1927-02-18

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. S. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) presented the first and second reports of the select standing /committee on standing orders.
He said:	I beg to move the concurrence
of the House in these reports.
Mr. ROBB:: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that
this refers only to such bills as passed both Houses at the last parliament.


Mr. MORIN:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister
of Railways and Canals) moved:
That rule 10 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of the select standing committees of the House be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the House for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian merchant marine for the present session, for consideration and for report to the House, provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply; and that the said committee consist of Messieurs Bennett, Cantley, Chaplin, Duff, Dunning, Fiset, Goodison, Harris, Jelliff, Jenkins, Jones, McLean (Melfort), Milne, Power and Stevens.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House has appointed Messrs. Bird, Bourassa, Carmichael, Chevrier, Cotnam, Edwards (Ottawa), Forke, Garland (Carleton), Geary, Guthrie, King (Kootenay East), McIntosh, Marcil, Neill, Pou-liot, Prevost, Quinn, Rinfret, Stirling, Thompson and Young (Toronto Northeast) a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both Houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the select standing committee on printing, viz., Messrs. Baldwin, Boivin, Charters, Edwards (Waterloo South), Embury, Esling, Evans, Hocken, Hubbs, Lapierre, McIntosh, Marcil, Morrissy, Prevost, Quinn, Raymond, Rennie, Rinfret, St. Pere, Speakman, Steeds-man, Verville and White (Mount Royal), will act as members on the part of this House on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House
will observe that there are a very large number of these bills. If it is regular, and Your Honour will perhaps rule that it can be done by unanimous consent of the House, the bills might be read collectively and the first readings given in that way, which would save perhaps an hour of our time and would make no difference in the ultimate result.
Bill No. 4 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Victoria McGibbon.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 5 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Jones.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 6 (from the Senate), for the relief of Samuel Paveling-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 7 (from the Senate), for the relief of Benjamin Rapp.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto H. P.)

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
Bill No. 8 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bernard Thomas Graham.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto H.P.)
Bill No. 9 (from the Senate), for the relief of Robert Edward Greig.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto H.P.)
Bill No. 10 (from the Senate), for the relief of Daisie Hawkey.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 11 (from the Senate), for the relief of Olive Mary Mead.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 12 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Blakely.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 13 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Maud Hargraft.-Mr. Young (Toronto (N.E.)
Bill No. 14 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederic Vinet.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 15 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gwendolen McLachlin.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 16 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jessie Evis.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 17 (from the Senate), for the relief of Max Gertler.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 18 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence May Hicks.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto H.P.)
Bill No. 19 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ruth May Harrington.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo South).
Bill No. 20 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edith Maude Bull.-Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 21 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Bernard Hoodless.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 22 (from the Senate), for -the relief of Edward Barker.-Mr. Ross (Kingston) .
Bill No. 23 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joan Henderson.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 24 (from the Senate), for the relief of Vina Kennedy (otherwise known as Vina Dorothy Kennedy).-Mr. Matthews. (Toronto E.C.).
Bill No. 25 (from the Senate), for the relief of Aimee Glenholme Young.-Mr. Matthews (Toronto E.C.).
Bill No. 26 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alberta Lutz.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 27 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Frederick Adams.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto H.P.).
Bill No. 28 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edward Saville.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto H.P.).
Bill No. 20 (from the Senate), for the relief of Robert Fisher.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 30 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dorothy Terry.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 31 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillie May Brown Nichols.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 32 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hazel Pearle Clarke Pearcy.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 33 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edith Swartz.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 34 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Gilbb Erskine- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 35 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ernest Johnson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 36 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maxime Demers.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 37.(from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Clementina Craig-Williams.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 38 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ida Lula Dupuis Murchison.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 39 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Andrea Boyle.-Mr.	Young
(Toronto N.E.).
Bill No. 40 (from the Senate), for the relief of Leslie Ellis Noble.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD BYNG

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. The matter has reference to an editorial which appears in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, February 16, 1927, entitled: The Byng-King Correspondence; Some Secret History. I would have referred to this matter yesterday, when it first came to my attention, had it not been that my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), was -about to deliver the budget address, and I thought the House would not wish to be detained at that time. I may say that were it not that the article is being copied in other papers throughout this country, -and has also been telegraphed abroad, I would be prepared to treat it with the silent contempt which I accord most of the editorials which appear in the Ottawa Journal in reference to myself. However, -as the article, apart from constituting a reflection on the personal honour of the farmer Governor General of this country, is in the nature of things and as a matter of fact, a fabrication from beginning to end, I feel that as it relates to an important constitutional question, I must make a very clear and emphatic statement concerning it.
I say in the first place that the article in the nature of things is a fabrication, because it implies that the former Governor General was prepared to accord to the Journal the

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
right of listening in on conversations which took place between the Governor General of Canada and the Prime Minister of this country, conversations which in the nature of things were in the strictest confidence. In the second place, it implies that the Governor General was prepared to make to the Journal, or to other persons, statements which he was not prepared to make a matter of official record, and in fact did not make a matter of record in correspondence which admittedly was designed for purposes of official record and to which alone this parliament and the people of this country at the present or at any subsequent time can appeal as the authoritative record. As a matter of fact the article is untrue, as I am in a position authoritatively to state. I shall not read the entire article, but I will refer to one or two pertinent paragraphs. Near the close of the first paragraph the article has the following:
Publication of the letters, however,-
Referring to the correspondence which was laid on the table of the Housemakes it possible, and indeed desirable, to reveal what the letters do not disclose, but what was the very heart and centre of the whole difficulty. The Journal, therefore, herewith presents the exact circumstances which led up to and which justified-the action of Lord Byng.
The action referred to being the refusal of dissolution to myself as Prime Minister last year. I may just note in passing that the use of the words "and which justified" would seem to indicate that even in the mind of the editor of this paper, so far as the official record is concerned, the Governor General's action on constitutional grounds was not justified.
The paragraph that I wish particularly to bring to the attention of the House and to refer to is the following:
To understand and appreciate the position taken by Lord Byng, in refusing Mr. King dissolution, it is necessary to go back to October, 1925. Following the election of that time, which saw Mr. King return to parliament with 16 fewer supporters than Mr. Meighen, Mr. King went down to Rideau Hall and intimated to Lord Byng that he intended to resign. Three or four days later, however, (after he had consulted with his ministers, who told him that he must not resign), Mr. King visited Lord Byng again and told him that he had changed his mind, that he thought it was his duty to meet parliament and to take a chance of surviving a non-confidence motion. Lord Byng, naturally surprised, in view of what Mr. King had said to him at their previous meeting, told Mr. King that he would agree to having him meet parliament, but he added that he thought it should be understood-[DOT]

And then the following appears in italics- *-that in the event of his (Mr. King's) government being defeated, either upon the meeting of parliament, or upon a later date in the session, or in the event of Mr. King finding himself unable to govern, he (Lord Byng) would consider it his duty to call upon Mr. Meighen to find out whether or not he could form a ministry.
The italics end there and the article goes on:
Mr. King said that was perfectly satisfactory.
__ Lord Byng thereupon suggested that Mr. King make this understanding known to his cabinet, and Mr. King said that he would do so. The matter rested there until toward the end of June, 1926.
Following adverse votes against his government in the House of Commons toward the end of June, Mr. King went to Lord Byng-and said that in the circumstances, he would have to advise him to dissolve parliament, Lord Byng at once reminded him of their understanding ...
Fortunately as respects adverse votes against the government, there are the journals of this parliament to appeal to and I repeat what has been repeated time and again, that there was no adverse vote against the government of which I was Prime Minister in the last parliament nor is there record of any to be found in the journals of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The records of this House speak for themselves on this point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The next point to which I wish to refer is the repeated reference in the editorial to an alleged understanding between Lord Byng and myself arrived at after the election of 1925. I wish to say emphatically, on my responsibility as Prime Minister of this country, that there was no understanding between Lord Byng and myself other than what appeared in the public prints of this country in a statement which I issued to the public, after having submitted it to Lord Byng in the first instance for his approval. There was no understanding of any kind, and I cannot make that statement too emphatic nor too clear. The only advice which I tendered to Lord Byng was to let parliament decide with respect to the situation that arose after the election of 1925. That advice was accepted by Lord Byng, and parliament met and did decide the question as to who was to be the leader in this House in the last parliament.
I hold in my hand a statement which I gave to the press on the night of November 4th. This particular statement-

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King


Mr. CAHAN:: What year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nineteen
twenty-five. The election took place on October 29. This statement was handed to the press on the night of November 4, and will be found, I think, in the press of the day following. Before giving this statement to the press I took it personally to government house and presented it to the then Governor General who approved it in its entirety. It was then given to the press; it appeared in the press of our country, and from that moment to this, no exception whatever from any source has been taken to it. The statement is as follows:
The latest official returns having made it apparent that as a result of the general election held on October 29, no one of the participating political parties would of itself have a clear majority in the House when parliament assembles, it became my duty as Prime Minister to acquaint His Excellency the Governor General with the situation and to advise His Excellency as to the course which should be pursued. After several interviews with His Excellency at which the position brought about by the recent general election was fully discussed and all alternatives presented. I have taken the responsibility of advising His Excellency to summon parliament for the earliest practicable date in order to ascertain the attitude of the parliamentary representatives towards the very important question raised by the numerical position of the respective political parties. His Excellency has been pleased to accept this advice.
After careful consideration of the constitutional precedents and their bearing upon the situation which has arisen as a result of the general election, the cabinet decided unanimously this afternoon that it was their constitutional duty to meet parliament at the earliest possible moment, regard being had for the legal requirements with respect to the time necessary for the return of the writs and the official gazetting of the members who have been elected.
In the interval, until parliament assembles it is the intention of the government to refrain from making appointments beyond such as are essential for the proper carrying on of the public business.
In the present situation there are three possible courses of procedure, each of which has been carefully considered by the cabinet:
1.	That His Excellency be asked to grant an immediate dissolution of parliament.
2.	That His Excellency be asked to call upon the leader of the largest political group to form a government.
3.	That His Excellency be asked to summon parliament at the earliest practicable date for the purpose aforementioned.
With respect to an immedate dissolution it was felt that it was not in the interests of the country to occasion the turmoil and expense of another general election until at least parliament had been summoned, and the people's representatives in parliament had been afforded an opportunity of giving expression to their views.
With respect to the leader of the political party having the largest definite following in
the House of Commons being called upon to form an administration, the cabinet holds the view that responsible self-government in Canada rests upon the principle that the majority are entitled to govern, the majority so understood meaning not the political party or group having the largest number of members, but the majority as determined by the duly elected representatives of the people in parliament. Far from indicating that Mr. Meighen is in a position to command a majority in the newly elected House of Commons, the results of the election appear clearly to indicate that he is not in such a position. I am not aware of any precedent in Great Britain or in Canada for recommending, before parliament meets, that the leader of a party not commanding a clear majority in the House of Commons should be called upon to form a government.
To summon parliament and to allow the House of Commons to disclose its attitude upon division, is the procedure warranted by constitutional precedent and by the present circumstances. To take any other course would be to fail to recognize the supreme right of the people to govern themselves in the manner *which the constitution has provided, namely by expressing their will through their duly elected representatives in parliament and in accordance with recognized parliamentary practice.
I wish to repeat that before that statement was given to the press, the very sheets from which I have read the statement and which I now hold in my 'hand and to which I have attached a memorandum of identification, were read by His Excellency the then Governor General, and His Excellency approved the statement exactly in the form in which I have now read it. May I say that the implication of the article in question is that there was some sort of a bargain between the Governor General of this country and myself as Prime Minister whereby I was to hold or be permitted to hold office. Any implication of that kind is a reflection upon the Governor General as the representative of His Majesty the King and a reflection upon myself as Prime Minister. Moreover, it entirely ignores, what at least anyone sitting on this side of the House would maintain as the only constitutional position, and indeed the position which I have stated over and over again to be the constitutional position, namely, that the power to govern in this country comes not from the Governor General but from the people of the country through their representatives in this parliament. That was the one and only position which I as Prime Minister took in conversations with Lord Byng as the Governor General, and it was the basis of the advice which I then gave His Excellency regarding the summoning of parliament and allowing the people's representatives to decide. There was no understanding apart from the advice which I gave in that regard.
May I add that the official record as laid on the table of this House discloses, without the

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
possibility of controversy, that in His Excellency's mind there was no understanding of any kind that could have been directly or indirectly material to, or relevant to, or a salient feature of, the conversations held between us subsequently. If there was any such understanding, it would have been the duty of His Excellency to have made mention of it in correspondence which passed between us and which was for the purpose of having of record exactly what had transpired in conversation. To assume that a Governor General on a great constitutional issue would ignore in an official communication to his Prime Minister the reason which actuated him in taking a particular course is, to imply, to say the least, that the holder of that great office was not competent to fill it. The House I am sure will agree that every pertinent fact with respect to a great constitutional issue, where an official record is being made of the situation, ought to be made a part of the official record.
I wish to read to the House what His Excellency the Governor General wrote me, and I would ask the House to note with care the precise words used in this communication. This letter has already been laid on the table of the House:
Government House, Ottawa,
My dear Mr. King,	June 29, 1926.
I must acknowledge on paper, with many thanks, the receipt of your letter handed to me at our meeting yesterday.
In trying to condense all that has passed between us during the last week, it seems to my mind that there is really only one point at issue.
May I pause to direct the attention of the House to the two phrases used in that sentence:
In trying to condense all that has passed between us.
Note the "all," that is clear and comprehensive. It does not ignore any salient feature, and so as to make it emphatic may I pause to say that Lord Byng, while Governor General, or since has at no time in conversation with me ever alluded to any understanding between himself and myself apart from anything that is of official record here, and this for the good and sufficient reason that there was no understanding apart from what is recorded. Lord Byng continues:
It seems to my mind that there is really only one point at issue.
Only one point, note again the "one." What is the point?
You advise me "that as, in your opinion, Mr. Meighen is unable to govern the country, there should be another election with the present machinery, to enable the people to decide." My contention is-

Not that there was some understanding on which I was holding office, butthat Mr. Meighen has not been given a chance of trying to govern, or saying that he cannot do so, and that all reasonable expedients should be tried before resorting to another election.
Permit me to say once more that, before deciding on my constitutional course on this matter, I gave this subject the most fairminded and painstaking consideration which it was in my power to apply.
I can only add how sincerely I regret the severance of our official companionship and how gratefully I acknowledge the help of your counsel and co-operation.
With warmest wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Byng of Vimy.
To that communication I replied as follows: Ottawa, July 3, 1926. His Excellency, General
The Right Honourable the Lord Byng of Vimy, G.C.B.,	G.C.M.G., etc., Governor
General of the Dominion of Canada, Ottawa.
My dear Lord Byng:
I duly received Your Excellency's letter of June 29th, for which I desire to thank Your Excellency.
Paragraph three of Your Excellency's letter reads as follows:
"You advise me 'that as, in your opinion, Mr. Meighen is unable to govern the country, there should be another election with the present machinery to enable the people to decide'." Also:
"My contention is that Mr. Meighen has not been given a chance of trying to govern, or saying that he cannot do so, and that all reasonable expedients should be tried before resorting to another election."
To the accuracy of the statement of Your Excellency's contention as set forth in this paragraph, I have no exception to take. Inasmuch, however, as what purports to have been my advice to Your Excellency appears in Your Excellency's letter within quotation marks, and might therefore be assumed to be words of mine as expressed in conversation with Your Excellency in tendering advice, may I respectfully say that the words "with the present machinery"-apart from the entire sentence appearing as a quotation,-are quite misleading, as no such words were used or referred to by me in any advice tendered. Fortunately, the text of the quotation clearly indicates that, taken as a whole, the words as quoted could not have been words coming from me.
I advttsed Your Excellency that, in my opinion, the existing situation in the House of Commons demanded a dissolution of parliament, and there should be another election to enable the people to decide upon a new House of Commons.
In reply to Your Excellency's contention that Mr. Meighen had not been given a chance of trying to govern, or saying that he could not do so, I said that I could not advise Your Excellency to send for Mr. Meighen or for any other member of the present House of Commons to form an administration, as I did not

Maritime Claims
believe any other administration could be formed which would command the confidence of the House. As to Mr. Meighen not having been given a chance of trying to govern, I pointed out that at the commencement of the session it had been left to the people's representatives in parliament to decide as to who was to advise Your Excellency, and that Mr. Meighen's chances to obtain the support of the Commons had been quite as good as my own; that the House of Commons having declined to express any confidence in Mr. Meighen throughout the entire session. I could not see wherein there was any probability of the House giving him the support which would enable him to carry on the government, and that therefore I could not assume the responsibility of advising Your Excellency to send for him. As there was still less probability of any other hon. member of the House being able to command its confidence, dissolution, to be followed by a general election, in which the people would be given an opportunity to decide, appeared to me the only course which I could advise, and I advised accordingly.
As no formal record of the conversations between us was kept-
I will ask the House to pay attention to this paragraph, because I was drawing the attention of His Excellency to the advisability of having a record of exactly what was said between us, knowing that this question at some future time would be raised:
As no formal record of the conversations between us was kept, I have felt, in view of the representations of paragraph three of Your Excellency's letter, which will become a matter of official record, I should also record on paper my own statement of the advice tendered Your Excellency both as regards dissolution and Your Excellency's contention in reference thereto.
With respect to the concluding paragraph of Your Excellency's letter, may I say that I am sure that the regret felt by Your Excellency at the severance of our official companionship was not any greater than my own, and that I acknowledge with not less gratitude the help of Your Excellency's counsel and co-operation throughout the period during which I had the privilege of enjoying Your Excellency's confidence.
I am, You Excellency,
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Now what was the reply made by His Excellency to that communication, which, as I state, is the official record of wihat took place between us both as regards dissolution and His Excellency's contention in reference thereto. It was as follows:
Government House
Ottawa, July 5th, 1926.
Dear Mr. King,
Many thanks for your letter of July 3rd. The letter in question was written entirely from the wish on my part to express my sincere gratitude. for the help and co-operation you have given me during your tenure of the Premiership. The quotations in it are by no means intended to recall words used at our meetings, and in that connection I would ask you to read the preceding paragraph.
I was stating my impression as to the one point at issue, and endeavouring to put it in a condensed form.
I repeat that statement:
I was stating my impression as to the one point at issue, and endeavouring to put it in a condensed form.
Of course, I readily add your letter to the documentary record of the situation.
Yours sincerely,
Byno of Vimt.
The Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
C.M.G., etc., etc., Ottawa.
There is the official record as given to this parliament of all that actually transpired that was material between Lord Byng and myself, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no public journal in this or any other country has a right to circulate false statements, false representations with respect to communications between the Prime Minister of a country and the representative of His Majesty, and this more especially when it is known that the only source from which the truth can come is either the representative of the crown itself or the Prime Minister of the country with whom the conversations were had.
Again, as Prime Minister of Canada, I wish to repeat that the record as laid on the table of the House here sums up, in its entirety, all of what transpired between Lord Byng and myself in reference to dissolution as respects all salient and essential features.



MARITIME CLAIMS-THE TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I
should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who in his budget statement yesterday, which is to be commended for its brevity and clarity, made the remark that he and his colleagues had considered it to be the part of wisdom to make no changes in the tariff at the present session. May I ask him what bearing this has on the implementing of the Duncan report?


