1938-02-28

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I desire to lay on the table a copy of a white paper containing correspondence and documents relating to the St. Lawrence deep waterway treaty, 1932; Niagara convention, 1929, Ogoki river and Kenogami river (Long lake) projects; and export of electrical power. The French translation has been completed, but there has been a slight delay in the printing. I hope to be able to lay it on the table to-morrow.
I received this morning from the Premier of Ontario a communication stating that he is forwarding to me to-day a reply to my letter to him of February 22. My letter is included in the white paper, which was printed and bound for distribution before I received this telegram. If the letter from the Premier of Ontario is received by to-morrow I shall table it in order that the correspondence may be complete. I imagine that would be the wish of the Premier of Ontario.
I desire also to table a photostatic copy of an extract from the Congressional Record of February 16, 1938, containing a letter of February 12, 1938, from the Premier of Ontario to Congressman W. G. Andrews referring to the St. Lawrence waterway, the great lakes and related problems. Seeing that this correspondence has just been brought down, I do not think it will be possible to proceed to-morrow with the second reading of the bill respecting the export of power.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) * 1
['1. Worn and mutilated silver coin returned to the Mint:\n1930\t\n$401,865\t051931\t\n377,380\t601932\t\n393,327\t301933\t\n331,544\t201934\t\n924,809\t801935\t\n896,492\t151936\t\n394,031\t401937\t\n376,416\t50', '2. Silver coin issued by the Mint:\n1930\t\t$1.00\t50c\t25e\t10c 144,000 229,400 134,600 58.000 48.000 38,500 241,800\tTotals 326.000 475,400 287.000 155.000 172,300 601,020 809,200 1,322,200\n1931\t\t\t\t212,000\t\t\n1932\t\t\t\t\t\t\n1933\t\t\t\t\t\t\n1934\t\t\t\t\t\t\n1935\t\t\tA17, 6\\J\\J\t134,400\t\t\n1936\t\t\t\t\t\t\n1937\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t975,120\t204,900\t1,800,400\t1,167,700\t4,148,120\nThere was no issue of silver five-cent pieces during these years.\n3.\tMutilation and excessive wear.\n4.\tOther than silver contained in worn and mutilated coins redeemed by the Royal Canadian Mint, the only silver that the government is currently buying is the silver recovered from the refining of gold bullion deposited at the Mint.\n5.\tThere is no set price. Under the Mint regulations, the rate to be paid for silver in excess of 1 per eenit of the weight of the bullion deposited shall be one cent below the average for the week in which the deposit is made of the daily London quotation for standard silver from Monday to Friday, inclusive, converted into the equivalent for fine silver in Canadian funds at the average of the daily rate of exchange between Montreal and London calculated to the nearest one-eighth of a cent.']
Mr. EULER:: 1 and 2.
Imports into Canada of Canned Beef



Mr. DAMUDE:: 1.	What were the net earnings of the Port Colborne grain elevator for the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	How many are employed at this plant?
3.	When was the superintendent appointed, and by what method was his appointment made?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information is furnished by the National Harbours Board:
1.	Net earnings before charges for interest and depreciation have been made.
April 1, 1933-March 31, 1934.. ..$ 61,001 35 April 1, 1934-March 31, 1935.. ..	83.371	41
April 1, 1935- March 31, 1936.. .. 112,781 84 April 1, 1936-December 31, 1936..	49,829 14
(9 months)
January 1, 1937-December 31, 1937. 27,058 17
2.	Permanent (full time)	 23
Seasonal (period from April 16 to
December 15)	 3
Temporary and casual (for period of navigation season and as required)	 85
3.	October 1, 1930, by promotion.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NICOLET STATION REMOVAL
[Stage Direction]
Mr, DUBOIS:
1.	What was the cost of the removal last summer of the Canadian National Railways station at Nicolet?
2.	Who secured the contract for its removal?
3.	To whom was the old station of the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway sold?
4.	At what price?
Clarence Decatur Howe: The management of Canadian National Railways advise that the above questions relate to matters of internal management, and it is felt that the answers thereto would not be of public interest.


CANNED BEEF IMPORTATIONS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What quantities of canned beef were imported into Canada for each of the last three years?
2.	From what countries?
(Calendar years, 1935, 1936 and 1937) 1935(*)	1936	1937Pounds	Pounds	Pounds
Imported from
All countries	
10,363,006	12,056,904United Kingdom	
350	498,000United States	
10,324Argentina	
7,331,904	9,704*990Paraguay	Uruguay	3,018,914	1,834,914Australia	
11,838	8,640Alaska	
36
(*) From April 1, 1935, to December 31, 1935.
11,694,759
50,920
8,721,485
208,265
2,665,139
48,924
Questions


CORONATION OATH
Mr. CAHAN:: By whom, and under what statutory or other authority, was the coronation oath, which was prescribed in 1689 by The Coronation Oath Act (1 Will, and Mary c. 6), and which had been administered at every coronation thereafter, changed in its terms and a new form of oath administered to His Majesty George VI, upon his coronation on May 12, 1937?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The coronation oath provided for in 1689 by The Coronation Oath Act (1 Wm. and Mary c. 6) had not been administered at every coronation thereafter in the terms prescribed in the Act. While the form of coronation oath was laid down by statute and could not be altered without statutory authority, it had always been recognized that if a statute was passed altering the constitutional position in such a way as to render words of the original oath no longer applicable, that statute might be treated as impliedly authorizing and indeed requiring a corresponding alteration in the wording of the oath. This procedure was followed in the case of the act of union with Scotland and the act of union with Ireland. The position in Ireland and the enactment of the statute of Westminster altered the constitutional position of the United Kingdom in relation to the dominions, in such a way as to render the existing words of the coronation oath inapplicable. Accordingly, it was necessary that an alteration should be made, and the present form of oath was administered upon the statutory authority of The Coronation Oath Act and the intervening statutes affecting the constitutional position up to and including the statute of Westminster.
The alteration was made by the coronation commission, after consultation with and the concurrence and approval of all the governments of the British commonwealth of nations.
public utterances op governor general


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the constitutional rule ever been abrogated, which was expressed in 1879 by the prime minister of that day, to the effect that the governor general of Canada in his public utterances shall preserve absolute silence on matters of policy or of a public nature?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This question I believe is out of order. It would appear to be asked not so much to obtain information, as to supply it. I am not aware that a statement was made in 1879 by the Prime Minister of that day in the terms set forth in the question and I should appreciate information as to where it is to be found.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-CIVIL AVIATION
Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	Will the Trans-Canada air lines be completed by the end of the present year?
2.	What is the government doing towards the training of youths for civil aviation?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	West of Montreal to the Pacific coast- yes.
2.	The government has supported the flying club movement for the past ten years, so as to make available facilities for flying instruction in all parts of the dominion.


CONSULTATION BETWEEN BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY AND DOMINION REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Is there held in London a weekly conference at which the foreign secretary meets the representatives of the various dominions?
2.	Does the High Commissioner for Canada attend this conference?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ATHENS, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. STEWART:: 1.	When did the last postmaster at Athens, Ontario, tender his resignation?
2.	On what date was his resignation accepted?
3.	Who was appointed in his place?
4.	How many returned soldiers, of Athens or vicinity, applied for appointment?
5.	Did the present postmaster reside and carry on business at Morton, about twelve miles from Athens, before his appointment?
6.	Were there applications for this position from residents of Athens, Ontario?
7.	If so, why were they all rejected?
8.	Was this appointment under the control of the civil service commission?
9.	When did the present postmaster first receive his personal mail at Athens?
10.	On whose recommendation was the present postmaster at Athens appointed?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	12th December, 1935, to take effect on 1st September, 1936.
2.	Postmaster was advised on the 28th August, 1936, that the transfer of the office would be effected on the 1st September, 1936.
3.	Harry Wykes, returned soldier.
4.	Three, including Mr. Wykes.
5.	Information on file indicates Mr. Wykes had transacted postal business at Athens since

Questions
1933. Information subsequent to transfer indicates that Mr. Wykes previously resided at Morton.
6.	Yes.
7.	Person selected stated he was a patron of the Athens Post Office.
8.	Departmental appointment, residential qualifications not required.
9.	See answer to no. 5.
10.	D. E. Lewis of Brockville.


FRESH FRUITS-IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What was the total value of: (a) fresh fruits; (b) fresh vegetables; (e) fresh citrus fruits, imported into Canada from the United States of America in each of the years 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	What was the total value of: (a) apples; (b) all other fresh fruits exported from Canada to the United Kingdom in each of the years 1933 to date?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Imports into Canada from the United States of (a) fresh fruits (b) fresh
vegetables; (c) fresh citrus fruits
(Calendar years, 1935, 1936 and 1937)
Articles imported	1935	1936	1937$	$	$Fresh fruits.	. .. 10.079.992	12,728,378	13,658,530Fresh vegetables	.. .. 3,011.084	3,785,505	4,559,002Citrus fruits- Lemons	.. 1,034.269	1,436.875	1,064,279.. .. 1.111	3,315	3,518Oranges	.. .. 5,041,103	5,949,725	6.823,885Grapefruit	.. .. 775,915	1,054,564	1,309,8352.	Canada's domestic exports of fresh fruits to the United Kingdom
(Calendar years, 1933 to 1937)
	Apples	Other fresh fruits
1933.. ..	.. $10,061,420	$214,5611934.. ..	.. .. 8,120,848	95,7841935.. ..	. . 9.049,174	412,3591936.. ..	. . 5,624,865	123,7651937.. ..	.. . 6.490,358	105,000


MONT-LAURIER-SENNETERRE HIGHWAY
Mr. LALONDE:: 1.	Has the federal government contributed to the construction of the Mont-Laurier-Senneterre highway, known as project No. 17-36? If so, for what amounts, and on what date or dates were the payments made?
2.	Has the federal government also contributed to the work of project No. 58 (Villemaire creek bridge to Mont-Laurier), and, if so, for what amounts, upon what dates were payments made for said work, and what were the amounts ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Project No. 17 of schedule "C" to the agreement entered into between the dominion and the province of Quebec under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, provided for a dominion
contribution of $70,350, being 50 per cent of the total estimated cost of clearing, preliminary works and gravelling on the Mont-Laurier-Senneterre highway, it being provided that the province contribute an amount equal to that contributed by the dominion. Payment of accounts rendered by the province with respect to this project were made on the dates and in the amounts hereunder mentioned.
Amount of dominion
Date of payment	contribution
April 20/37	
$11,391	37September 3/37	
33,910	53September 28/37	
46200	96

October 2/37 Credit	 22,505 99

2.	Project No. 58 of schedule "C" to the agreement referred to in No. 1 above provided for a dominion contribution of $5,000, being 50 per cent of the total estimated cost of bridging Villemaire brook, including approaches, at Mont-Laurier, it being provided that the province contribute an amount equal to that contributed by the dominion. Pay-

Questions

ment of accounts rendered by the province with respect to this project were made as follows:
Amount of dominion
Date of payment	contribution
April 30/37	 $	995 34
August 18/37	 3,486 94
December 11/37	 12 68

August 19/37 Credit	 327 52
December 7/37 Credit	 30 00


I 4,137 44
[Stage Direction]
Project No. 36-58 of schedule "C'1 to the agreement entered into between the dominion and the province of Quebec under the provisions of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, provides for a dominion contribution of $3,000, being 50 per cent of the estimated total cost of completing the works authorized by above referred to project No. 58 of the agreement with the province under the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, it being provided that an equal amount be contributed by the province. Payment of accounts rendered by the province to date with respect to project No. 36-58 have been made as follows:
Amount of dominion
Date of payment	contribution
January 25/38	 $	839 07
February 9/38	 1,116 47

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has the federal government contributed to the construction of the Boulevard Pie IX bridge at St. Vincent de Paul?
2.	If so, what amounts were so contributed?
3.	Is the work of construction on this bridge completed, and is the bridge now open for traffic?
4.	Has the construction work on the bridge been definitely approved and accepted by the federal government?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Provision was made in the agreement entered into between the dominion and the province of Quebec pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, for a dominion contribution of $300,000 toward the cost of construction of a bridge on Pie IX boulevard at St. Vincent de Paul, costs of expropriation and building of approaches excluded, it being provided that an equal amount be contributed by the prov-
	*
ince. Payments aggregating $275,969.92 have been made to the province with respect to accounts rendered to the dominion in connection with this project.
Provision is made in the agreement entered into with the province of Quebec pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, for a dominion contribution of $6,500 with a like contribution from the province for the completion of the works commenced under the 1936 agreement.
Provision is also made in the agreement with the province under the 1937 act for a dominion contribution of $200,000 with a like contribution from the province, for new construction on the Pie IX boulevard bridge including viaduct for M. T. Railway but excluding expropriation costs and cost of building approaches. No accounts have at this date been received from the province with respect to construction of the Pie IX bridge carried out during the current fiscal year.
3.	Construction of the bridge proper has been completed and opened for traffic but is understood to be closed at the present time due to damage created by snow plough.
4.	Not being a federal bridge, the construction is not subject to approval or acceptance by the Federal Government.


ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN RELIEF LOANS
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How much money has been loaned to each of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan for relief purposes?
2.	How much money was loaned to each of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan for agricultural relief, including transportation of feed and live stock, and purchase of feed?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. The amounts outstanding as of February 25, 1938, of loans made under various relief acts to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are as follows:
Alberta Saskatchewan
Loans specifically for agricultural relief including seed grain. .$ 3,152,748 Loans specifically to meet maturing obligations and interest. 8,577,000 Loans for provincial purposes generally including drought area relief, public works and direct relief	 14,156,450

Questions

Note: The above total of loans outstanding is, in the case of Saskatchewan, inclusive of $17,682,158 written down to non-active assets as of March 31, 1937, pursuant to Vote 393 of the further supplementary estimates for 1936-37. The third main classification cannot be further broken down to show the exact amount used by the provinces for agricultural relief.
2. Answered by No. 1.


SUSSEX, N.B., CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. BROOKS:: What was the amount of: (a) yearly revenue collected; (b) yearly expenses, of Sussex, New Brunswick, customs office for the past ten years?


Mr. ILSLEY:: (a) 1927-28		.. ..$22,508 52
1928-29		.... 25.899 81
1929-30		.... 28,179 98
1930-31		.... 21,487 08
1931-32		.... 17,690 97
1932-33		.... 17,941 53
1933-34		.... 14.467 81
1934-35		.... 20,798 30
1935-36		.. 22.227 67
1936-37		.... 27,056 27
(b) 1927-28		.... 1,838 28
1928-29		.... 2.159 30
1929-30		.... 1,956 99
1930-31		.... 2.020 29
1931-32		.... 1,947 22
1932-33		.... 1,690 17
1933-34		.... 1.721 86
1934-35		.... 1.660 10
1935-36		.... 1.754 92
1936-37		.... 1,788 64
CANADIAN BROADCASTING	CORPORATION-


DIRECTORS
Mr. MASSEY:: 1.	Who are the directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What are their several occupations?
3.	When were they appointed, and for how long?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Order in council. P.C. 2369, of September 10,	1936, authorized the appointment of
Messrs. Leonard W. Brockington, of the city of Winnipeg, barrister at law; Rene Morin, of Montreal, general manager; and Mrs. Nellie McClung, of Victoria, as members of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a term of three years from the date of the coming into force of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, November 2, 1936.
Mr. J. Wilfrid Godfrey of the city of Halifax, barrister at law, Captain (Reverend)
Alexander Vachon, of Quebec, director of chemical research; and Colonel Wilfrid Bovey, of Montreal, barrister at law and educationalist, were appointed for the two-year -term; and Nathan Louis Nathanson, of Toronto, president of Famous Players Canadian Corporation, Limited; Alan Butterworth Plaunt, of Ottawa, journalist; and Brigadier-General Victor W. Odium, of Vancouver, were appointed for the one-year term.
By order in council, P.C. 1157, of May 29, 1937, the resignation of Colonel Wilfrid Bovey was accepted and Reverend Eastland Fuller, of Campbellton, New Brunswick, a canon of the Church of England, was appointed for the unexpired portion of the two-year term for which Colonel Bovey had been appointed.
On the expiration of the one-year term for which Nathan L. Nathanson, Alan Butter-worth Plaunt, and Brigadier-General Odium were appointed, these three gentlemen were, by order in council, P.C. 2641, of October 27, 1937, re-appointed for the term of three years from the 2nd day of November, 1937.
foreign INVESTMENTS IN CANADA-EXCHANGE OPERATIONS-FOREIGN INDEBTEDNESS


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	What are the total foreign investments in Canada?
2.	What are Canada's total payments to
foreign investors in:	(a) interest; (b) dividends?
3.	What portion of Canada's balance of trade went to pay foreign credits?
4.	Is there any control over foreign investments in Canada for: (a) purposes of restriction, and (b) control of exchange operations?
5.	Through what agencies is exchange operated (explaining the operations) ?
6.	Are there any preferential exchange rates to certain importing countries, or is preference given solely by tariffs?
7.	How do tariffs, quotas and restrictions effect and/or interfere with purely local trade?
8.	Has Canada liquidated any of its foreign indebtedness during the last year or two? If so, how much? Has it increased, and, if so, how much?
9.	What is the controlling factor, making necessary, the floating of foreign loans?
10.	On -whose authority was the last London loan floated ?
11.	Was it not possible to borrow this money in Canada for the purpose intended?


Mr. DUNNING:: In asking that this question stand, I should like the hon member who asks it to review certain portions of it in order to avoid the compiling of what amounts to a textbook by way of an answer. The questions to which I particularly refer are no. 5, "Through what agencies is exchange operated (explaining the opera-
Questions

tions) ?", and no. 7, "How do tariffs, quotas and restrictions effect and/or interfere with purely local trade?" I suggest that one might write volumes on these two subjects and that they are scarcely proper in their present form as questions on the order paper. Perhaps, if they are allowed to stand, the hon. member will reconsider them.
Question stands.


SILVER CURRENCY AND POLICY RESPECTING PURCHASE OP SILVER
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	How much silver, in coins, has been returned to the Canadian Mint during the years 1930 to 1937 inclusive, from all sources?
2.	What amount of silver coin has been issued in denominations of 5, 10, 25, 50 and $1 pieces, to chartered banks or other agencies during these same years?
3.	What are the various reasons for the return of coins to the mint?
4.	What is the government's present policy with regard to the purchase of silver?
5.	Is there a set price, and what is the set price?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. Worn and mutilated silver coin returned to the Mint:
1930	
$401,865	051931	
377,380	601932	
393,327	301933	
331,544	201934	
924,809	801935	
896,492	151936	
394,031	401937	
376,416	50

2. Silver coin issued by the Mint:
1930		$1.00	50c	25e	10c 144,000 229,400 134,600 58.000 48.000 38,500 241,800	Totals 326.000 475,400 287.000 155.000 172,300 601,020 809,200 1,322,200
1931				212,000		
1932						
1933						
1934						
1935			A17, 6\J\J	134,400		
1936						
1937						
					
	975,120	204,900	1,800,400	1,167,700	4,148,120
There was no issue of silver five-cent pieces during these years.
3.	Mutilation and excessive wear.
4.	Other than silver contained in worn and mutilated coins redeemed by the Royal Canadian Mint, the only silver that the government is currently buying is the silver recovered from the refining of gold bullion deposited at the Mint.
5.	There is no set price. Under the Mint regulations, the rate to be paid for silver in excess of 1 per eenit of the weight of the bullion deposited shall be one cent below the average for the week in which the deposit is made of the daily London quotation for standard silver from Monday to Friday, inclusive, converted into the equivalent for fine silver in Canadian funds at the average of the daily rate of exchange between Montreal and London calculated to the nearest one-eighth of a cent.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Who is supplying the meat for the Royal Military College at Kingston for the year 1937-38?
2.	Was the contract for such supply awarded by tender?
3.	If so, from whom were tenders received, and what are the particulars of the tender in each case ?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	What is the number of: (a) armouries; (b) barracks, under the control of the Department of National Defence?
2.	Where are these armouries and barracks situated ?

