1926-03-26

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to call the attention of the government to the fact that at present Canada is getting a great deal of undesirable advertising in Great Britain in connection with companies which are described as fraudulent companies incorporated in Canada. I would direct the attention of the government to the exposure made in the press of the British Associated Oil Company, Limited, of Canada, and of the Westminster Finance Company, Limited, of Canada. I am now looking at the issue of the Daily Mail of March 8, in which these companies are described as being ptrrely fraudulent in character, taking money from and exploiting the public, and the article holds up conditions here in the worst possible light. I desire particularly to ask if the government will see whether incorporation has been granted by this House or any department of the government to those companies, and if so what steps will be taken to remedy the wrongs done the English public.


Mr. ROBB:: I recall a couple of years ago talking this over with the High Commissioner in London, and pointing out to him the injury it would do Canada if some of the companies, some land companies as well as mining companies overseas-


Henry Lumley Drayton: These are oil
companies.


James Alexander Robb: As my hon. friend knows, we
have our troubles in this country also. The operations of fakirs are not limited to the United Kingdom. I will direct the attention
Maritime Rights Commission

of the Secretary of State to the question of the incorporations. I think it quite important that we should watch those things but my hon. friend knows that the government are powerless to prevent people from investing their money upon the representations contained in highly coloured prospectuses.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Parliament is
not powerless to prescribe such rules and regulations as will make it difficult for these frauds to be practised. However, I just draw this matter to the attention of the government.



MARITIME RIGHTS COMMISSION-PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet appointed his commission to investigate Maritime rights and if so, who compose such commission? I would also like to ask if the government have abandoned stalling that question.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I might say in reply to my hon. friend that the government have been endeavouring to secure, as chairman of that commission, a gentleman whose name is already well known in this country. We have been a little delayed in getting a final reply from him. I am not ready at the moment to announce the name but we have received word which is satisfactory, and I hope in the course of the next week to be able to announce the appointment of the commission and its personnel.


Mr. HANSON:: May I say to the Prime
Minister that of the three provincial governments of the Maritime provinces one, Nova Scotia, has already framed a bill of rights on this very question, and in the other two provinces the same course is being followed. Would it not be well to wait and see what steps those governments have taken before this government puts into operation this commission, which has been unanimously rejected by members on this side of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend will be pleased to know-I do not wish to give him the terms of the order in council with reference to the commission- that the government had observed just what he has said. One of the governments of the Maritime provinces, I am aware, has framed certain representations-I do not know just how to designate them-but at any rate our government was of the view that it would be proper to refer all these representations to 
such a commission. It was thought that this would be in accord with the wishes of the provinces as well as those of the Dominion, and we intend to act accordingly.



ALIEN ENEMY PROPERTY-RETURN TO ORDER OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to draw the attention of the government to a rather important matter-the character of the returns made to orders of the House. Sessional paper 130 is a return made on a motion by myself asking for a copy of all reports associated with the Hon. William Pugsley in connection with alien enemy property and the like. A return has been tabled, but it merely has to do with the release of money seized from enemy subjects, such release being made on the ground of necessitous circumstances. Nothing else is in that return. I just want to point out to the government that either the resolution brought in last year by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Copp, was entirely misconceived, or this return is absolutely wrong. I invite attention to Hansard of last year. There was a governmental resolution providing for the payment of claims for reparation for losses suffered by Canadian nationals; that resolution was supported by the then Secretary of State and also by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) . I refer the government to page 4519 of Hansard of last year, where the Secretary of State points out that decisions had been given by the Hon. William Pugsley involving amounts aggregating seven or eight million dollars. Not one of those decisions is shown in this report. The Minister of National Defence, at page 4523 of Hansard, said:
Hon. Doctor Pugsley held a great number of hearings, and has made his report on practically two-thirds of all the claims that were made; and the principles which he settled in the cases whioh he decided would probably apply, I understand, to the easy determination of all the other claims.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if returns are to be of the slightest use, the returns must be what they say they are, and I point out that while we had a resolution presented last year authorizing payments running up to five, six, seven or eight million dollars, based on the judgments and reports of the late Hon. William Pugsley, and while the return on its face is supposed to be complete and to contain all these judgments and reports, it contains not one of those cases.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have no personal knowledge, of course, of the matter to which my hon. friend refers, but I shall draw the attention of the hon. Sec-

Interim Supply
retary of State (Mr. Lapointe) to it, and I have no doubt that he will be able to give a satisfactory explanation.
PEACE RIVER BLOCK On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, now that we have with us our new Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), whose abilities and genial disposition we all welcome, I would like to ask him a question with reference to a despatch appearing in the Vancouver Daily Province in connection with the Peace river block. The despatch is dated Victoria, March 12, and reads:
British Columbia's request for the return of the Peace river block to provincial control for use in subsidizing northern railway development will be laid before the federal government shortly after parliament
resumes its session nsxt- W6-6&;
May I ask the minister if the government is seriously considering or actually dealing with the Peace river block, and whether or not it is in consultation with Premier John Oliver of British Columbia in reference to the matter.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, no such application has reached me yet. Possibly among the accumulation of other matters, there may be such an application, but it has not reached me yet.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 14, for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.
['Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether I have the right to rise to a question of privilege. I merely want to assure the hon. gentleman that I cast no imputation on his loyalty or on his courage in any degree-none whatever. I say now, as I said before,, that the hon. member is drawing a pension which has been given to him and\n\nto others. I also say that viewing the matter of pensions as I do I only wish I had the power to wipe the system off the statute books and prevent him and many others from receiving them.\nOn motion of Mr. Hanson the debate was adj ourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.\nMonday, March 29, 1926']
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the bill, but I assume that it is an interim supply bill which will provide for the passage of one-twelfth of the estimates?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not rise to oppose the motion, Mr. Speaker. The reason I do not oppose it certainly is not that we have changed our views in the slightest as to the constitutionality of this government and their right to carry on. On the contrary, every day more and more confirms us in the wisdom of those views. We are simply not objecting owing to the fact that we recognize under the circumstances that business has to be carried on, and we are, therefore, facilitating it.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 2-$15,934,291.06 granted for 1926-1927.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt my hon. friend has had this figure carefully checked, and I am quite prepared to take his statement that the figure is correct. I suppose we are safeguarded by the statement further on in the bill that this is one-twelfth of the whole supply to be voted. Of course, Mr. Chairman, if this bill be adopted by the committee, it is subject to the usual understanding, that understanding being that by the adoption of this vote not one single item in the estimates is in any way advanced, but that the objections which the House may take to any item either as to character, principle, or amount, stand exactly the same as if this bill had not been passed. I apprehend my hon. friend will be glad to give assent to that statement.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quite right.
I had occasion to look up the procedure of previous years, not only while we were in office, but while my hon. friend was Minister of Finance, and the understanding is just the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Acting Minister of Labour) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting old age pensions, and to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council mjty 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.
2.	That every agreement so made shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation or until after the expiration of ten years from the date upon which notice of an intention to determine the agreement is given by the Governor General to the Lieutenant-Governor of the province with which the same was made.
3.	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, and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the Governor in Council.
4.	That all sums payable to any province in pursuance of any such agreement shall be payable from time to time on the certificate of the Treasury board out of any moneys belonging to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada not otherwise appropriated, and the Governor in Council may borrow from time to time such sums as may be required for the purpose of making such payments.
Old Age Pensions
[Stage Direction]
5.	That provision shall be made for the payment of a pension to every person who, at the date of the proposed commencement of the pension:-
(a)	is a British subject, or, being a widow, was such before her marriage;
(b)	has attained the age of seventy years;
(c)	has resided in Canada for the twenty years immediately preceding the date aforesaid;
(d)	has resided in the province in which the application for pension is made for the five years immediately preceding the said date;
(e)	is not an Indian as defined by the Indian Act;
(f)	has not made any voluntary assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of qualifying for a pension.
6.	That the receipt of a pension shall not by itself constitute a disqualification from voting at any provincial or municipal election.
7.	That the maximum pension payable shall be two hundred and forty dollars yearly, which shall be subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of one hundred and twenty-five dollars a year.
8.	That provisions be made as to the credit to the pension authority of the anftual value of a pensioner's residence, and the recovery of pension payments out of deceased pensioner's estate, and for the distribution of pension burden among provinces by proportionate reimbursement or proportionate reduction where the pensioner resided in more than one province or transfers his permanent residence to another province, and for ceasing paj'ments where he transfers his residence to some place out of Canada, and the revival of his rights upon again becoming a resident of Canada.
9.	That no pension shall be subject to alienation or transfer by the pensioner, or to seizure in satisfaction of any claim against him.
10.	That on or before the thirtieth day of April in each year, the Minister of Finance shall make a full report to parliament of the operation of the agreements made pursuant to the proposed act, and of the moneys of Canada paid to the provinces under each of the several agreements entered into pursuant thereto.
11- That the Governor in Council shall have power from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, and with the approval of the Treasury Board, to make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of the proposed act, with regard to the pensions herein provided for, and such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette, and be laid before parliament.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution you have just read does not contain any new principle. The principle of old age pensions has been recognized in practically all the European countries, in Great Britain, in several of the countries of South America, in several otf the states of the United States of America, and in the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand. In some form or other this principle has been recognized, but it varies according to the desire of the country in which the legislation has been enacted. In some states or some countries the systetm is a contributing one, the individual contributing a sum towards his pension in old age, and the state furnishing another portion. In Great Britain the dual system prevails. There the act was amended

in 1925 to permit of the operation of contributing and non-contributing systems. In the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand the system in force is a non-contributing one.
As I say, the subject is not a new one in Oanada. We find that in 1906-07 a resolution was brought into the House of Commons and adopted. At that time it was set out that it was desirable in the interests of the people of Canada that some provision should be made for old age. In 1911-12 and 191314 the subject was again under discussion, resolutions being introduced into the House. In 1914 a resolution in favour of the adoption of the old age pension system was moved in the House, but the debate was not concluded. In 1922 the House of Comimons adopted a resolution favouring old age pensions. In 1924 a special committee of parliament was appointed to consider the subject, and spent some time delving into the history of old age pensions. It finally recommended to parliament that some system should be adopted in Canada. The recommendations of that committee were as follows:
That an old age pension system be established at ine earliest possible date for deserving indigent persons of seventy years of age and upwards.
That applicants for a pension must be British subjects of at least twenty years residence in Canada, or naturalized subjects df at Oeast (fifteen years' naturalization and twenty-five years residence.
That the maximum rate of pension be $20 per month, which would be lessened by private income or partial ability to earn; that one-half the amount
o.f pension payable be borne by the federal government; the other half, by the provincial government of such provinces as express by legislation their desire to adopt the system-the cost of administration to be borne by the provincial governments.
It will be noted the resolution follows very closely the report of the special committee of 1924. It was suggested the other day by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that it would be desirable that the House should learn what this scheme would cost tihe nation. I did not understand altogether the right hon. gentleman's reference of a few days ago to this matter. He said at that time:
It is not customary to debate matters upon motion to proceed into committee on a subsequent day. but as these matters of immense consequence, perhaps the government could at least give this modicum of information. I should like if the government could give us an estimate of what the resolutions on the order paper just read will cost the revenue of Canada.
I do not expect a dose estimate at all, but say within a hundred million dollars.
I am satisfied that the right hon. leader of the opposition is not serious in that statement because he has in his possession the re-

Old Age Pensions
ports of the committee on old age (pensions and I have no doubt has familiarized himself with its recommendations. On page 4 of that report the comimittee expresses itself as follows:
Your committee has estimated that under such a system there would be approximately 98,841 eligible pensioners, and if all these were to receive the maximum rate of pension, namely, $20 a month, the federal government's portion of the total yearly expenditure would amount to $11,860,920. This amount, inowever would be reduced by any private income or partial earnings.
So there is no suggestion of an expenditure of $100,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The question
did not refer to that matter, it referred to all the resolutions on the order paper. What is the use of talking about something that never was said?


John Warwick King: I beg my hon.
friend's pardon. I took the statement from Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
does not follow his own reading. The right hon. leader of the opposition was referring to all the resolutions.


John Warwick King: I have taken my own meaning from what the right hon. gentleman said.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And as usual it
is wrong.


John Warwick King: The statement
was made to mislead this House. However, I will proceed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would.


John Warwick King: There is a suggestion in the right hon. gentleman's statement that as a result of the government entering into a scheme of this kind further burdens will be saddled on the Canadian people. That is really not so. There will be no loss financially to the Canadian people. The work of caring for the aged is being done to-day through other channels. The municipal governments and the provincial governments, charitable and other associations are doing that work. I believe under this bill there will be great benefit to those people who find themselves, iir their old age, without sufficient means for their maintenance. There are many people in this country and in all countries, who, through the course of their lives, in some cases not due to their own fault, and in other cases due to their own fault, have been improvident and have not saved up for the rainy day. Anyone who has
been associated with pioneering throughout Canada will realize that there are men who were pioneers for years in this country, and although they have failed to provide for their old age, yet through their efforts and their labours have contributed much to the prosperity of those by whom they were employed.
The proposal to make a federal grant in conjunction with the provinces does not involve the introduction of any new principle, as is well understood in this House. Between the years 1917 and 1920, I think, the government of that day brought down legislation whereby $20,000,000 was set aside to be devoted to the expenditure on roads throughout the Dominion of Canada, known as the national government's contribution to the good roads policy. That principle was accepted; it also has been accepted in the matter of technical schools. Wc enter the provincial field when every year we vote money in aid of agriculture, and it has been accepted as good policy. The central idea of this bill is the establishment of an old age pension scheme under which the Dominion and- such provinces as come into the scheme will each bear one-half of the pensions payable, any administrative expenses to be met by the several provinces concerned. It is expected that the administration will be entrusted to existing provincial organizations such as workmen's compensation boards, and that the administrative expense will thus be very small.


Mr. MANION:: The minister says this is
a scheme to be entered into with the different provinces, but since he has read the report he knows that last year the provinces spoke practically unanimously against it. Has the minister any other reply from the provinces since which would indicate that they had changed their mind?


Mr KING (Kootenay):: We had a reply
from the province of British Columbia, which passed a resolution asking for it. The committee did communicate with the various provincial governments, and we have replies from those governments, but apparently the provincial governments to date have not given serious consideration to the old age pension question. The reply from the Premier of Ontario is dated 24th November, 1924, and contains this statement:
I should be glad to consider the matter.
The Manitoba government state that they will be glad to consider the matter with the Premier and the Minister of Public Welfare. The Saskatchewan government wrote that they could see great complications and difficulties in the way. There was no refusal on
mo
Old Age Pensions

the part of provincial governments to enter into the scheme.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has there been anything further?


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister observed the remarks of the Premier of the province of Quebec which have appeared in the press?


John Warwick King: I have not seen
them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In his reply he states absolutely that there is no necessity for a measure of this character.


John Warwick King: The proposed bill would not compel any province to enter into the scheme; it is entirely optional with them whether they go into it or not. I have no doubt that when the bill becomes law the advantages to the various provinces will become so apparent that the proposition will be generally accepted throughout Canada.
In order to ensure that provinces which come into the scheme shall be able to rely upon the continuance of the federal grant, it is proposed that this should depend upon an agreement between the Dominion and each of the several provinces, the agreement to be terminable only upon the repeal of the provincial legislation authorizing the payment of pensions, or upon ten years' notice by the Dominion. Upon notice being given, the province may cease granting fresh pensions and will thus find itself at the end of the term of the notice free from liability, except in respect of such negligible number of pensioners as may have continued to receive pensions for at least ten years.
It is considered desirable that the scheme should be indentical in all the provinces and the bill, therefore, specifies the classes of persons who will be entitled to pension. They must be British subjects of 70 years of age and upwards who have been resident in Canada for at least twenty-years before making application, and who have lived in the province in which the application is made for at least five years.
The maximum amount of any pension is to be $240 a year, and from this is to be deducted any income receivable by the pensioner in excess of $125, the upward limit of any pensioner's income, including pension, being thus $365 a year, or $1 a day. No one is pensionable who makes a voluntary transfer of property in order to qualify for pension, but the dwelling house in which the pensioner resides may be transferred to the pension authority, in which case its annual

value is not to be counted as income. Any excess payment of pension on this account is, however, to be recoverable out of the sale of the house by the pension authority when the pensioner ceases to live in it. Provision is also made for the recovery of all pension payments when a pensioner's estate at his death goes to someone who, during his life, has not made a regular and reasonable contribution to his support.
Where, although the pensioner has resided in Canada for twenty years, his residence has been partly in one province and partly in another, the several provinces of residence which have come into the scheme are to contribute to the pension in proportion to the length of the pensioner's residence in each. If he has lived for part of the time in a province which has not come into the scheme, the total pension which would otherwise be payable is to be proportionately reduced.
The bill contains the general principles governing the scheme and provision is made for details as to evidence, method of payment, reports and other like matters being covered by regulation. These, before they are put into force, it is proposed to discuss with the province desirous of making agreements with the Dominion in accordance with the act.


Mir. EULER:: Is there any discrimination
so far as the naturalized citizens of Canada are concerned, as compared with the native born? It was referred to in the report of the committee last year.


John Warwick King: No there is no
discrimination under the bill. The committee's report required twenty-five years' residence. I believe this legislation will be of advantage to the people of Canada and will render service to a class of people whom we will always have in our midst and whom we must, from the human point of view, at least provide for in some way, and under this scheme there will be a central authority and one universal scheme that will operate throughout Canada, I believe, to the advantage of this system of taking care of our old people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not rise with the purpose of quarrelling at all with the general policy that this country ought to look after the people who should be looked after. I am not at all sure that they are going to be very much better looked after, however, or that we are going to make very much progress by the adoption of this resolution or the statute that will follow it. In view of the statements of the minister on the other hand, it would seem to me that this is another way of stalling the situation.

Old Age Pensions
We have had nothing further from the provinces. We know where the provinces stand. Now, in the first instance, the minister refers to a query from my right hon. leader as to the cost of governmental legislation as introduced and covered by the resolutions of that day. They covered many things. They were all financial resolutions, and did not have reference merely to this bill.


John Warwick King: I had just moved the resolution which was on the order paper and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) said:
I should like if the government could give us an estimate of what the resolutions on the order paper just read will cost the revenue of Canada. I do not ex-pect a close estimate at all, but say within a hundred million dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole of
the resolutions read that afternoon.


