves . So if we accept the principle of need, and if we agree that long ago we decided we should do more for these people, and we did it, then I think the position that we are taking today is a logical and defensible position--and I'll go fur ther-- and it's in the public interest. It is in the public interest because it reinforces the prin.,-. ciple that we are operating here on need. And why is that in the public interest?

First, be cause it takes care of those exceptional cases, and there are 20, 000 or so in this province which need, some of them much more than any $65 pension can ever bring. We have some 2, 000 people in the nursing homes of this province who are, apart from their pension, supported by the Treasury of the province that the taxpayers of Manitoba support. Two-t hirds of the people in our nursing homes are taken care of in this way. Do we refuse to pay when the nursing homes ask for more money :from us-andevery yearthey,do?

If they can justify the fact that their costs have gone up, which they have in some cases, mostly for labour in these nursing homes, then our payments to them go up. It is not out of the way to find the Provincial Treasurer pay ing some $30, $40 , or $50 a month as an addition to support these people in these nursing homes. I don't think w.e•re doing any less than our duty. I don't. think we should expect to be congratulated on that. We are doing what is our plain obligation to do under the circumst ances . We don't wait until the Federal Government at Ottawa raise pensions by $10 a month.

We act when the need arises . That ls what we have been doing and that is what we will do. And when costs of living rise so that we must adjust our sc ale of support to these folks , as the Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party quite properly drew attention to, then we're going to see that those changes are made. We're going to try to keep it in step. But I do beg members to get it out of their minds that we're proflteering on this ; to get it out of their mind that we're taking that money out of the pocket of the old age pensioner to bal ance our budget or something of that sort.

All you've got to do is look at the figures in the esti mates and see that, under Welfare and Social Allowance, millions of dollars more will be spent this year. Bec ause what are we doing ? We are making our welfare money go as far as we can because we know that even with our standards, which we think are reasonable--! would never say they were generous; I would never say that anyone on this standard rolls in luxury--no , far from it.

We know that every cent counts for those people under those circumst ances , and that if we're going to do the greatest good for the people who really need it, we have to see that this money goes as far as possible and we have to see that we make the best use of it as we can. I am certain that in the course of the next few years, certainly before the next pension increase comes, that we're going to be increasing our standards of welfare . We're doing it all the time.

You look in the estim ates here and you will see that we're spending one, two, three million dollars more, is it, on various types of welfare, most of it going into social allowances. We're certainly not making any profit on that. I think we are operating in a perfectly logical, reason able and, I trust, humane point of view in dealing with this problem. Some body gave me an amusing cartoon from the Free Press tonight, which I suppose members will enjoy because it shows Mr. Diefenbaker rolling out the $10 pension and Mr.

Roblin rolling it up, and the poor pensioner is sort of in between wondering just what's happen ing to him. Well, that is a cartoon which could well have been drawn by an organ of this New Democratic Party, because they don't believe in the needs test. But for anybody who believes in the needs test; anybody who believes in the needs principle; anyone who thinks that across the-board payments of this kind are questionable when one has a lim ited budget .'imd cannot eas ily meet_ the obligations that are placed upon one; then I find the sentiment here somewhat mis placed. Well, Mr.

Diefenbaker's going to have to look after himself and I guess he's well able to do that. All that I' m trying to do, all that I'm trying to do is to indicate to the House the basis on which our policy has been established. While I must say I think that the members of the New Democratic Party, who I don't think are very keen about the needs test,. they're going to say: "Let them have it anyway", and if we had enough money, how delightful that would be. I really don't understand why we're getting any serious complaints from the members of the Liberal Party because they never did anything of this sort.

They didn't have these extra grants. We do have them and we're operating them on a perfectly, I think, reasonable and logical basis. We1re trying to meet the needs , and that is what the policy that the government ls following here endeavours to do. March 1st, 1962 Page 273 •

(Mr. Roblin, cont1d. ) . Now you wi ll find that under this policy those people who are getting Medicare , there is no change whatsoever. One might say that if they're getting $10 a month more, why not make them pay something on Medicare , or why not ma ke them pay something in that respect. We didn!t think that was the right thing to do. I want to sa y that from my lim ited experience the reception of the public Medicare is even more gratifying than the extra cash allowanc e.

Man y people who are in need appreciate the ass istance they get under Medicare, of being able to have those· services availab le, very much indeed. They are not being disturbed in any way. Their Minister has expla ined that various categories of people rece ive different amou nts of money under this arrange ment, but when we deal with the main category that is troubling people, and that is those who are in institutions , never forget this fact, that we met the ir need when it arose. We didn't wait for any pension increase, we met it then; and if the need is st ill there, we meet it now.

