1926-04-15

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
First report of the joint committee of both houses on the Printing of Parliament.- Mr. Marcil.

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

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	Is the government aware that there are being sent through His Majesty's maills 'to the province of Quebec thousands of pamphlets containing the speeches delivered by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen at Hamilton and in the county of Bagot, also accompanied by a photograph of the author, and that the postage is not paid on these postal matters, the envelopes being franked at the House of Commons and bearing the initials S.F.T., M.P.?
2.	Who is the member or official represented by said initials S.F.T., M.P., on above postal matters?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	The postmaster of the House of Commons informs the government that the initials "S.F.T., M.P." are those of S. F. Tolmie.


Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Is the government aware that even before the session of parliament opened there have been sent through His Majesty's mails to the province of Ontario thousands of pamphlets issued by the National Liberal committee, 115 Sp>arks street, Ottawa, containing criticism of the speech delivered by the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen at Hamilton as not being sufficiently imperialistic for said National Liberal committee, and that the postage was not pvaid on these postal matters the envelopes being franked and bearing the initials, "W.L.M.K., P.M."?
2.	Who is the member or official represented by said initials "W.L.M.K., P.M.", on above postal matters?
Questions


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	The postmaster of the House of Commons informs the government that the initials "W.L.M.K., P.M." are those of W. L. Mackenzie King.



CORNWALL POST OFFICE-PRIVATE BOXES

Mr. HAMILTON:: 1.	Is it a fact that the charges for poet office boxes in the post office at Cornwall, Ontario, have been increased one hundred per cent without notice?
2.	If so, whyj


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	These rates have been increased as follows:
Style "A" from $2 to $4.
Style "B" from $3 to $6.
Style "C" from $5 to $8.
Style "D" from $8 to $12.
2.	The higher rates are those applicable at post offices where delivery is made by letter carrier. Letter carrier delivery was established at Cornwall on the 4th January, 1926. The postmaster was advised of the increased rates to be charged on the 7th April, 1926.



CUSTOMS INQUIRY-MR. CALDER

Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Did Mr. R. L. Gadder send in a bill as counsel before the special committee investigating matters connected with the Customs department?
2.	If so, for what amount?
3.	On what basis is he being paid?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$4,6155. (Fees and expenses.)
3.	Fee $200 per diem, while engaged in work for the committee, and $15 per diem expenses, when so engaged elsewhere than in Montreal.



CUSTOMS INQUIRY-ACCOUNTANTS

Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Did the firm of Clarkson, Gordon & Dilworth, chartered accountants o<f Toronto, send in a bill for services rendered to the special committee investigating matters connected with the Customs department?
2.	If so, how much does this bill amount to and what period does it cover?
3.	How many men is this firm employing for the work and how much is each man paid per day?
4.	How much is this firm charging for the expenses of each man?
5.	How were their services retained?
6.	Were there any special arrangements made before- . hand for fees and expenses?
Right, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
1.	Yes.
2.	Fees, $8,684.50; expenses, $2,234.06. Total, $10,918.56, from February 19 to March 27, 1926.
IMr. Doucet.]
3.	18 men (2 part time only) and 2 stenographers.-(2 part time) at $150 per diem, 1 at $100 per diem, 2 at $40 per diem, 1 at $25 per diem, 2 at $20 per diem, 1 at $15 per diem, 9 at $10 per diem, 2 stenographers at $5 per diem.
4.	Actual travelling and hotel or boarding house expenses only. (Vouchers attached to account).
5.	By resolution of the committee dated February 17, 1926.
6.	No.



GERMAN REPARATIONS

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Which department of the government is responsible for the work of the Canadian Reparations Commissioner, and the administration of all matters for which Canada is responsible under the treaties of peace between Germany and Austria and the allied nations, more particuilarly articles 296, 20V, 298, 299, 300, 391, 302, 303, and the annexes and general provisions relating thereto?
2.	Has such department of the government or the Reparations Commissioner made an annual report for presentation to parliament?
3.	If not, has there been any report whatever which sets out fully the work of the Reparations Commissioner or the department of the government responsible for the work?
4.	If no reports have been made is there to be a report, and when may it be expected?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No official with the title "Canadian Reparations Commissioner" has been appointed or holds office. Mr. James Friel, K.C, was appointed under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter 104 of R.S.C., to inquire into and report upon claims for losses sustained by the civil population during the war, and he is not subject to responsibility of any department of the government. The fund from which his expenses are paid is administered by the department of the Secretary of State. The administration of matters for which Canada is responsible under Economic Clauses Articles 296 to 303 of the treaties of Peace have been delegated to the custodian appointed under the various treaties of Peace orders in council. The custodian is defined by the treaty of Peace order in council as follows:
"The custodian" means, in respect of the time prior to the date of this order, the Minister of Finance and Receiver-General, and from the date of this order means the Secretary of State of Canada, who shall be the successor as custodian of the Minister of Finance and Receiver-General, and to whom all property, rights and interests heretofore vested in the custodian are hereby transferred."
2.	No.
3.	No.

Imperial Conjei'ence
4.	Mr. Friel is required by his commission to make a report to the Governor General in Council. The custodian is not required by the treaties of Peace orders in council to make a report.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any invitation to (the proposed colonial conference next October yet been received from the British government? If so, what are its terms?
2.	Will Canada be represented if one is held; who will represent the government, and will the government lay on the table of the House the correspondence as to any proposed conference and the replies made to the same by Canada to Great Britain and the various governments of the oversea dominions?
3.	Will the agenda for said conference be presented to parliament for consideration and discussion at the present session ?
4.	What questions are proposed to be taken up by the government at the said conference on behalf of Canada, or what suggestions have been made by Canada?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 

CARILLON POWER DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways whether any permits or licenses or leases have been applied for or granted involving construction in the Ottawa river at Carillon or involving the right to export power.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I will make inquiry into the matter and give my right hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



MAIL MATTER-MARKING WITH RUBBER STAMP

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Postmaster General. I have in my hand an envelope of a letter posted in the city of Montreal and upon the face of it applied by rubber stamp is this statement:
In bilingual Canada why not a bilingual postage stamp?
Is this done with the approval and consent of the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not noticed the particular matter to which my hon. friend has referred. I am obliged to him for having brought it to my attention. I will have inquiry made as to just how it appears there.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I presume this kind of thing must be done with consent of the Post Office Department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Am I right?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will ask the Prime Minister another question. Can this kind of propaganda foe carried on without the consent of the postal department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
doubt the Postmaster General himself has knowledge of the matter, but it has not been brought to my attention before. However, 1 shall make inquiries of the Postmaster General, ascertain the fact, and give my hon. friend further word. If my hon. friend will be kind enough to let me have the envelope to which he has referred it will help me in my inquiries.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is understood, of course, that it will be returned to me?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon,
member will have to trust me all in all or not at all.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands as an order for return.



LA SALLE CAUSEWAY BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Has the attention of the Minister of Public Works been called to the possibilities of accident on the La Salle causeway bridge? Perhaps I may quote a newspaper paragraph in reference to the condition of this structure. A mother and son narrowly escaped injury recently, according to this item, which concludes as follows:
On closer inspection it was noticed that the slabs of concrete are in a somewhat dilapidated condition. The falling of this piece of concrete illustrates the potential danger that exists there.



THE BUDGET


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means.
He said: A Dominion budget necessarily deals with two years-the year that is past and for which the Public Accounts have been submitted to parliament, and the year that is either currfent or, as in this case, just closed.
Public Accounts 1924-25
The Public Accounts for the financial year 1924-25 were tabled on the 11th of January last. In the budget speech delivered on the 24th of March, 1925, in making the estimate for the outcome of the year 1924-25, I followed the usual safe practice of estimating revenues yet to come as somewhat less than they would likely be and expenditures as somewhat greater.
The actual outcome of that year, as shown by the Public Accounts recently tabled, gives in round figures $2,800,000 more of ordinary revenue than was estimated. Ordinary expenditures were $808,000 less than were estimated; capital expenditures $1,500,000 less; special expenditures $209,000 less; and loans to the Canadian National Railways $8,00^000

The Budget-Mr. Robb
leas. The budget estimated an increase of debt for that year of some $13,000,000. In connection with this estimated increase of debt I now desire to offer a pleasing explanation. When the estimate for budget purposes was determined, an item of $7,500,000 for the Canadian National Railways in the supplementary estimates submitted to the House for that year was included as an expenditure. Three months later, when under consideration in the House, this item was, on the motion of a member of the government, struck out thus reducing by that amount the estimated increase of debt. The improvement in our revenues and the curtailment of expenditures in these and other minor services were sufficient to change an estimated increase of some $13,000,000 in the debt into a decrease of $345,589.29, as shown by the Public Accounts for that year.
Increase of $29,965,520 in Revenue
Coming now to the fiscal year 1925-26, four years of prudent administration, good crops and greater production at home, improved conditions and increased purchasing power abroad, enabled me to-day to present a financial statement as encouraging to Canadians as it must be gratifying to all interested in the progress and development of Canada. Throughout the year imports of raw material for Canadian industries have been well maintained, in a number of instances in excess of previous years; while from month to month during the year export trade increased, resulting in a steady growth of our favourable balance, which at the end of the fiscal year
exceeds $402,000,000. Nowhere are the results of this growing trade more accurately reflected than in the increased earnings of Canadian railways and in the annual statements of Canadian financial institutions and Canadian industrial corporations.
The actual ordinary revenues received up to and including March 31 last amounted to S367,958,495. The estimated revenue yet to come when the accounts for the year are finally closed is $8,841,505. This gives a total revenue of $376,800,000, an increase of some $29,965,520 over similar revenues for 1924-25.
Revenues and Expenditures
The revenue estimated from customs duties is $127,360,000, an increase of $19,200,000 over the previous year; from excise duties we expect $42,920,000, an increase of $4,300,000; we estimate that the revenue from excise taxes will be $95,500,000, an increase of $9,689,000; from income taxes we estimate $55,530,000, a decrease of $700,00 under the previous year; of arrears overdue under the former Business Profits War Tax Act we have collected some $1,150,000; from interests on investments we estimate a revenue of $8,270,000, a decrease of about $3,062,000; we expect to receive $30,334,000 as post office receipts, an increase of $1,540,000; and from all other sources we estimate a total of $15,736,000, being an increase of $541,000.
With the permission of the House, I shall place on Hansard a comparative summary of the two years' revenues by services; also a further statement showing the percentages of revenues to the total revenues for the year 1925-26.
Ordinary Revenue
Customs	
Excise Duty	
Excise Taxes	
Income Tax	
Delayed Business Profits Tax
Interest on Investments....
Post Office	
Other Revenues	
Actual 1924-25	Estimated 1925-26	Increase	Decrease$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts	$ cts.108,146,871 51 38,603,489 23 85,810,717 42 56,248,042 82 2,704,427 37 11,332,328 50 28,793,816 86 15,194,785 54	127,360,000 00 42.920.000	00 95.500.000	00 55.530.000	00 1.150.000	00 8.270.000	00 30.334.000	00 15.736.000	00	19,213,128 49 4,316,510 77 9,689,282 58	718,042 821,554,427 37 3,062,328 50
1,540,183 14 541,214 46	
346,834,479 25	376,800,000 00	29,965,520 75	
The Budget-Mr. Robb

Estimated Ordinary Revenue
For Fiscal Year 1925-26
	Estimated Revenue	Percentage of total ordnary revenue
Special War Tax Revenue:- Excise Taxes (Sales, Stamps, etc.)		$ cts. 95.500.000	00 55.530.000	00 1.150.000	00 2.400.000	00	25-35 14-73 0-31 0-64
Income Tax			
Delayed Business Profits Tax			
Miscellaneous War Taxes			
Total Special War Tax Revenues			
	154.580.000	00 127.360.000	00 42,920,000 00	4103 33-80 11-39
Customs Import Duties			
Excise Duties			
Total Revenue from Taxation			
	324,860,000 00 8,270,000 00 30.334.000	00 13.336.000	00	86-22 2-	19 8-05 3-	54
Interest on Investments			
Post Office Revenue			
Miscellaneous Receipts				
Total Ordinary Revenue			
	376,800,000 00	100
		
Taking the estimated revenues for the year ended March 31, 1926, as $376,800,000 and the estimated expenditures chargeable to consolidated fund as $321,800,000, there will be available for capital, special and other obligations a surplus of revenue over ordinary expenditure of $55,000,000.
Capital expenditure for public works, including that of the Marine department, will amount to $4,930,000; and for Railways and Canals $12,005,000, of which $11,945,000 is for the Welland ship canal. The total net capital expenditure for the year will therefore be $16,935,000.
Special expenditures will amount to $4,155,000. made up of: adjustment of war claims, $275,000; cost of and discount on loan flotations for refunding maturing loans, $3,530,000; and consolidated fund transfer charges, $350,000.
With the approval of the House, I submit herewith a summary of the estimated expenditures on government business for the past fiscal year, showing the various amounts and their precentages to the total expenditures on government services.
Estimated Expenditure tor 1925-26
	Amount	Percentage of total expenditure on Government Services
Principal Expenditure attributable to the War-Interest on Public Debt vin-crease over 1914)		5 117,907,000 00 36,160,000 00 7.705,000 00	34-38 10-55 2-25
War Pensions			
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment			
IMr. Robb.]
Estimated Expenditure for 1925-26
	Amount	Percentage of total expenditure on Government Services
Principal Expenditure Attributable to the War-Cone. Soldier Land Settlement (Administration)	1,300,000 00	0-38Imperial War Graves Commission	475,000 00	0-14Battlefield Memorials	175,000 00	0-05Adjustment of War Claims.	275,000 00	0-08$ 163,997,000 00	47-83Other Fixed and Public Debt Charges- Interest on Public Debt (as of 1914)	4 12,893,000 00	3-75Other Pensions	1.060,000 00	0-31Superannuation	1.600.000 00	0-47Subsidies to Provinces	12,375,000 00	3-61Discount and Expenses of Loans	3,530,000 00	103$ 31,458,000 00	9-17General Expenditure- Charges of Management	S 880,000 00	0-26Premium, Discount and Exchange 	10,000 00	Civil Government	1.1.000,000 00	3-21Administration of Justice. . . .	2,165,000 00	0-63Legislation	2,485,000 00	0-72Elections	1,650,000 00	0-48Penitent iaries	1,640,000 00	0-48Agriculture	5,850,000 00	1-71Immigration and Colonization 	2,500,000 00	0-73Health	650,000 00	0-19National Defence	12,450,000 00	3-64Royal Canadian Mounted Police	2,097,000 00	0-61Public Works chargeable to Income	13,500,000 00	3-94Railways and Canals, chargeable to Income	1,350,000 00	0-39Canada Highways	2,000,000 00	0-58Mail Subsidies	1,100,000 00	0-32Ocean and River	2,400,000 00	0-70Lighthouse and Coast	2,450,000 00	0-70Steamboat Inspection	119,000 00	0-03
The Budget-Mr. Robb
Estimated Expenditure for 1925-26
	Amount	Percentage of total expenditure on Government Services
General Expenditure-Cone. Fisheries	1,400,000 00	0-41Mines and Geological Survey.	500,000 00	0-15Scientific Institutions	1,000,000 00	0-29Indians	3,670,000 00	107Government of the North [DOT] West Territories	380.000 00	012Miscellaneous	3,500,000 00	103Government of the ^ ukon Territory	215,000 00	006Customs and Excise (outside service)	9.850,000 00	2-87Post Office (outside service)	30,360,000 00	8-85Public Works, collection of revenue	860,000 00	0-26Railways and Canals, collection of revenue	2,100,000 00	0-61Dominion Lands and Parks.	3,875,000 00	113Trade and Commerce	4,750,000 00	1-39Labour	1,250,000 00	0-36Public Printing and Stationery	138,000 00	004Miscellaneous Consolidated Fund Charges	350,000 00	010Capital Expenditure- Public Works, including Marine Department	4,930,000 00	1-44Railways and Canals	12,005,000 00	3-50$ 147,435,000 00	43-00Total Estimated Expenditure on Government Services	? 342,890,000 00	100-00
Surplus of $33,910,000 on Government Service
Comparison of the total expenditures on all government services, namely $342,890,000, with our estimated revenue receipts for the year of $376,800,000, will show that we have more than balanced the year's business on government services by the sum of $33,910,000.
Special War Tax Revenues and Expenditures
The special war tax revenues received during the fiscal year 1925-26 will amount to some $154,580,000. The total expenditures directly attributable to the war-and I desire to especially direct this to the attention of the House-will amount to some $163,997,000, or $9,417,000 more than the receipts from our special war revenues. This difference becomes a charge on other sources of revenue.
I submit herewith in the form of a summary the war revenues and expenditures by services for the years 1924-25 and 1925-26.
The expenditures given in this summary are absolute and exact, with the exception of the amount for interest on public debt, which is taken as the difference between the amount spent in the years shown and the amount that was paid prior to the war in 1913-14.
Special War Tax Revenues
Special War Tax Revenues	Actual 1924-25	Estimated 1925-26Excise Taxes- Sales	
Manufacturers	
Stamps	
Transportation	
Licenses	
Less Refunds	
Net Revenue Excise Taxes. Income Tax	
Delayed Business Profits Tax	
Trust and Loan Companies Insurance Companies	
Chartered Banks	
Total Special War Tax Revenues	$ 66,707,369 96 10,840,438 89 9.325.887 95 2,420.930 07 36,211 00	$ 71,900,000 00 12,600,000 00 9.800.000	00 2.350.000	00 35,000 00$ 89,330,837 87 3,520.120 45	$ 96,685,000 00 1,185,000 00$ 85,810,717 42 56,248.042 82 2,704,427 37 315.314 88 867,901 96 1,217,753 85	$ 95,500,000 00 55,530,000 00 1.150.000	00 315.000	00 865.000	00 1.220.000	00$147,164,158 30	$ 154,580,000 00Principal Expenditures Attributable to the War	Actual 1924-25	Estimated 1925-26Interest on Public Debt (increase over 1914)	
War Pensions	
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment	
Soldier I.and Settlement (Adm'n)	
Imperial War Graves	
Battlefields Memorials	
Adjustment of War Claims Total Expenditure attributable to the War....	$121,896,099 27 33,842,248 03 8,981.199 57 1,412,900 59 446,595 77 195,312 59 506,931 27	$ 117,907,000 00 36,160,000 00 7.705.000	00 1.300.000	00 475.000	00 175.000	00 275.000	00$167,281,587 09	$ 163,997,000)
Obviously, had we not the heavy railway and merchant marine expenditures and those expenditures which grew out of war conditions, our surpluses and other available resources might have been used in the reduction of war debt and would have permitted the showing of a lower figure for interest attributable to the war. On the other hand, during the war and demobilization periods large outlays were charged to ordinary expenses which, while not actual war cost, were directly attributable to war conditions. Even now there are heavy annual charges not taken into consideration in the summary submitted for which the war is responsible, for instance, the amount of $4,000,000 expended in the collection of war taxes has not been included, nor have the annual charges relating to the management of loans issued for war purposes and the expenses of refinancing maturing war loans. These latter charges and expenses may be estimated conservatively at $4,000,000. There might also be included the cost of housing the staffs connected with these services, which is now carried by the Public Works department.
The Budget-Mr. Robb

The Budget-Mr. Robb
The advance of $10,000,000 has been charged to the net debt of. the Dominion as a nonactive asset, in the same way as all railway cash loans have been treated. This advance covers the loss of $7,400,000 referred to and leaves $2,600,000 for capital purposes. It will therefore be seen that the public accounts for the year will include not only all government expenditures but also the total loss of the railways and an amount of $2,600,000 available for railway capital purposes, over and above which no further financial assistance was given.
Our total payments in respect of these railway corporations now reach $601,000,000, actual cash outlay charged to our national debt. This is exclusive of accumulated interest charges, as well as the capital cost of the original Canadian Government Railways. A large part of this sum represents provision for losses incurred, adding no value to the road. A very substantial amount, however, has been devoted to improvements in the road and equipment, which have materially enhanced the value of the lines. The improvement of $43,000,000 in earnings within a period of four years speaks for itself.
One estimate of the value of the government's investment in the Canadian National Railways, exclusive of Canadian Government Railways, is $375,000,000. This figure is arrived at after eliminating deficits and such overvaluations and inflations as were established on the occasion of the royal commission investigation of 1947 and the subsequent arbitration proceedings.
Whatever may ultimately be decided as a proper valuation for the government's investment in the system, the fact remains that a very substantial contribution has been made and included as a non-active asset in arriving at the net debt as shown in our public accounts. With the company to-day almost within striking distance of meeting its fixed charges due the public, the time should not be far distant when additions to our national debt for Canadian National Railway purposes will cease. Certainly we have in the railway situation, as affecting our Dominion finances, a much improved showing and a brighter outlook.
Fiscal Year 1926-27
To forecast revenues for the current year accurately is always difficult. Indications, however, point towards a year of increased revenues. The main estimates already submitted to parliament and the probable amount of the further supplementary estimates would give a fairly close indication of the expenditures for the year.

The main estimates for all services other than railways amount to $345,771,351. Advances to railways amount to $31,000,000, and advances to merchant marine $600,000, or a total of $31,600,000. To this must be added something for supplementary estimates. For this purpose I shall allow $4,500,000, being approximately the amount of last year's supplementary estimates, less sundry items amounting to some $4,500,000 which will not this year be required. I confidently hope, however, that, the amount will not be so large, and I warn my friends on both sides that I will do my best to keep it lower.
May I direct the attention of the House and of the country to the remarkable development which has taken place in Canada's trade. We closed the fiscal year with a favourable balance of over $402,000,000, w'hich constitutes a record for any year since the war period. Unrevised figures for the fiscal year ended March 31, last show our total trade to be $2,258,534,453, an increase of $380,000,000 over that of the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1925, when our total trade amounted to $1,878,000,000. Our exports have continued to exceed our imports, and for the year under review these exports totalled $1,330,000,000, as against $1,081,000,000, the year previous. This is an increase in our export trade of $249,000,000. Our imports during the fiscal year totalled $927,000,000, as compared with $796,000,000 for the previous year, or an increase of $130,000,000. Summarizing these figures, it is seen that the favourable balance of our exports over imports has this year increased from $284,000,000 to $402,695,000.
When comparing our trade from year to year, there are two points of particular interest. One is the general favourable balance; the other, the source of our expansion of trade. Statistical reports for the whole fiscal year have not reached such a stage of completion that the trade can be classified by countries. But the figures for the eleven months ending February 28 are available, and a comparison can be made between that period and the same period ending February 28,	1925.
During the eleven months of the last fiscal year the balance of exports over imports increased by $115,000,000. Of this increase, no less than $104,000,000, or 90 per cent of the favourable balance, is accounted for by empire trade. This, Sir, is ample vindication of the trade policy adopted by the government, and shows that our efforts should be increasingly directed towards the cultivation of trade within the empire and with countries favourably disposed towards commercial intercourse with Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Robb
The most striking feature of our empire trade is the rapid growth, since the removal of the embargo on April 1, 1923, of our cattle exports to the United Kingdom. During the year preceding the lifting of the embargo, our exports of cattle to Britain were valued at $2,809,796, while for the eleven months ending February last they were $11,283,007, or over four times as great. The growth of this trade in the past three years is indicated in the following table:
Exports of Calttle over One Year Old from Canada to Great Britain, 1923-1926 (From Customs returns)
		
		3
		[DOT]a
	fc	>
1923	25,758	$ 2,809,7961924	59,486	6,287,8151925	86,245	9,125,6671926 (11 months ending February).	106,200	11 283,007
The Income Tax
Now I come to a part of the financial statement that may interest every member of the House, and particularly the country. Happily our financial and1 commerical position now enables us to make very substantial reductions in the income taxes. With a desire to make available new money for development, our proposals provide reductions all along the line. In the revision of the Income War Tax Act, a distinction has been made between yearly earnings and income derived from investments. The act is now presented in a new and less complicated form, one which will make the tax easier to calculate and, we believe, easier to pay.
For the information of the members of the House, I now ask leave to place on Hansard a comparative statement of the proposed changes:
Income Tax
Married Person Without Dependent Taxes Payable
1,000
1.500 2,000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000 9.000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13.000
14.000
15.000
Income	Present Tax
	
	
	
	$ 20 00 40 00 60 00 80 00 100 00 126 00 178 50 283 50 388 50 504 00 619 50 .745 50 871 50 1.008 00 1,144 50 1.291 50
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Proposed*
Tax
20
40
110
220
370
560
790
Income Tax
Married Person Without Dependent-Con.
Taxes Payable
Income	Present Tax	Proposed* Tax16.000	1,438 50	92017,000	1.596 00	1,06018.000	1,753 50	1,21019,000	1,921 50	1,37020,000	2,089 50	i,54021.000	2,268 00	1,72022,000	2,446 50	1,91023,000	2,635 50	2,11024,000	2.824 50	2,32025,000	3,024 00	2,53026,000	3,223 50	2,74027,000	3,433 50	2,95028.000	3,643 50	3,16029,000	3.864 00	3,38030,000	4,084 50	3,60031,000	4,315 50	3.82032,000	4,546 50	4,04033,000	4,788 00	4,26034,000	5,029 50	4,49035,000	5,281 50	4,72036,000	5,533 50	4,95037,000	5,796 00	5.18038,000 	6,058 50	5,41039,000	6,331 50	5,650*0,000	6,604 50	5,89041,000	6.888 00	6,13042,000	7,171 50	6,37043,000	7,465 50	6,61044,000 	7,759 50	6,86045,000	8.064 00	7,11046,000	8.368 50	7,36047,000	8,683 50	7,61048,000	8,998 50	7,86049,000	9,324 00	8,12050,000 	9,649 50	8,38052,000	10.321 50	8,90054,000	11.014 50	9,43056,000	11,728 50	10,07058,000	12,463 50	10,51060,000	13,219 50	11,07062,000	13,996 50	11,63064.000	
66.000	14,794 50 15,613 50	12,200 12,78068.000	16,453 50	13,36070.000	
72.000	17,314 50 18,196 50	13,960 14,56074,000	19.099 50	15,17076,000	20,023 50	i5,79078,000	20,968 50	16,41080.000	21,934 50	17,05082.000 	22,921 50	17,69084,000	23,929 50	18,34086,000	24,958 50	19,00088,000	26,008 50	19,66090,000	27,079 50	20,34092.000	
94.000	[DOT]... 96.000	28,171 50 29,284 50 30.418 50	21,020 21,710 22,41098,000	31,573 50	23,110100.000	32,749 50	23,830110,000	39,049 50	27,500120,000	45,349 50	31,270130,000	51,649 50	35,140140.000	57,949 50	39,110150,000	64,249 50	43,180175,000	81.049 50	53,650200,000	97,849 50	04,370250,000	133,549 50	86,340300,000	169.249 50	108,810350.000	206,524 5C	131,780400.000	243,799 5C	155,250450.000	281,074 5C	179,220500.000	318,349 5f	203,690600,000	393,9*9 5C	253,660700.000	
800.000	
900,000	
1,000,000 	469,549 50 545,149 5C 620,749 5C 696.349 5C	303.660 353.660 403.660 453.660
*The ''proposed tax" in the above table is calculated On incomes exclusive of dividends.	[DOT]

The Budget-Mr. Robb

I shall not go over the whole list, but may I offer a few examples to show the effect of the proposed changes. On an income of $3,000 the present tax is $40; under the new proposal, nothing will be paid; on an income of $6,000 the present tax is $178.50; under the new proposal, it will be $70; on an income of $12,000 the present tax is $871.50; under the new proposal it will be $460; on an income of $18,000 the present tax is $1,753.50; under the new proposal it will be $1,210. If there is any person interested in knowing how much he.will have to pay on an income of $1,000,000, he will be able to find that on Hansard tomorrow morning.


Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: May I ask
the hon. minister if these tax reductions are to be retroactive to last year?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to go beyond this present year, but if it will sweeten the taste to hon. gentlemen, I may say that we hope, if the enactment meets with the approval of parliament that it may apply to the taxes which are now being collected, but that will depend on hon. gentlemen opposite as much as upon ourselves.
Proposed Changes in Customs Tariff and Taxation
Coming now to the resolutions which I shall submit to the House proposing customs tariff changes and reductions of taxation under the Special War Revenue Act and the Income War Tax Act, apart from certain modifications to meet the requirements of the West Indies and other trade agreements, the tariff changes proposed are not numerous. Prior to the appointment of the Tariff Advisory Board, certain tariff changes to meet new and growing conditions had been determined on, and these are embodied in the resolutions I shall place before you.
On cocoa beans it is proposed to increase the general tariff from $1.50 to $2.00 per hundred pounds, and a corresponding increase is made on certain cocoa products.
It is also proposed to make green coffee free under the British preferential tariff.
The rates on ginger, spices, nutmegs, mace and arrowroot are reduced in compliance with the terms of the West Indies agreement.
Bananas remain free under all tariffs but the Governor in Council is given power to impose a duty of 50 cents a bunch under the general and intermediate tariffs, leaving them free under the British preferential tariff when imported by ship direct,
It is proposed to reduce the rate on pineapples in air-tight tins from 1| cents a pound 
to one-half cent under the British preferential tariff.
The general tariff on fresh meats is to be increased one-half cent a pound.
To encourage the conservation of our timber resources, it is proposed to admit tree seeds for reafforestation free of duty.
The duty on sugar for refining purposes testing 96 degrees of polarization is reduced under the British preferential tariff 16.288 cents per hundred pounds, that is from 45 cents to 28.712 cents. Proportionate reductions are made in the duty on sugar of other degrees of polarization.
Angostura bitters, imported by ship direct, are to be admitted under the British preferential tariff at $5.00 a gallon as compared with the present duty of $10.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: 3.	Resolved, That schedule B to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1924, be further amended by striking thereout item 1031, ithe enumeration of goods, and the
rate of drawback to the said item and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of drawback of customs duties be inserted in 6aid schedule B:
Tariff Items	Goods
1050	Sugar	
1051	Artificial silk tops and waste or artificial fibre silk tops and waste enumerated in tariff item 583a	
1052	Artificial sik yarns or filaments enumerated in tariff item 583aa, imported prior to the first day of January, 1926	
1053	Cellulose acetate in powdered form imported after the thirtieth day of April, 1927, and prior to the first day of November, 1927	
1054	Yarns produced from cellulose acetate, dry spun, not more advanced than singles, when imported after the thirty-first day of October, 1926, and prior to the first day of August, 1927	
1055	Materials, including all parts	
	
4.	Resolved, That any enactment founded on resolution number one shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of January, one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-seven, and to have applied to goods imported under the provisions of 6aid resolution number one on and after that day.
5.	Resolved, That any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions number two and three shall be deemed to have come into force on the sixteenth day of April, one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-six, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the foregoing resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day..
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and to provide:-
pres jo uooixbi|^ uotfoas jo *aij uoi^oasqne	-j
act be repealed and the following substituted therefor
"(5) On every poet card for transmission by poet for any distance within Canada and on every letter

When Subject to Drawback	Portion of Duty (Not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty) Payable as Drawback
When used in the manufacture o	
loganberry wine. Provided that drawback shall not be payable	
in respect of any raw4 5 * 7 sugar except raw sugar produced in a British country		99 p.c.
When further manufactured after the 31st day of December, 1925 and prior to the 1st day ol January,1928		80 p.c.
When further manufactured prior to the first day of January, 1927.	80 p.c.
When imported by manufacturers and further manufactured in their own factories before the first day of December, 1927		99 p.c.
When imported by manufacturers and further manufactured in their own factories before the first day of September, 1927		80 p.c.
When used in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a and 438b. Provided that no drawback shall be paid under this item unless at least 50 per cent of the cost of the finished article has been produced in Canada		25 p.c.
and post card posted at and intended for delivery through the same post office, there shall be levied and collected a tax of one cent in addition to postage payable in the form o,f a postage stamp to be affixed thereto at or before the time of posting the letter or post card; but suoh tax shall not be levied or collected on any letter or post card entitled to the privilege of free transmission under the provisions of The Post Office Act. The stamp so affixed shall be cancelled by the postmaster or other officer of the Post Office Department whose duty it is to cancel the postage stamps affixed to such letters or post cards in prepayment of postage."
2.	That section fourteen of the said act be repealed.
3.	That paragraph (a) of subsection one of section nineteen BB of the said act as enacted by chapter fifty of the statutes of 1921, be repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
(a)	A tax on playing cards for every fifty-four cards or fraction of fifty-four in each package-ten cents per pack."
4.	That section nineteen BBB of the said act be amended by adding after subsection two thereof the following as subsection two A:-

The Budget-Mr. Robb
"(2A) In case any person otbher than the manu-faoturer or producer or importer or transferee or licensed wholesaler or jobber hereinbefore mentioned acquires from or against any one of these persons the right to sell any goods, whether as a result of the operation of law or of any transaction not taxable under this section, the sale of such goods by him shall be taxable as if made by the manufacturer or producer or importer or transferee or licensed wholesaler or jobber as the case (may be and the person so selling shall be liable to pay the tax."
5.	That subsection four of section nineteen BBB of the said act, being the list of excepted articflee not liable to the consumption or sales tax, be amended by adding thereto the following:-
"Pot barley; pearl barley; split peas; goods enumerated in customs tariff items 469b, 700, 701, 702, 703, and 704."
6.	That subsection five of section nineteen BBB of the said act, being the list of articles liable to only fifty per cent of the consumption or sales tax, be amended by adding .thereto the following:-
"Fish, or	products thereof, canned	but not
medicated."
7.	That schedule ftwo to the said act be amended by striking thereout (the last five lines respecting carbonic acid gas which were added to the said schedule by section twelve of chapter seventy of the statutes of 1923.
8.	That a refund of the amount of taxes paid under sections sixteen A, nineteen B, nineteen BB, and nineteen BBB of the said act be granted to a manufacturer, producer, wholesaler, jobber, or other dealer on goods hereafter sold as ships' stores.
9.	That any enactment founded on paragraph one of this resolution shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-six.
10.	That a-ny enactment founded on paragraphs two and eight of this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the sixteenth day of April, one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-six.
11.	That any enactment founded on paragraphs three, five, six, and seven of this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the sixteenth day of April, one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-six and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917, and to provide.
1.	That the amount of income exempted from the tax be increased to three thousand dollars in the case of a married person or householder, or any other person supporting certain relatives as at present set forth in the act and to fifteen hundred dollars in the case of other persons;
2.	That where a husband and wife have each a separate income in excess of fifteen hundred dollars each shall receive an exemption of fifteen hundred dollars in lieu of the exemption set forth above;
3.	That the parents may arrange between themselves as to how the exemption for each dependent child is to be allotted;
4.	That in respect of income for the year 1925, and each year thereafter the rates of tax at present imposed be repealed and the following substituted in lieu thereof:-
Upon the amount of the income in excess of the statutory exemptions.
p.c.
On the First $2,000 or any portion thereof	 2
On the amount
in excess of $ 2,000 but not in excess of $ 3,000 .... 3
"	3,000	"	"	4,000	
4"	4,000	"	"	5,000	
5"	5,000	"	"	6,000	
6On the amount in excess of 1 6,000 but not in	exeess of	7,000....	p.c. ... 77,000 "	8,000	... 88,000 "	"	9,000....	... 99,000 "	"	10,000....	... 1010,000 "	u	11,000....	... 1111,000 "	"	12,000....	... 12"	12,000 "	"	13,000....	... 1313,000 "	"	14,000....	... 1414,000 "	"	15,000...	... 1515,000 "	"	16,000....	... 1616,000 "	"	17,000....	... 17u	17,000 "	"	18,000....	... 18a	18,000 "	"	19,000....	... 1919,000 "	"	20,000....	... 20u	20,000 "	"	25,000....	... 21u	25,000 "	30,000....	... 22u	30,000 "	"	35,000....	... 23it	35,000 "	40,000....	... 24tt	40,000 "	45.000....	... 25it	45,000 "	"	50,000....	... 26u	50,000 "	"	55,000....	... 27u	55,000 "	"	60,000....	... 28a	60,000 "	"	65,000....	... 29tt	65,000 "	"	70,000....	... 30**	70,000 "	75,000....	... 3175,000 "	"	80,000....	... 3280,000 "	"	85,000....	... 33it	85,000 "	"	90,000....	... 34tt	90,000 "	"	95,000....	... 35tt	95,000 "	"	100.000....	... 36100,000 "	**	110,000....	... 37u	110,000 "	"	120,000....	... 38u	120,000 "	"	130,000....	.... 39u	130,000 "	"	140,000....	... 40a	140,000 "	**	150,000....	.... 41a	150,000 "	"	175,000....	... 42it	175,000 "	u	200,000....	... 43200,000 "	"	250,000....	... 44"	250,000 "	300.000....	.... 45300,000 "	"	350,000....	.... 46350,000 "	400,000....	.... 47400,000 "	"	450,000....	.... 48a	450,000 "	500,000....	.... 49500,000	.... 50
The rates set forth in this subsection shall not apply to corporations or joint slock companies.
5.	that the rate of tax applicable to corporations be reduced from ten per centum to nine per centum,
6.	that the five per cent additional tax applicable to incomes of five thousand dollars or more be repealed,
7.	that the income of a personal corporation (being a corporation controlled by one person or his family, the income of which is derived from investments or dealing in investments) shall each year be deemed to be distributed as a dividend to the shareholders and taxable accordingly,
8.	that the carrying charges or expenses of unproductive property or assets not acquired for the purposes of a trade, business oi calling or of a liability not incurred in connection with a trade, business or calling shall not be allowed as a deduction in determining income,
9.	that any distribution or advance made to the shareholders of a corporation shall be deemed to be a dividend to the extent that such corporation has on hand undistributed income and such dividend shall constitute income of the shareholder of the year during which the distribution or advance is made,
10.	that	where	a	corporation	having	undistributed
income on hand reduces its capital stock, then to the extent that such corporation has on hand undistributed income the amount received by the shareholder by virtue of the reduction of the capital shall be deemed to be a dividend and to be income received by the shareholder,
11.	that	where	a	corporation	having	undistributed
income on hand redeems its shares at a premium the premium shall be deemed to be a dividend and to be income received by the shareholder,
12.	that where a person or persons, owning shares of a corporation which ha3 undistributed income on
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

hand, transfer such shares or a portion thereof to a second corporation promoted at his or their instance or controlled by him or them, which second corporation subsequently receives a dividend from the first mentioned corporation and, within a period of three years from the date of such share transfer, applies the income thus received, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly,
(a) in payment of the shares purchased by the second corporation from such person or persons or,
(b)	in the discharge of any liability incurred to such person or persons by reason of and in connection with the purchase of such shares cr,
(c) in the discharge of a loan obtained by the second company for the purpose of paying for such shares,
then such person or persons shall be taxable in full in respect of such dividend as if he dr they had received it in the year tnat the first mentioned Corporation declared the dividend,
13.	that when, as a result of the reorganization of a corporation or the readjustment of its capital stock the whole or any part of its undistributed income is capitalized, the amount capitalized shall be deemed to be distributed as a dividend during the year in which the reorganization oi readjustment takes place and the shareholders of the said corporation shall be deemed to receive such dividend in proportion to their interest in the capital stock of the corporation or in the class of capital stock affected and,
14.	that the income of a non-resident person or a non-resident corporation which consists exclusively of earnings derived from the operation of a ship or ships registered under the laws of a foreign country which grants an equivalent exemption to residents of Canada and to corporations organized in Canada shall not be liable to taxation.
15. that in respect of income for the year 1925 and each year thereafter the provisions of paragraph (d) of subsection one of section three of the said act as enacted by section two of chapter fifty-five of the statutes of 1919 shall not apply.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my first word upon this occasion must be to express the regret which I feel and which I have no doubt is felt in every quarter of the House that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who usually acts as financial critic on occasions such as the present, is absent from the House at this time through indisposition. It is a great loss to the House that the hon. member for West York is not present upon this occasion. He has a familiarity with national finance which few of us possess. He has a great grasp of all things pertaining to the Department of Finance and he is intimate with the various details of that department to an extent that few of us can boast. Therefore, I feel under some disadvantage at the present moment, and I sincerely ask the indulgence of the House as I proceed if in the remarks which I propose to deliver this afternoon I am guilty of sins either of commission or omission. But I will do my best to offer such criticism as appears to me to be proper in regard to the budget statement which has just been delivered to the House by the Minister of Finance of Canada (Mr. Robb).

There is apparently much jubilation on the government side this afternoon upon the presentation of the annual budget. Let me say that we on this side of the House are prepared to tender our congratulations upon any real achievement of the minister or of the government in respect to the financial condition which has prevailed and which still prevails in the Dominion of Canada. The jubilation is not felt exclusively upon the other side of the House; but if we refrain from giving this government credit for the satisfactory statement which in some respects has been presented to the House to-day, if we are inclined to think that the credit is due in the first instance to a munificent Providence and in the second instance to the virility, strength and efforts of the Canadian people, I think we shall not be far amiss having in mind the modest remarks with which the Minister of Finance concluded his address.
We realize quite as fully as does the government that this country has within the past season been blessed by Providence much more abundantly than in former years; yes, most marvellously blessed have we been in the abundance of crop which this country has yielded. I believe I am within the mark when I say that Providence has blessed Canada during the past season with a wheat yield in the western provinces unsurpassed both in quality and quantity, a yield which is to-day commanding a good price in the markets of the world and this fact constitutes the most important feature of our commercial success. I do not believe I am far wrong in making that statement. But fortunately it is not only in the prairie provinces of the west that Providence has blessed us. Ontario, this great central province of Canada, has also been blessed with a wonderful harvest. So far as Providence has seen fit to act in the matter, He has poured out on this country an abundance which we have not enjoyed for many years past and we are to-day reaping the benefits.
I believe the situation which I have tried to portray to the House has been reflected in every walk, in every avenue, in every branch of the industrial life of the people of the Dominion of Canada, and as a result we have had some return to a moderate prosperity which has not existed in this country during the past four years. I do not suggest for a moment that the return has been complete; I do not suggest for a moment that the return has been general throughout the Dominion; but I say this-and this is all I will say-that conditions are better in Canada to-day than they have been during the past

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
four years. We on this side of the House congratulate the people of Canada on the improved condition which has recently arisen as compared with the unfortunate state of affairs that has prevailed during the past four years. Now, if we are not inclined to bestow much of the credit for this improvement on the government of the day, no one can complain. This country has improved to some extent, not on account of any effort of the government but in spite of the government. For if the prosperity of a country was ever hindered or delayed by an organization of human beings this country has been so hindered and delayed through the administration of the King government.
The Minister of Finance comes to this chamber to-day and presents a budget which I think we may say is from the financial point of view, reasonably satisfactory. The figures which he has just given to the House are figures on which I think we may fairly congratulate him. The outstanding points in his budget presentation are certainly two: he announces, in the first place, a reduction in income tax, and in the second place a reduction in the duty on motor trucks and automobiles.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about postage?


Hugh Guthrie: I will come to that too.
I have only this to remark upon the financial statement submitted to the House to-day. While there is an apparent balance in the year's operations-


James Alexander Robb: It is real.


Hugh Guthrie: -amounting, I believe,
to about 822,300,000 we must observe that the expenditure of the last year was greater than that of the year before. The expenditure proposed by the government for the present fiscal year is also greater than the expenditure of last year. So that the government year by year is progressing on an ascending scale in the matter of national expenditures. If there is one thing which the people of this country demand at the present time, I think it is that the expenditure of the national government be cut down'. I know of no cry throughout the province; of Ontario more persistent than that government economy be exercised to the very last degree. We hear that cry in our provincial legislature, and we are pleased to note that the government of Ontario has put the finances of the province on such a footing that within a reasonable time that province will regain* its former financial stability. We hear the same cry in our municipalities, where there is a call for
greater economy. On the other hand, in the public services of Canada, there has been year by year under this government an annual increase in our expenditure.' I make that statement without fear of contradiction. Anyone who will take the trouble to examine the estimates laid on the table of the House for the present session will find, upon page after page of those estimates, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars of proposed expenditures which might well be stricken out, without any great inconvenience or any injury to the public service.
I do not say that all the expenditures proposed in the estimates are unjustifiable; certainly not. I do say, however, that there are millions of dollars of suggested expenditures which might very well be deferred for some years to come without any inconvenience and with no ill effects on the Dominion.
The minister has at last begun to reduce the taxation from which the people of Canada suffer. It is a hard task and I commend him for what he has done. Although I have not all the figures before me he proposes, I believe, something substantial in the way of income tax reduction. But I may remind the Minister of Finance that he is a member of a government which owes the people substantial reduction in taxation. He is a member of a government which has greatly increased the direct taxation in the four years that have passed, and the time is certainly at hand now when a substantial reduction should take place. Let me point out to the minister that when the Meighen government went out of power we had a sales tax of one and one-half per cent on the manufacturer and one and one-half per cent on the jobber, which tax during the first year of the King administration was increased to four and a half per cent. During the next year it was increased to six per cent. Then when it was found that the tax had become so high that it actually impeded trade in Canada it was reluctantly reduced to five per cent. That was one increase in taxation on the people of the country which materially added to their burdens; and the King administration was responsible for that increase. I would point out to the government, further, that when they took office there was in force a two cent cheque tax which the King administration promptly increased to one dollar in respect of large cheques, thus raising an enormous additional revenue and greatly increasing the burdens of the country. This was the second increase. I point out, again, that when the King administration took charge of the affairs of the country we had no such thing as a tax on receipts; that was a
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

device of hon. gentlemen opposite. It was the third increase. And now the time has come when the Minister of Finance announces, as though he had achieved a triumph, that he is going to take off the tax on receipts. That tax should never have been imposed in the first instance; it placed upon the people of Canada an unnecessary burden which, together with the other taxes I have mentioned, has increased from year to year as I can show from the figures of the government.
When we consider that the country has had the advantage of a favourable crop with high prices for farm produce prevailing, and when we reflect that general business has improved throughout Canada and that the government is in no immediate need of money, should special praise be bestowed upon a government for endeavouring to do now what it should have done one, two or three years ago? I said that the government had materially increased the burden of taxation in this country, and I make that statement on the strength of the government's own report. At page 47 of this year's Public Accounts there is a statement showing what the taxes have been. In the last year of the Meighen government, the amount collected in sales tax, cheque tax, transportation tax, and so forth-all the taxes that were in force then-was $73,000,000 odd. During the first year of the King administration those collections, increased to $106,000,000 odd. During the next year that amount had again risen to $120,000,000 odd. Last year there was a falling off because business was not being done in the country and they could not raise the revenue-there was a falling off in these taxes down to $85,000,000 odd. At the dose of the present fiscal year, March 31, last, as announced to-day by the Minister of Finance, these taxes amounted to some $95,000,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the highest amount ever received by the Meighen administration under this branch of taxation.
Now, at the last general election the people made a demand1 for reduction of taxes and the government has at last heard that demand, and recognizing its justice has granted a partial measure of relief. So far as the income tax reduction is concerned, we welcome it; and the people will rejoice in it. But it is very late in coming. It should have come one, two or three years ago. And it could have come one, two or three years ago if the government had properly administered the affairs of the country, if it had pursued from the time it took office 'proper rules of economy, if it had cut down various expenditures,-I say, Sir, that if the government had properly administered the various
l Mr. Guthrie.]
departments of state midlions and millions, yes, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of taxation could have been taken off one, two or three years ago. If the administration of the Customs department had been what it should have been there would have been an increase of revenue from customs and excise duties sufficient to have allowed large reductions in taxation. I well recall, Mr. Speaker, the statement made in this House about a year ago by the Prime Minister when he induced us to grant him a large sum of money, $350,000 I think it was,-for what purpose? Because, he said, serious smuggling and other frauds on the customs were going on throughout the length and breadth of Canada and millions and millions of dollars were being lost to the treasury. Lost through what? Through lax administration, through carelessness in administering the affairs of that department, millions and millions of dollars annually were lost to the treasury, lost to the people. Had the administration of that department been what the country was entitled to expect, this much delayed announcement of tax reduction might have been made, one, two or three years ago, and the income tax cut for the benefit of the taxpayers instead of money being diverted into the pockets of smugglers both in this country and in the United States.
There are matters, Mr. Speaker, in the budget speech upon which, as I said before, I think the Minister of Finance may well be congratulated. The reduction in postage should naturally take place. This announcement has likewise been long delayed. The Post Office Department has shown a favourable balance for some time past. During the war it was necessary to increase the rate from two cents to three cents for the purpose of the treasury. But the war has been over for many years now. Postage is something which appeals to every member in the community, it directly affects every citizen, and I regret that the action of the government in reducing the postage rate has been somewhat tardy. Year after year the post office has produced an abundant revenue, year after year it has shown a handsome surplus. Now, Sir, I am one of those who believe that the post office is established for the convenience of the people, not as a money-making agency of government, and as soon as the post office can be maintained upon the basis of actual cost then the postage rates should be brought down to an absolute minimum. For the last four years, as I say, a handsome surplus has been obtained from the Post Office Department. Any time within that period

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
this reduction might have taken place. Today we have a welcome, though a very tardy, announcement that the rate of postage is to be reduced from three cents to two cents.
But, Mr. Speaker, I fancy that when the people of the Dominion to-morrow read in the newspapers the budget statement of the Minister of Finance, the portions which will most attract attention, particularly the people in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and eastern Canada generally, will be those in which the minister deliberately interferes with our fiscal policy. We in the province of Ontario represent more than one-third of the population of the Dominion, and we contribute to the treasury more than one-half of its receipts. Last year in customs duties alone out of a total revenue of $108,000,000 Ontario contributed no less than $56,000,000. Therefore Ontario has a vital interest in the affairs of this country as transacted in this parliament. But we are in the strange and unsatisfactory position to-day that we have in this chamber representing this great province of Ontario but one single member of the cabinet, and he a new-comer. We are under a serious disadvantage in this respect in the province of Ontario. The great province of Saskatchewan is represented upon the floor of this House by three ministers, all more or less pledged in one direction in regard to fiscal matters; all heading for the free trade goal, and we have at the same time to represent the province of Ontario but a single minister. He may be very able, he may be very capable, but I think the House will agree with me that the importunity of the present government proved the opportunity of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott). I think he can sit in his chair and smile and say, "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good." I think also in relation to him we can all realize the truth of another old adage:	Some men
are born to greatness, some men achieve greatness, and some men have greatness thrust upon them.
Now, Sir, I have nothing but the highest opinion and regard for my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. I have known him for many years as a very able, and a very active lawyer, a credit to his profession. I have known him chiefly as a corporation lawyer in the city of London; but I should never have dreamt of him as a man to represent labour; I should never have dreamt of him as a man so.soon to become Acting Minister of Health; I should never have selected him as a man to become Acting Minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment as I noticed announced in the papers this morning. Well, honours are falling thick and fast upon
him. I wonder if he can successfully overtake the manifold duties of the various offices he is now called upon to discharge. Who knows but what he will soon be designated as Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, then as Acting Postmaster General, or Secretary of State? But the fact I wish to emphasize is this, that the great province of Ontario is not fairly or adequately represented in this parliament to-day.