John Warwick King: I had just read
my resolution.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
doubt as to what is meant. The hon. gentleman is surely not so hard up for an argument in favour of his bill as to try to twist a statement like that. Despite what my hon. friend has said in connection with his argument, there may be more merit underlying this proposition than his argument would lead us to believe there is. I am not at all certain that it is a good thing for this parliament to try to look after other business than its own, to try to look after provincial business, when I do not think the most enthusiastic supporters of this government can say it is looking after, as they should be looked after, matters of pressing Dominion importance. This is entirely a provincial matter.
My hon. friend was quite right in saying that during the period after the war Dominion assistance was given to the provinces; that in connection with roads and housing the Dominion government gave the provinces aid. I admit that was done; but I wonder if my hon. friend does not think the objections which were then made, the force of which was admitted but brushed temporarily to one side owing to the financial position the country found itself in, were not really right and that is that the power of taxation resting in the Dominion, and in the right of the Dominion, should not be exercised in ease of the provinces which, under the British North America Act, have the right of taxation for provincial purposes. The point is rather a serious one. The hon. member did not refer only to roads and housing which, as he knows perfectly well, were matters of emergency having to do with provincial fin-14011-123
ances at that time and a pressing necessity, not only for the purpose of aiding these works but much more so for the purpose of providing labour to the unemployed and also for the purpose of looking after the shortage in houses, something which otherwise could not and would not have been done. Besides those two temporary matters, matters of emergency, the hon. member referred to agriculture. My hon. friend is right again; we do help agriculture, but we have every right to help it. Agriculture is a Dominion interest	just	as	much as it is	a provincialinterest.	It	is	a Dominion child, a Dominion care, just as much as it is a provincial care. There	we	are on common	ground, butI point	out	to	my hon. friend	that we are
not on common ground in connection with this matter and his argument in that regard entirely fails.
TX71-	:_ it. .	___i..!.;_ [DOT] i____j____j	A
vvii}' is Inc lesuiuuuu iuliuuuocu uuwi
This matter is not new; it is old, as my hon. friend says. The government during the four years of its existence played with it; they passed it on from time to time. We had committees and committees; we had reports; we even had reports adopted, but nothing was done. Why? The sole reason nothing was done was that none of the provinces wanted it 'and to-day none of the provinces, with the exception of possibly one, want it. My hon. friend thinks he can vouch for that one, namely, his own province of British Columbia.
I want to refer the House to the material it has before it just to show how this matter was really gone into for the purpose of seeing whether the provinces wanted it or not, and then I am going to consider very shortly why the provinces would not want it. Hon. members will find at page 455 of volume 62 of the Journals of the House of 1925 a report by the special committee appointed to inquire into an old age pension system for Canada as to the stand of the provinces. I think I had better read the report. It states:
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 views of the several provincial governments are as follows:
1.	New Brunswick.-Under date of May 23, 1925, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Veniot) writes:	"This province is
now considering the establishment of what As known as widows' pension, and we are not prepared to take any decision in the matter of an old age pension. While I do not disapprove of the old age pension, and feel that it would be a good thing, yet it would be impossible for me to commit the province to any action in this matter at the present moment."
That is the stand of New Brunswick and the minister tells us that nothing has been heard from that province since then.

Old Age Pensions

2.	Quebec.-Under date of February 17, 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."
We there have a definite refusal and the press of this week confirms again that refusal.


Mr. FORKE:: Will the hon. member repeat that because I could not catch it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I just paused to point out that in the correspondence which the leader of the Progressive party will find at page 455 of volume 62 of the Journals of the House of Commons, Quebec gave a direct negative to the proposal and that direct negative of Quebec then given by the Minister of Public Works and Labour of that province is confirmed by the premier of the province himself only this week.
3.	Nova Scotia.-Under date of June 2, 1925, the
Premier (Hon. Mr. Armstrong) writes:	"In view of
the importance of the 6ubject-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 fully discuss it with your committee, no action would be taken upon the matter at present."
No action has yet been taken. There was time and opportunity for a better understanding, but this government in its haste to introduce this legislation for a very obvious reason which has been explained in the House more than once, has not taken up the question again with the province which thus writes and has heard nothing further from it since.
4.	Prince Edward Island.-Under date of May 22,
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."
No decision has yet been made, nor has there been any further exchange of correspondence such as might have made it easy to get some real progress in the matter. Furthermore, the difficulty of the provinces in dealing with the proposal is amply illustrated by that letter. The province has its own machinery for looking after the aged and the indigent, and it takes care of them either in private institutions or by means of donations or payments to families who will take

the needy in and care for them. What will the provinces do with all that machinery? Are they going to scrap their own machinery? I do not know how the provincial organizations have worked out but I should have thought certainly that this was a question for the people of the provinces themselves to settle one way or the other. I am at a loss to know what is to become of all these various provincial institutions throughout the country. There is some provision in the matter of relief to the aged and indigent in nearly all the provinces, and I believe there are a few provinces that have not recognized their obligation in this regard. But generally speaking, either through the municipality or through the province as a whole, they have at least taken some steps in the direction of earing for those who are in destitute circumstances within their territories.
Now I come to Ontario. The letter received from that province is quite brief. Under date November 24, 1924, the Premier writes:
I shall be glad to consider the matter.
And there it stands. On behalf of the province of Manitoba the Attorney General there writes under date February 25, 1925:
We are in the midst of our session just now with a multiplicity of matters requiring immediate disposition. I shall, however, take the matter up *with the Premier and the Minister of Public Welfare at the earliest opportunity.
And this government, although that session was concluded months ago, have not done a thing in the way of considering the question with the authorities of Manitoba. Again, the matter rests in abeyance. As regards Saskatchewan, the Hon. Mr. Gardiner, the present Premier of that province, writes on November 19, 1924:
The government of Saskatchewan is of opinion that an old age pension scheme for Canada can be best adopted by the federal government alone.
There we have a new light on the subject. A new idea is given us, but of course it is opposed to the principle of this scheme. That idea is that instead of a fifty per cent division as the minister proposes, the Dominion government should meet the whole cost. The letter proceeds:
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 which 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.

Old Age Pensions
That is what the great province of Saskatchewan says in connection with this proposal, and in connection with the report upon which this bill is drawn up. The objections of that province to the scheme
4 p.m. are summed up in the opinion that the difficulties are insurmountable. Apparently they have the idea in Saskatchewan that there are real differences between the various provinces, that there is a separate problem to be faced in relation to each province in the matter of relief, and that therefore it is almost if not entirely impossible to devise a method that would be suitable to the whole Dominion, owing to the great diversity that exists in the conditions throughout the country. Of course, that diversity must exist. There is a diversity in the character of the employment available to the people in each province, and, depending upon the extent of the unemployment that prevails in the various parts of the Dominion, there exists to a greater or lesser degree the necessity for this relief. Well, who is to say that Saskatchewan is wrong? The minister in introducing this measure very easily answers these arguments by disregarding them altogether. He pays not the slightest attention to the suggestion that a scheme of this sort will never operate successfully. We have not the faintest argument offered in answer to the position taken by Saskatchewan that there are differences between the provinces, that there is a difference in the weight of obligation, having regard to the facts in each province. That contention, made about a year ago, is left entirely unanswered; the minister makes not a single suggestion to show that the point is improperly taken.
We come next to Alberta. On June 2, 1925, the acting premier of that province wrote:
This government has reviewed the recommendations of the committee and approve of the general principle of old age pensions. 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 dt is more a federal obligation than a provincial one.
The writer there, I fancy, was thinking of the demands upon his treasury rather than of obligations or of law. Of course, he is absolutely and entirely incorrect. However, he does not like the scheme, whether his reasoning is right or wrong.
(2)	We are not satisfied that a non-contributing
scheme is the best one.	,
We have not heard anything on that point from the minister, to-day.
(3)	There is no guarantee that the federal government would continue for a definite time to carry out
14011-123i
the mutual arrangements with respect to financing the scheme.
I may observe that the government has considered that point; it has not forgotten all about these things. The government has answered in this legislation the points that can be answered, but it has tied the hands of the country for a definite period of ten years. It leaves the matter in the hands of the provinces. To be fair to 'the government, they have got over the third objection raised by the Acting Premier of Alberta, but the other two objections they have left unanswered. Now I come to British Columbia.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask the hon. member how it would be possible, if the Dominion had an old age pension scheme, for the arrangement to be contributory, seeing that it would call for contributions from the various provinces?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has put his finger on the crux of the whole question. What is behind that question of his? What is it that gives merit and weight to it? Simply this: if you make the scheme contributory you enter at once upon the domain of property and civil rights, and that is absolutely in the hands of the provinces. The whole thing is provincial and my hon. friend's point is well taken. No contributory scheme, no insurance, nor anything of that kind could be worked out through the agency of the Dominion. It must be left to the provinces. The point, I repeat, is well taken. Let us now take British Columbia. Under date of February 5, 1925, the Minister of Labour of that province 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-
Of course they want the Dominion to undertake it. They think they have absolutely nothing to do with it. They do not want to pay half, they want us to pay 100 per cent. I read further:
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.
In a resolution passed unanimously by the British Columbia legislature on December 18, 1924 the following statement is noted:
State responsibility in the matter of the proper maintenance of aged citizens has been recognized-.
This is going on to the report, and perhaps I should not read that. There is a further letter here from British Columbia dated March 5, 1925, which I think should b?
Old Age Pensions

read in order that we may have before us the stand of all the provinces. The letter is from the Minister of Labour of British Columbia, reiterating his former opinion. He says:
I beg to say that the matter has had very serious consideration on the part of this department and the opinion is confirmed that the matter of old age pensions is a subject for the consideration of the federal and not the provincial parliament.
Then on June 2, 1925 Premier Oliver wrote further:
Your explanation of how the proposed scheme was expected to work certainly tends towards a better understanding. .Should the parliament of Canada pass legislation along the lines suggested in your printed report of last year, I presume the question would then arise as to whether or not the province would cooperate.
So there we have the whole story of the position of the different provinces. With further reference to the point I made as to this being entirely a matter for the provinces, the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice was taken, which will be found at page 457 of the same volume. His letter is as follows:
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 that 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 "Property and Civil Rights in the Province" committed to the provinces under section 92. 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 provmce.
In other words, providing we just make a gift of so much, no matter what comes of it.
As, for example, by obligating any province or person to contribute to the scheme. The enactment of such legislation would, however, involve the assumption by the Dominion of obligations involving heavy expenditures with regard to a matter which does not fall specifically within the Dominion field of legislation.
For the reasons set out in these letters and for the reasons set out in the report, this government last year took no action. They could not take action, because there was no common ground, and they were only seeking to deal with this matter upon common ground and with the help of the provinces. To-day we know no more about it; the matter has not been advanced in the least.
Now as to the cost. My hon. friend, in introducing the measure, said the matter was already being looked after, so he said it would not cost any more money. If it is being properly looked after, so that it will not cost any more money, what is the reason for this bill? Why

in the name of common sense disturb anything which is being properly looked after? If it is not going to add to expense, why go through the form of adding to expense? My hon. friend knows that is not the situation at all. He could not be serious in advancing this resolution if he were serious in making rash statements. The minister says that the cost is set out in the report as $11,860,000. My hon. friend there is absolutely and entirely wrong; he just illustrates, Mr. Speaker, a common error which many of us fall into, in assuming that this cost comes out of this parliament. It does not; it comes out of the taxpayer, and this sum only represents half of the cost. The provincial parliaments, in the same way, have to burden the taxpayer, so we have to just multiply my hon. friend's figure by two in order to find out what burden will be placed on the taxpayers of this country. What difference does it make to the taxpayer whether the tax collector represents the province or the Dominion? What difference does the colour of the tax collector's uniform or the address of his office make? We have to double the amount my hon. friend has given, and as a result, on his own showing, the cost of the proposed bill amounts to $23,721,840, plus the cost of administration, whatever that may be.
It is just as well, Mr. Speaker, that we look at these things fairly and honestly. In principle every right thinking man wants to help those who should be helped, but there are limits beyond which we should not go. Every right thinking man knows that taxation is one of the things which is making for unemployment, a condition which prevents these people whom we think ought to be helped from looking after themselves. Every student of economy knows, for example, that the cost of living in free trade England has gone up enormously as the result of taxation, and everyone knows that an enormous contributing cause to that taxation is the dole system. I believe that everyone thinking of this question seriously believes that the very first thing to be done in Canada is to make our country a place where people may live and get their jobs before they are seventy years old. One of the best ways to do that is to cut down the cost of government administration.
Before this resolution carries, Mr. Speaker, I should like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to make a statement as to the method of financing this proposition. I observe that the minister is now in such a position that he is actually making provision in this bill whereby he may further add to the debt of

Old Age Pensions
this country for the purpose of paying these pensions. Hon. gentlemen will find that provision in the fourth paragraph of this resolution. Surely we are entitled to that information before this matter is finally dealt with. I hope this question is not to be simply played with, and that it is not merely raising false hopes in the minds of the people, as was done in connection with the other committee procedure. I hope we are not going on with it just because this government know, as I am inclined to think they do, that the provinces will have none of it, and that the whole thing is just an idle gesture. We are entitled, I think, Mr. Speaker, before this resolution passes, to a statement from the Minister of Finance; we are entitled surely to a statement from the government as to how this matter stands in connection with the different provinces, and as to how much it has been advanced since last year. I think we are also entitled to a statement of what is to become of the different schemes for relief already in existence. The province of Quebec have their schemes, and they do not want this. The province of Ontario have theirs; they are already paying mothers' pensions, for instance.


Mr. HEAPS:: That is not an old age pension.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, but they
pay mothers' pensions, and besides that, the province of Ontario has the most up-to-date and efficient Workmen's Compensation Act in existence, and which to-day covers the case of a good many people who are over seventy years of age. What is to become of that? What is the general idea as to the interrelation of all the different schemes which we now have and this one?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wonder whether
the hon. gentleman would explain how the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Act is in the most remote degree related to old age pensions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is quite right, and he is also quite wrong. He is quite right on the face of it; they are entirely different; but he is quite wrong in how it works out, for this reason, that men over seventy years of age, unable to work, who otherwise would be indigent are being looked after under that scheme. The idea of this scheme, which is a government scheme, a pension act, is just the same as the other, although there are differences because in the case of the one we have the principle of contribution and the like.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think
the hon. gentleman really believes that a man who is injured continues to enjoy the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act until he is over seventy years of age.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Frankly, I think my hon. friend will find a good many who have been injured living to over seventy years of age.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member mean to say that the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Act covers the cases of men over seventy years of age, merely because they are of that age, apart from their being injured?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all.
There is simply an overlapping there.


John Warwick King: There will be no
overlapping. A man drawing a pension of less than twenty dollars under the Workmen's Compensation Act, because of permanent injury, would have That amount deducted from what he could draw under this scheme, and if he drew more than twenty dollars a month he would not be eligible under this scheme.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose we let that go; my hon. friends can have that little scrap of satisfaction.


William Daum Euler: We just want the matter
put right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon, friend does not want it right, not in reference to this because if he did, he would want something that was definite and that meant something, and1 that he knew would be operative. What is to become of all the industrial homes of the provinces, what is to become of mothers' pensions? The provinces have to make up their minds as to these things.


Mr. DUNNING:: My hon. friend says that this proposal will overlap the mothers' allowance scheme. I think I am right in saying that all payments under mothers' allowance schemes are based upon the number of children under the age of sixteen years. That being the case, will the hon. gentleman explain how the mothers' allowance scheme can overlap this one?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is perfectly correct, but I think he will find in Ontario that there are many indigent mothers being looked after to-day.


John Warwick King: Surely, in every
province.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
himself admits that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under that scheme.
. Old Age Pensions


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not care
what scheme it is, so long as they are looked after. So long as there is a measure oi public help being given to them, I do not care what the scheme is, provided it is effective,, and here we have the minister saying it is effective.


John Warwick King: I did not say it was effective. I said they were being looked after.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my
hon. friend said before, effectively. What is to become of all the industrial homes, and that sort of thing, which are being kept up at the present time? Is there to be anything done in ease of the provinces and the municipalities when they abandon all these kinds of relief and the investment that is there? But they cannot abandon them. When the hon. Minister of Railways is addressing himself to this motion, will he kindly point out in which direction he thinks his minister in Saskatchewan was wrong in his letter of November, 1924? If he would do that, it would tremendously help the situation. Perhaps my hon. friend will say that that letter is all nonsense and wrong. Perhaps he does not think there is any difference between the nine different provinces, and the like, but at any rate, let us hear from him and see whether the change of climate and the change of atmosphere down here has worked a complete change in his views.
Then there is another thing. Do my hon. friends think it is fair for the ratepayers of one province to contribute to the cost of a scheme in another province? Here is the province of Quebec definitely saying through its premier: We won't go in; there is no necessity for this scheme. Suppose British Columbia goes in. What is the result? To the extent that the citizens of Quebec as federal taxpayers pay taxes, to that extent and in that proportion will they be paying the cost of this scheme for British Columbia.


Mr. NEILL:: Were not the same identical
arguments advanced against the grants to the provinces for good roads, that the provinces that took advantage of the scheme would be getting ahead of those that did not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has apparently just come into the chamber. I dwelt before with the precedent of good roads and housing, and I am not going to take up the time of the House referring to that again, except simply to say that that was a temporary thing, as my hon. friend well knows, as he was in the House at the time. It ran for a certain length of time only, and there was a fixed amount, and -fur-
[Mr. Dunning.1
ther, it was done for the purpose of giving employment at a time of crisis, and also to help the provinces in their financing. But this is an entirely different thing. This is permanent, and the fact remains that Quebec will be called upon to pay a far larger share of the cost of maintaining those requiring relief in British Columbia than will the British Columbia taxpayer be called upon to pay.


John Warwick King: That is not possible at all. The British Columbia taxpayer assumes half the burden at once. Then the other half is divided proportionately.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
again has not caught the point. I do not know what the trouble is; I am trying to make it clear. Let me say again, the Dominion taxpayers of Quebec province will pay as Dominion taxpayers far more than the Dominion taxpayers of British Columbia will pay as Dominion taxpayers to the support of British Columbia pensioners.


John Warwick King: You did not say it that way before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am trying to make it clear even to my hon. friend. If you start wrong you cannot get away from that sort of thing. As I say, this is a matter which ought to engage the sympathy and the best thought of every one of us, but I submit we are not getting anywhere with such a proposition as this.


