1927-03-03

MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: My hon. friend the hon. member
for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) the other day asked for the tabling of a certain letter sent by the Deputy Minister of Justice to the Deputy Minister of Public Works on January 17, 1925. I now lay it on the table.



WAR CHARITIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 114, to repeal the War Charities Act, 1917.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. RINFRET:: In 1917 an act was passed to regulate appeals for donations or subscriptions for the relief of persons suffering as a result of the war, and particularly returned soldiers. That act required that all such organizations should obtain a certificate from the Department of State, and make reports twice a year. A large number of organizations registered under the act, but they have gradu-
Questions

ally diminished' in number and are now practically limited to the Daughters of the Empire and the Great War Veterans' Association. We find that this legislation has become obsolete because these organizations do not require such control, and therefore we propose to repeal it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATURALIZATION ACTS AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 115, to amend the Naturalization Acts, 1914 and 1920.
He said:	This bill proposes to do away
with sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Naturalization Act. These sections require the applicant to make his application before a judge or a court of justice. We propose to do away with that obligation, and return to section 2 of the act of 1914 directing the application to be made to the Secretary of State, under the conditions contained in the 1914 act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What persons compose the board of pilot commissioners for the district of the Miramichi river, New Brunswick, when were they appointed and what is their remuneration?
2.	Was J. W. Brankley, Esquire, of Chatham, New Brunswick, a member of the said board of pilot commissioners, and if so, when was he appointed, and when did he cease to be a member of the board?
3.	Was Mr. Brankley dismissed as a member of the board; if so, when and for what reasons?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: Names of Commissioners-Address- When Appointed.
1.	David Ritchie, Newcastle, N.B., order in council 20th November, 1922, Leonard O'Brien, Nelson, N.B., order in council 8th March, 1924. J. Kerr Logie, Chatham, N.B., order in council 24th March, 1925, R. A. Snowball, Chatham, N.B., order in council 17th May, 1926, G. P. Burehill, Nelson, N.B., order in council 21st December, 1926. Remuneration-None.
2.	J. W. Brankley, of Chatham, was appointed a member of the Miramichi board of pilot commissioners by order in council of 23rd September, 1926, and ceased to be a member on 21st December, 1926.

3.	The order in council appointing Mr. J. W. Brankley a pilot commissioner was cancelled by P.C. 65/2118, dated 21st December, 1926, on the ground that the former was passed on the day previous to the resignation of the then government and after said government had sustained defeat at the polls.


BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY RATES
Mr. CHURCH:: In view of an appeal to the Governor General in Council by the municipalities or others from the recent judgment for an increase in tolls and rates by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, effective from March 1st next, will the government under the general Raihvay Act postpone the coming into effect on March 1st next of the new schedule of rates pending the hearing and determination of such appeal?


Ernest Lapointe: There has been no appeal to the Governor General in Council as suggested by the question.


COAL ROYALTIES
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	What revenues from royalties on coal have been received by the dominion since 1905?
2.	What has been the expenditure, by years, of the dominion, for past 20 years, on so-called national parks within Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	$2,973,364.51.
2.
Year	Manitoba	Saskatchewan Alberta	1906-07	Nil	Nil	$ 21,112 081907-08	Nil	Nil	179,577 691908-09	Nil	Nil	209,222 361909-10	Nil	Nil	128,496 071910-11	Nil	Nil	103,288 671911-12	Nil	$5,500 00	137,805 461912-13	Nil	3,005 95	192,408 761913-14	Nil	491 21	524,267 181914-15	Nil	441 67	580,051 761915-16	Nil	600 00	265.308 521916-17	Nil	600 00	274,889 231917-18	[DOT] Nil	19 60	221,970 611918-19	Nil	Nil	259.691 561919-20	Nil	Nil	464,056 811920-21	Nil	Nil	580,754 521921-22	Nil	50 00	622,572 381922-23	Nil	1,719 08	618,068 721923-24	$1,046 43	1,889 94	1,024,649 041924-25	1,019 69	2,033 58	830,196 421925-26	405 02	669 75	793,613 22Total.	. $2,471 14	$17,020 78	$8,153,017 03
Note:-Prior to the year 1924-1925 there were certain expenses at head office which had

Questions
not been allocated to the different provinces. For the last two years these expenditures have been charged against the services in these provinces.
POSTMASTER AT GIBBON	.


Mr. JONES:: 1.	Was Edgar Finniss, postmaster of Gibbon, dismissed by the present government?
2.	If so, who recommended dismissal, and why ?
3.	Were there any charges against the said Finniss?
4.	If so, by whom were they made?
5.	What was the salary of the said postmaster ?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Postmaster General-in order to locate office more centrally.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	$60.


ADMISSION OF FARM LABOURERS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What applications, if any, have been made from the county of Wellington for permission for immigrants to enter Canada as farm labourers ?
2.	By whom were these applications made?
3.	How many of these immigrants are now working on farms?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE:: 1.	Applications for the entry to Canada of immigrants are not classified by the Department of Immigration and Colonization according to counties and the information requested is not, therefore, available.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


MUZZLING OF DOGS
Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: 1.	Is the government enforcing without reserve stringent regulations for the killing of all unmuzzled dogs on the island and in the city of Montreal?
2.	Has the government modified the regulations allowing owners of valuable dogs redress to recover them upon payment of a fine or penalty; and if not, is such action contemplated, and when?
3.	Is a special or standardized type of dog muzzle demanded by the regulations and is a sufficient supply of the same now obtainable from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or other official source?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes. (There were captured and killed yesterday 14 dogs. This morning up to nine o'clock, four more had been captured. Dogs are killed in the Humane Society's pound, by electricity or gas; none are killed by our men.)
2.	The government has not modified its regulations in this respect as yet, but has the matter under consideration.
3.	No, but an effective muzzle is required to be worn, safety wire muzzle cages fitting over dog's heads are considered the best. Such a muzzle fitting loosely over the whole head and fastening to the collar is the one we recommend.
Timothy Eaton Company handle such muzzles, and have we believe furnished them to many other vendors. This muzzle allows dogs to open their mouths and to drink water, but they cannot bite.


DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTERS-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. JONES:: 1.	How many postmasters in the province of New Brunswick have been dismissed since October 1, 1926?
2.	What are their names, the names of the post offices and the federal constituencies in which said post offices are located?
3.	How many of said positions have been filled to date, and on whose recommendation were the appointments made?
4.	Has one H. C. Ramsay of Bathurst, New Brunswick, been appointed a commissioner to investigate charges against government officials?
5.	If so, upon whose recommendation was he appointed and what is the remuneration to be paid to him, (a) for services; (b) for expenses?
0.	In how many cases has he made reports, who were the officials charged and who laid the charges in each case?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	38.
2.	Statement showing the names of the postmasters in the province of New Brunswick who were dismissed since the 1st of October, 1926, etc.
Name of Post Office	Electoral District	Name of dismissed postmaster	New appointment recommended byMiddle Ste. Louise	
South Bathurst	Gloucester	
u a	R. S. Hachey	
Richard Doucet	Postmaster General. it aa	Inkerman Ferry	
Lobster Beach	
Black Rock	tt a a a	Jos. A. Arseneau	
Michael Murphy	
David J. Murphy	Ste. Anne du Bocage	a	Delas Cor. ier	
Questions


CHANGES IN SASKATCHEWAN POST OFFICES
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	Has there been a change of postmaster at the following post offices since the election of 1926, (a) Woodrow, Saskatchewan, and (b) Summereove, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, when was the change made?
3.	For what reason was the change made, and on whose recommendation?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes.
2.	(a) 15th February. 1927.	(b) 31st January, 1927.
3.	(a) and (b) Active political partisanship, on recommendation of member for constituency.


POSTMASTER AT MELAVAL, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	Has the postmaster at Melaval, Saskatchewan, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for wliat cause?

3.	AVas there any charge of incompetence?
4.	AVhat was his salary?
5.	AVlio laid the charge or charges, if any?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Active political partisanship.
3.	No.
4.	$831.22 including allowances and commissions.
5.	Member for constituency.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. PREVOST:: On what articles of any kind have customs duties been lowered since 1922, and on what articles have such duties been entirely removed since same date?


JUDGES ACT-AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes, 1006, to provide:-
1.	That a salary of $12,000 per annum be granted for one additional judge of the Supreme Court of Canada;
2.	That on his attaining or having attained the age of seventy-five years, any judge of the

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Supreme Court of Canada or of the Exchequer Court of Canada may be granted an annuity equal to that which he would then have been eligible to receive if this legislation had not been passed and if he had at that time resigned his office.
3.	That if the said judge be not then eligible for the grant of an annuity, and was appointed before the passing of this legislation, or if he was appointed after the passing of this legislation and has continued in office for at least ten years, he may be.granted an annuity equal to two-thirds of his salary at the time he ceased to hold such office.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in measures to provide for the construction, prior to the 31st day of August, 1930, of the following Canadian National Railway branch lines:
[Stage Direction]
1.	(a) From a point about three miles west
of St. Felicien on the St. Felicien branch of the James' Bay and Eastern railway to a point on the Mistassini river, in the province of Quebec. Estimated mileage 27.5 miles; average expenditure per mile $53,589; estimated cost $1,463,000.	*
(b) Section (1). From a point near Hebert-ville on the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway to lie d'Alma on the Saguenay river in the province of Quebec. Estimated mileage 9.5 miles; average expenditure per mile $56,526; estimated cost $537,000.
Section (2). From a point on He d'Alma on the Saguenay river to Savanne on the Peribonka river in the province of Quebec. Estimated mileage 25.0; average expenditure per mile $63,800; estimated cost $1,595,000.
Total (b). Mileage 34.5; average expenditure per mile $61,797; estimated cost $2,132,000.
The construction of these lines shall be subject to the following conditions:-
In the event of running rights being secured between near Hebertville and lie d'Alma over the line of the Alma and Jonquiere railway, that part of the line authorized by this act between near Hebertville and lie d'Alma shall not be constructed by the company, nor shall securities be issued or guaranteed in respect thereof.
2.	From a point near Grand Mere on the Canadian Northern Quebec railway in the province of Quebec. Estimated mileage 7.9; average expenditure per mile $213,038; estimated cost $1,683,000.
3.	From a point near Pilkington on the Canadian National railway to a point near Niagara Junction on the Canadian National railway in the province of Ontario. Estimated mileage 16.7; average expenditure per mile $69,700; estimated cost $1,164,000.
4.	From a point near Weyburn on the Grand Trunk Pacific Saskatchewan railway to a point near Radville on the Canadian Northern railway, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 22.7; average expenditure per mile $25,110; estimated cost $570,000.
5.	From a point near Willow Brook on the Canadian Northern railway to a point in township 27, range 9, west of the second meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 22.0; average expenditure per mile $28,000; estimated cost $616,000.
6.	From a point near Sturgis on Canadian Northern railway to a point on the Canadian Northern railway between Crooked river and Mistatim, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 100.0; average expenditure per mile $33,950; estimated cost $3,395,000.
7.	From a point between Crooked river and Mistatim on the Canadian Northern railway to a point in township 48, ranges 11 or 12, west of second meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 19.0; average expenditure per mile $30,000; estimated cost $570,000.
8 From a point on the Canadian Northern railway between Shell Brook and Kilwinning to a point in township 50, ranges 9 or 10, west of the third meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan. . Estimated mileage 37.0; average expenditure per mile $32,432; estimated cost $1,200,000.
9.	From a point at about mile 67 on the Turtleford Southeasterly branch of the Canadian National railway to a point on the Canadian Northern between Hafford and Richard in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 35.6; average expenditure per mile $31,742: estimated cost $1,130,000.
10.	From a point near Kindersley on the Canadian Northern railway to a point near Glidden on the Canadian Northern railway in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 18.0; average expenditure per mile $35,555; estimated cost $640,000.
11.	From a point near Spruce lake on the Canadian Northern railway to a point in township 53, range 25, west of the 3rd meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 29.5; average expenditure per mile $33,559; estimated cost $990,000.
12.	From a point near Hudson Bay junction on the Canadian Northern railway to a point in townships 39 or 40, range 5, west of the second meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 32.0; average expenditure per mile $34,000; estimated cost $1,088,000.
13.	From a point near Elk Point on the Canadian National railway to a point in township 55, ranges 3 or 4, west of the fourth meridian, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage 19.0; average expenditure per mile $39,210; estimated cost $745,000.
14.	From a point near Ashmont on the Canadian Northern Western railway to a point at or near Bonnyville, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage 38.0; average expenditure per mile $37,237; estimated cost $1,415,000.
15.	From a point near Bretona on the Canadian Northern railway to a point near Clover Bar on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage 11.0; average expenditure per mile $29,000; estimated cost $319,000.
Motion agreed to..
[Stage Direction]
Pure Bred Stock

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the North West Territories Act, chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, to provide that the Commissioner in Council may make ordinances for the levying of an export tax upon furs exported from the territories to any part of Canada, or to any foreign country.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railways to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations, and to issue substituted securities therefor guaranteed by the Dominion as to principal and interest, but not exceeding $20,000,000, the aggregate face value of the original securities.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I do not think
the minister said that His Excellency had approved the resolution having to do with the branch line construction.


Mr. DUNNING:: I must apologize. I
communicated that approval to the Clerk a moment afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Having received a telegram yesterday from a representative of the Cattle. Breeders' Association I would ask the government if they have discontinued the policy of distributing sires among cattle breeders?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: As my hon. friend1 knows, the
federal Department of Agriculture has been under some criticism in the last few years because it has engaged in certain activities

which have been looked upon as of a distinctly provincial character. As an evidence of this I might say that the first distribution of live stock was engaged in by the province of Saskatchewan as long ago as 1908. This was taken up by the adjoining prairie provinces shortly after, and in 1913 the federal Department of Agriculture began the same work and has carried it on up to the present. It has been thought advisable now to leave this field exclusively to the provinces, because, it is distinctly productive work which lies within their particular prerogative, the idea being that we may engage in some new and more particularly federal work such as the question of marketing cooperative and otherwise.
PRIVILEGE-MR. EDWARDS (Frontenac)
On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker,
I wish to call your attention to an error which I notice in Hansard of yesterday and which I have no doubt was quite inadvertent. Just before taking miy seat I said:
I want to add, before moving the adjournment of the debate, this further word.
Then follows a very short sentence, which I concluded with these words:
I now move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, you didn't.


John Wesley Edwards: My friends
sitting near me heard those words but possibly you, Mr. Speaker, did not. As I understand the rules of the House, if this matter should come up again I would be deprived of the very great pleasure of discussing it further if this is not understood.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I heard the hon. gentleman when he was speaking last evening, but as it was just a minute or so beyond the allotted hour for the House rising, I did not think his motion was in order. The hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks had indicated his intention of moving the adjournment of the debate. Personally I have no objection, if the House gives unanimous consent.


John Wesley Edwards: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is never six o'clock until you say so.


LABRADOR BOUNDARY DECISION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask of the
acting leader of the government a question which I think is of very grave public importance. In view of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council awarding to

Old Aac Pensions
the Dominion of Newfoundland an immense area of the mainland of British North America which naturally forms a part of the Dominion of Canada, will this government forthwith take into its favourable consideration the acquisition by purchase from the government of Newfoundland of the territory so awarded to the Dominion of Newfoundland, so that Canadian citizens resident in that territory and their large financial investments and other interest therein may continue under the legislative and administrative jurisdiction of Canada?


Mr. POULIOT:: Is that for the Bank of
Montreal or the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like to commit the government to any course at this early stage. The time has not yet elapsed during which unfortunate litigants have the privilege of abusing their judges, and I think the best thing to do is to wait until the text of the judgment reaches us, when it will be time enough to consider the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Perhaps, speaking ironically, it would meet the wishes of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), if the Canadian government at once mobilized and despatched the Canadian navy to the Labrador coast!


CALGARY LIVE STOCK INVESTIGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture when we may expect a copy of the report in connection with the investigation of the Live Stock Exchange at Calgary? I have been telegraphed most urgently because it is conceived that a great injustice is being done by this report not being presented, and I should like it to be presented as soon as possible.


William Richard Motherwell: In reply to a similar question
in the early part of the week, I expressed the hope that I would be able to table the report before the end of the present week, and I am still of that hope. The staff is busily engaged now typing out the report.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I would like to inquire from the government, and particularly from the Minister of Labour, whether it is the intention of the government to make any contribution, either jointly with the provinces or otherwise, to municipalities which 32649-534
have expended money during the winter months for the relief of unemployment within their borders.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: There have been only about two
applications from the whole Dominion, from cities, asking for relief along the lines suggested by my hon. friend. I have communicated with them, and they have not insisted upon any relief being granted by this government. They will be able to cope with the situation themselves.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from February 18th, consideration in committee of Bill No. 70, respecting old age pensions.-Hon.	Mr. Heenan-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. HOCKEN:: I would like to make a
suggestion to the minister and to the government in connection with this bill which I think is well worthy of consideration. I understand that the annuity system that we have under Domnion government auspices is under the control of the Department of Labour. I am not opposed to an old age pension scheme, but it does seem to me, Sir, that if somewhat better conditions were attached to the annuity system it might be taken advantage of by many people who now do not think it is within their reach. For instance, why should we not endeavour to the utmost of our abilitiy to develop that spirit of self-help among the people of Canada? Why should we not encourage the sale of annuities, instead of placing so much stress upon old age pensions? Would it not be a reasonable policy for the government of Canada to add to the payments that are now being made to annuitants under the annuity scheme some further substantial sum, say 25 per cent? My belief is that that would make the annuities much more attractive than they are at the present time. Of course, neither this government nor any other have ever treated the annuity scheme as a serious proposition. They put the act upon the statute book and let it go at that. We cannot develop business, especially in a new line like this, unless some greater energy is applied to make the plan familiar to the people who ought to take advantage of it and give some advantage? that will encourage them to purchase these annuities. I am not prepared to move anything in connection with this bill. I do not know that my proposal comes properly within the purview of the bill. I am merely throwing out

Old Age Pensions

the suggestion, as it seems to me I have reason to do in this connection, for the further consideration of this government, that they should make their annuities attractive, to encourage people of Canada to buy them instead of depending upon the $20 a month payment as an old age pension. Undoubtedly a great deal could have been done to increase the number of annuities purchased if greater publicity had been given to the scheme, and if further advantages had been given to those who might reasonably be expected to provide for their old age in that way. It is a form of insurance which I believe the insurance companies engage in. I think I am right when I say that the government established this annuity system before any of the companies adopted such a scheme. The companies came in afterwards, and if those companies are doing a big business they are taking it away from the government. It is a very proper thing-well, it might be described as public ownership-and it is a most advantageous system for men who have sufficient money to put away a little year by year to provide for their old age, and to maintain their self-respect as they certainly will, better than they can by taking an old age pension at the age of sixty or seventy. I hope the government and the Minister of Labour will go into this, figure it out and at the next session of parliament present some reasonable measure for the development of annuities.


Peter Heenan: We have already under consideration and under way an investigation on behalf of the department of the very matter which the hon. gentleman has spoken of, and I hope our annuity system will be extended so that it will do just what the hon. member proposes it should do and thus make it easier for the workers. I am trying to develop a joint contributory scheme in which employers, the provinces and the Dominion will have a part. It would bear very lightly on the shoulders of the workers, but the provinces, the Dominion and the workers would all contribute.
I do not know whether it will shorten the discussion on the bill now before us, but I may tell the House that the bill we have before us is to provide relief for those who have already reached the age of seventy. Last session the bill was defeated in the Senate. It was discussed during the last election, and I think I am safe in saying that if anything was prominently before the electors of the country the old age pension bill was. This was the bill that was before the electors at that time and we are now submitting it to you in the form in which the House and
[Mr. Hocken.l
the people endorsed it. It is true the bill does not go as far as some of us might desire but no matter what proposition is offered it necessarily involves expenditure. The bill was thrown out by the Senate last year, because it entailed an expenditure of approximately $14,000,000. The suggestions which have been made are good and will be valuable for future consideration, but if adopted by the government, would mean an expenditure of between $60,000,000 and $70,000,000, and I hardly think that would be an inducement to the Senate to accept it, when they did not see their way to pass a measure which would entail a cost of $12,000,000.


John Wesley Edwards: If I understood the minister correctly, he estimated that it would cost the Dominion treasury about $14,000,000.


Peter Heenan: About $12,000,000.


John Wesley Edwards: Will the minister please explain just how it is going to cost $60,000,000 if the Dominion bears the whole expense?


Peter Heenan: I do not think the hon.
member understood what I said. The suggestions were to make it a purely federal bill, to reduce the age from seventy to sixty-five, and to give the pensioners a dollar a day or $365 a year, instead of $240. I said that if those suggestions were acepted by the government the bill would entail an expenditure of between $60,000,000 and $70,000,000 roughly calculated. I would ask the Llouse to accept this measure, get it on the statute book, and then we can amend it as we see fit, in the light of our experience.


John Wesley Edwards: Has the minister made any calculation as to how much it will cost the provinces if this measure goes through? He states that $12,000,000 would be the approximate cost to the Dominion treasury. How much would it cost the provinces?


Peter Heenan: The same amount.


John Wesley Edwards: Hardly the
same amount, because section 3 speaks of fifty per cent of the net cost. Who is providing the machinery? If it-only costs the Dominion half of the net cost to the provinces, then manifestly it will cost the provinces much more than it will cost the Dominion.


Peter Heenan: We have taken that into
consideration, and almost every province in the Dominion has some kind of social service work, such as workmen's compensation board, or mothers' allowance board, and this measure can be readily administered through those

Old Age Pensions
boards without any extra cost-probably the cost of one or two clerks. A bill has been introduced1 in the legislature of British Columbia which will give power to the Workmen's Compensation Board to administer the Old Age Pension Act, and it will not cost them anything additional.


Mr. ERNST:: What I have to say perhaps would more properly come under the next section of the bill, but I will make my statement now, in view of the remarks of the minister. The reason he has given to the House for not going into a detailed consideration of the clauses of the bill is that it was before the electors at the last election. Doubtless most of us in this House are well aware that it was before the electors, but I believe in some quarters, amongst those who supported the bill last year, there has been a change of heart or a change of opinion. For instance, we have in Nova Scotia the Halifax Chronicle, the chief Liberal organ of the province. During the federal election the Halifax Chronicle extolled the old age pension bill as presented to parliament during last session, but I hold in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle, February 18, of this year, which reads as follows:
While strongly favoring old age pensions, the Chronicle believes, for reasons set forth in previous articles, that the federal government would do well, in dealing with the old age pensions bill, to arrange itself to make the necessary provision for the payment of the pensions. Having in its possession the principal sources of revenue in Canada and having initiated the old age pensions scheme, it would seem to be the duty and privilege of the Dominion government to provide ways and means for carrying that worthy measure into effect.
Most of the provinces are short of revenue. In fact, it may be impossible for some of them to respond to the terms of the present bill. Nova Scotia with a deficit of more than one million dollars might find it difficult to assume additional burdens. In this circumstance, then, it would seem only fair that in promoting the purpose of the measure, the federal government should also see to it that it provides the necessary money to carry on the work. It is submitted that if any province had passed such a bill, contingent upon the federal government providing half the funds, it would probably be considered inappropriate and ineffective if not offensive. The present bill of the federal government is in much the same category.
I draw that to the attention of the House, Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks of the minister that the bill was before the electors at the last election.
I endorse the statements made by the member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) when he spoke on the measure in committee two weeks ago. As far as Nova Scotia is concerned, it would not come into effect for many years. As the minister knows, this year the province has
a deficit of 1855,000. It is in the unhappy position of having had a great many of its young men emigrate, and there is probably a larger proportion of old people in Nova Scotia than in any other province. Taking what I believe to be a typical district in my own constituency, I reckon that one person in forty would come under the provisions of this bill. True, the majority of them have property, but they would be eligible for pensions. On that basis it would cost the province approximately $1,500,000 a year as its proportion of the pension fund. With the deficit of $800,000 facing it now, it would be impossible for Nova Scotia to put the measure into effect. I think the same applies to several of the other provinces.
I believe in the principle of old age pensions, but I do not believe in the present bill. It is nothing more than a political gesture and will never give pensions to our old people.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: What do you do now
with your old people, let them starve?


