1946-04-10

[Stage Direction]
First report of special committee on revision of standing orders.-Mr. Speaker.
Third report- of special committee on war expenditures and economies.-Mr. Isnor.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised a question concerning a deserter from the United States army, one McCloy, who was arrested in Winnipeg for
Questions

return to the United States. At that time the hon. member asked if steps would be taken to see that such return was not made.
May I inform the house that the order in council under which these arrangements were entered into with the United States was repealed yesterday. Perhaps by way of explanation I might say that this order represented a consolidation of arrangements which had been in effect for some time following discussions between representatives of the United Slates and Canada, going back as far as 1940. We asked first that there might be an arrangement whereby our deserters would be returned to this country, and the United States later made a similar request to us. The fact is that such arrangements were carried out, although it was perhaps a bit uncertain as to just what the legal authority for them might be. All this culminated in the passing of the order in council, one which is now largely unnecessary. It was never intended that the order in council should cover such a case as the McClov case, and the case in question has served to emphasize that fact. Therefore the order in council was repealed yesterday.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. PROBE:: 1.	What is the schedule of benefits to widows of commissioned officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and what is the basis on which contributions are made to the benefit fund?
2.	What differences exist in respect to noncommissioned officers and constables on the one hand and commissioned officers on the other in
(a)	the basis of contribution in the widows' benefit fund; (b) the amount of benefits payable?	F
3.	What is the amount of retirement pension for members of the R.C.M.P. for each rank of the services ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
There is no schedule of benefits but under sections 52 and 54 of the R.C.M. Police Act the widow is eligible for a pension equal to one-half the pension to which her late husband would have been entitled, or was in receipt of immediately before his death. Commissioned officers of the force are -required under Section 49 of the act to contribute five per centum per annum of their pay.
2	(a). Non-commissioned officers and constables receive for themselves a free pension, but any of these members of the force who joined after October, 1934 must contribute five per cent per annum of their pay to the 
widow's pension fund established 'by part IV of the R.C.M. Police Act. Other such members already in the force at that time had the right to elect whether they would contribute or not. In the case of officers they are required to contribute five per centum per annum of their pay under part II of the act, as already related in answer No. 1, above.
(b) The amount of benefits for officers' widows is already indicated in answer No. 1. The amount of benefits for non-commissioned, officers and constables depends upon how much each has contributed and for how long, and how much of an annuity such total amount is capable of purchasing. The actuaries of the department of insurance are requested to supply these details in each individual case.
3.	Part II of the R.C.M. Police Act governs in the case of commissioned officers and part III in the case of non-commissioned officers and constables, according to length of service. An officer receives for each year of service an annual pension of one fiftieth of his total pay and allowances at the time of retirement, but not exceeding 70 per cent thereof, and a non-commisioned officer receives an annual pension not exceeding two-thirds of his total pay and allowances for the last year of his service. The amount in each case is governed by rank and length of service. It is calculated as follows:
(a)	If he has completed ten but less than twenty-one years' service, one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowances during the last year of his service for every year of service;
(b)	If he has completed twenty-one -but less than twenty-five years' service, an annual sum equal to twenty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances. during the last year of his service, with an addition of two-fiftieths of such pay and allowances for every completed year of service above twenty years;
(c)	If he has completed twenty-five years' service, an annual sum equal to thirty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances during the last year of his service with an addition of one-fiftieth of such pay and allowances for every completed year of service above twenty-five years; provided, that the pension shall not exceed two-thirds of such annual pay and allowances.


KOYAI. CANADIAN NAVY-OFFICERS
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	How many officers, holding the following ranks, are now on the strength of the Royal Canadian Navy, at home and abroad (a) admiral;
(b)	vice-admiral; (c) rear-admiral; (d) commodore: (e) captain.
2.	How many of those officers have received promotion since V-J day?