Mr. DUNNING:: This parliament! Hear,
hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I made a slip, and my hon. friend the Minister of Railways seems to have taken the keenest enjoyment of it; let him enjoy it. Now I will repeat what I intended to say, that the great province of Ontario is not fairly represented in the government of this country. Nothing is more noticeable than this, and the direct result of that failure to give Ontario proper representation in the cabinet, is shown in those changes in the tariff schedules announced by the Minister of Finance to-day. Sir, without disrespect, speaking for the province of Ontario, I say that we are a great industrial province; we have a tremendous force of organized labour in this province, and we know where the labouring men stand in regard to the question of the reduction of duty on motor cars. I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Labour if he believes he truly represents the labouring men of Ontario in respect to the reductions announced to-day. Why, Sir, he sits around the council board confronted by the Prime Minister of this country, from the free trade province of Saskatchewan, and himself at heart a free trader. He sits at that council board beside the Minister of Agriculture ;Mr. Motherwell) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton), men who are ready to sound the death knell of the doctrine of protection. He sits there beside another great free trade champion from Saskatchewan, the new Minister of Railways and Oanals, who announced at a public hearing before a commission in the west that he was "prepared to pay those eastern provinces in their own coin"; he was going to get even with them for the wrongs they had inflicted upon the west.


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I made no such statement on any occasion as that now attributed to me. I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw his statement.
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie


Hugh Guthrie: Certainly I will withdraw it. I took the statement from a speech reported in Hansard during the present session, and it purports to be a statement made before the Grain Inquiry Commission by the minister. I regret very much if I am in error, and I wish to withdraw the remark, but the statement will be found at page 878 of Hansard for this session.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the date?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Hugh Guthrie: The date is February 10.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was not then in the House. If I had been I should have entered a denial then to any such words as those attributed to me by my hon. friend. I trust that he will take my word that on no occasion did I make a statement such as that to which he has referred.


Hugh Guthrie: I withdraw the words most cheerfully; I would not care to misrepresent my hon. friend in the slightest degree. But the statement is in Hansard and I will read it. If it is wrong it should be withdrawn.
This is the first opportunity to make the people of the east suffer fo-r what they hare given the west for the last forty years, and I think we should give them a dose of their own medicine now that they want our coal.


Charles Avery Dunning: Who made the statement?


Hugh Guthrie: One of the hon. members for Calgary.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know whether I would be in order in also asking him to withdraw it.


Hugh Guthrie: At all events we know quite well the views of the Minister of Railways upon the fiscal question; we know where he stands; we know how he has voted in the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, and now I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Labour whether, representing the labouring people of this province as well as the rest of the people, he placed the facts in regard to the motor industry fairly before his colleagues, and whether they voted him down or turned him down. He must know the views of labouring men upon this very question. I am going to place on Hansard an article touching this question which appeared in The Labour Leader of April 9 last, and I commend this to the attention of the Minister of Labour, to my hon. friends from Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth and Mr. Heaps), and to the hon.

member	for	Kenora-Rainy	River (Mr. Heenan), because they are all named in the article, which is as follows:
The working men of Canada. never had a bed of roses to repose on, nor do they want one, but at least are entitled to and expect a square deal from the government of Canada.
There is 11,389 workers employed in the Willys-Overland, Limited, West Toronto; Durant Motors of Canada. Leaside; General Motors of Canada, Limited, Qshawa; Ford Motor Car Company of Canada, Limited, Out.; Dodge Bros, of Canada, Limited, Toronto; Studebaker Corporation of Canada, Limited, Walkerville, and several assembly plants of the automotive industry located in various Canadian centres have just reason to worry these days and appeal to Canadians generally to rally to their support to try and prevent the Dominion government from passing legislation to take the duty off motor cars made in the United States, so as to reduce their selling price in the Canadian market.
The 11,389 men employed in Canadian motor car factories during 1925 received $17,595,282.44 iin wages. Again there are some 8,000 additional men employed in tire factories and other plants that make parts and accessories for Canadian motor car plants. We have not the wage bill of these extra 8,000 men.
The Canadian motor car manufacturers pay annually to the government about seven and one-half million dollars duty on material they impart. By abolishing the duty on motor cars, this money would be lost to the Dominion treasury. *
This legislation is being introduced to appease the western Progressives, and they want it so badly that they apparently do not care the injury it will inflict on the men employed in the Canadian automobile manufacturing plants. This is absolutely selfish legislation and there is no justification whatever for it.
Jobs are scarce enough in Canada Ito-day without enacting legislation that will take jobs away from thousands of Canadian industrial workers. Besides the men employed in the above-named concerns, there are thousands of other men working dn factories that make parts for these automobile manufacturers, as well as men in paint and varnish (factories, and the hundreds that are making motor car fires in the tire factories of this Dominion. Were the thousands of motor cars that are now made in Canada to be replaced by those made in the United States, they would certainly come to Canada with tires on them and thus add another army to the unemployed.
The sale of motor cars in Canada has not been retarded by the few dollars extra that Canadians have had to pay in the past, as the streets of our cities are to-day crowded with motor vehicles, and everyone knows that the motor industry has been a God-send to the mechanics of Canada. Canadians, therefore, cannot afford to sit idly by and see the jobs of these men slaughtered by the introduction of legislation to remove the present duty on motor cars of the smaller and medium priced varieties.
Eighty-five per cent of the employees of Canadian motor car industries are married men, with families dependent upon them. Must these men, women and children suffer to provide a reduction in price of motor cars to western farmers and other Canadians who are imbued with such selfishness.
We claim it would be an outrage and we appeal to Canadians in every walk of life to get busy and write protests to the government at Ottawa before this legislation is passed. The government has appointed a Tariff board, so why not let this new board report, on the quesetion before any legislation is introduced? This would at least give the working men

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
of Oshawa, Toronto, Leaside and Fond an opportunity of presenting their case on 6uch a vital question.
We believe the members of the government should be big enough Canadians to overlook the few dollars extra on each car and consider the jobs and homes of the thousands who are dependent on this industry for their citizenship. No citizen will leave Canada if the price of cars remains where it is to-day, but if the duty is removed thousands will have to leave to obtain employment to look after the wants of themselves and their families.
This is an opportunity for Messieurs J. S. Woods-worth, M.P., A. A. Heaps, M.P., and Peter Heenan, M.P., who claim they are representing labour in the House of Commons, to give their aid to the 20,000 motor car mechanics of Canada in retaining their jobs. Canadian labour men will expect these three members of the House to put up a fight to have the matter at least referred to the new Tariff board, so that the employees of the motor car plants of Canada can present their claims to the board.
This is one of the most serious situations that the industrial workers of Canada have 'had to meet, and the Labour Leader makes an earnest plea to Canadians to forget any selfish ideas they may have and join in a joint protest that no government can afford to overlook. Canadians, be real Canadians and help your fellow Canadians who are employed an automotive industries to retain their jobs.
Now I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Labour whether he laid that article before his colleagues when the present reduction of duty was determined upon; I ask whether he, in his present office, should not protect the rights of the labouring men of eastern Canada, or whether he was simply overborne by his western colleagues in the free trade campaign which they have carried on in this country for the last five, ten or fifteen years.
But what is the province of Ontario going to say or do over the situation? What relief can we get? What relief can we expect to get? The government defeated at the polls, its ranks decimated, nine of its ministers gone, four or five months now gone in which to recruit; yet they have produced for the great province of Ontario only one minister, they have placed him into the Department of Labour, and the first thing labour in this country gets is a black eye such as it never got in Canada before.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to overstate the importance of the motor industry in the province of Ontario. In the city from which I come, and which I have the honour to represent in this House, we have no automobile factory. We do make trucks or bodies which go into an automobile, but we have no automobile factory. Yet last year I find that no less than $1,280,000 was spent by the Ford "Company in the city of Guelph in procuring the various parts necessary for the automobiles . made in Windsor. This sum went for Guelph labour and Guelph material. Look over the list of cities and towns in the province of Ontario and you will find scores of them
which are to a very large extent dependent upon the very motor industry which this present budget is striving to kill. It is an industry with an investment of $60,000,000 of capital in this province, and at one fell swoop the Minister of Finance announces a reduction of 15 per cent upon automobiles up to $1,200 in value. Sir, I am within the mark,
I believe, when I state that a reduction of 15 per cent represents far more than the profit of these companies which are manufacturing automobiles. They cannot stand this reduction of 15 per cent and still operate at a profit. It may be that in years gone by, in the early days before prices became fixed, before competition became keen, very large profits were accumulated by some of these industries ; but it is cot so to-day. Competition to-day is of the keenest order, and I am prepared to state now, on the information I have received, that this 15 per cent reduction represents more than the average annual profits of any concern engaged in the production of these automobiles to-day in the province of Ontario. This reduction is made at one fell swoop, and it may prove a death blow. Why do it? Why jeopardize the livelihood of 12,000 mechanics in these factories, and 8,000 other mechanics working in allied or kindred industries in different parts of Ontario? Why not listen to the appeal of the labour men of this country? These 20,000 operatives represent possibly a population of from 80,000 to 100,000 people in Gntario who are dependent for their livelihood upon this industry. You are placing their employment in jeopardy by the action which you propose to-day.
Mr. Speaker, why is this done now? Have we forgotten that during the course of the last election, on practically every platform of the Liberal party, representations were made to the electors of this country that if the government were returned to power it would appoint a tariff board or a tariff commission, something in the nature of an advisory commission to advise them upon all questions of the customs tariff and upon all matters of taxation? Have we forgotten that within the last two weeks, perhaps only ten da3rs ago, an announcement was made to this House by the Prime Minister of this country that his tariff board had been appointed? He produced in this House the order in council; he named the chairman and the members of the board, and the secretary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is mistaken. I did not produce the order in council at the time.
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I am wrong in that, but the Prime Minister announced that the order in council had been passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I was asked the question on the spur of the moment by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I tried to give him in advance what might be the possible order.


Arthur Meighen: What would be.


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to give my understanding of what took place in the House. I understood that a formal announcement had been made by the Prime Minister of this country as to the men who should constitute the proposed tariff board or tariff commission-call it what you may, it matters not to me. It was the board which was to be constituted for the purpose of obtaining information, of making inquiry and reporting to the government where the tariff was too high, or- where it was too low, or where there should be some readjustment. It was for the purpose, as was announced by the Prime Minister and his followers last fall, of taking the tariff out of politics-a good election cry, and one that goes down with a good many people. Now here is the announcement that was made by the Prime Minister on the 7th of April. I quote from Hansard:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kiiiig (Prime Minister): I beg to lay on <the table copy of an order in council in which I know-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think this performance, for I must call it such when hon. gentlemen applaud in this manner-the statement about having laid an order in council on the table-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Allow me to make an explanation, if you please. I never said an order in council was never laid on the table.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friends, I hope, would like to have a straight explanation.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: That is just what we would like.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) stated that I announced that a certain personnel of the board would be appointed, that I laid the order in council on the table.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Look at Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order in council that was laid on the table contained the names of the commission as it exists at the present time; that is the only order in council that was ever laid on the table. I was asked on the spur of the moment some days previously by the right hon. leader of the opposition as to what the personnel of the commission would be before it was appointed, and I named certain gentlemen whom the government had in mind appointing, but before any order in council had been passed. Before the order in council was passed, one of those gentlemen asked that he should not be appointed, and he has not been appointed.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for the misunderstanding, but I am glad to know that I was not in the wrong, because not only was the order in council laid on the table on the 7th of April by the Prime Minister, but he made this statement regarding it:
The order in council in question sets forth the personnel and powers of the board.
And then he gave the names of the members of tire board. That is what I had in mind when I said that within the last two weeks, or possibly ten days this announcement was made by the Prime Minister. It was made on the 7th of April. Now the board was constituted then; at least, on the 7th of this month the names of the board were published in the papers throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion, and men who had been inclined to wonder what action the government might take in regard to the tariff on motor cars said when they saw that announcement: Well, that settles the matter; it will now be investigated by the board; that is what the board is for. That, Mr. Speaker, was the reasonable expectation of every reasonable minded man and woman in Canada. That is what the public expected. That is what the 20.000 workmen engaged in this industry in Ontario expected. That is what the owners of these factories expected. Why did they not get it? Why go through the nonsensical farce of appointing a board, and then at the very first opportunity stultify yourself and repudiate the board you have, appointed? There is something deeper in this matter which these gentlemen know about. There is something under the surface. No rational body of men, if this government be a rational body of men, would treat the public or would treat the House so, or would mislead

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
the manufacturers of these motor cars as the government has misled them by the announcement of a tariff board to whom all questions were to be referred for investigation and report in order to lift the tariff out of party politics, and then within a week, a brief week, after the announcement in regard to a most important industry, one of the most important in Canada to-day, flout that board in the face, and announce to the people of Canada radical reductions, serious reductions, that may very seriously hamper and possibly destroy that industry.
I am not altogether a worshipper of the idea of a tariff board. I remember that on a former occasion, I think it was in 1912, I moved the six months hoist in this House in regard to another tariff board. I believe that a tariff board can be constituted in this country on the lines laid down by my right hon. leader in a speech last year, which is to be found in revised Hansard of June 2, last. I believe that something may be accomplished on those lines, but I am inclined to think that the effort of the present government in regard to the tariff board is merely to evade responsibility; it is merely one of a hundred instances of "passing the buck" as they say in the language of the streets. I am afraid it would be an unfortunate day for this country if the government, should ever delegate its power to deal with the customs tariff of Canada to any board, or to any body of men not elected by the people. I am inclined to think that notwithstanding the pre-election announcement, notwithstanding the flourish of trumpets in connection with the appointment of this tariff board, so well advertised on the front pages of all the Liberal dailies throughout Canada, it is the merest kind of a subterfuge, that it means nothing and will mean nothing in the commercial life of Canada; that all the government has done has been to appoint a sort of glorified body of civil servants. If that is all they are, why not let the Civil Service Commission appoint them? In my humble judgment the men named on the commission are not men qualified to deal with the matters which will be referred to them. No man has a higher regard, or a greater admiration, for the Hon. George P. Graham than I, but I would laugh at any man who came to me and said that George Graham was a tariff expert. Why, sir, as far back in his public career as we can recall he has been engaged and exclusively engaged in the operation of railways, in the management of the Railways department of this country; not a moment of his time has been devoted to commerce, or to customs, or to cognate 14011-157
questions.	He knows as much about the
customs tariff of this country as I do about the differential calculus, and I know nothing about it. But he, forsooth, is to be the head of this board to lift the tariff out of politics! Why, his chief qualifications for the position is that he is a politician, a very able politician, and that is the reason he has been selected. I have little confidence in this tariff board. Now, I am going 5 p.m. to quote what another man says in regard to a tariff board. Last night I was reading a book recently published by Thomas R. Marshall, Vice President of the United States for eight years under the Wilson administration. He was a low tariff man, a tariff for revenue man. We know they have a tariff board in the United States, and this is the late Mr. Marshall's estimate of that board put in his own rather racy language. He says, and this is to be found at page 240 of his work, Recollections:
The attempt to take the tariff quesction out of politics is mot niearly so successful as the taking of alcohol out of Iboer. As Jong as the congress oif the United States levies the taxes and determines the sources from which the revenues shall be derived, the tariff will remain in -politics. This is not a discussion of the right or the (wrong of it. This is the frank expression of an opinion that a tariff commission is just a'bout as valuable as a letter written by an inmate of an insane hospital. To pretend to organize a commission that will tell -the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad, is no more possible than it is for a one-legged man to dance a hornpipe. He cannot even tell the comparative cost of production and the reason for it, in factories in our own land, our own state, our own community. It depends on the plant, the management and a thousand other things. We shall never have any valuable information from a tariff commission until they find out how to make men and plants alike, and have them all move by common impulse.
And such will be the experience of this government with its tariff board. What does the government intend to refer to that board? I do not know. Certainly it has not referred to that board the one great outstanding feature of the budget speech of to-day, and the one upon which the interest of the province of Ontario is more focussed than upon any other. The whole tendency, the whole fiscal policy, of the King administration, from the day it took office down to .the present time, has been a negation of the established fiscal policy of this country since the year 1879. I am the more surprised that a man who now occupies the high position of Prime Minister of this Dominion, and who sat in the government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier between the years 1907 and 1911, should now take this retrograde, this downward step. But he has done it. I said that since the year 1879 the settled fiscal policy of this Dominion was the prin-

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

ciple of protection, and I abide by that statement. That principle wa3 maintained almost intact until 1896. I remember well the days prior to 1896 and the campaign of that year. I remember talcing part in it with the Liberals. I remember well the speeches made at that time by Mr. Fielding, by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and by many less notable Liberals throughout (Canada. I remember our craving for free trade. I remember the various definitions of our policy such as "free trade as they have it in England". I remember well the declaration that "the Liberal party will not be content until protection is destroyed root and branch". But what happened in 1896 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power? Did his government change the principle of protection in the fiscal policy of this country? Not they. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a protectionist. Hardly a change was made in that policy. What did they do? They revised the tariff. They made alteration in this schedule and that schedule, but the net result when the alterations were completed was an average reduction of less than one per cent. In addition to that they brought in a new feature known as the British preference, at first amounting to 25 per cent in favour of Great Britain, but subsequently increased to 33 per cent. That is when I came on the scene, in 1900. I remember well the situation as it then existed in Canada. We had a protective policy suitable to the conditions which then prevailed. We had the same old protected principle in force which had obtained since 1879. And Canada prospered, Canada did well under it. Now I come to an incident showing what happened in 1903. Under the Fielding tariff of 1900, when I came into the House, woollen goods had enjoyed 33 per cent protection, subject to the British preference cutting it down by one third and making it 22 per cent. No sooner had the preference come into force than mills began to close. Men began to lose their jobs. Mills began to run on short time. I wa3 one of a delegation of a number of Ontario mill owners who came to Ottawa and met Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Fielding and Mr. Paterson. The delegation laid the case before them. Did they turn it down? No. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: We shall have this matter investigated at once, and they did. With what result? They found that the Canadian woollen men were open to unfair competition in respect of wages and other conditions in Great Britain; the following session the tariff was amended, and the woollen schedule was put at 30 per cent net on all woollen goods coming into Canada from Great Britain. Why was that

done? Was that done for revenue? No, it was done for protection and it worked admirably.
I remember well when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) came into the House. The woollen schedule stood then at 30 per cent net; he supported it and I supported it. I remember when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) entered the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The tariff was 30 per cent net on woollens and there it remained. I remember the revision in 1907.


James Alexander Robb: When the hon. member is
speaking of 30 per cent, is he referring to the general tariff or the British preferential?


Hugh Guthrie: The general tariff was
35 per cent. The tariff against goods coming in from Great Britain was 30 per cent net. I remember the Minister of Finance was in the House in 1907 too. He and I both supported the Laurier-Fielding tariff of 1907.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend's memory is
very defective; I was elected only in 1908.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I will call it the
1908 tariff because it continued until 1911. I remember when the Minister of Finance came into the House in 1908. He was a supporter of the government of that day.


James Alexander Robb: I am yet.


Hugh Guthrie: He was a supporter of
this tariff and so was the Prime Minister. Prior to 1911 the tariff remained on the statute book intact and so it remained1 through the Borden administration. It was the policy of protection. So it remained through the Meighen administration. Then we come to the advent of the King government and the very first year after the King government came into power they began tinkering with the tariff schedules. In the first year 2$ per cent was taken off the duty on woollen goods. The Laurier-Fielding tariff that had served the country so well, that had kept the mills so busy, was tinkered with in the first year and reduced to 274 per cent. In the following year there was another cut of 10 per cent in the British preferential bringing the tariff on woollens ^down from 27i per cent to 24.8 per cent net, and what was the result? AH over Canada woollen mills began to close; men lost their jobs, the exodus started to the United States and woollen men would not invest more money. I say to the Minister of Finance:	Look at your imports of woollens for those years. See them gradually rising in this country until last year, according to the government's trade returns of which I have a copy in my hand, we brought in $20,-

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
000,000 worth of woollen goods from Great Britain, all of vdiich we could have made in Canadian mills if the Prime Minister had had resolution and courage enough to stand by the tariff which he helped to make in 1907. Yes, they supported it then. Why not support it now? Why change it now? They talk of the golden era which Canada enjoyed under the Laurier-Fielding tariff. If we were prosperous then, that prosperity was due to the principle of protection which they maintained in this tariff. Let the Minister of Finance listen to this. Under the Laurier-Fielding tariff, for which he voted and I voted, for which the Prime Minister, who was a member of the government, voted and for which the Minister of Justice voted, mowers and reapers enjoyed a tariff of 174 per cent. But this government has at last cut the tariff down to 6 per cent and the result is that nearly all mowers and reapers used in Canada are coming in from the United States.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all.