We are not relati ng it to if and when anybody should deal wi th the across -the-board pensions as are done from time to time in the country. Our policy is to meet the need. We met it. We didn't wait for other people to increase the pension. We still stand ready to meet that need. I think that when me mbers have a chance to reflect upon it, I hope they'll agree that what we're doing is fair and sensible under the circumst ances . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. GRAY: I was up even before anybody spoke. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. Jl/[OLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, I'm certa inly very interested in the long speeches that we got from the Minister of Health and the First Minister on this subject. They roamed all over the place. I don't intend to follow all their mea nderings, I want to get back to the point that we 're discussi ng, but I do wa nt to correct--( interjec tion)-- Do you want to make a speech? --(interjec tion) --! do want to make one correction in what the First Minister said. He is try ing to imply that it was only when his government came into power that the idea of helping old age pensioners wa s developed.

I would li ke to point out to him that long before--the government that was then in power was assis ting old age pensioners over and above the contributions that they were receiv ing--long before. It's true that the methods by which they were doing it were different. They were doing it through the munic ipal ities , but it was the province, the Govern ment of Manitoba that was bearing the large part of the cost, so don't try and confuse the issue. Don't try and confuse the issue. MR. ,TQHNSON (Glmll): •.• ... tell us what that policy wa s. MR. MOLGAT: Yes.

Literally it was based upon the contributions that the municip alit ies made, and if it got over a certain percentage of a certain mill rate, then the province con tributed a greater amount, and this increased as time went on. MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition permit a question? MR. MOLGAT: Certai nly. MR. JOHNSON (Gimll): Would he tell us the numbers of pensioners who actually we re enrolled by municipalities for extra cash allow ance ? MR. MOLGAT: No, I'm sorry I haven't got the figures. MR. JOHNSON (Gimll): No, it'd be pretty hard to find them. MR.

MOLGAT: That may be, but the policy was there and a lot of them were being ass isted. However, my honourable friend draws up all this other material. They want to discuss this issue as a smoke-screen. I want to get down to tbe basic elements of this di::£uss ion and the po ints that I brought· up in my speech this afternoon, and that point is very simp le. The federal government has increased the old age pension by $10. 00. In my opinion, every in dividual who is eligible for that amount, who is an old age pensioner, should get that $10. 00 - everyone of them.

What is happening, in effect, is that my honourable friends are deducting from certain old age pensioners and they are not getting that increas e. They are not getting that increas e. They can speak all they wa nt about the fact that they were getting some extra allowance before and all the rest this, but relatively, an old age pensioner who was receivi ng $55 before is now going to receive $65,

whereas one who was receivi ng extra cash from you may receive· less, and certainly is not going to receive any more . That's the whole point of the discuss ion and my honoure:.ble friend the Minister of Welfare admit ted it the other day when he spoke in the House, when he said that the cash allow ance under The Social Allowances Act may be reduced somewhat, and in other cases w!lere they are paying for the board or rent of Page 274 'March 1st , 1962

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ... certain old age pensioners, this government is reducing the contribu tion that it's making. This is comi ng out of a pension that is given by the federal government - that's the whole point. MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a blessing today, to see the day when the Liberals and the Conservatives expressed a certain concern about the old age pensioners.

So far if you read the Hansards, and I could prove it to you with the Journals, everyone at any time we try to im prove the lot of the old age pensioners, we heard even the reverend gentleman here, who always has an interest in the poor· ana the unfortunate and the old age pensioners, com ing out with long Biblical speeches to show us how we should not grant and voted against it, and the same time -- oh, I water it down with something else. When I rose to speak, I did not see the Leader of the Liberal Party getting up, and a gentleman over there said: "He at least has something to say.

" I think an expression of this kind is unworthy of the member, unworthy of the member. I have been here 20 years and the people thought that I do say something some where, at sometime, and you have no right to ignore the wish and the wlll of the people and tell them that my Leader will still h<JYe something to say. And what in the world di;i he say? What did he say?

A good word for the old age pensioner, the first time in his life since he came in here, ·as far as I remember. (Interjection) I am listening very carefully believe me. (Interjec tion) I have, I am listening very carefully, and I read the Ha nsard too. I am not as dumb as your friend thinks I am. And if I am I won't be here because I do not want a dumb man to sit among so many intellectuals. It's almost ridiculous how they all come with ... ..... overnight and lets . him wait, what's going to happen to the motions we have submitted.