Robert Forke: This
is an important subject and one which requires very careful consideration by every one of us before the resolution is adopted. I have listened with attention to the criticisms which have been advanced by my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton). He has been very moderate and, perhaps, has pointed out what may be called weaknesses in the scheme. At the same time I believe the proposal is one of so much importance, is one of such pressing necessity, that it cannot lightly be cast aside. A short time ago-I do not recollect whether it was last session or the session before-a committee of this House considered the whole matter and reported in favour of old age pensions. I think we have to take that fact into consideration. Reference has been made to the attitude of the different provinces, and I followed carefully the remarks of the last speaker on that point. I think that by none of them, with the exception of the province of Quebec, was a negative answer returned to the questions that were asked. Considering the answers of provincial governments on the whole

Old Age Pensions
you might regard their language as favourable. I noticed that a resolution with respect to old age pensions was introduced in the Manitoba legislature, which is now sitting, and one of the speakers declared the matter was one for the Dominion parliament to deal with; he appeared to think that it could better be dealt with by the federal authority. I am therefore inclined to believe that the province of Manitoba is in favour of Dominion legislation in regard to old age pensions. The province of Saskatchewan is in favour of the Dominion taking this matter up. So is the province of Alberta. The provinces of Ontario, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia have not had anything to say in opposition to legislation by the Dominion on the question.
It may be asked, "Why enter into any more commitments when taxation bears so heavily upon the people at the present time?" The question is a pertinent one. Everyone recognizes that Canada is a heavily taxed country. Coming from the province of Manitoba I may say that there the legislation along this line is as advanced as in any other province of the Dominion. I recognize, however, that it is possible to travel too fast, and that it is possible to pay too high a p'rice for something that may be very desirable. At the same time I am not prepared to admit that an old age pension system is going to increase the burdens of the people or to add to taxation to any extent. A great many people in this country are taken care of in other ways thaq by an old age pension. There is a large class of the people whose circumstances place them far beyond the possibility of want or of requiring public assistance of any kind. There are also civil servants and employees in public institutions and corporations who are taken care of by pensions in their old age after a certain number of years of service. But the present resolution deals with an entirely different class of our population, and it is a class with whom I have a great deal of sympathy -I refer to the ordinary people, the common labourer if you please, the man who works for a day's wage and finds it difficult to provide for the daily necessities o'f his family and himself much less to lay by anything for his declining years. This man has rendered a service to his country, he has well earned the pension that may be coming to him in his old age; and although the providing of pensions may press somewhat heavily upon our people I cannot help feeling that those who pay the taxes are quite willing to do something for those poor unfortunates who do not earn sufficient to lay by anything for a
rainy day. So I am quite prepared to consider this matter seriously, and see if we cannot evolve legislation that will meet the situation. In any case these people have to be taken care of. The last speaker wondered what we were going to do with some of the public institutions that we already maintain.
I do not know whether my hon. friend is aware of the fact that this legislation, if it goes into effect, will only take care of a certain section of our population, those who have been twenty years in the Dominion. There are other requirements which have to be met before pensions can be granted so that a numerous section of the Canadian population will be unable to take advantage of the provisions of any act we may pass. Erom some little experience I have had in connection with ihe administration of certain public charities in the city of Winnipeg, and I have already mentioned this fact in the House, I am inclined to believe, there are people in receipt of what is called charity who should not be reduced to that necessity. As I have already said, they have given sufficient service to the country to entitle them to financial assistance to meet the necessities of their old age, and the aid so granted should not be regarded in any way as charity. I should like to see the spirit of thrift inculcated amongst our people so as to try and ensure that they will not at'any time be in the position to need public aid. I can look back to my boyhood days in the Old Land beyond the seas, and I can remember how abhorrent the idea oi charity was to the people there. I remember, and I allude to it with pride, the sturdy honesty and independence so characteristic of the Scottish people. So marked was this characteristic that they would have to be very hard up before they would accept anything in the nature of charity. I do not want the old age pension to be considered in that light. I would rather have it regarded as something which the people receiving it earned during the long years in which they toiled for a living.
There is one section of the resolution of which I should like to have an explanation from the minister. It is that section which sajrs that the receipt of a pension shall not by itself constitute a disqualification from voting at any provincial or municipal election. There is no reference to a Dominion election, which leaves it open to doubt whether the person in receipt of this pension would be able to vote at such an election.


John Warwick King: In order to clear up that point I may say that some of the
Old Age Pensions

provincial acts do not allow voting where pensions are paid. That is not the case under our law and therefore the voter would not be affected under this legislation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister answer a further question just on that point? Has he been advised what jurisdiction the Dominion has over the voting qualifications in a municipality or in a province?


Robert Forke: I do not think I have much to add to what I have already said. I have considered this matter rather seriously. I appreciate the criticisms that have been made by my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) but I hope that partisanship will not be allowed to obtrude in the discussion of this question. I am always afraid to make a statement of this kind for fear I should be misunderstood, but this is a matter of supreme importance to a very large portion of our people, and it has been introduced by the government. There may be some criticism on the government side, and I should like to hear hon. members tell us if they have any fault to find with the proposal and to say whether they are going to vote against it. I should also like to hear my hon. friends to my right dell us whether they think it a good bill. If they wish to see it put into effect, let them say so. Let us consider the matter upon its merits. It is of too much importance to be made a party football. I am quite serious when I talk in this strain, and I hope this resolution will receive the serious consideration which it deserves.


Mr. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I sincerely hope the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) does not reflect the opinion of the majority of the members behind him, because I have always heard that the Conservative party have been foremost in the advancement of legislation of this kind; at least I have heard them take that position during election time, and I would not like them to lose their reputation. I hope they will carry on in the House as they do on the platform. At first I believed the hon. member for West York was going to support this resolution, but I actually felt, when he had closed his speech, that he had been opposing it; at least if he was not opposing it, he was quoting from every angle possible to throw cold water on the old age pension scheme. He started out by saying that he thought it was a proper thing for the Dominion government to mind its own business and not interfere with the business of the provincial governments. I think it is the business of the Dominion govern-IMr. J. H. King.]
ment to look after the old worn-out industrial workers and pioneers of this country, and if they can do something to assist the provinces in this matter it will be a proper policy to pursue. The hon. member for West York stated that none of the provinces wanted this scheme. He went on to point out the difficulties in the way of the provinces getting together. As I understand it, this is an act to assist the provinces. Under this act the Dominion government is willing to assist the provinces to arrive at a uniform basis, and as the hon. Acting Minister of Labour stated, it does not compel the provinces to come in. The hon. member for West York also left the impression on the House, that there would be some duplication, inasmuch as some of the provinces have workmen's compensation acts already. If he will look at the provisions of the bill he will see that no one earning $240 a year will be able to participate in this pension.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has not the point at all. The question is, where you had that duplication, which would you adopt? Would you abandon the local scheme and go on with this proposition?


Peter Heenan: Yes, I have got the point. The hon. gentleman spoke of the duplication of payments. The minimum payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Ontario is S12..50 per week, and if my hon. friend will figure it out he will see that no one receiving that compensation, though he may be 70 years of age will come under this old age pension scheme. My hon. friend also asked why there is the provision in the bill with regard to voting in municipal and provincial elections. He asked what jurisdiction the Dominion government had to make provision in regard to provincial elections. This is an agreement entered into by the Dominion with the provinces. One of the regulations is, that if the provinces accept this proposition they must not prohibit anyone in receipt of a pension from voting at provincial elections.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not in the resolution.


Peter Heenan: It is in the resolution.
I think the hon. member will find it in paragraph number 6. The hon. member stated that the provinces were looking after the older people in some way or another, and in the next breath he stated that this was done by houses of refuge or poorhouses, and he asks, what are we going to do with these buildings? Surely it is about time we were

Old Age Pensions
taking better care of our old people, to prevent them being stigmatized as paupers after they reach the age of seventy. The time has come when old, wom-out industrial workers who are not able to earn over $240 a year, ought not to be stigmatized as paupers or placed in poorhouses. I was in the Old Country last summer and had an opportunity to witness the beneficial results of a scheme of this kind. I found some of the happiest people from 70 to 86 years of age, living on their allowances, living in many instances with their children, or living alone, without being stigmatized as paupers. This proposed scheme will not duplicate the existing system of relief. It is true the municipalities and the provinces have at the present time facilities for taking care of old people, but in discussing a bill of this nature, designed to provide for our worthy pioneers, we ought not to give much consideration to the question of preserving old, worn-out poor-houses made of brick and mortar.
Another point I want to make is that the cost of this scheme, whether you call it $11,000,000 or $23,000,000, has been arrived at after taking into consideration the number of people who will be eligible to share in its benefits. Under the provisions of this bill the railroad men will not foe entitled to pensions, and those employed in many other institutions which have adopted pensions for their employees will not come under it, because their pensions will exceed the maximum amount provided for here; therefore the total cost will be very much less than has been estimated.
It is true that many of the provinces have instituted social relief of a very humane nature. Some provinces have passed a Workmen's Compensation Act and a Minimum Wage Act for men and girls and have taken care in a general way of those less able to take care of themselves, but none of them has undertaken the care of worn-out people of 70 years or over who have not been able to provide for themselves.
In my opinion this government is entitled to great credit for introducing this measure and making provision of which the provinces can avail themselves. I think, Mr. Speaker, that all who have in any way represented workmen whether politically or industrially will agree that one of the greatest fears among the working class is that of not being able to provide for old age, not being able to earn sufficient wages to ensure that in the evening of life they will not be stigmatized as paupers. This fear has a very unsettling effect which this legislation will very largely
remove. I do not agree, of course, that the amount of the pension is sufficient, but the measure is a step in the right direction.
The immediate expense in connection with the scheme will not be great because it will take probably one more year for some of the provinces to come in under the provisions of this legislation. The provinces will not be put to any great extra cost in administering this scheme because they have the Workmen's Compensation Board, the Mothers' Allowance Board and other facilities that are already created.
Public opinion is advancing very quickly along these lines. Listening to the hon. mem-for West York a little while ago, I wondered if he had read the speech delivered by a good Conservative over in the Old Country, the Right Honourable Mr. Amery, the present Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, on the 27th July last. I had the pleasure and honour of sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons in London listening to that right hon. gentleman, and he made a speech in which he eulogized the old age pension scheme and the unemployment insurance scheme commonly known in this country as the dole. When we hear a gentleman of his standing, a member of the Conservative party in the Old Country, eulogizing these measures, surely we at least ought to concede there may be some merit in them. I have his speech under my hand and he says the fact that Canada has not this kind of legislation, namely, old age pensions, un- employment insurance and so on, has a tendency towards keeping desirable citizens of Great Britain from emigrating to this country as they realize that in their old age there will be no provision for them.
I want to point out also to the hon. member for West York that the Premier of Ontario only last week stated on the floor of the legislature that he was considering the question of an old age pension plan, but he was watching very carefully the progress of the bill in the Dominion House. I am satisfied that Ontario will be one of the first to take advantage of this bill and to come under it. I do not want to delay the House in going into the merits of old age pensions. Most hon. members probably know more about the question than I do, but I know it is humane legislation and I hope the majority of members on both sides of the House will vote for it.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I desire very briefly to record my objections to the resolution now before the House. Personally, I am disposed to agree with the view of the hon. member for Bran-
Old Age Pensions

don (Mr. Forke) that this question should be treated as a non-partisan one. It affects all classes. It has never been to my knowledge the subject of a debate upon the platforms of this country. It is practically a new question before the people of Canada although it has received some consideration by committees of this House, and I think we would reach a better conclusion as to the real sentiments of hon. members if the question were made a non-partisan one.
My objections to the resolution are threefold. First, I think it is a mistake that Canada should, by such a measure as this, advertise to the world that our country affords [DOT]so slight and narrow a margin between income and living that when many people reach the age of seventy years it becomes necessary for the state to step in and maintain them. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) referred to the matter of the dole in England. Surely the dole in England and the proposed old age pension scheme in Canada do not make for thrift on the part of the people. On the contrary I contend that the effect will be to destroy thrift. Again, the amount of expenditure involved is no slight matter. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) placed at approximately $12,000,000 the charge upon the revenues of the Dominion, and if the scheme is carried out a charge of some $24,000,000 is involved when the burden upon the provinces is added. Surely an additional annual expenditure of $24,000,000 is not a matter to be lightly considered by a people so heavily taxed as we in Canada are to-day.
I do not know, I cannot tell whether or not the government is serious in this proposal. There is no doubt that the proposal is at present at least utterly impracticable. You cannot pass and enforce legislation of this character until you have the consent and co-operation of every province in Canada without doing a grave and serious injustice to the taxpayer. As to the attitude of Quebec there is no secret. Only on Tuesday of this week the premier of that province, Mr. Taschereau, stated in no uncertain terms that he and his government-and he did not speak as an individual; he spoke for his government, using the plural-that the province of Quebec wants none of this legislation. It had had enough, he said, of legislation of this character from the parliament of Canada in recent years, legislation such as housing assistance, grants for the extension of roads and so on, all of which I personally opposed, although that may be of little consequence, but which grants in their operation have involved serious charges upon the coun-

try without adequate compensation to the people. Let me read the words of the Hon. Mr. Taschereau. He said:
If Ottawa wishes to come to the aid of our farmers, and of our old people, the matter is for them, but I think that the matter should rest with Ottawa, for we are not prepared to go into a system of partnership. If there devolves upon us the need of caring for our old people, and for our farmers in the matter of credits, we will do the best we can under the circumstances, but as to embarking once more upon a system similar to that as to housing, we are not prepared to go.
How would this scheme work out? If this government or this parliament is determined to proceed to put into operation an old age pension scheme, in order to be equitable it must provide a pension of $120 a year for every individual indigent person of seventy years of age and permit the province to supplement that grant by an equal amount, making the $240 referred to in the resolution. Otherwise what happens? Suppose eight of the nine provinces accept this scheme, contributing their $120, and Quebec refuses to join, as it has already refused through the mouth of its premier only this week. The residents of that province would be obliged- the logic is irresistible-to contribute their quota towards the moneys that would be paid to old age pensioners in the 5 p.m. other provinces of Canada. In my opinion that one fact, which is indisputable, is enough to condemn the measure and to warrant the government in withdrawing it until it shall have received more mature consideration, or until all of the provinces without exception are willing to join hands and parliament resolves that, under those circumstances, the legislation is such as should be proceeded with.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to take part in this debate; however, I shall foe brief. I must admit that I am somewhat astonished at the attitude taken by a number of our opponents, seeing that this question has already been thoroughly considered 'without any reference to party spirit. The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) has just stated that he is not in favour of such a scheme. Indeed, his statement astonishes me, especially when I see his friends on your left, Sir, and himself rise to oppose this resolution,. As far as I am concerned, it is with a deep feeling of satisfaction, I would even add of pride, that I give my support to this measure which will provide a pension for old age.
I see in this resolution the realization of a project which I have cherished throughout my life. Indeed, in the course of the session

Old Age Pensions
of 1922, I had the honour to move in the House a resolution which read as follows: "That, in the opinion of the House, the Dominion government should1 consider the advisability of devising ways and means for the establishment of a system of old age pensions in Canada." This resolution was unanimously carried at the time. However, it was only in the course of the session of 1924 that the government appointed a special committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, in order to study this pension scheme. This committee in its report to the House, recommended that a pension of twenty dollars per month be paid to every citizen who, having reached the age of seventy, was without any income, providing he was a British subject. Considering that the sum involved to meet the payments of this pension might amount to more than $20,000,000 per year, the committee suggested to the government, owing to the depressed financial conditions of the country, that half of said expenditure should be paid 'by the provincial governments. I notice that the present bill is based on said report. I am pleased to see it and I wish to congratulate the government.
I especially wish to thank the Prime Minister who has always shown himself favourable to this project and always listened to me sympathetically each time I broached the subject to him. Moreover, Sir, as I stated when I moved my resolution in the House, in 1922, it behooves the Liberal party, the people's party in opposition to the large interests, to have such a philanthropic and humane measure adopted. The fact is so true that at the time of the Liberal convention, held in Ottawa, in August, 1919, at the time of our party's important convention, a special motion having such an aim in view was moved and! adopted. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, himself, at a large meeting held in Montreal, in 1916, stated that as soon as the war would be over, one of the paramount problems :n this country would be the establishment of pensions for old age, and with this aim in view, he said, that he had confided to his principal lieutenants the care of studying this question.
After all. Mr. Speaker, similar legislation exists in almost every country. As early as 1908 the British parliament adopted an old age pension scheme. In France, Germany, Denmark, New Zealand, everywhere, there are old age pensions. Do you not think then that the time has arrived when, in Canada, we should do something for those old citizens, those old servants who have contributed largely to the progress and development of the country, who have worked during thirty, forty and even fifty years to enrich others and have spent their whole capital-as capacity for work, is really the workman's capital-who, moreover, as soon as their strength gives way, worn out by old age and work, are reduced to poverty, become a burden to their children or are forced to take refuge in the poorhouse? I say that it is the duty of the state to come to the assistance of these old people.
Some, perhaps, might remark that these people should have been provident and have practised economy during their youth, but every member in this House knows perfectly well that wages are never sufficiently high to allow of savings, as the wages paid to workmen are always based on the cost of living. The cost of living for a workman's family of five or six children is figured out, anci tne result of this calculation fixes the wages he is to receive.	_	.
How can he possibly economize when he is paid hardly enough to allow the strict necessities to his family? Yet, the workman is entitled as well as the rich man to some comfort in this world, he has a heart, loves his children just like the rich man, and he would like very much to give them greater facilities than he has had in order to face the struggles of life; but how can he realize such a desire with the small wages of two or three dollars per day? I especially made reference to the workmen, because they are the people who will benefit the most by this pension act. However, let it be "well understood that all those who have reached the age of seventy, men and women, if they are in need, whether they have had, during their lifetime, a trade or been in business, will benefit by this pension legislation, providing they have lived like honest citizens. One objection which I have heard against this scheme, Sir, is that it would discourage thrift and personal initiative: the workman would be less thrifty being assured that the state would provide for him in his old age. To my point of view, this objection is not a serious one. If this measure, as some believe, was of a nature to create abuses, the European countries, where this act is in force, would think of abolishing it, but on the contrary, they are improving it from year to year. On that score, the government should abolish the retirement funds of the civil employees; the banks and corporations, where such pension funds exist, should abolish them. Quite the contrary, I think that this pension act would be of a nature to stimulate the energy of workmen who would feel themselves backed by the
Old Age Pensions

state, and immigration, would benefit through it when it was known that Canada looks after its citizens when they are old and feeble.
I will close my remarks, Sir, and I feel firmly convinced that no member of this House would vote against this measure.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am unable to share the views of my colleague and excellent neighbour from the riding of Hull (Mr. Fontaine). I do not wish to discuss the details of this resolution to-day. It will be time enough when the bill is brought down. However, there are two aspects of the question to which I draw the attention of the government, of members of the House and especially of those from the province of Quebec; it is the constitutional and the social side of the question.
The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) discussed the constitutional point of view. To what extent is such a policy within the purview of the Dominion government or especially amenable to the provinces? I leave to the authorities in these matters the task of throwing light on this strictly legal question, or rather of expressing their opinion; however, there is a practical side that immediately strikes me. Let us suppose that a province should take the necessary steps in older to be eligible for its share of the fund constituted by the government under this net. and that another should abstain from doing so. Then, if I understand correctly the resolution on which this bill is to be based a pensioner of both the federal and provincial governments, leaves the province of Ontario to come and reside in the province of Quebec -supposing that Ontario should agree to the act and Quebec should abstain from doing so -he loses his provincial pension, and, the loss of the latter entails the loss of the Dominion government pension, for this government will not pay the pension to each of the pensioners individually; it will contribute to each provincial fund a sum equal to the amount distributed by each province to its provincial pensioners. It is a point which deserves to be considered in connection with the effect it might have, for instance, on colonization. If the settlers in some district of Quebec, be made aware that when their father or mother have grown old, they cannot enjoy the same advantages which are enjoyed in the province of Ontario or in another western province, they may come to the conclusion: "Far better settle elsewhere than at home." This aspect deserves some consideration. I think that legislation of this character should not be de-
	.
finitely enacted before an agreement is reached between all the provinces and the Dominion government. That is the constitutional point of view.
I shall not discuss to-day what might be the consequence in regard to the cost. I think that the time is ill chosen to launch blindly into such a scheme, and open up new avenues of expenditure of which no one can foresee the consequences or the amount it may involve within the next few years. Let us not be deceived: once we venture into such an undertaking, we cannot withdraw. When you have given to a certain class of ratepayers the habit of depending upon the state for their livelihood or support, it is much more difficult to close the door than to open it. That is why I ask you to think twice, even ten times, before you open this door.
(Now, let us consider the social point of view. I confess that I perceive with alarm the introduction and development in our midst of the spirit which has started to revolutionize the finances and social order in most of the European countries, develop amongst our people the habit of thinking that under all circumstances, in all their sorrows and difficulties, they may depend on governments, whether federal, provincial or municipal to come to their rescue, minister to all their ills, cure their slightest ailments and fill all the gaps in the family budget. However, I admit that with the economic evolution which is rapidly taking place in the world, in the home budget as well as in the nations' budget, there is something to be done. But why not consider the putting into practice the principle of social insurance? Let the government apply a system of insurance by which ratepayers in the prime of life would contribute a premium which would be afterwards returned to them under the form of a retirement pension, sick pension, accident indemnity, all well and good, I would agree. That is an aspect of modern socialism which deserves to be considered and looked upon favourably, because it admits of the co-operation of both the state and the individual, because it tends to develop in the individual, the young man and the youthful head of a family the sense of responsibility and the spirit of thrift. Let us induce the young men in the prime of life, the men who earn their living and who can put aside savings to deposit with the state a fixed amount according to their age, and in keeping with the choice they will make of a retirement pension for their old age; let the government constitute itself the guardian and administrator of these funds; let them therefore help the pensioner or the

Old Age Pensions
future pensioner with the advantage of a gratuitous administration; you will then have the fruitful co-operation of state and ratepayer, of the common weal and of-


Sir EUGENE EISET (Translation):: May
1 put a question to the hon. member? Is he aware that there already exists a Dominion act which provides a system of indemnity that exactly corresponds to the system which he at present advocates in this House?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.
I thank my hon. friend for having simply anticipated my thought, for I intended to submit to the House the system of the retirement pension-I shall not go into the details-but merely point out the principle of the retirement pension adopted in the service of the government, of the Canadian Pacific and in a large number of important institutions.