Questions
3.	Who are they and what ranks do they now hold and what appointment do they now hold?
4.	How many of these officers, in addition, have received promotion since December 1, 1945?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	(a) Admiral, none; (b) Vice-Admiral, 1;
(c)	Rear-Admiral, 3; (d) Commodore, 5; (e) Captain, 35.
2.	Ten.
3.	Vice-Admiral H. E. Reid, C.B., R.C.N. "Bytown" additional as chief of naval staff and first naval member of the naval board.
Rear-Admiral H. T. W. Grant, C.B.E., D.S.O.. R.C.N. "Bytown" additional as deputy chief of naval staff, chief of naval administration and supply, and third naval member of the naval board.
Rear-Admiral C. R. H. Taylor, C.B.E., R.C.N. "Scotian" additional as commanding officer, Atlantic coast, and as superintendent, H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax, and east coast repairs.
Commodore P. W. Earl, CH.E., R.C.N. (Reserve). Former chief of naval personnel; now on special duty prior to retirement.
A/Commodore R. I. Agnew, O.B.E., R.C.N. "Bytown" additional for duty as N.M.C.S., Washington.
A/Commodore G. R. Miles, O.B.E., R.C.N. "Bytown" additional as chief of naval personnel and second naval member of the naval board.
A/Commodore (E) J. G. Knowlton. O.B.E., R.C.N. "Bytown" additional for duty as assistant chief of naval administration and supply.
A/Captain H. F. Pullen, O.B.E., R.C.N. "Bytown" additional as director of naval reserves.
A/Captain J. R. Mitchell, R.C.N. (Reserve). "Bytown" additional for duty with C.N.P. as director of officer personnel.
A/Captain (S) H. E. Hubbard, OJB.E., R.C.N. "Bytown" additional for duty as director of victualling.
4.	One of these officers, Rear-Admiral H. T. W. Grant, was previously promoted to the rank of commodore, R.C.N. to date 1st January, 1946.
Note: These figures do not include officers who are now on retirement leave.


HOUSING-DUNSDON PROPERTY NORTH OF BRANTFORD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHARLTON;
1.	How many houses are (a) completed; (b) under construction, on what was previously the Dunsdon property north of Brantford, under the Veterans Land Act?
2.	How many different types of houses are there?
3.	What is the complete cost per unit of each type to the government?
4 Have any of these houses been rented, sold or leased to the veterans and at what cost for each type?
5.	If not, when will they be available and at what cost for each type?
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	(a) Nil; (b) twenty.
2.	Two. Bungalows and II storey. Eight different designs
3.	Estimated total cost including land, services, roads, and houses:
Bungalows
Humphrey's No. 3	'	 S6,009 22
Humphreys No. 4	 5,709 22
Rule Wynn Rule No. 1	 5,709 22
One and one-half Storey
Humphreys No. 1	 6,509 22
Humphreys No. 2	 6,209 22
Rule Wynn Rule No. 2	 6,709 22
Van Norman No. 3	 6,809 22
Moody and Moore No. 3	 6,809 22
4.	No.
5.	About May 15. Cost to veteran not yet finally determined.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PER FAMILY*


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: What is the average number of children per family (a) in Canada; (b) by province?


Mr. CLAXTON:: (a)	2-35.
(b)
Prince Edward Island	2-54
Nova Scotia	2-39
New Brunswick	2-66
Quebec	2-82
Ontario	2-05
Manitoba	2-12
Saskatchewan	2-34
Alberta	2-22
British Columbia	 1-92
Northwest Territories and Yukon	2-30
Note.-These figures are taken from the records of family allowance payments in March 1946 and show the averages for the children under 16 in respect of whom family allowances are paid.


INVESTIGATION OF JAPANESE FISHERIES AND JAPANESE CANNING PLANTS
Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any delegates been chosen to represent Canada in connection with the investigation of Japanese fisheries and Japanese fish canning plants by the United States?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	If so, what delegates have been chosen?
3.	If not, what are the reasons for Canadian delegates not having been chosen?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Discussions are proceeding with the United States authorities with regard to Canadian participation in the investigation of Japanese fisheries. Pending the outcome of these discussions, no definite appointments have been made.