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend has read Hansard correctly, and he will have to place his own interpretations upon the budget.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: I note that at a recent convention of the
St. Regis Indian Reserve

British Empire Service League, presided over by Sir Percy Lake, a recommendation was made to the government that the returned soldiers' insurance, should be reopened for a period of one year. I would ask whether that recommendation has been considered and adopted by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question which my
hon. friend has just raised is one on which the Minister of Health (Mr. King) would be best informed, and I would ask that the question might stand until Monday. I shall direct the minister's attention to it.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 56, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 15th consideration in committee of Bill No. 55, to provide for special control by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of certain islands in the St. Lawrence river being part of the St. Regis Indian reservation.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: When we discussed this bill, before, I understood that the minister was going to inquire and bring down a memorandum showing the Teasons advanced by the officials of the department why there should be special clauses in this act different from those in the general Indian Act.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Edmonton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: In our discussion of section 2 of the act the other day, the hon. member for Argen-teuil asked why the necessity for its inclusion in this bill, and had we not authority in the Indian Act itself? We have authority in sections 127 and 128 of the Indian Act to prevent the cutting of timber, and penalties are provided for the prosecution of parties who trespass and take off the timber, but the provision in the act applies only to lands occupied by the Indians. That is distinctly stated. I have gone thoroughly into that matter, and that is the reason we are asking for authority here. Where the land is not in occupation by the Indians or owned in common by them we have no authority in the act to prevent the Indians from cutting timber. We want this provision because we are dealing with land which is the common 
property of the band not allocated to any member of the band and not resided on by the Indians. The provision is practically identical with the provision contained in the Indian Act for the' purpose of the prevention of depredations or cutting of timber on land held by allotment.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Since the matter was in
the committee on a previous occasion, my hon. friend from Stormont (Mr. Smith) came to see me and endeavoured to explain what was really behind this special bill. Perhaps if my hon. friend from Cornwall would enlighten the committee it might make the matter clearer, because I think he understands the question better than any other hon. member in the committee.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: These islands
mentioned in Bill No. 55 lie opposite and east of Cornwall. Unfortunately, the other day when the bill was before the committee I was called out of the House. I am very glad it has come up again because it gives me an opportunity to say a few words in regard to it. I have read over the Hansard report covering the questions asked when the bill was before the committee on a previous occasion, and I notice that some hon. member asks if these islands were in any way required for the St. Lawrence development. I may say that all works in connection with the St. Lawrence development are several miles west of these properties. The nearest island is the Easterbrook farm on Cornwall island. That island is occupied by the Indians of the St. Regis reservation, with the exception of one farm, which was leased about 105 or 106 years ago to the Easterbrook family and has been occupied by them ever since. Hamilton's island and Macmaster's island were in the same position, except that they were leased to families of the present tenants and were never occupied by the Indians. Col-quhoun's island which is referred to by another name in the bill is also in the same position. A few years ago the department, feeling that the present tenants were not paying anything like an adequate rental for the property, took action in the Exchequer court to have the leases terminated at the expiration of the first ninety-nine year period. The cases have been in court for some time, and in connection with Maemaster island judgment was given declaring that the leases were not renewable for the next ninety-nine year period. The Colquhoun estate, which held the lease for Colquhoun's island, accepting this as good law, abandoned the island, and threw themselves upon the mercy of the department so far as future leases were concerned. The Easterbrook and Hamil-

St. Regis Indian Reserve
ton island cases are still pending and have not yet been brought to trial, but undoubtedly the same judgment will be given in these cases. Macmaster island was the summer home of the late Sir Donald Macmaster and is not suitable for any other pur-4 p.m. pose. If the Indians were in possession of that island it would be absolutely of no use to them and would not be productive or return any revenue. Hamilton island is a fairly large-sized island. On one end of it there is the Hamilton farm, and on the other end of it there are about thirty-five summer cottages, with some little timber back of the cottages. This island, outside of the one farm on it, would not be suitable to produce any revenue whatever for the Indians, but as a summer resort it is largely used by the people of Cornwall and surrounding districts. Colquhoun's island would not produce anything at all of any value to the Indians of that section, or any other section, but it likewise has some thirty-five to forty' summer cottages. The Easter-brook farm is a farm of about 200 acres on the Cornwall island, and was held by the Easter-brook family and while a good farm is more valuable from a sentimental standpoint. It is not a very convenient location, because they have to cross in small boats to get to market' in Cornwall. The leases were held to be non-renewable. Under the existing regulation the department would have a perfect right to allow the Indians to go on the lands in question but the band would not have a right to lease the property to any particular Indian. The land would be non-productive. These lands would not be of any real value to the Indians, because the Indians, as I know them are anything but thrifty, and the result would 'be that those summer cottages would be destroyed and no rental would be received. The Indians would be content to lead a life of luxury in the cottages so long as they stayed there. The only request I have to make to the department is that if this bill goes through, and if the islands are leased under short term leases, the Indians shall get the benefit of the higher rentals that might be obtained on any renewal of leases. I am content, in order to safeguard the Indians, that a clause should be put in providing that the leases should be for five years, or any short period the department may fix. I heard it mentioned by some hon. member that perhaps there was some motive behind this bill. There has been a rumour that the island is wanted by some American organization for the purpose of constructing an hotel, or something of that description. I would be the first to object to that, because I am very much interested in
the people who have possession of the place now, and who, by the way, are using the place more or less as squatters, and are not paying any rent in the meantime, because the department refuses to accept rent. The department claims that they have no right to be there and they cannot make any lease with them, although there is back rent coming to them since the time the leases were declared to be terminated.
The Indians have been provided with every safeguard in this matter, they have everything to gain by the bill going through and the department obtaining for them a fair rental, and I hope the committee will consent to this measure being passed.


George Halsey Perley: What the hon.
member for Stormont (Mr. Smith) has said is very interesting, and I think we begin to understand pretty well what the situation is. It strikes me the minister should give the present occupant the first chance of obtaining a renewal of his lease from the government. The other day he said he would do that but nothing has been stated yet which explains to me the reason why the government wants this bill at all. The hon. member from Stormont stated definitely that there was no scheme behind this legislation, that it is plain and aboveboard, and that what the department proposes to do is for the benefit of the Indians. Under the present Indian Act the Minister of the Interior has the power to lease these islands with the consent of the band. Now if it is definitely proved that it is for the benefit of the Indians it cannot be supposed that the Indians are going to refuse their consent. As regards section 2, I still do not understand why the government is unable to proceed under the Indian Act and do all this with the consent of the band.


Arnold Neilson Smith: The trouble is
that under the present law Indian lands can be dealt with only by lease, when the Indians themselves have allocated the land, and then only with the consent of all the members of the band. The Indians, like the rest of us, have their squabbles, and if you consulted them as to whom the land should be allocated to in order that a lease might be entered into for the band, all sorts of trouble might arise. We are right on the American border in our particular section and irresponsible agitators have been disturbing the Indians on the question of national status. So that if you called the St. Regis band together and asked them to suggest the person to whom Colquhoun island should be allocated there would be such a dispute as could hardly be settled. Each one would want to have his claim recognized.
St. Regis Indian Reserve


George Halsey Perley: Does the hon.
member mean that this island would have to be allocated to a particular Indian before the government could lease it?


Charles A. Stewart: No, the hon.
member is referring to the lease. Each lease is independent and under the proposal of my hon. friend it would have to be passed upon by .the band. There are a great many leases involved here. A number of summer cottages are already in existence and the courts have
Name
Maemaster, agriculture and cottages.. ..
Snyder	
* Lewis	
Hamilton	
Easter brook	
We have no authority to lease the land without obtaining the consent of the band, which is now scattered, some of its members being in the United States; and the property might all be destroyed without our being able to prevent it. While the leases were in existence the lessee had his rights, but once the leases are abrogated the land is the common property of the band. We are asking for the privilege of protecting the property of the Indians themselves.


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister say that the band is so scattered that consent could not be obtained as in the case of other bands of Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: Before
action can be taken with respect to Indian lands you must have a majority vote of the band, and there are always a number of agitators who are ready to start trouble. I do not want to be arbitrary; I am merely pointing out the situation that exists. On such land as is the common property of the band, under the act we have little or no authority to protect these islands unless the band were prepared to grant individual leases. And that would be exceedingly difficult of achievement.


George Halsey Perley: Would it be more difficult than in the case of other Indian lands?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. In
the case of a grazing or a timber lease, on property situated on the reserve itself, there is no reason on earth why the band could not be consulted fully, and if they disagreed further action would be impossible. But in this case, where the property is separate from
[Mr. A. N. Smith.l
decided that the leases no longer hold good. If the Indians go there to-day and destroy timber the property is their own and we have no provision in the act whereby we can prevent them. The leasing is only a matter of convenience. The moneys are definitely to go to the benefit of the band, no matter what the rentals may be. Perhaps it might be interesting to give the rentals on .the ninety-nine year leases. They are:
Acres	Old rent	Estimated rent175	$10	$20025	4	Barren of trees, no cottages10	14	200, 10 cottages on island100	20	600200	10	200$58	$1,200
the reserve and you have such conditions as prevail there, we are bound to have the special legislation for which we are now asking, because we do not want to amend the provisions of the act generally. We simply want to define our extended authority and to say where it begins and ends with respect to these particular lands.


George Halsey Perley: There is no particular hurry about passing this bill and an hon. member on this side would like to say a few words in regard to it. The minister is assuming a very unusual power in this legislation. He says that the proceeds go to the band, and points out that this provision is contained in the general act. But he has not much faith in the general act.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
no authority to divert any of the funds. I am merely asking for the authority to allocate funds under 12,000. Beyond that I cannot do at all.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the
bill?


George Halsey Perley: No; the hon,
member for Vancouver Centre would like to say a few words on the subject.


Charles A. Stewart: I suggest
that we report the bill and if on the third reading the hon. member desires to recommit it there will be no objection.
Bill reported.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from February 15, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Hon. Mr. Heenan-Mr. Johnston in the chair:

Old Age Pensions
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting old age pensions, and to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may make an agreement with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of any province for the payment to such province quarterly of an amount equal to one-half of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions pursuant to a provincial statute authorizing and providing for the payment of such pensions to the persons and under the conditions hereinafter specified and regulations made under the proposed legislation.
2.	That every agreement so made shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation or until after the expiration of ten years from the date upon which notice of an intention to determine the agreement is given by the Governor General to the Lieutenant-Governor of the province with which the same was made.
3.	That before any agreement so made comes into operation, the Governor in Council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province. and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the Governor in Council.
4.	That all sums payable to any province in pursuance of any such agreement shall be payable from time to time on the certificate of the Minister of Finance out of any moneys belonging to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada not otherwise appropriated.
5.	That provision shall be made for the payment of a pension to every person who, at the date of the proposed commencement of the pension:-
(a)	is a British subject, or, being a widow, was such before her marriage;
(b)	has attained the age of seventy years;
(e) has resided in Canada for the twenty
years immediately preceding the date aforesaid ;
(d)	has resided in the province in which the application for pension is made for the five years immediately preceding the said date;
(e)	is not an Indian as defined by the Indian Act;
(f)	has not made any voluntary assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of qualifying for a pension.
_ 6. That the receipt of a pension shall not by itself constitute a disqualification from voting at any provincial or municipal election.
7.	That the maximum pension payable shall be two hundred and forty dollars yearly, which shall be subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of one hundred and twenty-five dollars a year.
8.	That provisions be made as to the credit to the pension authority of the annual value of a pensioner's residence, and the recovery of pension payments out of deceased pensioner's estate, and for the distribution of pension burden among provinces by proportionate reimbursement or proportionate reduction where the pensioner resided in more than one province or transfers his permanent residence to another province, and for ceasing of payments where he transfers his residence to some place out of Canada, and the revival of his rights upon again becoming a resident of Canada.
9.	That no pension shall be subject to alienation or transfer by the pensioner, or to seizure in satisfaction of any claim against him.
10.	That on or before the thirtieth day of April in each year, the Minister of Finance shall make a full report to parliament of the operation of the agreements made pursuant to the proposed act, and of the moneys of Canada paid to the provinces under each of the several agreements entered into pursuant thereto.
11.	That the Governor in Council shall have power from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, and with the approval of the Treasury board, to make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of the proposed act, with regard to the pensions herein provided for, and such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette, and be laid before parliament.
Mr. BARBER:: This is the proper time to offer criticisms or suggestions in regard to the subject of old age pensions. We should be in a better position to discuss this matter this year, because in the meantime we have passed through a general election in which this question was considered by hon. gentlemen opposite to be one of the main issues. We on this side of the House were charged with opposing the principle of old age pensions and with actually killing the bill. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who were here last year will agree that these charges are not well founded. We offered criticism, as we have a perfect right to do, but the bill passed' the House without a division. In my own campaign I was very unfairly charged with opposing this principle, and in that connection I wish to refer to two general statements which I made when the matter was being considered last year. At page 2537 of Hansard I said:
There is probably one point on which we all agree, and that is that something is necessary in the way of old age pension legislation.
Then further on, at page 2538, I made another general statement:
Now, at the present time we know that from all over the Dominion there is a call from many aged people for immediate relief, and I am of opinion that the source of that relief should be the federal government...
Throughout the campaign I adopted the same position which I am adopting to-day and which I took last year.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) on his appointment to the important post of Minister of Labour, but considering his long experience with social legislation I am somewhat surprised that he did not bring down a bill a little more acceptable to the country; I had hoped that he would have fathered a federal scheme. In fairness to all parts of Canada I am convinced that old age pensions should be administered by the federal government, but the minister has decided otherwise, and according to the resolution before the House
Old Age Pensions

the bill will be the same as that passed last year, in spite of the announced opposition of a majority of the provinces. I think I am safe in saying that, from the replies read the other day by the minister. He followed the reading of those letters by a statement, which I did not quite understand; he said:
If in view of these replies, we now introduce a bill that removes the obstacles mentioned, would you not consider that the provinces are in favour of an old age pension scheme?
Further on he said:
As an example, the province of British Columbia was opposed to this scheme because the obstacles in the way were insurmountable, but to-day we have the spectacle of a bill introduced in the legislature providing for this on a co-operative plan.
The minister said British Columbia was opposed to this bill because there were insurmountable obstacles in its path, but I think hon. gentlemen will agree that these obstacles could not have been removed by the legislation, because he tells us that the bill is similar to that passed last year. Then why did the Premier of British Columbia adopt the scheme? He did so simply because he considered it a good weapon to use in the interests of the Liberal party in the last election. He toured the province during that campaign in the interests of the Liberal candidates, and promised the electors that he would bring down legislation accepting a federal scheme; he also advised them that it was in their interests to send to Ottawa Liberal members. Mr. Oliver kept his word so far as the bill was concerned, but apparently the electors did not accept his advice. The Minister of Labour, in referring to the fact that this was one of the main issues of the campaiign said:
If we are to interpret the will of the electorate on that question in the way we usually interpret electoral decisions, there can be no question that the principle adopted in this Bill was endorsed by the people of Canada.
I wonder how he interprets the results in British Columbia? I will undertake to do that for him, in a very few words. I passed through that campaign, and I am convinced that the people of that province are favourable to old age pensions, but they are not favourable to the bill introduced last session.
In view of the fact that we cannot have a federal measure, and since British Columbia is willing to accept something in the way of a co-operative scheme, as one of the representatives of that province I am prepared to accept such legislation if it is made fair and reasonable, but I am going to offer a few suggestions which I think would make the proposed bill a little more acceptable.

Dealing first with clause 5 of the resolution, it is proposed to set the age limit at 70 years. If this age limit were in force in Australia, where the limit is now 65, we are informed that 90 per cent of those now in receipt of an old age pension would not receive anything. In New Zealand the disparity is even greater. There the limit is 65 for males and 60 for females, which limit may be reduced to 60 and 55 respectively where two or more children under fourteen are dependent on the recipient of the pension. Just in connection with this point I would like to quote an extract from a letter appearing in a Vancouver paper which reached me to-day. The letter deals with this matter and is signed by an ex-soldier:
In regard to the proposed pension bill now being advocated, surely some clause should be inserted or brought up giving special privileges to the returned soldier who has prematurely aged through war service. The present act stipulates at the age of 70, but I would venture to say that many of us, especially those like myself who perhaps were not wounded but suffered from camp life and exposure, will not last out to this age and, moreover, if living to the age of 00, will be unable to carry on work in civil life. These are the ones who surely deserve special consideration in a scheme of old age pensions.
I would suggest to the minister that he consider the scheme adopted in New Zealand whereby the age limit may be reached in certain cases.
Clause 7 of the resolution provides for a maximum pension of $20 per month, as compared with $26.50 in Australia. In this connection I would like to draw attention to .another letter appearing recently in the Vancouver press:
...you credit Premier Oliver with being a generous man. Is the following a sample of his generosity? He was reported as saying he is in favour of the old age pension bill of $20 per month for men of 70 years, as passed by members of the Commons and, moreover, was cited as saying "Half a loaf is better than none." And that in face of the fact that prisoners in British Columbia jails are allowed $1 per day for their upkeep by the British Columbia government and no room rent to pay.
What on earth could our poor old indigent men do with $20 per month? The lowest price for a small, clean bedroom in Vancouver is $2.50 per week. That figures out at $11.17 per month and would leave them $8.83 to buy food for thirty-one days, and would mean slow starvation. Why such discrimination against our aged poor? The eligible age should be 65, the same as in England, Australia and other countries, and the pension not less than criminals in British Columbia jails are receiving for their upkeep, $1 per day.
I would urge that the minister give a little consideration to the advisability of increasing



IS, 1927

[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
this pension. I also point out that the resolution only permits a pensioner to have an income of $125 per annum. Now New Zealand is much more generous in the matter of private income. It permits the pensioner to have an income up to $390 per annum or $650 if the recipient is married, and the net value of accumulated property may be as high as $2,000.
But the clause to which I take the greatest exception is the one which provides that on the death of the pensioner his home or his estate shall be sold, and the total amount of the pension plus five per cent compounded annually, shall be taken out and placed to the credit of the pension authority, in this case the government. Five per cent compounded annually! The minister will find that is a greater rate than many of the loan companies charge.
In the proposed legislation we are asked to set aside certain sums to be paid out of this pension to a certain class of people. Before the session closes we shall be called upon to vote from the revenue of this country over $38,000,000 under the heading of pensions. It is true that of this amount something over $37,000,000 may be termed war pensions, and that over $1,000,000 is to provide pensions to other classes authorized by statute. I take no exception to the granting of these pensions. No doubt they are given in recognition of service rendered or of sacrifices made. But the same claim holds good in the case of the very class that we are concerned with to-day -the old people of our land who suffered hardships and made many sacrifices in carrying on the pioneer work of this country. They have passed through the earning period of their lives, and through misfortune are in need of assistance. That assistance should come from the state, and I believe the pension is the proper form it should take. But does the Minister of Labour think that this paltry $20 a month would take care of an aged person who is without a home, who has no income, who is in fact destitute? Is this pension intended to supply all the necessaries of life, such as rent, fuel, food and a few comforts? I think not. The provinces will be called upon to look after the majority of these cases in their institutions as they have in the past. I do agree however that this small amount will greatly assist, particularly in cases where the recipient has a home and a small income.
Now I come back to paragraph 8 of the resolution dealing with the recovery of pension payments out of a deceased pensioner's estate. Is there such a condition enforced in the case of the pensioner who will benefit from the
vote of $38,000,000 to which I have already referred, which will stand as a charge against the estates of these pensioners? No, there is not, I do not think anyone would wish that there should be such a provision, although no doubt in a large number of oases the recipients have comfortable homes and in many cases fairly large incomes. Why then should the pension in this case stand as a first mortgage against the class that we are considering to-day? This clause really changes the pension into a loan, and I would strongly urge the minister to consider cutting the paragraph out. Or if he insists on leaving it in, let him apply the words which he himself used the other day and change the title of this bill to "Old Age Loan Bill". Because the clause in question makes the pension a loan secured by a first mortgage bearing a rate of five per cent compounded annually.
Mr. HEENAN:: Supposing the aged father or mother should have a son who is fairly well off but refuses to take care of the parent, and the pension authority was called upon to award a pension of $240. If the aged people had their own home the pension authority would never ask them to leave their home, but when they died does my hon. friend think that their property or estate should go to that son?


Harry James Barber: No.


Peter Heenan: The clause is intended to meet a case of that character.


Harry James Barber: I understand that in this province, as well as in the province of Nova Scotia, the provincial statutes make the sons or daughters responsible for the care of the aged parents.


Mr. LADNER:: In British Columbia also.


Harry James Barber: I should like to answer that question in this way: Suppose that an old man, one of our early pioneers, who is past the earning period of his life has been able to save sufficient to secure a little home and garden for himself, but feels that he should have some assistance, and in fact is in need of it. Under this legislation you say to that man, "We will give you a pension but it will be only in the form of a mortgage on your home". That old man would consider such a restriction very unfair. As a citizen he should have the privilege of doing what he likes with his home; it is not likely that he would leave it to the son who has refused to come to his assistance although he might bequeath it to an institution or to some per-
Old Age Pensions

son who was in need. Such a provision is very inadvisable. As I said before it changes this measure from a pension bill to a loan bill.


Peter Heenan: I point out to my hon. friend that subsection 3 of section 9 will meet such a case as he has described.
, Mr. BARBER: I do not think it covers it exactly.


Peter Heenan: It is intended to cover it.


Harry James Barber: I think the minister will find that it does not meet such a case. I assure my hon. friend that I am offering these remarks in a kindly spirit.


Peter Heenan: I am sure of that.