Motions for Papers
3.	What has been the total cost of such buildings with land (exclusive of maintenance and repairs) ?
4.	What was the cost of maintenance of such buildings during the fiscal year 1936-37?
5.	Are all such buildings now in constant use by units of the permanent and non-permanent militia?



NATIONAL DEFENCE-LAND PURCHASES,

[Stage Direction]
1936 AND 1937 Mr. MacNEIL:
1.	Did the Department of National Defence acquire any land during the calendar years 1936 and 1937?
2.	If so, for what purposes in each instance?
3.	From whom were such areas acquired?
4.	What cost was incurred in each instance?


Mr. LENNARD:: For a copy of all tenders, contracts, bills of lading, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to coal and/or coke delivered to the Royal Military College at Kingston and the National Defence buildings at Barriefield for the winter fuel season of 1937-38.



MASKINONGE RIVER, QUE., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: For a copy of payroll lists and invoices of materials supplied for the execution of works on the Maskinonge river at St. Didace, province of Quebec, in the summer of 1936.



COMPANIES' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT

Mr. STIRLING (for Mr. Cahan):: For a return showing the names and the authorized and issued capital and bonds or debentures outstanding of all dominion companies, which have effected compromises or arrangements with their creditors under the provisions of The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1933.



NUT MOUNTAIN-HIGH HILL, SASK., MAIL SERVICE

Mr. COLDWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence and petitions relating to the mail service between Nut Mountain and High Hill, Saskatchewan, from October 15, 1935, to date.



NATIONAL PARKS-PAYMENTS TO BREWSTER TRANSPORT CO.

Mr. BENNETT:: For a copy of all contracts, invoices, correspondence and other documents relating to the undermentioned payments on account of Canadian national parks as such items of payment
are shown in the auditor general's report for the year ended March 31, 1937, volume II, under votes 172 and 495:
Brewster Transport Co., Banff, forage, $3,984.12 (Part L-98).
Brewster	Transport	Co.,	Banff,	road	oil,
$14,313.12 (Part L-98).
Brewster	Transport	Co.,	Banff,	road	oil,
$3,996.86 (Part L-100).
Brewster	Transport	Co.,	Banff,	road	oil,
$6,677.41 (Part L-100).
Brewster	Transport	Co.,	Banff,	road	oil,
$1,382.92 (Part L-101).
Brewster	Transport	Co.,	Banff,	road	oil,
$2,142.55 (Part L-102).
Brewster	Transport	Co.,	Banff,	road	oil,
$4,460.50 (Part L-103).
Brewster	Transport	Co.,	Banff,	road	oil,
$5,391.39 (Part L-103).



BANFF NATIONAL PARK-AUTO LICENCES AND GRAZING PERMITS

Richard Bedford Bennett: For a return giving particulars of the undermentioned receipts by Canadian National Parks (Banff) as they appear in the auditor general's report for the year ended March 31, 1937, volume II,	at Part L-3,	under	Canadian
National Parks:
(a)	Auto licences, in the amount of $36,555.63;
(b)	Permits for grazing, in the amount of $274.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not refer to temporary or transient licences issued at the entrances to the parks.



TORONTO ISLAND AND MALTON, ONT., AIRPORTS

Mr. BAKER (for Mr. Massey):: For a copy of all correspondence, exchanged between the ministries of public works, labour, transport, or other departments of government, and the city of Toronto, in connection with the building of the Toronto air ports on the Toronto island and at Malton.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North) moved:: Whereas it is becoming more and more difficult for older persras to be absorbed into the useful productive life of the dominion thereby being unable to maintain themselves in decency and comfort,
And whereas, Canada is a country richly endowed with natural resources, capable of maintaining our whole population in a reasonably high standard of living,
Therefore be it resolved;-That this house would welcome a government declaration of policy that would bring about an immediate lowering of the present pensionable age limit of seventy years, the effect of such being that the older generation would retire from industrial activity, thereby creating opportunities for the younger generation to be usefully and gainfully employed.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Heaps

He said: It is just about two years since I introduced a resolution similar to this, and after a discussion which proceeded for the best part of two days, it was discovered that the motion was out of order. This time, however, I have worded my resolution in a different manner, and I hope that it will receive from the government a little more support than was accorded the previous one.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments I used two years ago in attempting to convince the house of the reasonableness of the proposal which I then made. I wish, however, to refer briefly to what I then said. In the first place I contended that if we had a properly planned economic system it would be possible to retire people at the age of sixty and give them a comfortable existence in their old age. I urged that in this country we had an abundance of everything which is required to make life worth while, but that on account of our chaotic system of distribution many of our people, particularly the older ones, were denied the means of a decent existence in their declining years.
At the outset I might give a concrete example of the possibility of having a large part of the population engaged at tremendous cost in activities which are not of a constructive or productive nature. Between 1914 and 1918 there were taken out of productive and useful employment in Canada approximately half a million of the flower of our manhood and our womanhood. They were engaged in destroying wealth; yet in spite of the fact that wealth was destroyed at a rate never known before in history, the rest of the population were able to keep these half million men in a state of efficiency for warfare in Europe. As a result we built up a huge financial debt which to-day is a heavy burden to the country, but I point to the example of the years 1914-18 to show that under certain circumstances we can maintain a relatively large proportion of the population in a fairly high state of military efficiency and still allow for the rest of the population a reasonably high standard of living.
I wish now to deal with some of the objections raised at that time by the Minister of Finance. His main Objection was the one which naturally related to finance; he wondered where the money was to come from. That is the cry of every minister of finance, but as I have said in this house on many occasions, under certain conditions there is no difficulty about governments providing funds; if a war should break out or if we required increased armaments there would be no difficulty in providing the required funds for such purposes. It so happens that since the time I

last spoke on this question the government has increased the expenditures on armaments somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000, and there was no question as to where the money was going to come from. I submit that when we raise questions with reference to social advancement we should not be met with that cry about where the money is to come from, for the moment we require money for increased armaments it can be found.
May I make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance. If he is anxious to provide funds for the financing of a scheme of old age pensions at a lower age than at the present time, it might not be a bad idea for him to nationalize two of the outstanding industries of the country-nothing new in the realm of politics so far as other countries are concerned. If he would nationalize the tobacco and the liquor industries the profits from both these sources would go a long way towards providing old age pensions to people who are now under seventy years of age. At the present time the liquor business in Canada is to a large extent under public ownership and control, and it would not be a wide step for the government to make it a complete federal public monopoly and to utilize the profits for the purpose of financing old age pensions at a lower age.
Let me deal with some of the figures submitted by the Minister of Finance two years ago. He stated that the number of persons of the age of seventy and over in receipt of pensions was 28-5 per cent. That figure, I believe, is accurate; but in fairness to the minister himself I suggest that it does not give a perfectly true picture of the exact percentage of persons of seventy and over who would have been entitled at that time to pensions had everybody been under the old age pensions scheme. When those figures were submitted to the house two years ago the province of Quebec had not yet come under the scheme. Since that province has come under it the figure has been increased, so that the percentage of persons over seventy in receipt of pensions from the government is now 37 instead of 28-5 as the minister informed us two years ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is higher than that now; it is constantly going up.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It may be; the figures I gave were for one year ago. The minister also stated that the average income of persons of the age of sixty and over was $1,072 per annum. If that was the case, if our older people of sixty and over were in receipt of

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Heaps
approximately $1,072 on the average, then I would point out that there would be no need for an old age pension to people of sixty and over. The problem would automatically solve itself. The fact is, and the statistics will prove it, that a very large percentage of the people of the age of sixty and over are not in a position to maintain themselves at that age and it is because of that fact that I am to-day asking the government to consider very seriously and favourably a reduction in the present pensionable age.
I might be permitted to give a few figures. In 1931 there were 870.428 persons between the ages of sixty and sixty-five, and in 1937 that number had increased to approximately 9S9.000, an increase of 118,572, according to the latest figures from the bureau of statistics.
In 1931 there were 575,831 between the ages of sixty-five and seventy, and in 1937 there were 653,000 of the same age, or an increase in the same period of 77,169.
In 1931 there were 344,697 persons of the age of seventy and over, and in 1937 there were approximately 397,000, or an increase of 52,303.
Taking the same period, in 1931 there were 1,790,956 persons of the age of sixty and over, and in 1937 there were 2,039,000, or an increase of 248,044.
Our population in 1931 was 10,376,786, and in 1937 it was estimated to be 11,130,000 or an increase of 743,214.
By an odd coincidence the increase in the number of persons of the age of sixty and over works out approximately to 14 per cent, and the increase in population in the same period works out approximately to the same figure. To-day I am going to argue more in favour of reducing the pensionable age to sixty-five than to sixty, because in doing so I have more hope of a favourable reply. The proportion between the ages of sixty-five and seventy who would require pensions would be considerably less than those who require pensions after the age of seventy, in view of the figures which the minister submitted two years ago with regard to average income, and also for the reason that people of the age of sixty-five and over may have certain resources of their own which a person of seventy has not, and in many cases they are able to maintain themselves by their own exertions. For those three reasons I believe the percentage which to-day is about thirty-seven-


Charles Avery Dunning: To-day it is over fifty per cent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, even if it is over fifty per cent we can work it out on the same
basis. Taking that basis, the percentage of those between the ages of sixty-five and seventy requiring pension would be considerably less than for those aged seventy and over.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish I could agree with that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: My logic leads me to that deduction. I wish now to deal for a moment with the question of pensions in other countries. I think practically all countries have systems of old age pensions in one form or another. First I shall deal with the newer scheme inaugurated in the United States; for I want to compare what is being done in other countries with what we are doing in Canada. I think that is a fair test in a question of this kind.
Under the recent social security legislation of the United States some 37,000,000 persons become subject to the old age pension provisions. But the act in the United States is not on the same basis as we have it here; it is entirely on a contributory basis. The employer pays so much, the employee so much, and contributions are made by the state government and the federal government. The federal government contributes half of what the state government provides.


Charles Avery Dunning: Half of what the individual state provides.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the reverse of
our situation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I shall deal with that, but
first I want to show dhe systems in force in other countries. From the fund established by the governments in the United States the pensioner receives in proportion to the amount he pays in. The more a man pays into the fund the more he takes out when he reaches the pensionable age. But there is a minimum as well as a maximum pension. No man receives less than $10 a month by way of pension, and none receives more than $85 a month, no matter how long he has paid into the fund. There is this difference in favour of our system. Twenty dollars a month may look small compared with what they pay even to-day in the individual states of the union, but theirs is now in part on a contributoiy basis and ours is on a non-contributory basis and is a charge on the taxpayers as a whole. So I find this important distinction, that whereas in the case of a married couple we pay a maximum of $20 a month both to the husband and to the wife, in the United States only one receives a pension; that is, if the wife has not paid into the fund, the only

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Heaps

pension receivable by a couple is the amount the husband receives, be it $10 a month or $80. I think that is to the advantage of our system. The system in the United States is a complicated one. I could go into it at some length, but the one fact I want to emphasize is that pensions there are payable at the age of sixty-five. In fact to-day sixty-five has become recognized as pensionable age in practically all parts of the world.
I turn now to the old country, where they have had old age pensions for about thirty years. They started there to pay pensions at age seventy, on a non-contributory basis. Some years ago the basis was changed and made contributory in the case of persons who wish to receive pension between the ages of sixty-five and seventy. But pensions are payable to-day in the old country at the age of sixty-five.


Charles Avery Dunning: Provided the pensioner
has contributed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, between sixtv-five and
seventy it is on a contributory basis, but over seventy all pensions are a charge on the imperial exchequer. What I point out is that they have accepted sixty-five as the pensionable age.
I now turn to some of the other British dominions. South Africa, which established a system of old age pensions at about the same time as we did, inaugurated their system on a non-contributory basis, and pensions are payable at the age of sixty-five. There seems to be a tendency toward unanimity as to sixty-five being the age at which people should retire from industry. In addition, in some of the schemes to which I have referred, as well as one or two others, the regulations are not as stringent as those which prevail in Canada. I do not intend, however, to deal with that aspect. Australia also pays pensions from the age of sixty-five, and in case of incapacity the pensionable age is reduced to sixty. There also it is on a non-contributory basis. The age has been sixty-five almost from the inception of the system. In New Zealand the situation is somewhat the same. The pensionable age is sixty-five-I believe it is sixty for females-and pension is granted there without the application of nearly as many regulations as apply here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have no provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not thinking of the provinces. I am thinking of the amount of income outside of the pension that is allowed, the amount of property a person is allowed to possess without being asked to sign it over to the government as collateral for the pension received. These regulations are less

stringent in most of the countries I have referred to than they are here in Canada. But what I want to stress again is that in all these countries sixty-five is accepted as a pensionable age, and in many cases even a lower age is accepted for persons suffering from permanent incapacity.
If it is possible in the sister dominions to have non-contributory old age pensions granted to people at sixty-five years of age, there is no reason in the world why we cannot do the same in Canada. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, they have no provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can the hon. member tell us the proportion paid by the individual states in Australia?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think in Australia it is now entirely a federal responsibility. For some years, until recently, it was partly a state responsibility, but while I am subject to correction I believe that to-day it is a federal responsibility in Australia.
In another part of my motion I say that if people between sixty-five and seventy were pensioned, it would release quite a number who to-day are working but who if they were in receipt of some form of economic security would be glad to retire and allow others to take their places in industrial life. I know it might be said with a good deal of force that with a pension of only $20 a month it would be difficult to induce men to retire, but in the case of two people-


Charles Avery Dunning: It is hard to get them to retire where the pension is two or three hundred dollars a month.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That may be so in the civil service.


Charles Avery Dunning: In every service of which I know.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As a rule the people who hold those fairly well paid positions are not very anxious to retire, but if you offer a greater inducement to a carpenter or bricklayer-


Charles Avery Dunning: Or an engine driver or a fireman.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes; you offer those people a reasonable pension and you will find that there will be no difficulty in getting them to retire at a reasonable age.


Charles Avery Dunning: That has not been the experience with pension schemes in industry.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, and the argument I think was placed before the government by the trades congress, is that if $20 a month, or $40 for a couple,

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Heaps
should not be sufficient to induce people to retire, I would have no objection and in fact would welcome it if the Minister of Finance would increase that pension to an amount which would be sufficient to induce people to retire.
Now we come to our youth problem, which is bound up with this question to a certain extent. The youth question cannot be ignored; for to-day we have the youth of our country walking the streets or with very little to do. To me it seems illogical and absurd to have young men in their late teens and their twenties walking the streets while our older people are engaged in industry, or are unable to perform the duties of the positions they hold. The question of incapacity, which I have raised, is a very important one and cannot be ignored. When the minister considers the cost of any pension scheme he cannot figure it entirely on the basis of mere dollars and cents. There is also a credit side of the picture. At the present time, persons of sixty-five to seventy years of age who probably would come under a pension scheme, if they are not in a position to earn their own livelihood, are being maintained by someone else. If their own relatives or friends are not in a position to do so then these people become the recipients of public relief. It does occur to me that when a man or a woman who has lived in this dominion for twenty, thirty or forty years, and has given the best years of his or her life in developing and building up the country, reaches old age, he or she should be entitled to some form of recognition from the country for the services that have been rendered. I believe that when the average person, be he a mechanic in any sphere of activity or be he a man who works in a store or a warehouse, has given thirty or forty years of his life in devoted service to his country he is just as much entitled to a pension as is the soldier in the army or the judge who sits on the bench. I think there should be recognition of the services that have been rendered, though they may have been rendered in very different capacities.


Richard Langton Baker: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but the act does not read that way. A man need be in Canada only twenty years, and on reaching the age of seventy he can get a pension. In my opinion that is the one weak point in the act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When a person reaches the age of sixty-five or seventy he has probably worked very hard for perhaps thirty or forty years.


Richard Langton Baker: According to the act as it stands now, a man could have come from Germany at the age of forty-nine years and eleven months and upon reaching seventy he is eligible for an old age pension, although he gave the best of his life to Germany. I took exception to that when the act was introduced.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think there are similar provisions in every old age pension act in the world, including those of this country and of Great Britain. It is the case, so far as I know, wherever you have an old age pension act in force.
The problem of old age is becoming an extremely serious one, because I think it is recognized that through advances in medical science and scientific research people to-day have a greater life expectancy than they had a few generations ago. The average expectancy of life is now approximately fifty-eight years, which is about twenty years more than it was a few generations ago. I have figures which show that at the present time there are in Canada more than two million persons of the age of sixty and over, which means that approximately twenty per cent of our total population come within that category. That means that the problem of old age is becoming even more important than the question of unemployment. A man who reaches the age of sixty and becomes unemployed finds it extremely difficult to obtain employment. In fact men are sometimes laid off when they have reached the age of fifty, because it is considered that even then they are too old. A man of sixty or sixty-five has absolutely no opportunity of obtaining employment.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend's figure of two million must be wrong. I do not want to interrupt him, but I do not want him to base his argument upon a false premise.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I may say that I obtained my figures very recently from the bureau of statistics. I accepted them over the phone. I may have got them incorrectly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt for a moment? I have here the figures by provinces of the number of persons over sixty but under seventy. The aggregate of those in the whole dominion is 591,600. Then I have the number of persons seventy years of age and over, which is 396,900. Adding those figures it will be seen that at the present time in the Dominion of Canada there are less than one million persons over sixty years of age.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Over sixty and under seventy?

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Heaps


Charles Avery Dunning: No, taking those over sixty and under seventy and adding the number of those over seventy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The information I have clearly indicates that in those categories we had the number of people I mentioned, but I stand of course subject to correction.


Charles Avery Dunning: Over two million?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, 2,039,000. I am sorry if the figures are not correct, but I have them here exactly as I received them. Possibly I got the wrong set of figures.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have two sets of figures by provinces, those between sixty and seventy and those over seventy, and in all there are just short of one million of these people.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should think it would be strange if there were only a million in all those categories, because we have nearly four hundred thousand over seventy. My figures, from the bureau of statistics, show 397,000 people over the age of seventy. Surely if that is so, there must be a very much larger number between sixty and seventy.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, 591,600.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That hardly sounds reasonable to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have all the provinces separately.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps we can adjust this matter later on. Time is getting short, and I do not wish to dwell upon that aspect of the question; besides, if the minister is correct in his figure as to those between sixty and seventy it becomes so much easier for him to be a little more sympathetic this afternoon then otherwise he might have been.


Charles Avery Dunning: I knew I was taking the risk that my hon. friend would make that reply, but I could not be more sympathetic than I am.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I now deal with one
aspect of the question concerning which I have received a large number of communications. So-me people believe that if we reduce the pensionable age we may weaken what we commonly describe as filial responsibility. I have strong convictions on that point. I feel that when a mother or a father has reached old age, the child capable of maintaining or assisting in maintaining his aged parents in a state of decency and comfort, should do so without compulsion. I should not like to see anything done here by way of legislation which would weaken the respon-

sibility of the child towards the parents. Children are better able to maintain parents who are between the ages of sixty-five and seventy than they are when they, as well as the parents, reach an older age. In any measure brought before the house I should be quite prepared to support some provision by which proper attention would be given to the question of filial responsibility.
One of the tasks of the house should be to lighten the load of the older people. I think the time of the government would be well spent if it took into consideration more seriously than it did two years ago the question of reducing the pensionable age. I recall the words of the Prime Minister at the time the government was about to take office. On October 14, immediately after the election results were known, he made the following statement:
The struggle for the rights of the people, will, in the realms of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery are enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am glad to hear some
hon. members say "Hear, hear." I should like to have that expression of concurrence in the sentiments of the Prime Minister, as he stated them immediately after the election, put into concrete action. This is the third session of the present parliament. If this parliament runs the usual length there will be one more session. Up to this time, in these three sessions, with one exception- pensions for the blind-no action which would give the people a greater sense of economic security than they had at the time the statement of the Prime Minister was made can be credited to the government.
I am one who wants to see the purpose behind that statement carried out. I believe the government could do nothing better than to give concurrence to the resolution I have presented, in which I ask the house to do exactly what was promised by the present Prime Minister. It would bring about a sense of security to the old people in Canada. The letters I have received, the majority of which, strange as it may seem, come from rural centres, are most pathetic. They urge that something be done fbr the older people. We in Canada are lagging behind all Englishspeaking countries in our activities in respect to bettering the social and economic lot of the common people. I believe-and the facts prove it-that so far as looking after the wellbeing of our people is concerned, we are the most, backward of any English-speaking part

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Maclnnis
of the British Empire. In many countries pensions are given at the age of sixty-five, and in some at sixty, while in Canada the pensionable age stands at seventy. It cannot be denied that social legislation in other parts of the empire is far more advanced than anything we have here, because the legislation they have enacted speaks for itself.
It is my wish that we may be not a backward but a forward nation. I should like the government-I do not care who does it-to take a step forward and to enact legislation which will give hope and encouragement to the great masses of our people. They are looking for something definite from the government and, so far, everything has been indefinite. I am making a plea to the government to reduce the pensionable age from seventy years to sixty-five years, so that we may take care of those older people who are no longer required in industry, and who have no hope of finding employment. I should like to see a message of hope go out from the house this afternoon to that part of our population, so that at least they may have the encouragement of knowing that in the near future they will be placed upon the pension lists and in their declining years may enjoy at least some form of economic security which, through no fault of their own, they are now denied.