*CANADTAN NAVY-LIEUTENANT FRANK B. LEE
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Was Second Lieutenant (retired) Frank B. Lee. B.Sc., informed by the interviewing officer, Captain Grant, that his proposed application for appointment to the technical branch of the Royal Canadian Navy could not be successful?
2.	If so, under what authority?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer this orally. The answer to the first question is no, and the second question is answered by the answer to the first.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I think that answer is incorrect.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: With reference to the British commonwealth air training plan: 1. (ia) When; (b) where;
(c)	by whom was it signed in the first place on behalf of the original partners to the plan, and
(d)	what was the mdnisterdaJl capacity, if any, of each of the signatories?
2.	Was a copy of the original plan ever tabled in either houses of the parliament of Canada at the next sitting following the approval of the plan by the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom?
3.	If so, when and where?
4.	If not, was it tabled at a later sitting of either house before November 23, 1944?
5.	If so (a) when; (b) where, and (c) why was it not tabled at an earlier sitting?
6.	If not, why was it not tabled?
7.	Did the then Minister of National Defence for Air forward a copy of the said original plan to all members of parliament for their personal information ?
8.	If so, when?
9.	If not, why?
10.	Was it agreed in the first place between the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom that the original plan should have been in operation at an earlier date than that of its actual inception?
11.	If so, when was it?
12.	If not, what was the reason for that delay?
13.	Did the government of the United Kingdom fail to fulfil any of its original^ obligations, and, in particular, that of delivering airplane propellers to the government of Canada for the execution of the said plan?

14.	If so (a) when did it occur, and (b) how long did it delay the actual inception of the training ?
15.	Did the Minister of National Defence for Air take parliament into his confidence to inform the members of parliament about it?
16.	If so, when, and if not, why?
17.	Did the government of Canada fulfil any of the obligations assumed in the first place by the government of the United Kingdom, and, if so how much did Canada pay on that account?
18.	Before November 23. 1944, did the government of the United Kingdom refund to the government of Canada iany .amount for .the latter having fulfilled any obligation assumed by the former?
19.	If so, when .and how much!
20.	If not, why?


VETERANS AFFAIRS-TRADE SCHOOLS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What trade schools have been established
in Canada, or are being used by the Department of Labour or Veterans Affairs for the training and education of ex-servicemen and women?	,	,
2.	What subjects are being taught m each ot
these schools?	, .	,	, ,,
3.	How many are enrolled in- each ot these schools?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Return tabled.


LETHBRIDGE INTERNMENT CAMP-WILSON KEW
Major James William Coldwell: ,	1. Is Wilson Kew of Stavely, Alberta, employed in Lethbridge Internment Camp, Alberta, as a part-time auxiliary services supervisor?
2.	What is his salary and expenses per month?
3.	What are his duties at the camp?
4.	What days or hours per week is he employed?	.	.
5.	Has the department paid for repairs to his private automobile during the past three years? if so. what amounts?
6.	How many gallons of .gas have been supplied by the department for the above car during the past three years?


CANADIAN ARMY-OFFICERS
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	How many officers, holding the following ranks, are now on the strength of the Canadian army, at home and abroad (a) general; (b) lieutenant-general; (c) major-general; (d) brigadier: (e) colonel?
2.	How many of these officers have received promotion since V-J day?
3.	Who are they and what ranks do they now hold and what appointment do they now hold?
4.	How many of these officers, in addition, have received promotion since December 1, 1945?


RADIO BROADCASTING-8ACKVILLE STATION
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is the short wave radio broadcasting station at Sackville complete?
2.	If so, what is the total cost?
3.	If not, how much has been expended and what will the total commitment be?
4.	To what areas and principal countries are
signals being sent?	.