They want a mo tion they have submitted for many years of an increase to $75 a month. And take your own trouble, have your own secretary check the jmrnals and check the speakers and I don't need to tell you right now. And if you do I'll take the trouble of telling you that. I think it's ridiculous, it's insulting, it's unworthy and it should not have been mentioned.

Instead of encouraging a man who has spent his time for 46 years in public life and for 50 years in commu nal life, eQ. couraging me to my old age, helping me to get out of the building when I cannot do it myself some time, because I am old and weak, instead of he throws water and stones and rocks. I'd like to say something but it's not parliamentary. Now in my op inion, unless I am wrong, the discussion today is based on the amount which the pensioner gets for spending money -- that's my

interpretation. I say that the institutions here, the old age institutions, and I know something about them, I investigated, I called on them and I am a member of one institution myself. They have given them $5.0 0 a month long before the government instructions. They have given them $5.0 0 per month when they came in there but not eligible for pension, such as ....... cases and so on. They have given them $5. 00 a month before they got $55 and now $65 a month. They have given them this $5.0 0 f;Jr spending money a long time ago.

I only checked a few minutes ago with one of the superintendents in an old folks home and they say now they are giving them the amount they are instructed by the· depart ment to give them, because at the present time, the Department of Welfare is subsidizing or paying for each inmate that's in the Old Folks Home who is eligible for social assistance. So they cannot do anything on their own irrespective of what they do internally to make the life much happier in the golden age period of this life.

So now if you want the institutions -- I am speaking about the institutions only now, and not mixed up with anything else -- if you want the institutions to give them more they will be very happy to do it tomorrow; they will be very happy to do it and obey to the orders of the department. I don't think they are trying to save anything. To them, as long as the inmate is satisfied, the more he is satisfied, the easier it is for them and the less expense they have on the administration -- the less expense they have on the administration and the less expense to the state.

If they're satisfied, they keep well, they keep healthy. They are providing them at their expense will all the amusements, social gatherings, concerts -- and for an old man it seems a lot -- otherwise the poor woman sits and looks at the window all day long, dreaming and hoping and crying, "where are her children? Why don't they come? Why don't they visit her? It may not be possible, but now with a full program in all the institutions, with a full program of some interest in life: they are more satisfied and in the long run it pays.

So the question now is as far as I am concerned, and I appreciate very much the Fi rst Min ister's remarks just now, as far as they are concerned if the public felt the welfare depart ment is interested for the old age pensioner to get another quarter or a dolfar or three iiolla:rs for thei:t March 1st, 1962 Page 275

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) ...•. personal spending money so that they can go out to the store and buy a drink so that they can go out and buy a package of cigarettes, so that they can go out and take a bus to go down and visit somebody -- that's.t ha time for you to tell them ,o therwise there is no argument whatsoever. When it comes to the general discussion for the old age pension we probab ly will have something to say. MR. HRYHOR CZUK: Mr. Chairman, we have got off on a different tangent to what this particular debate started over and we must attribute that side-tracking to the First Minister.

We didn't start off this debate on the grounds that the Social Assis tance Act wasn't doing a good job, where it was do ing a job. I think that anybody will give the government credit for the work that they have done under this particular Act. That isn't the issue. The issue is, what has this gov ernment done with the additional contributions by the federal government to pensioners. That is the issue, and that i� what we are discussing. Now, no doubt .there are addit ional costs in insti tutions and homes but certainly the federal government didn't make these grants to the instititu tions and the homes.

The grants were made, the additional grants or the additional pensions were made to benefit the pensioner and that is the point of argument. Is the pensioner getting this benefit, or is the Treasury of this Government getting some of that benefit; and there is no question at all this government is benefiting from those addi tional contributions. This govern ment has made certain comm itments under the Social Allowance Act. Now what are they doing?

Under the Old Age Security where they had made a commi tment on behalf of a pensioner in a. home, they now take , they now take the $10. 00 increase in his pension to assist them in paying his maintenance in that home. They're actually getting out from under their responsibility, their comm itments under t.he Social Allowances Act. It is actually being used by this ·government as a grant towards the work that they are do ing, or supposed to be doing, under the Social Allowances Act. And that's as clear as can be, there is no getting around that.

As to whether the govern ment is justified in doing it or not, that is another point altogether. But the charge here is, the charge from here is that pension increases made to the pensioners by the federal government is being used by the provincial government under its Social Allowances Act. That is the charge and that charge sticks and you can't get out from under it. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, why must ·my honourable friend persist in perverting the philosophy of the Social Allowances Act, because it is as clear as can be that there are two sides to the argument, or to the setting of social allowances.