Richard Langton Baker: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that as the act stands at present a man has only to live in Canada twenty years to receive the old age pension at seventy? A man may come from Europe when he is more than forty-nine years old, and almost worn out physically; yet at the age of seventy he may receive a pension. Does the hon. member agree that if the limit be reduced to sixty-five, that provision should be changed? I believe it is the defect in the act.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), which I most wholeheartedly support, may I say that the point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Baker) is not an important one so far as the resolution is concerned. If people are coming to Canada at an age when they are burnt out, that defect can be looked after simply by refusing them entrance to the country, by tightening our immigration laws. But once we have let them in here, discrimination as between citizen and citizen should stop.
Questions respecting old age pensions and other social measures are being forced upon the governments of all countries. Social
questions may not be the fault of governments; they arise out of economic development. The fact is, however, that in every country of the world questions have arisen with which, whether they like it or not, governments have had to deal. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North has said, Canada has lagged behind most other countries in respect of social legislation.
So far as I have been able to learn, the matter of paying old age pensions was first discussed in the Canadian parliament in the session of 1906. The matter was raised by Mr. R. A. Pringle, who at that time was the member for Stormont. However, nothing came of that discussion. On May 1, 1922, the question was again raised by Dr. J. E. Fontaine, the Liberal member for Hull, who moved the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the dominion government should consider the advisability of devising ways and means for the establishment of a system of old age pensions in Canada.
Two years later on April 29, 1924, the then Prime Minister, who is also the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) moved:
That a special committee be appointed to make an inquiry into an old age pension system for Canada.
A committee was appointed and it reported in favour of an old age pension scheme. The most important recommendations of the committee were that old age pensions should be paid at the age of seventy years, that the maximum rate of pension should be 120 a month, and that half the cost should be borne by the provincial governments, the federal government assuming the other half. Another two years passed before the government, under a little judicious prodding, introduced an old age pension bill.
It will be seen from reading the debates in Hansard of that year that the bill got rather a hostile reception. Although that was not so very long ago, some of the speeches make curious reading to-day. This indicates how fast we are moving at the present time and how economic changes bring about changed social conditions. The bill passed the house but was defeated in the senate. In the following year another bill was introduced which passed both houses and became law, just twenty-one years after the question was first raised in parliament. This is not very fast progress.
I believe British Columbia was the first province to take advantage of the new act. I understand its legislation was passed before the federal act came into operation. Now I submit that the time has come for a revision of the old age pension scheme as provided in

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Maclnnis
the act of 1927. I am sure there are few people in Canada to-day, not even those who were opposed to the scheme when it was placed on the statute book, who would advocate the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act. In the distressing times through which we have been passing during the last seven or eight years this act has brought comfort to thousands of people who in their declining years found themselves in need, in most cases through no fault of their own.
However, I think it must, be conceded that under present conditions the age limit of seventy years is far too high, and the maximum pension of $20 a month is altogether inadequate for a decent standard of living. It is not enough on which to live and it is too much on which to die. It is sufficient to prevent immediate starvation, but not sufficient to prevent progressive deterioration of health from malnutrition and the lack of certain essential comforts. It should be clear to anyone who has made a study of this subject, or who has come in contact with people living on old age pensions, or people who have not quite reached the age when such pension is obtainable, that it is high time the age limit was lowered and the amount of the pension materially increased.
I think the time has come when many of the annoying regulations imposed by some of the provinces should be removed. I understand it is a fact that in some provinces old age pensioners receive only the amount paid by the federal government. I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) shakes his head.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure my hon. friend wants to be accurate. The federal government pays seventy-five per' cent of what the province pays.


Angus MacInnis: That was a misunderstanding on my part. I would say then that in certain provinces old age pensioners are paid only $15 instead of $20. That would amount to pretty nearly the same thing.
As I said, Canada seems to have lagged behind in the matter of social legislation. We shall have to move faster in the future than we have done in the past if we want to be considered one of the world's progressive nations. I appreciate the fact that because of certain conditions in this country we did not see the need or possibly the need was not there. It is also a fact that people do not like to change by leaps and bounds. Man is by his nature conservative and it is only when circumstances become unbearable that people are prepared to move regardless of consequences. This is a fact that should be

kept in mind by governments and legislators. More and more of our people are to-day reaching that state where they feel they have nothing to lose. Consequently, more and more of them are reaching that state where they do not care what action they take, provided that action gives promise of quick relief from some of their difficulties.
Speaking as one who has had close contact with many people receiving old age pensions- I come from an almost one hundred per cent working class constituency-I can say that these pensions have been of great value to the people of this country. Inadequate as they are, there is no doubt that they have brought some comfort and happiness and a certain measure of security and even a certain measure of independence to many old people. I hope this parliament will see its way clear to increase that security and thereby to enhance the independence which people value so much-people who have served their day and generation well but who, in the evening of their days, find themselves in straitened circumstances.
One outstanding fact in connection with old age pensions is that no country which put an old age pension law on its statute books has ever repealed it. The general tendency is toward liberalizing old age pension legislation, once it is enacted. I have examined statistics on the subject published by the international labour office, and I should like to quote some facts giving the ages at which these pensions are payable in most of the important countries of the world.
In Austria men qualify at sixty-five and if permanently incapacitated they qualify at sixty. Women are eligible at sixty. In Belgium-


Charles Avery Dunning: Would the hon. member be good enough to indicate in each case whether the scheme is contributory or noncontributory?


Angus MacInnis: I may not have the information segregated here as to contributory and non-contributory schemes, but my opinion is that in most cases they are contributory.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are practically all contributory, I believe.


Angus MacInnis: In Belgium, men qualify at sixty-five and women at sixty. In Bulgaria, both men and women are eligible at sixty. In Sweden, men and women qualify at sixty-seven. May I point out that the old age pension in Sweden is compulsory at this age.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Maclnnis
In South Africa, the age is sixty-five.
In the U.S.S.R. men qualify at sixty and women at fifty-five. There is a still lower qualifying age for persons working underground or in unhealthy occupations.
In the United States the age in twelve states is sixty-five, and in fourteen states the age is seventy; in one state the age is sixty-eight.
In Czechoslovakia, both men and women are eligible at sixty-five.
In Denmark the age is sixty-five, but under certain conditions old age pensions are paid at sixty.
In Hungary, both men and women are eligible at 6ixty-five.
In New Zealand, men are eligible for old age pension at sixty-five and women at sixty.
In Poland, sixty-five for both men and women.
In Roumania, sixty for men and women, but the age is lower for underground workers.
The following countries have a lower age for women than for men.
In Austria, women qualify at the age of sixty, men at sixty-five.
In Belgium, women qualify at the age of sixty, men at sixty-five.
In the U.S.S.R., women qualify at fifty-five, and men at sixty.
In Australia, women qualify at the age of sixty, men at sixty-five.
In New Zealand, women qualify at the age of sixty, men at sixty-five.
One of the very first acts of the labour government of New Zealand when it came into office in 1935-


Mr. EDWARDS:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Just what did he mean when he said that in Sweden the old age pension is "compulsory"? Does he mean that everyone, whether he requires it or not, is compelled to receive it?


Angus MacInnis: My understanding of the old age pension law in Sweden is that everyone contributes to the old age pension scheme; it is automatic and the pension is paid automatically when the prescribed age is reached. The pension is in various parts; there is a contributory pension, and if the contribution is not sufficient to make the pension such as to provide a decent living standard, the necessary amount is paid from the general fund by the government.


Alexander McKay Edwards: The answer, then, is that everyone contributes?


Angus MacInnis: Everyone contributes. I believe that within certain limits the contribution is proportionate to income. There is a low limit and there is a higher figure.
I should like to read to the house from a statement made by the Minister of Pensions of New Zealand when he introduced the government old age pension scheme in the first session after the election of 1935. I quote this because the approach is so different from that usually made in this country. The quotation is from the New Zealand parliamentary debates-the New Zealand Hansard, I suppose-of September 1, 1936:
All social legislation, and especially that providing for pensions, is a recognition by the community of the fact that the recipients of the pension have in a very large measure been responsible for the development of the country and the vast accumulations within it. One of the points to be recognized is that such allowances made by the younger generation to their forebears are by no means a charity but in reality a recognition and a return to them of what they themselves have put into the nation. They have no reason to feel that they are placed under any obligation in respect of what they receive under this head. The pension is given to the old people as I have said as a recognition by the community to those who in the past have rendered service to their country as citizens.
Let me stress this: "They have no reason to feel that they are placed under any obligation in respect of what they receive under this head. The pension is given to these old people, as I have said, as a recognition by the community of the services they have rendered in the past to their country as citizens." In this country we already pension some of our citizens, in some cases possibly beyond the value of the services they have rendered. If we are to pension a few for the services they have rendered as citizens, why should we not pension all citizens for their services?
Continuing, Mr. Parry said:
That principle distinguishes the human animal from the animal kingdom. If we look at the home we do not find there that those children who are able to work say to the weaker or to the invalid members of the family that they are not entitled to the same food, clothing, and conveniences as those who are strong and capable. On the contrary all that is best is conceded to the invalid or the crippled member of the family. Of such a sentiment we are very proud. And if that is a good policy in the home it is equally good in the larger home- the nation.
Until we consider the nation as a larger home, a home where the weak are protected, not exploited, we shall not have a country of which we can truly say that it is civilized, because such protection is the hall-mark of civilization.
The Prime Minister, when he introduced the Old Age Pensions Act in 1925-at any rate

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Maclnnis
when, he discussed the subject-made the following statement on page 1980 of Hansard of that year:
There is need for society to assist in the protection of its members against a condition which simultaneously places burdens upon the workers whose day's work is done, and on the worker whose day's work is just beginning. If the young are to be given a fair start in life the care of the aged should not be their first responsibility.
In my own province of British Columbia, as I believe in others, before they can obtain an old age pension under the provincial regulations, parents are compelled to sue their children, even though they know that those children are unable to contribute to their support.
Because of economic changes it is becoming increasingly difficult for people getting up in years to find employment. Indeed, it is not only difficult for them to find employment; it is difficult for them to keep it when they have it. That power production and the use of machinery displace man-power is no longer disputed. The extent to which employment lags behind increased production in all countries to-day clearly demonstrates that fact. There is, however, another point that is not so well known and that is that power-driven machinery not only displaces workers in industry but also reduces the quality of the labour which is left. In other words, power-driven machine production not only reduces the aggregate number of workers in industry but displaces a number of skilled and experienced workers by a smaller number of unskilled workers. Both these points were brought out clearly in the evidence given before the Turgeon textile commission in 1936. One witness, Mr. W. J. Whitehead, of Associated Textiles of Canada, Limited, gave the following evidence as reported at page 1081:
Q. So that we come to the conclusion that since 1928 the proportion of labour in the output of the company has been reduced from about 32 per cent to 20 per cent?
A. I have agreed to that.
Q. Now I suggest to you that your rates of wages are much lower now than they were in 1928?
A. We have not denied that.
If the rate of wages is lower and production is higher with a smaller number of employees, then there is bound to be some economic dislocation and there are bound to be a number of people who cannot be looked after, people who cannot obtain income direct from industry. If they cannot get an income direct from industry there is no other source from which

they can get it, unless it is provided by the state; and the state can get it only by taxing it out of industry.
In the brief submitted by counsel for the commission, we find the following:
The industry is responsible for those conditions. In its evolution it has enhanced the number of low positions to the detriment of the higher ones. Some years ago, each one hundred looms occupied ten weavers with few or no helpers. To-day the same number of looms occupies two weavers, three battery-hands and one oil-cleaner, perhaps two. Eight major jobs were replaced by four or five minor ones.
This substantial evidence goes to prove the point I have just made, namely, that machinery not only displaces workers, but also displaces skilled and experienced workers for mere machine-tenders. In other words, more products are turned out with fewer and cheaper labourers.
Let me quote one other statement from the same source. This is taken from the brief submitted by Elie Beauregard, one of counsel for the commission. From page 130 I quote the following:
The large Wabasso factory, which is no exception, succeeded between 1928 and 1936, in more than doubling its production, while reducing the number of its workers by about one-fourth and its payroll by about one-third.
If the Minister of Finance is at a loss to know where to get money, that should suggest where it can be had. This is not a condition that is peculiar to the textile industry; it is more or less true of all industries in which power machinery is used. Perhaps the textile industry was more ruthless or had more and better opportunities of doing as it pleased. I do not know; I am merely quoting these cases to show the unmistakable trend in industry to-day, a development that is making it increasingly difficult for people of forty and forty-five-not people of sixty, and sixty-five and seventy, but people of forty and forty-five-to get a footing in industry and to keep it when they have got it.
Let me give another quotation from the chief counsel. In his brief to the same commission he makes this statement at page 7:
More often than not when the worker has reached the forties a forced lay-off, through fatigue or illness means the end of his employment.
He may leave the factory because of a cold, because of some slight indisposition, but he is getting up in years and is no longer as agile as he once was, and what industry needs to-day is not the skilled worker but the agile machine-tender.
The last to be called when the men go back to work and the first to be released or put on short time the old employee who has not known how to make himself indispensable falls victim,

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Maclnnis
now to a new distribution of work, now to the introduction of improved machinery and, usually, to the competition of those who are younger and more fit. The career of the textile worker is short-lived; it begins early and comes to an early end. The problem of the middle-aged worker is a universal one.
I am not suggesting that we should pension people at forty-five, but I am suggesting as earnestly as I possibly can that this government should do something for people who have reached the age of sixty or sixty-five, those who have reached sixty and are not yet seventy. Have you ever stood before the employment office and watched women of sixty and sixty-five on a cold, wet morning- and I am thinking of my own city of Vancouver-coming up to the office and waiting until it opens? There is no more heartrending spectacle than that, and yet we have it in every city, in every town of this rich dominion.
I would stress this point in regard to what is taking place because of machinery. I am not blaming governments, because governments have very little to do with the development of economic means. These things develop either with, or in spite of governments. I saw the point put very clearly indeed, and very neatly too, in a book which I read a few years ago and which came to my mind when I was considering what I would say on this question. The title of the book is The Economic Consequences of Power Production; the author, Fred Henderson, a fairly well-known English economist. On page 49 he said:
The handicraftsman has, as it were, been split up into three parts. The physical energy which he contributed to production has been superseded by the new gigantic powers: his operative skill has been superseded by the precision of mechanism, and his craft knowledge has become the technician's specialized knowledge of the reactions between these non-human factors and the materials of his particular industry. Thus the craftsman completely disappears; and what the power machine industry requires by way of labour is an altogether new function for which there was no counterpart quality in the handicraftsman at all. The mass of the workers called into existence by the new conditions as machine minders are an entirely new type, concerned neither with the technique of materials nor with the productive purpose of the machine in relation to a finished commodity, but only with the movement of the machine as a thing in itself: and with that movement only at second hand; not by effecting it directly, but by attending to the controls which admit and regulate the effective power.
That I think puts it so clearly that nothing further need be said regarding it.
Sometimes we are told that we are asking too much of government and of the state. Personally I do not agree with that. But
the question cannot be decided yes or no until we settle what is the function of government, and why it came into being. If government is something superimposed upon the people, the government of one class by another, then the government may object and say that too much is asked of it. If on the other hand government is, as I think it should be, an instrument of the people for doing for the people collectively what cannot be done by the people individually, then there is no limit to what the people may ask their government to do. To set a limit in such case would be to set a limit to progress. Questions which come before this house from day to day, a number of which have already been discussed this session, are relentlessly driving home to us the social implications of the changes taking place in the economic system under which we live. It is becoming ever more evident that the more we produce with the socially operated machinery of industry, finance and commerce, the more it is impossible for the individual to provide himself with either comfort or security. It may be said that in our working years we should provide for our old age. But to-day that is foolish, because not even a man in his prime can provide for himself. What nonsense, then, to ask him to lay by something to provide for his old age!
I made inquiry of the civil service commission as to the age factor in employment, and I am told that in the lower grades they do not take on applicants over the age of thirty-five. If the government of Canada will not take on people over thirty-five years of age because they cannot get value for the money they pay, how can we expect industry operating for profit to take on people over that age? The director of unemployment relief in Vancouver said recently, in reporting to the council, that most of the heads of families unemployed at the present time who are over the age of fifty-five would never work again. They are unemployable, and have become so because of being unemployed for three, four or five years. If people are unemployable at fifty-five years of age, we should make more scientific provision for their care than unemployment relief.
Thinking of old people I am continually reminded of a poem by Robert Burns; "Man Was Made to Mourn":
Look not alone on youthful prime,
Or manhood's active might;
Man then is useful to bis kind,
Supported is his right;
But see him on the edge of life,
With cares and sorrow worn;
Then age and want-oh! ill-matched pair- Show man was made to mourn.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Maclnnis
We have not yet found a formula to extend old age, and I hope we shall not until we find a formula to make it more comfortable. But there is no reason except sheer stupidity why in this dominion, a country so richly blessed with almost everything necessary, we cannot make existence comfortable for all in their old age or those for whom we cannot provide profitable employment. At the present time in every city there is a considerable number of persons between ages of sixty-five and seventy on relief. And those on relief who have reached the age of fifty-five or perhaps fifty and who have been unemployed for any considerable length of time will certainly never work again. It would be a humane act on the part of this government to take these people off relief and give them an old age pension. It is sad to see these people waiting in line for their vouchers or relief in whatever form it is given.
The amount of the old age pension should also be increased. That is imperative. I hope the government will give this matter very serious consideration and before this session is over do something that will bring a greater measure of security and independence to people who have reached the age of sixty or sixty-five and can no longer find profitable employment. And let us do it in such a way as they have done it in our sister dominion of New Zealand, so that it is not charity, but returns to them a part of what they themselves have already put into the country.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: I
welcome the introduction of this resolution because it gives me an opportunity to express in a few words some thoughts which have been in my mind for the past three years in connection with the age limit for old age pensions. I represent a city constituency of which a large proportion of the people are employed by either the two great railway systems or the department stores and other institutions where the rule of retirement at the age of sixty-five has become almost absolute. Even in the civil service this rule is recognized by the enforced retirement of civil servants at the age of sixty-five.
One of the problems I have had to face time after time in the last three years has been that of the gap between the age of sixty-five and the age of seventy, when the old age pension comes into effect. For a moment or two I should like to speak to the house about the situation of the railway men in my constituency-and I imagine the situation is the same in every other constituency-with respect to old age pensions. During the last five or six years these men, particularly shop men

but also men engaged in the running trades who did not have a great deal of seniority, were very fortunate indeed if they were working sixteen or eighteen days a month, and many of them for periods of months had no employment at all. These men, who are coming now to the age of sixty-five, were caught at a time when the average man was completing the buying of his home and providing for the education of his children, a period during which he was under great expense. Many of these people are now bankrupt at the age of sixty-five, and they find themselves approaching this gap between sixty-five and seventy. Many of them to my knowledge within the last two or three years have had to go on direct relief, or in the alternative they have been thrown upon the kindness of their children, who in many instances are completely unable to provide anything like adequate care for them. It does not seem good enough to me that men and women who have served as these men have, not only in this particular occupation but in many occupations, should have to face that difficulty.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the cost of lowering the age from seventy to sixty-five, and at this time I think I should refrain from discussing whether or not it might be advisable to introduce the principle of contributions to old age pensions, because as yet we do not know what is proposed with respect to unemployment insurance. It has been a dream of mine, or should I say a thought of mine, that perhaps when we reach the point of working out an unemployment insurance proposition it may be possible to have something of a joint nature worked out in regard to old age pensions and unemployment insurance. So I am prepared to wait a little longer to find out what is going to be done; but I should like to urge upon the government at this time the claims of these people, not only those who have not worked at all but particularly those who have been on part time at greatly reduced wages during the last six or seven years, and who are now approaching the age of sixty-five. Frankly I do not know what their numbers are, even in my own constituency; but I do know there are many of them, and it might be that the government could in this way better than in any other contribute to the relief of the older unemployed.
I am not one of those who are greatly impressed with the idea that if we lop off ten thousand workmen at the age of sixty we shall be putting on another ten thousand workmen at the age of nineteen or twenty. I have yet to be convinced that by taking