Harry James Barber: I am prepared to give the minister all the support possible, but I hope he will consider the suggestions I have made so that when we are considering the bill in committee of the whole he will be prepared to make amendments in the direction indicated.
Mr. W OOD6WORTH:	We labour representatives have all along been in favour of a federal measure. That was shown very clearly two yearn ago when my colleague Mr. Irvine, proposed an amendment to that effect. However, as the government undertook last year to introduce a measure along the lines recommended by the parliamentary committee of three years ago, we felt that the best thing we could do was to support the measure then introduced and endeavour to make as great a success of it -as possible. At that time it was not apparent that any of the provinces were in favour of this or any other old age pension scheme. It was not clear that the members of the House were in favour of any old age pension scheme. In the vote to which I referred just now the older parties had united in opposing a federal scheme. Therefore we felt that the only thing ito do was to take a half loaf, and we hoped that this scheme would produce at least some good and that, once it was placed on the statute books, it might ultimately be amended so as to bring it more in harmony with our ideals.
I can see some advantages in having the provinces administer the act. In that way there will be in the administration a certain check which might not be present if the machinery were handled directly from Ottawa. Nearly all the provinces have already administrative machinery which might be utilized for this purpose, and therefore it would not be necessary to set up duplicate machinery. On the other hand, I think that in principle men or women ought to be

eligible for this pension, not merely because they happen to be living in a particular province which has adopted the scheme, but because they are citizens of Canada.
I would, however, suggest that if the federal government has finally decided upon a cooperative scheme, it should be willing to grant say 75 'per cent of the amount. That is frankly a compromise, but it is a compromise that would add greatly to the efficacy of the bill. I am afraid that if the bill is put through in this form, it may not be operative in all the provinces. Since we had the discussion in this House last year, I had an opportunity of meeting citizens of nearly all the provinces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I found that in the east, especially down in the maritime provinces, it was very doubtful if the provinces would adopt the scheme if it were put on a fifty-fifty basis. We are anxious to have a scheme that will be operative, that will be effective, and I would suggest that we -would ensure that much more effectively if the Dominion government could see its way to give 75 per cent of the amount As the House knows, we private members are precluded from bringing in an amendment along that line, but we would earnestly press this action upon the government. The government is quite safe. The official opposition has already expressed itself as favourable to a federal scheme, but as prepared to - support some such scheme as this if it is impossible to put through a federal scheme.
There is no measure which has received such popular support across the country as has the old age pension scheme. In almost every province it was one of the foremost subjects for discussion in the recent election. Even away down in the east, in Nova Scotia, where I say that it may be difficult to put the scheme into operation, I was told by the editor of one of the leading Conservative newspapers that undoubtedly this was the most important election issue in that province. Under these circumstances the government ought to feel justified in going a great deal further than it did a year ago.
The "situation has altogether changed within the past year. Sometimes if we re-introduce the old measure, we are going as far as we did last year. Sometimes when the situation is altogether changed, a re-introduction of the identical measure is by no means as venturesome a proposal as was that of a year ago. Hon. members will remember that in Through a Looking Glass the queen is made to say to Alice: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place." I am suggesting that if the government wants to maintain the same

Royal Assent
place before the public that it occupied when it introduced this measure a year ago, it ought very distinctly to improve the measure.
I should like to endorse a great deal that has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Barber) with regard to the various particulars in the bill. I believe the age ought to be lowered. Especially in industry among the people who will most need these pensions, a man is not worth very much by the time he passes the age of forty or forty-five. That is a most lamentable state of affairs, but none the less it is true that in a large number of industries when a man gets beyond the age of forty or forty-five, younger men are preferred and he often finds it difficult to hold his accustomed job. Long before he reaches the age of seventy he is a burden upon himself or upon the community. As we know, under modem conditions when men shift about necessarily from job to job there is no sense of responsibility on the part of the individual employer. There perhaps have been a dozen or twenty or fifty employers in the course of a man's life, so that no one employer feels really responsible when the man reaches the age of seventy years. Under those conditions of modern industry it seems only right that the state should assume its share of responsibility.
Again I would suggest that a larger amount should be granted, but more particularly a larger sum should be permitted as outside income which a man may receive without his being disqualified to receive a pension. If a man is capable of doing a little work on the side, he ought to be able to do work to the extent of more than $125 a year or to have property that would bring him in an income of more than $125 a year without being disqualified from receiving a pension of this character. I compare the treatment that we are meting out to these pensioners with that which we mete out to our higher public officials. I think of those to whom the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) referred a year ago, namely our judges and many of that type who are receiving large incomes from private sources and who yet are not debarred from receiving large pensions from the public treasury. There ought to be something like equality in dealing with matters of this kind.
Farther, h, ptrrticu'lar modification which might readily be made by the Minister of Labour is that if a man has been living in his younger days in a province in which the pension is operative and has moved to a province in which it is not operative, he ought to be able to draw at least the government portion for the whole of his time. I do not see why if he
moves from one province! to another the entire 50 per cent that should be paid by the government should be cut off, but wherever he is living, whether or not the province has been donating to this fund, he should not receive the entire federal contribution. I think that is an eminently fair amendment which could very readily be made, and will be quite in keeping with the whole tenor of the bill.
There is another matter upon which I should very much like to have an expression from the minister, and that is with regard to the possible revision of this bill. We have been told that once we get it on the statute books, it will be quite possible to make revisions later, possibly in the way of granting a larger amount or some amendment of that sort. It does seem to me however that this bill is something in the nature of a contract between the Dominion government and the provinces, and I would like to be sure-I hope the minister will make this very clear-that the bill can be readily modified even if all the provinces are not in favour of such a modification. We ought not to enter into any permanent arrangements in a matter of this kind, but rather leave the way open so that without any great amount of red tape we might bring in such modifications as time shows to be desirable.
In conclusion, I would repeat that it seems to me that if the government is sincere in hoping for the success of this bill, and I have no reason whatever to believe they are not, they would seriously consider the giving of a much larger proportion by the federal treasury than is now provided for.


Peter Heenan: As the. Governor General is to be here at five o'clock to give royal assent to certain bills, I move that the committee rise to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, February 18, 1926.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber this afternoon at five o'clock for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdt,
Acting Secretary to the Governor General.

Old Age Pensions

To the Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.
A message was delivered by Major A. R, Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,-
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.	_
An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and respecting Canadian National Railways.
An Act to incorporate a National Committee , for the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation.
An Act for the granting of assistance to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Association of Canada at Toronto, Ontario.
An Act to provide for a loan to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1926, and the 31st March, 1927.
An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in committee consideration of the resolution respecting old age pensions, Mr. Johnston iin the chair.
Leon Johnson Ladner: I rise to make some
(Observations on the provisions of this bill, in the spirit of constructive suggestion, which have come to me as a result of the last general election. It is well known that the old age pension bill was an important concern, if not the chief concern, of the masses of the people during the recent general election. All kinds of arguments and suggestions were presented; sometimes not very fair criticisms were made by each side one against the other, and in some constituencies some of >the most worthy and excellent membei-s of the government were veTy nearly defeated on account of the provisions of the old age pension bill, and it is those provisions which I now seek to correct if the minister will listen to suggestions. Section 2 of the resolution deals with the question of the agreement in force between the federal and provincial governments, and states that the agreement shall remain 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. I make the suggestion that there is an uncertainty in that provision which is not necessary. It means that, through political conditions or political manoeuvres, it is possible that some province may undertake to enter into an agreement on which the people entitled to receive old age pensions will depend, and they may depend that it will remain in force for a number of years, and yet that province, perhaps after some election, can terminate that measure immediately without notice. It would be just as easy for the minister or the government to provide in this measure for notice on the part of the province as they have provided for notice on the part of the federal government. The federal government are required to give ten years' notice from which date a notice to terminate the agreement is made. My suggestion is that there should be twenty years' notice provided for on the part of both the provincial and the federal government. The reason why I make this suggestion is this. A man of seventy who has been receiving his pension has after ten yeans come to rely upon that pension, and at the age of eighty having made no other provision, the ordinary charitable or benevolent institutions having become less or gone out of existence, through the political manoeuvres or machinations of some government that man may find himself without a pension. I think if the principle of old age pension is to be adopted in Canada it should be made certain and definite, not only so far as governments are concerned, but so far as beneficiaries are concerned.
My first point is that if definite notice of a term of years on the part of the Dominion government be necessary, it should also be necessary so far as the province is concerned, and I make the suggestion that twenty years' notice should be required under the terms of the agreement entered into between the province and the Dominion. I have before me the bill which has been recently presented to the legislature of British Columbia, Bill No. 12, an act to provide for old age pensions. Clause 2 deals with the question of the agreement with the Dominion and I ask the minister to note it, because it affects the other provinces, British Columbia being the first province to enter into this arrangement. That clause reads:
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may enter into an agreement with the Governor Gen-

Old Age Pensions
eral in Council as to a general scheme of old age pensions in the province pursuant to the provisions of any act of the Dominion heretofore or hereafter passed relating to old age pensions


Mr. IRVINE:: What is the hon. member
reading from?


Leon Johnson Ladner: From the bill recently
presented to, and I presume now before, the legislature of British Columbia, and the point is that the essential feature of the bill is the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to enter into agreement with the Governor General in Council under the terms provided by the legislation. Let the federal parliament take advantage of this recommendation and make their terms. Let them stipulate for ten years' notice and make it a part of the agreement. It will necessarily be a part of the piovincial statute. The next point I make is with reference to clause 5 of the resolution, and I direct the ministers attention to the absence of the subsection between (e) and (f) which formerly existed in the bill. I refer to Bill No. 21 which passed the House of Commons 28th May, 1926. That bill, clause 8, subsection 1 (f), provided that a person would be entitled to a pension if he were not in receipt of an income of as much as 8365 a year. In the resolution before the House that clause is omitted, and I would ask the minister if I may, at this stage, the reason why that clause is left out, because without that clause a person with an income of $25,000 a year may ask for old age pension.


Peter Heenan: The resolution does not
contain all the provisions of the bill. There are, I think, about eleven clauses in the resolution whereas there are about twenty clauses in the bill.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As regards that item the
resolution is specific; there are the subsections from (a) to (f) which are precisely in the words of the previous bill. This is something that will form an important feature of the bill.


Peter Heenan: It is contained in the bill.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is all right, then.
Subsection (a) of section 5 provides for the payment of a pension to any person who is a British subject or, being a widow, was such before her marriage. The Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) and I had a considerable discussion on that point. He charged me in the province of British Columbia with not having frankly stated the matter to the people. In the case of a woman married to an alien who has become naturalized, I suggest that if the alien is from a country where there is dual nationality-that is to say, where a person retains the citizenship of his country of origin even though he may have become naturalized in Canada, for example -it is possible that such a woman if she became a widow might not be entitled to any pension, notwithstanding that the act might intend her to have one. The minister should consult the Department of Justice on that question with respect to people from countries with dual nationality. Under international law a serious point might arise in that connection. I have not gone deeply into that particular phase of the matter, but I believe that there is some danger in that direction.
Another important feature of the bill has reference to the age at which people are to become entitled to pensions. The bill categorically fixes the age at seventy. I strongly impress upon the minister the fact that if the spirit of the legislation is observed it will not be possible to determine eligibility for pension merely by a consideration of the number of years a person has lived, for many people are old at sixty-much older than others who have actually lived seventy years. The proposed method of determining when the pension should be payable is not a sound one. I suggest that it might be advisable to fix an arbitrary age at seventy and allow the pension authorities some discretion to determine whether in particular cases people at the age of sixty or sixty-five, by reason of physical infirmities or because of other conditions that justify it, should be entitled to consideration. I do not know any other practical method of meeting this difficulty. If you fix upon the age of seventy arbitrarily, you rule out many thousands of aged and worthy people who ought to receive pensions because of ill health after a long life of hard work. In Australia where the age limit is sixty-five-I ask the minister to note this particularly-ninety per cent of those in receipt of pensions would get nothing if the limit were fixed at seventy. This shows the far-reaching effect of the principle I am pointing out. To fix an arbitrary limit of seventy virtually rules out ninety per cent of the people who, in my opinion, should be given pensions. In Australia, it is said, of 105,000 persons receiving pensions a little over ninety per cent are under seventy; and in New Zealand the limit is fixed much lower. Australia has a smaller population than ours.
My hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) has discussed the question of removal from one province to another. The legislation as
Old Age Pensions

it stands does present a handicap to any pensioner -moving from one locality to another in the Dominion. Suppose the pensioner lives in Saskatchewan, a healthy place to live in. For good reasons the doctor may order him to go to a milder province like British Columbia. And because of that removal the pensioner's allowance is cut down. This is wrong in principle, and this very fact constitutes an argument in favour of a federal scheme. In my opinion, to have a really workable pension system in Canadr it must be federal in its scope, because many of the provinces will never come in, and those that do will be faced with such restrictions as will make it difficult for pensioners to get the benefit of the legislation. I have already spoken with regard to the question of income.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member misinterprets the provision. Section 4 provides that any pensioner removing to another province with which no agreement under the act is in force shall continue to be paid the pension by the province in which it was granted.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I refer to the section relative to a transfer of residence as between two provinces both of which are in the scheme.


Mr. HEAPS:: If a person at the age of
sixty-five moves from Saskatchewan to British Columbia, say, having no claim in British Columbia but one in Saskatchewan, that person loses a part of his pension, as I understand the bill.


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I want to direct the attention of the minister to what I consider a fatal defect in the proposed legislation, and that is the virtual confiscation of property belonging to the aged. A discussion took place a short time ago between my hon. friend (Mr. Barber) and the minister on that point, and although the minister may not officially admit it I am sure he knows from his contact with people that if there is one objectionable feature to the old age pensions bill which strikes the average pertson with a sense of revulsion it is the provision that thrifty people who have worked hard during their lives and put by a little money in order to buy a home, may be faced with the prospect that after their death some dependent, for whom they have provided what little they can, will be deprived of the benefit of their economy. They may have saved up money to provide the means of education and under this legislation the pension authorities can levy out of the property the amount of the pension paid, plus five per cent interest per annum, compounded. I

heard the minister's suggestion of the wealthy son or daughter who was unwilling to assist the old folks, and who finally inherited property from the deceased pensioner. It is conceivable that such cases may arise, but the other class of cases will also occur. You may have an aged lady looking after a granddaughter whose future education she may have in view; she may be anxious to send that girl to high school or to normal school or to have her educated in some other way. The old lady dies and the government steps in and says. "We will take the property and the child can go to the orphans' home." Surely it is within the resources of the minister to find something more just under the circumstances. In Australia they allow a maximum amount of property of $2,000. That is one method of getting over it. It could be suggested that if the property is going to people in affluent circumstances who, having a duty to look after their parents have failed to do so, the State would then have priority, but to pass a clause of this kind which confiscates the property under all circumstances, or practically all circumstances, is unjust, inequitable and unnecessary.


Peter Heenan: I assume the hon. member to be familiar with the bill we had last year, which says:
[DOT] [DOT] .no claim shall be made by a pension authority for the recovery of such debt directly or indirectly out of any part of the pensioner's estate which passes by will or on an intestacy to any other pensioner or to any person who has, since the grant of such pension or for the last three years during which such pension has continued to be paid, regularly contributed to the support of the pensioner by the payment of money or otherwise to an extent which, having regard to the means of the person so having contributed, is considered by the pension authority to be reasonable.
In. other words, if someone has contributed to the upkeep of this pensioner, the government has no claim whatever.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But that does not cover the point I am making. That section only says that a person who has assumed the duty of the state-


Peter Heenan: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is what it means, a person who has assisted the old people; to such ia person the state says "We will not come in and take the money; we will let you get your money back first and then we will take ours." That is not the point I am making. No government would suggest that if the old people wanted to pay back a son or daughter who had given money in place of the pension, the government should have

Old Age Pensions
any priority. I am dealing with the case where an old couple or an old person may have a home worth $2,000', which they desire to leave to some grandchild who may be an infant. Under this provision the pension authorities would step in and take that home to the extent that a pension had been given to the old person. That is quite a different situation, if the minister appreciates my point.


Peter Heenan: I would like to ask my
hon. friend a question. The purpose of the act is not to give anything to those who have some property now, but to give something to those who are almost destitute. If we have no pension plan such as this in operation, those relatives of the aged people will have to contribute, will they not? If that is so, and we relieve them of that burden, is it not fair that the pension authorities, or in other words the taxpayers of the country, should get back that money spent in relieving the relatives of their duty?


Leon Johnson Ladner: As the act is drafted it
covers a number of cases which would carry out the purpose of the government and be fair; but it also covers a number of cases which would foe very unfair. You would put a premium on extravagance; you would tell the old people of Canada that it is no use to save so long as this statute is in effect. They will get a. pension anyway, and they might as well spend their money on automobiles because after a while that money will be taken by the state. So I say the principle underlying that clause is fallacious and unsound, it does not encourage thrift; it is not to the advantage of the pensioner or the immediate relatives of the pensioner and is not of particular value to the state. I would suggest that an exemption similar to that in force in Australia be included, which would allow the old people to have property up to a certain amount. You can make provision that dependents having a natural duty or even a legal duty to provide for their parents and failing to do so could be deprived of sharing in the property.
There is another situation Which arises just at that point. Ontario and Quebec pay eighty per cent of the taxes of Canada. Supposing these two provinces do not accept this pension bill, while the western provinces and the more eastern provinces adopt it. Ontario and Quebec have homes for old people, as well as all kinds of charitable and benevolent institutions to relieve the needy. If this bill goes into effect and these two provinces refuse to accept it, they will then be in the position of paying eighty per cent of all the money contributed by the Dominion government to the other provinces, and in addition they will be paying for the maintenance of the old people of their own provinces. That is a fact which is very clear. What will be the consequence? When this legislation is presented to these provinces it is unlikely that they will accept it, and I do not see anything in this bill which makes provision enabling the province of Quebec, let us say, or the province of Ontario to take their share of this old age pension money and apply it to the institutions already in existence. They are now taking care of their aged in a scientific manner, and they may say they want to turn the money over to these institutions. Is there any provision by which such an arrangement might be made?


Peter Heenan: There is no such provision in this bill, which is identical with the bill we passed last session. I might also say that the government is trying to get the principle of old age pensions established and then they can see what amendments are necessary later on.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why not find out now,
while we are preparing the legislation?


Peter Heenan: There are a lot of things we do not know yet.


Mr. McGIBBON:: When this bill went
through the House last year, in common with many others on this side of the House I advocated a federal measure. We do not need to rehearse our criticisms, but we said the bill was no good because it was unworkable, and so far I do not think we have changed our minds. But I have a suggestion which the minister might consider. My suggestion is that the federal government might bring in a succession duty tax which would probably make up the fifty per cent which the provinces should pay, and that would enable us to make it a strictly federal measure. I understand that we would be invading a provincial field1 of taxation there, but since we are assuming provincial burdens I think it would be fair and in addition to that this parliament would have absolute control over the pensions. I think that idea is workable, because the Dominion government could invade the provincial field of taxation in view of its assuming the fifty per cent obligation which the provinces would otherwise have to carry. If you adopt this suggestion you will make the proposed bill workable; I do not think it is workable as now contemplated.


Mr. CANNON:: What would be the effect of putting my hon. friend's suggestion into force, in view of the existing succession duties levied by the different provinces?
Old Age Pensions


Mr. HANSON:: Confiscation.


Peter McGibbon: You could not put on an additional tax.


Lucien Cannon: That would be in addition to the existing provincial tax.


Peter McGibbon: 
Lucien Cannon: Then in addition to the existing provincial succession duties, there would be a duty levied by the federal government under my hon. friend's proposition?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not want to get too far away from the main points I am endeavouring to present to the minister and which if not properly met will, I fear, be the undoing of this measure. In common with all other hon. members here I am desirous that an old age pension bill be passed. I wish not only that the bill should be passed but that it should become operative, and above all things that the people who are entitled to receive an old age pension should get their cheques. I made the prediction a year ago, and also two years ago, that under this measure the old folks of this country will not get their cheques. I repeat that prediction now. There are too many impracticable provisions in the proposed bill to permit of that being done. The outstanding one is the one I mentioned to the minister a moment ago.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Does my hon. friend refer to the provision transferring or taking the property of the aged pensioner?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is one of them.


John Campbell Elliott: May I just call my hon. friend's attention, while he has his mind on that subject, to the fact that the provision in this bill is nearly identical with the provision which has prevailed for many years in Ontario with regard to indigents in houses of refuge? In that province if an indigent admitted to a house of refuge had any property, it was thought to be only fair such property should be available for the county houses of refuge. There was power vested in the county court judge, if the indigent ob-

jected to transferring the property, make the transfer to the county in trust for him, and if anything was left after meeting the cost of the indigent's maintenance in the institution the residue was to go to his estate. The county held that property in trust and the provision under which that procedure was adopted is, as nearly as possible the provision contained in the bill we propose to pass here. That is to say, if you are going to grant a pension to an aged person, his heirs, when they are making no provision for him, should not be permitted to receive the pensioner's property after his death.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister will note that in the case he has outlined the province provides the building in which the indigent person is housed, and everything else necessary for his care, but in the case of a pensioner under the scheme we are now considering there is nothing of that nature. A grant of money is supposed to be made to aged persons who use that money to maintain homes for themselves. The two sets of conditions are entirely different. In Australia they have adopted the principle of granting exemption to the pensioners. However, the point I have just been discussing is only one point. There are quite a number of points involved here. There is, for instance, the age provision, then there is the question of the transfer of a pensioner from one province to another. But above all there is this question and to this I should like to direct the attention of the minister:	How is he going to meet the
situation of these two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which now pay eighty per cent of the taxation of this country and have institutions in which hundreds of thousands of dollars are invested for the maintenance and care of their old folks? What will happen to these institutions? In Quebec for example how are you going to distinguish * between aged persons in these institutions and other aged persons outside? Would it not be better if the federal and provincial authorities united in the common purpose of looking after old people, and utilized their joint forces towards that end? What will happen to the homes which are maintained by the provinces at the present time if they accept the old age pensions scheme? Would the minister entertain granting any concession by way of allowance to these governments to the extent of the responsibility involved by their maintaining indigent people in these homes?


James Alexander Robb: We have bad a very interesting and instructive discussion on the resolution. Perhaps hon. gentlemen will permit us to make progress with it in order that the Min-

Old Age Pensions
ister of Labour will have an opportunity of introducing his bill. When the bill goes into committee it can be considered in detail.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister a
question. I was not here when the resolution was discussed the other day and I should like to ask him-	*


Peter Heenan: Just a moment. If the
hon. gentleman will permit me I should like to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). In the regulations pertaining to the bill it will be possible to provide for contributing towards the support of a person in a hospital or in a home.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Can you provide for making a contribution to the government which is paying for the maintenance of these persons?


