From a Declaration issued by
Canada.

HE White Paper on “Income
Security for Canadians” tabled
in the House of Commons last
Nov. 30 by Health and Welfare
Minister John Munro, is a
a shameless attempt to hood-

“wink the people of Canada.

The truth is that legislation already

adopted, and more of such legislation.

to come, is completely reversing policy
from one of universal income protec-
tion and income support as an inalien-
able right of all Canadians, to a policy
by which such payments are to be
made on a selective basis, or proven
poverty.

This means that the hated meens
test, or needs test, against which more
than a half century of struggle has
been conducted, is now being brought
back by the Trudeau administration.

The funds for income protection and
income support programs to sustain
the needy and poverty-stricken are to
come from other victims of exploita-
tion who are less needy and less
poverty-stricken. In other words, it is
a program aimed at a re-distribution of
poverty.

By these means, not more, but less
money is to be put at the disposal of
the working people. At the same time
the rich are to be made richer. There
is to be a planned polarization of
wealth and poverty.

Large private incomes and corporate
profits are needed—so says Mr. Mun-
ro’s White Paper — “to stimulate the
economic development which is the
basis of national well-being”. Conse-
quently the rich are not to be taxed,
and great wealth is not to be touched
for purposes such as income security
for working people in need.

The grand design for Trudeau’s
“Just Society” is becoming unmistak-
ably clear. The rich are to be made
still richer. The poverty-stricken are to
be maintained by those not yet so
poverty-stricken. A planned _polariza-
tion of wealth and poverty. A policy
of deflation to create masses of unem-
loyed. Repression of civil liberties
along with an attack on the just na-
tional aspirations of the French Cana-
dian people. The maintenance and ex-
tension of economic and social inequal-
ity. This is a plan to -enforce a
“Means Test Society.”

A policy of financial give-away pro-
grams in favor of the propertied
‘classes, the wealthy and the monopo-
lies at the expense of the laboring
classes. This is the great robbery, the
swindle that is being perpetrated upon
the people of Canada.

By a policy of juggling and dishonest
manipulation, the government seeks to
shift a few dollars to pacify those in
greatest need at the expense of those
who manage to scrape by with hard
work and accumulating debts. All this
without increasing the taxes on the.
rich by a single penny. Let us see how
this “miracle” is accomplished.

1. OLD AGE PENSIONS

Old age pensions for those in need
were won in 1927 at $10 per month and

the Central Committee of the Communist Party of

a constant struggle has been waged to
increase them and make them univer-
sal. In 1950, such pensions became uni-
versal with no means test and no needs
test of any kind, that is, they were
payable as a right to all Canadians. In
November 1964, Judy LaMarsh, the
then Minister of Health and Welfare,
stated that “all future old age security
pensions will be pegged to the cost-of-
living index and will rise automatically
if living costs increase.” The cost of’
living adjustment was most unfair at
2% maximum regardless of how high
living costs went up. But the principle
was there. People have paid taxes into
the Old Age Security Fund with the
expectation of receiving universal pen-
sions adjusted to some extent to meet
price increases.

In December 1966, the government
brought in a guaranteed income sup-
plement to the old age pension. This
supplement was payable subject to a
needs test and thus violated the prin-
ciple of universality. But the universal
escalation, based on 2% cost-of-living
allowances was retained.

Now even that is being taken away.
On Jan. 1, 1971, the basic old age pen-
sion of $79.58 per month was increased
by a miserable 42 cents per month. The
resultant figure of $80 per month is
frozen at that level with no adjustment
for increased living costs. The basic
pension, therefore will be down to
$79.20 per month by the end of this
year. In 10 years it will be down to
$64 per month, or less, in terms of
relative buying power, based on the
old escalator of 2% maximum to meet
rising living costs.