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Mutch
a man off the top and putting another man on at the bottom you increase the number of jobs. I agree with those who say that it is better that the younger generation should have some greater opportunity to obtain work. Just at this point I might say that I have personal knowledge of young men of more than average ability, with more than average determination to do anything or try anything, who have reached the age of twenty-six years without having earned a dime working at a regular job. I realize something of the implications of such a situation, and it may be that something might be achieved by transferring jobs, but I do not think it is at all workable as a solution to the problem of unemployment.
I am grateful for this opportunity to say how great I believe the need is for a reduction in the age at which a person may qualify for the old age pension, but even so at the moment I would not advocate that this age should be less than sixty-five. I have said time and again in the last two or three years, in private conversations, and on the public platform, that the position to-day of the man who is fifty years of age and unemployed is practically hopeless with regard to his chance of ever getting back into the occupation which he formerly held. But while I realize that, I am not prepared to advocate that he should become a public charge or even that he should be placed on an equal footing with others with respect to any government scheme of assistance such as the old age pension. However, in my opinion this is the time to make a change, and I believe the way to make the change is to reduce the age to sixty-five, when in our own service we admit that sixty-five is a fit and proper age at which to retire.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to say that in the service a man may retire at sixty-five but retirement is not compulsory until he reaches the age of seventy.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: All I can say in reply to my hon. friend is that on one or two occasions, when on compassionate grounds and where there was justification, I have been desirous, much against my general inclination, of having a civil servant retained for a year or two beyond the age of sixty-five, I have not been received with any great enthusiasm on the part of the ministers of the crown with whom I have had to deal.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was merely stating the law. So far as the government is concerned, the retirement of a civil service employee is
not obligatory until the age of seventy. The government has the right to retain by order in council the services of an employee until the age of seventy.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It has become recognized in practice by the government that it is undesirable to expand the tenure of office of civil servants beyond the age of sixty-five.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, as a general principle.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am not particularly anxious to labour that point. I merely wish to establish the fact that we do recognize that in this day and generation sixty-five is the age of retirement. All that I said a moment ago with regard to the railway men, with whose case I have come in close contact, is equally true of men employed in business generally and of men who work for others, in stores and other places, the so-called white collar class of workmen, who must always work for somebody else. They find it very difficult to retain their jobs after the age of sixty-five. The number of those who do is infinitesimal, and the number of people who at sixty-five are in a position to maintain themselves is also very, very small. Some little time ago-and I am sorry I do not have the document with me to-day-I read a table prepared by the statistical department of a life insurance company doing business in Canada, which showed the number of men who are independent at the age of sixty-five. That number was sufficiently small to impress anyone with the necessity for some adjustment in this matter.
While I am in entire sympathy with the aim of this resolution, I would have found it much easier to support the motion had I read it on the order paper and come immediately to a declaration of my views in this regard. However, the resolution does not urge upon the government any immediate expenditure; it calls only for a statement of policy, and I should be inconsistent with my own expressed views if I did not say that I am in sympathy with this resolution in so far as it does bring to the attention of the government, what I think should be brought to its attention, namely the necessity for some change, and I welcome it on that account.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: Mr. Speaker, two years ago I rose in this house to say a few words on an almost identical resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). On that occasion I said that, representing an industrial constituency, I had a clearer understanding of the problem of those who depend on factory employment for a living and that it
878	COMMONS
Old Age Pensions-Mr. Wermenlinger
would be better to create employment by means of public works undertaken either by the state or by private industry.
Two years have passed and we are now at the third session of the eighteenth parliament. I give full credit to the Minister of Labour who has done his utmost to see that every part of the dominion received its share of public works. He has given its due share to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. If he recollects the visit he paid to Verdun last fall with the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec, he will admit that he was received like a prince and that the people looked upon him as Santa Claus who was to return the following year with more public works.
But, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, even with the creation of the National Employment Commission presided over by Mr. Purvis, the problem of unemployment has been solved in this country. On February 20, 1936, the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) recalled that President Roosevelt of the United States had stated that even though the industrial activity of 1928 and 1929 should return, the same unemployment conditions would have to be faced, as there would still be six million idle persons in that country. The leader of the opposition added that, counting our population as one-twelfth that of the United States, we would have 500,000 unemployed to take care of.
In view' of these facts, Mr. Speaker, and after re-reading the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I must say that I am in favour of the first paragraph, which reads as follows:
Whereas it is becoming more and more difficult for older persons to be absorbed into the useful productive life of the dominion thereby being unable to maintain themselves in decency and comfort.
You will understand how painful it is for those who represent factory constituencies to observe so much poverty, misery and adversity. I remember this passage of the speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) delivered on the evening of the great Liberal victory, October 14, 1935:
Poverty and adversity, want and misery are enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land.
I wonder whether it can be said, after three years and in spite of the commendable efforts of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour, that the problem of unemployment has been definitely solved in this country.
The second paragraph of the resolution reads as follows:

And whereas, Canada is a country richly endowed with natural resources, capable of maintaining our whole population in a reasonably high standard of living,
I should not care to commit myself on this subject. Although I admit that Canada is richly endowed with natural resources, I think the matter is one for economists and I fear that this paragraph contains a suggestion that the distribution of the fruits of our natural resources should be attended by a system of joint ownership.
Here is the third paragraph:
This house would welcome a government declaration of policy that would bring about an immediate lowering of the present pensionable age limit of seventy years. . . .
I interrupt the quotation at this point to state that I am in favour of the appointment of a committee of this house, as in 1906, 1907, 1908, 1912, 1913 and again in 1924 and 1925, to consider possible amendments to the Old Age Pension Act, particularly in regard to the immediate lowering of the present pensionable age limit.
I stated a moment ago that those who reside in industrial centres can bear witness to the widespread poverty and confusion that is found in such places. At the session of 1936 one of the arguments brought against any change was that the advocates of a lower age limit were really preaching communism and socialism. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether our pensioned civil servants, our retired judges, our pensioned policemen, firemen and other municipal employees, workmen belonging to labour unions or other organizations having retirement funds can be considered propagandists for communism or socialism in this country. Certainly not.
Another argument was that it would be encouraging laziness and discouraging self-help. I do not wish to repeat what has been said by the hon. members who have preceded me, but it must be admitted that the institution of old age pensions has evolved from year to year in the various countries of the world and some countries have had them only since the turn of the present century. It is as recently as 1908 that Great Britain enacted a non-contributory pension system which remained in force until 1925 when a new act was passed creating a contributory system. The hon. member for Winnipeg North outlined this afternoon the evolution of old age pensions in the different provinces, which evolution is being continued by the resolution now before us, the purpose of which is to lower the pensionable age limit. Let us not forget that, in 1917, New Zealand had passed, under special legislation, a money bill providing

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Wermenlinger
for an increase in the rate of old age pensions. Therefore, we ought to proceed gradually. I say that this country has nothing to fear either from communists or from socialists. We always kept progressing, and there is no reason why we should not see to it that social conditions be improved in the future. Canada is supposed to be quite prosperous, and we boast of the stability of our laws and institutions. Consequently there is nothing to fear in that regard.
Then there is the argument concerning the cost. During the session of 1936, the hon. minister of finance stated that the lowering of the. age limit from seventy to sixty-five years would entail a considerable expenditure. According to statistics, there are at present in this country 240,000 people, between sixty-five and sixty-nine years of age. If we take into account the number of those old people who receive a pension either as former members of the civil service or the judiciary, or labour unions which provided for their old age, I figure out that only 20 per cent of them would benefit by the old age pension, should we lower the age limit from seventy to sixty-five. That would leave about 48,000, let us say 60,000 people.
When we examine the statistics a little more closely, we notice that old people in Ontario receive an average monthly pension of $18.11. If we multiply $18.11 by approximately 50,000, being the additional number of people entitled to an old age pension under the proposed amendment, it would make a total of $950,000 a month. Multiplied by twelve, it would amount to about $11,000,000, or let us say $12,000,000 everything being included. Taking into consideration the amendment of 1931 which raised the dominion's share from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent, therefore seventy-five per cent on $12,000,000 would represent an additional cost of $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 in old age pensions, in case that we would lower the limit to sixty-five years of age. Let us say $10,000,000. I do not believe there is one member in this house who is of the opinion that we could not reduce government expenses in this country by 10, 11 or 12 million dollars in order to enable us to grant old age pensions at the age of sixty-five.
Some contend that many of our old people who are to-day in distress, owe it to their carelessness and lack of thrift. I admit it to a certain extent. But is it not a principle of British justice that a hundred culprits should be allowed to escape rather than a single innocent be punished? Though the proportion would not be as large among these destitute, I do not believe that those who have
well deserved of their country, and who, through their whole life, did their best to rear their families, to own some property and to serve their land, should be made responsible for the conditions that we have experienced during the last eight, nine or ten years. Where are our carpenters, bricklayers, joiners, tinsmiths, roofers? Those who had not the opportunity to belong to labour unions where work is of a permanent nature, where are they? You will find them before the unemployment commissions, where they are seeking relief. Do you think that the burden of their care should fall upon their children, who have hardly enough to provide for their own needs?
As to the question of saving, the honourable minister of finance told us during the session of 1936 that we should not make unnecessary expenditures. I agree to that. But you will also admit, Mr. Speaker, that from one end of the country to the other, chambers of commerce, boards of trade and the largest newspapers and periodicals in their editorials, claim that it would be possible to save fifty to sixty million dollars in the management of our railways. It appears that we are paying $50,000,000 a year in interest on bonds held by individuals, that is $1,000,000 a week. It appears that we are paying $35,000,000 a year on government loans amounting in all to $1,500,000,000. I would not like to see any saving made in the department of railways through the dismissal of old employees, for it would be like starving Paul to feed Peter. But I do think that by reducing the maintenance cost of large hotels, and the purchases or working expenses of branch lines we could save some money. The report of the Rowell commission will shortly be submitted to the house. We are told that we could make a considerable saving by doing away with overlapping government services. Perhaps the Rowell commission will tell us also that by having less commissions, some members of which are being paid $400 per day and expenses, and others $100 per day and expenses, and by curtailing these expenditures, we would perhaps be in a position to answer the argument of the minister of finance who stated that money was too hard to get.
If we cannot do it by saving money, and without being compelled to tax the whole population, then I would have a suggestion to put forward. Unfortunately, I cannot labour the point very much longer, for I notice on the orders of the day a bill which went through its first reading, namely bill 28, concerning sweepstakes. Don't tell me that it is impossible to find eight, nine or ten million dollars in this country, without
880	COMMONS
Old Age Pensions-Mr. Wermenlinger
having to impose heavier burdens upon the taxpayer, in case that we agree to the new financial measures. In England, 200 million dollars a year go to the sweepstakes. In the United States, the postal authorities discovered that four billion dollars were spent each year in lotteries.
An official of the Red Cross Society stated in a letter to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Furniss) that in a single office in Montreal $298,000 had been spent on betting and sweepstake tickets, the purpose of which was to assist welfare organizations in Ireland, India or Newfoundland. I do not want to take more of the time of the house. I shall leave to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand) whose speech is more convincing than mine the task of explaining the bill which he has introduced in this house. I want to say, in conclusion that for the above reasons I am in agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Looking at Part XIII of the Versailles Treaty signed June 28, 1919, particularly at the preamble, we find:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required. . . .
And I wish to lay emphasis on the following point.
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries and to secure the permanent peace of the world. I
I shall now refer to the words used by the right hon. the Prime Minister in his speech delivered on the evening of the great Liberal victory of October 14, when the program of social legislation proposed by the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition had apparently been turned down by the electorate:
Poverty and adversity, indigence and distress, those are the enemies which Liberalism will endeavour to drive out of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I do say that each one of us has a right to express his views in this house, regardless of party politics. I am glad to see the Minister of Finance in his seat because two years ago, on February 20, 1936, he stated that his department was to watch the operation of the act as well as the economic conditions prevailing in the country and that, if there were any possibility, the age limit

would be changed. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that, following the example set in 1906, 1912, 1913 and 1914, a committee of this house be appointed for the purpose of studying the necessity or the advisability of amending the Old Age Pensions Act.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches which have been made on this resolution. I do not intend to follow the line pursued by other speakers, although I agree that the last five years prior to the pensionable age are increasingly difficult for people with little or no means. I wish to speak briefly upon the needs of another class of Canadians, namely those who are totally disabled, and I am thinking particularly of people who are so crippled that they are unable to sit, but must lie prone; of others who can sit but cannot walk; and yet others who can walk only a few steps. It may be that I have come into contact with more cases of this kind than most hon. members; in any event I have definitely come to the conclusion that they are people who need help, even more, perhaps, than the blind, because they suffer so much and have no hope of ever being able to provide for themselves.
A year ago I went to the bureau of statistics and asked if I could get some data on the number of persons in Canada who, due to rheumatism, arthritis and other like diseases, are completely crippled, wholly disabled, but I was unable to get any figures because no returns were available. It seems to me that when the census is taken again we should be enabled to learn how many people there are in this country who are totally disabled and, to some extent at least, what caused them to be in that pitiable condition. I am taking the matter up on this resolution, because, in extending pensions to the blind at forty years of age, we did so under the Old Age Pensions Act. No doubt the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) wonders how many more classes of people are to be admitted to pensions under this act; but this seems to be the only place where one can bring up the question. In Ontario a woman in receipt of the mother's allowance receives, when her husband is totally disabled, an extra amount of money, not a great deal, but as much as would be allowed for another child. If her husband needs much care, that is, if there are medical expenses in connection with his disability, the allowance is not sufficient. But with that one exception -and the same may be true of other provinces-people totally disabled do not receive any pension until they are seventy years of age. I will cite two or three cases, and I

Old Age Pensions-Miss Macphail
am sure they will bring to mind similarly afflicted persons known to other hon. members.
In my constituency is a man who, when a boy, and still at public school, was afflicted with some rare disease which left him totally unable to walk or, as years went by, even to stand up. He is now in his forties, and most of the time since his early youth he has been compelled to lie prone; he can scarcely feed himself. He is very intelligent. He lived with his aged mother, who cared for him. At the age of eighty she died, before his eyes, from a heart attack; he, though seeing her, was unable to do anything except call for help, and help had hardly arrived before his mother was gone. Her death left him with no one to care for him and without any means of support. Everyone wanted to do the best they could for him-he had lived in the village all his life-but the only thing that could be done was to take him to the hospital, which happened to be at Hamilton. I wanted to have him live in his own village, because I knew it was breaking his heart to have to go away; but I found that the amount which the municipality were willing to contribute for his support would not be supplemented if he remained in the village, but only if he was taken to hospital in Hamilton; I am not familiar with the institution but I believe it is a place for incurables. In the summer when in his home village he was put in a sort of bed which can be wheeled outside, left there during the day and wheeled inside in the evenings, so he spent his summers in the garden, where his friends and neighbours called and talked with him. His case brought home to me what a cruel thing we had done to him although nobody intended to be cruel. From his public school days until the present time he has not been able to live anything that approaches a normal life; but in his own little cottage in his home village he really was happy; he had his radio, friends came in to read to him, talk to him and treat him in a human way. Then suddenly he is taken away, and as far as I can see-and I have tried to do everything I can- there seems no way of getting him home again. Last year some of his friends were able to take him home for a day or two, but it is not possible for him to remain there.
I will cite another case in my constituency. This woman developed in her forties what seemed to be ordinary rheumatism and it got worse and worse. She is now over seventy and can neither sit nor stand, though she could for many years. It was a progressive disease and each year she got worse. You can imagine how much it must cost to care for 5X952-50
a patient from some time in the forties to, say the age of seventy-two. This woman could now get an old age pension, but she lives on a farm. All this time she has suffered so much that one wonders how she can continue to live. Her stepson has taken care of her in a loving and admirable way. He has farmed the land and when he could afford it has kept help; when he cannot afford it he cares for her himself. She told me that she could apply for a pension; but she would have to sign away the farm on which they live, and she said that she could not have it taken away from her stepson, who has done so much for her. She therefore goes on suffering and hoping that the end will be not too long delayed. That has been her condition for many years. These happen to be personal friends of mine, but I am sure that hon. members can all call to mind similar cases.
On Saturday I got a letter from a young man in Quebec who says he is twenty-eight and for sixteen years has been unable to walk. His story is much the same; there is no one to take care of him and he does not know how in the world he is to be supported. There is no pension for him; he does not know where to go, and he wishes to know whether something can be done for him.
Strangely enough, the three letters I have received are all from the province of Quebec. I can give the names if anyone wishes to have them, but I think it is better not to give them. This young man writes:
Do you not think that it would be only fair to include the crippled and invalids in this law?
He is referring here to the pension to the blind, and he suggests giving the crippled and invalids a pension at forty years of age. He goes on:
It seems to me that I should be as much entitled as old people to receive a pension by the fact that I am unable to work and without means of livelihood. Old people very often can depend on either a son's or daughter's support.
Be says he has no children. The third letter came recently from the province of Quebec. The writer, a man, says:
I happen to be one of these unfortunates. I am thirty-eight years of age. I have to walk on crutches and my health is very frail. My folks are poor, my father being over sixty years of age, can only work during the summer season, he being too old to work as a lumberjack in the winter time. His income is about $400 a year to support four grown-up persons.
I had a small business, but on account of sickness I ran into debt and cannot see my way to build up another trade, being short of funds.



Old Age Pensions-Miss Macphail
He thinks he could work if he could get started at something.
I do not want to prolong the discussion. The need for action is clear to everyone. I was glad we did something for the blind; though it took us a long time we eventually got around to it. People who are totally incapacitated and are thereby denied the happiness of a normal life which the rest of us enjoy and who, moreover, often suffer excruciating pain, ought not as well to be worried by economic difficulties, and I submit that at the earliest possible date we ought to extend pensions to totally disabled persons.
People will ask where the money is to come from. Well, just recently I have been reading in the Star Weekly of Toronto the story of some birds of passage, rather wealthy birds who flit to the Bahamas. Pages are devoted to them. One of them is Mr. Harry Oakes, and he was justifying his flight on the ground that he might avoid taxes. I read that in the same island there was that eminent banker whom we all had the privilege of meeting in the banking committee many years ago, Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor. I read that Sir Herbert Holt also had gone to the Bahamas. If they care to go there it is all right with me; but at least I would see, if I were in the seats of the mighty, that they did not take with them all the great gifts which this country has so richly bestowed upon them, and that from such people income tax should be taken to such an increased extent as to afford large sums of money to be used in alleviating the suffering and mental distress of these our unfortunate fellow citizens. One should not become too perturbed at these newspaper articles; it is likely to cause high blood pressure; but if I did become agitated by such reading matter I would have been particularly violent when I read about these three men. This man, Harry Oakes, took the trouble to give an interview in which he defended himself. I thought he might have spared us that. I suggest that allowing these people of great means to avoid taxation by going to the Bahamas or elsewhere is an affront to all hard working and destitute Canadians, and I hope that something will be done about them before very long.
In conclusion, I would ask the house to consider the case of totally disabled persons.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened this afternoon to the arguments for reducing the pensionable age, and it seems to me there is everything to be said in favour of it; I can think of no real case against it.