On the one hand is the means available to the person concerned and on the other hand is the need We recoguized the need long before any pension changes were made when the means of the pensioner changes, then of course one con siders what share of the need should be met by the province in this respect. If the means of the pensioner change in any other respect apart from his pension, apart from other income, then of course the thing has to be ·reconsidered again.

So there is the closest connection between the philosophy of the Soc ial Allowances Act which I have been trying to put forward this afternoon and what we do when the circumstances of the pensioner change. Now here, look at it from the other point of view. If that pensioner's need increases, supposing he develops diabetes, suppos ing he becomes -- he is not in a nursing home, but he has to go to a nursing home and his costs increase. What do we do ?

Forget about him , say to him, well what you got for your need last year was $10. 00 extra over the pension and we don't care that you've gone into the nursing home and that your costs are higher; we don't care that you got a drug bill with diabetes. We don't say that; we meet that need.

So that if we're doing it on the one side, I think that it is honest and fair to be doing it on the other side, and that is the very nub and essence of the whole argument, and that is why we say we are right· to do what we are doing, because we are endeavouring to meet need -- if that need increases even though the pension does not increase, we'll try and meet it. If the need decreases because of any change on the income side of the ledger then that has to be taken into account. Now it's very si mple. If you think that the Social Allowances Act in principle is sound then this is the way it is operated.

If you have got some other ideas about how we should be carrying on that's well and good, but I think that within the ambit of the Act, that should have been well understood by all members of the House because we talked about it every year, that what we are do Lng is quite understandable and also it is fair in the circumstances. MR. DESJARDINS: The Premier said a while ago, I don't know if it was wishful c':l.inking, I hope not, but he saii awhile ago that somebody might say that this money should be used for medicare. Well nobody has said that, I haven't beard anybody say that in this House.

We agree, Page 276 March lst, 196l I

(Mr . Desjardins , cont'd) .•. and it certainly is the philosophy of this party that every body is entitled to hospitalization and medical care , so that is something that shouldn 't have been brought in at all . Now it was said awhile ago that the Honourable, the Minister of Health has said it himself, that he realized that this $5. 00 is small and I agree with him that you can't just say, "all right we'll give you a fortune, we'll give you this, we'll give you that" -- you have to pay along to what you can afford. But this was done by this government before there was any increase in pension.

This was all done before this government -- they were ready to do it. Now they.•re saying this , "somebod y wants to come in and say these poor people, they just have the bare minimum, let's take them out for a meal" . But if they follow their system through, that's one meal that they've got, so they will deduct that from them -- if anybody wants to give them a little extra. And isn't that what the Government in Ottawa is trying to do . Telling those people, "that's fine, we feel that you should have a little more , and we all agree that we want to go higher and higher until people can live like free men .

This is what was said in this House be fore. We all agree I think on that, that we want people to live , not only be free , but be able to live like free men. All right now they're coming in the federal government -- we won't discuss motives here , but the federal government came in and said, "we would like to give these people a little mor e". We are not knocking the Act now , we are not knocking the Province of Manitoba for what they have been doing.

I was the first one to tell the Honourable the Minister that I fig ured the re was at least one in there that was sincere , that was trying his best and I don't deny that, but this is something different. Somebod y' s coming in and saying, "here , here is $10 .00 more , for what are we doing?" And if the Government of Manitoba is sincere in this thing, if they feel this wall we can't afford that, let them stand up and tell the Government of ottawa, "well don't give an increase, don't give an increase -- give us an increase in grants.

Give us an increase, because you're treating it the same as if it was a grant from the Government of Ottawa" . Is that right or isn't it? Exactly the same as if it was an increase in grants from the Government of Ottawa. This money was meant to make life a little easier. We're not running down, or at least I am not running down your Act at all , but I'm saying somebod y's coming in that wants to give a little more and you're taking it. Now it seems that those people -- you said awhile. ago, that you based yourself on $55 .0 0 per month and you try to meet the need.

Well that -- and you said th·e cost of living didn't go up, so therefore that same $55 that you're basing on then is the same now , so then get up and accuse the Government of Canada of being wrong then in giving them a little more. But there's nobody -- they weren't starving any more then than they are now . But the gove� ment -- as I say we won't go into any reasons for that. Maybe you should, maybe you should tell your· government at Ottawa, "you're not sincere , why bring this here ? Give us a little more money to help us". Maybe if you'd present it like that maybe we'd g.'J along with you on this end.