Hugh Guthrie: I am willing to stand by my statement. Cultivators in the days of the Laurier-Fielding tariff, when the present Prime Minister was a member of the government of that day and supported the tariff in that government, enjoyed a duty of 174 per cent. This government has cut the duty down now to 74 per cent. No wonder that the trade has been almost abandoned in this country and our farmers are very largely being supplied with goods from the United States. Under the Fielding-Laurier tariff the duty on ploughs was maintained at 174 per cent until that government was put out of office in 1911. Now, under the genial smile of the present Minister of Finance, the duty on ploughs is down to 10 per cent. In those golden days under the Laurier-Fielding tariff the duty on wagons was maintained at 25 per cent. Now, through the tariff tinkering of this administration, that duty is cut down to 12 per cent; wagon factories of Ontario are very largely closed up, and wagons are coming in from the United States. The duty on cottons has received a cut of 24 per cent and 10 per cent on the British preferential tariff from the old Laurier-Fielding tariff. I believe I am within the mark when 'I say that the industrial difficulties of the Dominion of Canada, the handicaps from which we have suffered in the last four years, are due if not entirely, to by far the largest extent, to the tariff manipulation and tariff tinkering of the King government. In every instance in which this government has laid its unholy hands on the Laurier-Fielding tariff it has been to the detriment and disadvantage of the Dominion of Canada.
I cannot altogether absolve in my mind the Conservative administration which took power in 1912. There was a time-and I was one of those who believed it at the time and I think my right hon. leader was for a time tainted with a bit of the same heresy-when some people thought the duty on agricultural implements was too high and the Borden administration, when they took power in this country, undertook to reduce it. Therefore, a small part of the reduction from the Laurier-Fielding tariff took place while Sir Thomas White was Minister of Finance of Canada. I remember on one occasion making a speech in this House in regard to the matter and I remember strongly supporting the idea that duties were too high on agricultural implements. But in that respect I can only say what I did before. Sometimes I am challenged and asked why ten years ago or fifteen years ago I expressed opinions entirely contrary to what I express to-day. In that regard I can only reply in the language of John Morley or better known at his death as Earl Morley when he said: "When I am confronted on the platforms of this country by men who say: 'Why Mr. Morley, ten years ago or fifteen years ago you shared other opinions and expressed them,' I reply: 'My good friend, I cheerfully admit that ten years ago or fifteen years ago I held many opinions which I do not entertain to-day and if anyone can derive any consolation from my discarded opinions, they are entirely welcome to them.' " I repeat, however, that the real damage has been done by the King government which, from the moment it took power, resolutely set its face towards the free-trade goal and allowed its supporters in this House to announce that the death knell of protection had now been sounded. With three ministers in this House from the important province of Saskatchewan, all of the same opinion, three outstanding men ready to ring the death knell of protection and establish free trade, what hope is there for the province of Ontario, with its single little Minister of Labour, no matter how able or how diligent he may be. Under these circumstances, what chance is there for us in the great industrial province of Ontario to meet a situation such as has arisen in this House to-day in regard to one of the greatest of Ontario's industries?
Sir, there is one other omission from the budget statement in regard to which we have heard rumours on the street. We thought that at last this government had awakened to the fact that there was a class in this country known as agriculturists, a class which, in the eastern provinces at least, has now become thoroughly protectionist in its tariff views
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

and is demanding, through its associations and through its representatives in this House, some action to protect our farmers against unfair competition. There were men, I say, who believed that the government had at last become aware of the situation. In Ontario the great agricultural class is to-day thoroughly protectionist in its views. Look over this House and you will verify that assertion: agricultural riding after agricultural riding has returned to parliament a member pledged to support the principle of protection, e on this side of the House believe also that in the great sister province of Quebec the preponderance of the popular vote is protectionist. We know that at the last general election the question of protection was not made the foremost issue in that province, and we believe that in its heart of hearts the province of Quebec would pronounce to-morrow in favour of the fiscal policy of protection and as opposed to such reductions as are now announced, such tariff tinkering as has taken place, looking ultimately to the goal of free trade, a dream which hon. members in the government will seek some day to realize. We believe that the eastern provinces, represented as they are in this House by a body of members holding a common view, returned those members to the House of Commons chiefly for the reason that they subscribe to the doctrine of protection. Many and many a farmer riding is represented in this House by a straight Conservative protectionist, and we heard rumours as late as this morning that something might be done in the tariff for agriculture.
There was a time when even farmers themselves were wont to say that you could not protect agriculture. The farming community has abandoned that view and to-day it finds itself confronted by a government which, instead of making an attempt to protect the farmers' market in the Dominion, is year by year opening the door wider and wider until the little measure of protection which formerly remained in our customs tariff has now practically disappeared. It is well within the mark to say that the markets of Canada in respect of agricultural products are practically free to Australia and New Zealand and almost freely open to our great competitor the United States. All these markets are closed to our agricultural products. Time was, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, when the customs tariff on agricultural products such as fruit, vegetables and the like, as between Canada and the United States contained a modest element of protection to Canadian farmers. But conditions have changed; the whole system of production has changed, there has been a

difference in population. To-day our customs tariff as regards agriculture is absolutely negligible so far as the protective incidence is concerned. Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of agricultural products that are coming into Canada annually from the United States of which a very large percentage could be produced in this country.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right. In 1922, for which his party must be credited with the operations of nine months, our importation of raw cotton amounted to 95,000000 pounds and in 1925 to over 100,000,000 pounds.


Hugh Guthrie: I was speaking of things which we could produce ourselves. For the benefit of the Minister of Finance and in order to make myseif clear, let me say that I do not include tropical products such as sugar, molasses, fruits, cotton and other commodities, which by reason of our northern climate we cannot produce. But there are hundreds of millions of imports from the United States of agricultural commodities which we do produce in this country, and it is against these things that the farmers of the entire Dominion, certainly those of eastern Canada, want a reasonable tariff barrier for their own protection. Geography is largely against us, and so are climatic conditions; we are under Nature's handicap. Ana that handicap is aggravated by the fact that we have a population of 112,000,000 competing against us. The market to the south of us is closed to the producers of Canada by artificial means.
Why can we not adopt something of the policy of our neighbours in our fiscal arrangements? You must give credit to the people of the United States when it comes to the question of legislation on fiscal matters. They legislate exclusively for their own people, paying no regard to the tariff of Canada or of any other country in the world. If they require an article in the United States for their own purposes they make its importation free, and that is the reason why our pulp-wood, our mineral ores, our asbestos and our electrical power can go in free of duty. They want those things and they allow them to come in without paying a duty. That is their tariff policy, but their tariff policy does not help Canada in the slightest. The moment a hand touches any raw material in the United States, the moment a machine is turned upon the development of that material, then automatically their tariff operates and their market is barred to us. The result is that to-day millions upon millions of dollars' worth of manufactured products are coming into this country from the United

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
States, .products the raw material of which we furnish them. We buy back the finished article for use in Canada.	Do you not
realize that the people of the United States underetand quite well the situation over here? They are not making any mistake in their estimate of the King government. Here is an official document from Washington-the bulletin of the United States Department of Commerce prepared by government officials and placed in the hands of the president. Under date November 3, 1924, at page 265, the bulletin makes this statement:
Economically and socially Canada may be considered as a northern extension of the United States, our trade with Canada being in many respects moire like domestic trade than our foreign tirade with other countries. The movement of industrial raw material from Canada into the United States and the return flow of a miscellaneous assortment of manufactured goods is not unlike a similar flow between the west and the south and the more industirialiized eastern part of itthe United States.
That is an official document laid before the President of the United States. And how has it come about that such a statement can be possible? It has been made possible by the insane fiscal policy which the King government has pursued during the past four years. Now I am going to read from the Commerce report of the United States of the same date. Oh, I tell you they understand our situation here, they realize the tendencies of the King government and what they are getting out of it. This is what the document says:
Against the set (policy of (the Conservative party of building up a thoroughly protective tariff to favour Canadian industries, has been operating the influence of the Liberal party who stand for a moderate level of import duties and a generous measure of preference to empire products.
Since the return -to power in 1921 of the the Liberal government under Mr. Mackenzie King the administrative efforts have been bent toward a discriminating downward revision of the tariff in which the government appears to have had the support of the Progressive element. The Canadian tariff is subject to revision each spring when the Minister of Finance presents to parliament the budget embodying the general financial programme of the administration for the year ahead. Each of the three budgets presented by the present government have carried changes in the Canadian import duties and almost invariably downward.
United States manufacturers have been the principal suppliers to Canada of most of the classes o-f goods on which the duties into Canada have been reduced during the past three years.
Does the government not appreciate the only result of the course it is pursuing? Does it not see the end of the journey? Why, we are drifting, drifting each year, and unfortunately there is only one direction in which we can drift and that is to the south. Is it too late for us to take a stand upon this matter and re-establish ourselves in this our birthright? I for one protest against any condition pertaining in this country which enables public officials of another country to print articles such as I have just read to this House. I protest against any government which permits conditions to prevail in Canada to which articles of this kind have any application whatever. But it is a sad thing, a lamentable thing, a melancholy thing that we have to admit a large element of truth in these articles which I have read, and which were written by the officials of the United States government. Unfortunately there is too much truth in them. That is the part that hurts, that is the part that stings, and that is the part that, for the last four years, has been doing tremendous injury to the Dominion.
I rejoice, Mr. Speaker, over another matter which I had almost forgotten to mention, and that is in regard to the excellent showing which the Minister of Finance was able to announce in respect to the Canadian National Railway system. It comes as a matter of congratulation to my mind. I am sure it will come doubly so to the mind of my right hon. friend and leader, who is really the father of the Canadian National Railway system. Those of us who have been in this House, say, from 1911 down to the present time realize the sustained, the able, the persistent fight against great odds which was made by my right hon. leader to take possession of the old Canadian Northern and the old Grand Trunk and to consolidate them into one splendid national railway system as we have it to-day. Those of us who were here well remember the wonderful fight that he had to make. Part of the time, I regret to say, I voted against him, part of the time I voted with him, and at the conclusion of the long protracted and difficult fight which he put up for the people of Canada during those long and trying years, I felt honoured by the fact that I was a member of the government which consummated the transaction and brought those two railways, which at that time were such tremendous burdens upon the people of Canada, into one magnificent transcontinental system. I well remember from where the chief opposition came. I remember in this House in the sessions of 1919, 1920 and 1921 how he was criticized, how he was condemned, how on occasion after occasion he would have been outvoted had the Liberal party the numbers at that time with which to outvote him. I remember, too, after they obtained power how gingerly they were in taking over the Canadian Northern system or in announcing a policy in regard to it. Why, Sir, our old friend the late Hon. W. C. Kennedy, when he made his first presentation of
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

railway affairs in the session of 1922 said: The government has resolved to try out this government railway ownership policy which was instituted by the preceding government. He would not commit himself to it, he would not commit the government to it. They were a lukewarm party in regard to government ownership and in regard to the Canadian National Railway system at that time. But now that the dream of my right hon. leader is about to be realized, now that the roads are Becoming something in the nature of an asset to Canada, now that we can look forward to the next five y^ars and with some confidence predict that the time is coming when instead of writing off annually the interest charges as we do to-day those charges will be paid into the treasury,-now that that day has arrived, if there is any man who should be proud of the situation, if there is any man in this country to wnom we should pay tribute in regard to a satisfactory solution of our railway affairs, that man is my right hon. leader.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been able on this occasion to deliver anything like the reply to a budget address that the House would expect or that would have been delivered had the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) been in his place. He is a man specially equipped for the performance of such a duty. However, I have brought under review the matters that appeal to me, and I have given the House my views upon the subject generally. I thank the House for the patience accorded to me during my somewhat rambling remarks, which I will now conclude.
Mr. Forke moved the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. ME'IGHEN: Carried on division.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried on (division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the circumstances,
Mr. Speaker, I presume my right hon. friend will be prepared to join with the government in the motion I am about to make that the debate on the budget have precedence over all other matters until disposed of.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move:
That the order for consideration of the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the House to go again into coanmittee of Ways and Means have precedence over all other business, except on Friday the 16th instant, and except the introduction of bills, questions and notices of motions for the production of papers, until disposed of.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite
prepared to go on with the budget debate on all government days including to-day and tomorrow, but I am not prepared to give up Monday which, besides being private members' day, is the day on which a very important resolution was to be moved from this side of the House, and this motion cannot well be postponed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned
to my right hon. friend that there is no intention of doing away with private members' day.	.


Arthur Meighen: We cannot very well
postpone the one motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend would perhaps agree to incorporate in the motion the words "excepting next Monday,"


Arthur Meighen: That would be satisfactory.
Motion as-amended agreed to.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 26, consideration in committee of the proposed resolution with respect to old age pensions.- Hon. Mr. King-Mr. Duff in the chair.
Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, I am altogether opposed to the scheme of old age pensions as placed before the House in this resolution. I can understand an old age pension scheme which depends upon the incapacity of the recipient to earn a living, but unlike every other old age pension scheme with which I have been able to come in contact during a rather extensive search, this scheme altogether eliminates the element of incapacity. It assumes that at seventy years of age every Canadian who has lived in this country for twenty years is utterly incapacitated to earn a living. I object to that assumption, because actual incapacity should be the fundamental principle embodied in any pension scheme.
If incapacity is to be the criterion as to whether parliament shall vote an old age pension list, I then suggest that the petition laid before the House a few days ago asking for pensions to the blind should receive consideration as a part of this general scheme In Nova Scotia we have an institution with which the name of the late Sir Frederick Fraser will ever be connected, in memory of his life work devoted to the blind. In this institution those incapacitated early in life are educated in order to enable them to earn

Old Age Pensions
their living and support their families to almost the remunerative extent of a great number of people who possess their sight. But those who are incapacitated by blindness after the age of twenty years find it most difficult to undertake the educational work necessary to fit them for remunerative occupation from that time on. If, therefore, incapacity should be the criterion, there is no reason why parliament should not undertake to give attention to those who are incapacitated by reason of blindness at such an age as to prevent them from undertaking the educational work necessary to fit them for remunerative employment. Really I can see no reason why, if incapacity is to be the criterion, this country should not igive a pension to every man and woman who is incapacitated physically or mentally. There are a number of pension schemes in connection with railway employment and employment in our industrial life, under which compensation is given to those who, in the work of railway operation or in the pursuit of that special industry, become physically incapacitated. If this country is to pension those who are incapacitated I see no reason why a farmer, for instance, who comes in contact with a mowing machine and is incapacitated to earn his living; why a fisherman, who by accident or otherwise is incapacitated to earn a living; why any person engaged in any industry that he is faithfully prosecuting for the primary purpose of earning a remunerative livelihood and for the further purpose of developing the general industrial life of the country, becoming incapacitated by disease or accident, should not be pensioned.
Further, I object to any general pension scheme being inaugurated in Canada which does not provide for compulsory contribution by the wage earner to a fund which will bear part of the cost of that scheme. I think it a fair proposition to bring before this House that the government, whether federal or provincial, should contribute to a fund to which compulsory payment would be made by employees as well as by employers in industry for the benefit of those engaged in the general industry of this country. But the proposal embodied in this resolution contemplates nothing of the sort. I have examined into a number of schemes. In Great Britain, for instance, I find that there was an amendment made in 1925 to their system of pensions providing for contributory pensions for certain classes of persons who are entitled to participate in that scheme. The cost of such a scheme, of course, is large, but I find that in a number of other countries compulsory contributions
are necessary. For instance, in Austria there is a compulsory system of contribution. In Belgium, insurance is compulsory for all persons who work for an employer at an annual remuneration not exceeding a certain sum. In Bulgaria, compulsory insurance against old age is established. In Chili there is a system of compulsory insurance against old age. In Denmark the recent provisions are for the pensions being paid by the municipalities, only seven-twelfths of the expenses of operation and management being borne by the state. In France there is a compulsory contribution in respect of pensions, except that in the case of mothers who are earning their own living and that of their children there is a deduction from the contribution. In that country contributions are made by the wage-earners and the employer in equal amounts. The employer makes the contribution, but is permitted by the law to deduct one-half from the wages of the employee. In Germany the Old Age Insurance Act passed in 18S9 was the first enactment providing for a national system of compulsory old age insurance. All wage-earners over sixteen years of age in industry, transportation, commerce, agriculture and domestic service, and salaried employees earning annually less than 2,000 marks, must be insured, and must pay from their weekly or monthly wage a certain proportion of the cost of maintaining the insurance system. Even in Greece, in 1922, there was adopted a system of compulsory insurance of wage-earners. In Italy they have compulsory insurance against old age and invalidity. If permanent incapacity to work is proved, pensions are granted at any age provided 120 fortnightly contributions have been paid by the worker into the scheme. The same in Jugo-Slavia, compulsory; Portugal, compulsory; Spain, compulsory, with certain subsidies granted to the scheme by the state; Sweden, compulsory, and so on.
My objection to this scheme as a scheme is that it is not well matured; it has not been carefully considered; it does not provide pensions for those who are incapacitated except by old age at seventy, and at that age they receive a pension whether incapacitated or not; it does not take into consideration the special claims of the blind, of those who are deaf and dumb, or of those who are mentally or physically incapacitated for earning a remunerative weekly, monthly or annual wage. If parliament, therefore, is willing to undertake a thorough and complete system of subsidizing from the treasury of the state those who are incapacitated mentally or physically for earning their livelihood,-and
Old Age Pensions

that is a large undertaking-it is unfair that we should consider simply this one case.
Furthermore, this scheme contemplates that in its operation there shall be co-operation beween the provincial governments and the federal government. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the recent political history of this country we have proceeded1 altogether too far in the way of co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments in respect, for instance, to road appropriations, which are within the proper jurisdiction and control of local legislatures. The same refers also to certain building schemes in which there was co-operation, but in respect of which the federal treasury, which provided the money, really had little or no control over the management of the funds and little or no supervision over the actual expenditures made. I do not wish to stress the matter, but I went through for several weeks, as counsel, an investigation in my native province of Nova Scotia which clearly disclosed to me that when provincial governments or provincial legislatures are expending moneys which are not raised on their own credit and responsibility, and in respect to which their sole responsibility is that of expenditure, it leads to wasteful expenditure and very wide latitude indeed in the making of those expenditures.
In the province of Quebec provision is made for those who are incapacitated either by old age or otherwise. There we have recognized under the law the family life, and by law there is imposed upon every member of the family the duty of maintaining other members of the family who are incapacitated by old age or by physical or mental disability. That law has proved, I think, a most splendid law, accepted by the whole people, preserving the family life and the responsibilities of family life, and so far as I can ascertain there is no demand from and no need in the province of Qudbec for a federal subsidy to assist in maintaining what I might almost call the corporate existence of family life.
In my own native province of Nova Scotia, there is no need, I think for old age pensions or for pensions to those who are suffering special disability owing to blindness or being deaf and dumb. That province has undertaken for years past to educate its deaf and dumb and blind. That work has been so extremely well managed and so extremely beneficial that it will compare with similar work in any other civilized state in the world. I do not think there is any demand from that province for contributions of this kind in respect of work which they have undertaken as a province and in which the municipalities

assist. They regard this as a provincial and municipal affair and they are prepared, I believe, unless there has been a change of sentiment in recent years, to continue it in the same vigorous and successful way in which they have carried it on in the past-in fact, ever since I was a child almost, although during the last thirty years many improvements have been effected.
If this pension scheme, therefore, is to be supported by the provincial and municipal authorities, the government should come to us with a plan which has been submitted to the provinces and which meets generally with their approval. It is utterly absurd, it seems to me, to present a scheme, such as this, whereby the federal treasury will be bound, even under the limited measure proposed here, to the expenditure of $12,000,000 of annual appropriations, without having secured first the approval and the co-operation of the various provinces which will be expected to contribute the other twelve or thirteen million dollars. If any one province remains out of the scheme, an unequal and unjust burden is placed upon it, as a part of the country as a whole, for the purpose of maintaining this institution in other provinces. Furthermore, it would be grave injustice to the province of Quebec, a constituency of which I have the honour to represent in this House, and would be destructive of the entire traditions of that province, those splendid traditions which have been preserved for a century. I am sure no request has come from the people of Quebec for this scheme.
On these general grounds, therefore, without occupying the attention of the House further for the moment, I wish to express my objection to the scheme as a whole. It has been conceived without due consideration; it has never enlisted the co-operation and approval of the provinces and municipalities, although the former are bound to contribute one-half the amount involved; and finally it has never contemplated providing assistance for those who are just as much entitled to aid as others who, having attained the age of seventy, are incapacitated by physical or mental disability.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: We would be the better of having the minister in charge.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I am here.


Arthur Meighen: On old age pensions?

Old Age Pensions


John Warwick King: Yes. I had the
pleasure of introducing the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: I did not think the
Minister of Public Works was old enough for that. What has he to say to the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) which seems to me to be a very weighty presentation?


John Warwick King: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George interjected certain side issues which would lead us far astray in regard to this bill. Provision for blind or disabled people would not come within the four corners of the bill. This is an old age pension bill, and it would be well to confine the operations of the bill to the matters set out in the resolution. Provision for the blind should be left more to the locality in which the unfortunate individual is situated; and I know throughout Canada provision is being made for people suffering from blindness. If it was the desire of the Canadian parliament to make provision for that class or other classes, it should be outside of this bill.
As to his argument that Quebec has already made provision for the old and aged in that province, that is true of every province and municipality in Canada, but it is well known that in the Canadian parliament for many years, in fact since 1906, this question has been mooted and discussed. In the last parliament a committee of the House of Commons in 1924 reported recommending an old age pension bill and it will be found by those who consult the report of that committee that the legislation now before the House follows very closely the report which was presented to the House of Commons at that time.
The resolution covers in extended form the matter that will come within the bill itself, and I would ask that the resolution be adopted in order that we may consider the bill when it comes before the committee.


Arthur Meighen: Of course I realize the
minister is only acting-and the word "acting" must be used in a somewhat ironical sense to make it properly apply-but his answer to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is conspicuously ineffective.


John Warwick King: Sufficient, though.


Arthur Meighen: He says, towards the
close, that this bill, to use his own language, very closely follows the report of the committee of 1924. Why, it flies in the face of that report. I have not had time at this moment to read the report over again, but my recollection is that it recommended the calling of a provincial conference to see if the provinces could get together on some form of legislation. I have the report before rae now and it reads:
Mr. Raymond, from t'he special committee, appointed on !fche 1st of May last to make an inquiry into an old age pension system for Canada, to which was referred the correspondence arising from the proposal recommended to parliament on the 1st of July, 1924, for co-operative action on the part of the federal government and the governments of the several provinces, has the honour to report as follows:
Your committee 'has given careful consideration to the aforesaid correspondence, and also to (the correspondence more recently received from premiers and ministers of several provinces. Briefly, the view of the several provincial governments are as follows:
I really think this should be read.


John Warwick King: It has been read.


Arthur Meighen: Then I will not take the time to read again the reports from the premiers and other representatives of the provinces. Suffice it to say that there is not much sunshine to be got out of these cucumbers so far as I can see. Not one of them speaks favourably of entering into an old age pension scheme with the Dominion. These are embodied in the report, and then the committee says:
Having given very careful consideration to the opinion submitted by the Department of Justice, and also to the respective views of the different provinces, your committee have come to the following conclusions:
Firstly, that if the Dominion government were to proceed now with a scheme of old age pensions, it would have to be prepared to bear the entire expense, which would approximately amount to $23,000,000 annually, according to the data obtained in your committee's investigations.
The inference being that they should not proceed now.
Secondly, that in view of the present financial conditions and heavy taxation of Canada, your committee would not feel warranted at the present moment in recommending such a large additional expenditure, annually.	#
Thirdly, that this measure of social reform, in the opinion of your committee, is very important.
That was a comparatively safe feature of the report.


Mr. HEAPS:: What is the date of the
report?


Arthur Meighen: June 16, 1925. The
fourth conclusions reads:
That since it is the opinion of the Department of Justice that the matter is one coming under the jurisdiction of the provinces, although open ito assistance from the federal government, your committee, therefore, strongly recommend:
1.	That the federal government arrange with the premiers of the different provinces for a conference to be held during the coming recess of parliament at which en old age pension system shall be given the fullest consideration with a view to securing co-
Old Age Pensions

operative action, and that .the reiport of the said conference be laid on the table at the next session of parliament for future consideration and action.
2.	That the chairman of your committee, and one other of its members who would be familiar with the subject matter, be invited to attend the said conference.
3.	That a copy of this report be forwarded to each premier of the several provinces.
That is the report which the minister says this bill followed closely. Why, all the report recommended was a conference, and that is about all that the government have not done. They have not held any conference at all. Of course it is not difficult to divine the reason for there not having been a conference. As hon. members will recollect, we have been threatened with a provincial conference now for about two years. The suggestion came first from the ambition which suddenly sprang into the mind of the Prime Minister to clip the wings of the Senate and bring the Senate into line with democracy, and a few months afterwards the necessity for a conference became apparent to the government as a means of bringing this about. But when the government could not for the life of it think of anything to bring before the conference, the matter was deferred and we were told that there would have to be a general election in order that the government might receive the authority to call the conference. The government, however, knowing that at such a conference they would have to bring up Senate reform, were afraid to call it, so that the only recommendation the committee could have made was very skilfully avoided. No other recommendation was made. Why, then, does the minister stand up and say that this bill follows the recommendation?


John Warwick King: It follows it very closely.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, as closely as east
follows west; just as closely as this government follows its platform of 1919; just as closely as black is allied to white.


Mr. McPHEE:: We are very near to that platform to-day.


Arthur Meighen: You are very little
nearer to it now than before. I should like to discuss some features of that question; it will come up next week. I can well remember a few years ago when an announcement of this kind was made. There was great elation, and just about half of those who were intoxicated with it were left at home a few months afterwards. I make that statement by way of warning to hon. gentlemen diagonally opposite.


George Washington McPhee: That did not happen in
Saskatchewan.