What are the facts? It is admitted that a certain percentage of people will never again be able to find work and wages. Surely if men and women have put in forty or forty-five years of useful work they are entitled to a few years of leisure if they so desire. On the other hand, people who have reached the age of sixty or over and are not working and receiving wages have very little chance of getting work at that age. It seems that there is a feeling against granting leisure to anybody unless he possesses money. Money seems to be the one claim to leisure. Not only is that so; but if a man has pot saved money by the time he reaches old age, the feeling seems to be that, he should be punished for tihat very reason, by being made to work years after he is really physically incapable of doing so.
They say that when a man loses his money his follies become vices. It appears too that if a rich man gets out of bed he is a hard working citizen, whereas if a poor man gets into bed he is considered a lazy bum. Be that as it may, the only reason I can see against lowering the age for old age pensions is the expense. It will be said that the country cannot afford it. That may be true in a financial sense, but certainly it is not true in any real sense. Surely no one will say that the Canadian people, with all the power at their disposal, all the machinery and all the skill which they possess and their well known capacity for hard work-and if any people in the world have earned that reputation it is certainly the Canadian people- it is absurd to say that all those resources if used to their full capacity are not sufficient to sustain the people who are too old to be usefully employed.
Consider the rearmament plan in Great Britain; they are spending, I believe, S7.000.-000.000 in producing armaments. I do not wish to say anything for or against rearmament; that is not the question; my point is that the people of Great Britain are devoting themselves to accumulating an enormous supply of goods which are not for the use of the people who produce them. Yet everyone admits that on account of that program the people of Great Britain are very much better off than they were before; that their standard of living has risen, simply because the wages and salaries distributed for the making of those munitions have enabled the workers to get more and better food and spend more money on their amusements and pleasures. If part of that money had been distributed for other purposes than making shot and shell and battleships, the result would have been the same. People do not live in battleships and do not consume munitions; but, as I said, the increase

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Jagues
of money which has been distributed to the people of Great Britain through the production of armaments has raised the standard of living for the whole country. So that if the government financed these old age pensions in part by the creation of additional credit, which of course is the way in which these munitions are financed, not only could the rest of the people afford it but we would all be very much better off.
Of course people will say that would cause inflation. But in Great Britain in recent years they have spent thousands of millions of dollars on rearmament and there has been no serious inflation, so I fail to see why it would necessarily follow that if we distributed some extra purchasing power in this country there would be any danger of inflation. I know that is the bogey which is always trotted out if anyone suggests a little financing which is not quite orthodox. We are all supposed to be frightened at the word inflation. But there are means of avoiding inflation, and I am quite sure that we could very well deal with that if we had to. It is true that in the financial sense the people of this country and of all countries are overtaxed. It is not likely that they would be ready to agree to more taxation and more work. If people have to work it is poor treatment to bleed them at the same time. What they need is not bleeding but a little blood transfusion, a little blood pumped into them. If we could pump a little money into the people's pockets, we would all work better and be healthier and better off.
It might be said that old age pensions financed in that way would be in the form of a dividend. That, of course, is exactly what it would be. I gather from remarks made here a few days ago that to mention the word "dividend" is to lay oneself open to the charge of political corruption. Well as one who was accused of the gravest political corruption in the history of Canada let me take the opportunity of saying a few words on my own behalf. I do not think hon. members on the other side realize the true state of affairs in Alberta. The facts are that the people themselves were discussing monetary reform for some years; they formed study groups, and you cannot wonder, considering that they were getting five cents a bushel for their grain and next to nothing for their live stock. The more they studied monetary reform the more enthusiastic they became. They organized themselves in constituencies and when the time came they held conventions and nominated men to obtain what they wanted. The demand came from the people, not from those who have been
51952-56}
described as cheap politicians going out promising this, that and the other thing to get the people's voles. The people demanded that these things be obtained for them, and if a man accepted nomination it was on those terms. And the people have the remedy in their own hands; if those results are not obtained, they can at the next election turn these men out and replace them with others. That surely is democracy. Our election expenses were financed with nickels and dimes. My own personal election expenses were under 150, as the clerk can tell you. I think it was $37 I spent on my election, my personal expenses.


Charles Avery Dunning: You can never run one
as cheaply as that again.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Not with the example we are getting.


Norman Jaques: That remains to be seen.
Possibly I may not run again. Anyway 1 do not think you can say that $37 is an excessive sum to pay to obtain people's votes.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that as you travel among the people of Canada you find that people are not satisfied. Of course I have this advantage over the elder statesmen, in that I probably hear the truth, while they possibly do not. The people are a long way from being satisfied. It is not a case of Liberals or Conservatives. Parliament itself is on trial. The people are getting tired of electing representatives in a democratic way and getting nothing for it but further taxes. One thing is certain. If they do not obtain better results than they have been obtaining in the past their faith in parliamentary government will grow less and less. I should like to read a quotation from The Art of Central Banking, by Mr. R. G. Hawtrey, who is a secretary to the British treasury. He says:
The common factor in pre-war, and post-war, experience is the intimate association of the state of trade with the enlargements and compressions of consumers' income and i utlay effected by central banks. If this fundamental causal sequence were understood, the public would hardly acquiesce in the central banks proceeding from their position of complacent detachment to generate depressions, unemployment, bankruptcy, budget deficits and defaults, with all the resulting political and social convulsions while government after government is broken because it can neither stem the flood of ruin nor even provide tolerable palliatives to alleviate the consequences.
That was written not by a social crediter but by an orthodox economist, who is a secretary to the British treasury. We see the way things are going in Europe. The trend is all towards dictatorship. Parliament, as I
Old Age Pensions-Mr. Jagues

have found it, is like a very fine club the members of which are married to rich wives. They talk big about what they are going to do, but when they get home they are told what they are to do. So it is here. We talk very big before an election. We are going to issue currency and credit in terms of public need. We are going to fight the money power. We are to do I don't know what else, but we have not done very much. I do not blame one side of the house more than the other. The fact is that neither side can do anything until parliament regains control of the issue of currency and credit. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) can shake his head-*


Charles Avery Dunning: We have control of it right here. That is why I shake my head.


Norman Jaques: I am delighted to hear that we have control of it, in which case there is no reason why the figure of sixty-five years could not be reduced to sixty years.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why not to ten?


Norman Jaques: There is no need of that.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are fifty-eight now.


Norman Jaques: Quite right, and in two more years I would be eligible. But we have this problem. It is admitted by the commission that thousands, and I think hundreds of thousands, of people can never hope for gainful employment in spite of the improvement in the financial figures. Employment does not seem to show a great deal of improvement. There are hundreds of thousands of people out of work in Canada. There is the problem, and it has to be solved in some way. It is not my place to tell ministers of the crown how to finance the thing, but I suggest that the interests of those old people, most of whom have lifetimes of work behind them, should be placed before the interests of the few people who control finance. Believe me, this knowledge about finance is spreading. You cannot hoodwink the people all the time and, as Mr. Hawtrey says, when this casual sequence begins to be understood, things will be different. It is beginning to be understood now; make no mistake about that. Alberta proved it, and do not think that if the provincial government of Alberta is blocked, that is going to be the end of it. Those ideas are spreading all over the world, wherever liberty still remains; and if we want to preserve what liberty we have; if we want to preserve parliamentary government as we know it, then parliament cannot remain in the power of finance, as it certainly is to-day.
fMr. Jaoues.1


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the whole house is grateful indeed for the opportunity that has been afforded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) to discuss this important question, which goes very deep into the social activities of any country, and more particularly Canada. I was glad also to notice that not one of the previous speakers has decried this debate on the ground that we have been wasting the time of the house. I heard that remark made on several occasions previously; for instance, it was made with regard to the discussion on the flag. No time is wasted when we discuss some national, important problem which affects every constituency in this country. Again I say sincerely that I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North should be complimented by all parties in this house upon having given us an opportunity of discussing the all important problem of old age pensions.
(Translation) I wish also to offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Wermenlinger) for the speech he delivered a few moments ago. One or two points of his speech, however, I should like him to explain. He stated that when this matter was discussed a few years ago members, of the house had been called communists or socialists because they had declared themselves in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). As far as I am concerned, I followed this discussion very carefully a few years ago., and I heard no such accusation made from any side of the house.
The hon. member for Verdun also said that those who had opposed the resolution a few years ago had stated that to lower the pensionable age limit would be to encourage laziness. Once again, I must plead ignorance, for I never heard any member of this house make any such statement.
The hon. member stated also-I do not know how serious he was-that it would be possible to effect a saving by reducing the expenses of the Rowell commission. I do not suppose that the hon. member meant to say that this expenditure is entirely useless. As for me- and I think that in this I faithfully reflect the feeling of my constituents-I am convinced that the appointment of the Rowell commission last autumn was one of the best moves the dominion government ever made. Those who followed the history of this country throughout the last fifteen years could hear murmurs from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In Ontario, part of which I have the honour to represent, there was almost open talk of secession. I grant that such a movement did

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Bradette
not go very deep. However, murmurs of it reached Ottawa. The same thing happened in Quebec, in the western provinces and in the maritime provinces. The hour had come when the dominion government was in duty bound to appoint a commission which would visit the various provinces and hear the grievances of each part of the country presented in an orderly manner. That was not all. The out-and-out advocates of local autonomy who, in many cases, aimed at the destruction of national life, would find themselves there in a forum where they necessarily had to be impartial and reasonable. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the moment they appear before the Rowell commission their statements are given wide publicity from one end of the country to the other, and any false reasoning on their part subjects them to ridicule. Did we not see last autumn alliances formed in some parts of the country with the object of combating the actions of the federal government? I repeat, the present administration deserves the congratulations of the Canadian people for having created the Rowell commission which is seeking the solution of the serious problems now facing this country.
The hon. member for Verdun deemed it logical-I shall not discuss the point-to seek from a national lottery the money required to lower the age limit for old-age pensions. He alluded to a bill to this effect submitted by a Montreal city member and to the problem that will be discussed on the second reading of this bill. Mr. Speaker, it would take at least fifty lotteries to solve all the financial problems with which the country is faced and to supply the funds required for all the social institutions we should like to establish in Canada, and I would not be in favour of establishing lotteries on so large a scale.
(Text) No one could have any quarrel with the resolution. Generally speaking, no one has any quarrel with the solution of the old age pension problem. Providing for the old people was a necessity which was perhaps long overdue. But first things must come first and, Mr. Speaker, this is the forum in which we should speak our own minds sincerely and honestly. I state deliberately that first of all, in its full integrity, we must apply the present old age pension system.
I could refer to dozens of cases, and give positive facts showing a misuse of old age pensions. I shall cite one typical case. Prior to 1930 a farmer from a point north of Cochrane-if necessary I shall give the name- asked me if he would get an old age pension. I said that he would not. I told him he could not get it and he was not entitled to it because he was a well-to-do farmer and
could live on his income. I added that his son owed obligations to him, and that as a result he and his wife would be looked after for the rest of their days. But my opponent promised the man that if he would vote for him the pension would be given-and he got it. I say that man should not have received a pension.
We have had several of those cases. The provincial government in Ontario sent out a questionnaire to pensioners in that province, asking the exact facts in each case. In some instances it appears that the pension worked to the detriment of the people who received it. I do not wish to be misquoted, and hasten to state that I am absolutely in favour of the principle of old age pensions; but I must repeat that there is so much abuse of the system now in use that I am in favour of applying the principle universally, and giving the old age pension to all persons over seventy years. That would do away with many of the false statements and the injustices which now exist. If investigations were made in connection with some applications which have been granted, some people would find themselves in gaol, and against the principle of of the act. These are conditions which we must avoid. We must have the interest not only of parliament, but of the people who receive money from a provincial or federal treasury. I have seen so many strange things going on in that regard that in order to improve our Canadian life, I would be in favour of universal application of old age pensions.
Possibly I should point out some of the pertinent facts. There can be no doubt in the mind of any parliamentarian, whether he be in a provincial or a federal house, that conditions are changing rapidly; that there are evolutionary changes in many respects, and that there are more and more social activities in the different provinces. May I set out some of the figures supplied for the year 1936, indicating social improvement activities. In Ontario, where old age pensions, mothers' allowances and other matters of the kind are administered by the Department of Public Welfare, 120,000 Ontarians look to that department for their monthly cheques. I speak only of provincial activities, and I do not include in these figures pensions given by the federal and the provincial governments to civil servants. I do not include pensions given to veterans from the federal treasury, but speak only of the provincial field. So when someone says we are not running very fast, I say that we are walking very steadily, at least in some directions.
In 1936 there were in Ontario more than 56,000 old age pensioners, and the number is

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Bradette
increasing at the rate of 2,500 a year. At the present time in Ontario there are 60,000 old age pensioners. Before we applied the principle of old age pensions to Ontario, a survey was made by government officials, and it was shown that the maximum number of pensions sought in Ontario stood at 25,000. When we see the number now given one realizes that it is impossible to have any accurate figures beforehand in connection with the application of social activities.
I believe every citizen in Canada was proud to learn that pensions were to be given to the blind. In Ontario, because of the addition of that group, 3,000 to 4,000 new pensioners were added to the list. I say this was a worthy national investment, and I know there was not a single word of criticism with respect to it from any part of Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was stating how appreciative I was of this opportunity to discuss this resolution. I had said that I was not in favour of lowering the present age limit of seventy years until such time as all the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act had been implemented, and for other reasons which I shall enumerate in a few moments. I was also outlining the different social activities of the province of Ontario. Being used in conjunction with the Old Age Pensions Act we have the Parents' Maintenance Act, an act which in my opinion is absolutely impossible of application. There is an old proverb which says that you cannot whip a dog to hunt, and the same thing applies to certain young people who do not want to help their old folks. It is too bad that the fourth commandment cannot be implemented fully, because in keeping this commandment the young people of both sexes would be greatly blessed. However, I must admit that there have come before the tribunals in my section of the country cases where young people have absolutely refused to help their old parents and cannot be compelled by the law to do so.
We have the Mothers' Allowance Act which is functioning well in Ontario. In 1936 there were in the province 11,500 mothers as well as 30,000 children, receiving help under this act. There is also the Neglected Children's Act under which fifty-four children's aid societies operate. These societies are given the power to interfere with the manner in which children are being brought up. Any

one at all familiar with the administration of this act realizes the good that has been accomplished. A total of 23,500 cases were dealt with; 1,000 children were made wards and 850 others were adopted into better families.
We also have the Unmarried Parents' Act, under which 2,500 cases were dealt with last year. The province also maintains three industrial and two training schools where the idea is not to punish but to recreate and send the children back to society after they have mended their ways. This is brought about by providing the proper education in the right environment. I shall not mention the hospitalization which is carried on under provincial administration, the public health work, the tuberculosis sanataria and the asylums. I believe Ontario was the first province to intimate that it was in favour of the principle of unemployment insurance. As soon as the legislation is passed by the central government, it will be applied in the province.
We do not want to remain in one place; we want to keep moving forward; but in considering these social activities there are always financial responsibilities which must be considered. I shall deal with these in a moment. At this time I should like to compliment the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) on what she said this afternoon. Before the present old age pension age limit is lowered, I should like to see all those unable to work, through either disability or other causes, receiving sufficient compensation from the government-not to be wards of the government-to make it possible for them at least to keep body and soul together. I believe this was mentioned in the reports issued by the employment commission last year. Any civilized country should find it possible to pension off those who are unable to work and this pension should be granted regardless of age or sex.
I listened attentively this afternoon to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis). The hon. member referred to the fact that machinery was replacing more and more men. He must believe implicitly in the theories of the technocrats. That statement may be true if applied to a particular industry, and there is no doubt that in the last twenty years many men have been replaced by machinery. The only solution of the problem that this creates is shortening the hours of labour. I well remember the agitation which was carried on in the early days of the silver mining section of Cobalt. I was working with the labour leaders, and I can remember how we used to talk in terms of an eight hour day. Some thought we would never see that in our generation, but to-day

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Bradette
it is an accomplished fact. With the highly mechanized state of our industry I do not think the time is far distant when we shall have the six hour day principle applied to the industries of this country.
The replacement of men by machines has not been as great as one might be inclined to believe, and it has created a great deal of employment. The fact is that these machines must be created and maintained in operation. The great automobile industry is an example of this. The automobile is a modern invention and no one will say that it was a bad thing for mankind, and that it has not created employment. The same thing is demonstrated by the telephone. In this country, in the United States and in all other countries that use this modern invention, employment is given to tens of thousands of people. In these instances machinery has not entirely replaced the human factor. The same applies to the telegraph and to the radio. We have at least 10,000 people who are directly occupied to-day with radio activities. The same applies to wireless, to aviation and to mining.
The section of the country which I have the honour to represent, the Porcupine district of Ontario, would never have been developed to its present state were it not for the heavy machinery which permitted boring to great depths through the solid rock. A single ounce of gold would never have been produced with the old equipment. There is very little placer gold in this country. The same thing may be said of our other heavy industries. We must not overlook the development of our water powers which has meant so much to Canada. This has been possible because of the machines available. We must be careful and not paint a sad picture by saying that machinery is replacing men to such an extent as to upset our civilization.
These machines must be invented; they must be built, and they must be maintained. Anyone familiar with the fast pace of our industrial life will realize that to-day the average life of a machine is not more than seven or eight years. Not only must these machines be rebuilt, but in many cases they must be replaced entirely. These are matters that should be remembered when discussing this question. We talk in broad terms about the wonderful natural resources of this country, but we must not forget that all these resources were here a thousand years ago. They were here before the shores of the St. Lawrence were colonized by France and before the country was conquered by the British.
These natural resources were not developed. There is only one factor which brought them to development, and that again was the human one. We must be very careful in our statements on this matter. What we have here in the way of natural resources we have to work and fight for. The climatic conditions of Canada are very severe. Sometimes we speak of the wonderful areas which belong to us. It is true that this country is of tremendous size, but some of our great open spaces will be "open" till the end of time. It is very easy to make appeals on a basis of this kind to the passions of the people; but I repeat that it is true of my own province of Ontario and many other sections that our resources are not unlimited, and such as exist must be developed by the human factor, by human labour and inventiveness.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques), speaking to-day of the increased expenditures in which the implementation of this resolution would involve the government, remarked that the matter was subject to the question of financing it but that that should be a secondary consideration. Well, though I am a great optimist I am not as optimistic as all that. I have been in the house for a good many years. When I first came to this chamber the finance minister was the late lamented Hon. Mr. Robb. He was a minister of vision and ability, but even in those so-called boom years he had some financial worries. Later on he was replaced by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). Then we had a change of government and for a year or two the portfolio was held by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and later by the present Senator Rhodes. Then the government changed, and again the position is held by the present occupant. The men who hold that difficult position must be realists; they cannot afford to experiment to any great extent with the finances of the country. It is not their money; it is public finance, the money of the people.
It has often struck me as significant that these men are not prepared to take the easy way, according to some theorists here. How much simpler it would be, for instance, to start a printing press and to cover the cost of the pensions of great war veterans by issuing at one stroke some fifty-two millions of dollars, or to print another fifty millions of dollars to cover the deficits on the Canadian National Railways, or to meet interest charges. That would be the easy way, let me say in all sincerity to the Minister of Finance, to preserve his health and avoid worry; apparently all he has to do is to get the

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Bradette
printing press going over night and tomorrow we should all have a lot of brand new bills of the Bank of Canada, covering all administration expenditures. I myself could do with a few. But we are realists; we are members of parliament sent here by our constituents to deal in a logical way with the problems of this country. Surely past and present ministers of finance, who must know the financial system of this country and the monetary systems of the world, and who no doubt suffer sleepless nights because of the requests made upon their department, that they cannot implement, would be much happier men if, upon the discussion of a resolution such as this, they could say to you, Mr. Speaker, "I am not satisfied to leave the pensionable age at sixty-five years; I am going to reduce it to fifty years and to pay forty dollars a month instead of twenty." That would be a wonderful statement, even politically speaking, for a minister to be able to make. It would be much easier for me to be reelected if the present minister could do so.
But again we must face the situation as it is. It is fine to be a theorist about the monetary system; it is pleasant to -talk of a coming day when the government will be such a wonderful Santa Claus that everything we require from it will be granted. I have no personal grievance against the Social Credit group. But let me examine their position as it might affect our province. Taking the minimum sum they promised during the last election, and applying it to my own riding, if the fifty thousand adults there were to get twenty-five dollars a month each there would be 11,250,000 per month for my constituency. Multiply that by the twelve months of the year, and you have an annual distribution of $15,000,000 in my constituency to adults alone. There is no doubt that that would be greatly welcomed and rapidly spent. But enlarge the field; apply the principle to the whole of Canada, and multiply the sum of $15,000,000 by 245 ridings; at the end of the year you would have distributed $3,675,000,000 to adults only. If you include the children, who would be entitled to some compensation, the amount would be not less than $4,500,000,000, and if you total these distributions for the life of the present parliament they would come to the enormous sum of $22,500,000,000.