Eugène Fiset: It is
not what I mean. I want to draw the attention to the system of annuities payable so much per year, that anyone may purchase each year by paying a fixed amount annually.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.
Let us generalize this system, let us make it accessible to all the provinces of Canada.


Eugène Fiset: It is.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If it is,
then why seek to complicate the economic and social legislation of the country by creating a system which can have no other effect but giving rise to difficulties, jealousies between provinces, between classes of ratepayers and stimulate within our economic and social system the application of the principle of state ownership, which, in my opinion, upsets the economic equilibrium as well as undermines the social institutions of a large number of countries. We had in a large measure succeeded in standing aloof. Well, for my part, unless confronted with very convincing reasons, unless I have the proof that all the provinces of this country are ready to co-operate in the same way, and on the same footing in the application of a system of retirement pensions created by the Dominion government, I do not feel disposed to favour legislation like the present one, and that on account of the dangerous twofold principle, to my mind, involved, and especially as concerns the province of Quebec.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I am strongly in favour of the principle of old age pensions. This matter has been before parliament for a number of years. The question which concerns me now is the practicability of the government's
scheme and the sincerity of the government in submitting this question to parliament. The principle of old age pensions has been adopted in a number of countries, including Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, France and Italy. Old age pensions is a form of social legislation, an advancement and progress in social legislation in keeping with advancements which have been going on in other forms of legislation during the past hundred years. One of the most serious objections raised against old age pensions is the charge that it involves a very heavy expense to the state. I believe that that contention is an economic delusion. Our aged people are, in fact, supported by the country, but that support is in the form of charitable institutions, the donations of philanthropic and benevolent people, or assistance provided by the children or relatives of aged people. No one will contend that men and women over seventy years of age, the aged people of this country, do not in fact receive the necessary clothing and food which they require, so that the proposal before parliament is not a question of adding to the expense of our country as an economic entity, but rather a question of the method of distributing responsibility.
The question we have to face is, has civilization advanced to the point where the state should take in its hands the distribution of the maintenance and support of our aged people, or must we leave that duty to the kindness and charity of benevolent people? From a purely economic point of view I would like to hear an answer to the contention that old age pensions is not a charge upon the economic state. That is the first point I wish to make.
I recall vividly each day, leaving my office in Vancouver, seeing a man, seventy-six years old, bent with the toil of half a century and ill from his very indigence, engaged in scrubbing floors and in doing the work of a janitor's helper. It is in the actualities of experience that we obtain judgment and advice on the wisdom of legislation, in many cases, and knowing that this matter was coming before parliament, I questioned this old man. I asked him about his life, how it was that he had nothing to provide for his old age, whether he had a family, how he was getting along and how he faced his work. His story was the story of thousands of men throughout Canada, one of difficulties and illnesses in his early years. He was a temperate man, sober in thought and habits; he worked as he was able to work, but had not been endowed by Providence with the mentality and skill necessary to provide abundantly for himself and he found, at the age of seventy-six years,
Old Age Pensions

that he was practically a pauper; in ill health; broken and bent, and leaning over the floor doing his work as a janitor's helper. He did not know how long he would be able to keep going. The great fear of his life was what was going to happen to him when he reached the point of being unable to longer earn his living.
In this country, as in every country, not because of the conditions of the country but because of the frailty of human nature, there are thousands upon thousands of such people. The report of the special committee tells us that there would be 98,841 people eligible for pensions. It cannot be said, however, that all these people over the age of seventy years would be entitled to pension. A great many have private means; others are supported by their children or by friends, and would not receive a pension. The committee reported that the cost of maintaining this scheme, so far as the federal government is concerned, would be $11,S60,000. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that at once we can deduct quite a large amount owing to the fact that many people who are over seventy would not receive the pension. Let us say you reduce this amount to $10,000,000 a year. As I pointed out in the first part of my argument, you are not adding that burden of $10,000,000 a year to Canada as an economic entity. You are merely distributing the obligation throughout the state upon people who are less disposed to be benevolent and less disposed to help the aged and infirm and people entitled to assistance of this kind. That is all you are doing. Now $10,000,000 is approximately one-thirty-fourth of the total revenue of this country, which is in the neighbourhood of $340,000,000 a year. I would prefer to have old age pensions than to have the Hudson Bay railway and many other public expenditures which have been made during the last few years. I would prefer to cut down the public expenditure, apart from the fixed charges. I would prefer to put the aged and infirm in this country in a position of comfort, assured at least of the bare necessities of life, than to make large public expenditures, engage in construction work and a number of other economic activities of doubtful benefit to Canada.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would ask my hon.
friend to include in that list the Welland canal.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, I would include a great many expenditures that have been made by both governments during many years. But those of which I have particular knowledge are the expenditures made by the present govern-

ment, and among them I omitted to mention $9,000,000 for Quebec harbour. That alone would pay the pension bill for a year.
I think if any hon. member of this chamber were confronted in private with the proposition whether or not this country could afford $10,000,000 for the aged men and women of this country, leaving apart the form in which the assistance should be granted, he would agree to the principle of it; but what I am chiefly concerned in is the government's sincerity, and in making that statement I do not want to be charged with raising the question of party politics. I think this question is one of the most important before the people of Canada. It is far above partisan politics. It is a question, the solution of which will bring more real happiness to the maximum number of people in this country than any other enactment which has been before the House for a great many years, and for that reason I want to keep it out of party politics as much as possible. But in considering the merits of the matter we have to review the conduct of the government in connection with this proposal during the past four years.
When the last parliament opened in 1922 the question of old age pensions was raised by a number of hon. gentlemen in different speeches. My friend Mr. Irvine, from Calgary, took a very active part in those discussions, but during those four years the government did not do a single thing of a constructive nature in the matter of old age pensions, although they were pledged in the most serious and solemn manner by their convention of 1919, by their party platform in 1921, and by the speeches of every important political leader on the government side throughout Canada during the contest of 1921. Everywhere they proclaimed themselves the champions of old age pensions, but when they were in power, although they had sixty-five Progressive members nearly every one of whom was a supporter of old age pension, the government found devious ways and means to avoid bringing down legislation and putting an old age pension scheme into effect. If they found excuses during the four years from 1921 to 1925, when they had sixty-five Progressive members w*ho would support them, and who enabled them to have a majority sometimes as high as 160 or more, what likelihood is there that the government will press this matter to a conclusion now?
In the report of the special committee of 1924, which is dated July 1, 1924 and is printed in the Journals of the House, volume LXI, appendix No. 4, a programme was set out

Old Age Pensions
which embodies almost word for word, certainly idea for idea, the resolution now submitted to the House,


John Warwick King: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister says, "Hear,
hear." I will ask him why he did not introduce this legislation in 1925 before the election took place.


John Warwick King: Politically it
would have been a very good move, but it was not an opportune time. This is an opportune time, conditions having improved in Canada.


Leon Johnson Ladner: act in a more intelligent fashion. But the conference did not take place, and now the Prime Minister says that he does not intend to call a conference, but that the government will decide "in due course" what they are going to do. Notwithstanding all the reasons why we should have had a pension law during the last four years, none has been enacted. But all of a sudden, when the elections of 1925 were over, when the government found themselves in a minority and felt the pressure of public opinion demanding that they should step out, they found it necessary as a political expedient to ally themselves with people they formerly condemned. They then drafted a speech from the throne and included in it other things which would secure the good-will and the support of many hon. members who cherish such measures as the one now before parliament. That is the actual situation. That is why I raise a question as to the government's sincerity. And when you read the resolution now before the committee you find clauses that will provide all kind of loopholes so that the government may escape bringing this law into force and thus deprive those people who are entitled to them of the benefits which they would otherwise enjoy. The first clause says:
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-
And so on. In my judgment this resolution, or the bill which is to be based upon it, should prescribe the conditions under which the pension scheme is to be worked out so that all the provinces need to say is, "We accept that scheme," or, "We do not accept it." The unfortunate thing is that the effect and force of this scheme is made to depend upon some agreement or some arrangement, that is going to be worked out, let us say, between the Prime Minister of Canada and his government on the one hand and the Premier of British Columbia and his government on the other hand, and I will venture to say they will not agree. Knowing the Premier of British Columbia as J do, I realize there are innumerable excuses that can be raised for not carrying out an agreement of this kind, and this is what will happen. My friend, Mr. John Oliver, a man who is resourceful and skilful in political matters, will say: "I am a champion of the province. The Prime Minister of Canada and his government have the responsibility. I wanted to do such and so and they would not do it." In other words, to use the language of the street, they will commence 
again the old habit of "passing the buck." Mr. Oliver will blame the Prime Minister ol Canada; the Prime Minister of Canada in his genial fashion will say that the Premier of British Columbia should further investigate the matter and the federal authority will decide it "in due course," and so the pension bill will not become law.
Another loophole is contained in paragraph 3. My fear, and in this I am quite sincere- is that the proposals being considered to-day in this House will not become law, and I predict that two years from now when wc coine down to the House we will still be fighting for the issuance of old age pension cheques. The administrative machinery may be partly organized, but the agreements will not have been made with the provinces; something or other will be wrong, and it will be found that the pensioners are not receiving the pension cheques to which they are entitled.
I submit that the law aimed at is a commendable one, and I commend the government for the initial stages they have undertaken in a non-partisan way. il commend them for taking the step, although the experience of the past would indicate that they may not carry it into effect. I think that from the serious business point of view, from the economic aspect, those who think that the giving of a pension is going to add an additional burden to the country are suffering from a delusion. It is adding no burden, it is only distributing an existing burden among those who at present should pay but will not pay. It is only relieving those people who are benevolently and charitably inclined and who will give a great deal of what they earn, while others will give nothing. It is only in the taking and distributing of this burden that the state will interfere by legislation of this character. I hope to see some measure go through. If I find when the bill is introduced that its provisions are reasonable, if the measure shows an indication of sincerity, I for one will support it, because I do not think that partisan politics should be interjected in connection with a bill of such great importance to the nation and one involving such great advancement in its social reforms. We are going to become old. Some of us may require the $20 per month which is to be provided. I hope that I shall not, but I know many will. And when I think of the people whom I have seen in difficulties and in trouble; when I think of the old man who always comes to my mind when this question is discussed; when I think of that man seventy-six years of age there on his bended knees

Old Age Pensions
scrubbing the floors; when I remember the story I have heard of that honest man who has done his life's work faithfully and who has devoted half a century to the struggle for a bare existence; when I think of the benefits which will accrue from the action of the state in providing even $20 a month to enable that man to keep body and soul together; -when I think of the sunshine of happiness that will brighten the evening of his life, my heart, my conscience, my judgment and my resolve spring forth to make possible for the aged of our land a comfort and a joy which no true Canadian citizen, animated by high and benevolent ideas, would deny.


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad to see the introduction of this long-overdue measure of social reform. It cannot be said that this is something newly sprung upon the House. I cannot think of any legislation that has been so long in the hatching as this particular measure. The minister who introduced it said it was first brought up in this parliament in 1907, when a motion was introduced to the effect that this subject ' ought to receive the early and careful attention of the government and of parliament." I observe amongst those who supported the resolution the names of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Maelean of York, the Hon. Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Bourassa. I do not know whether the last-named gentleman is my friend to my right or not. The motion was not pressed to a vote, but was withdrawn. That was a preliminary step. In 1908 a special committee was appointed to consider a scheme for making provision for the aged and deserving poor. I see that Sir George Foster, amongst others, supported the resolution on that occasion. No report other than a verbal statement made by the chairman was presented to the House. Then the parliamentarians appear to have taken a rest until 1912 when this resolution was moved:
That in the opinion of this House a committee should Vie appointed to make inquiiy into an old age pensicn system for Canada.
That resolution was supported by the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, Sir Thomas White, Sir George Foster and a number of others. A special committee was appointed, and later on they presented a report to the House recommending that further information in regard to the operation of an old age pension system in Canada and other countries be obtained. Parliament certainly proceeded slowly, methodically and very thoroughly in the matter.
In 1913 a similar committee was appointed. They brought in a report recommending the 14011-124
appointment of a committee at the next session. There was no rush about their action. That was in the year 1913 and nothing was done apparently in 1914, except that Mr. Kyte, the member for Richmond moved:
That in the opinion of this House an old age pension system for Canada should be inaugurated.
There was a debate on the motion, and Sir Thomas White moved the adjournment of the debate, which I presume killed the resolution. Then the war came on and nothing further was done. Then in 1922 the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine) who spoke this afternoon moved the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Dominion government should consider the advisability of devising ways and means for the establishment of I. .* t'Stem of old age pensions in Canada.
That motion was unanimously agreed to. In 1923 a delegation of a number of members of parliament waited on the government with this matter in view. I think the only members in that delegation who are in this House at the present time were the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) the member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine), and myself That was towards the close of the session. The government agreed to harm a committee go into the matter the next year. A committee was appointed in 1924, of which I was a member. They made a unanimous report in 1924 recommending that the matter should be referred to the provinces. The committee, which consisted of nine members, sat again in 1925, and we reached a unanimous report- with the exception I think of Mr. Irvine, who made some objection to it and afterwards moved an amendment in the House. The motion for adoption of that report was seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) and with the exception of Mr. Irvine the report was passed unanimously and presented to the House. In this resolution the government have for the most part adhered to the report of that committee.
I should like to comment on some of the statements made by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). He discovered so many lions in the way that if we were to adopt his attitude in the ordinary procedure of human life we could never do anything. I could conceive of enough lions between this chamber and where the hon. gentleman lives in his hotel to prevent his leaving here tonight. It is easy to make objection, and it is easy to see trouble where perhaps a willing mind would see a way through. He emphasized the fact that the opinion of the Minister of Justice was that this is a pro-

Old Age Pensions

vincial matter. Quite true, the deputy minister did make that report, but why did he not also emphasize the fact that the deputy minister also said that it was quite within our power to lend assistance to the scheme m co-operation with the provinces?
Now with regard to the reports which he read at such length, all of which are on record, I may say that every one of these has to be taken in conjunction with the fact that they were more or less given in ignorance of the situation. This was the situation: In 1924 we submitted a draft scheme of co-operation with the provinces, on a fifty-fifty basis. The reports the ex-Minister of Finance read were replies which were more or less antagonistic to the scheme, or which simply stated that it was a Dominion matter. The reports of those who were unfriendly to the proposition were to the effect that it was a matter for the Dominion. and that was the basis of the objection. No province is going into any scheme which it thinks somebody else is entitled to deal with. The objection then, was that it was a Dominion matter. But the whole basis was afterwards changed. In view of those replies we obtained the opinion of the Department of Justice, which held that it was a matter entirely for the provinces. That changed the whole situation; it cut the ground entirely from under the feet of those who said the matter of old age pensions was not their business. They could not make that argument, and when the opinion of the Justice department was presented to them there was an immediate change of opinion on their part.
The hon. ex-Minister of Finance read part of a letter from the Hon. John Oliver, of British Columbia, addressed to Mr. Raymond, chairman of the committee. I have not the letter here, but the effect of it was along this line. "Your explanation of the situation throws more light on it, and we now look on the matter more favourably." That was the sense of the reply, and if the other provinces, at the conference we suggested should be held, had been made aware of the action of the Justice department, it would have entirely altered their views, because they would have said, "Instead of the Dominion trying to impose upon us a scheme which is their business, they are actually offering to pay half the cost, of what is our business." If it had not been for the election, which prevented the conference, I believe many of the provinces would have, taken that view.
I will illustrate that fact by drawing attention to the position in British Columbia. British Columbia, more than any other province, said flatly and bluntly. "This is your [Mr. Neill.1
business, it is not ours and we will have nothing to do with it." But a year passed and in the meantime they had obtained the opinion of the Justice department. Public opinion had had an influence on the legislature, and the British Columbia legislature, unanimously passed a resolution on the 24th of November last which reads in part:
That the necessary steps be taken to formuilate some plan in conjunction with the Dominion government to provide old age pensions-
And note this:
-and that the other provinces of the Dominion be requested to take similar action.
A total change from their attitude of the year before, when they said. "We will have nothing to do with it." They are not only anxious to co-operate with the Dominion, but they will get the other provinces to follow suit. The resolution continues:
And be it further resol red 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.
So that they made a complete change of front when they found what the legal aspect of the case was.
Then I have a reported interview with the Hon. John Oliver. He is reported in the papers as saying he would look favourably on the scheme, but of course, he said, he would have to see the details before committing himself. But he spoke of it favourably. I have no doubt British Columbia will be in the forefront of this social legislation, as it has been in connection with the workmen's compensation scheme and the eight-hour day, and minimum wage act. The hon. member I thought did less than justice to himself when he referred to what would happen to certain poorhouses if this act were passed. "Why," he said, "these poorhouses would be done away with." That would be a trifling matter, would it not? It reminds me of the argument put up-and I am serious in saying this -when we had a plebiscite in British Columbia on prohibition; it was stated:	"If this
measure passes, what will we do with our gaols." Here it is the same spirit. "What will we do with our poorhouses?" Burn them down if necessary, if you cannot find anything better to do with them. Fancy in this day and generation having to talk against the enforcement of an act because it will empty our poorhouses! Has the hon. gentleman ever considered the hardship of old people being separated in their declining years? W'ould it not be better and cheaper to keep those people in some home, say with a son

Old Age Pensions
or daughter who could take care of them, with the aid of this pension?-which by the way, is rather inadequate. However, we must begin low. I do not think we need worry about what will happ'en to the poorhouses. We can turn them into community halls if necessary.	_
The hon. member made a great point of the assertion that the report of the committee and the government's bill had not made the measure of a contributory character because we were afraid it would in that case prove out of order, so to speak, owing to the fact that we could not enforce a contribution from anyone. That was not the reason why that report-and other members of the committee will bear me out-so recommended. The reason was because, after a very careful consideration, lasting over two sessions, of the various old age pension schemes of the world -particularly that of Australia and New Zealand which in some ways agree more as to conditions with Canada than does Great Britain-and also that of Great Britain, we decided it would be best to have a non-contributory system. I will not take the time to go into the reasons, but it certainly was based upon a careful consideration of the experience in other countries.
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) spoke about $23,000,000 and said that we would compel the people of Canada to pay that amount under this measure. That is not the case. The provinces are represented by legislatures; they represent the ordinary people and if the ordinary people do not want to contribute their share they will not have to do so. He said: "We must multiply this by two." That is not logical, nor do I think it is reasonable, because it is entirely within the dictum of the provinces to say whether they wish to contribute their share or not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was not
the point I made. I was dealing with the question of the total cost. Surely you cannot take half of the total.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member was dealing with the question of the total cost, but he said:	It is useless for the minister to
talk about $11,000,000; we have to double it because we have to force it out of the Canadian people. Force nothing!