As I say again, it''l not the Act; this is something -- don't bring in medica re . We're altogether here saying tha.t every citizen of this province deserves the right to be looked after by doctors and in hospitals and so on, but if the governm ent of Ottawa gives a little more, don't take it away from them -- and that's exactly what you are doing. You mi ght call it a different way, call it what you want, maybe you're not taking it away from his pocket. If not , you're going a:head and taking his mail , you're getting it away before it gets in his pocket then, but you're taking it.

That's exactly what's happening. MR. CH AIRMAN: Order , order. The Minister of Health. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you Mr . Chairm an. I just want to stand up to refute categorically what the Member for St. Boniface has said. He must -- these blanket statements just don't hold. The champions of the means tests for 80 years in Canada can't overnight justify themsel ves in the eyes of the people of Manitoba by saying the things he's said about the Social Allow ances Act. I think the First Minister put it very clearly.

The social a:llowance principle says, we measure the individual's needs on an individual basis and meet the need in this way. We're only talking about those people -- those senior citizens of Manitoba who feel they need extra assistance '.vho contact our office and whom we help . In many cases -- in the majority of cases- in many cases as we have indicated in this House the high cost cases are -- their needs are met in a very realistic way , som ething which across-the- board allowances could never meet.

We' re talking about these groups who qualify for soc ial allowance , and in many cases -- for examp le , a man who say is on $55 now and who has had a visit from a soc ial worker; she measures his March 1st , 1962 Page 277

(Mr. Johnson, cont'd) •••• income, his shelter, his food and he's getting along fine but he needs another $7 .0 0. At the present time he would get $7 .0 0 plus a medioare card. Now he's going to get an extra $3 .0 0 from the federal authorities in the across-the-board · . . , which Canada is going to pay him , but on this basis he will get a medicare card. He's going to be a little bit better off than he was before, in many of these borderline cases who are under social allowances.

All those in institutions , no across-the -board allowance program that Canada could devise could truly meet their needs, and I think we have to keep these facts in front of us and not make blanket statements about the government's attitude towards pensioners as a whole _-- to categorize and group together as you have done. MR . DESJARDINS: . . . . . . . • . Just tell me which blanket accusation or blanket charge that he is referring to. It is not quite plain. Is he sorry that we are in favour of hls Act . Is that what you are trying to say?

Sometimes we are told we are not the champion of this and the next breath we are told everybody in this House vote for it. What are we trying to do? Is there any sincerity here? We're told by this group, "you never do this when we say something. Well , just what is it you want? Let's ask the Honourable Minister, do you want us to work together on this or do you want us to oppose you? Is that what you want? Let's have a little bit of -- I don't know what charge he's talking about. I just said this that I repeated it, that I agreed that I'm saying there's some good work being done there.

I've said that in the past and I say it again. But this is something else , this is a Government at Ottawa who is saying we want to make this a little better. It's not only them, it's every citizen that receives that. Those that aren't getting any help from you. They're $10.0 0 richer; they'll live a little better, and this is what Ottawa wants.

And as I say if there is merit to what you think, tell Ottawa, "well this is not the way to do it, because we are taking care; they're our dependents , we're taking care of them so send us the money." Then we will talk to you on that, but not when you say you're not taking the pension, because you are. You are ready to give that money, you were giving ft two, three months ago and now you're giving $10.0 0 less. Ten dollars less. (Interjection) You're still talking about need; that's fine but that pension, you're giving $10.0 0 less. They're receiving the same amount.

You might say -- you say it's not costing them anymore. It's not costing the fellow living in that little suite anymore, but he's living a little better. Maybe he'll smoke three or four cigarettes a ·�r=.; instead of one, or maybe he will be able to buy a package of cigarettes once in awhile in stead of picking butts . That is the diff10rence. We're not - - don't try to get us to say that, not me anyway, that I'mknockingyour Act -- I'm not. But I'm saying that if you don't like the way this is done , tell Ottawa, "we are taking care of those people ; send us the money, we are entit led to it".

That's the only question. MR . A.J. REID (Kildonan): Mr. Chairman, the First Minister mentioned awhile ago the needs of the people of the Province of Manitoba will be looked after. There is also other groups in our society, volunteer groups, Mr. Chairman, of many organ�zations .

They visit these insti tutions, old folks homes and all these other institutions that we have -- these people visit them and they visit them regularly , and if there is no need for it, why would these people have to go round every month and supply them with small essentials of life which are essential to them and they haven't got the means with which to get them with and the Welfare Department doesn't supply it either. So I'm sure, Mr.

Chairman, there must be a need there and I hope the government takes that under advisement and looks into that because if there was no need all these organiza tions, and I can mention a list of them, they don't go around :reglilarly month to month -- I'll in vite the First Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Welfare and we'll go on a tour on a month with these people and they'll see what they require. Their amounts may be small, but still they haven't got the means with which to pay for it.