Mr. KUHL:: Is it physically possible?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is physically impossible. We talk of priming the financial pump-


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Are the goods and the services there?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The inflation would be over twenty-two billions of dollars. We must

realize what that would mean. The dollars in our own pockets which now have some value would then have no value whatever; you could not exchange them for the value of the printed matter there is on them. We must be practical in dealing with such matters, because they are important. I am not going to argue that the present monetary system is absolutely perfect; it is far from it. I believe it should be amended from year to year, and that it should be possible for us to achieve a better relation between production and distribution. The age of need must have disappeared; we have demonstrated that to some extent by the surpluses of all kinds which we have had. But let us not fool ourselves on that account. In this country we may have surpluses of wheat and some other grains; but we have not a surplus of all the commodities required, and so we have to exchange with other nations such surpluses as we have for the goods we require from them. People talk of priming the financial pump. To issue currency in the manner that has been suggested would not be "priming"; we should strike such a huge undercurrent stream that we would have the biggest flood in phony money which has ever been known since that first flood which covered the whole world.
These are considerations we must keep in mind when we discuss the problems of this country. It is easy to make in this chamber proposals which we must know are absolutely impossible of application. I wish it were possible that some hon. members had to undertake for a month or so the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance, and to learn from experience the impossibility of implementing all the requests that are made.
I shall, however, make this observation, that I sincerely believe if ever inflation is carried out by any government, it will be for the enlargement of the social activities of the state, to help the sick and the old and the blind, and that is the very best purpose to which it could be applied.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: What is inflation?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well, I am not going to theorize on that point. We had an example of it during the war. But I would like hon. members to realize that nowhere in this world, under any circumstances, can you get something for nothing.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Is there inflation in England now?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is a philosophy which has been with us ever since the birth of time, and we cannot get away from it.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Bradette


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Have they inflation in Britain now?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is inflation in this sense, that the government has perfect control of it.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Would you be in favour of controlled inflation?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Controlled, yes. But nobody will make me believe that the redistribution in this country in four or five years of 822.500,000,000 of new money would be a solution of the problems we are facing at the present time.
I do not want to enlarge too much on this question, but I come to the statement made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that there are in our midst many people who will never be able to do a good day's work. Undoubtedly we have a great number of unemployed, young and old, but old age is only relative. When we speak of providing a pension for people of sixty-five we must realize that it would not be satisfactory to some people of that age to be pensioned off. I believe it was the present leader of the opposition who, during the election of 1935, said he was going to pension people at the age of fifty. How many members of this chamber would care to be retired at the age of fifty? I know many men who can do a good day's work at a much greater age; I could cite many instances of farmers of sixty and over who can still do a better day's work than some men of twenty or thirty. Old age is only relative, and I would not make the pensionable age lower than it is now until such time as we fully implemented the provisions of the existing act. I have referred to some of the abuses, and I hope some hon. members will enlarge on that.
Again I say, let us be realists as far as possible. After all, governmental expenditures are made under a capitalist system; the present system of government is based upon that principle. I do not believe that any one in this house would want to have governmental capitalism such as they have in Russia. There might be some improvement in old age pensions under such a system; but I would ask anyone who advocates such a system, Does he realize the cost of government in human blood and human misery where that system prevails? I am sure no one wants those things in Canada; no one wants them under our British institutions. If ever the day comes when any of the parties sitting to the left of the speaker should form a government, and if I happen to be sitting in the opposition then, I shall be as fair to them as I want them to be to the government to-day. Well, what is being advocated now?
It has been said over and over again that if we had another war it would be possible to finance it. I make this prophecy, that if there were another war Canada would not have provoked it nor would Canada be on the offensive. Canada did not want the war of 1914, and there is not a single member who could criticize our attitude from 1914 to 1918.
We want to solve the problem which we are discussing to-night, just as we want to solve all the problems that face the dominion to-day, because we do not want to see anybody in our constituencies suffer. We want to see people enter, into the more abundant life and be engaged in fruitful occupations, and we want to see something done for the youth of the country. I, for one, do not want to see military service in Canada such as they have in Europe. I wonder whether hon. members have pondered the statement made by Hitler some three years ago when France was alarmed at the discovery that a million young Germans were being conscripted for the army. What did Hitler say? To appease France, he said that these men were simply being taken out of the ranks of the unemployed. Surely we do not want two or three hundred thousand young Canadians given employment by this means; we do not want to have them similarly conscripted for military service. There are great undertakings ahead of us in Canada such as reforestation and the development of agriculture. There are a hundred and one ways of employing the youth of the country without adopting any policy such as we see in Europe.
If it were possible, I should like to see the age limit lowered to sixty-five, but I believe that the mover of the resolution is just as fully aware of the difficulties as the rest of us in this house are. He is a humanitarian and he suffers with those who suffer. Just as we all feel in this matter, he wants them to be happy and to live the fuller life, and for that reason, in view of the difficulties which lie in the path of the proposal that he has made, I hope he will find it possible to withdraw his resolutioi*
Hon. CHORES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance)*: I ^understand that quite a number of members desire to speak on the resolution, and I wish to take this opportunity of putting before the house the point of view of the government in connection with it.
Speaking for myself, no resolution which comes before the house strikes a closer chord of sympathy than the one now under discussion. The subject is one with which I am concerned in an administrative way as the officer of the government who must deal with the provinces with regard to the matter, and consequently

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Dunning
from day to day, throughout the year, I hear much in the way of criticism of the present system, both of its shortcomings from the .point of view of social service and also of the abuses which are alleged in all provinces to have crept into the administration of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: All provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe all provinces, yes. There have come from all provinces, in some cases in greater volume than in others, allegations of abuse of the principle of the old age pension system. Neither the shortcomings nor the abuses, however, should deter this parliament from considering forward steps in connection with social legislation of such importance. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) on this occasion has framed his resolution much more cleverly, if I may say so, than formerly. He has framed it in such a way that it is very difficult for .any member of the house to express dissent from the object sought. But I wish to analyse it for a few moments.
Leaving aside the preamble, which does not very much matter except as an introduction to the resolution itself, the motion reads:
Therefore, be it resolved,-that this house would welcome a government declaration of policy that would bring about an immediate lowering of the present pensionable age limit of seventy years, the effect of such being that the older generation would retire from industrial activity, thereby creating opportunities for the younger generation to be usefully and gainfully employed.
Why not a resolution that this house would welcome a government declaration of policy that would bring about a sufficiency of rain in the western prairies? My hon. friend treats the subject, and not quite innocently, as if .a government declaration of policy in this house could effectuate the object which his [DOT]resolution seeks. That is not the case

* yes, there is one form of government declaration of policy in this house which might bring it about; and I am speaking now to the trustees of the Canadian people when I put it to them. There is one form of declaration which might effect the result, and that is for this government, representing this parliament, to express the willingness of the national parliament of Canada as a whole to take over all of the additional cost which would be represented by lowering the pensionable age from seventy to some other point-the resolution does not determine the point, but the mover says sixty-five and some others say sixty. It is possible that the provinces of Canada -would agree, provided the government of the *dominion agreed to assume all of the cost represented by the lowering of the pensionable age to whatever point might be decided .upon.

In so far as the present old age pension scheme is concerned, I do not think there is much chance of getting all of the nine provinces to agree to bear their share of what would be represented by the additional cost to both dominion and provinces of making the change which is advocated. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that when this dominion parliament decided that we should have a dominion-wide old age pension scheme, we could only decide to do that provided the provinces in the exercise of their exclusive constitutional authority with respect to the matter would enter into partnership with us. And they did-slowly. The last province of the nine came in only about two years ago; Quebec came in in 1936, I think. We are in no position to force old age pensions upon any province in Canada. We are in the position of contributing as the national entity towards something which is constitutionally a provincial responsibility.
I sometimes question the wisdom in the long run of these extra-constitutional financial arrangements between the dominion on the one hand and the provinces on the other. The old age pension scheme has been an excellent illustration, throughout the years of its operation, of the difficulties which are inherent in the system of evading our constitution by means of agreements between the dominion on the one hand and each one of the nine provinces separately on the -other. We agreed first upon what might be called the skeleton of the scheme. In order to qualify for the assistance offered by the dominion a province engaged to enact a certain type of old age pension legislation to fit into the general national scheme. I wonder whether the house realizes how difficult it is in those circumstances to secure reasonable uniformity in administration from one end of Canada to the other; how particularly difficult it is, after having secured agreement upon the initial legislation which the provinces shall enact, and when as a result of experience it becomes clear that amendments are necessary, to get each one of the nine provinces to agree upon the nature and scope of those necessary amendments; and how impossible it is to work a dominion-provincial agreement if one province or one group of provinces is legislating along a different line from the other eight, or two from the other seven, or three from the other six.
During the two years since this government came into office, I have had the experience of endeavouring to deal with this problem, concluding with a conference of the nine provinces last fall in an endeavour-I think a sincere endeavour on the part of all-to accomplish two things; to remove, on the

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Dunning
one hand those anomalies in the regulations which had the effect of depriving really deserving persons of the benefit of the act, and, on the other, those weaknesses in the regulations which made possible abuses in the payment of pensions to persons whom neither this parliament nor the legislatures really intended should receive the benefits of the legislation. I am bound to say that after we had wrestled with the matter for the best part of a week a greater degree of unanimity became manifest than I had ever before experienced in a dominion-provincial conference, and as a result I think there is a considerable improvement in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act.
I am convinced, however, that you cannot have the maximum of efficiency and of fairness in the administration of an old age pension scheme administered as this one is by each of nine provinces operating within the scope of its own sole jurisdiction, and the dominion government putting up seventy-five per cent of what they spend for old age pensions, with the right of audit but with no right to interfere with the manner in which the province i& administering its own law. So I say again the experience with old age pensions does not encourage me to believe that the path of concurrent legislation as between each of nine provinces on the one hand and the dominion on the other is a desirable way to tackle our social problems. I refer to it particularly in relation to social problems because it is in the field of social legislation that the principal difficulty exists in connection with our provincial-federal constitution. In the field of labour legislation and social legislation generally our constitution as it stands at present imposes most of the obligation upon the provinces or upon such creatures as the provinces may create in the form of municipalities or othyinstitutions to carry out that obliga-tianjK shall before concluding make a few sugMGtions along that line looking to the future; but in the meantime I want to look realistically at the side of the picture which the Minister of Finance must look at, that of the cost of any proposal of magnitude which comes before the house. When I speak of cost in this connection I mean cost in terms of money which is generally acceptable, money which we are all willing to accept at one hundred cents on the dollar. I am not discussing to-night any other kind of money than that which is in my pocket and, I assume, in the pockets of everyone else here. I know from experience that the people receiving old age pensions expect to receive money which will be good from one end of Canada to the
other. Therefore I shall not indulge my hon friends in the corner to-night by a discussion of the control of credit and currency in Canada.


Mr. QUELCH:: We have that now.
%


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope on some future occasion, if opportunity serves and hon. members will give me sufficient time, to demonstrate to the house that this parliament through instruments which it has created and which are now in operation does control currency and credit in Canada day by day, week by week and month by month. The only question is whether the proper methods of control of credit and currency are being used by the instruments which this parliament has created and which are under its own control for that purpose. On some future occasion I shall attempt to demonstrate that this function is being performed by the instruments which parliament created for the purpose, and that the control is real and continuous. My hon. friends in the comer will then have an opportunity-I am sure they want it-to tell us what their kind of money really is and how their control of credit and currency would function. - - ->
For my own part I find it difficult to understand any scheme for giving money or its equivalent to any part of the Canadian people without taking money or its equivalent in equal measure from the rest of the Canadian people. You may describe wealth in any terms you like, Mr. Speaker, but you cannot change that principle. At the present time in our economy, if we want to redistribute wealth-and in measure any old age pension scheme is a redistribution of wealth-wre have one method whereby we can secure the wherewithal to do it. That is to tax all of the people in order to be able to give the proceeds of that taxation to some of the people. That is a very well recognized method, and if there is any more painless method which can be suggested by my hon. friends in the corner I am willing to sit at their feet and learn. But I must say that after reading all of their literature I have come to the conclusion that it merely involves calling things by different names and multiplying them. However, there will be a further opportunity to discuss that matter, I am sure, and I know my hon. friends well enough to know that they will welcome it just as much a^I will.


XMow, what will this cost, in terms of cost That are understandable to all of us. Our hon. friends of the social credit group have an advantage over the rest of us. They can understand quite easily what we mean in terms of cost; they function under the same system as we do; but all the rest of us find it

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Dunning
very difficult to understand what they mean in terms of cost. So let it be understood that what I am speaking of to-night when I speak of cost is in terms of cost in Canadian dollars accepted by the Canadian people as being capable of buying a dollar's worth from Halifax to Vancouver.
If we assume that the hon. member for Winnipeg North means by his resolution a reduction of the qualifying age to sixty-five- the resolution does not say that, but in his address my hon. friend indicated that this. was what was in his mind, although I am quite sure that he would regard it as only a first step-then what would be the cost? And in this connection it must be remembered that the cost to the dominion for the coming fiscal year under the present old age pension scheme will be about $30,000,000. At the present time there are 175,000 persons receiving old age pensions in Canada. It is estimated that this number will be 177,000 by the beginning of the next fiscal year, on April 1. If we move the age limit from seventy to sixty-five, the total cost of old age pensions to the dominion alone for the next fiscal year will be over $48,000,000. It will be understood, Mr. Speaker, that in these figures I am not including the share of the provinces. It is necessary to add twenty-five per cent to the figures I have given as the dominion cost in order to arrive at the total cost to the country.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Does that take into consideration those who will come in during the next fiscal year who are not in now, or is that on the basis of those now receiving pensions?


Charles Avery Dunning: The estimate of $30,000,000 for the next fiscal year is on the basis of what it is estimated will be the number during that year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not the number now?


Charles Avery Dunning: The number now, as I indicated, is 175,000, and we are estimating 177,000 for the coming fiscal year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On what percentage is the minister basing his figure? He stated this afternoon that approximately fifty per cent of those at present over seventy years of age are in receipt of old age pensions.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit, after I get through with this point I shall give the percentages receiving old age pensions in each of the provinces of Canada, but I would rather finish the financial statement first. That is clear, Mr. Speaker. If we lower the age to sixty-five years, it is 
estimated that the cost to the dominion for the next fiscal year would be $48,000,000. If we lowered it to sixty years, the cost to the dominion during the next fiscal year alone would be $71,646,000.
We have to look to the future in connection with this matter of old age pensions from the cost point of view, and in this connection it must be remembered that the number of those seventy and over, according to the best estimates, will steadily increase during at least the next thirty years, the reason being that a large portion of our population came here as adults, or at least a large portion of our population being immigrants and not being born here, the number of old people will tend to increase for a considerable period of years to come. A study of different age groups in the last census returns of Canada will confirm this tendency. These figures of population have been carefully studied in relation to the number of those seventy and over who might be reasonably expected to be old age pensioners, judging by the experience we have had up to date. Thus we find that even on the basis of the present qualifying age of seventy, and on the basis of the payments presently being made, it is anticipated that the cost of pensions to the dominion in 1941, aside from administrative costs, will be $46.300,000; in 1951, $62,000,000; in 1961. $82,200,000 and in 1971, $92,800,000 without adding to the amount of pension and without reducing the qualifying age.


Mr. LAWSON:: Those figures are based on age seventy?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are based on age seventy and upon the average amount of pensions now being paid to the proportion of people over seventy, in each of the years which I have named, the same proportion of those now over seventy as are receiving pensions. That is a little complex, but I think I have made it fairly clear.
Just here I should like to remind the house once again that a declaration of policy by the government, as requested by the resolution, implies, I think, that the provinces would continue the proportion they are now paying. I doubt very much if many of the provinces would be able financially, at present at any rate, to stand the increased amount which would be required of them to make up their twenty-five per cent of what would be involved in such an increase. I know that a number of the provinces are having their difficulties to-day in carrying successfully the twenty-five per cent they are obligated to pay under the present agreements between the dominion and those provinces.

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Dunning


Richard Langton Baker: Very likely the dominion government will have to give them the money with which to pay.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no doubt that
every one of the provinces would welcome a declaration by the dominion that it would pay the whole of the added cost. I am reasonably sure none of them would welcome any other kind of declaration of policy.
I wonder if there is not. at least to some extent, a fallacy in that part of the resolution which assumes that the lowering of the pensionable age would increase the degree of employment opportunity for youth. Other speakers have touched upon that point. My own experience with men in industry who can retire on pensions associated with that industry, or people who could retire on pensions associated with the civil service, is that those people are most reluctant to retire on pension. The great proportion of them wish to continue working. Even those who in a great many instances would be practically as well off on pension as they are working, prefer to keep on working. How often have we heard it said that a man apparently in the full vigour of his late manhood, has retired, expecting to enjoy life for a number of years, but somehow or another he has not lived very long?
Many of us, I am sure, have had friends who retired expecting to enjoy to the full the later years in their lives, but who, because of losing the incentive, and because of losing the joy of work-because work is not a curse; it is a blessing-have found that instead of prolonging their lives have, in all too many instances, shortened them. To that extent I think there is a fallacy at least in degree in the latter part of the resolution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is talking about white collar workers, not manual workers.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, manual workers,
positively. I am speaking about manual workers; that has been my experience with them in industry.


Mr. SPENCE:: Manual workers even more
so.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ask the executives of the great railways, which have pension schemes, how the men do their best to stay on, in some capacity or another, rather than go on pension.
I promised the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I would give him some information concerning the present percentage of
those on old age pensions in the various provinces. The following table will set out the percentage of persons over seventy years of age who are in receipt of old age pensions:
Per cent
Alberta	 54-19
British Columbia	 42-81
Manitoba	 53-90
New Brunswick	 61-23
Nova Scotia	 51-53
Ontario	 35-50
Prince Edward Island	 31-22
Quebec	 41-16
Saskatchewan	 53-18
Northwest Territories	 7-
Quebec appears to have done fairly well in the shorter time in which the scheme has operated in that province. Then, the figure for the Northwest Territories is scarcely a comparable one.