Arthur Meighen: There, too, to some
extent. Saskatchewan, however, is a safe place to laugh in so far as free trade matters are concerned. iSecurity is one of the attributes of hon. gentlemen, an attribute which in their case is more conspicuous than their courage. Now I come back to the point from which I was diverted. There is no family resemblance between this resolution and the report of the committee; the resolution is not the offspring of the committee. It was not born of that committee at all. It is the result of a compact, made at the opening of the House, to get the votes of Labour members, and it is not going to get any old age pensions. It was intended to secure votes and it has served that purpose already. I do not know of any much more effective step which might be taken in order not to provide for old age pensions. ' You put upon the statute books a framework into which the provinces have to fit themselves and you have pretty well shut the door on old age pensions. There has been no conference for the reason that the government does not want to get the premiers of the provinces together. A conference was the only recommendation, and that conference having been denied, this step is taken.
I want to dwell for a moment on tlhe point raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. We all know that under many circumstances there is much to warrant old age pensions, but if there is anything more than another that warrants such pensions it is the fact that old age disables from earning power. Now aside from the fact that the provinces heretofore have taken care of this situation, this being their responsibility under the constitution, this legislation is not framed on the principle of disability at all. As a matter of fact there is no principle of any kind underlying it. If the Dominion is going to step in and assist the provinces in the care of old persons, the Dominion is under just as great a responsibility to step in and assist the provinces to take care of others who are disabled from earning power from any -cause. Indeed, the responsibility in relation to certain other classes is even greater. The man who when he arrives at old age is unable to earn a living may be blameless if he cannot support himself, but there is a presumption in many cases that his condition is due to his own fault; and very often it is, in fact. But the man who through physical affliction, over which he has had no control, is unable to seize the ordinary op-

Old Age Pensions
portunities of life and thus to provide for his old age has a greater call upon the public than he who has let the opportunities of life go by, finding himself at its close without the means of support. In a word, the cry of disability comes with far more force from the man who is robbed in early or in middle life of the ordinary opportunities that are available to all than from him who has failed to take advantage of such opportunities. But those from whom the call comes most insistently, those who have by far the strongest right of appeal to assistance, are ignored by the government. They are told to shift for themselves while others, less deserving, the government is ready to help because by so doing they can get votes and stay in office. And without a whisper of encouragement from the provinces, unless possibly from one, with everything indeed in the way of discouragement, the government are thrusting themselves in and saying to the provinces, "Here [DOT]is the mechanism; you get in and find your place." Is that going to accelerate the arrival of old age pensions? Let the government call a conference to consider the whole question of disability, and if the provinces are not able to take care of the situation and the government desire to assist, they may join; but do not start by discriminating, especially against the most deserving of all.
Now, those are some features of the criticism I make. The government say: We cannot do it ourselves because we are forbidden by the British North America Act. That act seems to be of some use, even in the absence of the former Minister of Labour, who in his day gave us some fearful and wonderful interpretations of it. But if one reads this letter from the Justice department he will find there is nothing in it about disability. If we want to do it we can-I am not advocating it- but there is nothing in the world in the way of disability. Here is what it says:
Referring to your letter of the 12th, instant, asking to be advised with regard to the authority of parliament to legislate on the subject of old age pensions, I may say this subject does not fall specifically within any of the enumerated subjects given to the Dominion under section 91 of the British North America Act, but does in my judgment fall within the subject of "property and civil rights in the province" committed to the provinces under section 92.
That is to say, the British North America Act does not specifically make this the duty of the Dominion. It does under, section 22, enumerate a list of the responsibilities of the provinces within' which this is included. The opinion continues:
I am of opinion therefore that the subject matter of pensions has been entrusted to the provincial legislatures rather than to parliament. I do not mean to
suggest that parliament has not the power to legislate upon the subject so as to assist the provinces or to establish an independent, voluntary scheme, provided that in either case the legislation does not trench upon the subject matter of property and civil rights in -the province, as for example by obligating any province or person to contribute to the scheme.
That is to say, the Dominion government could not pass an act based on the principle of contribution to the extent of saying that whether a man wanted to or not he had to contribute. We cannot do that. But undoubtedly the Dominion parliament could pass an act, saying in effect:	Here is a scheme
which we leave open to all the people of our country who desire to come in; anyone who comes in must pay so much-that is obligatory-if he does not, why he is simply outside the scheme. The Dominion could do that. In a word, there is no real restraint on the Dominion doing it if it wants to. We cannot compel people to come into such a scheme, but nobody would think of doing that anyway. Consequently it is only a sham, to be argued either on the basis of this opinion or on any other basis, that we cannot, if we desire to, lay down the foundation of an act wholly within our competence and our supervision, the entire moneys to be provided, by the parliament of Canada. All that I want to press upon the committee is, that if we do not do it we ought manfully to say: We do not do it because we do not think it is wise. We should not say: We do not do it because there is some constitutional restraint. There is not.
Now, I rose to point out this. When the ministry advocates, in the first place, that this bill is founded upon the report of the committee, well, it argues something for which not a shadow of a fact can be produced in support of; when it argues, secondly, that this is a fair treatment of disabled people- or put it this way, that this bill is based on any principle of equality, any principle that is not discriminatory, why it has no shadow of foundation for its argument. It is discriminatory. It is selecting, I believe- not in every case undeserving instances, for in very many cases they are deserving-but it is selecting a class of cases among which the undeserving would be far more predominate than any other class of disabled people. In short, it is leaving out those whose appeal is far stronger than the appeal of those it would include. And surely when the government argues that it has to have a complicated system of inter-related provinces in its scheme because of a constitutional restraint, it is arguing what is not true. There is no such constitutional restraint at all. The
Old Age Pensions

resolution bears every evidence of being brought to this House for one purpose and for one only-to satisfy a compact entered into for the sake of votes on the Address; and this bill will not get us any closer to old age pensions on behalf of the workless.


Mr. NEILL:: Will the right hon. gentleman before he takes his seat justify his statement that this resolution is not in any way whatever founded-I think he said-upon the recommendations of the committee? I refer now to the specific suggestions made by the committee in the report of 1924.


Arthur Meighen: I was referring to the
report of the committee of 1925, the last I had before me. I have not read the 1924 report.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have before me the report of the committee of 1924, dated July 1. I presume it must be something along the same lines as that which the right hon. 'leader of the opposition has just been dealing with. It is very specific' in regard to its recommendations. It says:
This question has been before this House at different times since 1907, but no definite recommendation was made by any of the committees to which it was referred.
After careful consideration of the information obtained from the sources enumerated, your committee respectfully recommends:
![DOT] That an old age pension system 'be established at the earliest possible date for deserving indigent persons to seventy years of age and upwards.
I think there is no doubt that the present resolution deals with the recommendation stated in this particular report.


Arthur Meighen: Was not that report reversed the next year?


Abraham Albert Heaps: As I said before, it is dated July 1, 1924. It is signed by W. G. Raymond, Chairman.


Arthur Meighen: The later report reversed it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The other recommendations are:
2.	That applicants for pensions must be British subjects of at least twenty years' residence in Canada,-
And so on.
3.	(a) That the maximum rate of pension be $20 per month which will be lessened by private income or partial ability to earn:
I think something in the resolution deals with that particular aspect of the question. The report continues:
Cb) That one-half the amount of pension payable be borne by the federal government: the other half, 
by the provincial governments of such provinces as express by legislation their desire to adopt the system- the cost of administration to be borne by the provincial governments.
I believe the resolution follows exactly the lines of these recommendations. Then of course the report goes on to deal with other items which are not of very much importance at the moment, except this, to be fair to the right hon. leader of the opposition:
Your committee further recommends that the government communjicate with the various provincial governments to ascertain if they are disposed to adopt the above system and enact the necessary legislation.


Arthur Meighen: In the face of the replies received the committee reversed its report and brought in another one.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know that that is entirely correct. Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal for a few moments with some of the criticisms that were made this afternoon. Since I came into the House I have learned that one of the easiest things is to criticize destructively, but it is a different thing to criticize constructively. The criticism offered this afternoon has not been of a constructive character; it has been either destructive in its nature or it has been in the form of suggestions which would extend the provisions of the scheme considerably. If I understand correctly the attitude of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) he expressed two conflicting ideas. First, he was entirely opposed to the principle of old age pensions; second, he tried to impress upon the committee the desirability of extending the provisions of the proposed bill. Now, a man cannot have it both ways, if he is opposed to old age pensions, then he must also be opposed to any extension of the principle. But it seems we have that kind of argument which would extend the scope of the measure and at the same time would oppose the principle of old age pensions altogether.


Arthur Meighen: Was that report of 1924 adopted by this House?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I cannot say that it was.


Arthur Meighen: I am informed that it was not. The report of 1925 was adopted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I desire to point out that
this question has been discussed by various committees of parliament for the past eighteen years, and if hon. members tell me to-night that the House has not given consideration to the question of old age pensions,
I cannot understand their logic. Away back in 1919 a commission was appointed by the

Old Age Pensions
then government to inquire into the question of industrial unrest, and I do not think hon. members on the other side would care to repudiate the findings of that commission.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Their own commission.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know what the hon. member means by that.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was
under the jurisdiction of the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will not say it was under
their jurisdiction, but the commission was appointed by them. Very often these commissions report in accordance with the desires of the government in power.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And what do we find? On
page 19 of their report, which was signed by T. G. Mathers, Chairman, Carl Riordon, Chas. R. Harrison, Tom Moore and John W. Bruce, we find this:
We recommend immediate inquiry toy expert boards into the following subjects, with a view to early legislation :
(a) State insurance against unemployment, sickness, [DOT]invalidity and old age.
Nothing was done with the report of that commission in 1919, and nothing has been done to make effective their recommendations. It might be argued from their report that they recommended some form of contributory system under which the beneficiary himself or herself, as well as the government, should contribute. I think such a scheme would be impracticable in Canada. In Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, where old age pensions have been in effect for the past fifteen years or more, they have a non-contributory system.


Mr. MANION:: Is it not true that in England they adopted a system of non-contributory and also contributory pensions?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. I was coming to that in a moment. In Australia-and it is the same in New Zealand-the pension is on a noncontributory basis.


Mr. BENNETT:: The royal commission reported against that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: inces with eight-hour day legislation and others which have not such legislation. That is one of the bad features about social legislation in Canada. When I was in Manitoba recently I was in touch with certain manufacturers there who objected to the low wages being paid in some of the eastern provinces. They claimed that while the Minimum Wage Act had been recently placed on the statute books it had not been enforced, and that the manufacturers of Manitoba, who are paying a minimum wage of $11 and $12 a week, had to compete with eastern manufacturers who were paying $5 and $6 a week. That is the effect of having nine governments deal with a problem that should be dealt with by one central authority. That is why I want to see Dominion legislation in this matter. Its application would be uniform in all the provinces, and one province could not get the advantage of the others by keeping outside the provisions of the act-


Mr. McGIBBON:: What industries in the
east are paying $5 and $6 per week and where are they?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are some eastern firms who are paying wages of about $6 per week.


Peter McGibbon: Name them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In Quebec.


Peter McGibbon: Name the industry.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think it is necessary to name the firm. I have made the statement and it can be proved if necessary. In fact I was in Montreal on Sunday last and a manufacturer there told me that girls applying for positions in his establishment stated that they could not work for less than $5 a week. That wage is paid in some of the eastern parts of Canada. I am not referring to Ontario at all. I know they have a Minimum Wage Act here, and I think it is being generally oberved. I want to see legislation of a similar character in all the provinces; I do not want to see any one province in a worse position than another.
This old age pension legislation has been asked for by the labour forces in all parts of Canada; I do not think there is a labour organization in Canada on record as being opposed to it. I would like to see the federal government assume a much larger share of the cost of this legislation. In fact if I were to go through the bill and say what I would like to see, I would be opposed to many of its provisions; at the same time I want to see legislation of this kind put on the statute book. We are to-day about fifteen or sixteen 
years behind other parts of the empire in legislation such as this, and if we have to wait until all the nine provinces are ready for an act of this character I am afraid that we may have to wait for a good many years yet.
I notice that a committee that recently investigated the question of migration from Great Britain has suggested that there be put down on the agenda of the forthcoming Imperial conference to be held this fall the question of the standardization of insurance schemes throughout the empire, and that contributory pensioners should be credited with a year's pension when proceeding overseas. Although that question is down on the agenda of the Imperial conference for discussion this fall, our Prime Minister, or whoever represents Canada alt that conference, will have to confess to the conference, to the delegates from New Zealand and Australia and the representatives of the British government, that in Canada we have no old age pensions at all. What does that mean? It means that we in *this country are more backward in our social legislation than they are in other parts of the empire.
It may be true that this legislation is not going as far as I should like to see it go. I should like to see it go as far as it does in Australia. I should like to see blind people included, and invalidity insurance established in this country, but invalidity insurance is something apart altogether from the question of old age pensions. I would like .to see it made possible for men to earn sufficient when they are working to tide them over the period when they may be unfortunate enough to be invalided, but I claim that this piece of legislation is a step in the right direction. It is something that has been asked for by labour for many years past; organizations of various characters throughout the Dominion have asked for it, and if we put this on the statute books of the Dominion, we shall only be putting into effect legislation which has already gone into effect in other parts of the empire some fifteen or twenty years ago.


Peter McGibbon: Is there any class of
people in this country that the hon. member would not put on the payroll of the state?


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I could gelt a sensible
question from the hon. gentleman, I would answer it.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that for many, many years I have realized, and publicly recognized, the

Old Age Pensions
desirability of some legislation that would make provision for the care in old age of deserving citizens. As a principle, or as a measure of social legislation, I think it is one that ought to have the careful attention of the people of Canada.
I am also aware that this subject has been discussed for many years in Canada, as the bon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Heaps) has said. It is also correct that in the last two sessions a special committee of the House has studied the problem and made reports. But I want to say to the government very, very frankly, and to hon. gentlemen who are supporting this particular resolution, that in my opinion, and I speak as one who has advocated for years a measure of legislation to bring about the care of those in old age, this resolution if passed into law in the form of a bill based upon the resolution will not have that effedt. It is just as certain as that we are present here to-night that a year from now, or two or three years from now, if this measure passes the Senate, there will be no old age pension for the old people of Canada. I am convinced of that in my mind, and I will give my reasons. I hope I shall be given credit for giving my opinion honestly, although it may not be in the form the government might wish.
In the first place, I would like to refer to the two previous reports that have been made on this subject. First there was the report of 1924. That report, which was never adopted, and the House should bear that in mind, recommends an old age pension system for deserving indigent persons of seventy years of age and upwards. I call attention to that, because it is really the main principle of that report.
In another clause that 1924 report suggests that the federal parliament should pay one-half and the provinces one-half of the pension. but the committee went on to point out in this report, which was presented on July 1, 1924:
Your committee further recommends that the government communicate with the various provincial governments to ascertain if they are disposed to adopt the above system and enact the necessary legislation.
That was an honest and a serious suggestion. Why was that recommended? The committee which had studied this question knew that it was perfectly useless to pass the legislation unless the governments of the several provinces were willing to co-operate, so they suggested in the report itself: Here is a scheme which we think will work, but before it is passed into legislation the provinces
should be consulted. Now that part of the report was never considered by the govern-1 ment. There was no consultation with the provinces; I am not speaking of last year, but of two years ago. No effort was made by this government to bring the provinces into harmony so that when the legislation was finally introduced it might be useful and effective if all were agreed upon it.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member says that the government made no attempt to carry the 1924 report into effect. The government did communicate with the various provinces, as the report of 1925 will show.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. There may have been informal communication, but the Prime Minister knows that in this sort of thing you must get the provinces together in conference, and have some definite scheme in which the provinces will agree to join.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is before them now in this bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will deal with that in a moment, I submit that there was no conference of the provinces held, and no effort made to hold one.


Alan Webster Neill: We did not ask for a conference in the 1924 report, but we asked that the provinces be communicated with, and that ' was carried out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were a number of answers from the provinces, but I do not wish to go into that. My point is that there was no scheme arrived at in conference between the provinces and the Dominion.
Now I come to the legislation proposed in this resolution, and again I want to inject this, that I am not opposing the principle of old age pensions. I am endeavouring to show that this resolution will not give effect to the desire of those who wish to see old age pensions come into effect. Take the first clause of the resolution, which reads:
That the Governor in Council may make an agreement with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of any province for the payment to such province quarterly of an amount equal to one-half of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions pursuant to a provincial statute authorizing and providing for the payment of such pensions to the persons and under the conditions hereinafter specified and regulations made under the proposed legislation.
Then in clause 3, which must be read in conjunction with clause 1, otherwise it is meaningless, we have this:
Before any agreement so made comes into operation, the Governor in Council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province.
24S0
Old Age Pensions

I ask any member of this House, particularly members of the government who have had experience in provincial governments- my hon. friend who is in charge of this bill was for a number of yean a minister in the provincial government of British Columbia; the Minister of Agriculture and other members of the government have also had experience in provincial governments-what provincial government or what provincial legislature is there in Canada' to-day that will submit its legislation to the approval of the government in Ottawa?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not desirable to have uniformity in legislation on old age pensions?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely; that is what I am trying to show. But this legislation will never accomplish that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes it will.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend, I think, is quite sincere in his support of the measure. His idea is to have uniform legislation all over Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. I agree with him there, but I am trying to point out that the very provisions ol this bill will vitiate that and make it ineffective. I ask again what legislature or government of any province will submit its legislation to this government-not to this parliament but to this government-before they enact it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Lots of them have done so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They did it in the case of the legislation for the building of roads, the advancement of technical education, for agricultural instruction, and several other measures.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The highways bill was an entirely different matter, and by the way, it has been called into question by my hon. friend's supporters for years, and I would hesitate to support it again myself. The highways bill was a gift from the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So is this a
gift.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not exactly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are asking the provinces to pass legislation which must be submitted to the Governor in Council at Ottawa before it becomes effective.


John Warwick King: In order that the legislation may be uniform.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why do you not go to the provinces beforehand and get an agreement with them before you do anything? Why do you not bring in a bill which will reflect the opinion of the provinces?


John Warwick King: We want to get on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend does not want to get on. To be perfectly frank I say this: the hope, the expectation, the desire of this government is that the bill to be founded on this resolution will go to the Senate and that the upper house will view it as an abortive piece of legislation and reject it.


John Warwick King: I dissent altogether from that statement. This government and the party it represents proclaimed to the people of Canada in convention that they proposed to bring in legislation to provide for old age pensions. This resolution represents the effort of the government representing the Liberal party in this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am trying to show the minister that the proposed legislation will be wholly abortive. If the only guarantee of the soundness of the legislation is that it was passed in a Liberal convention, then it is an absolute guarantee of the government's desire to evade the issue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend not recognize the fact, in speaking of the Senate, that the bill can only be thrown out in the upper house if a majority of his own party reject it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. That is the precise proof of the correctness of my statement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. gentleman
recommend his own party in the Senate to pass the bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as I am concerned I will recommend the Senate to pass an old age pension bill that is going to be useful and effective. Now I am going to finish what I was about to say, and I am receiving support from the interjection of the right hon. Prime Minister. He says that if the bill is thrown out in the Senate it will be rejected by a majority composed of friends of this party. That is the hope of this government.

Old Age Pensions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not a bit of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the hope of this government. It is the government's hope and expectation that the Senate will throw this legislation out-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Senate throw it out they may expect to hear a great deal from this iparty about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my right hon. friend would only let me finish my sentences when I am on my feet; unfortunately he finishes the sentence for me. This is the reason the government hope the Senate will throw the bill out: so that they can go before the country and say, "Here we have the Tory Senate throwing out the Old Age Pensions bill." They will make an appeal of that kind in regard to a useless piece of legislation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will my hon. friend permit me one more question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to be allowed to finish my sentence.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will my hon. friend make some suggestion of a constructive nature that will make the bill more useful?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to finish one or two of these sentences that I have tried several times to complete. The Prime Minister is so anxious to help me out that he rather gets in before me. I say this again: The government expect and hope that the Senate will throw this bill out (because it is more or less a controversial piece of legislation. I venture to say there will be-what? Fifty members sitting behind the Prime Minister, fifty members of his own party, who would rather this legislation was not before the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I can name them. They are over there by the dozen.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. gentleman
answer the question I asked him a few moments ago?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but I should like to finish this part of my remarks first. I say there are behind the Prime Minister fifty- to-night there are not very many of them there-who would rather this legislation was not before the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They realize there is some political advantage in it. I realize that a large section of the people of Canada favour this legislation. I supported the principle, and have done so for years. I did so long before this government had the courage to bring it in, because I think legislation is good, but not of this particular type. The government's hope is that the Senate will throw it out and relieve them of the Embarrassment Which it causes. And why will the Senate throw it out? If the Senate throws out this legislation it will do so because it knows it is not effective. That is the reason.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a
point of order. I think my hon. friend is going beyond the mark when he undertakes to tell this House what the Senate will do. My understanding of the rules is that no reference should be made here to the actions of the upper house. My hon. friend is telling us in advance how the Senate proposes to deal with legislation on old age pensions when it comes before that venerable body. I submit he is out of order in so doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. Prime
Minister is wholly wrong in his description of what I said. I said what I felt in my heart, that this government desired and expected the Senate to do something. I did not say what the Senate would do. I will go further and say this: So far as I am concerned if I had any influence with the Senate I would advise them to pass the legislation, even though it is of an abortive character, so that the uselessness of it may recoil upon the government's head.
Now I come back to the resolution. It says:
That before any agreement so made comes into operation, the Governor in Council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province.
Thus not only the main principles of any legislation but the scheme of administrating it must be submitted to this government for approval. When I say "this gov-9 p.m. emment" I mean the federal government; it does not matter which government it is. We know perfectly well that the federal government may be Conservative or may be Liberal. The provincial government may be of one or the other complexion. There may be a conflict of opinion politically between the provincial and the federal government. A provincial government of Liberal persuasion may pass certain legislation and submit it to the approval of the Governor in Council of a Conservative gov-

Old Age Pensions

ernment at Ottawa, and all the possibilities of political animosity are there so as to render the working together of the two governments impossible. In any case, this type of legislation should not be made subject to a provision of this kind. Further the resolution says:	"no change" whatsoever-the word
"whatsoever" is not in the resolution, but I am putting it in to emphasize the point- "in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the Governor in Council." That is, a provincial legislature having passed a bill for old age pensions and having got it into operation, cannot modify, change or in any way touch that bill without first coming to the federal government and receiving approval by order in council.


John Warwick King: If action is to be a joint matter between two governments-and that is the intention of the bill-the federal government being the parent government introducing the legislation, surely as a matter of common sense, if a provincial government wishes to vary the operations of legislation that this parliament will pass, it must have the concurrence of the parent parliament that originated the bill. My hon. friend will not for a moment argue that that is not a proper course to follow if the bill is to be effective.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am trying to argue that the bill will not be effective.


John Warwick King: Unfortunately.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I am trying to point out is this. We will assume that they get such a bill into operation. If any one legislature out of nine desires to have some clause different from what another legislature has, it cannot have it without the consent of this government. Furthermore, a provincial legislature, for instance British Columbia-and I understand the Hon. John Oliver has intimated that he is prepared to pass an old age pension law-may propose certain legislation satisfactory to the people of British Columbia and acceptable to that legislature. But that legislation might not suit the provineial legislature of Ontario or of Nova Scotia, and unless this government consented to such legislation passed by any one of the three or all of them, it could not become applicable and they could not take advantage of this bill. By attempting to pass a measure of this kind before a conference of the provinces is held and an agreement on the part of those provinces secured, the government are passing a piece of legislation that will be a joke on the statute books of Canada.

I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said that the provinces had been consulted. I have not under my hand the replies of the provinces, but so far as I can recollect-and I will speak subject to correction-I think the majority of those replies are of a character indicating that the provinces do not wish to join in a scheme with the federal authorities.


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a fair statement as regards all except one, I understand. I will not argue it down to any fine point, but I know that the replies from the provinces do not indicate any real unanimity of opinion.


Alan Webster Neill: While there may have been no unanimity in favour of it, opinions were divided throughout the country. But those replies were made before the decision was given by the Department of Justice that the matter was one for the provinces to deal with, and therefore it is much more now to their advantage to agree than it was at that time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That answer would be all right except for one thing-the Department of Justice did not make such a statement. The whole atmosphere surrounding these replies indicates what I am getting at, namely, that this government in 1924 and again in 1925 ought to have called a conference of the provinces. How could you expect to get any unanimity of opinion by writing nine letters to nine provineial governments asking their opinion on a given subject? You are going to get as many opinions as letters- you write. But if you get nine people around a table to confer on a given question with the federal authorities declaring that they have taken the lead in the matter, then you would have some hope of getting unanimity.
I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that a genuine effort has not been made by the government in this matter. I do not like to indulge in prophecy, but I predict that one year, two years or three years from now this legislation will be a dead letter on the statute books of Canada if it passes both Houses of parliament this year. It is pretty late in the session and perhaps hopeless to get a conference of the provinces, but I would say to the minister: Get a conference of the provinces as soon as possible; even if this legislation passes, get a conference of the provinces and bring them together with the idea of having some

Old Age Pensions
unanimity of opinion so that the parliament of Canada may pass legislation that may be effective.
In connection with this resolution there are other points that might be studied with profit, but I do not wish to detain the House at great length. Clause 2 reads:
That every agreement so made shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation-
That of course sounds all right, but a province might pass the legislation; it might draw from this treasury a certain number of quarterly payments for two years, three yea*, five years, and then drop the scheme. It could fail to vote the necessary supply, or repeal the legislation, or drop it, and so it passes off the books and off the scene. As I pointed out before, the very nature of this legislation leaves a province in the position to step in or step out. Let it be a definite agreement by all the provinces to enact such legislation supplemented and assisted by federal legislation and you may have something effective. But I have a suggestion- and I am replying now to the hon. member, not at present in his seat, who asked me a moment ago what suggestion I would make. I would suggest that the federal government determine themselves if they sincerely want to give old age pensions. If they now say they do-and they are sincere in this although I must say I do not read in the pages before me any evidence of sincerity-let them bring in a definitely and exclusively federal old age pension scheme, and I will support it. In fact if I have nothing else, I will support this just as an evidence of my good faith, but I declare to the House again that in supporting this I feel that I am supporting something that is really trifling with the good faith of the old people of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to the suggestion just made, my hon. friend's colleague, the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) told us the other night that if we did what he suggests the chances are it would be declared we had no authority to deal with the matter at all; that it was a provincial matter. He agreed with us that the only way in which we could proceed with a sense of security in the matter of an old age pension bill was by co-operation with the provinces.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good. I say to the Prime Minister, as I have already stated: Show your good faith by bringing the provinces together and bring before them a measure 14011-1584
that is composite in its form as representing the views of the provinces as well as of this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just as a step towards reaching, as quickly as possible, the point my hon. friend suggests. What is there to prevent the government from having the provinces come together, and assisting them in discussion by placing before them a measure that has already received the approval of this parliament and asking them if it requires amending in order to be wholly acceptable to them? If it does not, we are that much further ahead. If it does, we can have it amended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a very plausible argument. Why did the minister not take the 1924 resolution a year ago to the provinces? Then he might have come here to-night with something that would be effective. I have about as much hope'-I say this with kindness, but quite frankly to the Prime Minister-of evidence on the part of the government of taking this bill to a provincial conference in order to get the co-operation and support of the provinces as I have knowledge of their taking that resolution of 1924. It is for that reason that I have criticized this measure tonight. I believe it will be abortive, but even at that I wish to support it, not because I approve of its terms, but because I regard the following words in the resolution as the only declaration contained in all this legislation that has any degree of clarity or of sincerity, namely, "A measure respecting old age pensions."