External Affairs
5.	How many and what hours are so used?
6.	In what languages are the signals sent?
7.	What is the nature of these broadcasts?
8.	What departments of the government are utilizing the facilities of the station?
9.	What is the cost of operation to the 1st of October lasf?
10.	How many employees are there operating the service?
11.	What is the nature of their occupations and salaries or wages of each one?


Mr. McCANN:: Return tabled.


CANADIAN VOCATIONAL TRAINING ORGANIZATION
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	How many men are now being trained for the construction industry by the Canadian Vocational Training organization?
2.	Where are the various training schools located, and what is the capacity of each school?
3.	What are the conditions of entrance?
4.	What is the number being trained for each trade classification?
5.	How long is the period of training for each classification ?
6.	What remuneration do the trainees receive during the period of instruction?
7.	How many trainees are expected to have completed each of the various courses by (a) September 30, 1946; (b) March 31. 1947?
8.	Is provision made for the upgrading of veterans who have had previous experience in the construction industry?
9.	If so, give details and number of veterans taking such upgrading training?


Humphrey Mitchell: Tabled herewith.


MALTING BARLEY
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What is the present visible supply of malting barley in Canada?
2.	Jis? malting barley being exported to the
3.	How much malting barley has been exported each month since October, 1945?
4.	(a) Is brewing malt being exported to the U.S.A.; (b) what quantities have been exported each month since October, 1945?
5. How much Canadian beer has been exported to the U.S.A. each year since 1940 and each month since October, 1945?


CANADIAN FORCES-SERVICE IN JAPAN
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many Canadians (a) army; (b) air force: (c) navy; (d) civilians, are at present in Japan in the service of the Canadian government?
2.	How many Canadians are receiving instructions or undergoing training with the view of their services being utilized in Japan or other countries of the Pacific?
3.	For what specific purpose in Japan are military or civilian personnel being used?
4.	Is there any agreement whereby Canadians, both military and civilian, are to be used in Japan?
5.	If so, what are the terms of such agreement?


PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the order for notices of motions:
That, in the opinion of this house Standing Order 63 be amended by adding after subsection (1): (m) on public health, welfare and social security, to consist of thirty-five members, ten of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Mr. SPEAKER:: This notice of motion is out of order, on the ground that the standing orders of the "house were referred to a committee on March 26, 1946. The hon. member will see at page 44 of Votes and Proceedings the following notation:
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King it was resolved,-That a special .committee consisting of Messrs. Adamson. Gladstone, Glen. Golding, Han-sell, McGarry, Jean, Maclnnis, Pouliot, Smith (Calgary West) and Stirling be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house with a view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business, and to report to the house during the present session.
If the hon. member wishes to be heard before the committee, I am sure the members of the committee will be pleased to receive and consider his suggestions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the order for notices of motions:
Whereas the minister in charge of the Department of External Affairs has been up to the present date the prime minister of the day;
And whereas the said department has developed and grown in size a.nd importance to the point where the appointment of a full-time minister is essential in the public interest;
And whereas Canada's responsibilities abroad require ever more frequently the attendance of the appropriate cabinet minister at international gatherings outside Canada;
Therefore, be it resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should consider immediately the advisability of appointing a minister of the crown whose duties shall be solely concerned with external affairs.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Mr. Speaker, this resolution has been standing in my name since the opening of the session. The purposes and objectives I had in mind when it was placed on the order paper have to a large extent been carried out by the legislation introduced some weeks ago by the Prime Minister. That legislation-, which was passed by the house, provided for a separate and full-time minister of external affairs. Such minister would be appointed under the statute as amended. In view of the fact that the government has accepted the principle of the resolution I would now ask for permission to withdraw it.
Motion dropped.
Old Age Pensions