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member is entirely wrong.


Alan Webster Neill: Hansard will decide that. I
want to explain about that sum of $11,000.000. I do not for one moment believe that will be the cost in Canada for a number of years to come. For one reason we put 14011-1245
it at the extreme; we did not want to underestimate the amount required. We estimated on the basis of Australia and we took a certain percentage which is bigger than is found in some countries. I talked on this subject to a man intimately connected with (the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act in British Columbia, and he said he was satisfied that the number who would require relief would be much under the forty per cent, I think it was, we calculated it on. Also, to put the matter mildly, I will say the ex-minister forgot to read this statement of the committee:	After we had pointed
out that the amount would come to $11,000,-000 odd, we added this:	4
This amount, however, would be reduced by any private income or partial earnings.
We made no allowance at all of that kind; we assumed that everyone eligible would get the full pension, but we know perfectly well the amount will be heavily reduced by private income or occasional earnings. That is the case in Great Britain, and it will be so here. I think we are quite safe in saying that the expense will be very much lower than $11,000,000 for quite a number of years to come. I have come to the end of that phase of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I would be glad if you would call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: I want to make a slight
allusion to the remarks of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White), and I do so in a most friendly spirit, realizing as I do that his whole life and environment have been such as to have removed him utterly from the people whose conditions we are considering to-day. So completely out of touch with them has he been that it must be almost impossible for him to visualize the true situation. The hon. member told us that the act would discourage thrift among the people Well, that idea was prevalent at the time when women wore crinolines, and I think it went out about the same time as the crinolines did. Moreover, it has been proved by the experience of every pension system in the world that such a scheme does not discourage thrift; rather is the contrary the case. We know also that the proposed act provides for a small income which will be allowed, so to speak, outside of the pension, so that there, too, is encouragement for thrift in a small way.
Old Age Pensions

I do not know of any idea that is more difficult to combat than this. The man who has made some measure of success of his own life is very apt to take the attitude that if someone else has not been equally successful, it is due to his own negligence or laziness or to some mental disability. It is hard for a matter of this kind to be discussed quite fairly in a gathering of this kind, composed of gentlemen who for the most part are very much removed from the circumstances of the class of people whom we are considering. Some of us may perhaps have inherited money which by judicious business manipulation we have managed to increase, while others of us have been more or less the architects of our own fortune. At any rate the majority of members of parliament have some means apart from their sessional allowance and are in a greater or smaller degree what is called successful; and they think therefore that they are in no danger of ever falling a prey to the misfortunes of old age and poverty. It was Bunyan, I think, who once said when he saw a man being led to the gallows, "But for the grace of God, there goes John Bunyan." If the most fortunate man amongst us were stripped of the advantages which opportunity and luck and chance, or possibly Providence, has given him there would be little for him to boast about in comparison with others. I never see a down-and-outer on the street bumming the price of a drink without thinking that under less happy circumstances I, too, might have been in his situation.
It is far from being the case that poverty necessarily indicates negligence or laziness or incompetence of anjr kind. Sickness is a misfortune that is apt to befall anyone, and the wage-earner and his family are not immune. I was going to say that ignorance was a disease; at any rate it is a disability for which you cannot blame a man if he has not had training. How often have we seen men who have scraped and saved and denied themselves all their lives in order to have a little income in their old age, and who have lost it in a few hours by being gold-bricked by some smart rascal. It may be said of such a man that he should not have allowed himself to be taken in, but we must remember that he had not the necessary knowledge to protect himself. Occasionally we see widows and others entrusting their money to agents or lawyers who take advantage of them and embezzle their savings. I am not casting a cheap slur on lawyers, for I know that they are reputable people, but they are liable to fall by the wayside like others. I [Mr, N'eiU.1
have known people who were not lawyers who have embezzled money belonging to their relations or their friends. Again, we have known men who have worked hard all their lives, contented, willing, and who apparently possessed every attribute of success, and yet they have fallen down at every turn. It never seemed possible for them to get ahead, although they could not be accused of any particular fault.
Again let us take the case of the woman whose husband has been a waster, a drunkard, a profligate. He has neglected to take care of his wife and family, and they are in a destitute condition. This is one of the objections-I do not say it was the only objection, but it was one of them-that decided the committee against a contributory scheme. The contributory scheme assumes that a man must contribute something before he can get a pension. Then you must also have the other feature; that if he failed to contribute he would not get a pension. Then what are you going to do with a woman? A woman may be everything desirable, but she may marry a man who turns out to be a bad character and who may abandon her with a family to bring up, perhaps by taking in washing. Then when she gets old and unable to work she hears about this pension. She applies for it and is told "No, you cannot have a pension; you can starve or go to the poorhouse, because your husband, between the ages of twenty-five and some other age did not pay his regular contributions." It was to avoid things of that kind and an enormous duplication of such cases that a contributory scheme was decided against. It was also found to be unworkable in several countries, except in very narrow phases.
The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) told us in almost awestruck tones that each one of these pensions was going to cost the province $120. Spoken in that way it sounds a lot of money, especially when you are going to give it to someone else, but supposing conditions were reversed; suppose the hon. member or others in this House were to look at the situation from the other end of the telescope. Would the hon. member, or would any of us in our old age, either for ourselves or for our relatives, contemplate with equanimity the possibility of existing on a pension of $240 a year? It has been well said that riches take wings, and that phrase is increasingly true to-day, in the turmoil of modern commercial life. It is also an old saying that it is only three generations from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves. That does not, of course, seem possible to us, sitting here

Old Aye Pensions
at our ease and convenience and perhaps with our private incomes, but I can recall that one of the first acts I was asked to perform as a member of the local legislature in British Columbia in 1898 was to sign a round robin addressed to the premier, asking him to grant a sinecure to a poor old man who had once been a member of the House, rich and respected, and who had lost everything. He never thought he would have to take charity of that kind, and it is on record in scores of cases in the Old Country that rich men who have founded charities, or foundations as they are called, and have subsequently, lost all their money, have had to accept help from the very charities they themselves created. I suppose, taking the law of averages, possibly one member of this House, either in himself or his wife and children, will have to accept this pension we are now talking about. I hope that will not be the case, but probably it will be so.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke before six o'clock. I have not had a translation of his speech, nor am I sufficiently acquainted with his language to understand what he said, but from his attitude I sensed he was against this scheme. If I am wrong I apologize, but his style seemed cramped and he did not have that easy gaiety which distinguishes him generally when he is talking on a subject with which he feels completely in accord. I gathered from his references to Quebec and from the word "refuse" which I caught now and again that he was taking the somewhat parochial line that Quebec would refuse; that if she did not go in she would have to pay a share of the pensions for the other provinces. Quebec can always be relied on to do the fair thing, and if she did not go in perhaps her claims could be considered in regard to other appropriations which might be needed, which would not be shared by other portions of Canada. I do know that on the committee of which we have been speaking, which drew up this report which the government have largely followed, there were three representatives from the province of Quebec, and they were all unanimous in voting for a report containing these principles.
To go back to the resolution, there may be and, I am sure will be, demands from the people whom it is intended to benefit. They will not be satisfied with the amount suggested, and they will think it should begin at an earlier period. I think possibly some consideration might also be given to the claims of the soldiers, that the pension in their case should begin somewhat earlier than
in the case of a civilian. I would throw out the suggestion that where a man has spent say two years actively engaged in the trenches, he might be entitled to a pension say ten years sooner than the ordinary civilian. That may be a matter for future consideration. I would point out that the bill follows the same custom which prevails in Great Britain, with the pension beginning at the age of seventy. There is in England a provision now, mixed up with some other form of unemployment or sickness insurance, whereby the pension may begin at sixty-five, but that part is contributory; the regular non-contributory pensions begins at the age of seventy.
I was much struck with the evidence of a gentleman who appeared before that committee. He was a railway man, evidently . high in one of the railway organizations, and the attitude he took seemed so appropriate that I would like to repeat it. Speaking on behalf of the railway men he said:	"We
railwaymen do not want your old age pension bill; it is nothing to us. We have organizations of our own that will afford us a pension greater than any you propose to give. Inasmuch as we pay taxes we would be contributing for the benefit of another class of people and rve would derive no benefits ourselves, but as working men we will be pleased to do so." We asked him, as we asked all witnesses, at what age he thought the pension should begin, and what he thought should be the minimum amount. He said, "Gentlemen, I would not pretend to give you advice on either of those points, because the essential feature is to get the principle started. To get that started it may be necessary for you to begin at a scale lower than it should be and at an age later that it should be, and speaking on behalf of the working men we will be satisfied to get the principle established. There will be no danger of its being reduced, and once you have the thing started and find the cost, you will be in a better position to see whether or not you can increase it as the years go by." I was greatly impressed with his remarks, and I think they had a good deal to do with the decision of the committee.
Now I would like to refer for a few minutes to a matter brought up by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). If he had not introduced it I suppose it would not be in order, but since he brought it up I would like to say a few words on the subject for the first and, so far as I an concerned, the last time. He alluded in that veiled way which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled is the only way it may be spoken of
Old Age Pensions

now, to the remarks which were so current in the early part of the session, that the present government have secured the support of the minor groups in the House by bribing them with legislation. In some cases, in the enthusiasm of a political meeting, they forgot the last two words. Speaking for myself, I came down here with a specific platform, which I will not now go into. So, I suppose, did the other groups. I want to say first that the men and women who voted for me did so wiith the distinct knowledge -it could not have been otherwise-that I could not possibly form a government to carry out my platform, and that I would have to turn to some party or section or group here to have our platform put forward. My constituents gave me more or less a free hand in that regard. I ascertained what measure of support I	could get	from	oneside of the House and	also from	the	other,and I found that I could get a greater part of my platform put through by supporting the present government. If supporting the present coalition government-for that is what it is-in order to get the platform I was elected on, passed,	is bribery,	then	I	amnot at all ashamed of	the word,	and	I	amnot afraid to face my constituents at what I hope will [DOT] be an early election-the sooner the better-and explain the situation to them there. I would like to ask just two questions:	Suppose the conditions had been reversed, suppose I, or suppose we-it makes no difference-had been supporting a Conservative government, what about the suggestion of bribery in that case? In the woods, only expert bushmen are allowed to use double-bitted axes, because they out both ways and have very sharp edges. During the recent adjournment some of the Conservative members for British Columbia went home and spread themselves emphatically along that line, telling how the" other members from British Columbia, not Conservatives, were being bribed in this House by legislation. I want to give just one illustration, and it is good to take your answer to an argument from the source whence it arises. In the years 1903 to 1906 there was a Conservative government in powerj in British Columbia, and they were supported and kept in power during the whole of that time solely by the votes of three Socialists. I have the Journals here, but I shall not detain the House by quoting from them as members can look them up for themselves, but I have the pages marked, and I find there were over a dozen cases, or almost a dozen, in one year, where if the Socialists had not voted with the government the

government would have been defeated. In some cases the vote resulted in a tie; I think in two cases the government would not have been defeated, but in almost every other case, if the three Socialists had not voted with the government, the government would have been defeated. That went on, not for one year only, but for three or four years. What is the difference? Is there a bond that exists in British Columbia that enables Socialists and Conservatives to cooperate, and that makes it wrong for Progressives and Liberals to co-operate here? Does the thing not work both ways? Apparently not. It is all right when it is a Conservative-Socialist alliance, but all wrong when it is a Progressive-Labour-Independent-Liberal coalition.
Take this particular item we are discussing, old age pensions. That is in the platform of the Liberal party, and has been for many years. I am not so sure about the Conservative party, but if they say it is in their platform, I wall accept their statement. I know it was in the platform of the Progressives, in the platform of Labour, and in the platform of the Independents. I do not believe there is another subject on which we could legislate in which the object sought to be obtained is to be found in the platform of every one of the parties in this House, and when this coalition government proposes to pass this measure, to which we are all pledged, and in which we all have a joint interest, carrying out the pledges we made to our constituents; when it is a plank in the platform of all four parties in this coalition, they talk of bribery! Where does the bribery come in?
I am at a loss, Mr. Speaker, to understand why this matter should be given a partisan aspect. I have an editorial here taken from a Conservative paper in British Columbia; I shall not give it advertising by stating its name, but this is what they say:
We do not know how the new act will be viewed here-
That is in British Columbia, where there is a Liberal government in power:
-but in provinces which have Conservative governments there may be difficulty experienced in passing legislation which in reality will strengthen the alliance which exists between the Liberals at Ottawa and the Labour members of parliament.
In other words, they take it as a matter of course that in those provinces where Conservative governments are in power this otherwise desirable legislation will not be passed because it may lead to closer affiliation between the Liberals and the Labour party. If that is not partisanship run riot, I do not know what is.

Old Age Pensions
Let me recall, too, that this legislation has been twice endorsed by the parliament of Canada, not in successive years, but in the year 1912, I think it was, and again in 1922. Was it endorsed by a partisan vote? Not at ali. It was approved by the unanimous vote of the parliament of Canada assembled. Man}' Conservatives are pledged to it, pledged to their constituents at least. Then why not let us all join in this matter; why not for once take it out of this slough of partisanship through which everything apparently has to be dragged, and all join to make it the best kind of a bill that can be obtained, and then share the credit when we go to the people?
I would quote a few sentences, and then I am done, from the London Times. This is no Canadian Conservatism, which appears unable to dissociate itself from the tariff. The London Times is well known for the stand it has taken for generations. It is Conservative, but very LiberafjConservative, and it has always taken a stand irrespective of its party affiliations. Here is what they say about this subject when it was introduced in parliament: A really helpful measure of security against the economic sufferings and anxieties of life. The Prime Minister, the government, and parliament as a whole may justly be proud of the result of their exertions.
Further on:
The measure, then, as it stand3, is the product of the united wisdom of parliament.
Would to God we could say the same thing! It represents the determination of the whole country to carry out what it has come to look upon as a sacred duty towards a large number of the more defenceless of its citizens.
And it ends with these words:
In these times of stress the burden of the contributions, both on industry and on the state, must needs be heavy; but for the good that it will do and the contentment which it will foster by the relief of suffering, it will be abundantly justified, and, it may be hoped, in the great majority of cases will be cheerfully borne.
That is the spirit in which I would invite and plead with our friends opposite, many of whom I know at heart are thoroughly in sympathy with this legislation, to unite with the other parties in this House and put this measure through. If we will co-operate in that spirit, we shall have done a great thing for Canada, and shall have raised a monument to ourselves that will last for a long time, and one that our children and those who come after us will be proud to remember.


Mr. D. M. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford) :: The hon. gentleman who has just
sat down (Mr. Neill) seemed to be in a very bad humour. Perhaps it was because the
other half of the Independent party has broken away from him. I do not know, but it is enough to upset any party to have its leader and the other half of it go against it on a measure of this kind. If I wanted someone to bring forward a case for me, I would take anyone but the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. What reason he had to accuse the Conservative party of being against this measure I do not know. I am not against it.; in fact, I am in favour of it, and have been ever since the jdea was first suggested.
I do not know what right the hon. member had to get up and suggest that his half of his party had a monopoly of all the good ideas in the country.
As to this old age pension, it does not seem to me there can be two ideas about it. It is intended absolutely for a class of people who need support and who, I think, are entitled to it-people who for various reasons have not been able to lay by enough in earlier life to carry them through their old age. I do not suppose there is any class of men that has a better opportunity than my own profession, that of medicine, of seeing the homes in this country and of realizing that there are many people to whom a measure of this kind will be of great assistance. In moving around and meeting all classes of people in very intimate circumstances, we see many who are almost in absolute want, people who are making the bravest struggle they can and putting up a front but to whom a little assistance of this kind will be a great help. There is this about it, and we may as well realize it, that the people who have money are entitled to help out in such a case as this.
There are a great many reasons why people are not able to look after themselves when they get to the age of seventy years. We must understand that the men who are now [DOT] eligible for this pension at seventy years of age were raising their families forty or fifty years ago, when the wages paid were very low and when it was exceedingly difficult for a man to bring up a family and lay by any money. Even to-day we know it is a very difficult matter to lay by the sum of $4,500, which would be the principal required to bring in an income equivalent to the pension, and at the same time to bring up a family and keep a roof over your head. It is easy to say that if these people had been provident and pushing they would have been able to get good jobs. Everybody cannot get good jobs. No matter how much effort they put forth there is always a certain number of people that cannot get good jobs as
Old Age Pensions

foremen or positions of that kind, and we have got to look out for them.
There is another thing that tells against these elderly people at the present time. Manufacturers and other employers of labour do not want elderly men. When men reach the age of fifty-five or sixty their sight and hearing is defective; they are subject to a little shaking of the hands, and it is not considered safe to have them working around machinery-in fact the Workmen's Compensation Act rather discourages employers from engaging them. Consequently the earning days of these people are over when they reach the age mentioned. When that time comes, if they have been able to lay a little money by, they are forced to live on their capital. I do not think it is wise to impose too heavy a burden on the young people of a family. I have often seen cases where young people were held back a great deal by having to shoulder too heavy a burden in the way of looking after the older people. I do not argue that young folks should be relieved from support of their parents or dependents. I do not think that at all; indeed in the province of Ontario there is a law which compels children to support or partly support their parents if they are at all in a position to do so, and I do not think any legislation of the character contemplated here should relieve them of that responsibility. But I do say this: If the young people were relieved in a good many cases just when they are struggling to make a start for themselves it would be a very helpful thing indeed.
This idea of helping old people through the medium of a pension is just a sign of advancing civilization. In the old days when aged people could not keep up with the procession they simply dropped out and died. Then the municipalities and communities began to take them into homes where they spent their declining days. That was a step forward. Then came our houses of refuge. We have one in our own county, and from my personal knowledge I can say that it is a well conducted institution. A spirit of kindness and sympathy prevails there that does not grate on the old people who have to enter the institution. Probably in our own house of refuge we have twenty people over seventy years of age who will automatically qualify for this pension. I notice one provision in the resolution which declares that the pension cannot be transferred to any institution or organization of that kind. Now, in cases like that, where the old people are already inmates and have no relatives of any kind that will take care of them, some provision should be made whereby the pension or part fMr. D. M. Sutherland.]
of it might be allotted to the institution in which they are housed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like the hon. gentleman to quote the section which declares that a pension cannot be transferred to an institution.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The section I have in mind is that which reads:
That no pension shall be subject to alienation or transfer by the pensioner, or to seizure in satisfaction of any claim against him.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think that would
prevent the pension from being paid over to an institution of the character my hon. friend has mentioned.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It
would be perfectly all right if that were understood.
Now, it has been stated that some of the provinces are opposed to such a law. Personally I do not think we shall be doing our duty if we fail to pass this legislation. Then the issue will be up to the provinces, and if they do not come to its support we shall not be open to criticism. Speaking personally I think I shall be simply doing my duty in supporting this legislation.