William Gordon Ernst: We have poorhouses maintained by the municipalities. It has been pointed out that the bill would enable the municipalities to do away with their poor-houses, but I believe this to be a fallacy, because many of the inmates are under seventy years of age and feeble-minded. In neither case .would the bill provide for those people.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, last session when a similar bill was before the House I spoke strongly in favour of its principle. I am still in favour of the principle of old age pensions, but in this proposed legislation I see many manifest injustices to the provinces. On the introduction of the resolution preceding the bill the minister was questioned as to how many of the provinces had agreed to the principle. I think he said one. So only one of the nine provinces has agreed to cooperate in this legislation. In Ontario we have somewhat similar legislation in the Mothers' Pensions Act; and it has worked very satisfactorily. That work has been undertaken, entirely by the province, and if it is deemed necessary to look after our people who are over seventy years of age, I believe Ontario will be equally willing and able to take care of them. In my own riding the position is pretty much the same as that described by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Ernst). We have a home which is well sustained and very satisfactorily carried on to take care of old indigent people, and I do not think that the majority of my constituents would be in favour of this legislation.
Old Age Pensions

In my view the bill is unworkable in some particulars. For instance, under section 10 if a pensioner moves from one province to another the province from which he is receiving his pension is entitled to recover from the other province a proportionate amount of that pension. But how is it possible to recover if the other province has taken no steps to put this proposed legislation into effect? Section 11 is also objectionable.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of the principle of old age pensions, but I believe the Dominion government should bear the total cost. We have had several instances along this line. It will be remembered that the Dominion government provided $20,000000 to assist the provinces to build good roads, but I think if the expenditure were scrutinized it would be found that an undue proportion of it represented administration costs. The same is true, I believe, in regard to technichal education. We have made a federal grant of $1,000,000 a year-


Peter Heenan: A little more.


James Arthurs: -and probably up to the present time only one of the provinces has taken advantage of that grant, but the act has to be administered and the cost of administration is entirely disproportionate to the amount of the grant. I think the same condition would apply in this case. I believe every member in this House is in favour of the principle of the bill, whether he sits on *he right or the left of the Speaker; but we differ as to the manner in which it should be applied. Speaking for myself, I am entirely in favour of the Dominion either assuming the whole liability or leaving the matter alone.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, both last
session and this I have listened to a discussion of the "principle" of this bill. It seems to me to be a bill without principle. The bill is a sorry political gesture, made for the purpose of creating confusion in the minds of those who would be entitled to pensions, those who are promoting the bill knowing full well that under existing conditions it is utterly impossible to carry the proposed legislation into effect throughout the Dominion. There is very strong ground why the government should take into consideration the necessities of those who are unable by reason of age to earn an ordinary living. But the same principle that applies to those who would be entitled to pensions by reason of old age applies to those who by reason of any physical or mental infirmity are deprived of the capacity of earning a living and have no private revenue for their support. During my last election contest in the city of Montreal it was not the question of old age pensions that 
caused me difficulty; it was certain promises made by the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) to a delegation, partly from my constituency, to the effect that all those who suffer from blindness would this year receive by federal measure relief on the scale suggested in this bill for old age pensions. In fact, so confident are some of those people who were led to vote for my opponent on that occasion, by reason of the promises made by the Prime Minister to that delegation, that I hold in my hand a letter dated February 10 of this year written by Philip E. Layton, president of the Canadian Federation of the Blind, in which he asks me, confident in his belief that this remedial measure will be introduced at this session, to give my support in its favour when the bill comes before the House.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Does Mr. Layton in that
correspondence suggest that the Prime Minister made the promise which the hon. gentleman has mentioned?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let me read the letter:
Mr. C. II. Cahan,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Premier Mackenzie King on June 22, 1926,

Note the date.
-received at Ottawa a delegation of 100 blind persons from all over the Dominion, who presented to him a petition asking that pensions be given by the government to the blind. . . . Premier King on receiving the petition kindly stated that he would be pleased to sponsor a bill for state aid for the blind at the next session of parliament. I am instructed by the council of the Canadian Federation of the Blind to ask if you will kindly give your support to this bill when it comes up in the legislature.


Mr. NEILL:: I rise to a point of order. I
dc not wish to interrupt the thread of the hon. gentleman's remarks, and for that reason I have kept silent hitherto. But as he himself has said, he is discussing the principle of this bill and I would direct the attention of the Chair to the rule that the principle shall not be discussed in committee, but merely the particular section of the bill under consideration. With no ill-will to the hon. member, and with no desire to cut off his line of thought, which of course should have been given to us on the second reading or during the discussion of the resolution, I submit that this is not the time and place to go into a general and wide consideration of the principle of the bill. If we do so we shall never get anywhere. I would ask for the ruling of the Chair.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has been frequently stated in this House in my hearing by the leader of the House that in order to avoid any lengthy

Old Age Pensions
discussion on the second reading of a bill hon. members might reserve their remarks for the committee stage, when the utmost liberty would be given.


Alan Webster Neill: To discuss the details.
Mr. CAHA.N:	I was not discussing the
principle but the utter lack of principle of the bill, and the unprincipled ground on which the legislation is being promoted. This objection will simply prolong discussion. We are facilitating the passage of the legislation and it is convenient that I should have five minutes now in which to state my position, rather than take five hours to state it later on. The bdl has not received the consideration from the department which it should have been given. It should be a federal measure, because this parliament has no control over the provinces. This parliament is well advised that the provinces of Canada will not accept the measure in the terms in which it is now before the House, and the Prime Minister has promised a special measure for those who are suffering from blindness. For these reasons the bill should in my opinion be withdrawn to allow the government ample time to consider it in all its bearings. Thereafter the government could submit a measure of wider application, carrying out on the one hand the Prime Minister's promise to the delegation which approached him in June last, and, on the other, making due provision for those who are suffering from other physical or mental deficiency or infirmity which prevents them from earning a living. With regard to those who are now in a position to earn a living and who have an income, I think that such a general bill should provide that those, under the pension age, in that position, should contribute an amount, however small, towards the pension which they would be entitled to receive later in life. There is no objection anywhere in the country, on the part of those wage earners who are likely to participate in the pension provisions of a bill of this character, to making a modest contribution during those years in which they are earning a revenue, while there is a persistent opposition throughout the length and breadth of the country to the adoption of anything approaching the dole system, which has proved so disastrous in some other countries. I suggest therefore that the government should carry out its pledge to the blind delegation or withdraw this bill. We have ample time now for sober reflection, as we are not now on the eve of a general election. The government at a subsequent session could bring down a bill more thoroughly considered, more complete in its terms and one which would meet
with the general approbation of the whole country and at the same time provide a basis for contributions, however small, from the wage earners towards paying the pensions to which they would subsequently become entitled if through infirmity of mind or body they should find it impossible to earn a living.


The CHAIRMAN:: Rule 13, section (5),
reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I must rule in accordance with this provision that general remarks under the section now being discussed are not relevant.


William Gordon Ernst: The minister opened the discussion.


Peter Heenan: So far as the government
is concerned we have no desire to curtail discussion on any question relating to this bill. We did say that we would allow the fullest opportunity for its consideration in committee, but of course, we cannot prevent any hon. member from appealing to the Chair on a point of order.


John Frederick Johnston: It would expedite the
passage of the bill if the committee would adopt section 2 and proceed to the clause relating to agreements with the provinces.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Have any conferences
been held with the premiers of the different provinces regarding this legislation?


John Frederick Johnston: If the hon. member
would allow section 2 to pass his remarks will be relevant to section 3. Shall section 2 carry?
Mr. BLACK (Yukonl:	Before section 2
is carried I point out to the minister that subsection (d) of the section reads:
"Province" includes the Yukon territory, in respect to which "commisioner" shall be read for "Lieutenant Governor in Council".
There is no such official in the Aukon as commissioner as the word "commissioner" is used here; that position was abolished as long ago as 1918. Although the bill for many other reasons is not practicable but is unworkable, and will in all human probability never be put into force in .the Yukon territory, and probably not in any of the provinces, for the reason alone which I have mentioned it would not be workable in Yukon, and the minister will have to find some other wording for the subsection than it contains now if he is going to make the law applicable to and workable in the Yukon territory.
Old Age Pensions
-COMMONS


Peter Heenan: My advice from the law
department is that the term "commissioner" is quite correct and that it will not interfere with the proper working of the bill. If I remember aright the hon. member raised the same question last year, but since then the law department has advised me that the term is perfectly proper and that Yukon will be able to come in under the bill.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I can only say to
the minister that I have warned him and although I do not think the effect will be very disastrous if he proceeds-because as I said before the bill in all probability will never be applied in that territory and therefore it does not matter how it is worded-yet in the first place to be of any use to the people up there a larger pension should be provided and the entire responsibility should be assumed by the federal government, because the local government in Yukon is in no position at all to carry out the requirements of this bill.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is the government absolutely adamantine in regard to this bill? Is there no possibility of their considering a federal scheme?


Peter Heenan: I thought I had made it perfectly plain on two occasions that the government would like the House and particularly the labour men to accept this bill. We have had other legislation such as pension bills and mothers' allowance bills, and they have never been one hundred per cent perfect when enacted, but they have been amended afterwards in the light of experience. I think I have said enough without directly answering my hon. friend's question.


William Irvine: The point I have in mind
is that when the principle of this bill was discussed I understood that the Alberta government fully intended to pass legislation complying with the federal bill, but since that time I understand the Alberta legislature has voted against the resolution asking the local government to pass enabling legislation. I should like to see the old people in my province get some relief under an old age pension bill, but if we can gather anything from the resolution passed by the Alberta legislature a few days ago the present proposal will bring nothing to that province.
Now a lot has been said about what the people expected from old age pensions during the last election. We are all aware that the people want old age pensions, but they did not know what kind of a -bill was being talked about. They want an old age pension and they want it now, but I venture to say the present bill will not receive the endorsation

of the people of Canada. I am not opposing the government in this matter, but I would insist that they give this bill reconsideration in view of the difficulties that seem to present themselves in carrying it out; and in view of the fact that the entire House is in sympathy with the government in introducing old age pensions, and is willing to support a proper scheme, I cannot for the life of me see why they should not reconsider the proposal.
Mr. AD8HEAD:	The hon. member for
Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) has spoken of the resolution before the Alberta legislature on the subject of old age pensions. I hold in my hand an extract from a speech made by Premier Brownlee, and while it is true the legislature voted down the resolution, at the same time Premier Brownlee corrected Mr. White, one of -the members for Calgary, with respect to some statements he had made, adding simply that they were not entirely satisfied with the proposed fifty-fifty arrangement provided for in -the bill. He pointed out, however, that the bill had not passed the federal parliament, and they hoped to do some further bargaining by which the federal government would assume a little larger share of the cost than was involved under the fifty-fifty arrangement. So that the resolution failed to pass, I take it, in consequence of the representations of the Alberta government that there would be further negotiations in order to see if some better arrangement could not be arrived at. The attitude of the labour members of the legislature was not entirely antagonistic although they expressed themselves as not quite satisfied with the bill. For example Mr. White, to whom I have already referred said he was not quite satisfied with the bill. -He believed that the age limit should be below seventy years. While the labour men in parliament asked the federal government to assume full responsibility, they would accept the present bill. The local member also said that amending legislation could be enacted from time to time, and he asked why the aged should be deprived of assistance because the local authorities could not get all their own way at this time. Mr. Parkyn member of the legislature for Calgary supported the view that half a loaf was better than no bread and the bill ought to be sustained. Mr. Smeaton, member of the legislature from Lethbridge, asked the legislature to commit itself to the enactment of the necessary legislation in Alberta as soon as the old age pensions bill passed parliament. Mr. Christopher, a member from the Crowsnest pass mining district, said that the federal government would put up $10 out of every $20 paid. In this connection 'he used rather

Old Age Pensions
peculiar language for he said "it would mean a large sum coming to the province and should not be sneezed at."
I just want to say a word or two with respect to the remarks of one of the members from Toronto. The hon. member in question referred to annuities, and said that everybody should, during his wage-earning period, lay aside sufficient out of his meagre earnings in order to provide for his old age. That is a very good principle and I only wish it could be carried out in its entirety. But in looking through the estimates I find that judges who receive salaries ranging from $5,000 to $8,000 are retired with an annual pension of $5,000 or $6,000. I have not learned that these gentlemen have made any particular provision for their old age during their tenure on the bench, but I am quite sure of the fact that they are just as well able to lay aside something out of their "meagre earnings," to use the language of my hon. friend, as a workingman who receives only from 50 cents to 75 cents an hour. I am not objecting to the learned judges being given pensions because they deserve well of their country and have served it faithfully. Military men who have served their country well with the sword have also received pensions without any inference being made that they should have saved money out of their meagre salaries to provide for their old age. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, just as emphatically as I can, that the man who serves his country with his spade is equally entitled to a pension without having it said that he should have saved something for his old age. I hope the House will pass this bill now, and if it needs some amendments in the future that can be done.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I think hon. members
on both sides of the House are in favour of this principle, but I think they would be better satisfied if the government would say whether the provinces have been consulted. We are laying a burden on the shoulders of the different provinces; they will be compelled to pay 50 per cent of the cost of operating this measure. If the government could tell us that after consultation the provinces are in favour of taking the responsibility of this measure I think hon. members would be satisfied.


John Wesley Edwards: The principle of old age pensions is right and good, but the principle of this parliament obliging provincial governments to add to their expenditures is wrong.


Mr. CANNON:: We are not doing that.


John Wesley Edwards: That is.
absolutely what the government are doing.
You are placing the provinces in this position, that without any say on their part with regard to the terms of this bill they must pay half the cost and furnish the machinery for putting the act into operation or run the risk of being labelled as opposed to the principle of old age pensions. But perhaps that may be better discussed under another clause.
I rose to call the attention of the minister to the fact that in section 2 provision is made for the application of the act to the Yukon, but as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has pointed out, there is no such person as a commissioner there. The minister has not attempted to get over that difficulty at all, so I would suggest that we finish section 2 before we proceed to the next part. What does the minister propose to do in this case? He gave no answer to the hon. member for Yukon. Does he propose to create a commissioner there at a certain salary, and to send a man from Ottawa or some other place to that part of the country? Why pass this section when, as it now stands, the act cannot be put into operation in the Yukon?


John Campbell Elliott: Might I say in answer to
my hon. friend that the clause as it now stands was drafted by an officer of the department who came from the western provinces originally, where he was a very distinguished member of the profession. A similar objection was voiced last year and this gentleman gave it as his opinion that the clause as then drafted and as it now appears in this bill would meet the requirements of the Yukon.


John Wesley Edwards: Is there
such an officer as commissioner in the Yukon? Of course if there is, that would meet the case, but if there is not manifestly something must be done in order to make this section workable. I do not care how close this distinguished gentleman lived to the Yukon; the whole thing is whether or not such an officer is there.


Peter Heenan: I would ask that section
2 stand for the time being, and I hope to have an answer in a few moments.
Section stands.
On section 3-Agreements with provinces.


Mr. HEAPS:: I regard this clause as containing the crux of the whole bill, because herein it is stated that one-half the necessary funds must be paid by the provinces which come under the act. I contended last year and I take the same position again that the contribution from the federal exchequer should be considerably greater than 50 per cent. I am inclined to believe that if this act be-
Old Age Pensions

comes law certain provinces will not take advantage of its provisions because they are being asked to bear too great a burden of the cost. It is all very well for the Minister of Labour to ask us to pass the bill as it is, but I think every member of this House has a responsibility both to himself and to his constituents, and in this case the government also has a responsibility. The impression has been created throughout the country that when this act becomes effective the old people of Canada will be entitled to a pension of $20 per month, but if the scheme goes into effect as it now appears probably the majority of the provinces will not take advantage of the bill and many of our old people will suffer a very cruel disappointment. I want to obviate that if possible, and one way in which that can be done is to impress upon the government the necessity of making a larger contribution so that none of the provinces will have any excuse for not coming under the provisions of the act. I think it no excuse to say that the bill may be passed at this session and then, if it does not work, it may be amended next session as may be necessary, because I think that pre-supposes that the provinces will not come under its provisions. I would far rather make one bite of the cherry than two.


Peter Heenan: If the hon. member is
referring to myself, he is not interpreting my words correctly. I said that we could get the principle established and amend the bill in the future in the light of our experience.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That bears out the statement I made. If the provinces do not take advantage of its provisions we may have to come here next year and make some amendments to the bill. I do not want that to be necessary; I believe that we should pass the bill this year and see that it becomes operative in- all the provinces without waiting for further amendments. I do not want to see the old people who I know expect this bill to be passed disappointed now, because that would also mean that every member of the House would have to make some sort of an excuse for having put a bill into effect which does not provide those old age pensions which the people have been led to expect. There is a tremendous difference between 1926 and 1927, due to the fact that in the meantime we -have had a general election. Last year the very principle of the bill met with a certain amount of opposition, and there was some doubt expressed by members of this House as to whether the country would accept an old age pension scheme. These doubts have now been completely swept away, and to-day the principle of old 
age pension has been accepted by all parties in this House as well as by all shades of opinion throughout the Dominion. I think - under those circumstances the government, which may have felt doubtful last year, can afford to be a little more generous. If they contributed three-quarters of the amount, say seventy-five per cent, it would add at the very most $6,000,000 per year to the annual expenditure by the Dominion of Canada. I think the government might very easily have foregone the reduction of ten per cent in the income tax this year, and provided for a federal contribution of seventy-five per cent towards the scheme, in order to make sure that the act shall become operative in all parts of the Dominion.
I would suggest that the government allow this measure to be shaped by the House itself, and let the House assume full responsibility. Let us get away from that custom which we very often follow in this House of the government assuming full responsibility. It is all very well for the government to assume full responsibility under certain circumstances, but in a measure of this kind, where the House can arrive at a certain degree of unanimity, I would like the House to be allowed to vote on this question of a seventy-five per cent contribution by the government. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether you can accept an amendment if I move it, providing for increasing the contribution by the federal government from fifty to seventy-five per cent. I am inclined to think it would be out of order, but I do not know that the House ought not to be divided on this particular question. I think there are quite a large number of members sitting on the opposite side of the House who would favour a larger contribution from the federal exchequer, so that they may be sure that the bill will become operative in their own province. Just now we are discussing this question as to the respective shares of responsibility that the provinces and the Dominion shall assume, and I am trying to impress upon the House that the government ought to assume at least seventy-five per cent of the cost of this measure, because although it says in the act that the provinces shall assume fifty per cent of the cost of the pensions, in addition to that they have to assume the full cost of administration of the measure. I do not know exactly what that is going to mean, but it will be a considerable sum per year in some of the provinces where they have not machinery of a similar character in regard to other social legislation.
. The Minister of Labour has referred to other schemes that are in operation, such as

Old Age Pensions
the Workmen's Compensation Act and mothers' allowances, but those measures afford absolutely no parallel to the measure before us at the present time. They are entirely provincial measures, and are not affected by any action of this House. But this is a case where we believe that the federal government should enact legislation to give assistance to the aged people in this country, and consequently the reference of the minister as to the similarity between this legislation and legislation in regard to mothers' allowances and workmen's compensation does not apply. I am going to ask the Minister of Labour or the government if they will be good enough to tell the House what objection they have to contributing seventy-five per cent towards the cost of this old age pension scheme.


Mr. PECK:: I fully agree with the
principle of this measure. The old people of this country who are unable to earn a living for themselves are entitled to full consideration from the people of this Dominion. The same principle applies, of course, to all people who are helpless and unable to make a living for themselves. We apply this principle in giving assistance to widows and children, and in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and particularly should we consider the old people who have served their country in one way and another and are now unable to support themselves. I am glad, therefore, to find that the House is so largely in accord with the principle of this bill.
I regret that the government should not have seen fit to contribute a larger sum than fifty per cent towards the operation of this measure. I am not prepared to quarrel with the view that perhaps it would be better to leave the administration of this scheme to the provinces, because that might lend itself to economy and greater care in the distribution of the money, and on that account perhaps some contribution sjiould be made by the provinces; but for this parliament to offer to contribute only fifty per cent seems to me unreasonable. It would certainly not be sufficient to ensure that the provinces would adopt the necessary legislation to give effect to this principle we all accept. I fully agree with the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that the federal government should contribute at least seventy-five per cent towards the cost of these pensions. I for one am not satisfied to see the bill go through in its present form, but if the House sees fit to pass it in its present form, I shall accept it, because I accept the principle. I would like to see the House left free to determine
whether or not we should contribute at least seventy-five per cent, and I think before this bill finally passes a resolution should be introduced dividing the House on that question, with a view to making the measure acceptable to the provinces. If the provinces cannot be persuaded to accept the contributions provided for here, and I do not think they can, the act is going to remain a dead letter, and the poor people of this country, of whom there are many in my constituency looking for relief in this direction, are going to be bitterly disappointed. I therefore trust that the government will see its way clear to increasing the amount substantially in order that the measure may become operative in all the provinces.


Mr. LADNER:: In line with the suggestion that the federal contribution should be seventy-five per cent, I move, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think this is an infringement of the rules at all, that the words "three-quarters" be substituted for the words "one-half", in line 22. I make the point that this clause is simply giving authority to the Governor in Council to enter into an agreement. The government are not obliged to make the agreement; it is optional, and likewise they are not obliged to make an agreement providing for the proportion set out in this clause.


William Irvine: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman wants a seconder for his motion, but if he does, I shall be very glad to second it. I, of course, would rather see the Dominion government assume the whole responsibility, but if they will not do that,
I would like to see them go as near as possible to it, with the sole object in view of making the act operative and ensuring its adoption in every province.
The argument of the hon. member for East Calgary as to what the provincial legislature had done was not a very convincing argument why this bill should not be altered. The argument he quoted was advanced in the provincial legislature, and if I were a member of that legislature, presumably I would be putting up the very same argument, but being here, where we have a chance of making the bill really operative, it is admissible to try and persuade the government to assume a greater share of financial responsibility. While it is true that as a rule it is better to have half a loaf than no bread, this is a case where the provinces may pay for the whole loaf and get no bread at all, for either this' bill will increase the expenditure to the provinces, or it will compel the provinces to pay without receiving anything at all pro-
Old Age Pensions

viding they do not adopt the act, or else we are passing a bill which will do nothing at all. One of these three things we are doing. I would very much rather see the government adopt the whole responsibility, but in view of the decision of the government not to do that, I would urge them to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg and increase the federal share by twenty-five per cent. I have therefore very much pleasure in supporting the motion of my hon. friend for South Vancouver.


Mr. McPHERSON:: I regret that the hon. member for Vancouver South made that motion. It might be dangerous to make such a motion, however, when the result sought might be attained in another way without any risk of infringing on the rules of the House. If it is the purpose of the House to increase the amount of the federal grant, I would like to see the matter left in abeyance just now.


Mr. BROWN:: With reference to the point of order, does the Chairman rule that this motion is in order?


John Frederick Johnston: Referring to May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, page 544, I find the following:
No augmentation of a tax or duty asked by the crown, as has already been explained (page 511), can be proposed to the committee, nor tax imposed, save upon the motion of a minister of the crown.
Therefore I rule that the amendment moved by the hon. member is not in order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Before you give a ruling,
Mr. Charman, I think it is usual to have some discussion.


John Frederick Johnston: Beauchesne, page 43,
rule 170, says:
The committee of supply cannot increase a grant which has been recommended by a message from the Governor General. It is also irregular to increase any item in a resolution. But any motion to reduce a grant will be always in order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The point I wish to make, as a reason for introducing the amendment, is that this clause is merely permissive, that the governor general in council may enter into an agreement. It is not a tax or a grant of money. It does not become such until the agreement is entered into, and the governor general in council is not obligated by the statute. Although the applicant may fulfil all the conditions required to obtain a pension, the governor in council is not obligated by the statute to enter into the agreement.


Lucien Cannon: Well, we are. That is the point. We are not legislating for the lieuten-
ant governor, we are legislating for ourselves. It is permissible for the lieutenant governor to accept or reject the proposition. The governor in council may enter into an agreement with any province. The point of order as put forth in my hon. friends argument is very ingenious. It is true the word "may" occurs in the first line of clause 3. The clause reads as follows:
The governor in council may make an agreement with the lieutenant-governor in council of any province for the payment to such province quarterly of an amount equal to one-half of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions.
And so on. The word "may" applies to the agreement; that is the will of the province to enter into an agreement, but the moment the province expresses its willingness to enter into an agreement, then this government is bound to pay. as provided in clause 3


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask my hon. friend, how could it become a tax or imposition until a contract is made?