So I am telling this government there is a need and the government shoultl give the people back that $10. 00. • • • • • • • (continued next page) Page 278 March 1st, 1962

1\ffi. LYON: Mr .

Chairman, I was quite interested in the remarks of the Honourable Mem ber from Kildonan because I recall hearing him make a few remarks the other day with respect to the terrible debt of the Province of Manitoba and so I shall confidently expect that when we come to the question of voting for these tremendous increases in the social allowances estimates that he will not raise that for revision before us again and that he will stand up and be counted as favouring thistremendous increase which has been alluded to before in the debate today -- an increase from six million six to eight million .two under the Social Allowances Act, and that he for one, and I believe he is the only one on his side of the House , will not be too concerned about the increase in debt, perhaps that may be occasioned by that --(Interjection).

Now for my friend in the offic ial Opposition. If ever we have seen an example and a mani festation, a clear one of political schizophrenia, we have it here today. Because we are going to be bombarded for the next three, four, five, six or seven weeks about the tremendous expen ses of the government; al:out the great increases that are going on in all of the departments of government. Where is the money coming from?

The imposition on the taxpayer and all of this. (Interjection) They may try to sing a different tune at times but I know that this is going to come out. (Interjection) The official Opposition, the official Opposition. Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is difficult for my honourable friends in the official Opposition to cast out of their minds this across-the-board penurious increase of a type that they used to give before . I know we all remember the days when the five dollar and the six dollar increase was all they gave across the-board. Meeting need is a concept that is really foreign to them.

Meeting need is a concept that they voted for, but I think it has become very apparent that they really didn't lmow what they were votilig for when they voted for the Social Allowances Act. I hateto confuse the political attacks by members of the official Opposition by some of the facts , but I think some of the facts should be made available to them . I'm sure that they have, and I am sure that I will be repeating in large part what has been said by the First Minister, the Minister of Welfare, the Minister of Health, and I'm sure which is understood by members of the NDP Party.

But we have in the type of attack made today by the Leader of the Opposition some concept that the Social Allowances Act is a bonus system, a statutory bonus, an across the-board thing, a matter of right; if you 're getting sixteen dollars a month extra assistance today , you're bound to get sixteen dollars a month for the rest of your life. And that is not it at all. That is consonance with the old scheme that they followed, which we all changed, and which I think we ushered out quite cheerfully. And I'm sure the old age pensioners were quite happy to see it go.

That is in consonance with that type of thing; but it certainly is diametrically opposed to the type of thinking that is apparent in the Social Allowances Act . I wonder if too many honourable members across the way in the official Opposition have taken the trouble to read the Act and to see just exactly the principles that are laid down in that legislation -

Section seven: "If he feels that an applicant should receive a social allowance the director shall , subject to sub-section 2, by his written order, fix the amount of the allow ance that shall be paid to him . The director shall fix an amount that, in his opinion, will be sufficient to provide the applicant with an income sufficient to pay the cost of his basic necessi ties ." Statutory. Here's the heart of the whole matter.

"In fixing an amount under subsection 2, the director shall take into consideration, and may deem to be part of the income of the appli cant, all other income and regular periodical receipts or revenue, including an amount deemed by the director to be income-value of any of the assets of the applicant and his dependent, if any, from any source, ". From any source. And he may include in that income any amount that in his opinion is the net value of his income after payment of any charges applicable thereto of occ upancy of real estate, of food clothing and other necessary supply. Subsection 4.

"Subject to subsection 3, which I have just read, "The receipt of a pension under the Old Age Security Act, Canada, assistance under the Old Age As sistance Act , or an allowance under the Blind Person's Allowance Act, or under the Disabled Persons Allowance Act, does not of itself disqualify the recipient from receiving a social allowance under this Act. " It most certainly doesn't disqualify him , but it is part of income.

Now if we are to adopt the principles of my honourable friends in the official Opposition we must say this: A man who is receiving social allowances today in any amount, if he falls heir tomorrow to an estate of $5, 000 according to them be continues to receive social allowances as of right, by statute. And that is not the case . That is not the case . If his income -(Interjection) the Act says that if his income is augmented from any source at March lst, 1962 Page 279

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd) ••• all the director by Statute must take this into account. Along with the First Minister, along with everybody on this side of the House, I am not going to say that the payments received by old age pensioners under social allowances are generous , but I do say that they are motivated to give him a fair and a basic way of life; to give him the basic necessi ties of life. That's what the Act is intended to do. We know, we know far better than my honour able friends in the official Opposition, we know far better that more can be done. And, as the First Minister said: "we're looking at it all the time." As a matter of fact if you refer to the Regulations,

Section 9 of the Regulations of 1960, "each recipient's circumstances shall be re viewed by the director periodically, and in no case less than annually and the allowance shall be adjusted accordingly, within the limits set forth in the regulations." Now I don't see how anything could be much clearer. This is not a bonus . This is oomething that is much broader than anything that my honourable friends ever envisioned in their time -- this looks at the whole and the total concept of need. And to say that the Government of Manitoba is robbing the pen sioners of this ten dollars is just so much absolute malar key.