William Daum Euler: I
am not sure that I can add anything of value to the discussion, but I desire to take advantage of the opportunity to state my sympathy with the principle of the resolution. I have always felt that when men and women who have spent a lifetime of labour, perhaps rearing families and aiding in the production of the country, thus adding to the national prosperity, reach old age, and perhaps by reason of misfortune or otherwise come to a condition of want, the nation as a whole owes them something, not merely as a matter of charity but as a matter of right. If there is one factor that makes for the worries which beset us all it is the fear of the future. I believe Sir, that is a very real thing. The thought, I believe, that exists in the mind of every human being, even though that person may be in a position of affluence and prosperity, is that possibly he may not be able , to provide for himself when he reaches old age. If a provision such as this can help to relieve that situation, can help to dispel that thought in the minds of people, it will do a great deal more good than is accomplished merely by the monetary payments that are made; it will relieve during the whole course of a lifetime some of the fear to which I have just, referred.
Now, Sir, if the principle is right that the nation owes something to those who are no longer able to help themselves in their old

Old Age Pensions
age, it becomes then merely a question as to how this relief shall be given. We have at the present time in most of our large municipalities, in the towns and cities, institutions known as poorhouses, houses of refuge or homes for old people, to take care of aged and indigent persons. We have such an institution in the city from which I come; in fact, I think it was one of the first established in the province. That institution has been improved from time to time until I believe it is to-day one of the best and most efficient of the kind. But in spite of such provision as this there still exists in the mind of almost everybody, and especially in the minds of those who feel that they may have to go there, a horror and a dread of being obliged to take refuge in an institution of that kind. That apprehension we should relieve, it seems to me, if it is possible to do so. We should allow the aged people to remain in their own homes where they may live self-respecting lives until such time as they come to the end of the road.
We have then the question whether the relief should come from provincial or from federal authorities. We have had some discussion this afternoon on that point. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) seemed to believe the matter is entirely one for the provinces. In view of the fact that there is some disagreement it seems to me it is not an unreasonable compromise to place the burden equally upon both the federal and the provincial governments. It is quite natural that the provinces should not be particularly anxious to assume this burden if they feel that the Dominion government is going to assume all the cost. In any case there is the proviso that the provinces are not obliged to enter into the scheme if they do not see fit to do so.
Other objections have been raised to the proposal as made. Some of them have considerable force. It seems to me it is our duty to consider these objections and to weigh them and see whether or not the preponderance is in favour of the scheme or otherwise. The three chief objections have been these: first, that the old age pension scheme makes for improvidence on the part of the public; secondly, the matter of expense, and thirdly, that to those provinces which do not choose to avail themselves of this legislation there comes the burden of supporting people who do not live in the provincial jurisdiction. In so far as the first is concerned-that this legislation will foster improvidence-I would say that I do not believe the character of the Canadian people is such that they will deliberately for a lifetime so
conduct themselves, be so wasteful and so fail to apply themselves to their work and to save something against old age, as to induce them, for the sake of some $20 a month, to become parasites upon the rest of the community after they reach the age of seventy years. With regard to the expense, I will admit that up until the present time I had felt that after the burdens imposed upon us on account of the war perhaps the time was not opportune to go into expense on this account. I believe from what I have heard that the expense will be quite moderate for some years, and after all I have come to the conclusion that this is a most worthy thing. It is right that something should be done, and that answers the objection almost entirely.
I will refer to another matter which has been mentioned this afternoon; that perhaps this government or any other succeeding government might very well economize along some other lines which I will not mention now-along lines much less important than old age pensions. With regard to the argument advanced more particularly by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) I think he had particular reference to the province of Quebec when he said that those provinces which do not avail themselves of this legislation will be obliged to bear part of the burden for the other provinces. There is some force in that, but I would like to say, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned as I see it is represented in this House-and I do not say this for the purpose of flattery -that despite the fact that members from the province of Quebec were solidly Liberal in the last parliament and almost in the same position in this parliament, they have given us splendid examples of liberality and generosity. So far as the other provinces are concerned, they have never taken advantage of their own power to press their claims unduly, but have always sunk sectional advantage for the general good and I say that in justice to them. Even if there is some force in the argument of the hon. member for Mount Royal, is it not true that we never have any form of taxation which is equitably applied throughout the whole of Canada. It is practically impossible to apply taxation with entire equity; it is merely a matter of give and take in the interests of the whole Dominion. We might take some examples. We have in this House men elected from the Maritime provinces who attempt to place before parliament and to secure for their provinces some special consideration to which they think they are

Old Age Pensions

entitled. I might mention ' the matter of freight rates. We had during the recent campaign the argument of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that special freight rates ought to be given to the west and also to eastern Canada. I am not going to argue as to the propriety, the advisability or the wisdom of that, but we have that suggestion. If lower rates were given to the extreme parts of Canada we would be in a position where one part of Canada would benefit at the expense of the other part.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is hardly a fair statement of the position of the right hon. leader of the opposition. His position, as I understand it, on the question of freight rates for the Maritime provinces is not that the matter should be taken out of the jurisdiction of the railway commission, but that on certain well-defined principles there should be a public grant to give relief in some cases.


William Daum Euler: I was not making reference to the desire expressed by one member from Nova Scotia that the Intercolonial should be removed from the jurisdiction of the railway commission. I was referring entirely to the demand if I may call it a demand, that lower freight rates should be granted to the Maritime provinces as well as to the western provinces. If those demands were granted it would follow that the deficits of the national railways would be increased, and the burden of that would fall upon other portions of the Dominion. I am saying this not in criticism of the particular proposal at this time, but to show that it is utterly impossible to have taxation equitably applied throughout the whole of Canada, and that applies to the pensions now under discussion.
I have sometimes heard legislation of this kind described as socialistic. I am not a socialist, but I would say that so long as we operate under our present economic system, and perhaps it is best, in which every man fights for himself-and I was almost going to say, the devil take the hindmost-just so long as opportunities are unequal and the relative abilities of men are unequal-and they will always be- and so long as misfortune follows one man and not another, just so long will some of our people fall to the rear, and when they reach old age they will find that they must rely on assistance from their fellowmen in spite of their best efforts.
Legislation of this sort is sometimes regarded as sentimentalism, but it seems to me that in an age when the claim is made that we are now coming more and more to recognize the principles of what we may call the

brotherhood of man, and if there is -any sincerity in our professions of humanity, to say nothing about Christianity, it seems to me that a pension scheme such as this is a proof that the needs of the aged men and women are acknowledged to be a proper charge not only upon the conscience but also upon the material resources of the country.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Ad-dington):: It has been said this is a matter
that belongs or should belong exclusively to the provinces. Judged from the practice of the past I suppose that is true; and perhaps it is also true if we judge it from a strictly constitutional point of view. But whether or not that principle be applicable, I do not agree with those who say that this is a matter which belongs exclusively to the provinces and in which the Dominion of Canada has no part. There is not an hon. member in this House who does not know of a number of cases in his own part of the country where a man and a woman, perhaps in educating their children and bringing up their families to be good citizens, have made great sacrifices in the interests of Canada as a whole, and who, through no fault of their own, on account of unavoidable misfortune, find themselves at seventy years of age unable to maintain themselves. I do not agree with those who say that the Dominion of Canada as a whole owes nothing to these people; it seems to me that they have a very definite claim upon the federal treasury. I am in entire sympathy with the principle of old age pensions, although I think we will require to consider it very carefully and to make'alterations in the proposal as at present brought down.
The idea of old age pensions is not new in this country; we have had pensions fo, a great many years. We had them long before I had a seat in this House. We have had pensions for judges, pensions for soldiers-not merely those who served overseas but those also who served down in the Woods building or in other parts of Canada-yes, we have had these pensions for quite a while. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman who says that pensions discourage thrift. My observation is that the prospect of a pension has encouraged very materially the thrift of certain people in this country. They have looked forward anxiously and eagerly to the day when they will draw that pension.


Eugène Fiset: They paid for it,
but the hon. member seems to ignore that fact.


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend will wait a while, I will not ignore

Old Age Pensions
that fact, or the fact that he is a pensioner. Let us take, for instance, the matter of pensions to judges. This is not the first time that I have raised my voice in objection to these pensions. It did not do any good on former occasions, and I do not suppose it will do any good now. There are in this House too many lawyers for that; they are looking after themselves sufficiently and they are, I presume, looking forward to the time when they will also pull down pensions as judges. I would not be at all surprised if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was looking forward to pulling down a pension.
I notice from the Auditor General's report we are paying $15,333.12 in pensions to three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Hon. members will note that they do not let u,p on the cents; they pull down even the 12 cents. There are twelve Ontario judges drawing $41,666.80 a year, and fourteen Quebec judges drawing $77,003.26 a year. Among them one judge who draws down a pension of $8,000 a year. Three get $7,999.92 each; two get $6,999.96 each; three get $6,000 each; two get $7,000 each and two others get $4,666.66 each. So it goes on. In Nova Scotia four judges draw $13,600; in New Brunswick four judges draw $13,166; in Manitoba four draw $13,663; in British Columbia two draw $3,833, and in the Yukon one draws $4,999. In this way there is an amount of $184,397.71 being paid out in pensions to these poor, unfortunate, indigent judges of this country. Of course the Supreme court judges and other judges in Cana la work at such a small salary that they could never lay by anything for their old age, so they are provided for in this way.
When I refer to these pensioned judges I recall an hon. gentleman who graced the floor of this parliament for some years, who was a cabinet minister, who drew his sessional indemnity as a member of parliament, his remuneration as a cabinet minister and at the same time his pension of $4,666.66 a year. The reason why this judge was retired from the bench was because the work was too strenuous for him. He wanted a life of ease, and so he came into parliament. In order to be sure that the work would be extremely easy for him he took a cabinet position where he would have nothing at all to do. I recall another hon. gentleman who had a seat in this House for a number of years and who sat on the other side. I want to refer to the two so as to balance things up properly. This gentleman held the position of leader of the opposition; he almost became Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, but not quite. He was voted down on a memorable
occasion when the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) received the highest vote and was selected. This hon. gentleman had retired from the bench; the work got too strenuous for him; he could not stand the strain and he retired under a pension. He came into this House and he drew his sessional indemnity, his salary as leader of the opposition and his pension as a retired judge. He carried on here for a while, but this life got tame for him and he went back again to the strenuous life on the bench. I do not know whether or not he is now drawing his first pension, but I am sure that the fact of a pension being ahead of him will not discourage his thrift by any means. He will look forward to that eagerly. Some say: If you want a pension scheme, it will involve a large amount of money. They capitalize that amount of money and it amounts to so many million dollars capitalized. If you capitalize at four per cent the pensions now being paid to judges who worked for a bare living when they were on the bench and never could lay anything by for their old age, it will amount to pretty nearly $5,000,000.
We have in this country another class of people who are drawing down pensions, and this is the cl as? that the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) wanted me to go into details about. We have a number of military men, some of whom risked their lives overseas and some of whom risked their health in offices in Ottawa. Of course those who came back from overseas, who lived through that strenuous life, are drawing a pension, and rightly so. But those who lived through the stress and strain of office work at Ottawa, and were almost martyrs to the war by the great work that they were doing here and the long hours they were putting in, made application for and obtained pensions. I think the hon. member for Rimouski is one who is in that glorified class.


Mr. CANNON:: I have no doubt the
hon. member wishes to be fair. Does he remember the services rendered by the hon. member for Rimouski in the South African war?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I
remember that very well. I would not detract a particle from any of the military glory of the hon. member for Rimouski or the Solicitor General either, for that matter.


Lucien Cannon: I am not in this at all.


John Wesley Edwards: I would not specially refer to this if the hon. member for Rimouski had not interrupted me a while ago
Old Age Pensions

and called for it, but I do not suppose the pension of that hon. gentleman had anything to do with the South African war.


Lucien Cannon: That is where the hon.
gentleman is wrong.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not
finding fault with these military gentlemen for drawing pensions, any more than I am finding fault with judges for doing so. The fault does not lie with them; they could not get the pensions if there was not
9 p.m. a law on the statute books giving them pensions. But when we are considering whether or not we shall hand out $240 a year-not even a bare living-to a man who has lived in and served this country just as well as the judges and military men have, in view of these figures with regard to the pensions that these men are drawing, I say that so long as we have on the statute books of this country laws that enable judges to be retired at six, seven and eight thousand dollars a year and military men to retire, while they are in splendid health and good physical condition, on pensions of several thousand dollars a year, I will support on every occasion a pension to give something to old men of seventy years of age. I do not want to use any harsh terms in regard to these pensioners, but I believe I would be justified in referring, not by any means to all these pensions, not by any means to a majority of them, but to some of them, as nothing more nor less than glorified graft. That is the way it appears to me at all events. 1 think we should consider this whole matter carefully, going over the acts that provide pensions to men who, in my judgment, are not entitled to them, and wipe those acts off the statute book. Let us get down to sanity in this matter and if necessary give these men a decent, reasonable salary; but let us remove these provisions from the law.
I would be the last to raise any objection to giving them an edequate salary. These gentlemen seem anxious enough to take judgeships when they are offered, and in my opinion we should give them a remuneration sufficient to enable them to provide for their old age. But if out of their salaries they cannot make that provision for themselves, then I do not think that they should be given pensions. It is ridiculous that certain men who have occupied positions in which they have received large salaries should be given pensions that enable them to live in luxury while others who have served the country equally well, even though in humbler capacity, receive nothing at all and are obliged occasionally to go to the poorhouse.

The present proposal is to grant a pension of $240 to men seventy years of age and up. Out of that the pensioner must provide a roof over his head besides clothing, food and fuel, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he will be ill occasionally and incur expenses for doctor's services and so forth. All that he must provide out of $240 a year. Well, we may get a good deal of patting on the back from people for giving the indigent a pension of $240, but I do not think there is a member in this House who does not realize that this sum is altogether inadequate. I am in a position to obtain information from my own constituency to prove what I say. Last Saturday I had a conversation with the county clerk of the county of Frontenac in regard to this very matter, and I got from him certain information bearing on the cost of running the House of Providence and the House of Refuge, both in the city of Kingston. These two institutions provide food and shelter for the indigent of the county. I have in my hand the figures given me by the county clerk in regard to ten men and five women inmates. I find that the cost for clothes, tobacco and little necessaries for the men ranged from as low as $12.40 to as high as $24.39 over a period of three months. The county pays a straight fee of $4.80 per person per week, and taking into consideration maintenance, cost of clothing and so on, the average for the ten men was $26.65 per month. That, I think, is the lowest possible cost of maintaining these people. That would be a matter of $320 a year, or $80 more than the pension which it is proposed to give under this scheme.	.
I presume that the figures I have given for the county of Frontenac would be about the same as the cost in other parts of Ontario and probably very much the same as in every other section of the Dominion. Now, bearing in mind that the poor who are kept in these institutions are given, besides the shelter that is afforded them, the necessary medical attendance and all that, I am convinced that, in view of the fact that the lowest possible cost of maintaining the individual in such a place amounts to $320 per annum, anyone who receives only $240, out of which he must provide his own shelter, fuel, food, clothing and everything else, will find it exceedingly difficult to keep himself on that sum. The $240 will not nearly keep body and soul together.
There is a good deal to be said in favour of the institutions. When these people are taken ill, if they are living in the country some distance away, who is going to look after them? [DOT] If, however, they are in an institution they are cared for at a time when it is