Peter Heenan: The question of contributing towards the maintenance of a person in a home can be provided for by regulation after a conference with the particular province concerned as to how this should be done. I think hon. members might accede to the request of the Minister of Finance and pass the resolution in order that the bill might be introduced. There will be ample opportunity for discussion when the bill is in committee.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There are very few suggestions of the Minister of Finance I would not readily accept, especially in view of the budget he brought down yesterday, but before a bill is introduced the principles on which it is based must be considered. That is the time for making practical suggestions as to the proposed legislation in order that it may contain whatever ideas can be gathered from the collective wisdom of hon. members. That is why, in my judgment, discussion of the resolution is preferable. However, I have covered the points which I rose to make and may I say this in conclusion: The suggestions I have advanced are those about which very considerable discussion took place during the recent general election, and from the response of the audiences which I addressed it was clear to me that the average person throughout the country would like to see corrections made in the proposed pensions measure along the lines I have mentioned, especially with regard to the age at which persons should receive a pension, and in connection with this matter of old persons caTed for in homes. I ask the minister to give the most serious consideration to the suggestions and to embody some if not all of them in the bill whidh he proposes to introduce.


Mr. PETTIT:: I am in favour of the principle of the proposed bill, but I rather concur in the remarks of my leader and of other hon. members on ithis side in favour of a federal scheme rather than the scheme outlined in the resolution. I do so because I see in this scheme delay and possible and very probable non-concurrence on the part of some of the provinces to the scheme, and in the future possible withdrawal of some of the provinces from the scheme, and consequent inequality and injustice, whereas I see in the federal scheme a scheme that will be administered by one body and that will therefore be much more simply and less expensively administered. I would put the age at sixty-five instead of seventy; I would raise the amount from $240 to $300, and I would make the maximum pension payable subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of $150 instead of $125 a year. I would also reduce the time limit in paragraph (d) to three years instead of five. I appreciate the fact that owing to the financial situation of the country that is a matter which can probably be dealt with much better in the future when our circumstances will permit, and that this is perhaps a good start. I therefore urge upon the government as strongly and emphatically as I possibly can in my humble capacity as a member, to change their minds, to drop the scheme as outlined in the resolution., and to bring in a bill providing for a federal scheme along the line that we on this side feel and so earnestly desire should be the measure put into effect.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ESLING:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister has told us that this is precisely the same bill as that brought down last session, and therefore the House and the country at large ought to be familiar with its provisions. Almost every hon. member who has spoken today has pointed out some objectionable feature in the bill, and it seems to me that if this measure is to be presented to the various provinces for acceptance, now is the time and this is the place to remedy these objections, instead of batting the question backwards and forwards between the provincial governments and Ottawa in an effort to arrive at a measure that will be acceptable to all.
I think that neither the customs scandal nor the tariff nor any ether issue in the last cam-
Old Age Pensions

paign received quite so much prominence as did this old age pension measure. It was a subject of discussion on practically every platform, and I expressed my strongest sympathy at that time, as I do now, with any measure for the relief of the aged. I do think, however, that there might be added to those who are to be benefited, the blind, and those who are crippled beyond the possibility of earning a livelihood. It seems to me that if there is one thing to commend this bill at all, it is merely that it paves the way to improved legislation. We might as well keep pace with the sister dominions in enacting an age limit of, say, 65 instead of 70, and most assuredly I think it would not be unreasonable for us to provide that ex-service men should come in at the age of 60. That has been a general request from the various local branches of the Canadian legion throughout Canada. I think that even the government will admit that this bill can be improved upon, and that now is the time and this is the place to do it, because if the provincial governments are to make amendments it will simply mean that the measure must come back to Ottawa, and its operation will be delayed for a full year.
I regret to say that in my district, as in other portions of British Columbia, practically every Liberal speaker took the opportunity to prejudice public opinion against Conservative candidates by the absolute assertion that the Conservative members at Ottawa had opposed this measure. In British Columbia the hon. Minister of Health in the federal cabinet was heralded as the father of the old age pensions bill. I presume, now that the Minister of Labour has the bill in hand, he will be acclaimed as its stepfather. However, neither of them can take very much pride in their offspring. The Minister of Health was in charge of the campaign in British Columbia, and I think that he too must answer for some rather gross misrepresentations concerning this measure, because I happen to have here a full page advertisement published by the hon. minister, or at least by his committee, in which his picture appears and in which he tells the people that "the old age pension bill provides $480 a year for the rest of their lives." That is what the Minister of Health, who I believe is also in charge of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, tells the people in this Cranbrook paper, his home paper-that the old age pension bill carries with it an annuity of $480.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: So that there will be no misunderstanding, if my hon. friend will read the advertisement he will find that an

aged couple who had not means and were entitled to come under the act would receive under its provisions $480.


William Kemble Esling: The advertisement says in plain English that the Liberal pension bill "provides $480 for the rest of their lives."


John Warwick King: For an aged couple.


William Kemble Esling: Into West Kootenay the
hon. minister brought from the city of Vancouver a breezy Liberal candidate by the name of Gale, who deliberately stated from the platform that his Conservative opponent voted against the old age pension bill. I do not charge that the hon. minister supplied this Liberal candidate with his ammunition,-I mean platform ammunition, of course, but the fact remains that he travelled with him, spoke from the same platform and assisted in his campaign, and never once did the hon, minister see fit to say that the statements made by his candidate were not correct. He was perfectly willing to let the public receive a wrong impression and allow his candidate to go to any extent in order to win that election. As I say, the minister was in charge of the campaign in British Columbia, and when the smoke of battle cleared away he was able to come back to his leader at Ottawa and say: "Behold, chief, I went into battle in British Columbia with ten Conservatives, and I have brought you back twelve. And I almost missed the train myself." ,So that when you consider the debilitated condition of the Liberal ranks in British Columbia it is not to be wondered that the Prime Minister saw fit to give to that province a Minister of Health. While we are at this stage it is rather peculiar to note the changed conditions, or the change of opinion, on the part of the government in connection with these ministers. I think it was last session that the Prime Minister made a statement, of course, from political expediency, that he was going to reduce the number of portfolios; and on page 1400 of Hansard he stated that the portfolios of soldiers' civil re-establishment and public health would be combined with some other department; in other words, that it was not of much importance and he would practically do away with it. Now the difficulty is that they cannot find enough portfolios to go round, and so they are creating still others.
All I have to say in connection with the old age pension bill, which was a matter of much discussion in West Kootenay district, is that if the ton of money spent by the fourteen Liberals in endeavouring to secure their own election had come out of their own pockets, they would have been so financially

Old Age Pensions
finished that they would! be the first fourteen applicants for the old age pension. If we are going to be in earnest in this thing, why not improve the measure now? What is the use of fooling the people any more? Hon. members all know that this is the most important piece of legislation that came down in 1926, and yet the government did not see fit even to mention it in the speech from the throne. It was brought down simply as a matter of expediency, and if we are going to do the right thing, why not do it now and give the people the bill they want? This matter is going back to the provincial legislatures for consideration, and if the government does not act on the constructive suggestions offered by many members this afternoon there is only one conclusion the public can draw, and that is that in reality the government does not want the various provinces to bring this measure into operation. There is no other way out of it.
I desire to refer to two or three clauses in the bill brought down during last session. The alleged father of this bill, as I say, now fills the portfolio of soldiers' civil re-establishment, and it was rather pathetic, on the eve of his by-election, when he went to two or three places in British Columbia, gathered round him the local branches of the Canadian legion, and told these men how solicitous he was about their welfare, how anxious he was to learn their problems and how sympathetic he was with all their purposes. Now, for instance, they ask for a sixty-year age limit. That was the unanimous request from the local branches, and I want to ask the hon. minister if during last session he, at any time, raised his voice on behalf of the ex-service men about whom he seemed to be so solicitous. If he did not, now is his opportunity. He can remedy the difficulty when the bill comes up, and I propose to see that he makes himself heard on that one phase of it. In the old bill, paragraph 1 of clause 9 provides an old age pension of $240 a year. It also provides that the maximum income of a pensioner from all sources, including the old age pension, shall be $365, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. minister gives the impression it would be $480. However we will assume that this pensioner may be an ex-service man. He may be receiving a war pension of $20 per month or $240 per year. That with the old age pension will amount to $480, and the various local branches of the legion ask that that war pension be not considered in figuring the total income of $365. They asked for that before. They asked for it while this bill was being discussed during the 1926 session, and I want to ask the minister or any other hon. member of this House if the minister then raised his voice on behalf of the ex-service men, about whom he seems to be so solicitous.


John Warwick King: I think at the
time the bill was under discussion last year I suggested that if there was a desire to give special treatment to returned men it should be done under a separate bill.


William Kemble Esling: No.


John Warwick King: The idea of mixing up an old age pension with various other matters is not sound and would not be considered by those who are giving the matter careful consideration.


William Kemble Esling: I submit there is so much mix-up in this bill that it would not do a particle of harm to exempt the ex-service men in calculating their total income. Inasmuch as the minister has not interceded on behalf of the ex-service men, particularly as he is Minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, I ask him if he will not now raise his voice in their behalf, because this is the opportunity, this is the time and the place. These men are permitted to receive a total income of $365. If they had the old age pension and their war pension, that would amount to $480, but from that would be deducted the difference between the $365 and the $480-that would be taken away from the old age pension. One hon. member this afternoon particularly referred to paragraphs 2 and 3 in section 9. It makes no difference how the hon. minister, or any other minister endeavours to construe the clause, it is plain English and means one thing; that where an aged pensioner leaves an estate of any kind on his death, that estate is taken over by the authorities and sold, and that is all there is to it. From the proceeds of that sale is deducted the amount of any pensions which he has received under this old age pension bill. The hon. member for Fraser Valley stated this afternoon that the interest is compounded at five per cent. Why the thing is almost ridiculous, and it is pathetic as well as ridiculous. You step into a home of those who perhaps are getting the benefit of the old age pension, and you take the old lady's clock, which she has heard ticking for fifty years, and her rocker, her cookstove, her lamp and everything else and sell it. It seems to me when you bring down a clause of this character you are fostering legislation for pawnbrokers, instead of enacting an old age pension bill.
Old Age Pensions


John Warwick King: I would remind my hon. friend that he is speaking in the House of Commons; the section he is referring to will be read, and it does not purport to say what he is trying to inform the committee is the fact. It states that the property will be sold, but if any relative or other individual has reasonably contributed to the support of the aged, then the property goes to that person.


William Kemble Esling: The minister is perfectly
right. But suppose no one has contributed to the support of the pensioner, not being able to do so. Does that alter the fact that every bit of household furniture will be sold?


John Warwick King: Whom should it
go to if not to the state?


William Kemble Esling: Why not start right? The
government knows that these clauses are objectionable, for they have been discussed on the public platform from one end of the country to the other. What sense therefore is there in attempting to fool the people longer? You will either give them an old age pension bill which will prove workable or you will not. If you intend to pass a bill which you can put into operation with some Hope of success it is not unreasonable to ask that the government take cognizance of the suggestions that have been made.
A special committee reported on this legislation a year or two ago, suggesting a conference of premiers to determine upon some uniform measure which would be acceptable to all. As hon. members know, that conference was never held, for the reason that at the time it was proposed there was not a Conservative premier in the whole Dominion. Since that time considerable water has gone under the wheels and to-day the situation is somewhat different. Apparently it has not been deemed advisable to bring together in conference the premiers of two opposite parties, but surely it is not too late to call such a conference if the government is in earnest about passing a satisfactory old age pension bill. Such a conference could readily be convened, and the premiers could agree upon some bill which would be acceptable. The Prime Minister himself shared this view. What had he to say with reference to the report of that committee? On May 1, 1925, as will be found at page 2746 of Hansard, he said:
It is all important that before any action is taken by the federal administration we should understand very fully and finally the attitude that the several provinces -null take on this particular question.
I do not know that one could ask for anything plainer or more sensible than that,

and there is no obstacle whatever in the way of calling the premiers together before the session closes, so that the public may be assured that the government is not any longer trying to fool them, but really intend to enact a workable old age pensions measure. Failing this, however, there is nothing for us to do but accept the bill as it stands. You have to admit that you are asking the provinces to contribute one-half of the amount while you are giving them no voice in the matter. The provinces must accept the bill as the government presents it to them, or forego the benefit of the federal contribution. I submit in closing that the proper thing to do would be to get the premiers together for the purpose of formulating a uniform and acceptable piece of legislation. But, as I say, if this is not forthcoming we are willing-I believe that practically every member is willing-to accept the bill which has been brought down on the principle that the half loaf is better than no bread at all.


Mr. VENIOT:: I should not be doing my
duty to my constituents nor to the province of New Brunswick if I allowed this matter to pass without offering a few comments upon it. I have listened attentively to the discussion which has taken place on both sides of the House, and I am somewhat surprised at the speeches delivered by our friends opposite. To-day they assume an attitude entirely different from that which they assumed, or at least which they pretended, when they went to the country, to have assumed on the floor of the House last session.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What is the difference?


Peter John Veniot: Your attitude is quite
different now. It is true that our friends opposite finally voted for the bill and advocated the policy that the provinces should contribute.


James Arthurs: Not at all.


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend will
possess his soul in patience he will be able to present his argument when I have finished. On the hustings in New Brunswick, on the hustings in Nova Scotia, on every platform from which he spoke there, the Prime Minister of the day, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, laid down the principle which the government is laying down to-day in relation to this legislation.


James Arthurs: What is that?


Peter John Veniot: I will tell my hon. friend
in time if he will be patient. If our friends of the opposition desire any evidence today of the attitude of the provincial governments

Old Age Pensions
towards this bill as it is now before the House, all they have to do is to put into practice the principle whiph the last speaker has established to-night, namely, that when a minister of the crown sits upon a public platform listening to a candidate of his propounding a question and does not contradict him, thus tacitly agreeing with what he says, then he accepts the views of that speaker. Well, the premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the last campaign followed on many occasions the then Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Meighen, and heard him laying down this policy that the federal government and the provincial governments should co-operate in carrying out an old age pensions scheme. They heard that proposal and did not dissent. If therefore silence gives consent, the province of New Brunswick stands and should stand ready to support this bill and contribute its share towards the amount necessary to put the measure into force.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it not a fact that Mr. Meighen always took the stand that he was in favour of the principle of old age pen- ' sions, through co-operation, but only after a conference of the premiers so that a practical scheme mighit be worked out? Did he not say that this should be done only after the provinces had come to some mutual understanding?


Peter John Veniot: Why should he consult
the provinces if the federal authorities were to pay the whole amount involved?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Answer my question.


Peter John Veniot: I have answered it by asking another.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member has
made a statement with respect to what Mr. Meighen is supposed to have said. I ask him whether Mr. Meighen did not also say that there should be a conference of the premiers. Is that not correct?


Peter John Veniot: It is quite correct. I hold
the then premier's speech right here in my hand, and like the Irishman I will answer the hon. gentleman his question by putting one myself. Why does he want to co-operate *with the provinces if it is not his intention to make the provinces pay a part of the money necessary to carry out this scheme?


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I answer that question?


Peter John Veniot: Yes; keep on interrupting.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It was always the principle of the Conservative party that the provinces should co-operate after the conference, but we
considered that the conference was necessary before co-operation could be practical, and this government will find that out before they are through.


Peter John Veniot: There was no necessity for
co-operating with the provinces if the federal authorities were to pay the whole bill, and there is where my hon. friend is wrong. But here is a speech made by his then leader, and I am surprised that those who followed him then think so little of him now that they do not adhere to the principles he laid down. In that sipeech he said:
We favour old age pensions legislation. We intend to pass old age pensions legislation, but we are going to get the provinces together first.
Why get them together if the provinces are to have no interest in it? If the federal authorities are to pay the whole of the money involved in carrying out this legislation, the provinces have not a word to say about it. Now let me read a little further:
We are going to see that we get something that will go into effect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: Yes; you will say that later on.
It is the operation that must be looked after,.'..
WTho is going to operate it? Why apply to the provinces to operate it when they do not contribute a cent and have no interest in it whatever? I read further:
...and we will make sure that ours will operate before we put it on the statute books. We will get the concurrence of the provinces...
In what? In the contributions, of course.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Not necessarily.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend surely does not wish us to take him seriously. I know I do not.
We will get something practicable, something which will be acceptable to the provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: Why must it be acceptable to the -provinces when they have nothing whatever to do with it under the legislation -then iproposed? If what my friends are now pretending is correct, they wanted the provinces not only to manage this work but to contribute their share to maintenance, as well as management, under the principles laid down in the bill. There can be no other conclusion arrived at in reading the speech of the then Frime Minister. I heard the Prime Minister of that time deal with this question in one of his speeches in my own town of Bathurst,
Old Age Pensions

and lie was then very emphatic in claiming that the Conservative party deserved as much credit as, if not even more credit for bringing down old age pension legislation than did the Liberal party. What credit could he claim if he were not in accordance with the Liberal party when they brought that bill before the House, for which hon. gentlemen now credit themselves with having voted?


James Arthurs: What about the Labour party?


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend would do a little more labouring perhaps he would have a better idea of what is going on in connection with this bill. I would advise him to get down to labour. I claim, Mr. Chairman, that the principle of asking the Dominion government to relieve direct municipal taxation is a vicious one, because that is the prerogative of the provincial governments. It may be all right, and I can see no harm in it, for the Dominion government to come to the assistance of the provincial governments in relieving taxation, but let it be done through the provincial governments and not entirely through federal channels. What is the condition of affairs to-day so far as the municipal governments are concerned? They-not the federal government-look after the poor; they look after the maintenance of the aged poor in the different asylums established for that purpose, and the people themselves are directly taxed for their maintenance. In the maritime provinces there is not a single government which contributes anything towards the relief of municipal taxation in that line.


Mr. JONES:: Prince Edward Island does.


James Arthurs: And Ontario does.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend says Prince Edward Island does, but the government of Prince Edward Island does not take charge of municipal affairs, does it?


George Burpee Jones: Yes, the provincial government does it all, in connection with the maintenance of the poor.


Peter John Veniot: Then let us consider New Brunswick; I can speak more correctly of that province, and I hope my hon. friend will not be able to contradict me there. The hon. gentleman' to his right (Mr. Arthurs) will correct me if I am wrong, I am sure. In New Brunswick to-day the provincial government has imposed, for the maintenance of indigents and unfortunates in the provincial asylums, direct taxation upon the people of that province, but in no way have they at-

tempted to relieve that burden upon the people. Rather have they increased it, since under the Liberal government previous to the present government the upkeep of these unfortunates cost $2.50 per head per week, and under the present Conservative government that rate has been raised to $5 per head per week. The government of New Brunswick to-day only pays 30 cents per head per week for the maintenance and upkeep of those who are unfortunately confined in the provincial asylum. Therefore I claim it is not the prerogative of the federal authorities to relieve direct municipal taxation, and for that reason I claim that the principle laid down in this bill under which the provinces are to cooperate and contribute their just share toward the maintenance of the poor people over the age limit laid down by this bill, is proper and just.
Then there is another point. Hon. gentlemen opposite make a claim now of which I did not hear during the last election, although I do not know what took place here in the House last session. They claim now that $240 per year is not sufficient. If the person accepting that contribution or pension is not able to show that he has an income of $125 in addition, as I understand it the pension will be increased by that amount, and they will receive as much as $365.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would like to ask the minister if that is correct; I think not.


Peter Heenan: What was the question?


Peter John Veniot: Where the recipient of a
pension is unable to show that he has a total income of $365, the pension will include the exemption otherwise referred to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. STEVENS:: My hon. friend is wrong; $240 is the maximum.


Peter Heenan: The maximum paid by the government is $240, but there is an exemption of $125, making a total of $365.


Mr. MANION:: If a man earns $125 a year, the government will graciously allow him to
keep it.


Peter John Veniot: And what would my hon. friend do. if he were in power?


Robert James Manion: I would give a little more.


Peter John Veniot: Why did he not advocate that last year when he was carrying on his election campaign?


Robert James Manion: In a moment I will tell what I advocated, if the minister will finish.

Old Age Pensions


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend will not
answer now?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I will answer. The present Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) during the election last year, according to reports which came to me, made the statement that I opposed the scheme of old age pensions in this House. I do not know if that, report was correct, but I was told that the present minister stated that I opposed the scheme in this House.


Peter Heenan: I made that statement.


Robert James Manion: The minister admits that? Then I wish to say that the Minister of Labour stated what was not so, because at no time did I ever oppose an old age pension scheme.


Peter John Veniot: That is not answering my question.


Robert James Manion: I will answer the question in a moment. The minister insisted on my getting on my fee't, and I am going to answer the question in my own way. I never opposed the old age pensions scheme in the House. The minister was not in the House last year although he is accusing our party of taking a certain attitude with regard to the old age pension bill of last session.


Peter John Veniot: Answer the question please, do not make a speech.


Robert James Manion: I have the floor and am
going to answer the question in my own way.


Peter John Veniot: You asked for the privilege of answering my question and I gave you the opportunity.


Robert James Manion: The minister insisted on
my getting up, and I said I would get up when the minister sat down. I will answer his question. He has stated that the Conservative party took a certain attitude in the House last year on this question. I am going to state what attitude the Conservative party really did take.


Peter John Veniot: The question is what my
hon. friend did, not what attitude the Conservative party took.


Robert James Manion: I supported the old age
pensions scheme last year.


Peter John Veniot: That is not answering the
question I asked.


Robert James Manion: I want to go a, little further. The Conservative party in the House last year supported old age pensions as a body. There may have been one or two
individuals who offered criticisms but that is no justification for saying they opposed the bill.
Sonae hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I will go further because
I wish to be fair. I myself, and a number of other members, criticised the details of the bill just as we are criticising the details of the measure before us this evening. We have a perfect right, even while supporting a bill, to criticise the details. As to the attitude of the Conservative party on old age pensions at the present time, we would prefer to have a federal scheme, with the necessary grants paid out of the federal exchequer, but if we cannot get a federal scheme we are going to support this bill. That, however, does ndt deprive us of the opportunity of criticising some of the details of the measure, and because we offer some criticism of certain details is not to say that we are opposed to the bill itself. So I hope that the Minister of Labour will adhere to the facts in the next election better than he did in the past. I will yield the floor to the Postmaster General now.