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about
that. My hon. friend is perfectly right. We are not going to be bound to pay anything unless an agreement is entered into. The clause says "whenever an agreement is entered into;" otherwise we would not need any clause. As long as there is no agreement there is nothing for us to do. We are legislating now as to what will happen the moment the agreement is entered into, and the government, suggests that after an agreement is entered into our liability or obligation will be to the extent of fifty per cent. The amendment proposes that it shall be seventy-five per cent. There is no doubt it is increasing our financial obligations, and, as the Chairman pointed out, it is out of order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will my hon. friend relate the rule to this particular clause? The rule clearly is one that relates to a specific grant or tax. That is the statute creating it in itself creates the obligation. The statute creating this provision does not create the obligation, and to that extent I make ike distinction between this case and the one contemplated by the rule. This clause is a permissive clause, permitting the government to enter into an agreement, the details of which are not even contained in it. Until the government enters into the agreement there is no tax or obligation.


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt this parliament has no authority to force any province into this scheme.


James Arthurs: Or to make payment.

Old Age Pensions


Lucien Cannon: Or to force the provinces to make payment. There is no doubt about that, but clause 3 which is now under consideration meets that situation exactly. In view of the fact that we cannot force the provinces into an agreement, we say the governor in council may enter into an agreement with the lieutenant governor of any province. We cannot say that he' will, because we cannot force the provinces to make the agreement. There cannot be coercion. It cm only be permissive.


James Arthurs: What does the word
"may" mean?


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend says this
legislation is simply legislation to allow for something that might happen; but the second factor of the clause is not to be lost sight of, and that relates to what happens after the agreement is entered into.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the rule contemplate such a case as this?


Lucien Cannon: If the agreement is entered into the clause becomes applicable. Otherwise why should we have any clause?


Mr. BOYS:: I rise to a point of order.
This discussion is out of order. The decision of the Chair has been given and the only remedy now is to appeal from the decision of the Chair.


Lucien Cannon: The Chairman gave a
decision and I understood he withdrew this decision to give my hon. friend the right to speak, I have the same privilege as my hon. friend from Vancouver South and if he admits a decision has been given, all right.


William Alves Boys: I am appealing to you, Mr. Chairman. You gave your decision and the only relief is to accept the decision or to appeal from it.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman is perfectly right. I gave my decision and this discussion is out of order.


James Arthurs: I move that this clause
be changed, that the Dominion accept one hundred per cent responsibility for the obligations under this act and that the expenditure be not more than $12,000,000 for the present year, the amount stated by the minister.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I have much pleasure
in seconding the motion. I desire to point out, as I said a year ago, that I am in favour of the principle of the bill-


John Frederick Johnston: I rule that the motion
of the hon. member for Parry Sound is out of order for the reasons I have given.


James Arthurs: The minister stated that His Excellency had been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, and he also stated that $12,000,000 would be required. My motion is that the Dominion accept full responsibility for the $12,000,000. There is no increase-


Lucien Cannon: I understand the Chairman has given his decision.


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: While I do not propose to discuss your decision, Mr. Chairman,
I may say that it is quite contrary to the view held by a very high authority, namely, the Premier of British Columbia, who criticised us very severely on the hustings because we had not put forward such amendments when the bill was in committee.
The minister has stated that this bill was endorsed by the electors. I do not think he is correct. Speaking for my own province, there was not a single constituency where this particular bill was approved. It is true that the principle of old age pensions met with approval; I do not contend to the contrary; I suppose that is true of the whole Dominion. However, so far as British Columbia is concerned, the people -did not endorse the present proposal.


John Millar: In what form did they show approval or disapproval?


William Garland McQuarrie: I take it that my
statement is justified by the electoral results in British Columbia. I attended a great many meetings where this bill came up for discussion, and the audience made it very clear that they did not approve of it at all. in fact at many meetings where the question was asked, is there any one present who is in favour of the old age pensions bill which was proposed at the last session of parliament, not one person stood up to say that he or she approved of it.


Peter Heenan: But, Mr. Chairman, let
me point out to the hon. member that the legislature of British Columbia has accepted this bill.


William Garland McQuarrie: And the premier of
that province is the same hon. gentleman who criticised us for not moving amendments to the bill last session 1 As a matter of fact I think it is no secret that he hastened to bring in the bill because he expects an election very shortly.


Peter Heenan: If every other province
takes the same course on the eve of an election, won't we soon have old age pensions throughout the Dominion?
Old Age Pensions


William Garland McQuarrie: I remember a few
evenings ago the Minister of Railways when asked about his province stated that it would be very wrong for any legislature to bring in such a bill before parliament enacted this legislation. I understand from the minister that the government anticipates this bill will be adopted by all the provinces. The minister nods his head in approval. If that is so, it is quite clear that the government expects to pay 50 per cent of the cost of old age pensions, and if we pass this bill we admit our responsibility to that extent, which will mean about $12,000,000 annually. It may be that all the provinces will not come into the scheme, in which event the Dominion government will be contributing to some of the provinces towards old age pensions while to others it will not pay anything. Now, while I am entirely in favour of the Dominion assuming the whole responsibility,-


James Arthurs: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: -that is, paying 100 per cent, as suggested by my hon. leader. I feel that in any event we should live up to our responsibilities and in this bill, instead of stipulating for the making of agreements with the provinces, we should provide for the payment of 50 per cent. I regret very much that the minister has intimated that he will not consider any amendments to the present bill. I think the minister himself admits that the bill is not perfect.


Peter Heenan: That is right.


William Garland McQuarrie: Well, how can it be
improved if he will not accept suggestions, even from his own supporters? As I say, 1 am in iavour of the Dominion government paying 100 per cent of the cost of the old age pensions; but if that is not done, let us provide in this bill for the payment of 50 per cent to all the provinces so that the old people throughout the country will at least receive ten dollars a month.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say, as I have said before, that I am in favour of the principle of paying proper old age pensions. I wish to say also that I am not in favour of this bill, I never was and I do not ever expect to be, as long as it remains in its piesent form, for the following reasons:	In
the first place, I claim that in this or any other country those who are responsible for collecting the revenue are responsible for spending it; in the second place, I claim that we have no right to pass on obligations to the provinces without consulting them; in the third place, I say we have no right to enact legislation which we know beforehand, and

which it is quite evident on the face of it, is going to be a great disappointment to the people of Canada. There is no question about that. Under this bill some old people will get nothing unless their province comes into the scheme-that is inevitable; others possibly may get $20 a month, which of itself is insufficient. Then there will be that great disparity all the way from twenty to nothing, or from nothing to twenty. This is bound to create dissatisfaction and animosity between people living in the same province.
I think, Sir, we are to-day paying dearly for the lack of foresight on the part of this government in not calling the provincial premiers together and agreeing on some scheme before introducing this bill. It is quite evident to any man who reads the newspapers that the provinces are holding back, and will continue to hold back, leaving the full responsibility on this parliament and the country generally. In view of the Solicitor General's statement a while ago that this proposal is not being forced on the provinces, I would ask the minister how he is going to apply sections 10, 11 and 12. This defect in the bill of itself will put unequal obligations on the provinces. I think the bill has been ill conceived and ill drafted, and if it goes into effect its application will be unfair.
I would say to the minister that as he has passed through an election, and probably there 'is not another in sight for three or four years, this bill should be withdrawn in order that it may be reconsidered and redrafted, and that in the meantime he should get in touch with the provincial premiers with a view to coming to some common agreement whereby this parliament and the provincial legislatures could pass legislation which at least would be workable. I look upon this measure, Sir, with considerable anxiety. The old people of this country are undoubtedly looking to this parliament for redress, and I am just as certain as I am standing here that they are going to be bitterly disappointed in practically every aspect of this bill. It is essential that an old age pensions scheme should be uniformly workable in every province. Under this measure you will have some people getting nothing while others are getting five, ten and fifteen dollars per month. That condition of affairs prevailing from the Atlantic to the Pacific is bound to stir up dissatisfaction with this legislation. I am in favour of proper legislation, but this is both ill considered and badly drafted. How will the minister make sections 10, 11 and 12 applicable in view of the Solicitor General's statement a few minutes ago?

Old Age Pensions


Peter Heenan: I prefer to wait until we get to those sections of the bill.


Peter McGibbon: The question is vital
to the effect of the bill as a whole.


Peter Heenan: Those sections merely
provide a method of arranging matters between the provinces in the case of removal from one province to another. It is an accounting problem as between the provinces and has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.


Peter McGibbon: But the Solicitor General admits that you cannot enforce it.


Lucien Cannon: A distinction must be
drawn between the powers of the federal government to legislate and the ancillary powers which we are exercising in order to put into force legislation within our own jurisdiction. If my hon. friend will examine that point with a colleague of his who belongs to the legal profession he will find that I am right.


Peter McGibbon: How will one province
collect the money from another without the machinery to collect it?


Lucien Cannon: The machinery will be
organized under the provisions of this bill.


Peter McGibbon: But the Solicitor General admits that the province will not have power.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly the province will have power. The moment the province joins the scheme a law will be passed by the provincial legislature and it is to be assumed that the legislators in that province will have sense enough to see that their legislation is put into proper effect. As my hop. friend knows, in law, omnia rite presumuntur.


Mr. KAISER:: I am certainly in favour
of doing something for the aged. But I want to get clearly in my mind exactly why the government seeks to associate itself with the provinces in this matter. It has been suggested that the necessary machinery already exists in the provinces and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has referred to the compensation board of Ontario and the mothers' allowance board, which organization, he says, might undertake to administer the scheme. I do not know whether the minister has ever had very much experience with the compensation board of Ontario, but having myself been associated with the workingmen of a great industrial city for a number of years I have had to follow quite closely the operations of this organization, and I doubt whether it could possibly handle a matter of this kind. Has the minister ever asked that
board whether it would take on this additional work without having to set up just such machinery as this government would have to organize if the 'act were administered altogether federally? Without any desire to be discourteous I must say that the suggestion in regard to the mothers' allowance board is *another absurdity. The work is entirely different. The nearest parallel I see to a proper administrative body under this law would be the soldiers' pensions board. Some central organization such as that would be simple and .would cost less to the Dominion.
Mr. MePHERSON:	I rise to a point of
order. Half an hour ago I had the floor and was endeavouring to discuss section 3 of the bill, and a dozen or more hon. gentleman got up to ask questions. I have been waiting patiently for an opportunity to continue my remarks.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I said I wanted to ask the
government a question but I did not tell anybody how much more I had to say. I have already asked one question of the minister and there are one or two more that I want to put to him. It is said that we are going to contribute 50 per cent of the cost of the scheme; that is to say, if it costs $24,000,000 we are going to pay $12,000,000. If the government are really sincere would it not be better for them to make a start independently of the provinces? It would be infinitely better, it would be more satisfactory to the people at large, if this government said, "Instead of paying $20 a month and depending upon the provinces to join, we will inaugurate the scheme ourselves, put it into force al once, and pay $10 a month." Let us start somewhere. You could pay $10 a month the first year, if it were felt at the next session that we should pay more, then we could increase the amount, and if the provincess wanted to join there would be nothing to hinder them from coming in. The government are bringing in here a bill in which there are so many "ifs" and "ands" and "buts," so many qualifying conditions that it is the honest opinion of the people that they have no intention of putting it into operation. I really believe that to be the feeling of the country. There are a good many men in the government who would like to see the act operative, just as there are others on this side. I gave this matter my attention for many years before coming here and I still believe that the old people of the country should be taken care of. But I do think that the government ought to make a start independently from some point, however small the amount they might pay.
Old Age Pensions


Ewen Alexander McPherson: If the hon. gentleman is through I will now resume my discussion of the section under consideration. I am not particularly averse to an increase in the proportion the Dominion should pay, if that is at all possible, but I am opposed to the Dominion paying 100 per cent of the cost. It seems to me that the most satisfactory results could be obtained by means of legislation such as is now proposed, whereby the cooperation of the provinces can be secured. The provincial government is in closer touch with those for whom the legislation is designed than a central body under the Dominion government could possibly be. For that reason I am in favour of the provinces contributing to the expense of maintaining the pensions administration. As to the amount that shall be paid, if more could be done along that line than we are able to do I should be glad to see it done. But on the other hand if that cannot be done, I do not think there is much reason for worrying in so far as those provinces are concerned. It would be good politics and good business on the part of those provinces who have identified themselves with social welfare legislation to intimate at this stage that they would not take the matter of old age pensions up unless a larger percentage was paid by the Dominion. I submit that several of the local governments will take up old age pensions even if they are only placed on a fifty-fifty basis, but they would be much more gratified if the House would increase the federal percentage.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) says there is an absolute difference between paying fifty per cent of the cost of such a scheme and paying fifty per cent with the cost of operation added. But that could be met by the House increasing the percentage paid b\r the Dominion if it saw fit to do so.
As to the discussions with respect to this matter which took place during the last election, my opinion is that the public understood the question at issue was not the amount the Dominion or the provinces should pay but whether the federal House should pass this legislation and allow the provinces to come in under it, or whether they should wait until the several provinces agreed upon an old age pensions scheme which could then be adopted by the Dominion. I submit that the present plan of passing federal legislation and letting the provinces come under it one by one, if they feel so inclined is much speedier than the method of summoning the nine provinces together and getting them to agree upon anything. When we see how long it takes this House to agree upon even one section
fMr. Kaiser.]
of this bill, you can form some idea of the task ahead of you when you seek to get nine provinces to agree upon any particular bill. I think it would be an almost impossible task. If any change is made in this section I submit it should take into consideration the cost to the provinces of administering this legislation.


Alan Webster Neill: I will not imitate the actions of other gentlemen as to whom I have complained that they discussed the whole principle of the bill on one section, a thing they should not have done. But I have here an amendment, Mr. Chairman, upon which I should like to get your ruling. I think it is in order, but if not I must of course submit to your ruling. However, I think it will give effect to the evident desire of the labour members of the House and perhaps of some hon. gentlemen opposite as well. I should like to test the feeling of the House as to whether it is prepared to go to the extent of fixing a greater proportion than fifty per cent in our contribution to the provinces. The amendment recently proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), and quite properly rejected, was rejected on the ground, the well known ground that it violated the rule which says that no private member shall introduce a bill or move an amendment to a bill which increases the public expenditure to a,ny appreciable extent. It has been held that small expenditures involved, such as the payment of fees etc., would not be considered a violation of this well known rule, but the Chairman held that it was not in order for any hon. member to increase specifically the amount mentioned in this section. What I propose to do, however, is I think somewhat different.
I propose to strike out the words "equal to one-half" in line 22, and insert the words "not exceeding seventy-five per cent." That will not be compulsory or mandatory at all, and cannot be held to increase the expenditure of the government because under such an arrangement they might give fifty per cent, seventy-five per cent or even forty per cent. As far as that goes I think the provinces would take care that it was not Iras than fifty per cent at least. The section would then read:
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 not exceeding seventy-five per cent of the net sum paid out-
And so on. I think that Would cover the point of order. We are not committing the government to an expenditure of seventy-

Old Age Pensions
five per cent at all, but we are leaving it permissive for them, if they so please, to make such an arrangement with the provinces.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: In view of the ruling given this afternoon by the Deputy Speaker, and in view of rule 170, as set out at page 43 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, I do not think the amendment is in order. Rule 170 reads:
The committee of supply cannot increase a grant which has been recommended by a message from the Governor General. It is also irregular to increase any item in a resolution. But any motion to reduce a grant will be always in order.


Alan Webster Neill: Before you give your decision, Mr. Chairman, will you take into consideration the point made that it is not compulsory but entirely permissive for the government to take such action? They might even lower the amount.


John Frederick Johnston: My opinion is that it opens the door to a grant of seventy-five per cent and that is beyond the intention of the resolution. Therefore, unless some other hon. gentleman wishes to speak, I shall have to declare the proposed amendment out of order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why not overcome this
impasse or difficulty? I would ask the Minister of Labour himself if he would not move that the words "one-half" be struck out, and the words "seventy-five per cent" be substituted therefor.


Peter Heenan: What I am afraid of is
that the old age pensions bill may be killed through the kindness of its friends. The old age pensions bill was defeated in the Senate last session because of the fact that it was estimated that it would involve an expenditure of approximately twelve million dollars.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, but because the
provinces were not consulted.


Peter Heenan: How does my hon. friend know that? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the chances of this bill going through the second chamber this year will not be enhanced by adding one-third to the proposed contribution. If the bill is allowed to remain in its present shape it will have a better opportunity of passing the Senate because the people have pronounced on it. Furthermore, if anything should unfortunately happen to the measure in the other chamber it will raise the question as to how many times the upper house can throw out a bill which has been passed by the House of Commons. This is not going to be the last word in old age pensions legis-32649-54
lation for Canada. If any defects are revealed in actual operation such defects can be cured by amending the law.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister mean
by that that the government might be disposed to consider the federal authority assuming the entire obligation?


Peter Heenan: I will explain what I mean. One hon. member stated, just as a member of the upper house did last session, that this scheme was going to cost Nova Scotia so much money. He seems to take it for granted that everyone in Nova Scotia who is over the age of seventy years will come under the bill. I submit there are quite a number of people over that age in Nova Scotia who will not come under the bill at all because they have a certain annual income. We can all guess, but no one knows just how many people will come under this scheme in British Columbia, Ontario or any other province, and after we get the bill in working order we can amend it in the light of the experience gained. Consequently I cannot agree with my hon. friend because of the fact that I am more desirous of getting this bill on the statute books than of doing anything else.


John Wesley Edwards: I would like to ask a question. The minister says there is a better chance of getting this bill through the Senate with the 50 per cent clause than if we made it 75 per cent. I see him nod his head in assent. I wonder if he will again nod his head when I say that there is a better chance of getting the provinces to come under this bill if the federal share is increased to 75 per cent.


Peter Heenan: Will you let me answer
that question?


John Wesley Edwards: Certainly;
that is what I want you to do.


Peter Heenan: I fear that my hon. friend as well as other members of this House have forgotten for the moment that this burden of caring for the old, indigent people is at present borne by the provinces alone. Surely if that is the fact the provinces will accept 50 per cent of these expenses in order to lighten their load to that extent. I take it for granted that, as good business men, the members of the provincial governments will welcome a contribution of 50 per cent of that cost which they now pay themselves. It may not be so welcome as a contribution of 60 per cent or 90 per cent, but if you ask a man to-day if he would like $40 a month for the rest of his life he will nod his head. If you ask him to-morrow if he would like $50 a
revised edition
Old Age Pensions

month, he would say "Yes" again. But if you ask a man if he would rather have $20 than nothing, I think he would take the $20.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The minister does
not see his way clear to assume a larger proportion of the cost, and possibly that is asking too much off-hand. It does seem, however, from the discussions which have taken place in this House that there is a very general disposition to advance the proportion, to be granted by the Dominion government. I think it would not be too much for us to ask the minister to allow this particular clause to stand in order to give the cabinet a chance to reconsider it, because we are all anxious that an effective old age pension scheme should be placed on the statute books. I do not want to reiterate what I said the other day with regard to this matter, but the minister has just suggested that some of the provinces would come in anyway, although they would rather have a larger contribution from the federal government. I recall a conversation which I had some time ago with a very prominent Liberal of Nova Scotia, a gentleman who was formerly a member of this House, and he was very keenly interested in the success of the Liberal measures presented to the House. He told me that if only 50 per cent were given by the federal authorities it would mean that his province could not possibly take up the measure, and I have had that situation presented to me by people from different parts of the country. Under these circumstances it does not seem unreasonable that we should ask for conditions whidh would ensure this becoming a successful measure. As I said the other day, the circumstances connected with this bill have materially altered since it was presented a year ago. The Conservative party is committed to the old age pension idea, and has promised to endorse this bill if it cannot get something better, while the other sections of the House feel the same way. Looked at from the standpoint of getting the bill through this House, therefore, the government is perfectly safe. While it may be technically correct that an amendment sudli as was offered may not be acceptable, there should be some way by which the House could give expression to its desire to increase an amount of this character, or at least to the idea that it would be well for the government to do so. That appears to be an impossibility and it only remains to us to urge upon the government that the matter be reconsidered.
Not only have conditions altered in this House, but they have altered in the country as well; when the government introduced the

measure twelve months ago no one knew how it would be received. It was received with greater approval than anyone could have anticipated and, as has been said again and again, it was one of the main planks in the platforms as put forward in the hustings by both old political parties. Undoubtedly the public is ready for it. As to the Senate, if they are going to throw out a 75 per cent bill they will undoubtedly throw out a 50 per cent 'bill also. I do not think the percentage is the trouble; there was nothing to indicate that that was the fact last year, .in fact as I recall the debate in the Senate it was the other way about, and many hon. gentlemen thought it should be a federal measure. I am not at all sure that it might not meet with a better reception from the Senate if the figure were made higher. So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, as the only possible thing left for us to do in the circumstances, that this clause be allowed to stand until the government has a final chance to reconsider the matter in the light of the .promised support from all sides of the House.


Mr. CANTLEY:: It perhaps is needless for me to say that in company with practically all other members of this House I am in favour of an old age pension scheme for Canada, but I am in favour of a federal scheme, which I claim to be the only fair and honest way of dealing with this question. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) has pointed out that if this scheme now before the House were adopted it would mean a contribution by the province of Nova [DOT]Scotia of probably $1,500,000. That may be excessive, but I am quite certain that the contribution would exceed $1,000,000 at least, and we in Nova Scotia are not in a position to-day to make that expenditure in conjunction with the federal government.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Are you not providing for these people now?


Thomas Cantley: We are providing now
for several classes of our people in ways which cannot be abruptly discontinued if at all. We have homes of different kinds in practically every county, built at a very considerable expense, and in addition we have hospitals-for the treatment of tuberculosis and other humanitarian institutions which are certainly not behind those of any other province in Canada. These impose burdens which are as great as we can bear, and we cannot add to them by $1,000,000 or $1,250,000 yearly, particularly in view of our last year's deficit of practically $1,000,000.

Old Age Pensions


John Warwick King: This will relieve
you of part of that burden.


Thomas Cantley: No. The minister must
give us credit for sufficient intelligence to know what is best for ourselves. If the government will bring down a federal measure we will be glad to have it and I wou'd suggest that the bill be remodelled in that direction. If the other provinces care to participate with the Federal government, regulations looking to that can easily be made, and thus the pensions paid to the people of those provinces could be increased.
There are one or two other points to which I would like to refer. In Ottawa last year was held a meeting of all the premiers of the different provinces to deal with an altogether different problem. Might I ask why the government did not consult these premiers at that time in regard to this matter? They were all here; the bill was before the House -and had not then gone to the Senate. The government could then have found out the will of the several provinces through their -premiers at that time. I am not going to deal with that any further, but I want to point out that this bill as brought down if enacted will prove an absolute injustice to some of the provinces. Take Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, for instance. Those provinces will, I take it, not be able to take advantage of this scheme, but would be taxed to provide old age pensions for men and women in other provinces that are better off than they are. It is a clear case of coercion -nothing short of it. Talk about maritime rights-how can you defend that? I ask the minister to be good enough to withdraw the bill, and remodel it to meet the objections that several hon. members have pointed out.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: It appears, Mr. Chairman, that a great many members are concerned over what the provinces may say and do about this measure, but they have not yet given the provinces an opportunity of saying what they intend to do about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Malcolm McLean: They have been talking about what the premiers of the different provinces said, but they are not willing to wait and see what the legislatures of these provinces will do.
If I read this bill correctly, there is nothing in it to compel any province that wishes to come in under this scheme to pay ten dollars a month for every person over seventy years of age. I do not like to take up sections before we come to them, but section 9 provides that the maximum pension payable shall be 32649-54^
so much. It may -be that some of the provinces would not desire to pay that maximum pension, and I submit to you, Sir, and to the House that it is better for the poor people in any province to get some help in the immediate future, rather than to have to wait for a long time until the provinces are able to give t'he maximum amount of assistance mentioned in this bill. When the federal government granted assistance to the provinces in the matter of building highways, they did not wait until all the provinces had agreed to all the terms of that legislation. They passed the measure and made the money available, and then left it to the provinces to come along and say:	We are prepared to take advantage
of this legislation, and we ask you now for a contract to enable us to spend the money. The principle is exactly the same. That policy depended on the provinces taking advantage of it, and it is so in this case. All that this legislation proposes to do is to assist the province in carrying some of its legitimate burdens. Some of the provinces may take advantage of it, and others may wait a while and see how the scheme works out, but sooner or later the people of each province concerned will have to decide whether to take advantage of it or not, and when the people of the province and their legislature have decided that point, they will then have to decide how much assistance they are going to take from this government on a fifty-fifty -basis. I think these two points have been overlooked.
Furthermore, the old people throughout this Dominion are not going to thank their friends for the assistance they are given if that assistance is expressed in a form of delay that will exasperate and injure their prospects, rather than improve them.