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East) moved:: That in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to amending the Old Age Pension Act by lowering the pensionable age to sixty years, by increasing the amount of the pension so as to enable the recipients to live in health and self-respect, and by deleting the income requirements for eligibility.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, about six months
ago I had the opportunity of moving a resolution almost identical with the one I now move. I do not apologize for taking up the time of the house in a discussion of this subject, because I am convinced that better provision for our old people is one of the most important questions confronting Canada to-day.
For many years the plight of old people in this country has been a sad one, and in my opinion it is daily growing worse. Those of us who read the immortal Scottish poet, Burns, will remember his poem "Man Was Made to Mourn," one verse of which says:
Look not alone on youthful prime.
Or manhood's active might:
Man then is useful to his kind,
Supported in his right:
But see him on the edge of life,
With cares and sorrows worn:
Then Age and Want-oh! ill-match'd pair- Shew man was made to mourn.
Almost two hundred years have passed since Bums wrote those words; yet the condition of people faced with old age and want, the same ill-matched pair-is not very much better now than it was then.
The resolution before us asks for three changes in our old age pension legislation. First, I am asking for a reduction in the eligible age for receiving a pension. Second, I am asking for an increase in the amount of the [DOT] pension. Third, I am asking for the abolition of the means test in 'connection with receiving a pension. I am sure that anyone who has given any thought at all to our old age pension legislation will agree there is no need to elaborate upon those three changes.
Whether the eligible age is sixty or sixty-five years, I think we are all agreed that seventy years is too advanced an age at which to begin the payment of old age pensions. I am asking in this resolution that the eligible age be reduced from seventy to sixty years. I think I can bring evidence before the house to prove that the age of sixty is a proper eligible age. First, I would ask members of the house to consider the age at which old age pensions are granted in other parts of the

world, and I would refer them first, to the legislation in the nations of the Britisn commonwealth, countries that perhaps are more like our own than any other part of the world.
Under recent legislation passed in Great Britain the eligible age has been made sixty years for women and sixty-five years for men. In New Zealand the eligible age is sixty years for both men and women. In Australia the eligible age is the same, sixty .years for both men and women. I believe the eligible age in most of the states of the United States is sixty-five years, with some states having it as low as sixty years.
There is another reason for reducing the eligible age. Because of the way in which modern machinery operates, many people are not able to carry on with their ordinary labours much beyond the age of sixty. This is particularly true of those whose work is manual. Persons engaged in sedentary occupations are often able to perform useful service after the age of sixty-five, or even after the age of seventy-five, but few who do manual work can hold their jobs after they have reached sixty years of age. This is particularly true of those who have intermittent work.
Often when a man has been employed for a period of years he is kept on by his employer, although he may not be as efficient as a younger man would be. Personal and humane considerations enter into the matter. This is particularly true where there is a retiring pension system. These pensions are usually paid at sixty-five years of age, and often an employee is kept on in order that he may reach the eligible age for a retiring pension. That is what happens with the good employer, but there are other employers who are not so thoughtful or humane and who are ready to find an excuse to discharge an individual who has reached such an age that his usefulness is impaired.
Age is a factor in engaging men and women for the government civil service. Employees in the civil service are supposed to retire at the age of sixty-five years. Very few, except service men or women, are brought into the service after they have reached the age of thirty-five and this applies also in private employment. Unless a person has some particular ability or skill which will make him more useful than he would be at an earlier age, very few employers care to hire any one beyond the age of thirty-five. I do not think I need labour the point.
Less need be sa'"1 about the necessity of increasing the amount of the pension. Taking into consideration all payments that are made in connection with old age pensions, in most