Peter John Veniot: I do not want my hon.
friend's permission.


Robert James Manion: I accord him permission
because I have the floor at the present time.


Peter John Veniot: I understand perfectly that under the rules of the House I cannot address myself directly to hon. gentlemen but must speak to the Chair. But when my hon. friend (Mr. Manion), after all the experience he pretends ,to have, adopts that course I think I should be permitted to do the same.


Robert James Manion: Very well, go ahead.


Peter John Veniot: I am glad my hon. friend
has got that little speech off. He rose for the purpose of answering a single question I put to him and went on making a speech. In that way I suppose he expected to divert me from what I had in mind. ,


Robert James Manion: Oh, no.


Peter John Veniot: But I am not going to be
diverted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad.


Peter John Veniot: It would be too bad if he
could succeed in doing it. I just wish to say that the statement I made was that the Conservative party had adopted the very same attitude in my province in connection with this bill that we are adopting towards this measure.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did not.
Old Age Pensions


Peter John Veniot: Well, speaking in the city of St. John, at a meeting over which the Hon. Mr. Baxter presided, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen advocated the very same principles that are set forth in the measure that is before this House to-night. And when during that campaign it was pointed out that certain members of the Conservative party, who do not occupy seats in this chamber but are none the less identified with Conservative deliberations before .the country, had voted almost in a body against this bill, the Prime Minister of the day took upon himself to explain that while that may have been true, the Conservative party in this chamber stood foursquare for the very principles that are laid down in the measure we are now considering. In view of that fact I cannot understand! the attitude which hon. gentlemen opposite are adopting in criticising the measure and suggesting that the federal government should bear the entire cost rather than call upon the provinces to contribute any portion of it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What was the attitude of
the hon. gentleman's government in the legislature of New Brunswick in May, 1925?


Peter John Veniot: In May, 1925, the government of the province of New Brunswick, which I had the honour then of leading, had before it two questions. In the first place we had a commission which investigated the question of wddows' pensions, and the report was submitted to the House toward the dying hours of the session. We then had the intention of appointing a commission to look into the question of old age pensions so that we could see how far we could go in carrying that principle out as a government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What was the report of
the first commission?


Peter John Veniot: The report of the commission on widows' pensions was favourable.


Leon Johnson Ladner: And the other?


Peter John Veniot: The other commission was not appointed, and therefore there was no report. The present Conservative government never had the commission appointed; consequently we have no report upon old age pensions.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister permit
me to ask him one more question?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, sir.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did he write a letter to
the parliamentary committee on behalf of the government of New Brunswick from which the following is an extract:
This province is now considering the establishment of what is known as widow's pension,
I Mr. Veniot.]
and we are not prepared to make any decision in the matter of an old age pension. While I do not disapprove of the old age pension, and feel that it would be a good thing, yet it would be impossible for me to commit the province to any, action in this matter at the present moment.


Peter John Veniot: That shows the attitude I
took. What is the date of that letter?


Leon Johnson Ladner: May 23rd, 1925.


Peter John Veniot: Exactly. We were then
dealing with widows' pensions, and we wanted to get through with that phase of the question first, before we undertook to deal with old age pensions. We went to the country on August 10th, 1925. Our program and .policy then was the adoption of widows' allowances first, and afterwards we would deal with old age pensions.


James Arthurs: What action was taken
in regard to widows' pensions?


Peter John Veniot: The report on widows'
pensions, that is to say the interim report of the commission, was submitted to the legislature later in the session, and no definite action was taken upon it. But when we went to the country a few months afterward we laid down in our platform the principle of widows' pensions.


James Arthurs: And was it carried?


Peter John Veniot: No, I was defeated. But
that was not what defeated me. Does my hon. friend want to know what it was? If so, I will tell him.


Mr. DUNNING:: That is all right, tell
him.


Peter John Veniot: He does not want to know. As a new member I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee but I felt that I should say a word or two upon this very important subject. The measure now before the committee should be adopted. I feel that the maritime provinces should recognize the principle of old age pensions, and should contribute their share towards the relief of the aged class aimed at in this legislation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In listening to the discussion which has taken place this afternoon, and reading over the discussion in Hansard, I have been very pleased indeed to note the cordial manner in which the principle of old age pensions has now been accepted in all quarters of the House. It was not so last year. The bill of last year received' a good many knocks, and even the principle of old age pensions received a good many knocks from different quarters of the House. I am not going to

Old Age Pensions
blame anybody for changing his mind from last year or two years ago, but I think if we looked around to find out how many members of this House have changed their minds on this question in the past two years, we should find that probably seventy-five per cent of them have. However, I have no desire to hark back on what took place in the last election. If the members of this House now feel inclined to pass a scheme of old age pensions, what took place a year ago or two years ago is not of very much importance so far as I am concerned. What I am anxious about is to see that we get an old age pension measure which will become a fact, and not merely a dead letter, so far as assisting the old folk in this dominion is concerned.
The resolution before us and the bill to be based upon it is practically the same, I understand, as we had last year. I said a moment ago that I was extremely happy to note the cordial manner in which the principle of old age pensions has been accepted by the House, but I regret exceedingly that the same bill we had last year is about to be again introduced before the House of Commons. I regret it for more than one reason. But the chief reason why I regret it is that there may be provinces in the Dominion of Canada that will not accept the provisions as outlined in the bill of last year. It would be a cruel thing, Mr. Chairman, as I view it, if after what was said in the last election, after ail the promises that were held out by the Liberal party and by the Conservative party, there should be old people in some of the provinces who would not be in receipt of an old age pension. I do not think there could be anything more cruel than to give the old folks of this country, the aged and the needy, the idea that they were going to receive an old age pension, and then when the bill becomes law, so far as this parliament is concerned, there should still be thousands of people in some of the provinces who would not get an old age pension. Therefore, I think our first duty, the most important duty that the House of Commons has to perform, is to see that we get enacted a bill that will meet with the acceptance and approval of all the provinces of the Dominion. I frankly admit that a bill which in its main provision provides for only a fifty per cent contribution by the federal exchequer is not going to meet with the approval of the provinces, and if I could urge anything upon the government it would be to increase that contribution from fifty to seventy-five per cent at least.
There has been a good deal said this afternoon in connection with a federal scheme of
old age pensions. Nobody has outlined what is meant by a federal scheme. A federal scheme would involve federal administration, and personally I am in favour of provincial administration, because I believe that by provincial administration we are going to get more efficient administration. For that reason, because I believe in the provincial administration of such a measure, I am in favour of the provincial governments making some slight contribution, but I certainly object to this government, asking the provinces to contribute at least fifty per cent, in addition to which the provinces will also have to bear the cost of administration. I believe that if my friends on the Liberal side of the House could express their feelings freely on this matter, we would have a good many hon. gentlemen sitting on the government side of the House who would be heartily in favour of a seventy-five per cent contribution from the federal exchequer to the scheme of old age pensions.
This afternoon I listened to the right hon. the Prime Minister give a rather lengthy explanation on constitutional matters, and he spoke of the supremacy of the House of Commons. I would like the membership of the House of Commons to be supreme in this question of old age pensions, and to allow a free vote of the members of this House on matters connected with the old age pensions bill. As a private member I am unable to move any amendment to this bill that will involve additional financial obligations. I could not move in this House that the contribution by the government be increased to seventy-five per cent, because that is entirely the prerogative of the government, but I would like to see the House divided on that question because I am satisfied that the preponderance of opinion in this House would be in favour of a much larger grant from the federal exchequer than is contemplated in the measure which we have now under consideration.
Only yesterday the members of this House were discussing the question of the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation. During the past election, and subsequently, I have received quite a large number of letters from many of the old people in this country who are looking anxiously forward to the day when the old age pension law will become a fact. These men and women who have written to me, and probably to many other members of the House, have dealt with their pioneering days in the Dominion of Canada. I believe that there could be no more fitting way to celebrate the diamond jubilee of confederation than to put on the statute books of this country a really workable old age pension
Old Age Pensions

scheme that will give to the pioneers of confederation something that is worth while.
I do not think that in considering this measure the government have given proper thought to the changes which have taken place since last year. When this measure was introduced in this House a year ago there was a great deal of doubt very probably in the minds of the government, and a great deal of doubt in the minds of hon. members, as to whether the principle of old age pensions would be accepted by this House. Well, it has been accepted by this House, but we do not know as yet what is going to happen in another House. However, I believe that the Conservative party, in the criticism to which they have been subjected so far as the members of this House are concerned, have had visited upon them the sins of the Conservative members in another House, and really the party cannot altogether escape that. I have often thought that if the Conservative members of another House had showed the good sense shown by a good many Liberal members of that House and had walked out, they would have been well advised on that occasion. There have been great changes since a year ago. The doubts we had then on this matter have all been dispelled. This House now accepts the principle of old age pensions, and not only has the principle been accepted by this House, but it has been accepted throughout the whole country. From one end of Canada to the other we find Liberals and Conservatives vieing with each other as to which can give to the old people of this country the better old age pension measure. Here we have our friends of the Conservative party telling us that they will give to the old people perhaps more than the $20 a month that is mentioned in this bill, and they say that they want to reduce the age limit from seventy to sixty years. They will give many other things away in excess of what is contained in the bill. I am, however, prepared to accept the bill, subject of course to that one particular amendment which I have just mentioned.
There is one other question that I wish to touch upon before I sit down, and it appertains to the amount which an old man can earn outside of the amount which he receives as a pension. When we speak of a pension, I hope this matter is looked upon as a pension and not as a gratuity, as it is, I believe, considered by some hon. members. When men or women have reached the age of seventy years, having lived honourable lives and having given of their best to this Dominion, the least the state can do for them is to provide 
them with something to tide them over their difficulties in their old age, and that should not be looked upon as charity but as something the state owes them. An old lady hailing from Kingston came to see me in the city of Winnipeg where she was living on the gifts of her friends. She told me that her grandfather was one of the founders of the city of Kingston, and yet that old lady of about seventy-five years was compelled to go round and live on the charity of the people of the city of Winnipeg.
The bill as it came before us last year provided for a maximum earning, including the pension of $240 per annum, of $365 per annum. In other words, if a pensioner was earning more than $10.50 per month, he would have a reduction made from the amount of his pension. If he was earning $20 a month, his pension would be reduced by the amount which he earned over $125 a year. In other words, if he earned $240 per annum he would be entitled to a pension of only $125 per annum. That is one of the lowest amounts of any pension scheme that I know of in any part of the world. The limit has been practically wiped out of the old age pension legislation in Great Britain. The limit in Australia is considerably higher than that proposed in the bill which probably will come before us in the next few days. I hope the government will take into their serious consideration the question of increasing to $240 per annum the amount of earnings allowed in addition to the pension of $240.
I also hope they will take into consideration the question of increasing the grant from the federal treasury to the provincial treasury from fifty to seventy-five per cent. The reason I make that as a minimum stipulation is very easy to understand. If the provincial governments have only twenty-five per cent to contribute to the cost of pensions, there will be little excuse for any provincial government not to put into operation a scheme of old age pension. On the other hand, if they are asked to contribute fifty per cent, there will be a very good reason for many provincial governments, who now find their financing difficult, to put into operation such a scheme, and the Dominion government will have to assume the full responsibility in those provinces in which the old age pension scheme will not be in operation.
Yesterday when we all listened so earnestly and attentively to the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) the word which was probably most used in his statement was "prosperity". If there is as much prosperity as was stated by the Minister of Firance it

Old Age Pensions
should not be difficult for this government to provide the extra $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 that is involved in increasing the fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent. If that is going to mean the difference between having or not having an old age pension scheme in the provinces of Canada, it would be in the interest of this government to increase the fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent, so that when the time comes no province will be able to say that it cannot put the scheme into operation and, what is much more important, there will be no aged men and women, who have been looking forward anxiously for the establishment of this scheme which will give them at least that minimum of $20 per annum, who will have looked in vain.


James Arthurs: The keynote of the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Heaps) regarding this bill has been that of charity. He pointed out that it was necessary for this Dominion to come to the rescue of certain of its inhabitants on the ground that they should be charitably dealt with in one province or another. We have had a similar case in Ontario, and I know no difference between the case of mothers' pensions in Ontario and that of old age pensions in the Dominion of Canada. No difference can be made between the case of a widowed mother in Ontario and one in Quebec or any other province; and the same should apply in the case of an aged father of seventy years or over. The principle should be the same; that is to say, if the province is liable and if it assumes the responsibility in the one case, it should certainly assume the responsibility in the other. In Ontario we have assumed responsibility in regard to mothers' pensions.
Two years ago my hon. friend or his associate moved a resolution asking that the Dominion should put into operation a scheme of old age pensions, one hundred per cent Dominion. I may be wrong in the name; if it was not my hon. friend it was the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) then the hon. member for East Calgary. The motion was put and, as we quite admit, the consensus of opinion in this House was against it. But my hon. friend has been eminently unfair in saying that in the discussion last year we were opposed to the principle then enunciated.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not endeavour to convey that impression.


James Arthurs: I spoke last year on this question and I was then and I am to-day hundred per cent in favour of the principle of old age pensions. I ivas one hundred per cent against the principle of the Dominion embark-32649-30



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
ing upon this scheme without the consent of the various provinces. Apparently no effort was made then or prior to the time when the discussion occurred, nor so far as I know has any effort been made up to the present time in regard to the matter. The minister from Saskatchewan might be a good authority.
Charles Avery Dunning: On what?


James Arthurs: On whether or not the provinces should enter the scheme.


Charles Avery Dunning: I want to say a word when my hon. friend has finished.


James Arthurs: My assertion is that there has been no discussion on the part of the various provinces in regard to this matter, and no information is available to the members of this government as to whether the provinces are or are not prepared to embark upon a scheme of this kind. We know by information which we receive every day that certain provinces are not prepared to embark upon this scheme.


Peter Heenan: British Columbia has indicated by correspondence that it is willing to co-operate.


James Arthurs: We have heard that
several times. What about the other provinces? What about Quebec?


Peter Heenan: I understood my hon.
friend to say that no province was prepared to co-operate.


James Arthurs: I did not say that.


Hugh Guthrie: There is none yet. The bill in British Columbia has not yet been read a second time.


Peter Heenan: I had a letter from the
premier.


Hugh Guthrie: That does not matter.


Mr. NEILL:: The bill has been introduced and passed its second reading.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not law yet.


James Arthurs: Is that prior or subsequent to the acceptance by British Columbia of the motion?


Alan Webster Neill: It has passed the British
Columbia House.


James Arthurs: It is anticipating this
bill. There is no doubt that at least ninety per cent of the total population of Canada in the various provinces have given no assent to this bill in any way, and the provinces represented here by some hon. members are among those which are not likely to give assent to this bill at the present time.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend looking at me?


James Arthurs: I could not avoid looking at you, you are so good-looking. During the previous election, as many hon. members have said, the Conservatives received many knocks regarding this particular legislation. They did not deserve it. I stood on my feet at the last election in exactly the same position as I stand now.


Mr. FORKE:: You woutld not stand on
your head, would you?


James Arthurs: And I am still here, in
spite of all the Forkes they might have put up against me. I made the statement then that this was a matter for Dominion legislation and no other-and some of the Forkes have passed between now and then. I make the same assertion now that this legislation, to be of any use to the whole Dominion, must necessarily be Dominion ' legislation. The expedient put forward by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), that the government of the day should assume seventy-five iper cent instead of fifty per cent, is absolute camouflage. If it were right that we should adopt fifty per cent or seventy-five, why not say one hundred? Has any hon. member an answer to that? Has my hon. friend changed his mind as betweeh the fifty per cent and the seventy-five, as between the different provinces and the Dominion? Why should he not support the suggested amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? And if seventy-five per cent, why not one hundred per cent?
There is no question as to the result of this thing. On this side of the House we are absolutely in favour of the principle of old age pensions. We are absolutely opposed to the principle of putting up some bill which in itself, and to the knowledge of every member of the government, is a subterfuge and a camouflage, and will never have any effect so far as relieving the old people are concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend addressed a question to myself, particularly relating to the province . of Saskatchewan, which gives me an opportunity tb say a few words with respect to the resolution now before the committee. I think everyone who has spoken in this debate has expressed his adherence to the principle of old age pensions. , Principles are fine things, but they do not keep body and soul together. We require to get further than a mere discussion of principle in connection with a matter of this kind, if it is going to be of practical value to the people affected

by it. May I submit that it does not advance the cause of legislation in this House for any hon. member to rise and describe a piece of legislation as camouflage or subterfuge, known to be such by its promoters and not intended by them to work out properly, as the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Arthurs) has done? I submit the government is serious in advancing the measure as one calculated to establish in the country a system of old age pensions, which may not be perfect in its inception, but which will at least-


James Arthurs: I did not say the government knew. I said certain members of the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought my hon. friend said "every member." He says now "certain members." Well, in any ease I say that the legislation now before the House, if and when enacted, will establish this principle in operation. My hon. friends opposite say that their policy would be to introduce such legislation only after a conference with the provinces, and after securing with the provinces an agreement to co-operate in connection with it. I say now what I said during the election campaign with regard to that policy. If we wait until the nine provinces are all agreed on the kind of old age pension scheme that they desire to enact we will wait till doomsday. Why not proceed in connection with this matter on the same principle on which the Dominion proceeded some years ago, when my hon. friends opposite were on this side of the House, namely, to volunteer assistance to the provinces in the matter of building roads? Did they wait till all the provinces had agreed to accept a proportion of the partnership scheme then proposed in the construction of highways? No, the federal machinery was set up and any province might take advantage of it, and most of the provinces availed themselves of the proposition- not all of them immediately, but some of them delayed till the time fixed for the scheme had almost expired. I might mention the application of the same principle in connec-tioan with the scheme for agricultural education and in connection with the Technical Education Act. When the federal parliament lays down the terms on which they are willing to assist any province in carrying out what is really an essentially provincial undertaking, it involves a recognition by the federal government of the desirability of national assistance in connection with what has been considered to be a local undertaking. Frankly I am favourable to provincial and dominion co-operation in this matter, and I am

Old Age Pensions
favourable to it on practical grounds. The practical grounds are these:	The provincial government at the present time, in the nature of things, deals with matters affecting property and civil rights. Their provincial administrative machinery is much closer to the people in dealing with a matter of this kind than federal administrative machinery can possibly be. The administration of a completely effective scheme, supported one hundred per cent by the federal government, would mean the setting up of a complete new piece of federal machinery from one end of Canada to the other, because we have no existing federal machinery readily adaptable for the purpose contemplated by this bill. On the other hand, there is scarcely a province in the Dominion which is not at the present _ time administering, directly or through the municipality, some analogous undertaking, some undertaking very similar in its general character, such as the mothers' allowance scheme, or such as the various child protection acts, involving as they do the supervision of foster homes, where children have been adopted under the provisions of the various child protection acts. They have now the machinery, they have the inspectors, and they can add the administrative machinery contemplated by this measure with very little expenditure; while, so far as the Dominion is concerned, it would require a new and expensive piece of machinery.
Some of my hon. friends would get round that difficulty by saying, Well, if the provinces had the machinery why could the Dominion not bear the whole hundred per cent and return the money to the provinces for administration? That argument has been advanced, and I submit it is unsound in principle for that body which is responsible for the raising of the money to exercise no control over expenditure under a scheme of this kind. There must be some control to expenditure and administration by the body which has the responsibility of raising the money. In this case, under the measure now before the committee, the Dominion has the responsibility of providing one-half the money. It is quite a sufficient check upon the administration of the scheme to have the provinces charged with the responsibility of raising t'he other half of the money required.


James Arthurs: My hon. friend has given me instances of Dominion grants for roads in the various provinces. Will the minister tell me how much has been saved by the Dominion through the fact that they have had control of a certain amount of the administration?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not quite get my hon. friend's question.


James Arthurs: There were twenty millions voted for roads . in the various provinces. What has been saved the Dominion by the fact that we have had some share of the administration of the act?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Dominion's share in the administration of the Federal Highways Act is indeed very small.