George Black: The Minister of
Labour, like all other hon. members who have spoken in favour of this bill, has expressed himself as earnestly desiring that the old people o-f Canada shall get the advantage of an old age pension as provided for by this legislation. Then why not accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for New Westminster a short time ago, and amend the bill so that the federal government will pay in any event fifty per cent of the maximum provided under this bill. Then if the province chooses to come in and add an additional amount to that pension, the old people of the Dominion will be just that much better off. But if the bill goes through as it is, and the province does not see fit to come in under its terms, the old people get nothing. I think the provinces would be more apt to come in if the government set the pace by paying fifty per cent of the amount provided for in
Old Age Pensions

this bill. That is the test of the government's sincerity in this matter. Let them go on and give the old people in any event the amount they are prepared to give if the provinces oooperate.


William Irvine: I would like to urge upon
the Minister of Labour and the government the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I really cannot see why we should be discussing a clause of this kind at all if, on the one hand, we cannot move to amend it in any way, and if the government refuses to accept any suggestions with regard to it. The Minister of Labour, under those circumstances, might just as well pass the bill in his own office and not bring it down here at all. In view of the very general agreement that the amount of the federal contribution should be increased, I would urge the Minister of Labour to allow the bill to stand until it can be redrafted in the light of the discussion that has taken place here both this afternoon and when the principle of the resolution was under discussion in committee. I hope that the government will see fit to increase the federal grant by twenty-five per cent.
Mr, ESLING: During the recent campaign I am quite sure that the Liberal speakers did not stress the fact that there would be relief for the aged provided only that the provinces agreed to the scheme. On the contrary, they aH made it very clear that those over seventy were to receive a pension of $240 a year. The father of the bill, the Minister of Health, for instance, did not get up in his district and say:	We are going to give you an old
age pension provided British Columbia comes in under this scheme. No. He simply told them:	Our government is giving you an old
age pension. When the government brought down this bill, it evidently expected, or hoped at all events, that all the provinces would come in. If the government did not have that expectation, we are justified in concluding that they did not want this measure to become operative. I would ask the Solicitor General or any of the ministers from the province of Quebec if they are quite sure that Quebec would be willing to bear its proDortion of the expenditure, which amounts to $3,069,000. Or take Ontario. Its proportion-I am taking these figures from the last census, which gives the number of people over seventy years of age-would be nearly five millions.


Peter Heenan: Does the census show that those people over seventy have not got an income of over $125 a year?


Mr. ESLING:: No, the census does not
show the number of people who would come 
under the benefits of an old age pension scheme, but in 1924 there was a special committee appointed by this government to go into the whole question of old age pensions, and that committee reported back to the House that about forty per cent of the people in each province over the age of seventy would come under the benefits of this legislation. It is on that report that I am basing my figures.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Do you know how the Conservative party voted in the House at that time on the report of that special committee?


William Kemble Esling: It does not make a particle of difference what happened in the past. If this government had to answer for all its sins in the past, I do not know where they would get off. Prince Edward Island would have to contribute $256,000; Nova Scotia, $1,188,000; New Brunswick, $717,000; Quebec, $3,063,000. I would ask the ministers from Quebec, are they confident that Quebec will come in under this scheme? If they are not, we shall have to come to the conclusion that they are not sincere when they say they want this bill to pass. Ontario's contribution would be $4,904.000; Manitoba, $500,000; Saskatchewan, $500,000; Alberta, $330,000; British Columbia, $500,000.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What are those provinces paying now?


William Kemble Esling: It does not make a particle of difference what they are paying now. We are discussing this particular scheme, and the government expects the provinces to come in and cooperate. The special committee that was appointed in 1924 not only discussed the advisability of bringing in an old age pension scheme in the Dominion, but it viewed the whole question from every phase, and considered similar legislation in force in other Dominions. That committee expressed the conviction that the only way to have a bill that would be uniformly acceptable would be to have the provinces cooperate. My opinion is that if you do not want the provinces to cooperate, then you do not want the bill to pass. The committee urged that there should be a conference of premiers to agree upon uniform legislation, and unless you agree upon such legislation you are simply postponing the day of the operation of the bill. Your own Prime Minister shares that view. On the receipt of this report he said:
It is all important that before any action be taken by the federal administration we should understand very fully and finally the attitude which the several provinces will take on this important question.

Old Age Pensions
I do not know that you could have anything plainer than that. Has the Prime Minister interviewed the province of Quebec or the province of Nova Scotia? If you are in earnest about this and do not wish to continue to fool the people, why not call the premiers together now-it is not too late

and get a uniform measure? The present course of the government will entail a lot of expense on the part of a few provinces which will accept the bill, in the shape of creating administrative machinery, all of which will have to be cast aside. When you have laid down the terms and conditions on which the provinces may accept this bill, if a province does not want to accept it has simply to meet the views of any delegation which holds other views. Take British Columbia; they will go to our premier and say, "We think you should have a sixty-five age limit", and the premier of that province, an old and tried politician, will say, "you are perfectly right, I am going to put in the sixty-five year age limit". What happens? The operation of the bill is deferred for another year. He is pleasing those who want the sixty-five year age limit, and he knows that he is not going to burden British Columbia with an expenditure of half a million dollars. Our leader has said that this should rather be a federal responsibility, and if you are in earnest and do not want a lot of discussion, which would mean the postponement of the measure, then you should make it a federal bill and expunge this clause.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We should not rush this discussion too rapidly. It is nearly six o'clock, and I think the government should have two hours to consider this question. I feel keenly on this matter, because I believe the whole operation of the bill hinges upon the clause we are now discussing. The government has been urged by several members of the House to amend this section. I know that there is a feeling among my friends opposite in favour of a larger contribution from the federal treasury. I fully realize the position of the minister when he says that the Senate may be an obstacle if we insert a provision in the bill that the government shall contribute seventy-five per cent, but I would like to impress upon him that whilst there is one obstacle in the Senate to the seventy-five per cent provision there are nine other obstacles in the country which will not accept the measure favourably unless that provision is inserted. I should like to have this percentage provided for in the bill, have the provinces cooperate with us, and take chances of trouble in the
Senate. I am not afraid of the action of the upper chamber, because after the pleasant things which were said about them and the way they acted they will probably understand the situation. I think the Senate is to a certain extent susceptible to public opinion, and will realize that the whole of the people of Canada are anxious to have this measure placed on the statutes of the Dominion.
The situation in the House in regard to this measure is not altogether edifying, as far as parliamentary institutions are concerned. We have a majority of members in favour of amending the bill in a certain way, and yet these gentlemen cannot give expression to their views on this particular occasion. I believe if we had a vote on this question, and if every member were free of the whips and able to express a candid opinion, the seventy-five per cent provision would carry by an overwhelming majority. If that is the case, and if, as I suggest, the Senate is also susceptible to public opinion, why is the government not agreeable to test the feeling of the House on this question? I do not see why they should object to that. They have not said why they object to such a provision. The only reason given is that they would run the risk of the measure being defeated in the other chamber if this provision were inserted. I would urge the government to let it stand, because if they do not I think some ways and means wall be found of testing the feelings of the House. I do not think it can be avoided. I believe with the lawyers we have in the Labour and Progressive groups we will be able to find some means of overcoming the difficulty which prevents the House giving a free expression of opinion. Can I be furnished with some reason why the government objects to seventy-five per cent as against fifty per cent. If I were a member of the Liberal party at the present time I would urge for a larger contribution, in order to make sure that the bill would become operative. I cannot understand why the government object to that. If the bill becomes law in its present shape, there may be many provinces in Canada where it will not be put into effect, and the government will be assuming a responsibility which might be very disastrous for them at the next election. During the last election nothing appealed more to the people of the country than the old age pensions. I do not think there was a constituency in Canada where the question was not discussed from every angle and where the proposition of an old age pension did not meet with the approval of the people of the Dominion. The government is coming forward with the same
Old Age Pensions

bill, and up to the present time only one province has approved of it. In the province from which I come I do not think that we are likely to have an old age pension bill put into effect if it is placed on a fifty per cent basis. I am anxious to see the bill go into effect, and that is the only reason I am urging my views upon the House. I think the least the government can do is to allow hon. members to express their opinions through a vote. If the motion cannot be made by a private member, I think one of the ministers should move to reconsider the measure, so that hon. members may have an opportunity of expressing themselves, and I feel sure under those circumstances the House would approve of a larger contribution than is proposed in this particular clause.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, in answer
to the hon. gentleman, I wish to say that it is not the intention of the government to curtail discussion in any way, but this parliament, like any other parliament, is necessarily managed according to certain well known rules, and according to those rules the motions moved this afternoon are out of order, and have been so declared by you, Sir.
This afternoon we have witnessed an extraordinary spectacle. On the one hand our friends who belong to the Tory party advance certain reasons why we should pay 100 per cent, and on the other our friends who belong to the Alberta party and the Labour party suggest that we should pay 100 per cent but for other reasons. Only a short time ago we had a vote in this House. The Tory party voted against the government because we had not reduced taxation sufficiently, and the Alberta Progressives voted against the government because we had not lowered the tariff sufficiently. Suppose we accept the suggestion made this afternoon, we would increase the obligations of the federal exchequer. Where would we get the money to meet them? Will the gentleman who are sitting opposite me contend, on the one hand, that we should increase the obligations of the federal treasury and, on the other, reduce taxation?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suggested this afternoon
that if the 10 per cent had not been taken off the income tax there would be ample funds to pay old age pensions.


Lucien Cannon: Exactly; and my hon.
friend voted against the government because the cost of living had not been decreased- the tariff had not been reduced. How can we lower the tariff, thus reducing our revenues, and at the same time assume larger obligations? That is ordinary common sense.

How can this government pay millions of dollars to the people on the one hand, and on the other reduce the national revenues?


Mr. MANION:: I thought the hon. minister and his party stated throughout the general election that by lowering the tariff they had improved the industrial situation throughout the country and increased the national prosperity.


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about that, but that is one angle of the question which I can discuss with my hon. friend on another occasion. What I want to make as clear as possible this afternoon is that we are asked to assume under this bill a larger liability, and we are asked to do so by two parties, one of which is insisting that we reduce taxation, and the other that we reduce the tariff. I say there is no logic in that attitude.
The opponents of this bill apparently are not voicing the interests of the federal government or of Canada as a whole, but the interests of the provinces. This is a federal parliament. Let us look after the interests of the Dominion as a whole. The hon. gentleman from British Columbia who spoke this afternoon asked me to express my views as to whether Quebec was willing to assume her liability under this project, amounting in his estimation to about $3,000,000 annually. I may say that the province of Quebec is spending vast sums of money to look after the very people for whom we are providing under this scheme. It will be for the provincial government to decide whether or not it will share in this scheme. If Quebec wishes to stay aloof, she has a perfect right to do so. But so far as I am concerned, I am not speaking here solely as a representative of Quebec, I am speaking as a representative of Canada. We will contribute to any social legislation, but within our means. An hon. gentleman from Nova Scotia, an experienced business man, told us that we should give everything that his province is asking for in the way of maritime rights, but that Nova Scotia is not willing to do anything to promote this social legislation.


Thomas Cantley: I did not say anything
of the kind. I said we could not afford to. I said further that you could not put the bill into effect without compelling us to pay as taxes pensions to people in other provinces better able than we are to bear the burden.


Lucien Cannon: The stand I take, and I
think it will be approved by the majority of the committee, is that as members of the

Old Age Pensions
federal parliament we should look after the interests of Canada, not after the interests of particular provinces.


Thomas Cantley: I am here to look after
the interests of my own people, the people of Pictou, whose representative I am.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What about the old people, are not they the ones primarily interested?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly. This is a
social question.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Chairman, in view of
the hon. minister's remarks, I should like to ask him whether he considers anything which may be granted under the Duncan report as a dole to Nova Scotia?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly not.


William Gordon Ernst: He speaks as if it were.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is not
going to draw me into making any such statement. The Duncan report is one matter, the old age pensions another. The point I am making is that the financial situation in the Dominion, as a consequence of what happened from 1911 to 1921 is very bad. From 1921 to 1927 we have by proper administration managed to improve it. But as a government, notwithstanding what may be said from this or that comer of the House, we are not going to forget our duty towards the people whom we represent. We will promote social legislation, but within our means, and we will go no further.


An hon. MEMBER:: With federal money.


Lucien Cannon: With federal money. We
are to-day, as a government, expressing in this House a desire to help each and every one of the provinces forming confederation. These provinces have means of their own. Let them do their share in providing pensions, and we will do ours.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister argues that this scheme should be handled from the standpoint of Canada as a whole, as our duty-


Lucien Cannon: Here.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, here.
And he advances the argument that 50 per cent is all that we can take out of the Dominion treasury; therefore we should not ask for any more. Well, if he is right in arguing from that standpoint, surely he should not find fault with the representatives from Nova Scotia who say that the finances of the province cannot stand 50 per cent as its share of the scheme. The hon. minister says that the Dominion cannot stand more than 50
per cent of the cost, but he finds fault with my hon. friend who says that his province cannot afford to put up the other 50 per cent.
I say that every member of this House, no matter what province he comes from, has a double duty to perform. He cannot look at that duty from the standpoint of the minister and say, We will put through this or that legislation from the Dominion standpoint, regardless of our duty to the province from which we come. We have to consider the position in our particular province. I would point out to the minister that in recent years the provinces have more and more taken upon themselves obligations analogous to those which the government is undertaking in this bill. Higher and higher contributions to hospitals, charities and other social work has increased enormously the tax burdens of the various provinces, until to-day they are carrying about all they can stand. In this bill the government is simply making a bluff. I think that is the apt word to use. They made a bluff last year and they are making a second bluff now. They propose to go to the people and say, Here we were in favour of giving old age pensions, but the provinces would not back us up. The government places all the responsibility for administration on the provinces and says, We will hand you back 50 per cent of the net expenditure. Why not the gross expenditure? The fact that the responsibility will rest with the various provinces for the administration of the act, for providing machinery and so forth, is itself a sufficient argument for the Dominion government putting up a larger portion than one-half of the cost. Speaking for the Conservative party, we on this side have appealed to the government to make this a federal measure and to assume the full responsibility for the administration of the act from the federal treasury. Failing that, however, we certainly prefer to have a 75 per cent contribution from the Dominion government. The bill is of no use whatever on a fifty-fifty basis; you cannot get the provinces to eo-operate. It would be much better to make the Dominion contribution 75 or 80 per cent, because in that event it is more likely the provinces would be able to participate. But the minister says no, and the Solicitor General has been equally pointed in indicating that the government is not prepared to increase the amount proposed. Indeed, they were not even prepared a little while ago to allow this particular clause to stand until eight o'clock so that they might have a few more hours in which to consider this suggestion. The minister shakes his head: I take that to be an intimation that the government will
Old Age Pensions

not give one cent more than 50 per cent. The provinces can take it or leave it. That represents the extent to which the government is prepared to go in granting relief to the aged. Judging from the contributions that have been made by my own county to the support of the poor there, I am sure that $20 a month will be inadequate. The government might very well pay a larger percentage of the cost, and in doing so they would encourage the provinces to cooperate, not only in passing legislation, but perhaps in adding to the allowance, so as to make it possible for the old people to live.


Mr. ROBB:: My hon. friend has given
evidence of a short memory. He and his followers-because it is not so long since he was a member of a government-less than forty-eight hours ago applauded the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) when he attacked this government for adding to the public expenditure and urged greater economy. My hon. friend has no longer the responsibility of office and can therefore be generous with the funds of the people. I am interested to know whether he is speaking for the whole Conservative party in this regard?


John Wesley Edwards: I am not
obliged to give utterance to the sentiments of other people; I speak for myself. I can however suggest ways whereby the minister can raise money.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose we were considering section 3-agreements with provinces.


John Warwick King: Up to now I have refrained from speaking on this bill this session. But last year it was my pleasure and honour to pilot the bill through this House. It received the unanimous endorsement of the House and then went to the upper chamber. That chamber did not see fit to accept the bill as passed by the Commons. It failed to pass the upper house, but since then the legislation has been before the electorate of Canada and the people have endorsed it. That has been shown by the return of the party which instituted and brought that legislation into this House.
I do not think the discussion on this occasion has been much wider in its nature than the one which took place last year. It is true that hon. gentlemen opposite, knowing the popular demand for this measure, are more 
anxious now to see that some form of legislation is put into effect. We find to-day an almost unanimous sentiment in its favour. Of course we have not heard yet from those who opposed the bill last year-and there were several-but we find an almost unanimous sentiment in this chamber in favour of old age pensions, and we also find those who are not responsible for the expenditure of the taxes collected from the people of Canada proposing to-day that the scope of the bill should be extended and further obligations undertaken by the Dominion. That seems to be the desire of hon. gentlemen opposite. Well, that is not a difficult thing to do; it is easy for hon. gentlemen opposite, who are not responsible for the expenditure of public money, to suggest that the scope of the bill should be widened. Personally I heartily endorse the principle of old age pensions, and I wish to point out that last year was the first occasion when a government of Canada undertook to bring in legislation dealing with this important question.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the minister a
question?


John Warwick King: Not just now; I prefer to continue my argument. To my mind the primary necessity at the present time is to have the principle of old age pensions endorsed by this parliament. But I can easily see that if the suggestions referred to, in view of the quarter whence they emanate, were accepted by the government the old age pensions scheme would be defeated in Canada for the present. I make that statement after mature consideration, and I hope that those who are in favour of old age pensions, if they mean what they say, will accept the present bill in order to have the principle which it embodies established in this country.
We reviewed last year the countries which had accepted the principle of old age pensions, and we were able to show that Great Britain had led in this matter. But from time to time even Great Britain revised and amended her legislation, and finally arrived at the place where they now have a dual system, one part of which is contributory and the other supported by the government. It would be very satisfactory if we could arrive immediately at the condition Great Britain has developed in her years of progress and legislative experience, but this is entirely a new undertaking as far as Canada is concerned.
As I said a moment ago, generally speaking this proposal has been endorsed by the electorate throughout Canada, and it is a well known fact that the sentiment in Canada is that the aged who have failed to provide for

Old Age Pensions
themselves should receive some assistance from the state. Hon. gentlemen opposite say we are wrong and that we should go first to the provinces and consult them. I think we dealt with that matter very fully last year; this problem is one which under our constitution rests primarily upon the provinces, and they in their turn have handed that responsibility to the municipalities. I think it will be conceded by every hon. member of this House that those who have reached the advanced age of seventy, and through circumstances in many cases beyond their control find themselves without means, should be supported, and that the state should contribute to that support. What is the state as far as Canada is concerned? This country consists of nine provinces and the taxes are collected from the people residing in all nine provinces which go to make up this Dominion. If we keep to our constitution we must consider this as a provincial problem, but the government of which Mr. Mackenzie King is the leader considered this proposal to be of such importance that uniformity of legislation throughout Canada should be brought about. And how is that to be done? We cannot pass legislation telling the provinces that they must do so and so in this matter, but recognizing the fact that they are entitled to bear a proper share of this work we can say to the provinces that we, as the central parliament of Canada, will contribute from our resources fifty per cent of the cost of taking care of these people. I hear from the representatives of Nova Scotia and British Columbia that those provinces cannot undertake this burden, but is it not understood in this House and throughout the country that the aged are entitled to receive and are supposedly receiving support to-day? So those who say that this is not a proper bill and that the Dominion should assume full responsibility are entirely outside of their premises as Dominion legislators.
We have not followed a new practice; it has already been cited in this House that the governments of Sir Robert Borden and Right Hon. Arthur Meighen brought in proposals without consultation with the provinces, whereby contributions were made from the Dominion treasury in order to bring about better road construction in Canada, better technical education and better agricultural conditions. Were these offers refused by the provinces? In every case the provinces did exactly what any individual would do; they accepted the gift from the Dominion government and utilized these funds. The bill brought down in regard to good roads provided that the Dominion government would
contribute 40 per cent of the cost cif construction of the main highways, not 50 per cent. I was a provinical minister at that time; that gift from the Dominion government involved the province in a very large expenditure, and there was hesitation on the part of the various provincial governments as to whether or not they should accept. They did accept, however, because it was a gift from the central treasury of Canada. I want to make this point clear. My friends argue that the Dominion should accept the whole shot and that the provinces should be relieved of that burden. Is that a fair consideration if you look into it carefully? Who can better judge the condition of these people whom it is proposed to help than the local authorities? That is one reason why the Dominion government, even if they had an overflowing treasury, should insist that the provincial governments share in this responsibility. In addition to that we will have the advantage of the local machinery which exists in practically every province in Canada to-day, through which these conditions may be investigated and the truth made known.
As I said a moment ago, last year was the first time any government in this country was prepared to bring legislation of this kind into the federal House. In dealing with expenditures involving $12,000,000 to 124,000,000, the people of Canada and the government of Canada must consider where that money is to come from, and as the Minister of Finance stated just before six o'clock our friends have been very unfair even within the last few hours. We were subjected to criticism because we did not further reduce taxation, but to-day hon. gentlemen opposite say we should involve the Dominion in an expenditure of not $12,000,000 but $24,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You could save it in the civil service in a year.


John Warwick King: My friends were in power many years, and they did not save it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like to ask a
question. What difference will it make to the people whether this money is collected by the Dominion or by the provinces?


John Warwick King: I tried to make
that clear to my hon. friend a moment ago. The taxpayers of this country are situated in the various provinces and they have to pay the shot, but there is an advantage in involving the various provincial governments in this matter because they have the local knowledge and the local machinery for administration
Old Age Pensions


Mr. GARDINER:: What was the rate of
pension?


John Warwick King: "a
Ob
Co


Old Age Pensions


James Arthurs: That was purely a federal scheme?


John Warwick King: Yes. I am quoting these figures merely to show to the House that as members we have certain responsibilities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
John Warwick King: I do not think
any was contributed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there was compulsory contribution.


John Wesley Edwards: What was
the age limit, male and female?


John Warwick King: It varies from
sixty to seventy years, under certain conditions.


James Arthurs: Their scheme takes care
of the blind too, does it not?


John Warwick King: There have been
amendments from time to time, and that portion of the act which authorizes payment to women on attaining the age of sixty came into operation on December 15, 1910. But what I am trying to make plain to the House, Mr. Chairman, is that Australia has had experience with, old age pensions from 1909 to 1927, and they have amended their legislation from time to time to meet conditions as they arose. We are embarking on a new proposal in this country. We know the difficulties that were encountered by the proposals that were made by the government last year, which are the present proposals, and why should we jeopardize them by attaching conditions at the present time? I believe that every member of this House is interested, and favourably interested, in this legislation, and is it not better for us first to establish the principle of old age pensions, and then proceed from time to time to perfect our legislation as our revenues and conditions will permit?

I have no hesitation as a member of this House in saying that the Dominion parliament should not, under our constitution, pay the whole shot. I believe it is to the advantage of the people of Canada that this responsibility should be divided between the federal and provincial governments.


William Kemble Esling: During the campaign did
the minister ever refer to the fact that the provinces were to contribute half the pension? Did he not stress the fact that it was the federal government that was bringing in old age pensions, and that he was the father of the legislation?


John Warwick King: What was said in the campaign, Mr. Chairman, mi^ht be of interest to my hon. friend, but. if I were to review what was said in the campaign and the misrepresentations that were made by my hon. friend and his friends, it would not be helpful to this discussion at all, and I refrain because I am really interested in old age pensions and not in what happened during the campaign. It is of no importance at the present time what my hon. friend or I said during the campaign. I know that anything I said was within the bounds and confines of the bill, and I know that what my hon. friend said was outside the confines of the bill.


William Kemble Esling: What was that?	'


John Warwick King: I am not going
to be led away from the question before us by my hon. friend, further than to say that he represented that certain classes of women were ostracized under our legislation and would not benefit, when there was a special provision in the bill including them, and he knew it.
It is rather interesting to hear what our friends from Nova Scotia and other provinces have to say; in fact, we have heard members on the opposition side of the House say that the province of Quebec would not come in. The Solicitor General has already dealt with that, as a minister from the province of Quebec. I will say this for the province of Quebec: Through their organizations, family, church and otherwise, I believe they do take good care of their aged, and it might be that th.is proposal at first blush would not be acceptable to them. But in view of the history of old age pensions in practically every country in the civilized world to-day, is there any reason for supposing that any province in Canada will not come in?