Old Age Pensions
provinces there is a nominal payment of $30 a month, but in no province does the old age pension from all sources average $30 a month. I have here an answer which was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) to questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as reported on page 579 of Hansard of October 1, 1915. The hon. member asked for the average pension paid to old age pensioners in each of the provinces, and also for the number of the old age pensioners in each province,. both as at June 30. 1945. I should like to quote these figures so that hon. members will realize how many persons are receiving these inadequate payments. The number of persons receiving old age pensions as at June 30, 1945, is as follows:
Alberta	 11,594
British Columbia	 15.505
Manitoba	 12,427
New Brunswick	 12.335
Nova Scotia	 14,135
Ontario	 5S.323
Prince Edward Island	 1.881
Quebec	 49,645
Saskatchewan	 12,971
Northwest Territories	 11
Add the figures I have given and you will have the number of old age pensioners as of June 30, 1945. These are the average monthly amounts received by pensioners in the various provinces: Alberta, $24.13; British Columbia, $24.38; Manitoba, $24.47; New Brunswick, $22.18; Nova Scotia, $22.54; Ontario. $24.45; Prince Edward Island, $18.66; Quebec, $23.94; Saskatchewan, $24.63; Northwest Territories, $24.09.
Additional sums are paid in some of the provinces, and adding these to the figures given by the minister in his answer gives this result:	Alberta, $29.13; British Columbia,
$29.38; Quebec, $29.38; Manitoba, $25.72; New Brunswick, $22.18; Nova Scotia, $27.54. In the case of Nova Scotia the pension is limited to $365 per year, and the additional payment is whatever amount up to $5 per month will bring the annual pension to $365. The figure for Ontario is $27.45; Prince Edward Island, $18.65; Quebec, $23.94; Saskatchewan $27.63.
No one can tell me that an individual to-day can live on less than $20 a month, as it is in some cases, or on less than $30 a month as it is in other cases. Members of this house are, especially considering the action we took respecting ourselves at the last session, in duty bound at this session to see that the old people of this country receive something more than $360 a year on which to live.
The third change which my motion proposes is that the Old Age Pension Act should be amended so as to abolish the means test.
Old age pensions to-day are paid only if the applicant is really destitute. I cannot do better than put on the record a few paragraphs from the proposals made by the dominion government to the dominion provincial conference. I quote:
The means-test is generally recognized as undesirable after a certain age. It has been noted that about 40 per cent of all persons of 70 years of age and over make application, satisfy the means-test requirements and receive pensions.
I call particular attention to the next paragraph:
There is little doubt that a very considerable number in addition are not able entirely to support themselves, but are dependent upon their family, and refrain from applying for pensions because of the embarrassment occasioned by the means-test.
The minimum age of 70, though convenient as a dividing line with respect to the payment of any kind of universal old age pension, is nevertheless too high in a number of cases of actual need.
That is an understatement. It goes on:
A strong ease can be made for reducing the age limit to 65 in [DOT]order to provide assistance, at least for those in the age group of 65-69, who are actually in need.
I do not think I need add anything to that to show the need for the abolition of the means-test in order that persons, even if they are not absolutely destitute, may apply for the old age pension without feeling that they are asking for charity.
I have before me the annual report of the Department of Old Age Pensions in the province of British Columbia for the year 1944-45. It gives the value of the real property and personal property owned by applicants for the old age pension. The following table gives the percentages of applicants for the old age pension holding real and personal property to the values shown:
(a) Holding real property of value- Per cent
Under $251	 57-41
$251 to $500	 8-66
$501 to $1,000	 13-68
$1,001 to $2,000	 14-20
$2,001 to $5,000	 5-80
$5,001 and up	 0-25
This table shows that only one-quarter of one per cent of the applicants had real property of a value of $5,001 and up. When you come to personal property the situation is even worse, as the following table shows:
(b) Holding personal property of value-
Per cent
Under $251	 71-77
$251 to $500	 13-74
$501 to $1,000	 8-22
$1,001 to $3,000	 5-63
$3,001 and up	 0-64
Old Age Pensions