The money is being received but the social allowance if the need has not increased -- if the need has not increased -- the need for the same amount of social allowance is obviously not there. Under the prevailing scale, and I'm not saying for a moment that the scale is overly generous , not at all, but this is what the statute says: this is what you voted for; this is what we're all working for in this House to try to increase these standards year by year as more money becomes available -- and look what we're doing this year. Another two or two and a half millions of dollars.

Are we getting that out of the pockets of the old age pensioners? We certainly aren't. We're getting it out of the general revenues of this province. That's where it's coming from. And so in the light of everything that's been said by the Liberals today, I hope , Mr.

Chair man, we'll all remember when we come to vote for this item on the welfare estimate, we want them to stand up as a body, as they stood up today, and vote and cry Hallelujah for this increase, because if there is any semblence of reason, if there is any semblence of truth, if there's any semblence of true conscience in what they say today, that's what they'll do, that's what they'll do; that's what they have to do if they're going to be consistent. Because we know what we're trying to do .

I think the NDP have a glimmering of what we're trying to do, but I'm afraid that my honourable friends opposite are a lost cause. And it may well be -- I never like to make political prognostications -- but it may well be , that they'll fall back and lapse into their old ways and they'll vote against this increase as being detrimental to the taxpayers of Manitoba. We'll only have to wait and see. But I tell them right now , and I charge them right now with this responsibility, they better be ready to vote for this increase if their hearts are where their tong ues are today.

And we're going to look forward with a great deal of interest, as are all of the old age pensioners in Manitoba, to the vote of the Liberal Party when they come to this item in the estimates. MR . HRYHORCZUK: I want to accept that challenge. I'll accept that challenge with one re servation; that we'll expect the government to deduct the subsidy they obtain from the Federal Government in these old age pension contributions. MR . CHRISTIANSON: This is obviously the point that they're trying to make and they're having quite a difficult time doing it.

They are trying to prove that the increase in the old age pension is going to save the Province of Manitoba money. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be fur ther from the truth. This increase in pension is going to cost the Government of Manitoba money. It's going to cost us, we're not exactly sure yet because of the increase in the allowable income limits under the pension catagories, but it's going to cost us upwards of two hundred thousand dollars in the coming year. And it will cost us some seventy thousand dollars to increase the pension to these people in the final two months of fiscall96l.

Now they can talk all they like, and they can try and obscure this issue in the minds, well in their own minds, because I'm sure they're not confusing anybody else , but this fact-nevertheless is true. This is costing the people of Manitoba money -- a lot of money. (Interjection) MR . MOLGAT : Mr. Chairman, there's no confusion except vrhat the governments trying to throw . The whole point is that my honourable friends are seeing to it that some of the pensioners in Manitoba do not get the ten dollar increase that the federal government is giving and it's as simple as that. (Interjection) Is that a fact?

Do you admit that -- (Interjection). Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the whole question. My honourable friends are seeing to it that the ten dollars Page 280 March 1st, 1962

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ••• that Ottawa has granted is not going to the pensioners �- it's going to the government. MR . CHRISTIANS ON: No, that is not true, Sir. MR . PAULLEY: Mr . Chairman, I thought this has been very amusing, sort of almost like brain washing to some degree . I know that frequently in this House I've been accused of almost leading a coalition with my friends opposite . I certainly, in matters of this nature and many others, in view of their past record, can support my friends on the· right. But I take disagree ment with the government on this basis -- and this may be repetitious.

I can understand the reasoning of the government insofar as the net effect of this ten dollar increase on those who are in receipt of social allowances and I think their explanations in general are correct. My big beef and the beef of the old age pensioners who are on social allowance , is that the base on which we arrive at the amount, the total amount, on social allowance is not high enough.

The Minister of Health quite frankly and quite sincerely, and be is a sincere indiVidual, stated that in his op inion, that it may be questionable as to the adequacy of the five dollar monthly allowance for pers onal effects . I agree most heartily with him. I would even go further than mention the fig ure of five dollars , as my colleague from St.