William Gordon Ernst: Is the minister aware that
the chief Liberal organ in Nova Scotia, as I pointed out this afternoon, is opposed to the bill in its present form?

Old Age Pensions


John Warwick King: I am trying to
get hon. gentlemen to give consideration to this measure outside of its political aspects, but it is very difficult to do so. My hon. friend from Lunenburg would quote a Liberal newspaper, but after all, that is only a newspaper. We know, each and every member knows, that the people of Canada are in sympathy with these proposals, and what I am trying to impress on the House is that we would be better advised, and would be doing more for the principle of old age pensions, if we accepted this legislation, which is the same legislation that went through the last campaign. Then, after the scheme has come into operation and we have had experience with it, we Shall1 be able to do as they have done in Great Britain, in France, Germany, Australia and the United States-amend our legislation from time to time to meet the conditions that arise. But let us at this time first establish the principle that so far as we are concerned, the parliament of Canada, is desirous of bringing into force a uniform pension scheme. If we do that, then surely we have accomplished our purpose, and I will say to my hon. friends opposite, who to-day are suggesting what they did not suggest last year, that they are endangering a principle which I know they are so anxious to establish in Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did I not suggest an increase in the federal allowance last year?
. Mr. KING (Kootenay):	Yes.
Mr. HEAPS'. Am I not taking exactly the same attitude as I did a year ago?


John Warwick King: I do not blame
the hon. member. If I were in his position I would do likewise, but we have got down to cases on this thing. The government has been seriously attacked this afternoon for its want of liberality. /


Peter McGibbon: Hear, hear.
Mr. KING (Kootenay). My hon. friend says "hear, hear." But what is in his mind at this time is to establish the principle, and although he may have advised, and properly so, that the government should be more liberal and should make it sixty-five or seventy per cent, last year the House of Commons did not accept that, and I do not believe the House will accept it this year.


Peter McGibbon: Put it to a vote.


John Warwick King: That would be
a political vote, and not in the interest of old age pensions.


Peter McGibbon: That is my hon. friend's opinion only.


John Warwick King: That is the
opinion that will be generally held throughout Canada, and my hon. friends opposite will realize it before long.


James Arthurs: Is that a desire or a
threat?


John Warwick King: Because the taxpayers who are interested in this proposal are desirous of passing a measure that will bring into existence a uniform system of old age pensions throughout Canada. The amount to be paid to the pensioners can be discussed next year or the year after. Let us establish the principle, and from time to time we can amend the regulation.


William Garland McQuarrie: How can it be uniform if all the provinces do not go into the scheme?


John Warwick King: In this respect we can only judge and make deductions from what has gone before. We know that in legislation of this character, where the Dominion government has given to the provinces from their treasury amounts of money which they did not require to give, the provinces have always been anxious to accept and have accepted.


James Arthurs: After a long period.


John Warwick King: I have no doubt that, if the bill becomes law, throughout Canada in every province there will be people who will see that the provincial governments accept their responsibility, and having accepted their responsibility then you will have what we are contending for, a uniform pension for aged Canadian people.


James Arthurs: How many provinces
came into the various schemes which have preceded this proposition-that is the good roads scheme, and the technical education scheme- and when? How long did they delay?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Every one.


James Arthurs: Eventually.


John Warwick King: They all came in; some debated the matter for a time, perhaps a year or two, but not longer than they should have, because public opinion is what controls provincial governments as it controls dominion governments, and I have no doubt that if this legislation becomes law public opinion in the provinces will be such that the provincial governments will accept what the Dominion government gives them for the care of those for whom they are responsible to-day.
Old Age Pensions


Peter McGibbon: Upon what do you base that opinion, in view of the fact that nearly all the provinces have already refused it?
Mr. KING" (Kootenay): No, I would say that, because when the premier of a province, or some other official, writes us and says he has not had time to consider it, or that the time is not opportune just now, that does not mean that the proposals will be turned down. We have the experience of the last election-


Peter McGibbon: What about Alberta?


John Warwick King: After this bill becomes law the province of Alberta will gaze upon the fifty iper cent that we propose generously to grant to them to care for the aged iwithin jtheir boundaries, and having considered the matter I am satisfied that that province will do as British Columbia has done and will accept the offer made by the Dominion government of fifty per cent of the cost of taking care of these people, who are entitled to be taken care of.


Peter McGibbon: It is a wish.


John Warwick King: No, it is not a wish. It is a statement from experience, and we can onfy judge from the experience we have already had in regard to these matters.


Air. SPENCER:: What does the minister think will be the cost of administration?


John Warwick King: Considering the fact that all our western provinces, as well as Ontario and New Brunswick, have organisations whereby they protect their workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, I would say that under the present proposal they will take over the administration of this act. It is the intention of British Columbia, if this bill becomes law, to hand over to the Workmen's Compensation board the administration of this act, and it will add very little to the expense of that department of government. There is undoubtedly a great advantage in having provincial cooperation in the matter of administration alone. If that were the only deciding factor, then this bill should become law, in order that we might have cooperation in administration from the local bodies who are next to the problem, more so than we are. The administrative expenses should not be very great, as hon. members will see if they read the bill. There will be *a certain amount of checking between the various provinces and the Dominion government, and some money will be set aside from time to time to be paid out by the provincial governments.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the cost of administration be paid by the provinces?


John Warwick King: Yes, that is the intention under this bill, and I think it is an important provision, because they have machinery already established that will carry on this administration.
I am intensely interested in seeing that the principle of old age pensions is established in Canada. I conscientiously believe that it is to the advantage of the scheme that the various 'provinces should be involved and share in the responsibility, and for that reason I am heartify in accord with the legislation. I believe it will be the means of accomplishing very much good throughout the Dominion of Canada. It is true that the provinces have many responsibilities to-day and that they are doing much good work along these lines. We have been told that they have poorhouse3 and similar institutions, but we know in our hearts that this problem has not been touched in Canada, and there are many old people who would be entitled to contributions under this bill who at present are not being taken care of by the provincial government.


Peter McGibbon: Not by "this bill.


John Warwick King: Yes, many of them would be taken care of by this bill. That is true; nobody would dispute it. We are making a start and a very necessary one, and it will relieve a great many people in this country. An idea seems to prevail that one can eat his pie and have it too. It is not possible.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Warwick King: It is not possible.
Our friends seem to think we can vote many millions of dollars and at the same time reduce taxation. I think now my point will be understandable to my friends opposite. When we talk of increased expenditures it means increased taxation.


Thomas Cantley: The minister who has
just sat down appears to argue that as some of the provinces accepted the principle of cooperation in connection with the vote of $20,000,000 for good roads, therefore they will accept this scheme. But the two cases are not at all analogous. Take Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they had already embarked on a project of improved roads before the $20,000,000 voted by the Borden government became effective, and naturally took advantage of it because it aided them in carrying on that project. I say so because I happened to be a member of the highway board of Nova Scotia which was created by the provincial government to carry on that work.
, Mr. YENIOT:	In what year did Nova
Scotia appoint that board?


Thomas Cantley: The minister knows-
1918.


Mr. VENIOT:: In 1920; and in 1919 the
money was voted by the Dominion government.


Thomas Cantley: I think the minister is
in error as to the dates, and I do not see what his mis-statement has to do with my line of argument. The minister who has just spoken carried out that program for the New Brunswick government. We had already in 1918 embarked on a project of improved roads, and the two provinces were extremely glad to get the assistance of the federal grant. Now we are asked to embark on a totally different project which we have not the money to carry out-at least we do not think we have. The minister has not yet convinced me and, I think, some others that Nova Scotia is to-day in a position to take advantage of this measure. If he wants our people to participate in these pensions, let the government make the contribution S10 a month direct from the federal treasury. Then if the province of Nova Scotia can implement that amount by an equal provincial contribution it will, but if we cannot we will at least get the same proportion as the other provinces. As the bill now stands, the provinces which are not able to implement the amount voted by the federal government will have to bear their proportion of the pensions given those provinces which accept the scheme. Is that fair, is that just, is that reasonable? I leave it to the judgment of the committee.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
seems to have misjudged the whole situation. The roads vote was of a material nature. In this case we are dealing with the human element.


Thomas Cantley: Pure sophistry.


John Warwick King: Not at all.


Thomas Cantley: A dollar is a dollar in
either case.


John Warwick King: True; but I have sufficient, confidence in the spirit of our people in the various provinces to believe that they will readily accept this legislation, which is of a human character, more readily than they accepted the roads legislation which my hon. friend speaks of.
M,r. McGIBBON: Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that this is developing into a political scheme. If the government are as willing and anxious as they claim to be to help the poor, why do they not bring down
Old Age Pensions
a practical bill? This proposal is a subterfuge. The government are hiding behind the provinces. It is in the interests of the provinces -and I am speaking irrespective of party- to sit back and do nothing, leaving the federal government to foot the bill.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: When the hon. member says that this is a political scheme, does he mean that only members of the Liberal party grow old?


Peter McGibbon: That is a joke. I am talking simply about this proposed legislation. It is not intended, and I say so advisedly, as a scheme to help the aged poor. If the government were sincere they would bring down a bill and take full responsibility.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what we are doing right now.


Peter McGibbon: I respect the judgment of the Minister of Railways in many things, but not in political things.	-


Lucien Cannon: That is where you may be wrong.


Peter McGibbon: I may be wrong from a political standpoint, but not from a national standpoint. I say that he and his colleagues are hiding behind the provinces. I need only refer to Alberta, which has already repudiated the scheme. If the government want to incur fresh obligations they ought to be prepared to put their hands in the treasury and pay the cost. I ask the Minister of Railways this question: Supposing the province of Saskatchewan from which he comes joins in this scheme, and the province of Ontario from which I come does not, and that a pensioner after living in Saskatchewan for ten years moves into Ontario, or vice versa, how is he going to collect under this scheme? I submit it is absolutely impossible. The result will be that hundreds of old people will be bitterly disappointed, and he knows it. Now, we may differ on political matters, we may differ on-


An hon. MEMBER:: Prohibition.


Peter McGibbon: Yes, we may differ on prohibition and on many other things, but let me tell him this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter McGibbon: Many fools may laugh. Let me tell him that this government in laughing at the old people who are depending upon this legislation for sustenance in their old age will not escape censure. How is the Minister
Old Age Pensions

of Railways going to harmonize such legislation on the part of the federal parliament with provincial legislation? It is an impossibility. That is why I oppose this bill. I support the principle of old age pensions, but I warn him that this bill will bring hardship and disappointment to tens of thousands of old people throughout the Dominion, as the Minister of Railways will find out before many years.


Mr. THORSON:: Mr. Chairman, it is very unfortunate that there should be so much recrimination on so important a subject. This parliament is charged with the responsibility of carrying into effect the mandate which it received from the people last September. One of the issues before the electorate was that oi old age pensions. I think the House should carefully consider the form in which that issue was placed before the people, and their verdict upon it. The Liberal party placed before the electorate this identical bill containing the .principle of cooperation between the provinces and the Dominion in the form of joint contributions. I hope that I may not 'be charged with distorting the attitude of the Conservative party towards that policy during the campaign when I say that that party opposed this bill. I will not say that the Conservative party opposed the principle of old age pensions. I freely acknowledged on many a platform during the campaign that my opponent, the previous member representing this constituency, spoke in favour of old age pensions. I do not, therefore, consider it fair to say that the party as such went to the electorate in opposition to the principle of old age pensions. They did, however, oppose the .present old age pensions bill, and their opposition took this form. They represented that first of all there should be a conference between the provinces, that the provinces should agree upon a joint policy, and that then, and not till then, should the Dominion embark upon this piece of social legislation. That, I think, fairly represents the attitude of the Conservative party during the campaign. The attitude which we took towards the proposal was this. We contended that if such a policy were adopted we would never get old age pensions. The policy of the Liberal party was to set up the machinery, and to say to the provinces, "We are .prepared to contribute fifty per cent of the cost of the scheme. It will then be open to each province to take advantage of it or to stay out, as that province may deem fit".
That, I think, fairly gives to the House the attitude of both parties on the subject of old age pensions. The verdict of Canada was

given in favour of the Liberal party, and, therefore, I suggest, it is that party's policy that ought to be carried into effect as largely as .possible, I have no recollection that at any time during the recent campaign the leader of the Conservative party ever suggested that the Dominion should embark on a system of old age pensions on a purely federal basis.


Peter McGibbon: You had better read
last year's debate.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Both parties were agreed, I think, during the campaign that a policy of cooperation, between the provinces on the one hand and the Dominion on the other, should be adopted. I think it is generally admitted that it is safer and wiser that the administration of the scheme should be left in the hands of the provinces: the provincial machinery 'is closer to the people and is more adapted to their needs. There would be, for example, all sorts of investigations into such matters as proof of age and proof of income, demanding the .presence on the spot df officers of the crown, and I think that it is generally agreed that it would be cheaper and more efficient, to have the administration .of the act entrusted to the provinces. Furthermore, there is a considerable advantage in a policy of cooperation between the provinces and the Dominion; on this point there is, I fancy, a general agreement in the House. It is true that many members on the other side are now advocating a policy of old age pensions on a .purely federal basis, but that was not 'the policy of the Conservative party in the election campaign, and it is upon the issue before the people that we must decide the question to-day.
As pointed out by many speakers, there is in this bill the advantage that, the provinces and the Dominion being both charged with the responsibility of finding revenues for the administration of the act, it will make for greater economy and efficiency inasmuch as there will be a double check on expenditures, and checks on national expenditures are sorely needed. Again, 'there is this advantage to be noted: our Dominion revenues are derived from various sources, such as customs duties, excise duties, war tax, income tax, business profits tax, and so forth; our provincial revenues are secured from many different quarters; for example, provincial revenue is derived from federal subsidies, from municipal levies, from the proceeds of natural resources in the case of those provinces that have their natural resources, from corporation taxes, license fees of one sort and another, liquor profits, court

Old Age Pensions
fines, legal fees, and so on. By a policy of cooperation between the Dominion and the provinces this great variety of revenue will be made available for the administration of the system, and taxation will be spread over as wide a field as possible. It will hit both rich and poor; it will hit the landowner as well as the tenant; it will hit the industrialist as well as the farmer. That is one great advantage which I see in this form of cooperation between the provinces and the Dominion.
Personally I should like to see the pensions increased, just as I should like to see the age limit reduced. But the state of the national purse must be considered. We are embarking for the first time upon a scheme of social legislation. Does anyone imagine for a moment that we shall not hear of further legislation for social purposes in the future? We shall have to consider in the very near future such schemes as pensions for the blind, unemployment insurance, and so forth; we shall have to see to it that our returned soldiers are properly treated in the matter of pensions and reestablishment; we shall, have to see to it also that our civil servants are properly paid. All these things will require national expenditures and it would be unfair to the various classes of persons whom I have mentioned that we should go too far at the present stage in this particular class of social legislation, lest other social legislation in the future should be severely prejudiced.
Much has been said in the course of this debate about the proportion which the Dominion government should contribute to the cost of the scheme. I take this position with respect to that: if it should be necessary to increase the percentage of the federal contribution to this scheme in order to make old age pensions a success then that percentage will have to be increased, because the state of public opinion is such that old age pensions will be demanded and must be granted. Personally I should like to see a greater contribution made by the Dominion government.
May I refer to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) ? I think he was the first person to allude to the matter in the course of this debate. He pointed out that under this proposed scheme the cost of administering the system would be charged to the provinces, and in view of that fact it would be only reasonable that the Dominion should pay a little more than fifty per cent as suggested in the present bill. But we are face to face with this very important consideration: I do not myself think that it is as important what 32849-55
percentage is contributed by the Dominion to the provinces, as that the legislation should pass. After all we must recognize that the cost of this legislation must be paid by the taxpayers of Canada, and it makes very little difference to them whether they pay it in one form of taxation to the province or in another form of taxation to the Dominion; if it should be necessary to increase the proportion of the federal contribution to the provinces, then that proportion must be increased. But we are face to face again with actual facts. A certain part of the Conservative party which was not concerned with elections did object to and did oppose the old age pensions bill. They opposed it not on the ground of principle but on the ground of cost, and I think it essential that we should now enact legislation that obtained the approval of the people of Canada in the last election, and that has some hope of passing both houses of parliament. I am therefore in favour of this proposal if the government does not, in view of the state of the national finances, deem it advisable to increase the federal contribution. I think it essential first and foremost that we should now enact legislation that will be sure to pass both houses of parliament.


James Arthurs: This debate, so far as I
have heard the matter debated, was free from any political bias at all, until the Minister of Health introduced it to-night. He was the first man I think to bring the political factor into this discussion, and he was followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson).
May I point out to the Minister of Labour a few facts, at least I deem them to be such. The minister says that if this bill is passed we can change it at any time we please. He admits that it is not perfect, and he admits that it is not along the line of the legislation passed by Australia. In the first place it is not along the lines of the Australian legislation because their legislation is purely federal. In the second place their legislation takes care of the sicik and the blind. In the third place their age limit is much lower than ours, and their legislation generally is more effective than these proposals can possibly be. The minister will admit that, I think. On the other hand the minister says that if this bill passes we can change the legislation from time to time as we choose. In reply to that I call his attention to clause 4 wherein it is declared that if we enter into an agreement with the provinces there can be no change for ten years. What do my hon. friends think about that? The act is binding upon a province for ten years after its acceptance.

Old Age Pensions


Peter Heenan: If the hon. member is
going to interpret the clause he might just as well read the whole of it. The clause reads:
Every agreement made pursuant to this act 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.


James Arthurs: That is so easy, is it not? That is to say that the province may repeal the legislation and go out of the scheme, but if it stays in it is bound for ten years.


Peter Heenan: If you read the next
clause you will see that the governor in council must approve the scheme for the administration of pensions, and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the Governor General.


James Arthurs: Without the consent of
the governor in council, but as a matter of fact if a province enters into an agreement it has two choices-either to remain in for ten years or to repeal the legislation which it has already enacted. There is no doubt about that in the mind of the ordinary layman when he reads clause 4.
Then if we turn to clause 10, what do we find? It reads as follows:
Where a pensioner has during part of the twenty years immediately preceding the date of the proposed commencement of pension resided in more than one province in which he would have become pensionable if he had continued to reside therein, the province in which the pension is granted shall be entitled to be reimbursed, by the other province or provinces in which the pensioner has resided as aforesaid, a proportion of the pension equal to the proportion which the duration of the pensioner's residence in such other province bears to twenty years.
How does the Minister of Labour propose to collect that from the other provinces that have not entered into this scheme? Is there any provision under the British North America Act, or under any other act, whereby you can collect this amount from a province which has not given its assent to a scheme of this kind? I might go on and deal with clauses 11 and 12, which are even worse than clause 10, but the minister will see readily that there is no manner of doubt that the government cannot enforce these clauses of the bill if it becomes law.
The Minister of Health has said something with respect to the Dominion grants for roads and for technical education. I think I directed the attention of parliament to that subject earlier in the day. There was a time when the various provinces, or some of them,

did not take advantage of the grant for good roads. But the machinery was set up in this city of Ottawa for the administration of that fund of $20,000,000, and most of the provinces have already received from the government all that was coming to them under that act. The machinery is still in existence and we are still paying for the administration of the act, because certain of the provinces have delayed coming under the act as passed by the government of Sir Robert Borden. The same thing is true of technical education. Will the minister say that in any one year the grants for technical education have been assumed by the provinces?


Peter Heenan: I will say this, that every
province-


James Arthurs: I have asked a direct
question. Has there been any year since the Technical Education Act came into force that the whole amount has been assumed by the provinces?


Peter Heenan: I cannot answer that offhand, but I will say this in reply to a question my hon. friend put this afternoon:	I
think there are nine provinces that have taken part in the matter of technical, education-


James Arthurs: That is not answering
the question.


Peter Heenan: -and they have already
met and asked that the system be extended.


James Arthurs: That probably is quite
true, and the provinces are also asking for an extension of the good roads plan. I do not blame them at all. I think they are perfectly right in asking for it and I would hold up both hands in their favour in that regard. The point I am trying to make is that we are setting up expensive machinery here in Ottawa for the administration of these two laws. There is no doubt about it; the Minister of Labour knows that one-half of his department, or at least a great part of it, is engaged on this question of technical education and has been so engaged for years regardless of the amount paid to the various provinces. Not only that, but every province which did not enter into the good roads scheme or the technical education scheme in the first instance is now claiming the amount which they should have had if they had entered into the scheme at first. What guarantee have we in this instance? If one province comes in this year, as apparently the province of British Columbia is willing to do, or if two or three come in and the remainder stay out for a time, what guarantee have we that these provinces will not ask for the money

Old Age Pensions

which would have been due them from the first, saying, "We have taken care of our poor people since that time, and we should be recompensed accordingly." That has been the case with the other two grants and will be so this time, I believe.
One of the hon. members for Winnipeg, just before he sat down, practically annulled the argument, he had made by saying that it made very little difference who paid in this particular case. He said it did not matter whether the Dominion or the provinces or the municipalities paid, because in the end the public had to pay for the upkeep of these old people. That is exactly the position I took last year and it is the position I take this year, in which I am supported by the great majority of hen members who surround me. We believe that it should be purely a Dominion scheme if it is introduced into this parliament at all; we can see no other way out of it. Otherwise it will mean a dual administration with added cost and nothing to be gained, because in the end the public have to pay. We are quite willing and glad to pay; no member of this House and no party in this House is more willing to pay for the support of the aged than myself and those members who sit around me, but we want to do it either by a provincial scheme entirely or by a Dominion scheme alone.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


John Frederick Johnston: The Minister of Labour wishes to make an amendment to this clause, and moves that clause 2 be amended by adding the word "gold" before the word "commissioner" in the second line of subsection (d).


Peter Heenan: This is to meet the wishes of the hon, member for Yukon (Mr. Black).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for
Yukon raised the point that the word "commissioner" did not carry out what was meant by the act and we find that the person meant is the gold commissioner. We feel that the word "commissioner" covers what is intended, but in order to make it perfectly clear we are inserting the word "gold."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2 as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Term of agreements.
William Alves Boys: I would like to know from the minister whether under this section this act is binding for ten years, or whether it can be 32649-S5i
terminated at the end of any period prior to the ten year limit? The minister indicated some thought that that might be his opmioa I can hardly believe that, but I would like to hear his declaration.


Peter Heenan: Some of the provinces objected in the first instance on the ground that there was no assurance from the federal government that the act would continue for any length of time. This section is to ensure that the federal government will give at least ten years' notice before withdrawing from the scheme, and the next clause shows that no change will be made in any agreement unless by consent of the governor in council. In other words, we agree to continue this scheme for ten years with the provinces which enter, but surely any scheme entered into can be changed by mutual consent.


William Alves Boys: The minister has entirely mis apprehended the question, and I may say that I received my thought from his own remarks. Let me read section 4:
Every agreement made pursuant to this act shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation-
If we stopped there it would be perfectly manifest that at any time any provincial government could repeal its statute and, ipso facto, the act would be at an end. Is that the intention of the government or is it intended that this should continue for at least ten years?


Peter Heenan: No.


William Alves Boys: Then are we to understand that if this legislation passes the House, at the end of any year at all any province coming under the provisions of this act can repeal the statute?


John Campbell Elliott: The Dominion must give ten years' notice.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wanted to inquire from
the minister, following our discussion of the resolution, whether he has considered the advisability of making that ten years' notice work both ways?


Lucien Cannon: It cannot be done.


Leon Johnson Ladner: You can do it by providing for it in the agreement. You can make a condition in the agreement that any province coming under the provisions of the act must give ten years' notice 'before withdrawing. The point I am making is that the. people to consider under this scheme are the old folks who will receive the pension. They may receive their pension for a few years and make their plans depending on this revenue, and for some
Old Age Pensions

peculiar reason, either political or otherwise, one of the provinces may suddenly terminate the statute. Suppose the provincial statute were repealed without notice, the assistance of the federal government stops and the old folks find themselves with no .pension. Should we not provide against that by saying under the agreement or by statute that both the provincial and the Dominion governments, once having entered into the project, must give ten years' notice?


John Livingstone Brown: Objection has been raised to this bill-


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the hon. member does
not mind, I am asking the minister a question to which I would like to have an answer.


John Livingstone Brown: I was going to speak on the same point before the minister answered.


Peter McGibbon: You are not a minister yet.