Surely in view of these figures we could get something better for the people who are investigating these applications to do than looking into the personal affairs of old people who have given the best of their lives to their country. I should like to quote a short paragraph from this report:
' From the middle of 1939 until the end of 1940 the rate of increase in the number of pensioners is seen to continue evenly. This represented the early period of the war. The latter period of the war, beginning with the year 1941 and continuing into the early part of 1944, shows a rate of increase in the number of pensioners less than in any former period. However, early in 1944 it is noticed that a sharp rise began in this rate of increase, became steeper towards the end of that year, and continued into 1945.
With the worsening of economic conditions throughout the country, since the end of the war the number of persons making application for old age pensions is continually increasing.
In the province of British Columbia we have what is called the Parents' Maintenance Act. It provides that persons who make application for old age pensions and have children who might be able to support them or contribute to their support, must bring court action against them for that support before their applications will be accepted. A question on the point was asked in the British Columbia legislature in the 1943 session as follows:
What is the actual or estimated saving to the pensions board for the year ended December 31, 1942, due to the assumed ability of children to contribute to the maintenance of parents in receipt of the old age pension?
The answer was $3,560. As the number of old age pensioners in that year was 14,615, the amount collected was equal to 24 cents per pensioner for the* year. Yet we keep in the administration of old age pensions in British Columbia people whose business it is to find how much children can contribute to their parents' maintenance. I should not be a bit surprised if the cost of administering that provision were found to be much more than the $3,560 accruing to the board. I would, therefore, ask this house to see to it that the means test is abolished. What is required in this connection is a social security programme to cover all the hazards of modern life

by which I mean any contingency which prevents an individual from earning an income; it does not matter what it may be. The individual should be covered, and he can only be covered by a social security programme administered by the state. I am aware of the difficulties in this connection in Canada, because of our constitution. But recognizing these difficulties, I believe we should try to find a way around them.

So far as I know there is only one country in the world which has developed a complete social security programme. I should like to put on the record the various benefits which are given under that programme, so that hon. members can study them for themselves. I refer to New Zealand, but in order that hon. members may not, as they generally do when New Zealand is mentioned, blow a gasket or something, I will read briefly from the social security bulletin of the United States, volume 8, under date August, 1945. This bulletin gives among other things a summary of social security programmes throughout the world. In regard to New Zealand it says this:
New Zealand.-A high degree of income security for the entire population of New Zealand has been achieved through the Social Security Act of 1938, which welded a number of older scattered programmes into a unified whole. The New Zealand social security system represents a considerable departure from the pattern followed or proposed elsewhere, particularly with respect to cash benefits. The medical care benefits of the programme-including relatively complete medical, hospital, and laboratory services-are available to the entire population. The cash benefits are paid upon the occurrence of specified risks-old age, invalidity, widowhood or orphanhood, sickness, and unemployment-to individuals whose income is less than a specified amount.
That is not my statement; it is the statement of those who edited this social security bulletin. I would like to give the house the different headings, and, if I have the time, the amounts, yearly or weekly as the case may be, in Canadian money which are paid in benefits under the New Zealand programme:
yearly
Age Benefit	rate
All persons 60 years old	 $374 40
Married couple (both	eligible)	 748 80
Additional for wife not eligible in own
right	 187 20
yearly
Widows' Benefit	rate
Widow who has had children	 $374 40
Widow who has never had	children....	280 80
Note: Deserted wives and wives of mental hospital patients receive widows' benefit.
yearly
Invalid Benefit	rate
Married male invalid . i	
$374	40Additional benefit for wife	
374	40Unmarried invalid under 20 years of age 280	80All other permanent invalids	
374	40
weekly
Sickness Benefit	rate
Married couple	
$14	40Single person	
7	20
Person under 20 years of age without
dependents	 3	60