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The government
professes its sincerity in the desire to pass this legislation. Perhaps the Acting Minister of Labour can tell me whether the legislation foreshadowed by the resolution now before us will include the Yukon and the Northwest Territory. If it does, does not the word "province" in subsection (d) of section four limit the application of the resolution solely to the provinces?


John Warwick King: The Yukon and the northwest will be provided for in the bill.
' Mr. BLACK (Yukon): They are not included in this resolution.


John Warwick King: They will be, in the bill.


Mr. STORK:: Little remains to be said in reference to the resolution. We have had a lengthy discussion this afternoon and evening following an equally exhaustive debate
Old Age Pensions

when, the resolution was last before the committee, and I fancy the matter has been fairly well covered from every angle. I have no lengthy remarks to offer but I certainly do think that this is a very notable step in the direction of social legislation, and I want to associate myself with the movement. As has been pointed out to-night, the question has been considered at various times from 1907 to the present day. We realize that a great deal of vacillation has marked the movement. The matter has been discussed by this House on different occasions, and it has been debated in our provincial legislatures. But where a scheme of this kind is passed on from one authority to another and back again we can readily see that no definite action will ensue. Somebody must take a definite step or nothing will be done.
The government in my opinion is to be commended upon having taken the initiative in the matter of old age pensions. I agree with some of the things that have been said touching the resolution, which perhaps is not all that might be desired. Some people will argue, for one thing, that the age limit is too high. However, it is a matter for gratification that at least we are taking a step in the right direction, and it is only a question of time until the various improvements which are being advocated will be incorporated in beneficial legislation. I am glad to see that the legislation is meeting with support, for it will assist a class of people who are most in need of the relief which is promised. This is a young country that offers opportunities to those who are anxious to work, but we must not overlook the fact that even in a young country there is a good deal of tragedy in life. This scheme, if I understand it, is designed to alleviate the hardships of those Who are suffering from physical disability and who consequently cannot support themselves.
Not long ago a warm friend of mine found himself in sad straits as a result of a misfortune which he could not possibly have foreseen. Year after year he had faithfully contributed to an insurance scheme, and when the fraternal society of which he was a member collapsed, at least when its financial stability was discovered to be insecure, it was decided, in order to save what wa3 left of the wreck, that men above a certain age should be completely debarred from sharing in the benefits of its insurance. Many men were left destitute in consequence of this appalling tragedy. Not long ago, in the province of British Columbia, a man who had been rated as very wealthy retired after having placed every dollar he possessed in a financial institution which failed. This was one of the great

crashes that occurred in western Canada. This man was well known throughout the province, and when it was learned that as a result of this failure he had lost every cent he had in the world the sympathy of the people went out to him from all parts of the province. But what about the thousands of people in Canada who are left in exactly the same position through financial failures and who, because of their humble station in life, do not receive the same wide sympathy? These people suffer just as severely, but the average citizen in the country learns very little of their tragic fate. The purpose of the present legislation is to come to the assistance of such people, who are certainly entitled to every consideration that can be shown them by this country in their old age. For that reason I support the resolution.


Robert James Manion: Some of the remarks that have been made on the resolution before the committee have reminded me of other questions upon which perhaps I may be allowed to offer a few comments. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) observed to my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) that if the Senate should attempt to reject this legislation the Senate would certainly hear about it. It occurred to me that we have been hearing similar threats in reference to the Senate for the last two or three years, but we have never seen those threats put into effect. Throughout the last election campaign the Senate was the subject of considerable discussion, so much so that it came to be an important issue for decision in the country. We were told that the government were out to reform the Senate; that was their promise. But like most of the other promises of this government the undertaking to reform the Senate has gone by the board. A conference was to have been held last year to consider the question of Senate reform, but that conference has never been held. Nor was there held any conference such as was recommended by the committee which dealt with the matter of old age pensions.
I want to refer very briefly to another matter. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) has said that the Conservative party has always taken an attitude of opposition to such proposals as the one now before us. May I remind that hon. gentleman that it was the Conservative party in the province of Ontario who instituted the Workmen's Compensation Board which has proved such a great blessing to the working classes of that province.

Old Age Pensions
24S5


Mr. HEENAN:: What I said was that the Conservative party having advocated these things on the platform, I wanted to see its members vote for such measures in the House.


Robert James Manion: Fo far as I have been able to see, the Conservative party has done more to fulfil its pledges in matters of this kind than any other party. If I mistake not, it was the Conservative party that brought about mothers' pensions in Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert James Manion: Well then, I am subject to correction. My hon. friend here mentions that it was framed by the Conservative party, and their successors enacted it. However, the Workmen's Compensation Board Act probably has been the most important legislation for the working men of Ontario that has ever been placed upon the statute books of the province, and it was introduced by the Conservative party.
Now, in regard to the principle of this bill, I, like all the other members who have spoken, believe in looking after the old people of this country. I do not think there is a more pitiable tragedy in the world than a man who in his old age is reduced to poverty. I might point out that in China and Japan no such legislation as this is required, because although they are what we call heathen countries, their people hold their ancestors in such reverence that none of their old folk are allowed to go hungry and unsheltered. Under their traditions of ancestor worship their old people must be looked after by any relation, whether he be son or daughter or some more distant connection.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have a statutory provision to that effect in the province of Quebec.


Robert James Manion: I am very pleased to hear my hon. friend bring that out. I had intended to refer to the situation in his province. But I was speaking of the attitude of the so-called heathen countries as opposed to that of many of our nominally Christian countries in this regard. After all, old people are very often in a poverty-stricken condition due to several causes, some entirely beyond their control. Sometimes they are indigent owing to unfortunate investments, as happened to many of the depositors of the Home Bank already referred to in this discussion, or to the operations of some swindler; others, again, have always had to struggle along with very low wages. I have some figures before me given by a Mr. Squire, who points out that in the state of Massachusetts, which is one
of the richest in the union, the average per capita income is only $788. He points out also that one in four citizens in that state over sixty-five years of age requires financial assistance. It is rather a striking fact that such a strongly industrial state as Massachusetts should have so large a portion of its people in penury when they reach sixty-five or seventy years of age. Then another cause is improvidence, and naturally we are reluctant to look after those who have been utterly careless with their money. After all, it is difficult to ask those who have provided for their old age to contribute to the support of those who have made no such provision. At the same time, our Christian spirit should prompt us not to neglect even the improvident in their old age.
I find that in different countries there are different types of pensions. There is what is called the service pension-such as this- which is given to all old people who apply for it and can prove their need, and is granted without any contribution on their part either early or late; then there is the contributory pension; and finally the annuity type, such as we have in this Dominion, which the people themselves buy. I shall come back to this point in a moment. But one of the reasons why I think this legislation is premature is that it is not brought forward really with the intention of providing old age pensions, because it does not comply with the report made last year by the Old Age Pensions committee. That committee sat under Mr. Raymond, and my good friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) was another member. After going into the question very throughly it brought in a report, the first and most important recommendation of which was that a conference should be held with the premiers of the different provinces to deal with this question. I repeat, that conference was never held. It should have been held before this legislation was brought in because unless you can get the different provinces to co-operate with the Dominion in this scheme, you are going to bring about the injustice which was pointed out by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and by the Premier of Quebec -this injustice, that the province which is not taking part in providing old age pensions for its people is to a certain extent paying the bills of the other provinces that do take advantage of the scheme. It is true that the provincial governments were written to by the Dominion authorities some time, I think, before the committee made its report, but I
2486	COMMONS
Old Age Pensions
have read very carefully the replies from -the premiers and not one of them openly and wholeheartedly said that his government was ready to co-operate w-ith the Dominion government. True, one of the premiers was a little doubtful in his reply and more or less encouraged the scheme, but I think of the other eight some said absolutely they would have nothing to do with the scheme at all, and the others threw cold water upon it or took -the attitude that it was a matter of federal aid entirely and they should not be called upon to bear any portion of the burden.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the hon. gentleman say just how many of the provincial governments actually opposed the principle?


Robert James Manion: Let me quote the various replies as set out in the report:
New Brunswick.

Under date of May 23rd, 1925, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Veniot) writes: "This province is now considering the establishment of what is known as Widows' Pension, and we are not prepared to take any decision in the matter of an old age pension.
That is strong enough I should think. He goes on to say:
While I do not disapprove of the old age pension, and feel that it would he a good thing, yet it would be impossible for me to commit the province to any action in this matter at the present moment."
Certainly that is opposing the principle.


John Warwick King: He simply says
"at the present moment."


Robert James Manion: "We are not prepared to take any decision in the matter of an old age pension."


Abraham Albert Heaps: "At the present moment."


Robert James Manion: The second reply is from Quebec:
Under date of February 17th, 1925, the Minister of Public Works and Labour (Hon. Mr. Galipeault) writes: "On the occasion of the recent visit of the delegates of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, this question was taken up and, although it was not submitted in the regular way to the cabinet,
I understood from the remarks of my colleagues, that it could be no question for the province of Quebec, considering the obligations actually -imposed upon it, of adopting a law which would take care of the old age pensions in this province."
Is not that a refusal? Only the other day Premier Taschereau made a speech in which he distinctly said his government was not in favour of old age pensions, and members from that province who have so far spoken in this debate, including the hon. member for La-belle, have also taken that attitude.
Under date of June 2nd, 1925, the Premier of Nova . Sootia (Hon. Mr. Armstrong) writes: "In view of the importance of the subject matter, and the lack 
of an opportunity to fully consider the same, I was instructed to advise you that without a further and better understanding of the subject-matter and without an opportunity to fullly discuss it with your committee, no action would be taken upon the matter at present."
That is three, and we have not discovered any agreement yet.


John Warwick King: No one opposes
the principle.


Robert James Manion: Every one.


John Warwick King: No.


Robert James Manion: Well, my hon. friend and I do not interpret the English language in the same way.


John Warwick King: We do not.


Robert James Manion: The next reply is from
Prince Edward Island:
Under date of May 22nd, 1925, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Stewart) writes: "In this province, as you probably are aware, except in the towns, we have no municipal government, consequently all assistance to indigent and aged persons is furnished directly by the provincial government, either in the Provincial Infirmary or by monthly contributions to private persons who become responsible for their support. I have read over your letter and the accompanying report with interest. I shall place the matter before my government at its next meeting and will then advise you of its decision."
I understand they have not heard from him from that day to this, so he has not very enthusiastically supported the scheme.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do you call that a refusal?


Robert James Manion: It is a very polite way
of refusing. Regarding Ontario-
Under date of 24th November, 1924, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Ferguson) writes: "I shall -be glad to consider the matter."
That is the fixed formula that the Prime Minister of this government and every other government employ when they want to get rid of importunate people. That is all he says.
Then the reply from Manitoba, under date 25th February, 1925, from the Attorney General, Hon. Mr. Craig, is as follows:
We are in the midst of our session just now with the multiplicity of matters requiring immediate disposition. I shall, however, take up the matter with the Premier and the Minister of Public Welfare at the earliest opportunity.
That is another gentleman who has forgotten to take it up. Then I come to Saskatchewan. Under date of 19th November, 1924, the Minister of Labour and Industry] Hon. Mr. Gardiner, who is now I believe Premier, writes:
The government of Saskatchewan is of opinion that an old age pension scheme for Canada can best be adopted by the federal government alone.

Old Age Pensions
I may tell my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that this is not a refusal.
There would seem to be so much difficulty in the way of providing any scheme that would be suitable to all the nine provinces of Canada as to make it almost impossible, and it will be readily understood that if any number of the provinces were to remain out, it would be almost impossible to adopt any scheme that would not subject those provinces within the arrangement to considerable expense that should rightfully be borne by those outside the scheme. While we are disposed to think that an old age pension scheme should be undertaken, the difficulties in the way of the suggested scheme appear almost, if not entirely, insurmountable.
Not much encouragement there. Then we come to Alberta, and under date of June 2, 1925, the acting premier, Hon. George Hoadley, writes:
This government has reviewed the recommendations of the committee and approve of the general principle of old age pensions.
I have not heard anybody who did not approve of the principle.
We are not prepared, however, to accept the recommendations of the committee. The three main objections are: (1) We believe that the federal government should assume a larger share in the financing of an old age pension scheme as it is more a federal obligation than a provincial one; (2) We are not satisfied that a non-contributing scheme is the best one; and (3) There is no guarantee that the federal government would continue for a definite time to carry out the mutual arrangements with respect to financing the scheme.
They have not much faith in this government. Then we come to British Columbia, and my recollection is that British Columbia was the only one which gave any encouragement to the scheme. Under date of February 5, 1925, the Minister of Labour, Mr. Manson, writes:
This matter has been carefully considered by the government and also by the provincial legislature at its last session, and the consensus of opinion is that the matter of old age pensions is one entirely in the sphere of the federal parliament-
I was wrong when I said that they were in
favour of the scheme.
.-and this government does not concur in the suggestion made by the committee that a portion of the cost of such pensions be borne by the provincial crown.


Alan Webster Neill: I will make the same objection to what my hon. friend says a3 I made to the statement of his deskmate, namely, that it must be borne in mind that all the replies were given before the report of the Department of Justice was submitted to the effect that the matter was entirely a provincial matter. Since then British Columbia has entirely changed its point of view, and not only has endorsed the principle, but has pledged itself to endeavour to persuade the other provinces to do likewise.


Robert James Manion: All the more reason for holding a conference of the premiers before bringing in this half-baked piece of legislation. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) calls my attention to a letter from the Minister of Labour of British Columbia, dated March 5, 1925:
I beg to say that the matter has had very serious consideration on the part of this department and the opinion is confirmed that tho matter of old age pensions is a subject for the consideration of the federal and not the provincial parliament.
That confirms the statement that all of them were against the scheme. I thought that the reply of one province was favourable to it, but I was wrong; apparently none of them agreed to it. This government presents a scheme by which the Dominion parliament and the provincial parliament are to co-operate, yet not one of the provinces agrees to co-operate. How are they going to put it in force?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reference to the answers from the nine provinces, which the hon. gentleman has just read, I might say that those very replies convinced the government of the futility of ever having an old age pension scheme enacted by correspondence with the provinces. We concluded that the best way would be to enact concrete legislation. We thought that was the only way we could get anywhere.


Mr MANION:: That seems to me an extraordinary way of doing business with any person-to make your agreement first and then ask the other parties to accept it. Why not make your arrangements with the provinces first? The Minister of the Interior came in with a piece of legislation based exactly on the same principle.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Assistance
to settlers.


Robert James Manion: I criticized this legislation on exactly the same grounds as I am criticizing the legislation to-day. The land settlers bill was one designed to help to get the settlers on the land, and the Minister of the Interior said he intended, after the act was passed, to discuss the matter with the different provinces. The time to discuss the matter with the provinces is not after you pass your act, but before, so that you can bring in an act which is the consensus of opinion of the different provinces, in co-operation with the Dominion.
I am making suggestions as to a pension scheme, and I am not opposed to the principle. I am not making factious objections. I object to this bill because I consider it is merely a gesture, thrown out for the purpose of proving
Old Age Pensions

that my good friend the Prime Minister wrote what he meant in that book he published some eight or ten years ago, which he read the other evening when he was discussing the matter, and showed by that-and I do not criticize his sincerity-that he believed in old age pensions when he wrote the book. But what struck me then was the fact that he waited until he was in such a position that he could not carry out the scheme without the support of the independent group in this House before he brought in the legislation. It seemed a little inconsistent, if he believed as strongly in the principle as he said he did, that he should wait until this time to bring forward the legislation. I have an idea that this legislation is only a gesture, the same as the wheat board was a gesture, and the Trusts and Combines Act was a gesture, the Petersen contract and freight rates legislation. All these matters were important so far as the Dominion is concerned; they were all brought before the House and put through, but nothing was ever done with them. They were pigeonholed and were of no service to anybody, except perhaps they were the means of giving a little more salary to the civil servants and occasioned more expense by keeping the House sitting a little longer. This is not a scheme for old age pensions. It is a scheme for old age government. It is a scheme to convince this House that this government is out to help get old age pensions, whereas the government knows it cannot he carried into effect unless nine provinces agree; and it cannot be carried out unless it is a practical piece of legislation. If they had the consensus of opinion of the provinces in favour of it, no doubt it would pass' the Senate and pass this House. But they have not the agreement of the provinces, in fact they have the opposition of the provinces, including Quebec.
I repeat that I favour the principle involved, and I believe that, as so-called Christians, we should look after our old people. We should not allow our aged to be down and out and to be dependent upon charity.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What would the hon. member suggest, to -make the bill practicable, or to make old age pensions practicable?


Robert James Manion: A conference of the provinces. Let that conference be held, as suggested by the committee, to discuss the matter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would you wait until all the provinces agreed upon an act before you put it through?


Robert James Manion: I would wait for one or two of them. When we do not get one out of the nine agreeing, it is a poor outlook. I 
have read the report. We do not get any of them to agree. Why should the government endeavour to put this legislation through when none of the provinces agree?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was there not a case some years ago where the Dominion government passed an act without the consent of the provinces, and subsequently the provinces consented to come under the provisions of the act?


Robert James Manion: That is a different principle. There are conditions under which this government has a right to legislate. My good friend from Comox-Alberni quoted a decision of the Department of Justice, and I think correctly, that this is a matter for the provinces and not for the Dominion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think my hon. friends opposite are at variance with each other on this question.


Robert James Manion: Who is?


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend is not in
agreement with his right hon. leader.


Robert James Manion: I do not mind that. We have a good independent party, and have the courage to voice our own opinions. We are not under anybody's whip, so far as agreeing with anybody is concerned. We vote according to our convictions over here, but my hon. friends on the other side simply vote to keep themselves in power. That is the difference between that party and this. My hon. friend is not long in the House yet, but he will learn that shortly.
In addition to the points which I have brought out, there is this, which I think is most important of all. This scheme when it comes into effect should be made a contributory scheme. It should be a scheme in which the men themselves, as they go on working in their healthy time of life, will contribute something to look after themselves in their old age. That encourages the principle of personal thrift, and that is something we should encourage so far as we are able. I know what my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni is going to ask me: What about the old people of to-day?


Alan Webster Neill: I was not going to ask
anything.


Robert James Manion: I thought my hon. friend was getting up to ask a question.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. gentleman would
sit down, I would get up.

Old Age Pensions


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is up a
good deal in the House. I think I will stay up and keep him down a little while. The principle of personal thrift is important to people all over the world, not only to our own people. I have noticed that Great Britain after having had an old age pension scheme in force since about 1908, last year brought in an amendment to their act making the scheme contributory.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A compulsory contributory
scheme.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from St.
Lawrence-St. George says it is even stronger than 1 put it. I will get the authority and show my hon. friend that I am correct. Germany has had an old age pension scheme since 1889, and their scheme has always been contributory. Sweden, Italy, Belgium, and many other countries have contributory schemes. Australia, New Zealand, and England up to last year, have non-contributory schemes, where the pension is provided without the pensioner contributing anything. But I submit that the proper system is the contributory system, whereby men are encouraged in their youth to save for their old age by contributing. Contributions might also be made by employers, and as well there should be assistance by the state.
I have offered these constructive suggestions, but the most important to my mind are these two: First, the system should be contributory, and secondly, we should get the provinces to agree before we insist on taking them into this scheme.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I rise to express my
approval of this resolution. I see no reason whatever to doubt the sincerity of the government. I have every reason to believe that if this resolution is put into effect a great many people in our country will benefit thereby. I quite realize that it does not cover the whole field. It does not provide for all those who are incapacitated, but I believe it will provide the necessities of life and some meagre comforts for a class of people who are deserving of more than kind words and good wishes. Some people after reaching the age of seventy find themselves with no provision for their old age. Some have their savings to fall back upon, others are kept by their children; some have insurance, and some are provided for by their employers. The large railway companies, for instance, not only provide compensation for a man who is injured, but pensions for men who have been a certain number of years in
the service. The brotherhoods also provide pensions, on a contributory basis, for men who have reached a certain age, and pensions as well for those who are totally or partially incapacitated before reaching that age. Again, some are fortunate enough to have invested in annuities. I would like to point out that a man can secure an annuity of $100 per annum. at the age of 65 by investing at 42 the sum of $357.81. I have recently been in the west, and I find that a great many people are interested in this legislation. I believe that it will meet with the approval both of those who hope to benefit by it and of others as well.
As to the two kinds of schemes, contributory and non-contributory, I find that Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, Spain, Denmark and Norway all have non-contributory schemes. Some of the states across the line also have non-contributory schemes. The recent amendment to the British act provides for both contributory and non-contributory schemes. I think that a good number of people will be disappointed because in order to participate in these pensions they must have lived in Canada twenty years. Yet Australia has the same number of years in its scheme, New Zealand has twenty-five years, and Uruguay about fifteen.
Some hon. members referred to the question of cost. I believe it will be much less than $11,000,000. In view of the financial report which we had this afternoon, it seems to me that Canada at the present time is in a good position to initiate legislation of this kind, so that the federal government will have something definite and concrete to present to the provinces when they meet in conference.
Primitive people, Mr. Chairman, are not always kind or grateful to their old people. We in the west know of a case of an Indian woman who cut her own flesh to provide bait to catch fish for herself and her starving children, and yet that same woman died in want neglected by those very children she had helped in that way. It seems to me that as the family advances this filial duty is observed more generally. The state, which is a larger family, should also recognize its duty to look after the old people, and such recognition as this will not only mark a distinct advance in our civilization, but will also reflect credit on those who assist it passing this legislation.


Robert James Manion: May I be permitted, Mr. Chairman, to read just one sentence to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Oomox-Albemi 7 I have here the memor-
Old Age Pensions

andum issued by the Labour department in which I find that:
In Great Britain the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 established a non-contributory system of pensions. This act was amended in 1911, 1919, 1924, and again in 1925, the last amendment providing for contributory pensions for certain classes of persons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if he has read the English act of 1925? He will find, if he does, that as respects the very class we hope to serve in this legislation, namely, those who are already in advanced years, the English act provides for the state looking after them without any contribution.


Robert James Manion: I was just answering the
point of my hon. friend from Comox-Al-berni.