John Livingstone Brown: I would like to point out
that objection has been raised to this bill on the ground that it says to the provinces, "Take it or leave it." That expression has been used quite frequently by hon. gentlemen apposite. Would it be likely to make it any more acceptable to the provinces, say to the province of Nova Scotia which the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Cantley) thinks is so hard up that it could not come under this scheme, if we put a clause in this bill compelling the provinces to keep the agreement in force for ten years?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The main consideration
should be the old folks, who will receive the pension. That is really the purpose of this legislation, and surely if the Dominion government must give ten years' notice the provinces should do the same.


Ernest Lapointe: We have no right to say that.
Mr..CANNON: My hon. friend will perhaps allow me to reply. In this legislation we have to bear in mind the respective positions of the provincial and federal governments. So far as the federal government is concerned we can legislate as we wish; we represent this government and we have absolute authority as representatives of the people to bind the federal government. But so far as the provinces are concerned we cannot legislate here and bind them.	*


William Alves Boys: That is what you are doing in section 10.


Lucien Cannon: No. We are here dealing with section 4-


William Alves Boys: You are binding the provinces there.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, we are not binding the provinces for any period. Section 4 is divided into two parts. The first part provides' that "Every agreement made pursuant to this act shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation." We cannot go beyond that. Every lawyer in this House will admit that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why can you not provide the term of ten years in your agreement?


Lucien Cannon: We cannot infringe on section 92 of the British North America Act. The provinces can pass legislation, and if they afterwards denounce or determine that legislation, that is the end of it so far as the province is concerned, and we cannot do anything else but what we are doing in this section.
The second part of section 4 deals with what we can do. We can bind the Dominion as a whole, and we are doing it in this parliament. We say that so far as we are concerned our agreement will last at least ten years. We can do that so far as we are concerned, but we cannot do it for the provinces.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Can you not make it a condition to the entering into of this agreement that it shall contain a provision binding the province for a ' term of ten years? Surely that is within our powers.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, under section 91 of the British North America Act we cannot legislate on matters that are within the competency of the provincial legislature. We have to restrict ourselves to section 91. But when it comes to an agreement, the two governments meet, and they can make whatever agreement they are willing to enter into provided always that it is within the general lines of our constitution.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Then why not put the ten years term in your agreement?


Lucien Cannon: The two parties are not represented here. We cannot enter into an agreement in this parliament, because there is only one party here; that is the Dominion. The provinces are not represented here, and how can we in this parliament, as representing only one party, enter into an agreement binding both parties? That is nonsense. Everyone, be he layman or lawyer, knows tharCyou have to have two parties to a contract, and we have only one here. That party is the

Old Age Pensions
Dominion, and we are dealing here with what we can do as a Dominion. As to what the other party may do later, it is for that party to decide by passing a law, and then the two parties will meet and enter into an agreement.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Just apply that same line of reasoning to the fifty per cent contribution. The reasoning is absurd.


Lucien Cannon: We are not binding the provinces to pay any fixed sum. We simply say that as far as we are concerned we will pay fifty per cent of what the provinces decide upon for the pension. If it is to be $100, we will pay $50. We will pay fifty pet cent of whatever maximum is fixed, but the amount has to be fixed by the provinces.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why not apply the same process of reasoning so far as the ten year period is concerned?


Lucien Cannon: [DOT] My hon. friend is a very good lawyer, and he knows perfectly well that it is not within our jurisdiction as a federal parliament to bind the province for any period of time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Just as much as the fifty-fifty is within our power.


Lucien Cannon: We say that the provinces can enter into this scheme on their own volition, but if they do not wish to join in it they are not bound to do so.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister say that if
there is to be an agreement it diall not be binding on both Dominion and province-


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend-


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend did not permit me to finish. I am aware of the acuteness of his mind, but he might allow me at least to finish my sentence. Does he suggest that there could not be inserted a provision which would be binding not only on the Dominion for ten years but on the province as well? And the moment the province accept that, it will bind them just as much as if they accept the agreement now to pay fifty per cent.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend knows
we have no law that says that an agreement entered into by the Dominion and the province shall be binding on both; everybody admits that. Why enter into an agreement if it is not to be binding on both parties? We do not need to put that in a law. It is an elementary principle.


William Alves Boys: I agree with my hon. friend.


Peter McGibbon: It is common sense.


Lucien Cannon: It is common sense. The distinction that is to be drawn here is very simple. It is the distinction as to what we can do as legislators in this parliament, and we can legislate only within the four comers of section 91. As to an agreement, that is an ordinary contract, and when the two parties to the contract meet they can agree on whatever conditions suit them. But we cannot go into all the conditions of that agreement, because the two parties are not here. We have to wait until the other party can be present.


Peter McGibbon: Can this (parliament
not dictate the terms upon which the agreement will be made?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly not, because if
I am to make a contract one of the conditions of its validity is the consent of the other party. How can I say that another party will be called upon to give his or her consent if beforehand I impose the conditions of that contract? I have no right to do it.


William Alves Boys: Have you not just as much
right to fix the duration of the agreement as the amount of the contribution?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly not; not by law. If my hon. friend will allow me, the distinction to be drawn is this:	We cannot in a law say
that the duration of the agreement shall be ten years, and claim that that law will be binding on the provinces. But when it comes to drawing up an agreement, if the province is agreeable to the period being ten years, then naturally that condition is binding on both parties.


William Alves Boys: And does not the same argument apply absolutely with regard to the fifty per cent contribution? You cannot say to the province:	You shall pay fifty per
cent. But you can say:	If you are willing
to have an agreement, we will each pay fifty per cent. Similarly, you can say that if you are going to have an agreement, it shall be for ten years or not at all.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly not. I do not
wish to detain the House, but so far as the amount is concerned, we are not fixing that. We simply say to the province:	You fix the
amount, and we will pay fifty per cent. One last point. My hon. friend asked:	What if
the province should Change the law or abrogate the statute one year after it had been passed. That may happen; we cannot help it.


Peter McGibbon: You could prevent it.
Old Age Pensions


Lucien Cannon: We cann-ot prevent it.
We cannot prevent a provincial legislature from amending or abrogating its own laws. It is to be presumed that the provincial governments will always consider their legislation in the lisjht of public interest; we can assume that none of them will bring in legislation without that consideration in mind. If they did, the constitutional check is there; there is always the electorate to see that any government that is derelict in its duty shall not remain in power.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister stated that it might be necessary or advisable later on to bring about certain modifications in this act. I should like to know what the procedure would be in case we find that modifications are necessary. Would it be necessary to obtain the consent of each province that was cooperating? Would there be any difficulty in obtaining such modifications as were found necessary within the next ten years?


Lucien Cannon: Section 5 says that no
change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the governor in council. The proposition could be reversed, and it could be said that we would not be allowed to make any change without the consent of the provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It will be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, incapable of change-at least for ten years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have to get the consent of the nine provinces.


Lucien Cannon: We can change the conditions of any agreement entered into, but the parties to the agreement would have to consent.	*


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose the government
thought it desirable to make certain changes in the act, would it be necessary to call together the provinces which are party to the agreement? If six provinces are favourable to the change and three are not, what would be the position then?


Lucien Cannon: The whole basis of the act is section 3, which says:
The governor in council may make an agreement with the lieutenant governor of any province.
So that we will have an agreement as between the Dominion and each province, and we cannot change the conditions of that agreement without the consent of the parties to it. There is no doubt about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad the
Solicitor General agrees more or less with the observations I made the other evening, that the weakness of the legislation is that it endeavours to impose upon the provinces the will of this parliament willy nilly, and I had not expected when I made the observations that one of the law officers of the crown would so soon agree with what I said.


Lucien Cannon: I do not see it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at section 5, which says:
Before any agreement made pursuant to this act 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.
That is clear. Then look at section 8. Section 8 declares what must be in the agreement before it is made. So that antecedently the provinces are restricted and controlled before they are allowed to make an agreement. Section 8 says:
Provision shall be made for the payment of a pension to every person who, at the date of the proposed commencement of the pension:-[DOT]
(a)	is a British subject; or, being a widow, was such before her marriage;
(b)	has attained the age of seventy years.
And so on. Then subsection (2) says:
The receipt of a pension shall not by itself constitute a disqualification from voting at any provincial or municipal election.
Neither the provinces nor the cities are any longer permitted to determine what shall be the qualifications of those who exercise the provincial or municipal franchise, and this Dominion has said antecedently that all those conditions must be in the agreement. What the Solicitor General has said I believe to be sound, namely, that it is not proper for the Dominion to antecedently determine what the provinces must do, and we have said here that the province must agree to these conditions or there will be no agreement and no pensions. We have gone so far as to say that although the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan may enact that certain indigent persons shall not have the right to vote, this parliament shall dominate the provincial legislatures and declare that the receipt of the pension shall not prevent the persons from having a vote, whatever the province may desire. I pointed that out last year.
I now ask the hon. member from Winnipeg, who is an astute lawyer, if we have not declared antecedently that there can be no

Old Age Pensions
agreement unless a province consents to what we impose upon it as terms of that agreement which we now declare are conditions precedent to anj' agreement being made. That is the story; it is a simple one and does not, I think, admit of argument.


William Alves Boys: There is one other feature I
wish to speak about. I am in favour of old age pensions, but I want to see a scheme adopted that will be* a success and not a failure, and I believe this bill will be a failure. I was informed in regard to section 4 that the provinces had the right, if they saw fit, to terminate the legislation. Look at section 5, which has just been read by the hon. member for West Calgary. That deals with the scheme. But as I presume the scheme in connection with pensions is part of the legislation. If there is not a contradiction there I would like the minister to explain how he can avoid it. Under section 4 each province shall be entitled to terminate the agreement, and section 5 says that no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the, consent of the governor in council. Well, if the scheme is part of the legislation-and I should think it would be-how can those two sections be consistently read together? In the first place, if what I am told under section 4 is right, the whole thing *can be put an end to by a termination of the agreement, and that would mean the repeal of the scheme and everything connected with it so far as the provinces are concerned. Then if you turn to section 5 you find in the closing sentence, " no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the governor in council If the governor in council withholds his consent you cannot make a change in the scheme; the repeal of the provincial act would do the province no good, because they would still be responsible for maintaining the pension. Surely the minister will pay some regard to that. It is absolutely contradictory. If the power he advocates is there under section 4, there should be a change in section 5. If it is the intention that under section 5 no change shall be made without the consent of the governor in council, which means this government, then there must be a change made in section 4. Surely it must be manifest that it is contradictory. Let us get together if we can, and if this measure is to go through, let us get something that will be effective and binding. If a province is going to enter into the scheme at all it should do so for some set period and not with the right to cancel it at any time. Let it be binding for a number of years, so that old people may depend, upon it for a certain
period at all events, and not be at the will of any province at the end of a year. If that is the intention we must recast the provisions of section 5.


Peter Heenan: I have listened to the two members who have argued this matter from the legal standpoint, but from the point of view of the layman the matter is quite clear to me. The hon. gentleman is dealing with two different cases. One case is that when the federal government enter into an agreement with a province respecting old* age pensions they are to continue their obligation for ten years; and it is provided, of course, that the provincial governments may drop it at any time they see fit. As to section 5, it is entirely a different thing. If an agreement is in existence and operating the agreement cannot be changed without the consent of both parties.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister not see the contradiction there?


Peter Heenan: I cannot quite understand
the position taken by different members on the other side of the House, because a little while ago they were arguing that we ought not to impose any expense on the province, and now they are arguing the other way, that when the provinces enter into an agreement we Should bind them to ten years.


William Alves Boys: Yes, if you are going to have an effective agreement .


Peter Heenan: I do not think so.


William Alves Boys: The minister says in one breath that at the end of one year a province can repeal the agreement, but in section 5 we are told that once the scheme is approved it cannot be changed without the consent of the governor in council. If that is so, and the governor in council does not consent to the change, the agreement which has been signed by the province pursuant to the legislation must stand.


Lucien Cannon: Section 4 and section 5
do not cover the same thing.


William Alves Boys: One is the agreement, the
other the scheme.


Lucien Cannon: Section 4 says that when
an agreement is entered into it is subject to certain considerations as to duration.


William Alves Boys: Certainly.


Lucien Cannon: Section 5 deals with a
different thing altogether. It provides that the agreement entered into in accordance with section 4 will be followed by a scheme of
Old Age Pensions

administration. That is common sense. If we want to have that agreement effective we have to work it out, and in view of the fact that the province and the Dominion is each contributing, we say to the province: Submit your scheme to us so that we may make any suggestions we think necessary for its improvement. After the scheme of administration has been agreed on, we say to the provincial authorities: You will not be able to change that scheme of administration without letting us_ know. I do not see what objection there can be to that.


William Alves Boys: Then the suggestion is that
we have this ridiculous state of affairs-legislation of the province declaring the agreement at an end, but the scheme continuing for years to come.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all.


William Alves Boys: There is no alternative.


Lucien Cannon: The agreement is a binding contract, but the scheme of administration is purely a matter of administration.


Peter McGibbon: If the minister's argument is to be taken seriously, it seems to me to be the biggest piece of nonsense ever developed in this House.


Lucien Cannon: I am sorry my friend takes it that way.


Peter McGibbon: It means that two parties enter into an agreement but that the agreement is binding on one party only


Lucien Cannon: My friend did not get my argument.


Peter McGibbon: I got the common sense of it anyway.


John Livingstone Brown: Section 4 says:
Every agreement made pursuant to this act shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation-
So long as the provincial statute remains in operation.
[DOT]-or until after the expiration of ten years.
Section 4 binds the Dominion government to continue the agreement for ten years. The question has been asked, What about the provincial government? Well, this clause simply says nothing about it. It seems to me that section 5 is misinterpreted because the thought has been injected into our minds that we say definitely that the provincial government shall have the privilege of withdrawing, but section 4 says the agreement shall continue in force-
-so long as the provincial statute remains in operation.

Section 5 assumes that the provincial statute has not been repealed, and it simply says that while that statute is in operation the provisions of the scheme for administration shall be approved by the governor in council.


William Alves Boys: I should like to ask the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) or the Solicitor General what is to happen to the scheme if the agreement goes by the board. Does not the scheme say how much the old man or the old woman is to get per year? I must be absolutely stupid or I ought to be able to convince the Solicitor General-at all events the Minister of Public Works-that there is something in the point I am suggesting. If the scheme is part of the agreement, and if it cannot be varied except by the consent of the governor in council, then what right can there be in the province to terminate the agreement? And if the agreement is terminated, does not the scheme go by the board with the agreement?


Lucien Cannon: The tail follows the dog.


William Alves Boys: If that is right, are you not in conflict when you read section 5 with section 4? I see my friends on the front benches nodding their heads. Well, I am willing to be convinced. Let me again ask for an ex-* planation from the Solicitor General. If the scheme is part of the agreement, and if the province can abrogate the agreement or the statute on which it is based, then the scheme goes with it, and how can you apply section 5, which says the governor in council must be a party?


Lucien Cannon: Section 4 is the -cause, section 5 is the effect. The moment the cause disappears the effect disappears also. In other words, the tail follows the dog.


Mr. THOMPSON:: How would it be to
have section 4 -read:
Every agreement made in pursuance of this act shall continue in force until after the expiration of ten years from the date upon which notice of intention is given by either party to the other to determine the same.


John Campbell Elliott: The' answer, it seems to me, is exactly the answer that has been given before, that there is no intention to force the province to continue any agreement with the Dominion after it wishes to withdraw.


William Alves Boys: Clause 5 does that.


John Campbell Elliott: No. Clause 4 says the province may terminate it at any time, that is by repealing its statute.


William Alves Boys: The scheme too.

Old Age Pensions


John Campbell Elliott: Everything. The agreement and the scheme are practically one thing. By section 4, if the province wants to terminate the scheme and the agreement, it repeals its statute; or if the Dominion wants to terminate it gives ten years' notice. In other words, under section 4 you can terminate by repealing your statute, but under section 5 you cannot change the scheme without the consent of the governor in council.


Robert James Manion: You cannot change, the details.


William Alves Boys: Then if the province is not satisfied with the scheme, all it has to do is to terminate the whole business?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Does not the minister see that under a regulation of that kind a great hardship might result to pensioners? Surely he must see the absurdity of it.


William Irvine: I understand the minister explained just now that we could not fix a ten-year period for clause 4 that would be binding on the provinces because they might not want it. In subsection 3 of section 9 we are providing for the recovery of pension payments out of the djeceased pensioner's estate. I am not sure that the province of Alberta wants to do that. But if we can legislate to compel the provinces to sell the effects of deceased pensioners and turn the proceeds into the general fund, why cannot we fix a ten-year period? Is there any difference in the two cases?


Lucien Cannon: All these provisions alluded to by my hon. friend can only become effective if the provinces give their consent to them. Otherwise we would be legislating outside our own jurisdiction. We are dealing with property and civil rights and this is a matter that comes within the purview of the provinces. By their consent, however, we can always legislate in this field and the clauses to which I have referred can, as I have pointed out, become effective only with the consent of the provinces.


William Irvine: Is not that true of clause
4?


Lucien Cannon: That is the point I am
making. In clause 4 we are not imposing anything on the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-What persons are pensionable.
Robert James Manion: I want to offer a suggestion which has been submitted to me by the Canadian Legion and which I think is fair.
It is to the effect that returned soldiers who have served in any theatre of war-I am really adding the qualification "who have served in any theatre of war"-be pensionable at the age of sixty-five- instead of seventy, in the event of their having become prematurely aged as the result of such service. I move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Burrard, that the following words be added to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 8:
-or in the case of returned soldiers who hav-served in any theatre of war and who have reached the age of sixty-five years.
Medical men on both sides of the House know that a large proportion of these men who actually served in any theatre of war were subject to nervous shocks, from shells and other causes, which have made them prematurely old. In many cases they have been injured beyond remedy although they cannot physically establish the fact. They are incapacitated to a large extent from work of any kind, and while medical examiners may be convinced of the fact they are unable to recommend a pension under the pensions act simply for the reason that no demonstration is possible. It would be a splendid thing for this parliament to show its appreciation of these men who have fought for their country and I hope that the government will adopt this suggestion.


Charles A. Stewart: In such
cases as the hon. member mentions, would not such soldiers be pensionable or be given a larger pension?


Robert James Manion: There are many men who would receive consideration from the pensions board because -of such injury as I allude to.


Charles A. Stewart: They would draw larger pensions, would they not?


Robert James Manion: Yes, provided they could
prove their injury; and in that case, of course, they would not come under this legislation. But, as I am pointing out, in many cases returned soldiers, although they may be genuinely incapacitated, cannot demonstrate their injury to the board. Every medical man who -has had any dealings with returned soldiers knows very well that there are many such men who., to medical men, are obviously unable to perform their duties as efficiently as they formerly did. Unfor-
Old Age Pensions

tunately, however, they cannot demonstrate this to the board. Injuries of this description are known in medicine as functional; they are more or less imaginary. There is no organic disorder, the patient's condition being due to nervous weakness which cannot be demonstrated. There is no actual change in the bodily structure. There are thousands of men in this country-I say this advisedly

perhaps tens of thousands in this category who have a moral right to consideration under this legislation but who will not get it. It is that type of man I want to reach.


William Garland McQuarrie: The amendment proposes a reduction in the age limit of five years in regard to a certain class of the population. It may be possible, and I hope it will be, for the minister to reduce the general age limit to that extent.


John Frederick Johnston: Before there is any
further discussion of the proposed amendment I may observe tentatively that in my opinion this motion falls in the same category as some of those proposed this afternoon. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort William seeks to have the age limit reduced to sixty-five years in the case of returned soldiers who have served in any theatre of war. The general age limit fixed in this bill is seventy years. The amendment would widen the scope of the bill in relation to returned men and, if adopted, would conflict with section 170 of rule 13, which provides:
The committee of supply cannot increase a grant which has been recommended by a message from the Governor General. It is also irregular to increase any item in a resolution. But any motion to reduce a grant will be always in order.
In my opinion the effect of this amendment would be to increase the grant contemplated and for that reason I am inclined to 'consider the motion out -of order.


Mr. CLARK:: Apart altogether from the
question whether or not the amendment is out of order, I submit that it is quite in order for a member at this stage to discuss the proposed age limit. Before you rule on the admissibility of the motion, Mr. Chairman, if you have not done so already, I am going to ask the government to adopt the suggestion which has been made by the hon. member for Fort William and move it as a government amendment. I support it, not because I believe that it is going to meet the situation which is developing in this country to-day in regard to the prematurely old; I do not think it will do so. I took up this afternoon with the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment a case which is typical of a great many

and which will have to be dealt with by the government sooner or later if this country is to do its duty. We feel very strongly that the ordinary man who served in any theatre of war has been incapacitated to such an extent that his life, so far as its usefulness is concerned, has been shortened by at least five years. Certainly the period during which he will be able to provide for himself and his family has been reduced to that extent. The typical case I want to submit to the government is the one which I discussed this afternoon with the Minister of Civil Reestablishment,. Here is a man who enlisted for service overseas and whose capacity apparently was one hundred per cent fit. He returns to Canada an invalid. After a couple of years his pension is commuted. He has been getting a small pension which is commuted to $300. But in about another year the man has become practically eighty per cent disabled, and I want to say this-that the pension doctors admit that his disability is due to his war service. They admit that, or they admit it to this extent: They say that he is disabled eighty per cent, but that his disability has merely been aggravated by his war service and that he is therefore not entitled to the full pension provided for by the Pensions Act, but they give him a pension for the aggravation only. Now in the particular case that I have before me there are numerous affidavits filed with the department to the effect that the man was one hundred per cent fit when he went overseas. To-day the pension doctors admit that he is one hundred per cent disabled. He is an invalid, in bed; he has ten children, and he is 56 years of age. Two of his sons were killed overseas, and one won the military cross. Two returned and one is engaged in looking after his own wife and family. Another I think is not married but is looking after his own reestablishment. Of the other six one is dead1, but the remaining five are young children. This man is on his back, and his wife has been obliged to keep a boarding house. She is breaking her health in an attempt to look after her invalid husband. This country says that man is only entitled to be paid a fifty per cent pension because his disability, as it is said, is only an aggravation of something that existed before. But the man was one hundred per cent fit when he enlisted, so far at least as his power to engage in his occupation was concerned. Now I say that that is not right; it is something this parliament should take into consideration. The case I have cited is of course an extreme case so far as the principle of old age pensions is concerned, but there are thousands of men

Old Age Pensions
in this country who are prematurely aged, who are not suffering from a disability admitted to be a disability due to the war at all. These men are incapable of earning a livelihood, and I say that this government might well to-day adopt the principle suggested, and give to these men a pension at the age of sixty-five. I make the suggestion! now that the time has arrived when a survey of the conditions in this respect should be made and a provision introduced into the bill that will take cars of this situation, which is becoming a very serious one indeed.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend's remarks would be proper under certain conditions. But he is interjecting into the old age pensions bill, which was never intended to cover such cases, matters relating to the pension act and legislation pertaining to the returned soldier. Other legislation has been enacted to meet such cases. If that legislation requires amendment to meet the situation my hon. friend speaks of, and I think in some respects it does, let us deal with it when we come to it and not involve such matters in a bill of this kind. That was stated two sessions ago, and I think last year, and generally accepted, and it would be a great mistake to deal with the soldier problem under such an enactment as is proposed here. Undoubtedly there is developing in Canada a problem in regard to returned soldiers, the cases of men who are 'becoming prematurely old on account of their services. That will be a problem this parliament will have to consider, but I do not think it should be thrust into such a discussion as we have had to-night.
As regards a survey of the situation, surveys are being made from time to time. There are various veterans' organizations throughout Canada that meet annually and many of them are making suggestions as to their conditions and requirements. Those are being presented to the Department of Soldiers' Reestablishment and by that department, or by the government, are being brought to the attention of parliament. But I think it would be a mistake to inject into a bill of this character, matters which should be to some extent provided for by special legislation.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the Minister of Health is correct in suggesting that there would be an injustice to anybody if we injected, as he termed it, this matter into the old age pensions bill. .


John Warwick King: Not injustice.


Robert James Manion: Then if there is no injustice I do not see where there should be any objection to it. I do not see why we should not inject it into this bill as we have already done in the case of the Civil Service Act. In that act we give a preference to the returned soldier, and quite rightly, and I certainly see no reason why we should not do so in the present bill.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is not the Civil Service Act purely a federal measure, and would we be justified in saddling this added responsibility upon the provinces?