James Arthurs: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Of course we did, because parliament authorized the payment of the money, in the manner prescribed by the law itself, among the various provinces in proportion to their population, and the expenditure of that money was carried out by the province, except for audit work and engineering inspection on the pact of the Dominion in order to ensure that value should be received for the outlay. I am not proposing in connection with this scheme that the Dominion should not exercise the same supervisory authority over the machinery created by the province for the administration of old age pensions. But the detailed administration can be well and economically taken care of by existing provincial machinery, and I submit that it will prove cheaper in the long run so to do.
May I remind members of the committee and particularly my hon. friend (Mr. Heaps) that while some of us may be sympathetic to a larger proportion of the cost being borne by the Dominion, the matter is not so easily settled. My hon. friend himself said that he was sympathetic to the idea of the Dominion bearing a larger proportion. May I point out that parliament consists of two Houses and that what we do here is subject to review elsewhere in a place which I am not permitted to name nor to discuss in this House. Those of us who believe in the principle of old age pensions are aiming at getting a measure which will pass the parliament of Canada; and the parliament of Canada consists, as I have said, of two Bouses.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister think that if he fixes the proportion at seventy-five instead of fifty per cent this will influence the other House in any degree?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I can best answer that question by saying that I do not think it, will make the passage of the bill any easier in a certain other place. That is my opinion.
46S
Old Age Pensions


Abraham Albert Heaps: In view of the fact that the political complexion of the other House is not the political complexion of hon. gentlemen opposite but the same as that of most hon. gentlemen on this side, and in view of the further fact that hon. gentlemen on this side advocate a one hundred per cent contribution, is not a seventy-five per cent proportion just as likely to pass in the other House as fifty per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friends opposite were as logical as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, perhaps there might be some force in his suggestion. But after our experience of last year in this regard,-and I do not want to trench upon subjects of doubtful order in this discussion-I am sure we all have a very vivid memory of the attitude of some members of the parliament of Canada on the question of old age pensions. I can speak, by the way, of members of the parliament of Canada, meaning the whole parliament, without getting out of order. I say that we all remember that members of the parliament of Canada of one political persuasion in one House took an attitude quite in contrast to t/hat of some members of the parliament of Canada of the same political persuasion in another chamber. We have a very vivid memory of this, and because of that experience we are inclined to take with a grain of salt the protestations of hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to the attitude of the great Conservative party on old age pensions. However, suffice it to say that last year's bill did not become law; and this, not through any fault of the Liberal party, not through any fault of the Progressive party, not through any fault of the Labour party, not through any fault of the United Farmers of Canada-


An hon. MEMBER:: Through no fault of the Conservatives.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, then, evidently no one was responsible.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister speaks of the illogical attitude of the Conservative party in this connection. May I ask him if he was responsible for a letter written by the government of the province of which he was premier on the nineteenth day of November, 1925, to the parliament of Canada, as follows :
The government of Saskatchewan is of opinion that an old age pension scheme for Canada can best be adopted by the federal government alone. There would seem to be so much difficulty in the way of providing any schceme that would be suitable to all the nine provinces of Canada as to make it impossible, and it will
l Mr. Dunning.]	.
be readily understood that if any number of the provinces were to remain out, it would be almost impossible to adopt any scheme that would not subject those provinces within the arrangement to a considerable expense that should rightfully be borne by those outside the scheme. While we are disposed to think that an old age pension scheme should be undertaken, the difficulty in the way of the suggested scheme appears almost, if not entirely, insurmountable.
Did the minister write that letter?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hen. friend has the
signature before him. Let him read it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have not. I have only extracts from the correspondence between the government of Saskatchewan and the chairman of the committee on pensions. I presume that it was my hon. friend's government who wrote this letter advocating the federal scheme.


Charles Avery Dunning: I apologize to the hon.
member; I thought he had the signature before him. However, let me tell him that the signature to that letter is not mine. I was expecting that the letter would be quoted the moment I rose to my feet, and I ought to thank the hon. gentleman for allowing me to proceed thus far without introducing it. It was quoted in the debate last year. The letter is signed by the Hon. Mr. Gardiner, now Premier of Saskatchewan, and represented the first reaction of that government to the proposal that it should, back in the year 1925, embark upon the scheme as submitted by a committee of the House of Commons at that time. The province of Saskatchewan, however, does not stand still. My hon. friend does not recognize that.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is, since you left.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, since I left. May
I take this opportunity of saying for my hon. friend's benefit that the province of Saskatchewan is going forward even faster since I left than it did while I was there. My successor is carrying on the tradition of the Liberal party in that province in a very able manner. It so happens that a discussion has taken place recently in the legislature of Saskatchewan with reference to old age pensions. Such a discussion has occurred, indeed, on one or two occasions since the date of the writing of that letter to which my hon. friend has just now referred, and I hold here a report of a debate which took place on February 7 in the legislature on this subject. It gives the considered attitude of the government of Saskatchewan at the present time. The argument has 'been advanced from across the floor that the provinces will

Old Age Pensions
not take advantage of the scheme; but we know that the province of British Columbia is already prepared to do so, and I can trust public opinion, as expressed throughout Canada during the last federal election, to see to it that most of the provinces of the Dominion will follow suit. To state that the provinces of this Dominion are less responsive to public opinion on a matter of this kind than is the federal parliament is to state something which of course is not correct. The present Premier of Saskatchewan, discussing the matter, read the letter referred to by my hon. friend as indicating the attitude of the government of that province at that time towards the question, and then-


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was not my hon. friend Premier of .Saskatchewan at that time, in the year 1925?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. But the trouble
with my hon. friends opposite is this: because .they are standing still they want all the rest of us to stand still. That is the difference between us.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister then admit that in November 1925 he did advocate a federal scheme, which he is now condemning?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I will not admit anything of the kind. I will say this, that when the matter was first propounded to the government which I had the honour to lead, without the information which came later, involving as it apparently did a very considerable provincial expenditure, a very cautiously worded reply was returned to the proposal that the province should undertake large expenditure in connection with such a scheme. Of course I will admit that the government of Saskatchewan and the members of the legislature of that province later had the benefit of studying the evidence taken before the committee of this House, and also had the benefit of the discussion which occurred in this House last year when, the matter was very thoroughly threshed out. As I said before, we do not stand still, and the attitude of to-day is what matters. Surely my hon. friend does not hold strongly to exactly the same opinions on every matter which he expressed in the month of November, 1925?


Leon Johnson Ladner: No, but my reason for speaking of this letter was that the minister was endeavouring to ridicule the stand taken by the Conservative party and by Mr. Meighen.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, and he was attempting to show how illogical and foolish it was. I merely wanted to present a picture of other people under similar circumstances.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suppose we could go on along this line all evening. I might point out, however, that in the illogical position I was depicting, frankly I had no intention of ridiculing Right Hon. Arthur Meighen; far be it from me to attempt to do so; in fact it is beyond my powers. I was contrasting members of the same parliament of Canada on the same occasion, dealing with the same matter, and my hon. friend brings up a cautious opinion expressed two years ago based on partial information, and contrasts it with an opinion expressed to-day based on more complete information, as evidence that we are guilty of the same illogical attitude adopted by the Conservative party in both Houses last year.
Now perhaps I can state what the attitude of the province of Saskatchewan is to-day. I would like to read what the premier of that province has said:
Saskatchewan to-day was in the position of waiting the action of the federal government to reintroduce its old age pension plan of last year or of introducing a provincial scheme. To bring in a measure now when a bill was probably to be brought down at Ottawa, would be selfish. Should the Dominion bill be introduced the Saskatchewan government could offer its assurance that careful consideration would be given to any Dominion-wide scheme, so far as it affected the people of Saskatchewan.
That, I submit, is a wise attitude to take pending knowledge of exactly what the legislation emanating from this parliament will be.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is a federal scheme referred to by the words "Dominion-wide"?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have given my friend a lot, of latitude; surely he does not need more. Just in conclusion, touching the point made by one of the hon. members for Winnipeg, I do not believe the present scheme to be perfect. I am not now suggesting improvements, which I think can be very much better suggested in the light of experience in operation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Might I ask a question? Once the bill becomes effective, would not the nine provinces be required to give their consent to any change?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not necessarily; I think the machinery of the law can be operated in such a manner as to enable us to deal with the matter in much the same manner as other joint matters between the Dominion and the provinces have from time to time been dealt
Old Age Pensions

ivith. Just recently there was a conference of the provinces interested in the Technical Education Act, and the views of the provinces and of the federal administrators of the act were taken into account. I believe that the minister concerned is now giving consideration to those view's arrived at jointly by the responsible officers charged with the administration of that act and the representatives of the provinces. I do not apprehend very serious difficult}' in that connection. I do plead this however, that we should get an old age pension scheme on the statute books of Canada ; that so far as we can now see, the scheme outlined now represents a fair start on the problem. There can be no mistake; the people of Canada endorsed what we did in this House last year with regard to this matter, and endorsed it very emphatically. That being the case I submit that this bill represents a good place to start in order to deal effectively with this problem.


Mr. MILLAR:: This may not be a good time to discuss the details of such a measure, but since it has been discussed at considerable length already I propose to offer a few general observations. This is a measure whieh I have very much delight in supporting. I have noticed during the last five years how easy it has been to get through legislation which makes the rich richer, and how difficult it has been to pass legislation which will assist those who are most in need. I am convinced that there is a malady which has attacked all countries; Canada has suffered perhaps as little as any, but this country is not entirely free from it. The will of the rich is imposed on those who are not able, either financially or otherwise, to protect themselves. It has made my heart sad sometimes when I sought relief for some real sufferer, perhaps a returned soldier suffering from a disability, only to find all sorts of difficulties placed in the way. I have a letter on my desk now from a returned soldier suffering a twenty-five per cent disability. He, has a sick wife and a family to keep, and says, "All I want is a chance to earn a living", yet he does not get that chance. I have noticed that it is most difficult to get redress for such people, and therefore I am very .pleased to support legislation which will assist those most in need.
I suppose there are those throughout the country who have been looking with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction towards such measures as the reduction in the income tax, and I suppose there are those who have in other days looked for the protection given by an increased customs tariff. But I can assure

the House that it means very much more to the old man and the old woman who have lived seventy years; who have passed through difficult times and through no personal fault are now destitute. It means to people of that kind a Jiving; it 'means food and clothing, and throughout this country are thousands who are looking for this relief.
A great thinker in addressing an audience in the United States a short time ago pointed out that people are coming to a stage where they will not stand for the unequal distribution of wealth. He had noticed that to which I have referred. He instanced those who are drawing salaries of from $10,000 to $50,000 a year, and contrasted others working as hard, working longer hours, just as able in their own line, but only receiving one-tenth or less of the salary.
At some other time than to-night I shall perhaps have something to say about the tendency in this House to give pensions to those who are receiving now and who have received for years a very large salary, one of perhaps $8,000 or $10,000 per year. A salary so large is quite sufficient to enable them to provide for their old age, by insurance if not otherwise, but how readily a measure will pass this House increasing their salaries or providing them with a pension for their old age. That is the class of legislation to which I refer when I mention legislation which makes the rich richer, but this is a measure which helps the poor.
There is one clause in this resolution that I should like to criticise. Paragraph 7 reads:
That the maximum pension payable shall be two hundred and forty dollars yearly, which shall be subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of one hundred and twenty-five dollars a year.
Thus if an old person who has reached the age <of seventy should perform some small service and earn a hundred or two hundred dollars a year, that amount is deducted from his pension. Is not that a mistake? Why in the name of common sense should not aged persons, if they are industrious and willing to work in order to add a little to their income, be allowed to do so without being penalized? How will this provision work in most cases? In the majority of cases the old person will reason like this:	If I earn $150
I will simply lose it to the government. The government will simply pay me that much less, so what is the use of working?


Peter Heenan: That is not correct.

Old Age Pensions


John Millar: The minister says that is
not correct. I should like him to explain that point before I proceed.


Peter Heenan: The exemption is $125, so that if the aged person earns $150 he will only lose $25.


An hon. MEMBER:: Deduction is made on the excess earned?


Peter Heenan: The amount earned in
excess of $125. That would mean that if such person earns $250 more than the S240 he would be penalized to the extent of $125. That is to say that if a person earns $125, he will receive a pension of $240, making $365. If a person earned $126, he would lose $1.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If he earned $30 a month he would be entitled to $5 a year.


John Millar: That is not much of an
improvement. He would lose a part of what he earned if his income went above a certain amount.


Peter Heenan: Yes.


John Millar: I think that is wrong in
principle. When the pension is only $240 a year, a small part of what will suffice to keep body and soul together, why not delete this restriction altogether?
It has been pointed out sometimes that such measures as this are abused. I have no doubt there are persons who will take an unfair advantage of a law of this kind just as they will in the case of unemployed insurance. But I would point out that after all the number of such persons will be comparatively small. I have some other objections to this measure. I have noted the objection raised by other speakers that some provinces may not come in under the measure but the minister is right in saying that it is a start. This legislation is likely to pass the other House and perhaps it would be well not to be too critical at the present stage. In the light of experience it will be possible to amend the bill when it goes into effect, make it more workable, and give relief to a greater number.


Alan Webster Neill: I will only detain the House
a few minutes. I do not care who gets the credit for passing the proposed bill. As long as I can have the child and keep it, the paternity is of no concern to me. There has been a great deal of discussion along that line which I will not follow up.
There has been also a great deal of criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite, so much so that it can be crystallized into a general sentiment instead of being looked upon as merely expressing individual opinions, I think I am right in saying that the general trend of the
opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite is that there should be a wholly federal scheme. I hope hon. members opposite will endeavour, now they are so agreed on such a policy, to imbue their friends in another House with their views. Because I have here the Hansard of last year, although I will not detain the House 'by reading it, showing that man after man got up in the other House last year and said that his sole objection to the bill was that it should be a provincial matter.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a rule of the
House that we are not allowed in debate to refer to the action of the other House on any of these matters. We have very carefully observed that rule on this side in this debate, and I think it should be just as strictly observed by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Alan Webster Neill: I will not stress the point.
but I think it is a little late in the day to raise that issue.


Hugh Guthrie: I think perhaps it should have been raised before. I notice that even ministers have transgressed the rule.


Alan Webster Neill: The question has been discussed time and time again this session. Last session it was discussed not for one day but for weeks at a time. However, if my hon. friend wishes to adhere to the strict letter of the rules, I have no objection.


Hugh Guthrie: I know that if the Senate discussed our actions we would very speedily repudiate such a proceeding. I think we should be very careful on that point in our own discussion.


Alan Webster Neill: I think if the hon. gentleman reads Hansard he will form a different opinion. However, I may perhaps be permitted to express the point in a somewhat different way, and say that those hon. gentlemen opposite who are now so strongly in favour of a wholly federal scheme will, I hope, use their influence with any friends they may possess in favour of that scheme. I can quote at least the views of their late leader, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, which I had not intended to do. Perhaps they may recall Mr. Meighen's remarks when speaking, in the district in British Columbia which I represent, he gave utterance to the following statement:
It was a matter for the provinces-
This is the opinion of the late leader of the party, which is now almost wholly in favour of a federal law.
It was a matter for the provinces and if they could not agree, then the Dominion can do nothing.
Old Age Pensions

Further on he said:
It was just sham legislation. If the bill had become law no one would have got a dollar pension out of it. It was a sham and sham was written in perforated letters-
Why perforated letters?
-across four-fifths of the legislation of the King government.
And so on. Some hon. gentlemen made the assertion this afternoon that the Conservative candidates in British Columbia did not admit the charge of opposing the bill in this House. I have quoted the language of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on the very first occasion, I think, when he spoke on old age pensions in British Columbia, although he did get a little more enthusiastic as time went on.
The question of cost was raised this afternoon and I will deal with that later on, but I just want to draw attention to it as I go by. Remember always that making the scheme a purely federal one will at least double the expense, which is one of the reasons which led to its failure last year. I am not saying this in any critical spirit against any particular hon. member. I have no doubt some hon. members are genuine in their desire to see a bill and a good bill passed. A few attacked it from a political aspect, and one or two endeavoured, by their belated statements in this House, to cover statements which they made on platforms throughout the country.
Several hon. gentlemen raised the point that the age limit should be sixty-five instead of seventy. Certainly it should be sixty-five, but we must walk before we run, and to make the age limit sixty-five would enormously increase the cost. We have it on record that Great Britain, which, so far as the British Empire is concerned, first initiated legislation of this character, began wfith the age limit at seventy, and the old age pension in Great Britain begins at seventy years to-day. Some people contradict that, stating that the age limit is sixty-five, but that is a separate and contributary scheme. Between sixty-five and seventy years of age, there is a sort of preliminary scheme which is contributary in character; but after people reach seventy years of age they drop their payments under that scheme and they come under the standard old age pension scheme which now, as at the beginning, in Great Britain still stands at seventy years of age. I would again point out that one hon. gentleman-although I do not admit his figures or his argument- demonstrated, at least to his own satisfaction, that to lower the age at which the pension would begin from seventy to sixty-five would

increase the cost by ninety per cent. There again you have a ninety per cent increase in the expense.
An hon. member from British Columbia, to whom I will not give the publicity he would like by mentioning his name, said that it was not the right way to deal with a scheme of this kind to consider the age and destitution of the person, but that his physical condition should be taken into consideration. He suggested that the Minister of Labour should have discretionary powers to take in a man or a woman who was under the age of seventy, provided that he or she suffered from some physical disability. In other words, the Minister of Labour could, I suppose, by order in council or on his own initiative-I do not envy him his job-decide that someone was seventy when lie was only fifty-five. That is a most admirable position for someone around election time. I would point out that this measure is called an act respecting old age pensions. It is not an act respecting the blind which is a very worthy object and one that should be taken up some day, the sooner the better so far as I am concerned. It is not an act respecting cripples or those suffering from any other disability, nor even an act respecting soldiers. It is an act respecting destitute old people, and I think the act is big enough to be passed without our bringing in other aspects of disability with which it has nothing to do, but which tend to becloud the issue, increase enormously the expense and perhaps render the whole thing inoperative.
Another hon. member said that a pension of $20 per month was too little. I know it is; I agree with him that $20 a month is too little; but we must begin small and we know that it will never get less. One or two other hon. members said that the pension should be raised to at least $30 a month, nn increase of 50 per cent again. I will deal with those figures later on.
I think one hon. member from British Columbia stated that in our gaols we allowed a dollar a day for keeping each prisoner. Being more familiar perhaps with gaols than he is. I would point out that there is a reason for that. To begin with in gaols there is a certain amount of extra expense for fortifications, guards, bars and police that have to be provided. But there is another aspect of the matter and perhaps I am not giving away my province when I say this. There has been a movement there for some years past to induce the different municipalities who do their own policing, to turn over that obligation to the province, at a price, of course. The

Old Age Pensions
rAovement is gaining some headway and it is desirable from the point of view of the government that the3' get this all within their control. They think in that way they can control it better and do the work more cheaply than the municipalities. The price used to be only fifty cents a day and now they have raised it to a dollar. The reason is not because it costs a dollar now any more than it did before, but because it makes the municipalities more willing to turn over the responsibility to the province. That is the reason why they have jacked up the price of keeping a prisoner, which price of course has to be paid by the municipalities, to a dollar a day. It does not really cost as much as that to keep him.
An hon. member, from British Columbia again, trotted forward-no, he was ashamed to bring forward the argument he used in this connection on the platform, but he tried to cover it up in this way. He brought forward the question of a widow who was not a British subject before her marriage. On every platform in the campaign I was assailed by the idea that this legislation had deliberately and heartlessly legislated against the poor woman, say a Scandinavian who had come to this country and been a good, honest and faithful wife to a British subject for twenty years and who had raised a large family-the number varied from time to time-and then when her husband died no provision was made for her because she was an alien before her marriage. Some speakers were really ignorant, but hon. members knew that was a complete mis-statement of fact. None knew better that that was put in not to hurt any widows but to protect them. As I think someone explained this afternoon, it was put in to cover the case of a Canadian woman who married an American. As at least every lawyer knows she then takes the nationality of her husband, and therefore, when he dies, she still remains an American woman and ineligible for a pension. It was this case that the bill provided for. In that case she could in five years get back and renew her nationality with expense, worry and nothing to eat in the meantime. We provided that while she was technically an alien, an American, she was allowed to go back to her own British nationality. Therefore it was a very well thought out thing, but it was thrown against us that we were not taking care of the poor woman. In his desire this afternoon to confuse the issue, he said there might be a case, yes perhaps one in a thousand or five thousand- of a woman with a dual nationality where after the decease of her British husband she would still have
both a British and a Japanese or a German nationality. How many times would that occur in a thousand years? Any difficulty of course would be obviated by the fact that if she returned to Japan-and only in that way could she regain her Japanese nationality- she would cease to draw the pension.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My hon. friend seems reluctant to name members to whom he refers. I do not know why he lacks such courage. I ask him whether my statement of law with respect to the national status of dual citizenship is not correct, because he knows.


Alan Webster Neill: It is possibly correct that
a woman or man can have two nationalities, such as British and German. If they went back to Germany, they wmuld be Germans. The same might be true as regards Japan. It was the case until a year or two ago and probably it would be found that they could easily regain their Japanese nationality. But that could happen only if they left Canada, and if they leave Canada, this legislation says that they lose their pension anyhow. The chances of that happening would be one in a thousand. That was not the contention and well does the hon. gentleman know it. The contention made on the platform was that we were discriminating against a large number of decent people who had come into this country and married Canadians.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wish to take exception,
on a question of privilege, to the remarks of the hon. member. That was the contention made and my hon. friend, whose casuistry and sophistry are so apparent on the platform, has sometimes to have these facts clearly stated. The contention which I made, and made in his constituency, was precisely the one I made in the House to-day, and none other.