Mr. MALLETTE:: Would the minister kindly state who supplied the figures for Quebec?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are our own calculations, from the Quebec records.
I do not intend to take up much more time, but I should like to indicate what I sincerely believe ought to be our objective and our course with respect to the problem of old age pensions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I asked the minister to give the house the figures on which he was making his estimate as to the increased cost involved in a change from seventy to sixty-five years.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not quite understand the hon. member.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister took as a basis that approximately fifty per cent of those over seventy were receiving pensions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would he say there would be about the same percentage between the years sixty-five and seventy who would be entitled to pension?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the same proportion. The experience in other countries has been our gukfe in that regard.
conclusion, I should like to give the rtiouse an indication of what I believe our objective should be with regard to old age pensions, and also some idea of the course I think we should pursue in attaining that objective. In the first place, experience in operating this type of social legislation, from the dominion point of view, convinces me that we should look towards a national scheme of old age pensions, nationally administered. I am convinced, in the second place, that the British system of making the lowering of the
894	COMMONS
Old Age Pensions-Mr. Dunning
age limit contingent upon the contributory feature is a sound objective to pursue, and that we should look in that direction. Indeed, I am one who believes that there is no limit to what can be worked out in the direction of lowering the age limit, provided we had a national scheme, nationally administered, and provided that the period below seventy years was made definitely contributory.
I think the experience of the British scheme gives us considerable data to work upon in that regard, and I believe that broadly our objective should be, as I have just stated, ultimately to reach a place where we would have a national scheme of old age pensions, nationally administered, and with the contributory feature prominently associated with any ages lower than the age of seventy, which is the present qualifying limit. I shall not attempt to go into further detail along that line. It would require quite a little time, but I believe that these objectives are sound.
Now, as to the course which should be taken to attain them. As I indicated at the opening of my remarks, at the present time we are in the position of not having legislative jurisdiction with respect to this matter. There are high constitutional authorities in this house of parliament who take the view that it is doubtful if we have the constitutional authority to pay the seventy-five per cent which we are now paying to the provinces. That view has been expressed on more than one occasion in this house and while I do not hold with it, at least it gives an indication of the difficulty surrounding the attainment of the national objectives which I have just described.
Therefore, we must somehow reach a place where the constitutional authority in the matter is beyond question, where this parliament can set up an old age pensions scheme of a type it deems to be desirable and also have the power to administer. When I say that, it must be remembered that I am not unmindful of the extra cost to the dominion that would be involved or of the fact that if this parliament assumes a burden which the constitution presently places upon the provinces, then this parliament must receive access to fields of taxation, sufficient to enable it to meet the added costs in a national way. If we undertake greater national responsibility, then we must have wider national fields from which to derive the revenues necessary to maintain those national responsibilities and national institutions.
My hope is that out of the investigation now being carried on by the Rowell commission into the financial relationships of our

confederation there may /gradually grow up an appreciation of those services which are essentially national, on the one hand, and those services which are essentially provincial and local, on the other, and that out of it there may come an agreement that we must have a readjustment, not only of the burden of function but also of the ability to secure from the Canadian people the wherewithal to discharge that function.
I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North upon having brought forward this matter once more in the manner he has. I think the debate has been constructive thus far and I am not intending to close it. However, I did want to put before the house the viewpoint of the government based upon the experience we have had and also the hope of the government for the future with respect to the solution of this problem. I believe we would be hindering rather than helping the ultimate solution by plunging in the direction the hon. member f (^Winnipeg North desires us to plunge.


Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the house can fail to be most sympathetic with this resolution. While the resolution does not specify the granting of an old age pension at the age of sixty-five years, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has specified that as the age at which a pension should be granted. We all know that there are men and women of thirty-five years of age who through physical disability are perhaps older than other men and women of seventy or seventy-five years. We are not all constituted the same and we cannot all stand the same degree of work or anxiety. Eventually I dare say that this will be the age when these old age pensions will be granted.
I quite agree with the hon. minister who has just spoken when he says that any self-respecting man or woman would far rather work, no matter how difficult it may be, than have to rely upon a pension. If I had my health and strength I would not thank anybody for giving me a pension as long as I could earn enough to support myself. I do not agree with hon. members who say that the children should support their parents. We know that the great majority of children are ready to help their parents if it is at all possible, but after all these young people must make their way; they have their own children to educate, to feed and to clothe, and it is difficult for an older person to have to live on the bounty of his children or to have to live with the children or grandchildren. It is not that one does not love these children

Old Age Pensions-Mrs. Black
or grandchildren, but the fact is it is much better that youth and old age should be
separate.
As I advocated in the few remarks I made last year, I believe that the government should assume full responsibility for the payment of old age pensions. At the present time these pensions are administered by the nine different provinces. This government pays seventy-five per cent of the cost and yet does not have as much to say about the administration as the provinces that pay only twenty-five per cent. That is not just or fair. Of course there are chisellers, but in all walks of life you are going to find chisellers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Even among members of parliament.


Martha Louise Black: Do I hear "even among members of parliament ''? That may be so, but I would not like to accuse the members in the far corner of being chisellers. I believe that one government should administer old age pensions. That would be more economical than the present method and there would be less danger of chiselling.
As I said before, some people of thirty-five years of age are as old as others at seventy or seventy-five years. The former member for the Yukon had a letter written to him not long ago by a man whom he had known in his early days in New Brunswick. This man said: " I think I am old enough to retire and you may be able to find out how old I am; I come from King's county and it may be possible that my birth certificate can be found." King's county was written to and the man's birth certificate was found and sent back. This man who thought he was old enough to retire discovered that he was eighty-three years of age.


Charles Avery Dunning: He did not know it until then?


Martha Louise Black: He did not know it until then. He thought he was around seventy years of age. When he discovered his real age, his friends were afraid that he would realize how old he was and become so exhausted that he would shortly pass away.
Of course I have always felt quite keenly about the administration of old age pensions in the Yukon. It is not a pension there; it is a dole. The Northwest Territories are administered directly by the federal government and the $20 per month is given as a dole, not as a pension. This is very irritating to self-respecting men or women. When they have paid taxes for perhaps forty or fifty years, they do not like having money handed out to them by the government, and have it called a dole instead of a pension. When
Yukoners who have lived in the country for forty or fifty years feel that they want to retire, if they are able to work they do not get a pension. If they are unable to work they are given this so-called pension in the shape of a dole. If they say, "My family lives in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or one of the other provinces and I would like to go there where I could live near them and my former friends on $20 a month," do they get that amount of money? No. If they go to any one of the provinces and live there a year or two they will receive a dollar or two a month, and until they have lived in the province for twenty years they cannot get the pension. That is neither fair nor just. They could live much more comfortably on the outside, and there are former Yukoners in every province of this country who are suffering under that injustice and who have asked time after time that it be removed. They have been a credit to the Yukon territory and to Canada as a whole; so why in the name of justice should they not be allowed a pension when they have moved to some other part of Canada? I asked the government to consider the administration of old age pensions in the Yukon on exactly the same basis as they consider the administration of old age pensions in the Northwest Territories.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I agree with the remarks of the hon. lady member who has just sat down, as regards men living in the Yukon. I have come across instances of gross injustice due to the conditions to which she refers.
I propose to support this resolution, not only because I was pledged to it in the campaign, but because I have always been of that opinion. I see that I made a speech in this chamber in January, 1935, setting forward the proposal made this afternoon in almost the same terms.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has dealt fully and very fairly with the question of the increased cost. I accept his condition that it would be necessary, if we lowered the age, to put on a contributory basis that portion of it which applies to an age lower than seventy. I think that is the way it is managed in Britain; after seventy it is non-contributory, but between sixty-five and seventy it has to be contributory.
The minister held out-rather prominently, I thought-the bugbear that we could not get the provinces to agree to any further expenditure. That same argument was used here ten years ago, that the provinces would not come in; but we left the door open; we said, "You do not need to come in unless
Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill

you like," and they all one by one came in, and I do not think they would wait so long on this occasion.
If the minister would allow me one other criticism, he did not give any weight to this fact, that a large amount of that increased old age pension would be paid to people who would otherwise be on relief, anyhow; they have to be kept; they are at our door; they are starving or at starvation point; we have to deal with them, and we do deal with them. Several of the provinces adopt what is now a popular idea; they say, "We have balanced the budget," and they add in a lower voice, "all except relief," which is two or three or five million dollars. But we have to meet that problem some time, and we might as well meet it-I think it is best that we should meet it-by giving a larger class of people old age pensions rather than by putting them on relief. A man of sixty-five may be willing and able to work; but he cannot get work, and there is only one alternative-relief. Is it not better to hand out national money in the form of an extended pension than by way of relief?
With any proposal to reduce the age, and indeed even though the minister cannot see his way to reduce the age at the present time, should go very definite steps towards putting on a fair basis the existing act and existing regulations. The act is all right so far as it goes. The regulations are not impossible, but it is the variety of contradictory and unfair interpretations which are put upon them by the various governing boards in the different provinces that make the trouble.
The minister has said, "We cannot compel the provinces to follow regulations that we suggest to them; we must get them to agree." The man who pays the piper can always set the tune. When we are paying seventy-five per cent of a given expenditure, it is always open to us in the future as in the past-we did it ten years ago^-to say, "You will conform to these standard regulations as you have to conform to the standard act or you will not get anything." I believe the dominion government has very largely the power, if it chooses to exercise it, to effect a more uniform and more reasonable interpretation of the regulations. The minister dealt broadly with this, so I think it is pertinent to the subject to allude to what I frankly call the rotten interpretations which have been put upon the regulations not only in the province I come from but in other provinces. In British Columbia we have the Parents' Maintenance Act, which compels children to maintain their parents. Prior to some three or four years

ago-they have now stopped the worst feature-the British Columbia managing board said to the old man or woman, "Go and sue your child or children. We will not give you any pension; wTe will not consider giving you any pension until you have produced an order from a competent court to say that the child is unable to support his parents." I have in my possession a letter in which they definitely say, "We will not give that man an old age pension unless he sues his child." I went and saw the child and found that he was living on six dollars a month relief. I admit that the British Columbia board has been shamed into abandoning that feature of their manoeuvres, but they are doing it just as badly in a roundabout way. They say, "Oh well, we are sorry, but the regulation now says we must take into account contributions by children." Here is the wording of it:
-which may reasonably be expected to be made by them.
Perfectly proper language, surely. But how do they interpret it? They interpret it in this way: They say, "This man has three children. He can reasonably expect to receive so much money from each of them. Therefore we will not give the old man (or woman) a pension." But somebody comes along and says, "Yes, but the children are not able to contribute. The son has a family of five children, and if he is not on relief he is drawing only a small wage. The second child is an invalid, and the third is on relief; therefore they are not able to support their parents." Obviously they cannot. But what does the board reply-and I have letters which confirm my statement-"We do not care anything about that. All we know is that this parent might 'reasonably be expected' to receive so much from that child, or those children, and therefore we will not give him a pension." They do not say any more, "Go and sue your child"; they simply leave it in that position, and the pension is withheld. They should grant the pension, and in the odd case of children able to support their parents and neglecting to do so, the board itself should sue the children.
I desire to touch on only some of the worst features. Another of the regulations is that in valuing the property of an applicant who does not have any income-if he receives any income he is, quite properly, charged with it- he shall be regarded as having an income equal to five per cent of its value. On the face of it that may seem just, but the way it works is extremely unjust. A lot of us in British Columbia bought land in the days when optimism was very flamboyant; we have the land and cannot pay taxes on it, and we

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill
get no income out of it; it is assessed at five times its market value. Suppose a man has some land like that, assessed at $3,000; five per cent on that is $150, and then there will be $50 of taxes to pay out. But the board says to that man, "You have an income of $150 from that land." The poor old man says, "But I have not; it is a source of loss to me; I have not been able to pay the taxes and I do not get one nickel from it." Nevertheless, the board says, "You have an income of $150." I know of many instances where that interpretation has prevented a person from getting a pension at all. You cannot live on theories and fictions. They say to that old man that he has a fictitious income of $150 and they expect him to live on that. Let anyone try it.
_ There is one feature of the matter, speaking of the British Columbia government, that I blame them wholly for, namely the way in which they have worked it out. The dominion government said that in valuing the land regard should be had to its assessed value or its market value, whichever is deemed the more equitable. Originally it did not say that; it spoke only of the assessed value. But it was found by experience that that was unfair. In Ontario it was found that the land was often worth more than the assessed value, so that it was changed to read the assessed value or the market value, whichever was deemed the more equitable. That is plain, and the British Columbia board refuses to obey the definite regulation. They will not take into consideration the provision, "whichever is the more equitable."
The real reason for the refusal is that they do not want to have the trouble involved, because if they took the market value they would have to make inquiries. It would not occur very often; but it would occur, and so they say it will save them trouble and they take the assessed value. Then, when I go and point out that the assessed value is five times the market value, they say, "Oh, no, Mr. Neill; you are impugning the integrity of the provincial officers, who are sworn to do their duty. They say that the property is worth $3,000 and it must be worth $3,000." I put before them an instance of my own personal knowledge where I was assessed S5,000 for some land. I appealed and took it to the county court-it was a town-and the assessor refused to go into the box and swear that the land was worth $5,000 because, as he truthfully remarked, "We all knew it is not worth that." The result was that it was cut down from $5,000 to $1,700. That is an illustration. The land is all assessed at far more than the market value.
You can easily understand that, because it has not been materially reduced for a number of years, whereas the market value has gone down enormously.
Now, that is something which the dominion government should insist on: they should say to the British Columbia government, "You must abide by the dominion regulations which we have enacted and to which you have agreed." Some of these instances I know personally; others have only been told me, but by people on whom I thoroughly rely. For example, one province refuses to accept an affidavit except from one resident in the province at the time the affidavit is made. I have personal knowledge of that. They have held up a pension for a time because the man had left the province for fifteen years. He had a reputable man, a minister of the gospel living in British Columbia, certify to his residence in the other province, but the other province would not take his affidavit unless the certificate came from someone at the moment resident in that province. What is the sense of that, or where is the justice of it?
I wrote to the board in one province with regard to one man asking why they gave him only $15 a month. I asked whether there had been any reduction on account of income. The man in charge wrote hack to this effect : "No. We give him S15 because we think that is plenty for any old age pension." "Pardon me." I said, "the dominion regulations say that if a man qualifies by residence and property-and you do not deny this-he is entitled to $20." But he insisted that $15 was sufficient for anyone. Moreover, he informed me that the administration of the act had given him satisfaction; he believed that he was carrying it out in accordance with justice, probity and so on; and he ended by saying, "This correspondence will now cease because we do not think that any good will come of it, and you are wrong. We will do what we think fit. If we chose to give him $5, we could."
I was not satisfied with this and I got the opinion of one of the best lawyers in Canada and flashed it at him. The result was that he climbed down and gave the old man $20. As a matter of fact they had been going on for years in the conviction that they could give anything they liked, and that there was nothing to stop them from giving anyone $10 if it happened to suit their whims.
Another province takes a lis pendens against the pensioner's property the day the pension is granted. Another refuses to pay so long as the applicant owns anything that can be turned into cash in excess of $30. In British

89S

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill
Columbia they demand a statement from a woman's son-in-law. The Parents' Maintenance Act provides that children must support their parents, but it says nothing about sons-in-law supporting mothers-in-law; and yet there must be the most intricate statements as to what the income of the son-in-law is for a whole year and three months separately as well. Affidavits must be obtained from employers, all of this being embarrassing and occasioning delay. There are a number of instances like this in which there is neither British nor any other kind of justice, and I think the dominion government should formulate regulations and compel the various provinces to adhere to them.
I heard a demand made this afternoon for a reduction in the age limit, and in the same breath the gentleman who made that demand stated that it was imperative that the pension should also be increased. That is a popular declaration among a certain number of poor people who think only of their own interest and cannot see a yard in front of them. But a member of the house who puts up that argument, asking for an impossibility of that kind, with the sure and certain knowledge that the dominion government must turn it down, so that he can go back to the country cherishing and brandishing this grievance and saying, "There is your government for you; they turned it down ''-either that member is doing it deliberately or he is acknowledging that he is not fit for the position of statesman in Canada to which we all would aspire, and he has no sense of his responsibility beyond the interests of his own particular parish. We all know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) cannot do that; he cannot reduce the age limit and at the same time increase the pension.
I would suggest two things: first, make pension regulations more reasonable and so inform the boards. I recall, when the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was on the government benches, we brought up some question in connection with soldiers' pensions. He admitted that there was an injustice and he said it would be remedied. Months later we asked whether he was going to bring in legislation to deal with it, and he said in his brusque way, "No; I have looked into the matter and all that is needed is a common sense interpretation of the military regulations. I have had a word with the chairman of the board and there will be no more trouble." And there was not. That is all I ask the minister to do. Tell these boards that while they are there to see that no one gets a pension to which he is not entitled, they are also there-and this they

ignore entirely-to see that everyone who is entitled to a pension gets it. I cannot say that of the British Columbia board.


Charles Avery Dunning: You appreciate the fact that they are not under our jurisdiction.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but this can be done by means of regulations. You can say to them,
" Here are our regulations; abide by them or we will not pay the seventy-five per cent." The man that pays the piper calls the tune.
In the second place, I would suggest that the minister reduce the age to sixty-five. Third, if it is necessary

and I believe it is- let there be instituted some system of contribution at the younger ages so that as they grow older they will have paid part of the extra cost. I have heard rumours of reduction of taxation in the coming budget; we should all like to see that, but perhaps it would be better and wiser and more fair to keep the taxes as they are for another year and cut the age for pension down as indicated. The cost would not be all lost, because there is no question that whether you call it relief or old age pension these people of sixty-five are on the shelf; they cannot get work and we cannot let them starve;they have to be kept and it would be better for their selfrespect and our dignity to do this in the form of old age pension.
I appreciate the fan manner in which the minister spoke. He put both sides of the case fairly, and I appreciate the sympathy he personally expressed, which I am sure is quite sincere. I -hope he will allow this resolution to pass, because it is not mandatory; it asks him only to look into the matter, and it would be at least an indication of our united sympathy with the object in view.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: The
resolution before the house has been very well debated and I doubt if I can add much to what has been said. I should like first to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) upon his resolution, which brought from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) the very fine statement he made to the house to-night. I enjoy listening to the Minister of Finance. Every time he makes an excellent speech such as we heard to-night I say to myself that if, when he came to Canada, he had only settled in Ontario instead of Saskatchewan, he would have been a stalwart of the Conservative party in Ontario instead of in the Liberal party of Saskatchewan.


Mr. YOUNG:: Would you have a good man ruined?