Mr. CHURCH:: Coming from a large
municipality where we have a number of old people who are in need of assistance of this kind, I support without any hesitation the principle of an old age pension. This is not a new subject at all. It has been before the municipalities of the province for a great number of years. Many countries have adopted an old age pension scheme-England), Belgium, France, Italy, New Zealand, Australia, and many other countries. Stanley Baldwin, the head of a Conservative government in Great Britain, is a believer in social legislation. In the province of Ontario, the late Sir James Whitney was in favour of the principle of an old age pension. It is pretty nearly time that this parliament, which is ready to spend millions and millions of dollars on transcontinental railways that are not needed, and on breakwaters and other material things of that kind, should do something for humanity, but when a question of this kind comes up, the British North America Act is trotted out and made a political football of, just because the country is asked to do something for humanity. We have millions to squander on material things, but not one dollar to relieve the aged, the blind, the poor and the suffering. The time has come when the federal parliament should take up and deal with many of these questions. It should relieve the municipalities of Canada of much of the burden of taxation which they incur in attempting to cope with social problems. The trouble in the past-we saw it in the case of technical education and other questions-has been that politics has been allowed to creep in and issues which should have been treated without partisanship have become political footballs. Timely action will produce the most beneficial results; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In the larger

centres they have learned to value and now appreciate highly steps taken to promote the welfare of the citizens and the masses of people generally. I allude especially to the creation of health departments, effective disposal of sewage, the installation of a good water supply, the establishment of hospitals, and measures of this character. The municipalities of this country are already heavily burdened in attempting to care for the aged, the infirm, the poor and the blind. The provinces receive large subsidies from the federal authorities, but often they are too prone to shift the burden they should carry on to the shoulders of the municipality.
Some effective means should be adopted through a system of old age pensions to provide for the aged poor. It should not be regarded at all in the light of a dole. In our large cities probably fifty or sixty per cent of the aged poor people are physically unfitted to work or to earn their own livelihood. The House of Providence, the House of Industry, and other charities are doing a splendid work. I want to pay a tribute to the House of Providence in Toronto, a Catholic institution. It is doing a fine work caring for all classes of people regardless of the denomination to which they belong. When I think of necessitous cases I have in mind the case of an old man named Michael Brophy, a Crimean veteran, who had served the empire for years. In spite of his long and faithful services he received no pension and, at the age of eighty-six, died in front of Eaton's store while engaged in selling bootlaces and lead pencils. It is lamentable that cases of this kind should occur. The officials of the health departments of our large cities know something of the struggles of our poor and aged people to maintain a precarious existence. The cost of food, the high rents, the lack of work, render it almost impossible for these people to live. Even if they were physically fit to work, the employers of labour demand younger people.
This is not a question in connection with which there should be any politics. You cannot keep the life in people on politics. With all the resources at its disposal it surely is not impossible for the federal government to obtain the necessary money to deal with this question adequately and efficiently. And when we are providing for the necessities of the poor we should not omit to care
10 p.m. for the blind. They must be looked after especially in view of the danger which exists by reason of the congestion of traffic in our streets. Even a person in possession of all his faculties finds

Old Age Pensions
our streets dangerous at times, and the peril is even greater in the case of a blind person. Let the federal authority come to the aid of the provinces and the municipalities not only in the matter of old age pensions but in other humanitarian movements the expenditures upon which are in many cases a serious burden to municipalities. Conditions are changing and it is becoming harder all the time to make a living. . The more this country grows, the more we shall find it necessary, whether under the British North America Act or not, to take this up as a question of federal legislation. The fathers of confederation when they drafted the British North America Act could not foresee these things. At the present time these poor people are being taken care of in provincial and municipal institutions to which public spirited people subscribe out of their own pockets, but this work should not have to be done by people with kind hearts putting their hands into their pockets. This is government work, government responsibility and some government should be saddled with the expense of it. It is a movement that should be three-sided. It should be taken up by the Dominion government, the provinces, and in my opinion the larger municipalities should also contribute something to it.
We have heard the same arguments used against this legislation as were used against workmen's compensation, good roads, technical education and mothers' pensions. Dear knows that the scheme of mothers' pensions in Ontario was a God-send to the poorer people of that province-for instance, a widow with five or six small children in a large centre of population struggling to make a living by doing scrubbing and that kind of thing. Apparently millions in cash and land subsidies by the Dominion and by the provinces can be given to railway corporations, and a country that can spend two billions of dollars on a national railway and other projects of that kind can surely do something to help these poor people in these dark days of civilization when it is hard to make a living. The government should come to the help of the larger municipalities especially which are saddled with this burden to the great cost of the municipal taxpayer. I do not care whether there is politics in this bill or not. Politics does not make any difference to me in a proposition like this because it is a question which should be above the realm of politics. I have seen over a period of seventeen years something of the work of a municipal health officer in a council which has been most generous in regard to this matter. Ninety per cent of these people are not fit to work; tihey have been
driven to the wall, and if this parliament is not going to help them the public-spirited people of the country will have to continue helping them as they have been doing.


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad' to hear the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Church) and I congratulate him on the attitude he has taken along with a few other hon. members on that side of the House. I wish to explain the statement made by the hon. member for Fort William and I think earlier in the evening stated by someone else, that the British old age pension system is contributory, and compulsory at that. That is a sort of play upon words; it is both true and false at the same time. The system is this: Britain has had an old age pension plan for some sixteen years. During all that time the age was seventy and the plan was entirely without contribution. Five or six years ago they also introduced a system of contributory insurance against unemployment, or at least against sickness and accident. This was entirely a contributory matter and very limited in its action. You got a pension for only a few weeks' illness and so on. That had nothing whatever to do with the old age pension which began and still begins at seventy and which is entirely free.
As an bon. member mentioned, last year they passed another act dealing with the period between sixty-five and seventy and they made that in some part contributory. It was also mixed up, I think, with some other phase of sickness insurance. But when the person who contributed between the years of sixty-five and seventy reaches seventy, he automatically passes under this free pension system beginning at seventy. Consequently, if we compare that system with the system proposed in this resolution, it is perfectly correct, * logical, accurate and truthful to say that the British system is not contributory inasmuch as when they reach the age at which our scheme proposes to commence, there is no contribution.
I should like to dwell for a moment on the emphasis that was given to those questions that were sent out to the different provinces and to explain that those questions were sent out in the summer and fall of 1924, asking the opinion of the provinces, and the answers that have been read in the House were more or less not in favour of the bill. One or two were; some were doubtful and one or two were flatly against it. I think the reply from British Columbia was more decidedly against it than any of them. It said:
This government does not concur in the suggestion made by the committee that a portion of the cost of such pensions be borne by the provincial crown.
Old Age Pensions

Further on it says:
The consensus of opinion is that the matter of old age pensions is one entirely in the sphere of the federal parliament.
That was the decision of British Columbia in February, 1925, but since then something happened which changed the attitude of British Columbia and, I think, of the other provinces. The Department of Justice gave an authentic ruling, challenged by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) but supported toy other members of his party, in which they stated definitely, at least to the layman, that this was a matter for the provinces, and although it did not forbid us to contribute, we could not handle it as a compulsory scheme. That ruling was not available when these more or less ambiguous replies were written. It is available now and this is the change of thought and mind of the British Columbia representatives. The hon. member for Fort William quoted the reply of British Columbia last year.
This is their attitude adopted in the session of November last when they passed this resolution unanimously. I will read only the last part, the effective part of it:
That the necessary steps be taken to formulate some plan, in conjunction with the Dominion government, to provide old age pensions; and that the other provinces of the Dominion be requested to take similar action.
That is an entire change of front due to changed conditions. Previously they thought: Here is the Dominion government asking us to pay 50 per cent of what is their business. Now they find the Dominion is offering the provinces to pay fifty per cent of provincial obligation and they hasten to take advantage of the offer. The resolution goes on:
And be it further resolved, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, praying that he will cause to be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Canada and the provincial secretaries of the various provinces this preamble and resolution.
Observe that. They are not only willing to lend their assistance and to co-operate with the Dominion, but they are anxious that the other provinces should take the same attitude as British Columbia, and I anticipate the other provinces will act as British Columbia has acted once the matter is brought home to them in that light.
It is somewhat remarkable, the attitude with which this bill has been received on the opposite side of the House, the entirely contradictory character of the criticism that has been offered. Some hon. members are entirely for it. Some admit, for reasons they have some difficulty in explaining, they are

equally strong against it. Sonm say they are strongly in favour of it, but it goes too far. Others say they are strongly in favour of it, but it does not go far enough. One man says it is too expensive while another says that the age at which it should be given should be lower. Some say that it is only a gesture. If it is only a gesture, why combat it so seriously? If there is so much contradiction in the criticism, it suggests there is much good in the bill. I regard this legislation as a genuine attempt to deal with the situation. I hope the government will press this measure through the House at an early date so that when it goes to another body it cannot be met there with the excuse that it is too late in the session to consider it. Give them an opportunity to consider it, and if they throw it out, then I hope the time will have come when this government will take the proper action in the premises.


Mr. KAISER:: I have taken a great interest in the question of old age pensions during the past few years, having advocated an allowance of this nature in the province of Ontario, and as my constituents expect me to say something on the present proposal I desire to discuss it briefly. Since coming to parliament I have submitted a personal referendum to my constituents, especially in the rural districts, in an effort to find out what their opinion is on the question. I requested an answer to the following memorandum:
The matter of establishing an old age pension in Canada is now before parliament. As your representative, I am anxious to secure the opinion of my electorate upon this important question. Will you kindly express your sentiments by marking the ballot, hereto attached, and return it to me signed by you, or otherwise as you may wish.
During my election I expressed myself on one or two occasions on this subject. I said that I hoped some time or other to have the privilege of sitting in a parliament which would be asked to discuss an old age pension scheme. To my surprise I found the sentiment of my constituency overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal. The replies were greater in number than I had anticipated and they were two to one in favour of doing something in the matter.
As regards the resolution before the House, while I am in accord with its general principle I must say that the provisions in detail are objectionable. I believe that the Dominion should have a universal and uniform old age pension law. I cannot possibly understand how the Department of Justice could give the opinion that while it would be permissible for the Dominion to pay fifty per

Old Age Pensions
cent of the cost it would be illegal and in contravention of the British North America Act for this government to pay the whole amount. This is a legal point, but I must say that it is beyond my comprehension. I see practical objections to contributory legislation on the part of the provinces. If one or two provinces should refrain from participating we should then have this anomaly that such of the aged in those provinces who might still be earning would be taxed to pay their contribution to the allowance given to old age pensioners in other provinces that were under the scheme. That, of course, would be a manifest injustice and in time it would create such a situation as now exists in the Maritime provinces. Provinces would be contributing to a Dominion obligation in respect of which they were enjoying no benefits and the result would be that compensation would be demanded. This feature of the bill is therefore open to objection.
I rise, however, not to enter into a discussion of the details of the legislation so much as to indicate something of what is being done elsewhere in the matter of old age pensions. In November I wrote a letter to Dr. Riddell, the Canadian representative at Geneva, asking whether he would be good enough to give me such information as had been obtained in that quarter on the subject of old age pensions. The following is his reply:
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the twelfth ult., asking for information regarding old age pensions. I enclose a brief memorandum on invalidity and old age pensions, prepared by the International Labour Office at my request. I am also sending you, under separate cover, a number of texts from the Legislative Senes published by the International Labour Office. I trust that this material will be of use to you, and that you will let me know if I can be of further help.
Yours truly,
W. A. Riddell,
Canadian Advisory Officer.
I would ask that the memorandum to which reference is made in that letter be placed on Hansard so that it may convey to others the information which it has supplied me, giving as it does a synopsis of what is being done throughout the world. The memorandum is rather lengthy but the information it contains is valuable. It shows us the sort of pension scheme that appeals to any particular country, together with information in regard to the percentages of those receiving pensions as well as the varieties of pensions paid, and so forth. There is one sentence with reference to Great Britain which I should like to read. In the Old Country pension legislation was first introduced in
1908 when there were 829,000 people in receipt of pensions, this number being seven per cent of the population. The following is the note which I want to emphasize:
So far as the great majority of the septuagenarian population are concerned the non-contributory pensions provided under the Old Age Pensions Acts 1908-1924 (L.S. 1924, Great Britain 4) will in the course of the next thirty years be replaced by pensions for which the beneficiary ha3 contributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought I heard my hon. friend say that he would like to place a certain memorandum on Hansard.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: This is the memorandum.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to deprive my hon. friend of any privilege, but I ought to point out to him that the permission to place memoranda on the record is one which is granted occasionally by the unanimous consent of the House usually to members of the government to enable them to have certain official statements incorporated in the report. The privilege is one which, however, should not be taken advantage of generally, and certainly not in committee on a resolution. If the House were once to adopt the practice of placing documents and memoranda on Hansard, Hansard would soon become over-encumbered, as indeed it is already. There is this further consideration: the purpose of discussions in committee is to enable hon. members to follow the proceedings and to weigh the pros and cons of the different points submitted for consideration and discussion.
I would suggest to my hon. friend that he send his memorandum to the Department of Labour and if it contains valuable data it will be of service to the department. I trust my hon. friend will not press his request.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I am not acquainted with the rules but I thought that, as the memorandum is undoubtedly of value, there would be no objection to its being embodied in the report. I am willing, however, to hand it to the Prime Minister to use it as he may see fit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. Prime Minister has raised a point in which, I may say, I concur, but I should like to draw your attention, Sir, -and also his to the fact that the practice of handing in memoranda to Hansard has grown in recent years, and many hon. members have erred or violated the rules. So I should not like my hon. friend (Mr. Kaiser) to be singled out as a sort of victim in this case. Let us stop the practice.
Old Age Pensions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I appreciate
very much the spirit in which my hon. friend has met my request. I think he understood my purpose in raising the point. I do so because Mr. Speaker himself has recently been discussing with me the practice which unconsciously perhaps has been growing up of hon. members reading their speeches, which is something contrary to the rules of parliament itself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a very good one read a few minutes ago right behind the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have
been very many good ones read; at the same time, to read speeches is not according to the rules of the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless we
follow as nearly as we can, with a reasonable degree of latitude, what has seemed in the wisdom of previous parliaments to be the right course, we will soon get our Hansard out of all proportions. Again I wish to thank my hon. friend for the wiay in which he has kindly acceded to the request.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The document is so concise that I do not wish to take up the time of the House reading it. As I said before, I am quite willing that the Prime Minister should look over it, and, if he thinks its insertion in Hansard will be of service fto the House, that it should be inserted. I do think that if we have old age pensions they should be Dominion wide in their application, and I hope we shall make some progress in that direction.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Mr. Chairman, I
realize that we already had a very extended debate on the question of old age pensions.
I do not rise to protract unnecessarily that discussion, but were I to remain silent while such an important measure is under discussion I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents, and especially to the industrial population of eastern Nova Scotia, with whom for a number of years I have maintained the most friendly and sympathetic relations.
Let me say, Sir, that I heartily approve and will ever cheerfully support the principle of old age pensions. Nor do I consider this measure in the light of a charitable contribution by the state towards its aged citizens. Justification for such a measure rests not upon grounds of charity, but rather upon the broader and firmer basis of distributive justice.

There exist between every state and its citizens certain mutual obligations, certain grave responsibilities, which neither party to the social contract may wantonly ignore. It is admitted that the state has the right to demand from its citizens allegiance and service; it also has the right to force them to contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the body politic in the form of taxation, and when some great national peril threatens its very existence the state has the right to conscript its citizens for national defence.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is a well established maxim of Christian ethics, recognized in every Christian country, that there can be no rights enjoyed either by a state or individual which do not carry with them corresponding responsibilities; and when you admit that the State has the right to exact allegiance and service from its citizens, to tax them and to conscript them in time of war, you must ipso facto admit that the state has a duty to provide for its citizens if the evening of life finds them helpless and in need. I consider therefore that the state is merely discharging an ethical obligation which it owes to its citizens in providing a measure of old age pensions, and I heartily support that measure.
In regard to the constitutional difficulties in the way, there seems to be an idea that this measure should be taken up and passed by the different provinces. It may be presumptuous for me to disagree with the right hon. leader of the government in his views, but I think a conference with the premiers of the provinces should be held first before you enact any specific form of old age pension legislation, we owe it to the provinces as a matter of courtesy, if not on grounds of justice, since they are paying a part of the cost, to consult them as to what specific measure this government is going to enact. However, I do not argue that point, because I am glad to see the principle enacted in some form or other.
But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to suggest in all candour to the government-and this probably' is my principal reason for rising-that in regard to certain classes of labour the age limit of seventy years should be reduced. We must realize that some people who are engaged in the lighter occupations are still sprightly young blades at seventy; but those engaged in certain other industries-I had in mind men working in steel plants and collieries, and women engaged in the garment making industry-find their physical vigour is greatly impaired when they reach the age of sixty. Therefore I would ask the government to take under

Old Age Pensions
serious consideration the advisability of lowering the age limit from seventy to sixty years with respect to those engaged in coal mining and certain other industries.
However, whether the government does or does not act upon my suggestion in that regard,
I shall certainly support this measure, because I realize that it is by such measures we will succeed in lifting up the manhood of the poor in this land. Let me say in conclusion that whenever a measure is introduced calculated to do that, I will cheerfully give it my support, no matter by whom it is introduced or by whom it is opposed.


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Chairman, the reading
of an opinion by the Minister of Justice would lead one to suppose that the Dominion parliament has no place in providing in its entirety for a plan of old age pensions. I do not think that that can be the correct interpretation of the minister's opinion, because I suppose what he would say is that the Dominion parliament has no right to impose any obligation on the provincial authorities. Perhaps he wTould be good enough to say if I am correct in my view.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is it exactly.


George Reginald Geary: I would have thought that
would be the result of his consideration of the question. Now, Mr. Chairman, it does occur to me that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the view taken by some members who have already taken part in this debate that you are only going, if not to defeat, at least to disappoint the expectations of prospective pensioners in trying to carry out a pension scheme under such a bill as this. The reading of the communications from the various provincial governments carries to my mind no hope that we will be able to establish a relationship between the Dominion and each of the nine provinces with respect to this measure.
If there is nothing to prohibit this parliament from supplying all the funds necessary to a proper old age scheme, then I think we should take up the matter in that way. Those who are in favour of old age pensions should meet the issue fairly and squarely and say that this parliament shall provide all the funds; then, I think we would be on our way to having something done, and done soon. But if we are, as the Prime Minister suggests, merely to pass the bill with the idea of sending it on to each legislature in the hope that by conference and discussion with each legislature we will be able to have it put into effect in each province represented, we are embarking on a path that leads a long way
into the future. To me this sort of legislation has a very strong appeal. It has a personal appeal that, in spite of the economic situation, one cannot resist. One has only to see some aged and destitute person, to carry his mind to his own people and consider, what would I think if that person were one of my own family? Personally I cannot face a position like that. If the government thinks this is all it can do at the moment,
I cannot oppose the legislation, but I do think very sincerely that if our minds are set upon a proper system of old age pensions we should not stop with this bill, which promises difficulty and discrimination between provinces; we should rather, as I repeat, take hold of the whole thing ourselves, and see that this House inaugurates a scheme that cannot fail. It follows the trend of modern legislation. It is a departure from the old state where security had little place in life; it removes too the dread of the future which must always overhang those who are without certainty as to what will be their fate when strength fails and their working time is past. It is unfortunate but true that only too often people who have suffered and sacrificed themselves in the upbringing of families find, when their turn comes to be taken care of, that they are not getting the comforts they hoped for or the reward they should have from those for whom they struggled and sacrificed so much. There is no legal objection to it. If the government feels it can go the whole way and provide the money for the scheme throughout the Dominion of Canada I shall be very glad Failing that, and in the hope of getting something, in the hope that the Prime Minister may prove to be right when he says that he is sanguine that it may lead to results, I shall support the measure.


Mr. ROGERS:: It is quite evident that hon. members on both sides of the House are desirous of doing everything they reasonably can to promote and carry into effect a measure which will be of assistance to the aged as provided in this bill. What I want to say to the minister in charge and to the Prime Minister is that in view of the good feeling on both sides in respect of this measure, and in view of the fact that nothing can be accomplished and brought to a definite conclusion save and except when a certain consideration has been given to the views of the various provinces, some conference should be held. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that we pass the resolution as it is, and that the Prime Minister endeavour to gather together at least a few of the premiers of the provinces. The Pre-
Old Age Pensions

miers of British Columbia and Alberta are on their way to Ottawa, I believe. It would be an easy matter for the Prime Minister to get a representative from Quebec and one from Ontario, and possibly he could get representatives from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the lower provinces, if they are prepared to come. At all events if he had four or five premiers here and they would care to join in the proposal, I am sure there would be no difficulty in having the bill pass this House unanimously, and no doubt a bill could be framed by arrangement between the provinces and the Dominion, that would be workable. The representatives could be called together; there is no hurry to put the bill through for a couple of weeks. The Prime Minister would be well advised to consider that suggestion in order that a definite measure, having some force and effect, might be considered and carried through this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The members of the government would be only too pleased to confer with any members of the provincial governments interested in this legislation when they are visiting the city, but I would not like my hon. friend to feel that the government would pledge itself to call this conference, or what would be equivalent to a conference of premiers, between now and the time this measure will come up for further consideration. I do not think it could be done. You would have some provinces not represented who might feel that they should have been present at the gathering. Further, I imagine that the premiers of the provinces would wish to confer with their colleagues, and certainly their colleagues in the various governments who have to do with labour legislation would have the right to be consulted. I am a little afraid that if a commitment were made on the part of the government to delay the measure, as my hon. friend has suggested, we might be postponing it beyond the period when I hope this session will close. But I do say to my hon. friend that if the premiers from the various provinces come along it will be a pleasure to discuss the measure with them.


Robert Rogers: I do not see the difficulty my right hon. friend suggests. It is not a matter of great concern whether the bill goes through to-night or in a month or six weeks hence. We are going to be here for some time, and we would have every opportunity for the calling of a conference of representatives of the various provinces to deal with the matter in such a way that there would be some finality. If he presses the suggestion he has just made of merely discussing the

matter with individuals as they come here, he will reach no conclusion. It will leave the idea, at all events, that there is bad faith somewhere. Nearly all the provinces have closed the sessions of their legislatures and their representatives will practically all be coming to Ottawa within the next thirty days. It would be easy to -have a day fixed when they could all be here at the same time, and the matter could be settled in a short afternoon. I hope as I trust and as I believe that the provinces would be favourable to the scheme, and if they are we can dispose of the matter in a way that will be satisfactory to those who are promoting the -bill as well as to the aged people themselves. I hope my right hon. friend will give serious consideration to the suggestion.
Mr. MoGIBBON: In view of the answers that have been read from the different provinces practically refusing this scheme, would the government be good enough to assure the House that they will take the full responsibility themselves?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of what?
Mr. MoGIBBON:	The responsibility of
this legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is the purpose of introducing the legislation. The government in this measure is taking money out of the federal treasury to contribute to the provinces. We do not intend to give money from the federal treasury to Uny province without having some say as to the satisfactoriness of the measures under which they purpose to use that money. My hon. friend knows that usually certain conditions have to be complied with before aid of this character is given, and we are in that position here with respect to money from the federal treasury. We do not propose to give aid for old age pensions or any other purpose unless we can have some agreement as to certain requirements being fulfilled.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	The Prime Minister
is confusing the question. What I asked him was this:	Would his government take the
responsibility of putting through a federal pension scheme wholly independent of the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If what the
hon. member for West Calgary, a colleague of my hon. friend, said the other evening is correct, that he was inclined to think the federal government had not the right to do that,
I wtou-ld say to my hon. friend that we will not take the responsibility of putting through a federal scheme that may be open to ques-

Old Age Pensions
tion whether or not we have the federal authority to do it. We know that we have authority to contribute towards a pension scheme in co-operation with the provinces. WTe are not sure that we have the authority to put through a federal scheme apart from the consent and co-operation of the provinces.


Peter McGibbon: But provided you have
the authority?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That we will
consider at the right time.


Mr. BURY:: In my view the resolution
and the scheme of an old age pension implies that there is something wrong in the wageearning conditions of this young country.