John' s mentioned when be was speaking, "five doll ars today simply isn't sufficient on a monthly basis to provide for the personal needs of an indi- · vidual that's in an institution." And I think that be's perfectly correct, and I think now that there has been an increase in the social security pension, and the other pensions as well, that the gov ernment should immediately reviewtha regulation and I referred to of 196 0. Now the First Minister mentioned the. fact that it's in the process of being gazetted of some adjustment in respect of rent on this phase .

I suggest that notwithstanding that the base cost of living may have only risen a relatively small amount -- and I think it has risen since the regula tions of 1960 - - I ask the government notwithstanding the rather small amount of the increase, to take into, consideration increasing the base for the purposes of the regulation, over and above any percentage increase in our cost of living.

As against my friends on my right, I'm crying for the government - notwithstanding the fact that they have an increase in their over-all wel fare of a couple of million dollars -- I'm appealing to the government to increase that substant ially in order that those people who found it necessary to obtain supplemental assistance under our SoCial Allowances Act, will be in a position not to have to do that. However, that would re quire still further increases in the base pension from federal authorities and I can appreciate that.

But I say to the government, take into consideration this question of five dollars as it is allowable under the regulations , subject to some change by the Director, make that ten or fif teen dollars or whatever the figure should be -- take into consideration that the base allowed in the regulations for rent is $15 a month, or whatever it is, to increase that in order that they may have more cash to do with themselves as a result of this.

Now I have one big criticism of the federal government and while we 're dealing with the over-all questions of pensions , I have a big criticism with the federal authorities -- and I was surprised not to hear my honourable friends mention this -- for I understand that under War Veterans' Allowances Act I believe it is , or the burnt out pension, that they immediately on the increase of the $10 in social security allowances pension, decreased the amount of the War Vet erans' Allowances so that the net amount remained the same .

I think those people who are gett ing along without any other supplemental allowances have been prejudiced against. There's one appeal that I have, and if I can make this appeal through this House Mr. Chair man, I hope that it will be heard, and that is an appeal to the landlords of our rooming houses and our houses in the Province of Manitoba, and particularly the Greater Winnipeg area, not to use the increase of $Hi a month in old age security pensions to increase the rentals that these people have to pay.

There to me is going to be, or it appears, a crime, if they do it, on many of the recipients of old age security, formerly $55, now it's $65 , who are just scraping by with out any supplemental assistance due to pride or other circumstances, and I want to use this House as an appeal to them. Again, I say my criticism with the government opposite -- they must resume the base of how they arrived at the necessities contained in their regulations .

I appeal to them despite the assurances of the First Minister, on one phase namely, if I under stood him correctly, a rental basis , to look over and review the whole picture. In one aspect the Liberals have been a little bit correct today in when they say that this a mount of the $10 increase will have a be aring because of the compution of income, but as the March 1st, 1962 Page 281

(Mr. Paul1ey, cont'd) ••• Minister of, the Attorney-General so correctly pointed out, that not withstanding where the source of the additional revenue came from it would still have to be taken under consideration in our Social Allowances Act. I understand that clearly.

I ask this Government of Manitoba -- they did despite some of the arguments that I had from my honourable friend who used to be the Minister of Health and Welfare on the basis of need or means -- they did start, and we did support his legislation, I say to the Government of Manitoba, notwithstanding the past records of my honourable friends on my right to review the regulations, to increase the amount of money that a person on social assistance may have for his personal effects so that they can have more of the little odds and ends, in a sense what we deem as the essentials of living today.

There to me is the area that the government must take under consid eration. And Mr.Chairman, let me assure the Government and this House, as far as I am per sonally concerned, I am not going to object to any increase in our estimates to provide for great er comforts to those citizens of Manitoba who are less fortunate than any of us who are sitting in this House . MR . NELSON SHOEMAKER (Gladstone) : Mr. Chairman, I fully expect this debate will be revived again when we reach the Minister's salary, and I think it would be very helpful if we had some information from the Minister before we do reach that point.

And I for one would like to know the number of persons that are presently receiving social allowances, broken down to show the number that are presently in receipt of, or -- we'll say as of January 1st, to make it a little easier -- the number presently in receipt of $10 a month and less of social allowance, and the number greater than that; and the number that are presently receiving medicare and only medicare; and the number of persons that are presently in receipt of old age assistance pensions, blind persons and total disability -- if we could have that then it would be useful I do believe.

It strikes me that, and I think someone mentioned that the number of persons presently in receipt of social allowa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	97527c9eea7bf435f7ded089ba2ab3951608ff3a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).