Old Age Pensions
imperative that they be looked after. There is this danger about giving these pensions, that where the pensioner is living by himself and maintaining or trying to maintain himself on $240 a year, people who otherwise would take an iterest in him will say: "Well, we are under no obligation. He is receiving a government pension, and he is supposed to be able to live on that." Now, we have a duty to these old people. There is no question about that, and we should not shirk the responsibility. I am entirely in agreement with the proposal that this obligation should be shared by the provinces, but I fancy the government will be well advised to be in no great hurry with this bill. I am not sure that it would not pay to wait perhaps another year, if by so doing we could obtain a definite expression of opinion and perhaps get all the provinces to come under the scheme. Others may differ from me in that regard. Certainly it is perfectly logical that the province that does not come in will be obliged to contribute towards expenses from which it will receive no money. True, as has been already stated, we should multiply instances in other matters where this discrepancy has occurred throughout the country.
A word in conclusion. I am in sympathy with old age pensions, and I believe that a duty does rest on the Dominion in that regard. I believe, further, that this duty has been accentuated, so far as we are concerned, by the recent war. Perhaps I might cite a case by -way of illustration. Two or three weeks ago an old man, though a man not so very old in point of years-he is about sixty-seven or sixty-eight-wrote asking me to appeal to the pension board to see whether I could not get him a pension. The reason he advanced was that his only son went over to the war, and he was alone in the world, his wife being dead. When the son went to the war this man, who was a carpenter and in good health, was looking after himself and was perfectly confident of his ability to do so. Had the son said to his father, "Now, father, I will send you some of my pay," I have no doubt the father would have said, "No, I do not want your pay; I can make my own money"-and so he could, at that time. But he is not in a position to make any money to-day. His only son lies buried in France. I appealed on his behalf- I arn not blaming the Board of Pension Commissioners; they have their regulations-and was told that if this man's son had sent any of his pay to his father they would have taken that as evidence that the father depended upon the son for support, but inasmuch
as the son did not send any of his pay, the father has no claim upon the government of Canada for any assistance. That is the situation; I can get nothing for him, and he is not in a position to get anything for himself. That man lives in the province of Ontario. Am 1 to be told that the obligation rests entirely on Ontario to provide for that man in his old age? Was it only for Ontario that his son was fighting? No, Mr. Speaker; his son went overseas and fought for the Dominion of Canada. If that son had been spared he would be taking care of his father to-day. I have no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Dominion of Canada is under obligation to that man, to a certain extent at least. He is very close to seventy years of age, and the government should provide some assistance for his declining years. There are many cases like this, I have no doubt, all over the country; the situation has been aggravated by the war. That being the case, there is a duty, an obligation, a responsibility resting upon this Dominion seriously to consider this matter and to see what we can do in the way of making the declining years of the old people reasonably comfortable.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I do not wish to detain the House very long on this subject, but now that the principle olf old age pensions has been generally accepted there seems to be no reason why this legislation should not be unanimously accepted by the House. Other parts of the empire, Great Britain and Australia, have accepted the principle of old age pensions, and Canada is in duty bound to follow the example so shown. Old age pensions are to-day accepted by almost all civilized nations; the only objection we have heard against the scheme, so far, has been the refusal of some of the provinces to co-operate with the government in putting such a measure into execution. So far as my own constituency is concerned-a constituency composed very largely of wage earners and old pioneers -the sentiment generally is in favour of this legislation.
If amongst our population there is one class deserving of consideration, it is that class of old pioneers who spent the best parts of their lives in developing the fringes of our civilization. We have such cases in my constituency. Wo have old settlers who, after labouring for many years, have had years of bad crops, have met with misfortune and have had their farms taken from them by foreclosure, or have been forced to sell at prices which did not assure them of a livelihood for their remaining years.
Old Age Pensions

We have also a class of people in the north country who have contributed a great deal to the development of the country, and those are the people engaged in the lumbering industry. The lumberman of the north has often been accused of not being thrifty, but even in our days of prosperity, when 'he standard of living was improving throughout the country and the scale of wages of all organized labour was rising, the man employed in the lumber industry had to be satisfied with the very lowest wage. In our House of Refuge in the city of North Bay one of the best managed and most progressive houses of refuge in-the north country, we find that of its inmates a large majority spent a good many years in the lumber camps. These conditions exist, and it is the duty of the Dominion as well as that of the provinces to see that those citizens of Canada are not left to shift for themselves, but are given a certain measure of assistance.
That also applies to a very large class of unskilled labour. It is said to-day that the standard of living amongst wage earners is steadily increasing. While that is true; while the standard of living is increasing among those engaged in certain occupations, or members of labour organizations, the unskilled labourer has found it very much harder to keep up with that rising standard of living. It is among that class that you will find the man of seventy who is unable to provide for his last years. Our industrial system of to-day is called a capitalistic system, and it will be said to have failed if the great army of wage earners who have contributed their share towards the development and progress of our country are not fully taken care of, as well as those in the higher spheres of life. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this resolution.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: I desire to offer a few observations only, Mr. Speaker, with reference to this matter. First of all, I think there has been some misapprehension on the part of some speakers as to what the real situation is. In the first place, it is quite clear, although it has never been exactly determined, that the provinces have perhaps sole jurisdiction with respect to the granting of old age pensions, and secondly, that this parliament has power by the grant of money to supplement the action of the provinces in that regard. The various committees of this House that have dealt with this matter apparently were entirely moved by those considerations, and in 1925, on the 16th day of June last year, the committee that had made the recommendations for pen-

sions legislation saw fit to make another recommendation to this House, and that recommendation is one which I submit the government should give effect to. It is the recommendation of the committee of which the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) was a member. It is a recommendation which in my judgment recognizes the real difficulty of this situation. It is a recommendation which, if departed from, .will bring about the condition of affairs to which the hon. gentleman from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) referred this afternoon.
May I refer to the Journals for the 16th of June, 1925? I observe that-
Mr. Raymond, from pthe special committee, appointed on the 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 proposals 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, ha* the honour to report as follows.
After reviewing the correspondence and the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice the report proceeds:
The enactment of such legislation would, however, involve the assumption by the Dominion of obligations involving heavy expenditures with regard to a matter which does not fall specifically within the Dominion field of legislation.
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 twenty-three million (123,000,000) dollars annually, according to the data obtained in your committee's investigations.
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, and
Fourthly, 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 to 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 an old age pension system shall be given the fullest consideration with a view to securing co-operative 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.
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 o-f the several provinces.
Now may I direct the attention of this House to the fact that that report, accepted and adopted by parliament in June last, is

Old Age Pensions
a report of the committee of which the hon. member for Comox-Albemi was a member, and that report clearly indicates, as clearly as words can, that this parliament should not proceed with this measure unless and until the provinces had agreed upon a co-operative system with respect to pensions throughout Canada. It is quite clear that as the election came shortly after, there was no likelihood of a conference being called between that time and the end of the year. There has been no opportunity for calling a conference since, and I do submit therefore that on the records of this parliament, upon the report of the committee, of which two hon. gentlemen at least of this House were then members, it is clearly apparent that it was not intended, contemplated, nor even thought by the committee that we should have an old age pension scheme put in force in Canada unless, as the committee points out, the Dominion government were prepared to bear the whole responsibility and pay the $23,000,000 annually in its entirety. The reasons for it were so admirably dealt with this afternoon by other speakers that I shall not refer to them, but as the hon. member for Labelle pointed out, if all the provinces did not agree, if one of the provinces did and another did not, and the citizens of the province that did not agree went into the province that did agree, then the new provincial home would be called upon to become responsible for the payment of part of the pension of those newcomers.
Now it is clear that parliament in 1925, and the committee that gave to this matter such unremitting care, as mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, were clearly, and the members severally were of the opinion that there should be no old age pension legislation by this parliament unless the various provinces had agreed and had arrived at a conclusion with respect to it, and as the correspondence indicated that they were not agreed, and as the minister stated this afternoon there has been no further correspondence, therefore it follows that this parliament should not proceed with this matter at this time, and, Mr. Speaker, I do venture to plead with my friends opposite not to urge the government to proceed with it at this time. Faulty legislation placed upon the statute books the effect of which is to bring . about chaos is very much to be deprecated. Anyone who has followed the course of legislation in any country, especially legislation of this character, will realize that where you rely solely and entirely upon experiments you have nothing but political action following political action, and what was intended to be a great benefit has in many instances been a positive disadvantage to the very class it was intended to benefit.
Let me for a moment point out that since this committee made its investigation, two changes of the utmost importance have taken place in the world. I refer first of all to the ' change that has taken place in England, and I venture to ask my friends who are interested in this matter to turn to volume 184 of the English Hansard, page 74, and read the speech of the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain in moving the adoption of the new system in England, the system that now obtains and prevails there. That speech was opened on the 18th of May, 1925, and many months passed by before the legislation in question was finally adopted. I commend the speech to gentlemen who desire to observe the reasons that brought about the change in England, and which resulted in the old non-contributory system being superseded by a contributory system.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the hon. gentleman correct in his facts, that the other system has been superseded?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word superseded I think is the correct word, because Mr. Chamberlain has pointed out that the old system which provided for pensions at the age of seventy, and which was a non-contributory system, was to be merged under certain conditions in the new scheme, which provides for pensions at sixty-five, and which is contributory in its character.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I happen to have a copy of the act in my hand, and I do not think the hon. gentleman's statement is entirely correct. What has happened there is that the old system remains as it was, but it has been added to by a contributory system, as the hon. gentleman has just stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry the hon. gentleman has not, in my judgment, correctly observed all the facts, because I shall read in a moment from the address made by Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham and broadcast throughout the kingdom, explaining the operation of the new system and its effect upon the old. It only takes a single page, and I shall read it because it is of importance to this House to observe how in Great Britain they have seen the faults of the non-contributory system; and in Australia, in 1925, at the very time this House was considering the report of the special committee, a recommendation was made that their non-contributory system should be changed to con-
Old Age Pensions

tributary system; and in Belgium, where they had a non-contributory system, the same recommendation has been made and put into effect. The reasons for it are admirably explained by the late Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain in a speech which he made at Birmingham in 1906, and which was quoted by [DOT] his son in moving the second reading of the old age pension bill in England last year. The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said:
All I have done in reference to this matter is to express my own sense of the necessity of enabling the industrious working people to make a betteT provision for old age-
Observe the words:
-to enable "working people" to make a better provision for old age, and to put before the working people of this country one or two circumstances, two plans in particular, which I have said and which I maintain are perfectly simple and clearly to be understood, which are within the reach of the working class of this country. . . That is my part in the matter, and I still think that this better provision ought to be, and should be made by the House of Commons. But it is not, and never will be so far as I am concerned, a proposal for anything in the nature of a universal old age pension, which, I believe, is impracticable from the point of view of its expense and which I believe, is immoral and undesirable from the point of view of its influence upon thrift and industry.
That in 1906 expressed the considered opinion of, the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, and his son, in moving the second reading of the most recent legislation of that character in England, gave expression to his father's sentiments by quoting the language I have just read, and upon that predicated a measure of reform that is now part of the legislation of England.
I do contend, Sir, that in this new country, with our great undeveloped natural resources, with our necessarily very large number of young people, it is of the utmost importance that we should have some contributory system of pensions rather than a non-contributory system. I say that for two reasons: First, because there is nothing more serious in a new country than that men should grow up with the idea or thought that they are to rely upon what is now called in England the dole; and secondly; that habits of thrift and economy should be encouraged and developed among the people if we are to take our place among the great nations of the world. I am convinced of that. The late Sir Richard Cartwright, who occupied so commanding a place in . parliament, gave to this matter, as you will remember, a very great deal of time and attention. When he found himself in a position where the government of which he was a member could command the support of parliament, he introduced and caused to be passed through parliament the system with 
respect to annuities that we have upon our statute books. He did it to encourage habits of thrift. He did it that the young might, by saving small sums in their younger days, be able to have a fair and decent annuity in their old age.
Now, I will take the trouble to quote a few figures, and I trust I shall not weary the House by doing so. Let me put this case to the House: Assume that a young man of twenty desires to provide for his old age. If he goes into the government annuity office in this city, which is maintained at the public expense but which is not used so much as it should be, and desires to purchase from the government of this country an annuity, and if he will for each month during the year 1926 pay the small sum of 84 cents-a little lesi, I think-he will when he becomes seventy years of age have an annuity of a dollar a month.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eighty-four cents per what?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon
member say that any of those that have the contributing schemes are federal countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are all federal in
that they have one government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are they federal
in the sense that Canada is federal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think any of
them are federal in the sense that the United States or Canada is federal, except Germany.
Now to proceed. In the United States of America the matter has engaged the attention of many of the states. I think the state of Arizona enacted the first old age pension law. I commend hon. members to a consideration of a report that has probably engaged the minds of more thoughful men for a longer period of time than any report yet made on this continent. I refer to the report on old age pensions by the commission on pensions appointed by the legislature of the state of Massachusetts and printed in November, 1925.

Old Age Pensions

That is the fullest exposition of the history of old age pensions that I think can easily be found, and in the appendix commencing at page 2S1 there is a full review of pensions in all the various countries. I was amazed to find that Germany, where they have a federal system of government-in point of fact it is fourth among the federal systems of the world-expended in the last year of which I have a report, over $103,000,000 in pensions, and that Great Britain expended only a million more, making $104,000,000. In Australia, with the non-contributory system, they find the pressure of politicians upon the government so strong that a royal commission investigating the matter has recommended a contributory system. Why? For reasons that I am sure must commend themselve to the government and to hon. members in this House. Every time a general election came round the constituent got busy for an increase of the monthly allowance. No contributions being made, it was an incentive to idleness, and in many respects did much to bring about conditions which the people of Australia very greatly deprecated; so much so that in the end they recommended that the contributory system be relied upon in order that the men who demand more money shall make larger contributions.
There are many other facts to which I should like to allude, and which I possibly may refer to if the measure goes to a second reading, but I rose to-night to plead with the administration and more with the members of this House who are forcing the legislation upon the administration-I do not use the words in any offensive sense-the desirability of not now passing this resolution. I implore them to give to this matter further time and consideration.. I ask |them not to hurry forward the legislation, and I promise them that so long as I am in the House-and I think I know the sentiments of some of my hon. friends on this side of the House-we will give every assistance we can in the way of suggestions or useful constructive criticism.
I want to see in this country a system providing for old age deferred annuities, for old age pension. But in this new young country, with its resources untouched and undeveloped, where we are endeavouring to develop a hardy spirit of enterprise on the part of our citizens, where we want them to look upon the government as an instrument for their well-being and not something on which they are to depend for sustenance, I do plead with the government to give the opportunity which the committee of last year promised would be given, namely, the calling together

of representatives of all the provinces in order that a conclusion may be arrived at that will be fitting for so great and important a subject. This House has not been called upon to deal with any matter more important nor any subject more far-reaching in its operations and in its effect. Mr. Churchill in his great speech dealt with this subject, and Mr. Chamberlain said, "You cannot speak of this matter from the standpoint of to-day; it is what is going to happen fifty years from now." Mr. Churchill pointed out that with the prolongation of human life by the application of scientific modern methods; with the improvement in the health of the citizens, we will have a longer life and there will be an increased financial obligation upon the state. And I ask my friends who are so bent upon putting this through to pause, to consider, to weigh, and to ask whether or not we are lighty to disregard the recommendations of the committee that gave such time, such consideration and such thought to this matter.
I know that the right hon. leader of the government has given much time, thought and consideration to this question. Anyone who has read his work, Industry and Humanity, must be impressed with the fact that this is a social problem in which he is deeply interested, and I do ask him whether or not he believes that legislation hastily considered and placed upon the statute books of the country, pledging the credit of the country, against the recommendation of the committee, placing upon posterity a burden that cannot be easily shaken off is in the best interests of Canada. The great difficulty in a matter of this kind is that once you enact a law and place it on the statute book, and once you incur financial responsibility, you cannot lightly shake it off, as you can your overcoat. These are the obligations that stick and remain with us, and I do ask in the name of all those who are desirous of bringing about the best form of legislation, who know that hurried legislation very often is worse than none at all, who realize, if they will take the time to read the report made in the state of Massachusetts, the debate in the English House and the discussions that there took place, the far-reaching consequences of these proposals I ask them all to pause and consider. I wonder if hon. members would like to hear the message broadcast by Mr. Chamberlain. It is not very long.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Richard Bedford Bennett: and, in a very short time, an expenditure of $40,000,000 per annum, an expenditure entirely too large for us to entertain at the present time. I think the government, therefore, will be well advised perhaps to release the whip on its own members and let the opinion of the House as a whole determine whether or not it is desirable at this session to push into this matter or, in the light of a subsequent conference between the provincial and Dominion authorities, arrive at a conclusion which will enable us to place on our statute books legislation of a character that will redound to the credit of this country and that will maintain the confidence and self-respect of the future citizens of this Dominion by encouraging the practice of economy and thrift, while providing for the aged of to-day by suitable contributions to provincial schemes.


Mr. HANNESSON:: Do I understand that the Massachusetts report recommended the contributory system?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The Massachusetts
report, by a division of three to two, recommended a non-contributory system for reasons they gave, but they stated that it must be at once met by increased taxation such as a $2 poll tax upon its citizens and an increase of one-half of one per cent of the income tax to raise an annual sum of $6,500,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an understanding, although it has not been formally expressed, that the House will not sit quite as late to-night as it did last night, but that we will adjourn shortly after ten o'clock. For that reason I shall not attempt to speak at any length on the resolution which is before the House, but I should like to follow my hon. friend in a few words in reference to some of the points he has brought to the attention of hon. members in, I must say, an admirable manner.
_ Speaking generally on the question of social insurance, of which old age pensions is one form, I agree entirely with the point of view which my hon. friend has expressed, that a contributory system is the proper one to adopt. I think it is desirable to enlist not merely the sympathies but the active participation of individuals in schemes of social insurance that are intended for their benefit. But while I entertain that view, I think a study of the question will go to show that, with respect to old age pensions, particularly their immediate application in countries that have systems of social insurance to-day, the schemes have been intitiated not 
under a contributory system but by a method such as is being proposed at the present time. It is important that the principle on the part of the state that there is an obligation be acknowledged at the outset. I will not assert the theory that the state owes a man a living or any part of a living, but rather that social justice demands, under the system in which industry is carried on to-da.y, where the rights of private property are recognized to the full, that there should be means whereby individuals who are not possessed of and have little means of acquiring private property to any extent should not be obliged to suffer unaided the handicaps of such a system, but that the state itself should recognize some obligations towards them as a consequence of the manner in which industry is carried on. If we were legislating as my hon. friend has suggested, for young people of the age of ten or twelve; if we were providing an old age scheme for page boys about the House, for schoolboys and girls, then it would be wise to lay emphasis upon the importance of a contribution on their part towards a system intended to help to maintain them in their old age. But I take it that this House at the present time, in discussing old age pensions, is not thinking of young people of ten, twenty or thirty years of age or even of persons of forty or fifty years of age. We are thinking more particularly of that large body of men and women now in Canada who are approaching the age of seventy years. We have in mind those between the ages of sixty and seventy who are finding it difficult to get the assurance that their declining years are not going to be spent in dependence on charity. It is for such people that we are legislating at the moment. We have in view men and women in Canada between the ages of fifty and seventy who are facing actual concrete conditions as they prevail in this Dominion today. That embraces hundreds, yes thousands of men and women who are earning their livelihood in factories and workshops, in different forms of clerical employment, as well as the thousands who as pioneers have contributed so largely to the upbuilding of the Dominion but who in their effort to bring up their families have been unable to lay aside any sum of money sufficient to maintain them in their old age.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the right hon. gentleman realize, when he says that he is dealing with people between the ages of fifty and seventy, that this involves the maintenance of this principle for twenty years, and that at the expiration of that time the