Alan Webster Neill: I seem to have touched
somebody on the raw. Another criticism that was made on the platform was this. He said -I am reading from his own party paper:
The act they proposed said that pensions would be paid in accordance with regulations thereunder. The act was so involved in a technical way that nobody could get a pension under it.
In a technical way!
To obtain the pension a person had to confess to being 70 years of age.
Would not that be a terrible thing?
The women would not like that. They do not like to give their age.
Old Age Pensions

And so on, and so on. A moment later he [DOT] added:
The Senate did not kill the bill. All they did was to bury it. The Liberals' old age pension bill was a sham and was designed solely as a vote catcher.
That is the bill which he now says he is heartily supporting!
There is one other clause with which I would like to deal. I think this was the section which he referred to as the most damning in the whole act, and that is section 9. That is the one which empowers the board to claim the estate of a deceased pensioner under certain conditions. I think he used the language-I took it down at the time-that this meant confiscation under all circumstances. That will show in Hansard tomorrow if it is put down as I heard it. I think the hon. minister questioned the accuracy of his statement, and I think he then modified it, but that was his original statement which would have gone out to the country without contradiction if the minister had not risen-that this section meant confiscation under all circumstances.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman is as incapable of clearly stating the facts here as he was on the hustings in his own constituency. I did not say that. The section is quite clear as to what is meant. I explained very clearly the nature of the effect of the section which I described as being a confiscatory section, calculated to confiscate the home, which it does, but not confiscation under all circumstances. Such a contention is clearly ridiculous.


Alan Webster Neill: Hansard, if it has not been
tampered with, will reveal the truth tomorrow.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Chairman, I ask the
hon. gentleman to withdraw that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hansard is not tampered with. The idea of any man suggesting that!


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman from
Comox-Alberni may indulge in that practice, but I do not. I ask that the hon. gentleman withdraw that statement, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: I personally did not
hear the hon. gentleman make that statement. If he did make the statement which he will know himself, I think in fairness to the reportorial staff he should withdraw it.


Alan Webster Neill: What I meant was this, Mr. Chairman. It is a well known custom that we are allowed to revise our speeches to make them read a little better, by putting in a word here or extracting a word there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not tampering.


Alan Webster Neill: What I meant was that if
the statement has not been corrected, Hansard will show that it was as I have stated. I had no intention whatever-I cannot emphasize this -too strongly-of making any reflection on the reportorial staff.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Would it not be wise, Mr. Chairman, to ask the hon. gentleman to express his views on old age pensions without doing so mudh quibbling about what certain hon. members said on the hustings in the province of British Columbia? I am sick of listening to this sort of thing all day. It is a shame to be wasting the time of the House listening to such bunk, and it is pure bunk. The hon. member should not be listened to at all. He is quite capable of expressing himself on the subject of old age pensions. He did it in the committee, and he should keep to the subject before the Chair. We should not have to listen to this.


Alan Webster Neill: It was not the hon. gentleman who has just sat down who had to suffer from these unfair allegations in the campaign.


David Spence: It is taking the
time of the House that should not be taken.


Alan Webster Neill: I was going on to explain
about this case of a deceased pensioner. I really think it is deserving of being explained in the fullest way. It has been alleged that after the man dies, the government steps in and takes his property. What are the facts? He can leave it to any other pensioner he likes. He does not need to be a blood relation or anything of that kind. If he has a little property he can leave it to an old friend or chum as long as it goes to help the scheme, which in turn will be able to pay bigger pension later on. That is all right. Then they are allowed to leave it to any one who has helped them in their old age by ever so little. It does not even need to be in cash. It says in cash or otherwise, I think. Supposing a man says: "Well, there is an old couple, and their pension is not very big. I have a cottage that I do not need very much, and I will let them have it rent free." It would apply to that. Or a son might not be able to give a cash contribution, but he might be able to give house-room to his father or mother or his mother-in-law. In a case like that, however little the contribution was, if it was at all a genuine attempt to carry out his filial obligations, he would be allowed to get the full amount of what the deceased pensioner left.

Old Age Pensions
One hon. gentleman opposite-I will not put it nearer than that, to save interruptions- asked, what about the grandchild? The hon. member suddenly produced a grandchild of the pensioner, who is in a state of destitution also, and when the old man died, who was to keep the grandchild? 1 recall in one of Mrs. Nellie McClung's books a lady speaking on the platform on behalf of the franchise for women, and some man said, "It would never do. Who would mind the baby while the woman wen; out to vote?" And the lady replied with a good deal of aptness, "Why, I think I could get the same person to mind the baby that minds it when I go out to pay my taxes." I think the same thing is true here. I think the same people who were keeping this grandchild before the old man died would continue to keep it after his death. They could not have been living on the old man. If they were totally destitute, they would have been looked after in the home, or taken care of in some private family.
We have a branch of the federal government which is devoted wholly to endeavouring to get people in this Canada of ours to buy annuities. Why should we do that? It is a case of a man taking all his money and handing it over to the government and getting a certain annuity for life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. He pays weekly or monthly contributions as the case may be.


Alan Webster Neill: He can pay it in a lump sum if he likes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, if he has the money.


Alan Webster Neill: Should we discourage that because when he dies his grandchild will have nothing to get at all? Why not oppose that too? Let me give you an instance that comes home to both of us, and this is in British Columbia, with w'hich we are more familiar. When the hon. gentleman talks about this iniquitous clause that is going to damn this bill, does he know or does he not know, or will he not tell, that in British Columbia we have what is called an Old Men's Home, and you get admission to it by somebody-usually the municipalities-undertaking to pay so much. Sometimes if the people are without the scope of a municipality the government takes them in free. But before that poor old man goes to that home he has to sign over to the government not only all the property he possesses, such as his land or something of that kind, but all the property he may ever become possessed of. He may come into a fortune while in the Old Men's Home, but it is all assigned and turned over to the government when he dies. I am not saying that that is a good scheme
but I am saying that the scheme in the bill was a good deal better than that because we did allow the man's property to go to his friends, relations and so on.


William Irvine: Does my hon. friend know of a similar clause in the legislation of Great Britain?


Alan Webster Neill: As to the government receiving deceased pensioners' estates?


William Irvine: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know. I want to sum up from the point of view of making it a federal scheme. As we know, the difficulty is the high cost. Now, let us lump the whole criticism together and see where we stand. As we know, it was partly the high cost that made its passage doubtful in the other House last year. Now it is proposed to make the scheme purely a federal one. It was estimated last year that it would cost $11,500,000 a year. Making it a purely federal scheme would bring the cost to $23,000,000. Let us accept that. Let us also accept the suggestion that we should give this relief to people sixty years of age. That would increase it ninety per cent and bring the cost up to $43,700,000. Then we come to the hon. member who says that we should raise it from $20 to $30 a month. That would bring the cost up to $66,500,000. Then there is the whole of the administration cost. Of course if we take it over as a federal scheme we will have to run it ourselves. Then there were one or two other minor suggestions which, if adopted, would bring the cost up to $70,000,000; that is, if we accept the various suggestions which have been made, and the government has been urged to accept them in a fair spirit of criticism, that would mean (hat the cost would be nearly $70,000,000. What does that mean? It means that the bill would never pass this House, would never pass the Senate and would never pass the country. The result would be that the very object of the bill to give relief to the old people would be nullified entirely, because we would never get anywhere with a proposal to expend $70,000,000 annually on the scheme.


Mr. BRADY:: Being a new member of the House, Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to discuss in any way the old age pension scheme, as I am not familiar with the clauses of the bill. I have listened to the discussion with the greatest care, hoping to gain from it an elucidation of the clauses of the resolution that has been introduced. The mass of
Old Age Pensions

material presented to ns to-night has reminded me of a well-known fable. A deer, having been wounded in the forest, retired to a comfortable shady place where there were enough luscious grass and tender leaves to keep him from hunger and starvation until his wounds were healed. But a great number of his friends came from the surrounding forest to sympathize with him, and one suggested one thing and one another in order to give him relief. They consoled and sympathized with him in his sickness, but it was not long until that deer died-not from his wounds but from starvation. And so it seems with the old age pension scheme.
I would not have risen to-night had I not heard one thing in particular that the Minister of Railways said. After this discussion we are convinced that the position of the Conservative party has been emphatically and clearly enunciated-that they are behind this scheme for old age pensions, whether it be under federal control or in conjunction with the provinces. I wish the minister were here to correct me if I am wrong, because I wrote down the words he uttered. In referring to this matter he said that they, the opposition, were not in favour of the old age pension scheme unless after consultation with the various provincial legislatures. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that words bearing that meaning were uttered in this House by hon. members on this side. If they were, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the proposition, because personally I feel that we are wasting precious time on a matter in respect to which there is absolute unanimity, and such unanimity has been expressed in this House tonight.
I was impressed by the words of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I felt that he expressed what must have taken place in this House last year when he said there was a great difference of opinion in regard to different clauses of the bill. However, I think we have reached the stage now that it is not a question of the clauses of the bill, because these can be discussed when the bill comes before us. It is not a question of what took place on the hustings last year nor a question of reading reports from lastt year's speeches which have no relation to the question now before the House. The question is, are we decided, are we unanimous that this old age pension scheme should be put into force and that even if not perfect, it will be given a chance. That is the question, Mr. Chairman, and I have heard the leader of the opposition emphatically say that we were behind it if it were decided that the provincial
[Mr. Brad v. I
legislatures should participate in the scheme with the federal government. I regret that we have had so much sophistry and so much discussion; it makes it look to me as if we are not sincere. What does it matter who is to have the honour of passing the old age pension scheme? The point is that throughout the length and breadth of Canada there are people waiting for the verdict of this House. Them we must consider, not whether it shall be a bill of ten clauses or a bill of twenty clauses, but a bill pledged to these people, an old age pension scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not rise to address the committee at this late hour were it not -that in the recent election there was so much misrepresentation of the Conservative party and of certain members thereof in this House during the last session on the subject now under consideration. So great was that misrepresentation that it is absolutely essential that in self defence at least one should offer some observations in respect of the matter.
It is for instance very much to be regretted that an hon. gentleman in one of the Ontario constituencies charged that I opposed the old age pensions bill. Nothing is more certain than this, that if under our democratic institutions it is impossible to discuss in parliament a measure of this kind without liability to a charge of opposition to the measure itself, then indeed the value of those institutions, the value of parliament will have passed, and we shall have become mere rubber stamps, registering the will of governments. It is of the utmost importance that every phase of a question of this character should be thoroughly discussed. I find on consulting Hansard of last year, at page 1975, that I spoke as follows:
I apologize for trespassing again to-night upon the time of the House, but I feel very strongly on this subject. I am deeply interested in it; I desire to see it succeeed. I am convinced that it cannot succeed without the co-operation of all the provinces, unless the Dominion, in defiance of our constitutional jurisdiction as voiced by the Deputy Minister of Justice, sees fit to undertake the whole responsibility, which would involve us in an expenditure of $23,000,000 per annum.
I said that because I had previously read the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice -with which, of course, I did not necessarily agree-that there was some question as to our constitutional power in the premises. But I pointed out that if the bill as then introduced by the Minister of Public Works of the day, acting as Minister of Labour, had passed into law, no single individual in Can-

Old Age Pensions
ada could have benefited by the legislation. And on the hustings the Conservative party repeated that statement. For it is a fact that cannot be denied that had that measure been passed by the Senate and given the royal assent, becoming a statute, there was not a single individual in Canada who would have received one cent under it. And why? Because not a single province had enacted old age pensions legislation.
Now there is this to be said, and every hon. member will, I am sure, seriously consider it. To what extent should the parliament of Canada by legislation enforce its will upon provincial legislatures? That is a question that affects the whole structure of our constitutional system, and if we enact statutes whereby we declare that a certain class of people within the province may receive the benefits of federal legislation only on condition that the province shall refrain from crossing a single "t" or dotting an "i,'? merely doing what we tell them to do, then the provincial legislatures are deprived of the very power which, under our constitution, they should possess. And this statute proposes to make those provincial legislatures, who desire to avail themselves of the advantages of this law, nothing more nor less than registering automatic machines to carry out the will of this parliament. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. We are imposing our will upon the provincial legislatures.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What does the hon. member mean by imposing our will upon them? There is no provincial legislature which is bound to accept this proposal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend
with his astuteness sees that that is the very point I am making. No legislature is bound to accept the proposal, but if it does it must accept it in its entirety without crossing a "t" or dotting an "i". It must take the measure as it is presented by this parliament. In other words, as I say, this parliament imposes its will on the legislature of any province that accepts the measure.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the will of parliament not be more wholly enforced upon the province if the scheme were a purely federal one?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because every federal statute is of dominion wide application; in its operations it extends to every part of the country. But that is the important difference; for a federal statute does not leave its application to the will of any provincial legislature, either t.o accept or to reject its terms. I was happy the other evening to hear the observations of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), who was in the House when the committee reported on this subject originally a couple of years ago. That report, following on the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, was predicated upon the idea that a provincial conference would be held so that we might arrive at some definite conclusion whereby we could prepare a satisfactory measure to place upon the statute books, a measure that would have federal application. The difference between a federal and a provincial statute i* this:	one is operative solely within tne
boundaries of the province, while the federal statute applies to the Dominion at large. If therefore the province is compelled to accept a measure passed by this parliament, or, on the other hand, to decline it in toto, then the legislative power of that province is curtailed and restricted to that extent, and its legislators no longer exercise their jurisdiction but are subject to the will of this body. My hon. friend (Mr. Heaps) will clearly see that. That 'being so we did point out last year that under the circumstances it was desirable that a conference should be held. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) the other evening read into Hansard an observation of mine, dissociated from its text, in which I asked the Prime Minister not to force the measure last year. I implored him to take steps to see that the report of the committee should be carried out and a conference of representatives of the provinces held, so that some measure of uniform application might be drawn up. But it was charged throughout the country from one end to the other, and in some of the Ontario constituencies particularly, that the Minister of Finance was opposed to old age pensions. I can only repeat what I have just now read. If anyone will take the trouble to refer to Hansard and to read in its entirety the observations I made in this regard-I hope no one will do anything of the sort-he will find that I gave a considerable amount of attention to the matter. I had had an opportunity of studying the subject at first-hand in England, and after many inquiries I had obtained a good deal of information. There were two classes of cases to be dealt with: one, the case of those over seventy years of age who would get the benefit of the legislation if the provinces passed an old age .pensions measure. I urged a contributory system and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was good enough to felicitate me on what he graciously described, as my helpful observations. The matter was not of a controversial nature. But I realized that under any contributory system
Old Age Pensions

there are in every country numbers of men and women between the ages of sixty-five and seventy who would find it impossible to make any contributions, not having the financial ability to do so. And in the very closing words of my remarks, which I made to the House on that occasion, I used the following language which I now desire to repeat:
T think the government, therefore, will be well advised perhaps to release the whip on its own members and let the opinion of the House as a whole determine whether or not it is desirable at this session to push into this matter or, in the light of a subsequent conference between the provincial and Dominion authorities, arrive at a conclusion which will enable us to place on our statute books legislation of a character that will redound to the credit of this country and that will maintain the confidence and self-respect of the future citizens of this Dominion by encouraging the practice of economy and thrift, while providing for the aged of to-day by suitable contributions to provincial schemes.
That is to say, in order to meet the case of those who could not immediately make contributions because of financial inability, we should ourselves make the necessary grant of money under the circumstances. I referred at that time to a speech of the Hon. Winston Churchill, Chancellor of the Exchequer, to show that miHions of pounds were involved in the scheme in operation in England, and at the same time I mentioned- the observations of Neville Chamberlain u-pon the same matter.
Now, let us for a moment forget all about the past. It is not a matter of great importance to me that I was misrepresented. I do not care except for the fact that I owe a duty to friends of mine to correct wrong impressions of this character. I am quite content that the record should speak for itself and I am not concerned about what was said in the late elections. I am however concerned that we should have a clear appreciation and a full understanding of just what we are doing in this legislation. We are not granting old age pensions. That is number one. That, we have said in this resolution, is to be done by the provinces. All we are doing is to place upon the statutes books a provision whereby a sum of money will be granted to any province that sees fit to pass legislation in terms set forth by us. That, to all intents and purposes, is a federal scheme, without having the advantages and benefits of a federal scheme. In the province of Alberta it was a Labour member of the legislature who moved its rejection although at present, the Alberta legislature is giving the matter further consideration.	It was
Mr. White, Labour member from the city

of Calgary, who moved the resolution in the legislature condemning this provincial legislation, and I have found out since why that was done. It was done because they said, "This is a very simple matter; you are endeavouring to pass this on to the municipalities, and that is just what the municipalities do not want you to do." They say that "If this is to be a scheme let it be a federal scheme; if there is to be such a scheme let the Dominion take the responsibility for it, and do not endeavour to place the responsibility on the provinces and deny them the right to formulate their own scheme. Do not give them a grant of money without permitting them to have something to say in the matter." That is the situation, and there can be no doubt about it; anyone who reads the bill or the resolution will find that that is so.
I regret to say further that during the last election one of the successful candidates, now sitting in this House, published an advertisement in which he pointed out that it was a " board of strategy " which induced gentlemen in another chamber to destroy the bill. Misrepresentations of that character are not calculated to enhance the value of our institutions. Mr. Meighen has said publicly on many occasions, and he is not now here to repeat it, that he had no part in what happened, nor wias he advised of it. He has further said that it was against his protests, when he did hear of it, that the action took place in another chamber which resulted in disaster to that measure. This side of the House gave its support to that measure after pointing out its weaknesses; we did not ask for a division, and for myself I then stated, as I now state, that I believe in an old age pension scheme. But I do not believe in an old age pension scheme based upon a mere granting of money to a provincial authority, thus imposing our views upon them willy nilly. There must be an exercise of some legislative discretion by these legislatures if they desire to pass a measure of this kind, but that is denied them; they must either accept or reject. They must take it as it is or drop it; they cannot get a sou unless they take it as we give it to them, and if they take it in that way they may get some money. That is the position, and that is what the leader of this party pointed out the other day.


James Alexander Robb: May I ask a question? In
what respect does this measure differ from the act giving aid to agriculture and the good roads assistance, which were supported by my hon. friend in 1913 and 1914?

Old Age Pensions


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to begin my answer by calling my hon. friend my dear friend; I feel almost affection for him, because I have known him so long, and he is always kindly and courteous. The fact that someone passed legislation with respect to agriculture and highways does not in any sense make this legislation good;, because there was a conference with respect to those measures.


James Alexander Robb: There was no conference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me, but I happened to be present, in a very unofficial way, at one of those conferences. I do not know whether or not all of the provinces were represented, but I do know that many of them were.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely, my hoD. friend will not say that the provinces agreed to the terms of that federal legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. The provinces were granted aid for highways and agriculture because the highways were of an interprovincial character, and were so intended to be. My friends will recall the circumstances; 'it was felt that great trunk highways of an interprovincial character, which really had a federal aspect, should be assisted out of the federal treasury, and the conditions under which assistance should be given were laid down by regulation and agreement. With respect to agriculture the position is that under the British North America Act jurisdiction is given both the province and the Dominion, and the Dominion has been steadily granting aid to agriculture. But there came a time when some of the provinces urged that the obligations of a local character were so vast that they desired aid from the federal treasury, and this aid was granted under conditions which were agreed to by the representatives of the federal and provincial authorities. But that is a very different situation from that which now confronts us. Here all we are doing is placing on the statute books a provision by which a grant is to be made, covering half the money paid for old age pensions, but the terms and conditions under which the provinces will have to carry on their scheme are fixed by us.


Charles Avery Dunning: As in the other cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In those cases the terms were fixed by regulation and agreement, but this is a measure which says willy nilly, "Accept or reject." If they Teject, what happens? The difficulty is that they still pay.
Mr. KING (Kootenay). The conditions are the same as in those other cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in the other cases
all the provinces availed themselves of the benefits of the legislation.


John Warwick King: They will do the same in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the point I desire to make is that which was pointed out by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) last year. First of all you should not have this parliament thus imposing its will on the provinces, and giving them no discretion at all; then, if we are going to make a grant of money and impose the terms under which it may be used, let us have our own scheme and not a hybrid plan, partly provincial and partly federal. That is the position, and that is the reason my leader made his observations the other evening with regard to this matter, with which I wholly agree. I say to this House that there is no chance of a proper scheme with respect to old age pensions being made successful by the provinces without making further demands upon the federal treasury. In that regard I have had the advice of men who do not live in this country at all; they have studied the question from every aspect and tell me that if we desire to make the scheme a success, it cannot possibly be done by the provinces alone. As was pointed out in the Alberta legislature, the burden would be passed on to the municipalities and added to the tax bills, so it must in the long run be borne by further applications made to the federal authorities. That is the position* as I see it with respect to this matter.
So far as I am concerned, notwithstanding the evident and manifest difficulties in the way, having pointed out this situation I propose to support this measure, but I do so only after bringing to the attention of the House the inevitable consequences. It was a great English statesman who said that under our modern democracy if one was right be could never afford to say so, because that invited a certain situation which brought about a great many difficulties. I will not elaborate the statement, but some day I will read the exact words to the House, because I think they will be of interest.
This I will say, however: If free discussion in parliament is to be subjected to the misrepresentations which took place with respect to the attitude of the Conservative party in this matter last fall, it will be most injurious to the maintenance of free institutions. Who will say that a discussion upon the measure
Old Age Pension*

such as took place last year was not a benefit? Even the Prime Minister himself was good enough to felicitate the hon. member for West Calgary for the observations and contributions he made during the debate, and yet what happened? Someone goes out in the hustings, to a constituency containing a lot of labouring men, and into the railway shops, where he reads two or three lines from a speech. That is what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) did on the fifteenth of this month, when he read a few lines and said the hon. member for West Calgary was opposed to the measure. My constituents know better, but the public is sometimes not so well informed. Someone holds an official position for a very brief time, as can easily happen under our institutions, and the public attach more importance to what he says than otherwise would be the case. I" do think that in the interests of fair discussion it is not desirable that that habit or practice should continue. It reminds one of the advertisements sometimes seen in newspapers, wherein someone says that someone else has said very offensive things which are not true. It seems to me that these things must be remedied, because if we cannot discuss these matters on their merits and demerits we will injure the very institutions we are attempting to assist. That is the reason I again pointed out to-night the real situation with respect to this matter. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was charged with saying, in Vancouver, that this was a sham, but what he did say was quite different. In elaborating his speech, he said that in so far as giving a single dollar to a single Canadian man or woman by virtue of this legislation, it was a sham.