The guaranteed income supplement

LAST POST PHOTO

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY—FEBRUARY 5, 1971—-PAGE 6

will be payable, subject to a needs
test, starting from April 1971. Those
who have no other source of income
but the pension, will get an increased
supplement — from $31.83 per person,
to $55 for single people, and $95 for
married couples. Taking both basic

pension ‘and. supplement together, this

means that the present amount of
$111.41 will be increased to $135 per
month for individuals. For couples, the
increase will be from $222.82 to $255
per month. There will be a reduction
of $1 for every $2 of added income
from work or other sources of income.

Increased costs of these payments
will come from the Old Age Security
Fund.

The combined total of these pay-
ments will be subject to a 2% per
year escalation to meet price increases
and living costs.

This means that our senior citizens
are being divided into two groups.
Those who qualify for supplementary
benefits and who, therefore, receive
cost-of-living bonuses, and those who
only receive a basic pension with no
cost-of-living bonus, and whose pen-
sions, therefore, will gradually. shrink
in real value. :

2. FAMILY ALLOWANCES |

This is to be called a “Family In-
come Security Plan.” Starting Septem-
ber 1971, families whose combined in-
come does not exceed $4,500 per year
will receive $16 per month for each
child under 16 years of age. This
amount will decline by $1 per child for
each $500 added to the combined in-
come of parents, until couples with an
income of $9,501 to $10,000 per year
will get $5 per month for each child.
This will be payable to the mother. All
benefits paid will be taxable. Families
will be required to apply annually for
the new children’s allowances to de-
termine eligibility and the appropriate
rates. Those with incomes over $10,000
per year will be cut off all family al-
lowance payments.

By terminating payments to people
earning $10,000 yearly incomes, the
government will save 294 million dol-
lars. Only $100 million of this will go
to pay increased family allowances to
families on lower incomes.

The people who contribute to this
surplus over and above the cost of the
new program, will be those families
with incomes above $10,000 per year
who have children. They are the ones
who will lose anywhere from $60 to
$192 for each child below 16 years of
age in the family.

Clearly this is the opposite to the
principle of taxation according to abil-
ity to pay.

3. CANADA AND QUEBEC
PENSION PLANS

No changes can be effective in this
area for three years owing to the sta-
tutory requirement for consultation
with Quebec and the provinces. .

Proposed changes call for $162 per
month by 1977, in addition to the Old
Age Security Pension, for those who
are retired.

For disabled it will be a maximum of

VARSITY ©
$199 per month by 1973, rising”
by 1977. |
Wives of disabled will receiNy,
rate of $80 per month if they 7h,
65 years of age and have %
children. 0
Widows are to receive Sia
month in 1973, regardless of #j
will rise to $208 in 1977. Je
Persons already receiving WW
disability pensions under the 3x
Plan in 1972 will have their P%
readjusted in 1973 to reflecls,
benefits. Bi
The effect of these new Pile
with respect to the Canada fo
Plan and the Quebec Pension “.M
be to increase costs by $365 Dl
1973-74. This will come from “M
sion Fund to which we all cOMBe
and which has grown beyond ©?
tions. No increase in the geM Or
tribution rate is contemplal@sy
after 1985. But raising of the Msi
pensionable earnings ceiling ¥ 40
ever, mean higher contributio™ er
existing rate for most peop!® ito
earnings are above the presel me

4, SOCIAL ASSISTAY.,

This is the present welfar
which operates under provine dip
diction. Under the Canada “7
Plan the federal government th
butes 50% of costs to such Py
changes are proposed in this K
spite the many serious Weg,
which do exist in this humilis)"
degrading relief system.

This is a most unequal plat |
provinces that are poorer an@ (im
income can often have the lal
fare costs. This, in turn, WO ig
more heavily on municipaliljjy
contribute 20% toward the 00%
meagre revenues obtained ma ft i
one single source—the prop®

5. UNEMPLOYME |
INSURANCE )

A separate White Paper 0f g
published in June 1970, Mh |
Dec. 3, 1970 budget, which if
seen as a companion piece t0 %
ro’s White Paper on Income %
provided for an increase ® |
benefits for the unemployed “fl
unemployment insurance. This
became effective on Jan. 3 %
provides for a single perso? |
minimum rate of $14 per Wi
maximum of $46 for those Fd
earning more than $100 per ©