Old Age Pensions
actuarial figures would place the country's responsibility at a sum upwards of $40,000,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will make
clear what I have in mind. My hon. friend has discussed in a way that is helpful the legislation that has been passed in Great Britain as recently as within the last year. But he might have emphasized at the same time the fact that England introduced her old age pension scheme in 1909. It was amended in 1911 and again in 1919, having been maintained all this while as a non-contributory scheme. But what has developed in Great Britain in the recent past? Alongside old age pensions there has grown up a system of social insurance applying to many phases of life-insurance against unemployment, insurance against invalidism, insurance against accident, insurance against disease and insurance in the way of maternity benefits, and so forth-a great mass of social insurance all of which relates to the hazards of industry incident to that large part of the population engaged in industrial pursuits of one kind or another. And recent legislation has assembled these various forms of social insurance into one great compendium, so to speak, and linked up the old age pensions sj'stem therewith.
In this country, I should like to see the annuities plan which, as my hon. friend has said, was inaugurated by Sir Richard Cartwright, developed into a comprehensive system of social insurance. But I do not believe that [DOT]this can be accomplished solely by the federal government ; it would have to receive the cooperation of the provinces. We must in some way establish that link between the provinces and the Dominion which will conduce to the working out of a great social insurance scheme along these lines. That will not be achieved in a year; as in other countries it will require time. The old age pension phase of the question is one that has an immediate bearing in respect of people of advanced years. Surely, then, we shall not be running any great risk so far as future generations are concerned if we put upon the statutes this year legislation which will hold out an inducement to the provinces to come together in conference for the purpose of discussing social legislation generally.
In the course of the debate to-day reference has been made to the old age pensions scheme as though it were something related particularly to inmates of poorhouses. I am inclined to feel that there is no class in human society to-day that has not in its numbers a very considerable percentage of persons who are living in constant dread of the moment when, in their advanced years,
they will be thrown upon their children or upon society for support. I fancy there are many members of the legal and medical professions, clergymen and their wives, besides numbers of civil servants, clerks in all branches of occupation, who as they approach the age of fifty or six-ty find that in a very few years' time every dollar which they have been able to put by gradually disappears, while simultaneously their earning capacity has been very seriously impaired. We are living under industrial conditions very different from those which the world has known heretofore. We are living in an age of keen competition, not only as between locality and locality, between state and state, between province and province, or between countries, but between continent and continent, and conditions affecting one quarter of the world are bound to react very soon in another quarter. Men and women, therefore, through no fault of their own find themselves thrown out of their occupations and unable to gain a livelihood. Consider industry for a moment. The processes of industrial life to-day hinge more and more upon a division of labour, and in an ever-increasing degree individuals are becoming specialists. The whole development of power, from water-power to steam and from steam to electricity, has been in the nature of an intensifying process which makes it impossible for men and women, once they have attained a certain age, to hold their own in the competitive arena. Consequently -they are thrown to one side by a younger generation better adapted to the tasks which they have been performing and left to seek work in other directions. We all know this, and, knowing it, I think we feel the necessity of making some *provision whereby men and women after they have done the best they can through life, should be freed, on attaining the age of seventy, from that fear of dependence upon charity which carries with it a sort of stigma at the end of a life of honourable activity.
My hon. friend said that the report which the committee brought in offered a reason to Which the government at the moment should give heed. He left, I think, the impression that the report suggested that this work was only to be gone on with when all the provinces should agree to co-operate. I do not read the report in that way. I venture to say that had the committee reported that we should wait until all the provinces agreed to co-operate in any scheme of insurance the committee would virtually have declared that in its opinion the question should not be considered for some years to come. Here is
Old Age Pensions

the clause of the report which my hon. friend read, but let me direct his attention to the wording of it:
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 an old age pension system shall be given the fullest consideration with a view to securing co-operative 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.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Future consideration and action".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the report says, "at which an old age pension system shall be given the fullest consideration, with a view to securing co-operative action-". I venture to say that it will be necessary, before this scheme is worked out in an effective manner, to have a conference of the premiers or other representatives of the different provinces, to consider how the provinces can most effectively work in under the plan that is here proposed, but the thing that will help bring about co-operative action is having something concrete to lay before them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report has it the
other way. "That the report of the said conference be laid on the table at the next session of parliament for future consideration and action".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite prepared to admit that that had reference to a conference. If a conference had been called last summer that action would have been taken, but as my hon. friend knows it was impossible to have a conference last summer, which makes the laying of a report on the table impossible at the present time. It does not, however, make impossible the preparation by this government of a carefully drafted method of assisting the provinces in an old age pension scheme, and then, when that plan is adopted, an invitation to the provinces to meet with members of the federal government to consider regulations for the carrying out of the plan. That procedure does not in any way preclude the conference; indeed, it will help bring about the conference in an effective way. It practically suggests that a step of that kind will be taken and ought to be taken.
In regard to legislation of this kind which necessarily is in part a matter of provincial legislation, I agree with my hon. friend that so far as the federal government is concerned our du'ty is largely that of assisting such of the provinces as are willing to undertake such a

scheme as is proposed. If. that is true, I think it follows that it is very desirable to have, sc far as it is possible to have it, uniformity among the different provinces in any scheme adopted. An unfortunate feature which arises from the division between the provinces on matters relating to industry is that there are so many different standards in the different provinces. One of "the greatest needs in the industrial life of Canada to-day is that the standards governing industrial relations should be more or less identical as between one province and another. That can only be brought about by some kind of action on the part of the federal government leading to co-operation between the federal government and the provinces and among the different provinces themselves. I submit that this scheme of old age pensions as here drafted will have that effect. It will be the natural thing to ask the representatives of the provincial governments to meet with the department of the federal government which may be administering the old age pensions plan, to discuss further its details, and to consider the regulations for its effective operation.
I did not really mean to take any part in the discussion this evening, but I felt that I would like to follow my hon. friend in one or two points which he developed. I hope I have shown him that they are factors which the government did not fail to take into account and did not overlook, but that so far as the purpose of the immediate legislation is concerned, it looks to providing a pension for men and women of the generation that is passing away, or will have passed away in the course of a very few years. That is primarily what we are considering at this moment, and in considering men and women of that category we will, I think, be taking the first necessary step to bring about that larger measure of contributory social insurance which is one of the great needs of our time.	/


Mr. STEVENS:: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question, or rather two questions in one?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does it not follow that
before this legislation can be made applicable the provinces will have to pass legislation? Secondly, will not such legislation to be passed by the provinces have to conform, generally speaking, to the provisions of this federal act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.

Old Age Pension$


Henry Herbert Stevens: Therefore would it not
be better to have the conference prior to the passing of this legislation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend, if he looks into his heart of hearts, will agree with me when I say that if we are in a position to put before representatives of the provinces a plan which has been drafted and carefully considered, and an act passed by this parliament, and to invite the attention of the provinces to what may be essential in the way of amendment to it or its relation to their own legislation, a measure of cooperation can be obtained that would not be possible if the provinces were simply brought together without any concrete legislation before them for consideration. I think what will happen is this: under this legislation, which I hope will be passed this session, until the provinces themselves undertake to conform to the regulations here laid down, not a dollar will be taken out of the public treasury. That will mean that the provinces will have to consider whether or not this is an act they will care to come under.


Robert Smeaton White: All the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, any province which cares to adopt legislation of that character. In that regard may I say that as between the different provinces I fail to see where there is a distinction to be drawn between the money voted by this parliament say for the purposes of immigration, which may go to place a man or woman in any one of the provinces, and money voted for preserving the individual, no matter in what part of the Dominion he may be found. Human beings are the greatest of the resources of the country. What we are here considering is human life. An individual, no matter which province he is in, is an asset to the Dominion as a whole, and it is from that point of view that the Dominion is, I think, considering this matter.


Robert Smeaton White: May I point out that in the case of an immigrant he becomes a producer, while old age pensions are given to indigents?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has presented a point of view which I hope this House will consider. He says that one man is a producer and the other an indigent. I have here a letter which I would like to read to the House. It was written by an elderly lady in Alberta in June, 1925. I will not read the whole letter, because it has some references to matters which I think need not be
placed on record at the moment, although I shall be glad to show the entire letter to my hon. friend if he so desires. The letter begins by drawing my attention to the fact that this parliament recently voted a large sum of money by way of an annuity to one who had been a distinguished member of parliament. It points out that sums of money were voted by this parliament to cover some of the expenses incident to the visit of a great general from overseas and for other purposes, and it continues:
I am impelled to write you on the old age pension. The poor old people, the pioneers of Canada, who have worked hard against great odds and nothing like a salary in return, have to stand aside while these large sums are disbursed. It will be extremely inconsistent should the old age pension bill not pass very soon, with the powers that be in parliament.
The letter next refers to a sum of money that had been raised for assistance im some connection, and then goes on:
Worthy these gentlemen may all be, but it gives one the notion that if men getting such immense salaries and sums of money cannot make provision for a time when they cannot work, how possibly can a working man do so? It would be a boon if something can be done to relieve the hardships of the working class, especially when they reach an age which makes it difficult to live. Most of whom cannot work at an advanced age, and are not wanted at work either. My husband is turned 72, and is as yet strong and able to work, and does work hard. Still he is feeling the effects of age, along with work, which he has never shirked, but has had his share of trouble and losses, making him feel that he, along with others, deserve some consideration from the country.
I say to my hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mr. White) that the woman who wrote that letter was not an indigent; her husband, even had he been unable to d*o any work, is not to be classel as an indigent; they are two people who have helped to make this country what it is; they have helped to make the wealth of this country.
The whole principle of this old age pension is based, not on the thought that the state is giving something to an indigent or that the state owes something to individuals, but on a sense ' of social justice arising out of a condition of society based1 on the rights of private poverty. While my hon. friend and I may have been fortunate enough to start in life with a little capital and to have had opportunities to make investments that will enable us as we get on to maturer years to look forward to the period between seventy and eighty with a degree of confidence- while that may be possible for him and for me, it is not possible for hundreds of thousands of people in this country, for people working on the farm and in the factory, the people who are day after day producing the
Old Age Pensions

wealth from which we are able to derive our profits, the interest on our investments.
This legislation looks to personality rather than to possessions, it looks to human life rather than to material wealth. We are seeking in making provision for old age to do something which will maintain in the individual that respect and that feeling of pride to which everyone is entitled who serves his day and generation faithfully and well, and serves it against the odds and vicissitudes particularly of our present day. That is the purpose of this legislation, and I am sure that my hon. friend, when he thinks of it from that point of view, will be one of the first to join with the rest of us in doing what he can to have it made part of the law of this land.
May I in conclusion say just one word more? Some hon. members of this House have intimated, indirectly thia afternoon, directly on other occasions, that in this matter the government, and more particularly myself, have been influenced by political considerations; that this legislation is being brought forward not from conviction but for reasons of political expediency. I would ask hon. members to pardon me, in view of that circumstance, if I undertake to give to the House, not words that spring from my lips at the moment, but words which appear in a volume I wrote some years ago and which was published as long ago as eight years. The volume is entitled "Industry and Humanity-Some Principles underlying Industrial Reconstruction." It was alluded to a moment ago by my hon. friend, the member for Calgary. I will read only a paragraph or two, but they will put more succinctly than I am able to do while on my feet at the moment my convictions and beliefs on this matter. In one paragraph dealing with the question of social insurance I have these words:
Social insurance, which in reality is health insurance in one form or another, is a means employed in most industrial countries to bring about a wider measure of social justice, without, on the one hand} disturbing the institution of private property and its advantages to the community, or, on the other, imperilling the thrift and industry of individuals. Social insurance looks upon industry as in the nature of social service. It regards the owner of land or capital as a capitalist, but also as a public trustee. It looks upon the worker in industry as a wage-earner, but equally as a necessary member of the community. It places the emphasis on personality rather than on property, and on life rather than on wealth.
Workmen's compensation, sickness and invalidity insurance, widows' pensions, maternity and infant benefits, recognize wherein personal relationships in industry have changed, and where as a consequence of new conditions permanent handicaps arise. The social legislation of which these measures are an expression rejects, as unworthy, the thought that men and women voluntarily incur accident, sickness, disease, enfeebled health,

or dependence in distress, any more than they willingly seek enslavement of any kind. It recognizes the difficulty of differentiating between industrial accident and occupational disease; and between disease occasioned by occupation or its environments and illness otherwise contracted; also the impossibility of dissociating from economic conditions the social waste caused by excessive and preventable illness. It sees that debt binds health as it binds freedom, that sickness represents the most frequent factor of individual destitution, and that it is in painful crises that handicaps for the whole of life are oftenest imposed. *To save the spirit of men from being crushed is quite as important as to prevent their bodies from being broken or infected. Many a man's spirit fails when, through no fault of his own, or of his family, efficiency is permanently impaired through accident, or savings become exhausted by unemployment or sickness, or where a new life in the home suggests an additional burden instead of a joy. Much invalidity and penury is due to lack of character and thrift; but much also is evidence of want of effective social control. What society fails effectively to prevent, society is in some measure under obligation to mend.
Then coming to old age pensions, I have the following:
Old age pensions are similar. They are based, not on the theory that the state owes every man a living, but rather on the fact that the provision of an assured competence for old age is an easy matter for some, whilst, for others, it is most difficult, if not wholly impossible. After all allowance has been made for superior thrift, intelligence, and integrity, it must be admitted that to the man who has capital to begin with, or whom society permits to own and control vast natural resources, there are opportunities of saving not possible to the worker who possess no capital, and who has to face uncertainties of employment and contend, unaided, against all kinds of vicissitudes. It is obvious that existing forces of world competition operate to rob advanced years of opportunities of employment, which, under the less strenuous regime of earlier times, were available to the close of life. There is need for society to assist in the protection of its members against a condition which simultaneously places burdens upon the worker whose day's work is done, and on the worker whose day's work is just beginning. If the young are to be given a fair start in life, the care of the aged should not be their first responsibility. If life-long public service in industry is to receive its fitting reward, years that are denied opportunity of employment should not be subjected to the humiliation of dependence or charity.
Those words were written, Mr. Speaker, when I had no thought of speaking on this question in the parliament of Canada. I am proud to be able to stand here to-night and to join with others in giving permanent expression in the legislation of our country to the ideas and the purposes that are therein expressed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of opposing this resolution. As a matter of fact, for some years I have on more than one occasion urged upon parliament the necessity of passing legislation of some character to deal with this problem of caring for old persons who have spent a life in usefulness and service to the community, and I am wholly in accord with the aim of all legis-

Old Age Pensions
lation of this character. The reason I rose a moment ago to ask the hon. the Prime Minister the questions I put was not, as I think he inferred, because I wanted to criticize his position on the matter at all, but rather to clear from my own mind, if possible, the fear that had been lodged there that if this legislation is passed it will not be practicable or effective because of the very fact that we are offering to the provinces a finished product, shall I say, without consultation with them in advance.
I was under the impression, and I still am of that opinion, that this legislation would be more effective, more apt to be applied in a practical manner, if the provinces were consulted beforehand and brought into accord with the objects this parliament has in mind.
As to the suggestions made by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) a moment ago, I must say that there was much in his remarks that impressed me very strongly. However, so far as I am concerned I want to declare my position, and it is simply this:	If the government offers to
parliament this legislation and takes the stand that we must either accept this legislation or none at all I shall find myself forced to vote for it.
I hope that when the bill comes down we may have some more light on the subject. I trust that we shall have in the bill, as no doubt we will, a little more clearly set forth the manner in which the legislation will be applied, and I would hope also that parliament might consider some of the clauses which I shall not take time to go into to-night, and perhaps amend or change some of them so as to make this measure to my mind more practical and more effective. But I wanted to say this, that I stand with many, many others in this House wholly in favour of the very best effort possible being made to solve this, problem of old age pensions, and to assure the government and parliament that the last thing in my mind was to offer obstacles in the way of a solution of the problem. But again I say to the Prime Minister that I do believe the much wiser course would have been to have had a conference with the provinces and come to parliament with a bill which the provinces could have assured us was acceptable to them, or with some assurance that it was a measure a number of the provinces might be willing to accept. For instance, Mr. Speaker, if this measure should be unsuitable to two or three of the major provinces, or only one or two provinces accepted it, that would be a most unhappy outcome. What
we want, if possible, is to get a measure which will be applicable throughout the whole country, suitable and acceptable to all the provinces. That is the point I wish to emphasize ; that is the danger I see at the moment.


Eugène Fiset: I had
no intention whatever of taking any further part in this discussion, in view of the statement I made this afternoon in French that I was thoroughly in accord with the principle of this resolution. But as a military officer, in view of the kind references that have been made to me by the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) I feel that I should make a further statement to the House.
Sir, I would have had no objection whatever to the statements the hon. member made tonight if those statements simply referred to myself. But the hon. gentleman has taken it upon himself-and I am not surprised at it, coming from him-to make the statements he did at a time when two prominent men in this House, the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) two former ministers under whom I served, were absent, from the chamber. Had these hon. gentlemen been present they could have furnished to the House a thorough explanation of the reasons why I was compelled to take my pension in 1922, and their explanation would have given a different aspect to the matter from that which the hon. member for Frontenae-Addington placed upon it.
The statement the hon. member has made that I am drawing a pension at the present time as an officer of the permanent force serving at headquarters is not absolutely correct. Bearing in mind the despatches that were read in the old House of Commons after the battle of Paardeberg, and remembering the decorations I received for my services in South Africa, I can easily say that I am not ashamed of my services at that time. I was quite willing to perform the same services in 1914, but I was refused the necessary permission, notwithstanding the fact that I offered to resign my rank and serve as a Lieutenant-Colonel in the ambulance corps. I was one of the first to volunteer for service overseas, but I was told by the minister at the head of the department at the time, and also by the then Prime Minister of this country, that my place was here and that my duty lay in Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: Did I question that?


Eugène Fiset: You did.
Tariff Advisory Board


John Wesley Edwards: In what
way?


Eugène Fiset: Further than that, I was forced to retire from the service in 1922. I did not go voluntarily; I was compelled to retire after undergoing a surgical operation of the most serious character-a fact which the hon. member for East Hamilton could easily have vouched for. I was forced to take my pension and go and live in the country. For a year, Sir, I was there on sick leave, having hemorrhages every fifteen days, and suffering to such an extent that in April, 1923, I had to go under the knife for the second time. During that period I applied to the government to extend my leave of absence, and the only answer I received when I was on the hospital bed was that my successor had been appointed. Therefore, Sir, the pension I am drawing was awarded because I was not in a fit state of health to perform my duties.
There is another point that has been forgotten, and it is this: no man in this country has paid as much for the pension he is enjoying as I have paid. Towards that pension I contributed five per cent of my salary during a period of thirty years of service. There is not a judge in the country, there is not a brother officer of the permanent corps, who has made contributions to the pension fund to the same extent. I paid that five per cent not only on my full salary as deputy minister, but also on my salary as vice president of the militia council.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for taking the time of the House to make these remarks but I consider that no hon. member has a right to make such glaring statements as those which have been made with respect to me tonight. I only wish I could characterize that conduct in language that is parliamentary. The reason for my speaking the second time is that I wanted to offer a defence, to the best of my ability in respect to the insinuations directed to-night against those men who were compelled to remain at headquarters here during the whole duration of the war and who performed loyally, and to the best of their ability, as I have done myself, Sir, their duty to their common country and to the empire.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether I have the right to rise to a question of privilege. I merely want to assure the hon. gentleman that I cast no imputation on his loyalty or on his courage in any degree-none whatever. I say now, as I said before,, that the hon. member is drawing a pension which has been given to him and

to others. I also say that viewing the matter of pensions as I do I only wish I had the power to wipe the system off the statute books and prevent him and many others from receiving them.
On motion of Mr. Hanson the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, March 29, 1926