John Warwick King: The world over.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The very fact that a country like Canada, supposed to be a country of opportunity, supposed to be a country calling to the effete lands of the east to come over and find their chance in the land of opportunity of the west, has to establish an old age pension scheme shows that there is something radically wrong with our system. But apart altogether from that, I wish to say that I am in absolute sympathy with the principle of the scheme, because we have to face facts as they are.
On the general question I would like to add this for the consideration of the committee. The question has been debated as to whether this is a matter of provincial or federal responsibility. In my view it is a matter of federal responsibility, and I will tell you why. The federal government has complete control ovei the question who is to come into the provinces; the provinces have no control. The provinces are not able to say who shall and who shall not come within their borders, who shall or who shall not settle within their territory. Inasmuch as the federal government has the absolute and sole control of saying who is to come into the province, then it rests upon the federal government, which alone has the power of keeping out undesirable citizens or citizens who are not able to support themselves to provide, as a kind of correlative obligation to this power which they alone have, an old age pension scheme to meet the necessities of the population, the nature of which lies entirely in the hands of the federal government. We in the province of Alberta and we in the city of Edmonton, on the council of which I sat for four years, had year after year to face this question of the relief of those who were not able to work or were not able to get work, and we came to the conclusion which I have just expressed here a minute ago, that inasmuch as we could 14011-159



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
not put up barriers around the city of Edmonton to say who was to come in or who was not to come in; inasmuch as the provincial government could not put barriers around the boundaries of the province to say who was to come in and who was not to come in, we were not to be held responsible for supporting the people who did come in.
In other words, the authority that has complete control over immigration into this country and the settlement of our provinces and our cities is the authority that ought to deal with this old age problem. That seems to me to be perfectly clear.
On the other matters that have been debated in the course of this discussion, it seems to me that the proper course to be followed should ibe, as already suggested, to postpone any drafting of a bill until there had been a prior conference with the provinces, and for these reasons:	First, because it seems to
stand to reason that if we are going to establish a conjoint scheme in which the provinces and the federal government are to unite, we should consider and consult the wishes of the partners in the scheme. What is suggested here is that we in this House should settle our scheme and then go to the partners and ask them whether they are willing to come in, and if they are hot willing, we should then come back and tinker with the act we have already solemnly passed. Would it not be infinitely better to consult your partners first, to ascertain how far the provinces were prepared to go, and then draft your bill and pass it through this House based on the results of that conference?
There are other grounds that suggest themselves. The provinces have themselves asked that this course be taken. In the replies which were read to the House, and which I am not going to read again, you will find in some of them, in the reply from the province of Nova Scotia, for instance, this:
In view of the importance of the subject matter and the lack of an opportunity fully to consider the same-
That is tantamount to a request by the province of Nova Scotia for time to consider the scheme. Again:
I was instructed to advise you that without a further and better understanding of the subject matter, and without an opportunity to fully discuss it with your committee, no action would be taken on the matter at present.
If that is a sample of the attitude of the provinces, what it amounts to is this:	"We
do not say that we are opposed to any scheme of old age pensions, but we do say that we want an opportunity of considering the question and of consulting with some representative of the federal government so

[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
[Stage Direction]
that we may try to work out a common scheme which will satisfy our province and the other provinces in this Dominion." Is not that reasonable? That is what the provinces ask. But instead of doing what the provinces ask, this parliament is requested by the government to go absolutely in the teeth of the request of the provinces and do something that the provinces never asked us to do. The provinces asked that the matter might be taken up at a conference between the federal government and themselves. The provinces, some of them at least, professed themselves willing to discuss the matter, and the federal government makes answer to that [DOT] request:	We will not discuss it with you;
we will draft and pass our act and submit it to you, and if you do not like it, we will alter it to suit the convenience of one or another or of all of you. Now is that reasonable?
I pass to the suggestions and recommendations of the committee. It was recommended:
That the federal government arrange with the premiers of the different provinces for a conference to held during the coming recess of parliament-
That was in 1925.
-at which an old age pension system shall be given the fullest consideration with a view to securing cooperative action, and that the report of the said conference be laid on the table at the next session of parliament for future consideration and action,
That a copy of this report be forwarded to each premier of the several provinces.
The provinces asked for a conference, your own committee advised a conference; and in the teeth of the request of the provinces, in the teeth of the request of your own committee solemnly passed, and in the teeth of your own promise of a conference, you ask the House to pass a bill without a conference- in direct opposition to your own resolution, to the request of the provinces, and your own promise to pass a bill settling what the terms of this old age pension relief shall be. Now the only answer the Prime Minister makes to that is this: '.Oh, we are in a hurry. We do not want to waste any more time." Why was the timg wasted in 1924? Why was the time wasted in 1925? It seems to be rather another illustration of the old adage:
The devil was sick, the* devil a monk would be;
The devil was well, the devil a monk was he.
You had two years in which to act upon the reports of your own committee, and you do nothing till a quarter way through 1926.
Now, let me address myself to the main question. The only justification alleged by the government for the present course, the only justification suggested for going in the

teeth of the request of the provinces, in the teeth of the government's own promise, in the teeth of the recommendation of their own special committee unanimously passed and adopted by the House, is this: "We are in a hurry, we want this legislation passed quickly." How much force is there in that argument? Absolutely none, because the provincial legislatures are all either up or getting up, and you cannot do anything under this legislation before the end of 1927 or the beginning of 1928. Anyway, you cannot do anything this year. You cannot do anything until the provincial legislatures meet in 1927. The matter will be considered by the provincial legislatures in 1927, and even if you pass this legislation to-day you cannot do a single thing until the end of next year or the beginning of 1928. The whole argument, therefore, that the government is in a hurry, that we should not postpone action until the government has had a chance to consult with the premiers of the different provinces and find out how far the provinces are prepared to go-that argument, that pretext, that excuse, is hardly worth the breath it has taken to voice it.
Mr. POULIOT:: I understand from what the hon. gentleman says that he is speaking on behalf of his province of Alberta. Would he be good enough to tell the committee what that province is thinking about the matter?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Yes, I will tell my hon. friend. I will quote to the hon. member the answer of the province of Alberta. It is to be found in the report of the special committee of this House in 1925. Under the date of June 2, 1925, the acting premier, Hon. Geo. Hoadley wrote:
Tliis government has reviewed the recommendations of the committee and approve of the general principle of old age pensions.
That is going a certain distance; that is a pledge by Alberta that it approves of the principle. All right. I quote further:
We are not prepared, however, to accept the recommendations of the committee. The three main objections are: (1) We believe that the federal government should assume a larger share in the financing of an old age pension scheme as it is more a federal obligation than a provincial one.
There is one objection which might be dleared up at a round table conference between this government and the premiers of the different provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of the recommendations as outlined in the report of the committee of this House?

Old Age Pensions


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What report does my hon.
friend mean?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Either the report of 1924 or that of 1925.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I cannot see any recommendation in the report of 1925 except one, that the federal government arrange with the premiers of the different provinces for a conference.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Take the 1924 report of the same committee.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The 1924 report was brought before this House and was solemnly buried by it in the sessional papers. I understand, however, that the 1934 report also recommends a conference with the provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes; but did' not that report contain other recommendations?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not familiar with the 1924 report.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The 1924 report recommends that the cost of the scheme he borne on a fifty-fifty basis by the provinces and the Dominion.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is all based on a conference. The question of who is to pay the money required in connection with the scheme is one of adjustment between the provinces and the federal government. I will come to that question in a few minutes.


Mr. TOBIN:: Do you believe Alberta is in favour of or is opposed to old age pensions?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am reading now, if the hon. member will listen, the reply of the Hon. Geo. Hoadley, acting premier of the province, in which he says:
The government has reviewed the recommendations of the committee and approve of the general principle of old age pensions.
That must refer to the recommendations of the committee of 1924. Then Mr. Hoadley raises three objections. He says:
We believe that the federal government should assume a larger share in the financing of an old age pension scheme, as it is more a federal obligation than a provincial one.
I have pointed out that the question as to the proportion in which the cost shall be borne as between the federal and the provincial government is a matter of discussion and conference, and of adjustment between the provinces and the federal government when the provinces understand the nature and extent of their obligation. Someone suggested here that the provinces did not understand at the time that the obligation to support the aged was a provincial and not a federal one, and 14011-159i
that when the provinces understood the matter they would be the more willing to fall in line with the federal scheme. Now if tBat be true, or whether it be true or not, it surely stands to reason, taking the Alberta answer as an example-


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: Was the matter debated in the legislature of Alberta?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. gentleman ought tc know that better than I, because he was a member of that legislature.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: I want to see how much you know about it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the hon. member will concern himself with what he knows about it, I will concern myself with what I know about it.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: The hon. member has just been quoting from a letter of Mr. Hoadley, and I want to know if the legislature debated the question.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would suggest that if a matter lies within the knowledge of an hon. member he ought not to ask such a question. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin was
11 p.m. a member of the Alberta legislature and whether the matter was discussed there or not he ought to know, unless he was not doing his duty and was out of his place in the house.
Take the other objection:
We are not satisfied that a non-contributory system is the best one.
Surely that is also a matter to be debated around a table in conference. That is one of the fundamental questions of any old age pension scheme. Are you going to make it a contributory system or are you not? If you are going to make it a contributory system, may I say in answer to the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), then the federal government cannot frame the scheme because the federal government cannot enforce contributions from the people of Alberta? They have no power or authority over provincial rights in that province. If it is going to be a contributory scheme it will have to be a contributory scheme enforced by the province of Alberta. One of the provinces asks: " Is your scheme to be contributory or not contributory? We are satisfied that the contributory system is the better scheme." Then get together in a conference with representatives of the provincial governments, discuss the question and settle it. Until you have that question settled you do not know whether it should be a federal or a provincial scheme. If you are going to have it as a non-contributory scheme, then it can lie absolutely
Old Age Pensions

within the purview of the authority of the federal parliament. It is only in the event *of its being a contributory scheme that it is *obligatory to bring in the provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the Dominion government force legislation on any province in the Dominion?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Surely it stands to reason that the Dominion government cannot force legislation on the provinces. I am not talking of forcing legislation on a province. It is impossible for the Dominion government to enforce a contributory scheme of old age pensions because it has no authority over property rights of individuals in Alberta. You must bring in as supplementary to your scheme some agreement with the province that the province will put the machinery at work for the purpose of carrying out the scheme within its domain.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Could the hon. member tell us how people of seventy years of age who are indigent could contribute to a pension fund at the present time?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member has utterly mistaken my position. One of the questions at issue raised by Alberta is whether this is or is not to be a contributory scheme. That is a vital question as between the federal government and the provinces. I am not saying which is the better scheme; I am merely pointing out that one province out of nine has an idea that a contributory scheme is better than a non-contributory scheme. So long as that is a moot question, not agreed upon as between any province and the federal government, you cannot settle your legislation. You have, therefore, to have a discussion between the different provinces and the federal government and first of all to settle the question whether this is or is not to be a contributory scheme. Then the question will come up that my hon. friend has raised, and the arguments in favour of a non-contributory scheme. But my hon. friend is premature in arguing it now.. I am merely pointing out the fact that the provinces have not themselves decided which of the two kinds of schemes they want, and until they do, this act is impossible. You must have your conference "first and settle that question.


Malcolm McLean: How could indigent people of the age of seventy now contribute to an old age pension fund?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am sorry the hon. member has still not got the point. I am not arguing in favour of a contributory scheme. I have not said a word in favour of it.


Mr. BROWN:: Does my hon. friend think it would be possible to establish a contributory scheme to meet present needs.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It seems impossible to get it into the heads of hon. members opposite that I am not debating the wisdom or folly of a contributory scheme. I am only saying that some of the provinces have not yet made up their minds which is the proper scheme to adopt and until they have done so you cannot force an act on them; you cannot submit an act which you are sure they will accept. The better way will be to have a conference and thresh out this very question. I have no doubt that if my hon. friends at that conference give their reasons why a contributory scheme is absolutely absurd, their opinions would be welcomed. I am assuming that by " contributions " they mean contributions by the beneficiaries of the scheme and not contributions by the provinces. I am not debating that at all.
The third objection is this:
There is no guarantee that the federal government will carry out the mutual arrangements respecting the financing.
That is already provided for in the resolution. In support of the position which I submitted to the House that the provinces had asked for a conference, may I quote one of the last statements made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)? I have not his exact words, but this is the substance of the resolution he cited: He said that in November of last year British Columbia had passed a resolution asking for a conference. In the teeth of that request the House is asked to pass this legislation on the chance that the different provinces will accept it, and if they do not accept it we shall come back here to thresh the whole thing out again and recast the bill. Is the government going to save time in that way? Is it not more likely to get the adhesion of the different portions of this Dominion by consulting them in the first instance before it sets up to them a hard and fast, cast-iron act and asks them to come into it? I know what the attitude of one of the provinces is. They would rather be consulted before the act is drafted than have it put to them after it has been passed by this parliament with the declaration that if it is not suitable it will be recast. The answer would be given at once: Why did you not consult us before you drafted and passed it? It may be said that there was no time to consult them, but the argument of time is gone, because they will say: You "have now to go back and amend the act you have put up to us, and you are no further ahead than if you

Old Age Pensions
had come to us in the first instance. They would have to put through acts themselves, and even if we pass this resolution and the bill that is to be founded on it to-night, we would not get a single result or any action from it until 1928. There is ample time, therefore, in the summer of 1926 to have a conference in order to settle the terms of this bill, and there will be ample time afterwards to pass it.
As I said at the beginning, I am in hearty sympathy with the principle of old age pensions, and like those who have spoken before me, if there is only the one way to get it, namely, by passing the resolution and the bill which the government propose to found on it. I am quite sure the government will have no fault to find with and no criticism to level at the spirit in which members of the party on this side of the House meet their suggestions.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I thoroughly agree with what the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has said in favour of old age pensions, but I am surprised that we should be discussing the inability of this parliament to amend its own constitution. The time has come when we should act rather than talk in this respect. Canada will next year be celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of confederation, and if we do not do something to remedy the present situation we shall continue to suffer under the disability which at present hampers us. The government declares that it is in favour of a revision of our constitution, but so far it has been dilinquent in the matter. Within the last two or three days I have heard the suggestion made in a club in this city that what Canada needs is a Mussolini to take charge of her affairs. Well, if our Mussolini does not come from British Columbia he will come from the province of Quebec.
It has been said that Quebec does not want any change in the constitution, but I do not believe that. In my opinion that province is in favour of such a change, just as the Dominion as a whole is anxious to have it. Session after session this House is held up on various legislative measures because of this very inability of the parliament of Canada to amend its own constitution. I do not want to abolish any rights or privileges that exist under the terms of confederation, but it certainly is anomalous that after sixty years of confederation we are utterly unable to change our own constitution. The United States, the Mother Country, the Dominion of South Africa, Australia, the Irish Free State-all these countries have the power
inherent in themselves to change their own laws at will, but Canada does not enjoy the same right. I have been in this House thirty years now; I have heard this constitutional question discussed time and time again, and it seems to me that the time is ripe for definite action. There is one man in England who is qualifying for the role of Mussolini: I refer to Lloyd George, who some day in the British parliament will do on our behalf what we have not the courage to do for ourselves. If we continue in this state of national impotence this country will fall into disrepute. We profess to be a nation equal with other states, and although other countries and even our sister dominions can amend their own constitutions, Canada remains helpless in this regard. Let us quit talking and get down to action. Let us settle the matter properly once for all. When we do so we shall have taken one long step forward in the interests of the nation.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution carry?


Robert Rogers: I want an answer from the Prime Minister. This is a serious matter, and I am sure, if we are to judge by the tenor of the speeches that have been delivered on both sides of the House to-night, there is a general wish to promote the legislation as rapidly as possible. Nothing can be done, however, under present conditions until there is a conference of the various provinces, and never was there a better opportunity than now offers to hold such a conference. Some of the premiers are on their way now and others could be summoned to consider this matter, which is of such great importance. If my right hon. friend has presented this legislation in good faith, and if the government is behind it, he cannot refuse to meet, the request we have made in order that the. legislation may be brought to a successful! result.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will recall his experience in the ministry he will realize, I am sure, that the government has quite enough to do while the session is in progress w'ithout attempting to hold a conference with the premiers of the provinces. If we had such a conference it would be our wish to show to the premiers or to the provincial ministers such attention and courtesy as the occasion would demand, and it is impossible for the government to think of such an undertaking in view of the matters that must be attended to during the session. The bill has been prepared with a view to avoiding delays and in order to enable any
Old Age Pensions

provincial government that may care to enact at once, with respect to old age pensions, legislation in conformity with the requirements of this measure to take advantage of the proposed scheme. If some provinces do not desire to pass such legislation, that determination will in no way affect the situation except in so far as they are concerned. But as a federal government we want to show our readiness at the earliest moment to assist any province as soon as it is prepared to enact legislation along the lines here laid down. The government has carefully considered the question and feels that it should not run the risk of further delays by waiting for additional communications with the provinces. The desire is to carry this legislation through at this session and I am afraid I shall have to tell my hon. friend that that is our intention.


Robert Rogers: I am sorry, because I feel that my right hon. friend is adopting the only course that will possibly kill the measure.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is it the intention of the government to proceed with this matter to-night?


John Warwick King: Yes, if possible.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is not a man
in the House who will not say at once that he is prepared to do anything that can possibly be done to improve the condition of all classes of Canadians, and if I for one thought there was anything in the resolution that suggested the slightest likelihood of achieving the results which it professes to have in view, I should be prepared to support it. But because everything surrounding the preparation and presentation of this resolution indicates clearly that there is no desire on the part of the government to bring in an old age pension scheme that will be effective, I urge that we should not pass this resolution. My hon. friend from South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) has suggested to the Prime Minister a means by which he might possibly get to the point where he could introduce effective legislation of this character. The Prime Minister says he is not prepared to accept the suggestion that during the session he should enter into a discussion with the premiers of the several provinces with regard to the plan outlined in this resolution. This government and this parliament, he asserts, is going to enact the proposed legislation as it now stands, and say to the provinces, "If you accept this we will assist you; if you do not, you will not get anything."
Now, Mr. Chairman, as a layman I should like the Prime Minister or the Minister of
CMr, Mackenzie Kino:.]
Justice-if in his seat-to state whether he feels that the federal parliament can pass a bill founded on this resolution and then if one or two of the provinces, say Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, accept its provisions, and the remaining seven provinces refuse, the federal parliament can tax those seven provinces. Perhaps we have that power. But while the constitutional question is being discussed, as one who is anxious to see a genuine measure of old age pensions made effective in all parts of Canada, I have very grave doubts whether we have any such power.
Everything associated with this resolution and the attitude of the government in regard to it indicates one thing, and one thing only- that this resolution has been adopted merely as a feint to make the two hon. members who presented their claim to the Prime Minister, and who secured from him a pledge that he would introduce this measure, believe, and to make the country believe, that the government is endeavouring to do something which it knows perfectly well is doomed to utter and complete failure because of the unsound basis on which it was founded.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


George Brecken Nicholson: Some hon. member
says "Order." I have not had very much to say in regard to this, but I purpose to express my views notwithstanding any interruptions of that character. Coming to the resolution itself and what it is presumed to provide, let me say that while I am in favour of a plan whereby every aged person in this country who is not able to take care of himself will be provided for, I am not in favour of any scheme that in principle intends to pauperize any section of the people. As this resolution is framed, the measure to be introduced in pursuance of it involves the pauperization of all our people who will come under its terms. Of all the countries that have tried out old age pension schemes of one character and another, we find that sooner or later fifteen of them have reached the point where they have adopted contributory systems, six have so far gone forward with non-contributory schemes, and one is carrying out a system of forced insurance. Of the six that have noncontributory schemes, two are now considering amendments to their pension law under which they propose the contributory feature, solely because of the well recognized fact that anything which takes away from people the incentive to thrift destroys their manhood and womanhood.	.
If the government had given the mature consideration to a measure of this character that its importance demands, they would have

Old Age Pensions
found that we already have in our annuity scheme, properly applied, a genuine form of old age pensions under which by the contribution of twenty-five cents per week between the ages of twenty-five and sixty-five any citizen can ensure to himself after seventy years of age an income equal to the pension which is now proposed. What does the government intend to do with this annuity plan? Is it to be scrapped entirely?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then what are you
going to do with the thousands of people who have purchased annuities?


John Warwick King: They will have
their annuities.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then you are going to tax those people to pay old age pensions to others who had an equal opportunity to provide for their old age.


Charles A. Stewart: Are they not taxed at present for the very same purpose?


George Brecken Nicholson: Under what provisions?


Charles A. Stewart: Under the
provisions of every province and every municipality for the care of old people.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is another
evidence of the absolute lack of consideration which has been given to this resolution.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all.


George Brecken Nicholson: I think it was stated
this afternoon that the province of Quebec already takes care of its aged people.


Alan Webster Neill: At no cost?


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not going to
say that the social legislation of that province is not what it should be; it.is for them to determine. What are you going to do with their system? In Ontario some of the very class of people contemplated in this bill are already provided for-in fact they are all provided for in provincial and municipal plans. What are you going to do with those schemes? Are you going to throw them on the scrap heap?
According to information which I very hurriedly secured from the Department of Labour, there are in Canada 220 industrial firms, exclusive of the transportation companies, now providing pension schemes for their employees. Are you going to say to those concerns, "You must scrap your insurance schemes"? No? Then under the provisions of this bill you say to those people, "You continue to provide pensions for all your employees-including the 150,000 railway
employees-and notwithstanding that you are already making that provision, we are going to tax you to provide old age pensions for a similar class of people without requiring them to make any contribution at all."


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I interject that the
employees of the railroads, particularly the brotherhoods that have old age pension schemes of their own and will not be entitled to any benefit under this measure, have gone on record approving of this scheme?


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, my
hon. friend perhaps speaks for the brotherhoods a little out of his turn. The brotherhoods have considered the question of old age pensions, and they have endorsed the general principle of means being found by which old age pensions will be provided where necessary. But has this scheme been submitted to the brotherhood?
.Mr. STEWART (Edmonton): You are not asking that anyone capable of looking after himself be provided for?


George Brecken Nicholson: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Do you
argue that all the provisions made by the various organizations will be scrapped because provision is being made for old age pensions for people unable to take care of themselves?


George Brecken Nicholson: Before you undertake
to pass legislation which you will automatically force on the country, you must take these things into consideration. Manifestly this government has not done so. Now, as these various industrial concerns are already paying the costs in connection with insurance schemes and providing funds for vast numbers of employees. I contend that it is wholly unfair to expect them to contribute to old age pensions, for others. Moreover, I question whether you have the jurisdiction.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. member deny that these concerns are now contributing to the upkeep of the indigent?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes; that is, they are
nob contributing generally. And are you going to make them contribute to such pensions in addition to the provision they already make? There is no doubt that they will as a result of this legislation; for who will pay the $23,000,000?


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. member argue that they are not paying now?
Old Age Pensions


George Brecken Nicholson: Most assuredly, because they are not being taxed for the purpose.


Charles A. Stewart: Then you
say there are no people in Canada who are not able to support themselves?


George Brecken Nicholson: I speak, of course, of
the province an which I live. When one of the municipalities taxes itself to take care of the indigent, does this not suggest that there are people in that community who are unable to support themselves? In any equitable scheme of old age pensions you work out you must take all these things into consideration, and if it is going to be equitable and successful it must have a contributory basis. The question has been asked, how are you going to take care of people who are now seventy years of age? Does anyone argue that it is impossible to frame an act that will take care of people seventy years of age, and at the same time provide that those under seventy years of age who are in a position to do so shall make contributions to the fund? How is it they have had such a system in Great Britain since 1908?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the hon. member
favour the adoption in Canada of the scheme in operation in Great Britain?


George Brecken Nicholson: I am in favour of a
scheme of old age pensions properly worked out, made contributory on the part of those below a certain age, by which those over that age will be taken care of. I would like to see such a measure introduced in this House with some reasonable assurance that it is going to become law. The hon. member for South Toronto put the case in a nutshell when he suggested that the bill should be withdrawn and the government should introduce a federal measure of old age pensions and take the responsibility of passing it. It is the only way in which it can be done, because you cannot force legislation on the provinces without giving them some say as to the manner in which it shall be framed. This legislation has been introduced for the purpose of side-tracking the whole question. If we live a hundred years we will never see anything practical as the result of it. You cannot force it on the provinces. This federal parliament can introduce legislation providing for old age pensions and put it into effect if they are prepared to pay the whole bill, and that is all they have to do. In 1919 hon. gentlemen opposite pledged themselves to a system of old age pensions and a lot of other things which they have long since
[Mr. Nicholson.!	.
forgotten. They would have forgotten about this matter also had it not been for the two hon. members from Winnipeg, to whom the Prime Minister was forced to yield. But the government forgot all about it in the Speech from the Throne.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the hon. gentleman
know, or has he forgotten, that this is not a party question; and that this House in 1923 passed a resolution in favour of old age pensions?


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not endeavouring to make a party question of if, but if the government will withdraw this wholly innocuous resolution and introduce a workable scheme for old age pensions, I will support it.


Charles A. Stewart: And let the hon. member for East Algoma draft the bill.


George Brecken Nicholson: You need not get so
jocular over it. Ever since the beginning of the session legislation has been thrown at us without being considered. When members of the government meet around the council table they say to themselves, "What kind of legislation can we draft that will hoodwink the people and hoodwink members of the House of Commons into supporting it?" So far as we can see. this legislation is of that class. The hon. minister who interrupted me a few minutes ago had to withdraw his bill the other day because proper consideration had not been given to it.


Charles A. Stewart: I will tell
my hon. friend that legislation in regard to soldiers has always been a subject on which we have tried to get unanimous agreement in the House.


George Brecken Nicholson: So far this session
government bills have been brought into the House in a half-baked condition, making it impossible for the government-


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will not support any government bill unless it suits him personally. It may come to the point where we will have to divide on questions of this kind.


George Brecken Nicholson: I hope the minister
does not think he has me scared on that account. If he thinks I am afraid to go on record as voting against any government measure, he is badly mistaken.


Charles A. Stewart: I will say
to my hon. friend that he need not imagine that he can scare the government.

Hudson's Bay Exploratory Syndicate


George Brecken Nicholson: I have no intention of scaring the government; I wish simply to express my opinion. When the government brings in legislation which is wholly innocuous and meaningless, designed entirely to sidetrack the whole question, I am going to oppose it.


John Livingstone Brown: Is it not a strange position
to take to say the bill was brought in at the instigation of the labour men and yet brought in to fool them?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, it is not strange
at all. The whole record of the government since they came into office has been to bring in legislation to fool those members supporting the government.


John Livingstone Brown: Does the hon. member
think the labour men are so easily fooled?


George Brecken Nicholson: In the first place, I
do not know that there are any labour men sitting over there, and when the opportunity comes we may have occasion to discuss that question. But whether they are fooled or not fooled, this bill is designed to fool them and designed to fool every other working man who is depending on it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. King (Kootenay) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, respecting old age pensions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Friday, April 16, 1926.