Robert James Manion: I see no reason, if this legislation is saddled upon the provinces, why they should not have to deal with the returned soldiers also-I see no reason against it. The chairman stated that he was going to rule this out of order. I rather imagined it would be ruled out of order if he adheres to the letter of the law-I will not argue it is a question which should not be ruled out-but if it is ruled out I think the government will be taking not only a wise course and a proper course from the standpoint of the returned soldiers, but taking a good political 'Course also-and they know how to play politics better than anybody else in the House that I know of. And so it might be wise to play a political part along this line and adopt the suggestion. The Minister in charge of the Department of Soldiers Civil Reestablishment should be supporting my suggestion and not opposing it. The Minister of Public Works might adopt it and make it his baby. I will not object. He can take the paternity of it if he likes and make a motion on behalf of the government. What I am trying to do is to get the idea adopted. I do not care who gets the credit as long as it is adopted and put in force for the good of the returned soldiers.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I rose just for a moment to answer the point which was raised by the Minister of Health. For myself I am heartily of the opinion that something should and must be done in connection with these returned men as to whom the hon. member (Mr. Clark) gave a very typical case. We are all getting scores of cases of that kind, and as time goes on there is being developed a real need for consideration on the part of those men whose health is impaired, but which impairment according to medical science cannot be attributed to military service, to use the language of the act. But as I understand the purpose of the amendment it is reatly within the realm of the general principle of old age
Old Age Pensions

pensions. It applies to men who have served in a theatre of war and whose health has to some extent been impaired. Whether it be through a sense of justice or whether it be gratitude for their services these men who find themselves in impecunious circumstances at the age of sixty-five should be entitled to an old age pension, but without regard to whether at an earlier stage of their life, through disabilities arising from military service, they should or should not have received military ipension. I would ask the minister to consider that aspect. The purpose of this resolution is quite different; this is to provide for an old age pension, but the amendment would provide a pension for a class of men who have done a service to the nation and who, from the fact that they have seen service in the war, have attained old age at sixty-five where an ordinary man would not reach old age until seventy.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for Fort William has left. I wanted to ask him a question. .


John Arthur Clark: He will be back in a moment; he has just gone to the telephone.


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps the hon. member for Burrard- (Mr. Clark) would be able to give me an answer. I would like to know whether in the view of those supporting this amendment its immediate effect would be to take in any considerable number of men. I imagine myself that sulch would not be the case. It seems to me that of necessity the number of men who would immediately benefit by such a provision would be very small, and would continue to be small during the next five or ten years.


John Arthur Clark: I might inform my hon. friend that it was surprising how many enlisted men, even in the early stages of the war, were over fifty years of age.


John Livingstone Brown: I quite agree that there are large numbers of men who can show no wounds but yet are physically disabled as a result of the war. One of the worst cases I ever saw hajd no trace of a wound, yet he was a complete nervous wreck. The question in my mind was whether this would have any immediate value.


John Arthur Clark: That is the only answer I
can give the hon. member.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to support this suggestion, which brings up the difficulty of trying to set an age limit. Any medical man like the Minister of Health knows that many men are older at fifty than others at

sixty and seventy, due in many cases to inherent causes. For instance, the arterial condition has a pronounced effect on the length of life, and that condition runs not only through families but through generations. The mode of life would also make a difference, and there is no question at all in my mind that any man who went through the trying ordeals of the war, especially in the front line trenches, has had his span of life shortened by anywhere from five to fifteen years, and in many cases more. If this parliament is to do justice to these people who have reached that stage of their life where they can no longer earn their own living, the age limit should not be set at any particular period. The period at which this act should operate is that period when the man or woman can no longer, through physical or mental causes, earn a living. I raised the objection before and I raise it now, that seventy years of age is too late in life for this act to be of any material value. Speaking offhand I would say that from seventy-five per cent to ninety per cent of the people of this country who should benefit under this act will never do so if the age limit is left at seventy years, because dissolution will have set in long before that. If this is to be a humanitarian act we must put the age limit at such a time as will benefit the people concerned, and that must be the time when their conditions no longer allows them to earn a living. As one who served in the front line trenches and who. watched the operations of the war I say that in the cases of these men the limit of their earning capacity will be reached anywhere from five to twenty years earlier than in the case of those who remained in civilian life. Consequently I think the point raised by the hon. member for Fort William is well taken and should be considered by this House. I do not say that the period should be arbitrarily fixed at five years; I do not know what period it should be fixed at and I do not think any member of this House knows. I do say, however, that if you are going to administer this act in the spirit of equity it cannot be so administered as presented to the House tonight. Consequently I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The point raised by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) in this connection is a sound one, I believe. Premature old age is a war disability, as we are finding out more and more, and I believe it will have to be dealt with in the future through our pension act or through some form of assistance to old soldiers who are unable to carry on. I do not believe, however, that

Old Age Pensions

it is quite sound to incorporate such a suggestion in an old age pension act which is primarily a provincial matter, which must be administered by the provinces and half the cost of which must be borne by the provinces. In my opinion it would seem that the federal government would be passing off a part of its responsibility for war disabilities to governments which have no responsibility in that connection at all.


Robert James Manion: Why did not the provincial governments have as much responsibility for the war as the federal government?


Alfred Speakman: It has been generally
admitted in this House and in the provincial houses that any disability arising from the war is the responsibility of the federal government alone.


Peter McGibbon: That is all nonsense.


Alfred Speakman: I have looked the matter up, and that is what I find. I believe it would simply mean that when the time comes for the revision of the pension act to deal with these cases, that work would be handicapped by the fact that this legislation had already been passed. We in this House must not shirk our responsibility, and that responsibility must be carried out in a more generous way than is allowed under this measure. I think the objection is a sound one, not because I believe those men should not be taken care of but because I believe premature old age due to war service is just as much a war disability as wounds or gas or nervous troubles.


Robert James Manion: But these men are not being looked after.


Alfred Speakman: They will be looked after, and in my opinion this will only be passing the buck to the provinces and would in the long run prevent or delay the passing of such legislation by the federal government.


John Wesley Edwards: I think
every member of this House has had men come to him or write him who have served in the theatre of war but who have been unable to get on the pension list; there are many such cases. I have no doubt whatever that generally speaking the ages of these men have been advanced by at least five years. That is to say, comparing a man who did not go to war at seventy years of age with a man who did serve in a theatre of war, we may take it as a general proposition that the second man is old at sixty-five. In regard to this matter, Mr. Chairman, I find myself very much in agreement with the Minister of Health. This old age pension scheme is one in which the
federal government is asking the cooperation of the provinces, and the responsibility for the administration of the act will be placed upon the provinces. In regard to pensioning those soldiers who become old at sixty-five, or younger than that if you like-


Charles A. Stewart: Probably
sixty.


John Wesley Edwards: Very true.
I say that is a responsibility that primarily, and secondarily, and all the way down the line from A to Z, rests upon the Dominion of Canada as a whole. It is not the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec or any other province on which the responsibility rests for sending the men to the war. It was the Dominion of Canada that had that responsibility, and it is a duty devolving upon the people of the whole of Canada and the federal government to look after and provide for the soldiers who saw service in the war. It may be that there are not many of them at the present time who are nearing sixty-five, although I do believe that there were very many men who saw service overseas, who in their zeal to go across misrepresented their age, representing themselves as younger than they actually were. But apart altogether from whether you put the age limit at sixty or sixty-five, we have got to consider, and I think we ought to consider it now, the best ways and means of facing this problem. It is a solemn and sacred duty resting upon the government of this country to consider carefully how we can play the game and keep faith with the men who served overseas in the theatre of war and whose earning powers were thereby depreciated. It is our duty, and no part of that duty, as a matter of principle, should be placed upon any province. If you shift that responsibility or any part of it on to any province, it will bear more heavily on some provinces perhaps that it will on others. You avoid all that by the federal government assuming what is properly a responsibility resting solely in my judgment upon the federal government. The matter is one which in my opinion should be brought in separately, apart altogether from this old age pension act. It is something which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with speedily, in order that we shall not be disgraced, as all of us should feel we were disgraced, if in the years to come men in dire circumstances and in need of assistance were pointed to as men who had been forgotten by the country they served. We should provide against that by putting on our statute books at the earliest possible moment legislation which will make ample provision for any such cases.
Old Age Pensions


John Campbell Elliott: I just wanted to say a word in answer to some of the suggestions of the hon. member for Fort William. I think we are all agreed that the fullest possible measure of justice should be meted out to the men in this country at the present time who find themselves impaired in health and efficiency on account of their war service. But may I just point out to my hon. friend, who put the question more or less to me, that it is not a new question. It was discussed last year at considerable length with regard to reducing the age limit for certain classes, and the most pathetic appeal perhaps that came to the government during the whole course of that legislation was the appeal that was re-echoed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George this afternoon on behalf of the blind. There are several classes who feel, honestly and sincerely, that they should be entitled to come within the purview of this act, and at an age far below the seventy year limit. That matter was carefully considered last year, and it was thought to be unwise in the interests of old age pensions to attempt to make an exception on behalf of any one particular class. I think the House is fairly unanimous in regard to that at the present time.
I quite agree with what has been said by the member for Fort William, the member for Vancouver-Burrard and other hon. members.
I know, having been Minister of Soldiers Civil Reestablishment for a time, how interested these hon. members are on behalf of returned soldiers, who certainly are entitled to every consideration. But may I call attention to the fact that the special committee that considered this question did not recommend a pension for those under seventy years of age-


John Arthur Clark: That point was never considered by that committee.


John Campbell Elliott: That was in 1924, when the war had been over for six years, and if it were not considered by that committee, that is not the strongest evidence my hon. friend could adduce that it was a very live issue so far as this bill is concerned


Peter McGibbon: Nobody says that it is a
live issue anywhere in Canada


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
will finish later on. May I call attention to the fact that in England up to 1925 there was no exception to the seventy year limit, and only after 1925 was the contributory provision introduced. Perhaps the strongest argument, and the one that must appeal par-
[Mr. J. W. Edward?. J
tieularly to those who have been looking after the interests of the provinces, is that raised by the hon. member for East Calgary and the hon. member for Red Deer, supported by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, that pensions for returned soldiers is a federal matter.


William Irvine: Is not that the very reason why it should be taken up here and in this bill? If we agree that service at the front has reduced the longevity of earning power of a soldier by five years, and he becomes indigent in Alberta at sixty-five, does it not fall upon that province to take care of him until he is seventy without any aid from the federal government at all? For that very reason I argue that we ought fo provide for that class in this bill.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot agree with my hon. friend, and I think on second thought he will agree he has taken an incorrect view of the situation. Whatever pension a man is entitled to on account of impaired efficiency due to war service must surely be a federal matter, and not a matter resting upon the provincial government. For the reasons given, I think that the bill will be in danger, and you are not assisting I believe the cause that we all want to assist, if you make any exceptions in favour of any particular class. The matter was considered, as I said, a year ago, and the best judgment of the whole House at that time was that it would not be wise at present to attempt to go further than to put through a bill that would give relief to those over seventy years of age.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister
seriously argue before this House that the qualification for a pension should be age limit rather than incapacity to earn a living? Surely the only justification for an old age pension is that a man's physical infirmities unfit him to earn a living. There is no other justification for it under heaven.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite
right if he is dealing with inefficiency pensions, but this is an old age pension. Age is the basis of limitation.


Peter McGibbon: Surely the minister will not seriously contend that a man who is physically fit at seventy and can earn a living should have a pension, while a man who is physically unfit at sixty-five and unable to earn a living is not entitled to a pension.


Robert James Manion: I cannot agree at all with hon. members, whether they belong fo my own party or other parties, who claim that the

Old Age Pensions
provinces have no responsibility in regard to the returned soldier. I think it is not only a Dominion responsibility but a provincial, a municipal and a personal responsibility. I do not admit at all that these pious platitudes which we hear that we should treat the soldier the best we can is going to clo the soldier any good, whereas a clause in this bill giving the right to the returned soldiers to have a pension at the age of sixty-five, when many of them are old men long before that, due to the war, would be of some benefit to them. I submit once more that the provinces should be very happy to take the attitude that they should help returned soldiers who require help. It would apply only to those who needed help, and probably only a small number would come under it. The argument that we should place legislation on the statute book to look after these returned soldiers seems to me to be a sound one. But we have not that legislation on the statute book, and thousands of returned soldiers in this country are incapacitated from earning their living because of services at the front, so that I look upon it as the duty of the government presenting this bill to make it apply to returned soldiers with some better advantage than it is applied to the ordinary workingman. I hope the government seriously consider this matter. The position taken by my good friend the Minister of Public Works every time anybody offers suggestions about the bill, that we are hindering the bill and going to do harm is, with all due respect, not well taken-I was going to say ridiculous, but I do not wish to be disrespectful The different bills are brought into this House and submitted to hon. members in order that they may offer suggestions and propose amendments. The Minister of Health took three-quarters of an hour in presenting his argument, and the gist of his whole speech was that we should accept the principle cf the bill. Well, we accepted it on the second reading, but I think we should endeavour to look after our returned soldiers a little better than we look after the men who did not go to the front, and I do not think the House would be doing any injury to the provinces or to the people generally by giving the returned soldier a little better benefit than we are giving the ordinary citizen.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Why place the age at
sixty-five? Many men much younger than that are totally or almost totally incapacitated on account of the war, and they are not covered by the provisions of the act. Why should we make the age sixty-five? I would be willing to include all soldiers who are unable to make a living under the pension act, no matter what their age may be.


Robert James Manion: I desire to express my gratitude to the hon. member lor Southeast Grey for her supporting of my contention, and I will go as far as she will in that direction. But seeing how hard it is to get an acceptance of my suggestion as to sixty-five years, how much more trouble would I have if I proposed that the age should be placed at sixty? I am suggesting that sixty-five shall be the age. If the hon. member for Sc utheast Grey can convince the minister to go lower than sixty-five I will back her up to the last dollar.


Charles A. Stewart: It appears
to me that the hon. member for Fort William has rather answered his own argument. We are all very much interested in seeing that the men who fought in the theatre of the war should have special consideration.


Peter McGibbon: Why do they not get
it?


Charles A. Stewart: The act
which was passed by parliament in that connection is being administered. If the act requires amendment, I suggest that we amend it. It has been well understood between the provinces and the Dominion that the Dominion government would shoulder first the responsibility of the war, and I think in that respect my hon. friend's position is well taken. If men who performed war service are under the existing pension act unable to receive consideration, the act should be amended. That is the direction in which we should move.


Robert James Manion: It has been amended very
many times, but it has not reached many thousands whom it could reach.


Charles A. Stewart: Then amend it, and let this House do the amending. My next point is that I do not think the case of the returned men should be confused with those who will come under the provisions of the act for pensions for disability. All the people who reach seventy years of age are not going to receive pensions. It is only those unable to support themselves who will come under this measure.


Robert James Manion: It is true of the soldiers.


Charles A. Stewart: The same
thing applies to them. Bat my contention is, that the provincial authorities should not have the responsibility of dealing with these cases; that it is purely and simply a federal matter and should be dealt witl accordingly.
Old Age Pensions


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend forget that all day the members on this side of the House have taken the attitude that this whole thing should be a federal matter? The minister was taking the opposite position, but now he is defending the provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: No, you
cannot put it in that way. The provinces and the Dominion should assume their own responsibilities. I am not suggesting that we should adopt my hon. friend's amendment, placing the full responsibility on the Dominion government, in a measure of this kind, but I am willing to go any length my hon. friend will go to amend the pension act to take care of the returned soldier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister has not apprehended the point. If to-day la citizen in Calgary or Edmonton who served in the war is unable to support himself, he is a charge upon the municipality and not the Dominion.


Charles A. Stewart: I say he
should not be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the Dominion has
declined always to contribute to the municipality for the purpose of his support.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend not wrong in that statement so far as the returned soldier is concerned?


Peter McGibbon: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is talking
about war disability as distinguished from indigence. If a man of forty who went to the war is unable to support himself and his family, the municipality has to support him.


Charles A. Stewart: Where it
was demonstrated that the indigent was a returned soldier, the full payment for relief was given by the Dominion.


Mr. CLARKE:: Under what legislation?


Charles A. Stewart: Up until
a year ago.


John Arthur Clark: No.


Peter McGibbon: Every medical man in
this country knows, as I fancy every member of parliament does, that there are tens of thousands of ex-soldiers in this country who are incapacitated and unable to make a living, and who have not been able to attach that incapacity to the federal government and get a pension. In order to get a pension you have to attach yourself to a physical disability. Many men in this country are like

a battery which has been discharged and cannot be recharged. They are physically and mentally incapable of making a living; they are a charge upon the municipality and you cannot fasten that responsibility upon the pension board. I have tried it, every member of this House probably has tried it, certainly eveiy medical man has tried it. That is the case we are pleading to-night, the case of the man who cannot attach his disability to his war service in such a degree as to get a pension, and yet he is a charge upon the state. Those cases are existing in thousands. They were physically fit when they went to the war, but to-day they are physically unfit. The contention of the hon. member for Fort William (M!r. Manion) is perfectly correct: those men should have consideration not only in this but in every other legislation of a similar character.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Chairman,
I agree with some of the members on the other side that there are a great many returned men in this country who should have - pensions. They may not be able to show that their disability is connected with the war, nevertheless it is due to the terrible trials they went through at the front. As a result their systems have become weakened and in seme cases they have since contracted disease which had they been' in a normal condition of health they would not have been subject to. Those men to-day are a charge upon the state, but I cannot see that putting the age limit at 65 in this bill will help them very much, because it will be twenty years before many of them can take advantage of it.


Robert James Manion: This government would
not have anything to worry about then.


John Gordon Ross: I think legislation should be enacted whereby any returned man who is unable to earn a living, whether due to his war service or not, should be looked after by the Dominion government.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, I would
draw the attention of the government to remarks that were made in this House nearly five years ago when this very problem was brought to the attention of the government. I well remember that the minister in charge of pensions at that time, the Hon. Dr. Beland, made the same statement that the present minister and several of his colleagues have made this evening, namely, that this is a federal responsibility which comes under the soldier legislation, the Pensions Act, and that if that act is not broad enough to take care of these cases it should be amended. I am in full agreement with that. But I ask, why,

Old Age Pensions
when this situation was recognized by the government five years ago and by the then Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, it has not been dealt with. That is why we make this suggestion to-night in order that, something may be done to take care of the situation.


Charles A. Stewart: During all
these years large sums have been paid out annually for this very purpose.


John Arthur Clark: Not to take care of these cases at all. They are not being dealt with and have not been dealt with by any legislation. They may have been dealt with spasmodically by some unemployment relief, more or less applicable to all classes in the community. This is an entirely different situation. The member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) said that this legislation will not help the returned men because it will be twenty years before they can take advantage of it. I repeat what I said a few minutes ago. I know of many returned soldiers who were over fifty when they enlisted, and who would qualify to-day if this measure were in force and the age limit were 65. In fact there are many who would qualify at the age of 60. I suggest that most of these men lost five years from their commercial enterprises and their lives have been shortened probably by five years. That in my opinion should make them qualify ten years younger than the average man. We are only asking that they qualify five years younger. That request, I think, is very fair and reasonable.
I agree that this is a Dominion responsibility, and that the pension act should be amended, but I do not believe that any province will object to do something towards alleviating this situation. The member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) made the point very clear. If at the age of sixty-five these men are indigent and unable to take care of themselves by their own labour, they become a charge upon the municipality and upon the province in which they reside, and the province must care for them anyway. Why not recognize that situation now, and if the responsibility is federal let the federal government say, We will contribute one-half of the amount that the municipality or the province is obliged to contribute by reason of that situation.


William Garland McQuarrie: I agree with what has been said by the previous speaker. As a matter of fact, last session I made a similar suggestion to the House, and the present Minister of Health then took the same stand that he takes to-night. In answer to a question by myself he admitted that the govem-32649-56
ment did not propose to bring in any legislation at that session to meet the situation. I suppose the same answer would be given tonight as to giving a preference to the returned men in this connection. I go a little further. In my opinion the age of 70 is too high, and the limit should be considerably reduced. I do not suppose the minister will consider any suggestion in that connection because he has said we must take this bill as it is, he will not entertain any amendments. My proposition is that if we are going to have old age pensions we should deal with them on a proper scale, and should not take the lowest scale prevailing in any other country. I have in my hand a pamphlet issued by the Department of Labour last session entitled, "Old age pension systems existing in various countries." It was published as a supplement to the Labour Gazette of March 1926. This pamphlet gives the age limit in England as between 65 and 70 years; in Australia pensions are paid to men at the age of 65 and to women at the age of 60, but a man who is permanently incapacitated may begin to receive a pension at 60; in New Zealand pensions are payable to men of the age of 65 and to women at the age of 60, unless the applicant is a parent of two or more dependent children under 14 years of age, in which case the age limit is reduced by five years; in Czechoslovakia the age limit is 65; in Denmark, 65; in France, 60; in Germany, 65; in Iceland, 60; in Italy. 65; in Luxemburg, 65; in Spain, 65; in Sweden, 67; in Switzerland, 65; in Uruguay, 60; and in several of the states it is 60. I must say in all fairness that in some of these countries contributory or insurance systems are in operation; but that makes no difference to my argument, which is that the age limit in this bill is too high. I suggest to the minister that notwithstanding his previous statement he should once more consider putting Canada on a reasonable basis in regard to old age pensions.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: We have heard a good
deal about the care which this government was going to take of the returned soldiers who could not obtain consideration under the Pensions Act, but up to the present time nothing has been done in this direction. There has not been even a gesture. Now we are considering old age pensions, and I will ask the Minister of Public Works where he would provide for old age pensions if not in the old age pensions bill itself. The marginal note to the section under consideration is, "What persons are pensionable", and the section enumerates those eligible. If there is a proper place to deal with old age pensions

Old Age Pensions

surely it is here. The amendment is a very simple one, for no legislation of the nature proposed in that amendment could be so conveniently dealt with as in this bill. That is obvious to anyone who will consider the matter. Oh, it is said, the amendment in so far as it relates to the returned soldiers is a wholly federal matter. We do not object to that of course, but it is not altogether a federal matter. These men are and have been a charge upon the municipalities, and if the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Fort William is adopted it will give a certain relief to those who have been helping to take care of the returned soldiers. The municipalities would be only too glad to welcome the amendment. These men gave five years of their lives to their country in time that actually elapsed, while they have sacrificed much more in the physical disability they have suffered and which, because they cannot demonstrate it, prejudices them with the pensions board. Those upon whom the night of old age has come five years earlier by reason of war service should be recognized in this section. The amendment, literally, will not take up more than a line and a half, and this is the proper place to deal with the subject it covers. The House has said to-night that it wants to do the right thing by returned men of the class described, and we have heard from the government that it desires to take care of such men. Now the opportunity offers and the government declines.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Will the government
promise the committee to-night that returned soldiers who are not covered by existing pensions legislation, and who are not able to earn their living because of a breakdown in health due to the war, will be taken care of by amendments to the pensions act to be introduced at an early day? Will the government give us 'that assurance if we let this bill go through as it stands? Now that the government is going to ask for an increased vote for national defence it seems to me that we should take care of the results of the last war before we prepare ourselves for the next. For my part I should be willing to see Canada incur any debt within reason to make happy and contented those men who suffered so much in the last war. What has been said in all parts of the House to-nighit is quite true. Every one of us is receiving many requests from neighbours and friends of men x ho cannot earn their living because of injuries received in the war and who are not covered by existing pensions provisions. Will the government make a statement giving us some assurance in this regard?


John Warwick King: This discussion
is interesting and helpful and if it would meet the situation to fix the age limit at sixty-five I personally would not object. But I know that it will not have this effect, because there are many returned soldiers who become prematurely old at fifty, fifty-five, sixty and sixty-five. The problem raised by the hon. member for Fort William we shall be called upon to consider in a different manner from the way he proposes to deal with it. Since the war-this is true also of the actual war period -there has been a distinct understanding in this House between the opposing parties that soldier legislation would not be considered from the standpoint of politics. It has always been understood that there would be no politics in any provisions made for the soldiers. From time to time cases have come up before parliament for consideration of the interests of the returned men, and these matters have always been referred to parliamentary committees, who have ever been ready to hear the representations of the soldiers through their organizations. I do submit that it would be better for us to leave the question proposed in this amendment to be dealt with in that way rather than allow it to become a political issue. Do not let us have it said that the government or the opposition did not do this or that.


Robert James Manion: If the minister will agree
to deal with the matter this year I will withdraw the amendment.