James Earl Lawson: He wants to redeem him, not ruin him.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. MacNicol


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe the hon. member, who just took his seat (Mr. Neill) referred to administration, and someone speaking earlier also said that there is a great deal of room for improvement in the administration of the act. I am convinced of that. There is a lot of chiselling in connection with this act. I might give two or three examples that I have come in contact with myself, and I have no doubt the number throughout Canada is legion. I have in mind an executive in a large manufacturing company who draws a large salary, but his mother, an aged widow, is an old age pensioner. If the act permits that, it is too bad. That certainly falls below what we should expect of Canadian citizenship.
Another instance I know quite well is that of a big merchant, whose mother and father are both on old age pension. One would think if that man had any pride in himself or in his country he would not permit that. Another instance I know, is that of a family in which there are three sons; they all belong to the professions and appear to be doing very well; they live in three fine houses, but their mother and father are also on old age pension. That is what I call chiselling. These are only examples of a large number. Any man in circumstances such as these who permits his parents to be on old age pension does not measure up to the standard a real Canadian should have. That is chiselling, and I am sure a great deal of money is wasted in this way.
Some hon. member said something about the Australian act. My memory is that in Australia the old age pension act covers everyone who reaches the statutory age, which I believe is sixty-five; but it is necessary to apply for the pension, and of course a large number of people who are comfortably off and able to take care of themselves do not make application. Another hon. member referred to workers under the railway unions and made a comparison between them and the ordinary working man. There is in fact little or no comparison between a conductor or engineer or fireman on a railway, belonging to the most powerful of the labour unions, which look after the interests of their members at all times, and a workman in a factory who is subject at any time to be laid off owing to a falling off in business. The cases are in no way parallel. Someone says that the railway pension schemes are contributory, but I know that railway conductors are retired at a certain age and have not contributed at all.
I know some myself; whether or not that is general I do not know.
51952-57J
Then someone asked, "Where would the money come from?" Of course that is an important problem. In looking over the old age pension legislation in ten of the United States, I observe that where the state has to raise fifty per cent of the cost of old age pensions, they have in some instances imposed new types of taxes to support this scheme. In one state they have added two cents a gallon on gasoline, and the federal government has added a tax of one cent a gallon on gasoline throughout the whole United States. It is certain that if this government does at any time embark on a scheme covering people reaching the age of sixty-five, no taxation should be considered that will add to the taxes on land, which is the municipal tax, or the taxes on business, both of which to-day are already overwhelmed with taxes.
The other Toronto members have doubtless all received to-day schedules such as the one I have received. Glancing over it I note what the city of Toronto has paid for unemployment relief in the last four years: 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936. The gross expenditure was $34,308,585, of which the federal and provincial governments paid $21,981,029, leaving a net charge for the city to bear out of the only means of taxation it has, land, incomes and business, amounting to $12,327,556. I see further that while the city at the commencement paid unemployment relief out of yearly income, during the last four years they found it impossible to do that, and have funded the unemployment relief by five-year serial debentures to the amount of about $10,622,242. That means merely deferring the payment. So that this government, when it does embark on a scheme in accord with the resolution certainly should not levy taxes on either land or business, because business to-day is struggling under a heavy burden, and taxation on land is so high that scarcely anyone can be persuaded to buy property and build on it. One of the great causes of unemployment in the cities is the fact that there is much idle land on which no one is building because the tax rates are so high.
Then I find that a great many of the workers who have been unemployed during the recent years of depression, and who were not old enough to draw old age pensions, are losing their homes. It seems strange that when a man is out of a job and is without any income, everything he has to do adds cost to him. I have in my hand a bailiff's statement to a gentleman of my acquaintance. I shall not give the name; that is neither here

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Marshall
provides for a seventy year limit, but for many years they have had a contributory plan through which, having made contributions, about 18,000,000 Britishers are eligible to draw old age pensions.
May I take this opportunity to register my support of the principle of the resolution.
I am glad I have had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the first-class presentation he made.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Mr Speaker, when the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) was speaking, I had a feeling that the discussion would resolve itself into a debate on social credit. This feeling was further accentuated when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) took up a great deal of his time in speaking on this particular subject. I say to the minister that I have the authority of the Social Credit group to accept the challenge he has thrown out to us to discuss fully the principles of social credit. I sincerely hope that he will make an opening for us so that, before the present session of parliament closes, we may be afforded an opportunity of discussing in full this very important matter. I can assure him that we shall welcome that opportunity.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to say that I cannot prevent hon. members from discussing it on any one of several occasions which present themselves automatically under the rules of the house, as the business of the house progresses. When I say that I welcome an opportunity, I am not conferring a favour; I cannot confer that favour. The rules of the house afford the opportunity, and I would welcome hon. members taking advantage of it. I am not in a position either to give or to withhold that favour, and I should not like hon. members to feel under any obligation to me.


James Alexander Marshall: It was my understanding that the Minister of Finance said he would be prepared to enter into a full dress discussion of social credit. Possibly I misunderstood his meaning.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think you did.


James Alexander Marshall: Then I regret I made that mistake. Without wanting to become obnoxious, let me assure him that on all occasions we shall endeavour to bring before the house what we believe to be the only solution to the economic ills which confront this country.
There are just two points in the address of the Minister of Finance which I should like to touch upon very briefly. I am not

prepared to enter into a full discussion of the matters he dealt with as they are too broad in scope. I believe I am right in saying that the minister was very careful to avoid admitting that there exists among those who are over the age of sixty years a condition which should be remedied. The next point is that, if we assume that premise to be correct, the financial condition of the country will not permit a scheme of this kind to be carried out. To me that is a definite admission that it cannot be done under the present economic set-up. I know that what I have to say matters little to the members of the house, but what was said this evening mattered a great deal to those of us who sit here as members of the Social Credit group. Repeatedly we have brought to the attention of the house the submission that this government should take control of currency and credit and use it in terms of public need. This afternoon we had the admission from the Minister of Finance that he as Minister of Finance of the country has control of currency and credit.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. I know my hon. friend does not want to put words into my mouth. I did not say that.


James Alexander Marshall: That is what I took it to mean.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will read Hansard in the morning I am sure he will not get any such impression.


James Alexander Marshall: I shall be glad to leave it until we get Hansard in the morning.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said that this parliament had created the instruments to control the credit and currency of this country. I did not say that I controlled it, although I suppose I am one of the instruments.


James Alexander Marshall: Which is an admission that the Minister of Finance on behalf of this government controls currency and credit.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I did not say that either. I wish my hon. friend would not persist in misrepresenting me.


James Alexander Marshall: I do not think anyone in the house can question the fact that the care and protection of the people of this country is a most important thing at this time. The cause of the young people has been constantly championed in the house and this government has made a move to do something for them. A section of the national employment commission which was set up has studied this problem and a solution of some kind has been offered. If we consider that youth has a problem, surely we must

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Marshall
recognize that those who are on the wrong side of forty-five years have problems just as perplexing and just as difficult of solution as those facing our youth.
It is an unquestioned fact that the age limit in industry to-day is somewhere around forty-five years. I think it can be definitely stated that the majority of people over forty-five years are in a state of unemployability. I believe the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) is one of the most important introduced in the house at this session. However, it looks very much to me as if it were going to be talked out. In all probability this discussion will not be completed. I should like to see this resolution go to a vote in order that we may find out the feelings of hon. members on this important matter. This is a matter of national importance and as such it should claim precedence over everything else.
I believe we should establish once and for all whether or not there exists among our old people or those who have passed the age of, shall we say, fifty years, a condition that requires immediate attention. Once we have definitely established that fact; once we have agreed that such a condition exists, then we should work together to find a solution. The present distressing conditions which prevail throughout Canada and which have such a deadly grip upon our people are traceable directly to our faulty economic system. In my judgment it is not only foolish but asinine to think that these people can solve their own problems by their own efforts. It is sad to think that these respectable old people who have reached the peak of their usefulness in life have nothing to look forward to except the poorhouse or the dole. It is not surprising that these people are dissatisfied with conditions as they now exist. They look to us who sit here in this parliament to find a remedy and to stay here until we do.
I must say that I cannot agree entirely with the latter portion of the resolution which states that the giving of this allowance or pension to the older generation would retire them from industrial activity, thereby creating opportunities for the younger generation to be usefully and gainfully employed.
I believe that Canada would suffer an irreparable loss if we were to force men and women who have reached the age of forty-five, or fifty, or sixty, to give up their labours. The loss would be especially felt in such branches of work as jurisprudence, the sciences, art, music and pursuits of a like nature. The average age of men who do their best work is fifty years. The best work of the workers has been done by men around the age of fortyseven years, whilst that of the thinkers is about fifty-two years. There is a tendency to-day towards the idea that men and women who have passed middle age should be eliminated from industry in order that the younger and more aggressive people may be given a clear chance in the rush to the front.
What are the objections to granting a pension to people over sixty years? Two major objections have been advanced. The first one is that it is entirely a provincial matter. I agree. But what happens when a provincial government endeavours to legislate in an attempt to bring economic security to its people? The legislation which that government considers essential and of vital importance towards attaining this economic security is promptly disallowed by a higher authority. WTe all know that this has been done in the case of Alberta.
The second objection is that it would mean added expense; that it would raise the taxes. May I say that from the standpoint of orthodox economics I entirely agree, and I further admit that we should guard against increasing the tax burden, against placing on the shoulders of future generations burdens which we find ourselves unable to bear. So I believe that at this stage of parliament we should first of all decide whether or not the need exists. I venture to say that if I were to question all hon. members of the house, they would tell me that the need does exist; but they would wind up their answers by saying, "Where will all the money come from"? I hope that before the end of this session this group will be able to show where it comes from at the present time. If the need exists we should put it up fairly and squarely to the Minister of Finance. He in turn should put to work those experts who are in his department and give them the problem. If those experts are not able to give him a solution; if they cannot tell him how it can be done without increasing taxation, I suggest to him that he fire them and get new ones. To-day the Minister of Finance can find subsidies for steamship companies; he can absorb the deficits of the Canadian National Railways; he can find millions for defence; he can provide at least a quarter of a million dollars for commissions to investigate the textile industry and wheat marketing; but he admits tacitly that this is a problem which is entirely beyond solution.
May I say that a pension to people over the age of sixty would be one of the best means I know of for distributing purchasing power. We would be able to get goods moving off the shelves on which they are resting at the present time, and that in turn

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Lacombe
would move the wheels of industry for the manufacture of more goods; in fact I am satisfied that every community, every constituency in Canada would directly benefit by a scheme of this kind.
In conclusion, I desire to read part of the report which was submitted by the veterans' assistance commission, which consisted of Colonel Rattray, Lieut-Col. de Martigny and Mr. Robert Macnicol. On page 36 the commission has this to say upon the subject of old age pensions:
Old age pensions are now dominion wide. Although administration is under the control of the provinces, and to that extent variable, there is little in the working of the present act that is open to criticism. We feel, however, that it is time there was a thorough revision of the basis upon which this act rests.
We trust that in making these observations we shall not be accused of exceeding the bounds of our inquiry. The interests of the veteran are tied up with the interests of the body of citizenry at large and are affected to an equal degree by any short-coming of general social legislation.
We feel that the age at which the old age pension is available is too high. In view of the intensity of modern industrial conditions and the greater speed of all our life, the man who has reached the age of sixty-five is entitled to a period of rest. Not only is he entitled to it, but there is an excellent chance that it will be forced on him. As we have already observed, few industries will now employ a man over the age of fifty, and most industries are weeding out their men at sixty-five. Tradesmen also usually slow up when they get to that age. Although we believe in the reality of the pre-aging of those who saw active service, we feel most insistently that a very large number of older civilians are doomed by present legislation to a mere existence for a space of years on the charity of relatives and friends.
If the age limit at which old age pensions are available were reduced to sixty-five, this would eliminate much social distress while at the same time making room for younger people. But the greatest fault in the present old age pension law is its restrictiveness. It is confined to the indigent and to that extent serves as a reward for indigence. In effect it tells the citizens of Canada that if they have been reckless in their expenditures, careless of the future and slothful in their daily affairs, the state will reward them at the age of seventy with a pension; but if they have been industrious, sober and careful of their resources, the state will tax them at the age of seventy for the support of those who have been indigent. Nothing could be more calculated to discourage thrift and encourage thriftlessness than such a law. The only escape from this dilemma is for the state to pension everyone at the age of seventy, or at the age of sixty-five as the case may be, and put these pensions on some contributory basis.

The Dominion of Canada does not inquire of its civil servants when they reach the age of superannuation whether they are millionaires or paupers; it pensions them all on the same basis. It may be argued that this is merely a retirement plan to which the civil servant has contributed. Why should not the old age pension be the same?
In conclusion, may I say this, that we have been labouring under the economics of scarcity too long. It is about time we planned our economy to distribute the abundance which lies around us everywhere and which a bountiful Providence has bestowed upon us.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the humane object of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) I do not at this time feel like supporting it. I think we would be better advised to look first into the grievances voiced by old people in some parts of the country.
The dominion government, contributing seventy-five per cent of old age pensions, has not only the right, but the imperative duty to see that the law is administered on a sound basis. Before considering any amendment concerning the age limit of old people, good administration of the act must be assured. The guiding principle in the distribution of old age pensions ought to be a high sense of justice, regardless of any other motive. Undue preference and favouritism must yield to legitimate requests and to the needs of our old people. Further, the administration of this act appears to be so difficult that any amendment with a view to fixing another age limit would result in making conditions worse. I realize that it is not always easy to judge the case of an applicant on its merit. This task is all the more difficult as there seems to be a conspiracy on the part of certain applicants in order to get a pension to which they are not entitled under the act. Thousands of dollars could be saved through preventing abuses. I would suggest to the dominion government the appointment of revising officers or inspectors, even if the only purpose of saving public money could thus be served. These officers would look after serious complaints and report doubtful cases and abuses to the proper authorities. An important part of their work should consist in supervising the administration and operation of the Old Age Pensions Act.
In all fairness to the population of this country, those applying for old age pension should comply with the provisions of the act. On the other hand, justice and law

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Needham
should have precedence over petty interests trying to evade a fair interpretation of this important social legislation.
There is another aspect of this question that I wish to bring to the attention of the house. Are not the provinces, particularly in this period of stress, already overburdened bv thp administration of laws coming under their immediate jurisdiction. Notwithstanding their sense of duty, their good will and their spirit of self-sacrifice, it is easy to understand that the arduous duties inherent to their particular functions require their undivided attention. Moreover are the provinces in a position to exercise the necessary supervision on exploiters of all sorts who frequently take advantage of our social legislation?
Personally, I know of no authority better qualified to examine applications for old age pension than our municipal councils. In many cases would not the assessment roll tell the true story about the indigence of an old person? Information could easily be secured from the population of towns and villages should the assessment roll fail to give an accurate account of the case. Therefore, under the circumstances, not only should municipal councils be consulted in the matter but they should pass over the applications for old age pensions and report to the authorities.
Mr. Speaker, we must put a stop to abuses, exploitation and injustice in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. We must prevent scoundrels from exploiting old destitute people and selfishly depriving them of their rights. It is the duty of the government to protect the treasury and to safeguard the interests of elderly people applying for the pension to which they are entitled.


Mr. JOSEPH NEEDHAM (The Battle-fords) :: You must be thinking, Mr. Speaker, that by this time all that is necessary to be said has been said, and so I shall not take up many minutes prolonging this discussion. It is really interesting to follow the various speakers and the different points of view they bring out. I have no doubt the government will analyse the whole situation and perhaps evolve some practical solution on which to act, because unquestionably this is a pressing problem facing the country.
This government realizes, I am sure, as do all the provincial governments, that one of its first responsibilities is the care of the citizens whom it governs. The care of the aged should be its first and deepest concern. I am satisfied that as the years go on this problem will increase. There is no doubt that as people get on in years they will be replaced
more and more not only by youth but by machines. These old people must be cared for either by the federal government or by the provincial governments or by the municipalities in which they live. We see that during slack times many are laid off; then when there is a slight increase in employment the younger man gets the position and the older man cannot get back. In the discussion this afternoon many have expressed the view that the machine is one of the chief causes of this state of things. I agree with them. We read of more and more new machinery being set up, and its effect on the working population is tremendous. I believe we shall have to recognize the principle that where a machine takes the place of workers, that machine should in some way contribute to their support.
The late King George V on the morning of his jubilee appealed to the citizens of the British Empire to do all in their power to create employment and relieve the distress then prevalent. Two days before he gave that address there appeared in the Winnipeg papers the statement that the Bank of England had just laid off one thousand clerks, having put in machines to do the work. The ages of these clerks were between twenty-six and thirty-four, and the Bank of England recognized its obligation to those discharged employees and offered to give each of them either a lump sum of $10,000 or $10 a week as long as he lived. Seven hundred of them took the S10,000; that amounted to $7,000,000. The other three hundred took the $10 a week for as long as they lived. According to British life insurance tables the average life expectancy of those three hundred men is thirty-seven years, so that in the thirty-seven years the bank will pay for those three hundred the sum of $5,500,000. That is a total of $12,500,000 to those discharged employees. There is a principle which I believe every government and every employer of labour who replaces his employees with machines must reckon with. It will be said that was a very generous gift, and it certainly was. What about the successors of these thousand employees? We must leave them out of the question. But this article went on to say that in nine years those machines saved to the Bank of England all they will pay out to these clerks in thirty-seven years. And in the thirty-seven years the saving to the bank will be $32,950,000, placing the wages of the thousand employees at $30 a week. So we see what the machine means to the employer. But there is a principle which must be recognized and dealt with in some way. When labour is replaced by the machine, I believe the government has a claim on the saving sc made.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Needham
Now let us look at this problem from the standpoint of the individuals concerned. Take two young people starting out in life with equal opportunity and equal advantage. They both obtain employment; both acquire a certain measure of wealth. One establishes a home and raises a family; the other does not, but invests his savings in bonds or securities. When they reach the age of sixty-five, one has invested his dollars, but' the other has invested something more valuable than money; he has made a contribution to Canada that the other has not. Which should have the first consideration from this country, the man who invests his dollars and gets the interest, or the one who invests in a home and gives Canada sons and daughters? At the age of sixty-five the one may have his home sold from over him to help keep up the interest payable to the other. That shows the real bearing of this problem.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) regarding defects in the regulations and administration of the present act. I want to refer to one or two instances. I have in mind a man eighty-two years of age. I just saw in this week's local paper that this old couple had celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary. The old gentleman was away in the United States visiting his family and stayed there longer than he had intended owing to sickness. He was back eight years before the old age pension came into force. When he attained the age he applied for and was given an old age pension. Eight years or more later it was discovered- that he had not complied with the regulations. Before the Old Age Pensions Act came into force he had been out of the country for a few days longer than the time limit, and he was cut off. Now he has been back long enough to comply, 1 believe this year, with all the requirements, but he has been told that he cannot get back on the old age pension unless he pays back to the board the amount he received previously. He has been on relief ever since he was cut off, so how in the world is he ever going to get on the old age pension again? That man has served for over forty years as a justice of the peace, and I should think he would be entitled to a pension on that account.
I have another couple in mind who sold their farm some ten or twelve years ago and thought they had a comfortable living for their old age. During the last six years they have not received one cent from that farm, which has not produced enough to pay the taxes. They cannot get on the old age

pension list 'because they still have an equity in the farm. I think there should be some board to investigate cases of this nature in order that these people may get something different from the relief which may be handed out to them. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni stated, they are getting a form of pension through the relief they receive, but there is a difference between the pension and relief as far as charity and that sort of thing goes.
I understood the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to say that parliament has control of currency and credit. I am very glad to hear that. I do not know when they took control, though at the last election that was one thing they said they were going to do. I have yet to meet the first person who has seen any change in policy, but I can assure the minister that hon. members in this comer will be only too willing to give the minister every possible support in exercising that control, as far as he can influence parliament. We shall do our part along that very line. What better place to start could there be than by issuing the credit of this country in the form of a pension to the old people? I would agree with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) that it should be made universal in its application, and then perhaps those people we heard of this afternoon, who have gone to the island of Bermuda or some other place, would come back so that they might share in the pension.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in the time which is left to-night manifestly it is impossible to go into this question of the new economics. It delights me greatly to see the earnestness with which our fellow members of parliament are coming at least to tolerate our remarks when we undertake to discuss this great question. I believe that as the days go by not only the members of this parliament but the people throughout Canada and the world will come to realize that there is a great deal in the new economics.
Speaking in a general sort of way, it seems to me it is absolutely idiotic to think we have an abundance and are unable to give of that abundance to the needy who have spent their lives helping to produce it. During the time at my disposal to-night I am just going to outline very briefly where the money comes from. In the first place one must ask himself, What is money? We have not time to go into that in great detail; but when we look into that question and begin to find out not only what money is but what we in Canada are using for money, where that thing

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Blackmore
comes from, how it comes, what justifies it and what gives it value, then we shall begin to see where money can come from in great abundance.
Banks create money. Just as soon as anyone feels that he can safely challenge that statement, very well. If he cannot challenge it, it will be well for him to be careful. The next thing is that banks create credit. There are various definitions of credit, with which of course we are familiar; but in a very broad sense banks create what is called bank credit, and bank credit in this country to-day is money. Anyone who thinks he can successfully controvert that statement and bring proof of his statement will find us willing to listen to him. Any man who cannot controvert that statement had better hold his peace until he can, and not begin to laugh at the contentions of the new economics. And may I say, Mr. Speaker, that the number of well informed, careful men who are subscribing to the truth of these statements is increasing tremendously.
The next question is, What is it that justifies a bank or any other institution in creating credit? It is the goods and services which the community in which that organization functions is able to produce. Then, if Canada is able to produce enough goods and services to supply all her people with an abundant life, unquestionably that organization which is entrusted with the task of creating credit, which represents those goods, has the justification for creating that credit, and that statement cannot be successfully controverted.


Mr. THORSON:: Will the hon. member explain how it is to be done?


John Horne Blackmore: 
[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, March 1, 1938