Mr. THORSON:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Am I correct in saying that the attitude of the Conservative party in the last election on this issue was that there should first be a conference with the provinces; that they should agree upon a scheme of co-operation, and that after that agreement was arrived at the Dominion should proceed with this scheme of old age pensions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Answering the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), I will say first that in the last election it was the policy of the Conservative party that there should first be a conference. They pointed out that this parliament had unanimously agreed there should be a conference, and that the report dealing with it. was put upon the table of this House. That report can now be read by the hon.

gentleman if he so desires. That is the answer to number one. Then, the gentlemen who had the matter in hand had agreed that it was highly desirable that a conference should be held; the committee had considered the matter and provision was made in the report itself whereby members of the conference who were not elected to the House might come back to the conference, and upon further consideration of the matter by the conference legislation would be predicated. That was the policy of the Conservative party. What has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thorson) had suggested to him that he should now ask?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am reading from a report of the speech delivered by tire Right Hon. Mr. Meighen at Vancouver on August 17:
Meighen declares himself at Vancouver Meeting
The meeting closed with what Meighen himself described as "the most strenuous day of my life", and it closed his speaking program on the Pacific coast. He indicated his intention: First to call a conference between the Dominion and provincial governments to work out an old age pension scheme along the lines of the recommendations of a special parliamentary committee.
Was that the policy of the Conservative party in the last election?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has again asked a question, thanks to the slip which was passed to him so ostentatiously a moment ago, and he has read a speech with which he is not very familiar representing that Mr. Meighen's policy was that there should be a conference between the provinces and the Dominion in furtherance of the report of the select parliamentary committee. That was his policy. Now that is the Conservative policy which was not accepted, we will say, by the people, and this government i3 now dealing with the matter on its own responsibility by placing upon the statute books an act that imposes upon the will of each legislature the will of this parliament if they accept it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I ask the hon. member-


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend can make his speech afterwards.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I ask the hon. member another question.?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman can make his speech afterwards. I do not propose to be catechized by the hon. gentleman, eminent though he may be as a crossexaminer.

Old Age Pensions
4S1


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Am I to take it that the hon. member for West Calgary does not wish to answer the further question which I desire to ask him?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a very cheap form *of endeavor to get a reputation for high courage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman read a speech of Mr. Meighen's upon which he asked me a question, and he asked two others. I think I have acted fairly in answering them. I think that if there is any member of. this House who is whiling to answer questions it is myself, but I do not propose to be catechized or cross-examined by any counsel in a case of this kind.
I would say that at the moment we have placed our views as to this legislation before this parliament and the Canadian people. Until every legislature in Canada acts each province will or will not have an old age pension depending upon the action of that legislature, and there may be one province that has and another province that has not. That is the reason the suggestion was made by the leader of the opposition the other evening. I am most desirous there should be placed upon the statute books of this country a measure that is workable and useful. There are two considerations to be borne in mind. First of all we must consider those who are coming up to manhood and growing older, and secondly the class that can no longer contribute. I believe in a contributory system-I have never hesitated to say that I believe in it. The father of the old age pensions scheme of England said that without it you are doing a great injury to the very people whom you would benefit. I believe that; my reading induces me more and more to believe it is right. When the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) speaks of annuities I venture again to point out what I referred to last year and it is (this-that a small contribution made by men from month to month and week to week that will ensure them an annuity at sixty-five or seventy years of age is one of the most desirable things that you can have in any country. It is true (hat the Australian system has been changed, and they have now gone on a contributory basis. The Department of Labour furnished last year a little memorandum showing what each country in the world was doing. I suggest to the hon. minister that it might be desirable to reprint it in order that the House might have the benefit of that information. I did not have that information 32649-31
at the time I made a few observations last year based largely on information collected from the report of the select committee appointed in Massachusetts, and from the documents that were laid before the English House when the last measure was being considered by them.
Now, it might be well to look on the political side of the matter. You know what took place in Australia under conditions such as these. You are going to have a system that is not contributory. An election is coming on. They go out and say that more money should be given, that $20 is not enough. "Well, we will give them $25 if we get into powTer," says the hon. member for Regina.


Charles Avery Dunning: Pardon me-


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is not
premier yet. I was simply pointing out what might be said with respeot to such a matter as this. That is the position. That is what happened in Australia. Each party tried to-


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask my hon. friend
a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the hon. gentleman
give any evidence of the statement he has just made? Because I understand the increase in the old age pension in Australia came about as a result of the report of a commission which inquired into the amount being given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend will
refer to the Statesmen's Year Book it will give him, I think, the information I took from it and which I quoted last year. I do not happen to have it with me; it is among my papers upstairs. A commission was *appointed but the commission had no power to pay money, and so the contending parties, the government amd the opposition,, were endeavouring to outbid each other in the matter of old age pensions, and in this particular election we have an illustration-


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not a fact though that
the commission recommended an increase in the old age pensions in Australia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The commission did that, but the general election had no reference to the commission, and the contending leaders were intending to secure the popular vote by promising to make an increase in old age pensions. Those are the facts. Consider what would happen in Canada.

Old Age Pensions


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member seems to be willing to submit to cross-examination from other members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This interruption is wholly out of order. The hon. gentleman has still something to learn, great though he may be. I only suggest to him that I have answered three questions of his, and when I declined to submit myself to cross-examination it was not because I in any sense feared the astuteness of that cross-examination or any of his questions. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) in asking me a question with respect to the Australian system, was endeavouring to correct what he conceived to be a misunderstanding of the situation on my part. That, I think, is the correct way to put it. But I desire to point out the political possibilities of a situation such as this. That is what happened in Australia where a non-contributory system was abandoned and the contributory system insisted upon. Because where you have each individual making some contribution he begins to realize what I endeavoured to say yesterday, that all contributions by the state mean taxation, and an expenditure of the money of the people, great or small, poor or rich. That is what I desire to make clear to this House. What I rose to say was I think it is highly desirable that we should have at least not to assert that men in this House oppose measures which they supported merely for the sake of getting a little support from those who are vitally affected. I suffered from it; other hon. members suffered from it. I have the papers; I was going to use them, but I will not engage in acrimonious discussion in respect to the matter because life is too short and the affairs of state too important for that. But the fact is that an effort was made during the last election to lead the people to believe that the Conservatives were opposed to an old age pension scheme and in some cases the effort succeeded.


Charles Avery Dunning: But they defeated it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more the hon. member for Regina does himself a great injustice. There is a very old saying:	"One may smile,
and smile, and be the villain still.'' The villainy in the piece in this incident is to have the people believe that because the House passed this measure without a dissenting voice and because in another place adverse action was taken not wholly by that party, the Conservatives defeated the measure. The Conservative party did not defeat the measure. It has never defeated such a measure and, so far as I know, it never will. We on
I Mr. Bennett.]
this side of the House are a unit in supporting the measure and, so far as I know, from the observations that have been made, the Conservative party will continue to be in that spirit and to support the measure.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can my hon. friend
name one Conservative member in another place who supported the measure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The leader of the Conservative party during the recent parliament, Senator Robertson, supported the measure.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the Parliamentary Guide describes Senator Robertson as a Labour member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be, but he was a member of a Conservative administration in 1921 and one of the leaders in the Senate. The Parliamentary Guide has described the Minister of Railways by various titles in days gone by.


Charles Avery Dunning: All correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he is a chameleon
indeed. That is all that may be fairly said.


Robert James Manion: We have lots of Labour
members supporting us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely and we shall have more. That is all I have to say. I rose merely for the purpose of endeavouring to refute the observations that were published throughout the country, and out of fairness to those to whom I have been largely indebted for support in days gone by and whose confidence I hope to continue to receive in days to come, I wish to go on record as objecting to being thus misrepresented in common with hon. members who sit to the left of the Speaker at this time.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree with my hon. friend that in the conduct of discussions of this kind, not only in the House but in the country, as nearly as possible an accurate report of what is said by members on the other side should be given. As my hon. friend referred particularly to discussions that took place in Ontario, and as it was my privilege to attend a number of meetings in that province, I want to say that, so far as I was able to hear the discussions in Ontario, I heard no misrepresentations whatever. I do not know the riding to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not in my desk
but I have upstairs the papers giving the report of a public meeting at which the Minister of Railways was present, and at which

Old Age Pensions
the statement was made that I had opposed the old age pension legislation. I said that that was either maliciously untrue or ignorantly made, and then a long newspaper advertisement appeared.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never made any such
statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member was
present.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was not present.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I will say that the newspaper reported the hon. gentleman as being present.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Perhaps I can throw
some light on the situation. I believe the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) is referring to me and, if he is, he may say so. At a meeting in South Perth, at which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) was present, I stated that the hon. member for West Calgary spoke against the old age pension resolution as brought into the House of Commons last March. I repeat that to-night on the floor of this House and I am prepared to defend the advertisement to which he has referred and to speak of that later. I have the advertisement with me and if I may be permitted to-night, I will read the advertisement and I will take back nothing I said in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In that case we shall have a really good time here between now and one o'clock. I will deal with the hon. member.


Frederick George Sanderson: All right. Do not
think I am afraid of you.


John Campbell Elliott: As regards the discussions
which took place in Ontario and which it was my privilege to hear, there were no misrepresentations whatever. I want to say to my hon. friend and to other hon. gentlemen on that side of the House that I am glad now to know that both sides are unanimously in favour of this measure. We have at last reached common ground.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were there last year.


John Campbell Elliott: The people did not think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what you to'.d
them.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to say to my hon.
friend and other gentlemen on the opposite side who have complained of being misrepresented or misunderstood, that they may have

31i
been misrepresented. I take it when they say that they were misunderstood, they were correct in so saying. But the people of the country, when they were voting last fall, did not think they were misunderstanding the attitude of certain hon. gentlemen in regard to this measure at the time it was going through this House. There is no doubt the bill as presented to the House last year and as presented to the House now is a certain, definite, clearly defined measure. We are either in favour of it or we are opposed to it. If we are going to conjure up all kinds of possibilities that may arise, for instance, if one province does not accept it, or if another province does not accept it, I take it for granted that we are opposed to that measure. That must be a fair inference. You have just the one measure before you, and you either take it or refuse it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Surely when the principles of a bill are submitted to the House we are not faced with the sole issue of being for it or against it. The bill is brought in for the consideration of parliament in order that the experience and judgment of hon. members may be given to the government and to the minister in charge so that such corrections may be made as may be deemed advisable. For my part I would not want to be put into the category of being opposed to it or for it because I made certain constructive suggestions.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree that my
hon. friend does not want to be.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But I shall be.


John Campbell Elliott: The discussion is to ascertain what the views of hon. members are.


Robert James Manion: And then if they ask any questions they are said to be opposing the measure.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all.


Robert James Manion: That is the attitude my
hon. friend is taking now.


John Campbell Elliott: No. I take as being absolutely sincere the statement of hon. gentlemen when they say that they are in favour of the measure. I do not believe the interests of the measure or of either party are advanced by referring to any proposed legislation that comes before the House as a sham or a subterfuge or anything of that kind. Not only are we wasting time and wasting money by assuming that attitude, but I do not think it is the proper attitude for hon. members to assume towards a measure that is introduced into this House. I say that no matter from
Old Age Pensions

what side that kind of criticism comes. I know it refers particularly to what 1 think is a misapprehension in regard to what the scheme really is. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) says that we are trying to impose upon the provinces the will of this House. Section 4 states that 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 a certain period. Then clause 5 provides that before any agreement is made pursuant to this act the Governor in Council shall approve of the scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it says what the scheme shall be.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. It says: "shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province".


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and gives the details.
. Mr. ELLIOTT:	There is no idea of coercion, of any one party imposing its will on the other. This is simply an offer by the Dominion, if the bill is passed as it was last year, to contribute in a particular way a certain amount The representatives of the provinces-and of the Dominion meet, discuss the proposal, and if they can come to an agreement, the province accepts it. There is no coercion. There is no imposing our will on the provinces, and I believe the very fact that certain provinces have already indicated their intention-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not passed their statutes yet.


John Campbell Elliott: No, there is no statute for them to go on yet, and that is the reason why it is so essential that we should make a start by getting something absolutely binding on this House and upon this Dominion which they can consider and, if acceptable to them, adopt. It was not my intention to enter into a discussion, other than to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that in the campaign which took place, so far as the meetings I attended . are concerned, it' was not necessary to discuss old age pensions because the people had come to the conclusion themselves, so far as I was able to gather, as to which party was the real friend of old age pensions. I am glad now to find that both parties are the friend of this measure. The criticism of my hon. friends opposite may

have been misunderstood, but a great many people throughout the country did, I think, believe that they were not as sincerely favourable to the measure as-


Robert James Manion: They were helped to believe that by a lot of speakers on the other side of the House.


John Campbell Elliott: To whom do you refer?


Robert James Manion: I stated to whom I referred
this evening, when the minister was not here.


John Campbell Elliott: I did not hear to whom the hon. gentleman referred, but so far as the meetings I attended are concerned there was no misrepresentation, and the people made up their minds accordingly.
I want to point this out to the House again. This is exactly the measure that was before the House last year, and the people of this country by their vote have made it clear, I think, that they favour a start being made along these lines. The measure is not perfect. Nobody thinks it will be, but it is a start; it will be adopted no doubt by several of the provinces, and once you get one or two provinces in, the others will no doubt feel that they are making a mistake and losing money by not adopting the scheme. I do say to my hon. friends that I think the interests of everybody who favours old age pensions, and particularly the people who are sought to be benefited by this measure, will be advanced by making a trial of it, and, if it is found to contain weaknesses which can be improved upon, coming back here to get them remedied. But I do think there is danger of my hon. friends opposite being misunderstood again if the criticism goes on, to the length of taking up a great deal of time-


Robert James Manion: Half the time has been
taken up by the other side of the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the minister doing now but delaying the committee? We were ready to stop.


John Campbell Elliott: I had no assurance of that. I am very glad to know the hon. gentleman is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been sitting here since eight o'clock patiently listening to all that has been going on, and now we have the spectacle of a minister uttering a lot of provocative statements which parliamentary language will not permit me to characterize as I would like to, and we are expected tamely, to sit down and let this measure go through with the minister's final word.

Old Age Pensions
It has been stated here time and time again, last year and this year, that we were wholly in favour of a workable scheme of old age pensions, but surely this parliament has not come to the pass where, to use the minister's own words-which I wrote down, we are "either for or against this bill"-we must either take a particular legislative proposal or leave it. Is this parliament reduced to the position that any minister of the crown can walk in here with a measure, lay it on the table, and then say to this honourable House-take it or leave it? Are we to be muzzled? Are we not to be permitted at least to scrutinize the language of the measure?
I have under my hand the full record of this House upon this question of old age pensions. I have here all the dates for the last fifteen years when this measure has been brought up, and in every instance it was brought up by a Conservative, until recent years, when the Labour party was represented in the House and it was brought up by them. In season and out of season for seventeen years I have supported in this House an old age pension bill. Long before my hon. friend ever entered the House, long before other hon. gentlemen over there entered who have been indulging in some rather extravagant language during this evening's session in attempting to castigate this party I supported and urged for an old age pension scheme. I have quotations here from Hansard where I questioned and urged and pleaded with the Hon. Mr. Murdock, a former Minister of Labour, to bring in an old age pension scheme. A committee was appointed, and my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin, formerly from East Calgary, took a very important part in its deliberations. We have in season and out of season-not the whole party, not every member, but a sufficiently large percentage of the party, speaking with some responsibility-urged for an old age pension scheme.
What we said to the government last year and what we say again this year is that in our opinion this proposal will not work satisfactorily, and because we are convinced of that we urged last year, and we have suggested again this year, that an effort should be made to have a measure that will be assured of success. The day I left Vancouver, Mr. Chairman, two elderly ladies-I should say they were seventy years of age-came to my office, and pleaded with me to do what I could for old age pensions. They did not know much about parliamentary practice. They had the idea that a member of parliament had some mysterious power that he could exercise to secure this measure. All
I could say to them, and all that hon. members of this House have been able to say is: We will do our best to get a measure through. We are anxious to get that measure. We are told to-night by the Minister of Health-he is not in his seat at the moment-that this measure will be supported by all the provinces. Now I am going to quote the Minister of Agriculture. There has been a lot of quoting done here to-night, and this is what he said, as reported in the Vancouver Daily Star, a strong and respectable and reliable Liberal paper, in its issue of August 25th:
Dealing with old age pensions Mr. Motherwell said the measure had met a sad fate at the hands of the Senate. He was sorry to say the Conservatives had obstructed the bill at all times.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Hear, hear. What are you doing now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There has been, I have
noticed, during this sitting a good deal of hilarity and laughing over this matter, but I do not think it is a laughing matter at all, Mr. Chairman. It is a very, very serious matter. He went on to say:
If the people have to wait until the provinces are united to co-operate with the Dominion in the operation of an old age pension, then we will not get any pensions during the present generation.


William Richard Motherwell: Well?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I believe the minister is
right, if we have to wait until the provinces co-operate with the Dominion under the terms of this bill, we will not have old age pensions for a generation. That is my opinion and I expressed it last year. It is the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that we have been trying to impress upon the minds of the ministry. We-stated through my leader at the opening of' this session that if we had an old age pension bill that was under the jurisdiction of the; Dominion we might be certain it would be successfully applied, but if as the Minister of Public Works now says, we have either to take this bill or leave it-in other words if we are to be branded as opposed to the whole scheme of old age pensions if we criticise this bill-then we are prepared to accept it, but to do so after pointing out to the minister that in our opinion it will not achieve what it is pretended to the people it will achieve, namely, pensions for the aged. We are telling the minister that, and I hope that as the years go by and as hundreds, yes, thousands of people in this country are disappointed at not being able to receive a pension under this bill, it will be remembered, just as keenly remembered as some other statements of ours that we have made in this
Old Age Pensions

parliament, that we warned parliament it would not work successfully as a measure.
Now there are clauses in the bill I would like to discuss. There are ellauses which obviously are not fair. There is one Clause in particular that has been cited here to-night, and I think if the people of Canada fully realized it they would not for one moment support the bill. I refer to the clause providing that the maximum pension shall be $240, and if any person applying for a pension is in receipt of an income in excess of $125, the increase, whatever it is, shall be deducted from that pension. Let me put it in plain, simple language; as one of the ministers said a minute ago, it means that if any applicant for a pension of $240 happens to have a meagre annual income of $200, he will not receive $240, but will receive $240 less $75, namely, $165. In other words it means that any person who, with the pension, can gather together $365, that is all he will get, including the pension. The thing is preposterous on the very face of it. There are other features of the bill that might very properly be criticised, but if we criticise it the minister says we are against the bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If we offer suggestions we are against the bill and we must be branded through the country as against the principle. We are either for it or against it. I am wholly in favour of the bill in so far as it deals with the principle of old age pensions, but I say again that the measure as now presented and presented in the House last year will not achieve the result which the minister said it would achieve.


James Alexander Robb: Since the opening of the session the House has made very fair progress and the government appreciate the co-operation of hon. members opposite. The question now before the House involves the principle of an old age pension. I gather from the debate to-day that the House is practically unanimous on this measure. We have reached the time in Canada when we might have an old age pension. This measure involves the principle of an old age pension. After the resolution has been passed we will introduce the bill, and we can debate details later. I am told that this is the third time this resolution has been 'before parliament this session. We have debated this question all afternoon. It is now fifteen minutes after eleven when I think we should all be getting home and going to bed on a Friday night. If hon. members are prepared 
to allow the resolution to go through so that the bill may be introduced and we will learn what the measure is I think it would be wise. If further debate is desired then I shall ask my colleague to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the minister
will agree with me that the time which has been occupied in the discussion of this measure has not been lost, as it will shorten the time which we usually take in the discussion of a bill when in committee after the second reading. It matters very little, I think, so far as the consumption of time is concerned whether the discussion takes place now or on the second reading of the bill. It is not likely to take place again. I think the discussion has been very useful, notwithstanding the rather provocative speeches by the three ministers of the crown who have spoken at great length to-night on the measure. The discussion on this side of the House has been entirely sympathetic.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Not at all provocative.


Hugh Guthrie: Not at all provocative,
and I think we made it as clear as it could be made that that is the position we occupy. We are prepared to accept and pass this measure, not as a perfect measure at all, but, as I said a day or two ago, it is apparently the only thing the government is willing to give, and it is on that condition we are willing to pass it. I have no objection to the committee rising and reporting this resolution, but I cannot agree that there will not be further discussion when the bill is in committee of the whole.


James Alexander Robb: We expect that.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Heenan thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70 respecting Old Age Pensions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


Peter Heenan: I move that the House
go into committee on the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Go into committee tonight and report progress immediately.


Hugh Guthrie: Go into committee at
the next sitting of the House.


James Alexander Robb: Very well.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Questions
Monday, February 21, 1927