John Warwick King: I will agree to
this: The government will follow the practice, which has heretofore obtained and which I believe is the wisest one, of referring to a parliamentary committee such amendments to the soldier legislation now on the statute books as may be deemed advisable and such as will provide, if possible, more generous and more equitable treatment for the returned men who have served overseas. These matters can be best dealt with by such a committee, where they can be thoroughly discussed without political bias and with a view to obtaining the best judgment which careful consideration can suggest. It would be harmful, in my opinion, to adopt this amendment. As I have said, it will' not meet the situation; it will merely serve as a barrier against many of these men who will be prematurely old at fifty-five and sixty. There is no question about that.


Robert James Manion: What sort of barrier?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
proposes in this amendment to deal with a

Old Age Pensions
certain section of the returned men; perhaps later on we may have to consider the case again. Why not keep the two branches of legislation separate and distinct?


Robert James Manion: That is the intention of the government-to keep it distinct.


John Warwick King: Let us be fair. It is easy to start a discussion of this kind for the purpose for which it is begun.


Robert James Manion: What purpose does the
minister imply?


John Warwick King: To draw the attention of the committee away from the matter under discussion.


Robert James Manion: Nothing of the sort. I
submit, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is imputing motives to me, and I demand a retraction of that statement. I rise to a point of order and demand that the minister retract that remark.


John Warwick King: I have not imputed anything to my hon. friend; I have merely suggested certain inferences that may be drawn and I do not think I have anything to take back.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order.


John Warwick King: Nothing is
imputed.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment should be spending his time fighting for the soldiers instead of fighting against them.


John Warwick King: That is unfair. I object to that statement and the hon. member should withdraw it because it is not borne out by the facts.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reetablishment made the statement a minute ago that I had introduced this motion-


John Warwick King: I did not refer to you at all.


Robert James Manion: -for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House from the old age pensions bill and I say he had no right to impute that motive ito me. He had no right to impute any such motive to me and I demand that he retract it.


John Frederick Johnston: I followed the 'hon.
minister very carefully and I did not hear him impute motives-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Frederick Johnston: -to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion).
32649-56)


John Arthur Clark: Then may I ask to whom the imputation was directed?


John Frederick Johnston: I thought the minister's remarks were very generally applied.


Robert James Manion: He applied them absolutely to me.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is too sensitive. There is no intention, as I have already said, to impute improper motives to him or to his party, but I do say that a moment ago my hon. friend did not make a fair statement.


Robert James Manion: I did make a fair statement and one that was a good deal fairer than your own.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
said I was fighting against the interests of the returned soldier.


Robert James Manion: So you have been all the evening.


John Warwick King: I take exception to that. It is an unfair statement and one which would not be made by many members of this House.


Robert James Manion: Well, I make it.


John Warwick King: You make it?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


John Warwick King: You are not accountable sometimes for the statements you make in this House.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, I rise-*


John Warwick King: I do not wish to continue this discussion. I merely tried to point out that the proposal of my hon. friend will not, in my opinion, bring about the desire which he has in mind and also those who support him.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. Are you going to allow a minister of the crown to cast insinuations against a member of this House? I ask for your ruling.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) will have to explain what the point of order is before I can give a ruling.


Peter McGibbon: I can very easily tell you. The minister has just stated that the hon. member for Fort William was sometimes not accountable for what he said.


John Warwick King: I think the hon. member for Fort William can well take care of himself.
Old Age Pensions


Peter McGibbon: I do not purpose allowing this to go without an answer.


John Frederick Johnston: My ruling is that there is no point of order.


Mr. STEVENS:: A free-for-all.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the minister will square himself by admitting that he is often unaccountable himself.


John Warwick King: I will state this to my hon. friend, that if I said anything which caused him to be riled and stirred up I am sorry for it. But I have not made imputations in the same way that he has made them in regard to myself.


Robert James Manion: The hon. minister made an imputation first regarding myself. He made an absolutely unfair and unnecessary statement. I have sat here all the afternoon and all the evening, and I have taken up only about ten minutes time of the House. That is all the time I have taken up. And yet he suggests because I bring forward a resolution -a resolution which has been supported and ably supported by every other member on this side of the House but one-that I did it for the purpose of delaying this bill.


John Warwick King: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: The minister absolutely
said it, and I think I am quite within my rights in defending- the attitude I took.


John Vallance: A great deal has been said here to-night that wild be undoubtedly heard ail over Canada to-morrow. The hon-member for Fort William .made the statement that the government would not accept suggestions from this side of the House, the inference being that we on this side were opposed to the returned soldier getting a square deal. I want to say to my hon. friends opposite that we have got to fight as many problems with the department over returned men as they have. I want to say further, as one who has been attempting to get some recognition for those men, that I do not believe we can find it in connection with the present bill. I do not believe in confusing old age pension with the necessities of returned men. Some hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken of the returned soldiers becoming prematurely aged through war service. In my constituency there are returned men who are aged through their war services although they have not reached forty-five years of age. Still I do not think that the question of granting recognition to them should be confused with old age pensions. I am behind the returned

men to the extent of one hundred per cent but even so I do not think I can give the suggestion from the other side my support.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would not care to impede in any way the very important discussion which has been taking place on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort William. However, I understand that his motion has been ruled out of order and therefore it is quite proper to turn to other points. Before action with respect to this clause is finally taken by the House there is one matter to which I wish to draw attention, and I hope that my efforts will be rewarded with more success than has attended other suggestions for the greater part of the day. When the resolution, embodying the principle of this bill was before the House there was one clause which met with the unanimous condemnation, I should say, of members in all parts of the chamber. I am now referring to clause 8, subsection (f), the provision which limits the income of a pensioner to $365 a year, so that if a person has an income or annuity which yields $30 a month, or earns that amount, he is not entitled to a pension under the present bill. Now I think there has been a strong desire expressed by all parties that the maximum of $365 should be considerably increased. The proposal is to grant a pension of $240, and over and above that the pensioner is to be entitled to an income of $125 a year, or approximately $10 a month. That is one of the lowest pensions to be found in any pension act in the world that I know of. If the government would increase this $365 by .a substantial sum it would help to meet the situation, because a good dead of difficulty is going to arise through having such a low maximum. I want to give you a case that came to my attention a few weeks ago. It is that of an aged widow in the city of Winnipeg. She happens to have a small piece of property from which she derives an income of $18 per month, but out of this $18 she has to meet the interest on a mortgage and pay her taxes and the general expenses necessary to maintain her home. Under the present bill that $18 would be regarded as an income and consequently the pension would be very small although she receives nothing out of the income referred to. This matter was drawn to the attention of the government about two weeks ago, and as there seems to be a desire on the part of members to increase the maximum I hope the necessary provision will be made. I do not suppose I would be in order to move that the amount be increased, but I believe the government should do some-

Old Age Pensions
thing in that direction and at least let us go home with something to show for our day's work.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Before this clause carries I think the attention of the House should be directed to section 2, and I would like to ask who is the joker who puts things over the Solicitor General, the Minister of Public Works and other lawyers in the cabinet. Listen to this, and remember that the Solicitor General said that there was no thought of imposing anything upon the provinces:
The receipt of a pension shall not by itself constitute a disqualification from voting at any provincial or municipal election.
YVill someone kindly tell the House what authority we have, sitting here so solemnly and importantly, to legislate for provincial and municipal elections in any province of Canada? There is no use stultifying ourselves by inserting a clause which is plainly beyond the competence of this parliament in an act of this kind.


Lucien Cannon: My friend is referring to
paragraph 2 of clause 8. We are not imposing anything on the provinces, and the argument I made while discussing clauses 4 and 5 still holds good. This bill is subject to the consent of the provinces to the conditions therein contained. In certain provinces of Canada a man is disqualified from voting if he is in receipt of charity from the government, and this paragraph simply means that this is not charity in that sense, that a man who is looked after under this scheme and who receives the pension mentioned is not to be disqualified for so doing. This is no imposition on any province but simply says that this is not charity but a pension scheme. A pension is not charity, and that is the only meaning of paragraph 2, which I am quite sure my hon. friend knows.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it not a
matter for the provinces to declare that this shall not be called charity? We have no right to say whether or not it is.


Lucien Cannon: It is for the provinces to
decide who will be the electors in provincial or municipal elections, without a doubt. But if under provincial law certain persons are disqualified if they are in receipt of charity, it is perfectly within our purview to interpret this bill as meaning that a pension is not a charity, and that is all we are doing.


Mr. GEARY:: Surely that is wrong.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In connection with subsection (f) may I suggest to the Minister of Labour that the word "net" placed before
the word "income" would clear it all up. If the person to whom my hon. friend referred as receiving $200 or $300 a year has to pay most of that amount out, it would hardly be' fair to take the total gross amount off the pension. I think the insertion of this word would clear it up.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May we have a pronouncement as to whether the government are prepared to make the increase suggested?


Peter Heenan: I thought a pronouncement had been made some time ago. We do not want to take any chance of an excuse for the defeat of this bill. I am sorry I have not a little more cooperation in this bill from my friends of the Labour party, because like myself they supported this measure last session and we agreed that it was not the last word in an old age pension scheme. I thought my friends were blamed by hon. gentlemen opposite for fathering this bill, but notwithstanding that, the bill was defeated in another chamber. I am interested at present in having this principle established; we have the endorsation of a great many labour unions, and again I ask especially my labour friends to accept the bill and get the principle established.


Mr. BARBER:: I would like the minister
to explain subsection (a).


Peter Heenan: As the hon. member no
doubt knows, a woman who marries an alien loses her British nationality, and if she becomes a widow she reverts back to that nationality under the act; that is all.
r


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since this bill was brought down I happened to read the report of the last Imperial Conference, which contains a clause to which I should like to call the attention of the government. In connection with overseas settlement the report says:
The sub-committee agreed as to the advantages of co-ordination throughout the empire in social insurance schemes, such as health insurance, and widow's' and orphans' and old age pensions. and they suggested that future legislation on this subject should be drafted in such a manner as to facilitate reciprocity. As a first sten towards this end it was suggested that an endeavour should be made, if necessary with the aid of financial adjustments between the governments concerned, to ameliorate the position of migrants in regard to old age pensions.
It would seem that there should be inserted in this bill a clause making it possible for those who have not lived here for twenty years to receive some benefit. I recognize that, as suggested in this report, there would have to be certain financial adjustments as between Great Britain and this
Old Age Pensions

country. It is most unfortunate that we should urge old country emigrants who look forward to coming under the old age pension schemes in the old country to come to Canada where they would possibly be disqualified until after twenty years' residence. There should be some arrangement made by which an emigrant from Great Britain should receive credit, as it were, for a certain number of years which he was under the scheme in England, provided of course that the British government made certain financial arrangements.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
John Campbell Elliott: Might I just answer my hon. friend, and if there is still doubt about it perhaps it can be remedied. Clause 8 says:
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-
That is disposed1 of. It goes on:
-or, being a widow, was such before her marriage.
Now if she were a British subject before her marriage, no matter what she became aftenvards, she is a British subject and she comes under this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is perfectly clear, but what about the other case? My hon. friend has not caught my point. It says:
(a) is a British subject-
That disposes of that. Then you go on to put the widow in a separate category:
-or, being a widow, was such before her marriage.
So the widow must have been a British subject before her marriage, according to that clause. There is no question that it can be read that way. If you will make this clause to read-I have not the exact words in my mind-that it applies to the widow who had married an alien, that covers all that is necessary.


Lucien Cannon: If I understand my hon. friend aright, this is the case of the woman who acquires British citizenship by reason of her marriage. When the marriage ceases, what becomes of her citizenship? Is she an alien or is she a British subject? If she i3 a British subject, the clause as it reads now covers her case. If she becomes an alien, she is not covered by that clause.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps my method as a layman does not make my point quite clear. If she was not a British subject before her marriage, she obtains British citizenship by marriage. Her husband dies and she becomes a widow. Then this clause says, "being a widow, was such before her marriage." But in the case I mentioned she was not a British subject before her marriage, and therefore I reason that she would not be entitled to the pension. I admit that in the application that might be ignored, but it is desirable to make the language clear.


John Arthur Clark: The alien woman who marries a British subject is still a British subject after his death. But the widow is specially provided for here. If she happens to be a widow, she must have been a British subject before her marriage. The words are:
(a) is a British subject, or, being a widow-[DOT] The widow is dealt with in a different manner altogether from other people. That is the interpretation that could be given that sub-section.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend says that
if an alien marries a British subject she continues to be a British subject even after her husband's death.


John Arthur Clark: Yes.

Old Age Pensions


Lucien Cannon: If such be the case the
clause as it reads now covers both cases.


John Arthur Clark: No, she is also a widow.


Lucien Cannon: The alien woman who has married a British subject becomes a British subject, and she is a British subject after her husband dies. Her case is covered by the first part of paragraph (a) "is a British sud-ject." The second part of the paragraph deals with something else, the woman who marries an alien and ceases to be a British subject during her marriage. She regains her British citizenship when the husband dies. Therefore the paragraph as it reads now covers both cases.


John Arthur Clark: I think the hon. gentleman
is wrong. Widows are specifically named. British subjects are covered, but in the case of widows they must have had the status of British citizenship before marriage.


Lucien Cannon: If she had British citizenship before her marriage she is covered by the words, "is a British subject." If she is a widow and is a British subject, "is a British subject" covers her case. The other case is covered by the latter part of the clause


Henry Herbert Stevens: My only point was that it should be made quite clear. Every province will probably put that interpretation upon it, but we should put it beyond all perad-venture of a doubt.


George Reginald Geary: Paragraph (f) of section 8
says:
Is not in receipt of an income of as much as three hundred and sixty-five dollars ($365) a year.
We have had some very sympathetic expressions about the soldiers to-night. A soldier may have an income of $365 by way of a pension. He has earned that; it is coming to him for a definite permanent impairment of his value in the labour market. That persists after the age of seventy, but he is put in the position of practically losing part of it in comparison with other people when he is forced to give up any claim to a pension in this act because of having that $365 of a pension. It seems to me that as far as soldiers go their pension of $365, or whatever it may be, should be preserved to them, and not be used as a reason for depriving them of the $240 pension under this act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I rise to protest in a very
mild way against the remarks of the Minister of Labour. He has talked about receiving our cooperation. Cooperation implies two parties. You cannot have cooperation unless
you have someone to cooperate with, and so far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself are concerned, we are only too glad to cooperate with the government in putting through any legislation that we deem to be in the best interests of the Dominion. But if the Mlinister of Labour implies by cooperation that we have to accept everything that comes to this House, let me tell him that that is not cooperation. Secondly, the position that I am taking here to-night is exactly the position I took here last year. I have spoken on only two clauses of the bill-one dealing with the amount contributed by the federal treasury; the other I have dealt with and called to the attention of the House. These are the very same matters I brought to the attention of the government last year when the bill was introduced. My position has not changed one iota from that which I took last year, but the position of the Minister of Labour has changed.


George Reginald Geary: Would the minister tell me
what he thinks of the suggestion in regard to clause (f) ? It would mean the insertion after the word "income" of some such words as this:	.
Not being a pensioner for war service.
Then the clause would read:
Is not in receipt of an income, not being a pensioner for war service, of as much as $365 a year.


Peter Heenan: We have great sympathy
with the returned soldiers, but there are requisitions coming from all sides, and we cannot make any exception in this bill to-night. I think every consideration for the returned soldier will be afforded in another bill.


John Arthur Clark: What is the bill?


Peter Heenan: A bill relating to the
soldiers' pensions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister accept
a suggestion for which I am indebted to my hon. friend from iComox-Albemi, to make in paragraph (a) read:
Is a British subject, or, being a widow, is such at the time of the application, or was such before her marriage.


Lucien Cannon: "Such" would apply to
"widow". Well, she is a widow.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, to "British subjects". My hon. friend should not joke.


Lucien Cannon: I am not joking. If you
want to pick a fight, I will not accept.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not addressing the
Solicitor General, but some of his hilarious colleagues. The section would read:
Old Age Pensions

Is a British subject, or, being a widow, was a British subject at the time of the application, or was such before her marriage.
I offer that and have nothing more to say.


Lucien Cannon: I understand the idea of my hon. friend, but I do not think there is any necessity for such an amendment, because every lawyer in the committee will admit that the words "British subject" apply to both man and woman.


John Arthur Clark: But not to widows.


Peter Heenan: A widow is in an unfortunate position perhaps, but she is still a woman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some of ns have the
misfortune of not being lawyers.


Lucien Cannon: I submit that the words
"British subject" cover the case of both a man and a woman, and the other case mentioned by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is looked after by the second part of the section.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I cannot say that I am in accord with the Solicitor General. I think this is a new interpretation. Clause (a) obviously means what we all understand, but we must remember that we have to consider the grammatical construction, and I say the proper construction of this clause as worded is this:
Is a British subject, or, being a widow, was a widow before her marriage.
The antecedent of "such", under the rules of grammatical construction, is the nearest noun to it, unless otherwise specified, and in this ease the nearest noun to the word "such" is "widow". The strict interpretation of that clause therefore would be:
Is a British subject, or, being a widow, was a widow before her marriage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is obviously bad drafting.


John Livingstone Brown: I thought there was nothing in it when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre introduced this point, but I think now it is worthy of consideration. I looked at it one way and I could see it one way, and I looked at it another way and I- could see it another. It seems to me it might be made to rea d:
Is a British subject, or, being a widow of an alien, was a British subject before her marriage.
It seems to me that would make it clear beyond dispute. I think there is a good deal in the point raised by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. Certainly the words

"British subject" would include the widow of an alien, if the clause did not proceed immediately to make exception of other people. The exception takes in more than intended, and in order to correct it you have to add a few words to the clause.


George Halsey Perley: I suggest that the minister take the matter up with the law officers of the department and make sure that this clause covers these widows. It seems to me we have done a good day's work, and I suggest that we might adjourn.


Lucien Cannon: I think we ought to be
careful to see that the interests of the widows are fully protected. Having listened to my hon. friends on this side and on the other side, I suggest that we might amend paragraph (a) so that it would read as follows:
(a) A British subject, or, being a widow, was a British subject before her marriage.
That would be very clear. "British subject" covers, man and woman.
Mr. CLARK!: No, that would not do.
Mr. MeMILLAN: Or, being a widow of an alien, was a British subject before her marriage.


Lucien Cannon: It does not matter to whom she was married; if she was a British subject before her marriage and became a widow she regained her nationality.


John Arthur Clark: The amendment proposed by the Solicitor General does not cover the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I think we are agreed that the widow of an alien who was a British subject prior to her marriage is probably covered by the section as it stands. But I do not think the section provides for the widow who was an alien, but married a British subject who subsequently died.


Mr. COOTE:: I do not want to interfere
with the passage of this bill; I am much interested in it. But I desire to protest to the government that it is a quarter to twelve, and I think it would be the part of wisdom to allow the committee to rise and report progress and adjourn the House. Possibly by to-morrow the members of the committee will have settled in their minds just what they want to do with the widow.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall clause 8 carry?


John Arthur Clark: No, I understand there is an amendment before the committee.


Robert James Manion: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment I moved was ruled out of order?

Old Age Pensions


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: I think the
minister should consult the law officers on the wording of the clause and report to-morrow.


Peter Heenan: I consulted the law officers and heard as many arguments about the different classes of widows as we have had discussed to-night, and ultimately the gentleman who drafted the bill decided to leave the clause in its usual form. We feel everything is covered.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think a word or two
would make it perfectly clear. This is a late hour to continue such an important subject.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall clause 8 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Campbell Elliott: Subject to amendment.


Robert James Manion: That will only take a
minute to-morrow when you have straightened it out.


Lucien Cannon: The clause could easily
be amended on the third reading. It is a matter of very minor importance. Why hold up the clause? We have been discussing it practically all evening. I can assure my hon. friends that I will look into the matter, and if necessary I will bring in an amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Maximum pension $240, etc.
William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I am proposing an amendment to this section which I hope will be carried before it is ruled out of order. My amendment is:
That all the words after the word "interest" in the fifth line of subsection 2, be struck out.
I do not agree with the principle that the property of anyone who receives a pension shall vest in the pension authority after the pensioner's death. We give pensions to judges and to military men, but we do not think of selling their houses after they are dead and transferring the proceeds into the coffers of the state. As this is not a charity affair, as was emphasized by the minister to-night, I do not see the reason for this subsection.


William Gordon Ernst: Subsection 2 apparently
provides that where a person qualifies for a pension his real estate must be transferred to the pension authority before the pension can be received by him. If that is intended, I want to voice an emphatic protest against the subsection. In my constituency I know a large number of people who own small homes that will not yield an income of $300,
perhaps not even $100 a year. If they have to transfer their property to the pension authority they will be discriminated against in favour of those who live in idleness and have not accumulated anything. I see no reason why the industrious and thrifty person should have to transfer his property to the pension authority. This was one of the most viciously attacked provisions of the pension bill during the election, and on behalf of those in my constituency who would be affected by it I voice this protest, whether it will be accepted by the government or not.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could not again appeal to the minister to allow the rest of this bill to stand over until to-morrow. There are still eleven sections to be considered. It is a very important bill.
I think the minister will be well advised to postpone further discussion until to-morrow.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, I would
suggest that before we adjourn we dispose of half the twenty sections. In answer to my hon. friend, I may say that the purpose of the bill is to give old age pensions to certain classes of people. One of its provisions is that they must not be in receipt of $365 a year. If living in his own home a pensioner might be better off financially than if in receipt of actual income. All that is intended is to equalize matters. When a pensioner dies the pension board will take over the property.


William Gordon Ernst: That is just what I am protesting against, Mr. Chairman. Under subsection 3 of this section a debt due by the pensioner to the pension authority is simply a debt against his estate. In the other case the pension authority is a secured creditor of the real estate. Advantage is being taken of the fact that a person has real estate to appropriate it for the use of the pension authority.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, the principle underlying all these clauses is the same. Under clause 8 we say that if a person is receiving $365 a year he will not be entitled to a pension. In clause 9 we allow an income of $125, which with the pension of $240 brings the total income up to $365, the amount mentioned in the preceding clause. Would it be fair or just to lay that down as our guiding principle throughout the bill and then depart from it in this case? We cannot do so. What is fair in clause 8 is also fair in clause 9. I fully realize that it offers inconveniences. During the debate last year, I recollect distinctly, the leader of the opposition of the time pointed out
Old Age Pensions

numerous inconveniences and disadvantages which would be encountered in the working out of this clause. As I say, we realize all that. But as the Minister of Labour has pointed out on several occasions, this legislation is in the experimental stage.


An hon. MEMBER:: Very much so.


Lucien Cannon: Of course; we do not
deny that. But when the legislation is carried into practice and we have an opportunity of considering these difficulties as they occur and of suggesting means of overcoming them, it will be time enough to bring down amendments by way of -improvement. When that time comes, I have no doubt, every member of the House will join with the government in an endeavour to make the law as satisfactory as possible. Having said this, I would urge the committee to pass this bill which is now before parliament for the second time. I make no claim, nor does the Minister of Labour make any claim, of perfection for the bill. It is not perfect; we know that. We have listened with great attention and much interest to the suggestions that have been made by hon. gentlemen to improve the bill and make it more workable, and certainly they will be considered by the government when it is deemed necessary to introduce further legislation along this line.


George Halsey Perley: The Solicitor
General has truly observed that there are a great many anomalies in the bill, and this is one clause that could be greatly improved. But the government are not willing to accept any suggestions from this side looking to the improvement of the legislation. They are fixed in their attitude towards the bill: we must take it as it is. Before we go any further I want to impress upon the government the advisability of adjourning at this point. We have a committee which has been charged with the task of amending the rules of this House, and one of the amendments proposes that the House, at eleven or eleven-thirty, as may be decided finally, shall automatically adjourn. But here we are still discussing this bill, although it is nearly twelve o'clock, and notwithstanding that we have facilitated the business of the House all through this session. I submit that the government will not make any headway by detaining the House under these circumstances. If we had had a long session and had obstructed business it might be different. We have not done so. I suggest that the government will gain nothing by compelling the House to sit after this hour.


Ernest Lapointe: If anyone had suggested adjourning before-


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has been suggested
three times.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), that all the words after the word " interest " in the fifth line of subsection 2 be struck out, I must rule out of order. The effect of this amendment would be to widen the scope of the bill with a resulting increase in the cost of administration, and under the rules that, is not permissible. The amendment is out of order.


Peter Heenan: If the committee will agree to section 9 I will move that we report progress.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, we cannot do that.
There are two or three important matters which I desire to discuss in relation to this section.


Peter Heenan: Under the circumstances
I will move that the committee rise and report progress.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe, tlhe House adjourned at 11.55 pm.
Friday, March 4, 1927