Old Age Pensions
weekly
Unemployment Benefit	rate
Married couple	 $11 JO
Single person over 20 years of	age....	7	20Single person under 20 years	of	age ...	3	60
yearly
Orphans' Benefit	maximum
Orphan under 16 years of	age	 $147	60
yearly
Miners' Diseases Benefit	rate
Miner and wife	
$748	80Single miner	
3/4	40
yearly
Family Benefit	ra*-e
For each child under 16 years of age
irrespective of parents'	income	 $93	60
Note: All children receive the above even when parents are in receipt of any of the aforementioned benefits.
yearly
Emergency Benefits	maximum
To cover all persons not otherwise
eligible	 $374	40
The last provision is made in any emergency in which none of the others apply. Let me point out that these benefits are all on a contributory basis, but all the benefits come out of the same fund and persons are entitled to them without the taint of charity.
I think I have said enough to show that the time has come, indeed it xame long ago, when we should improve the conditions for our old people. Let us remember that it is not a question of money, but one of organizing the man-power, the resources and the capital equipment of the country to produce the things the people need.
I would conclude with a sentence or two from the American philosopher, Lewis Mum-ford. He says:
The final test of an economic system is not the tons of iron, the tanks of oil or the miles of textiles it produces. The final test lies in its ultimate products, the sort of men and women it nurtures, and the order, the beauty and the sanity of their communities.
We cannot have order and beauty and sanity while a great many of our people are living on what the dominion government in its proposals to the provinces describes as a minimum subsistence.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: There can be little doubt that this question of old age pensions is one of the most important that can come before the Canadian parliament at this time. It is also one in which the members of the House of Commons should show great interest, since it involves directly the welfare of our senior citizens. In the last few years there has developed in the country an appreciation of the value of humanity. I believe that the Canadian people
as a whole are now placing far more value on humanity and far less on material things than they did ten years ago.
To-day I propose to place before the house certain cold, hard, unpleasant facts about the Canadian old age pension. All hon. members probably realize these facts, but in any event it will do no harm to mention them again in order to refresh memories. I am quite certain that the Canadian people, realizing these facts, are very much concerned that something should be done to remedy the situation.
The first fact is that the old age pension paid in Canada is not high enough for anyone to live on. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) to make that admission when he speaks, or if he feels that the pension is high enough in any province I would ask him to say so. The highest amount paid is paid in British Columbia and Alberta, and in those two provinces it is only approximately $30. That, Mr. Speaker, no matter how we try to get away from it and to make excuses, is not sufficient to enable any human being to live in Canada in health and self-respect, to use the words of the motion that is under discussion this afternoon.
The second fact is that there are thousands of Canadians under the age of seventy who are in need of old age pension but cannot get it because seventy is the earliest age at which a Canadian can qualify. It cannot be disputed that that age is higher than the age required in almost any other country where old age pension is paid. I have here the report on "Social Security for Canada," prepared by Doctor L. C. Marsh for the dominion government in 1943, and at page 73 I find this statement:
Review of the forty or more systems of old age assistance-contributory and non-contributory-effective in the world to-day clearly shows that the generally accepted view as to the proper age when consideration should be given to retirement from vrork and provision of security is sixty-five for men and sixty for women.
There is a great deal to be said for having the age for the wife lower than for the husband. There are many husbands who can qualify because they have reached the age of seventy but whose wife is some years younger, and where she cannot qualify it means that the old couple must live on the pension payable to one person.
The third fact is that the applicant for old age pension in Canada must go through a valley of humiliation before he or she can qualify. I might say something further about those words, 'but this is strictly a non-partisan speech. That, at any rate, is the position of a proud and dignified Canadian who goes to
Old Age Pensions

make application for the pension. Many of them have come to my office in Vancouver and almost invariably they are hurt by the questions they must answer. They have the feeling that they are under suspicion, that the governments suspect them of trying to get something for nothing. There is a stigma attaching to the information that is required, and this I think is very unfair and unwise.
For example, they must answer questions about the gifts they have received from their children or from any other source during the twelve months preceding application, and what salary their sons or daughters are earning. These questions make it difficult for a parent to complete the application without feeling humiliated. We have been led away from the original idea of the Old Age Pensions Act. I remember reading the debates that took place in this house and in -the provincial house of British Columbia when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed. At that time there was great talk about these pensions being a reward for pioneers. They were to be a payment for something that our older people had richly earned during their earlier years. There was no question at all of the pension being considered a hand-out. But it was not very long after the act had been passed until the administration was being carried on in such a way that the applicant felt that he was classed as somebody trying to get a hand-out. An old age pension should be treated throughout as a measure of security for our senior citizens.
The fourth fact I should like to' place before the house to-day is that in Canada a large percentage of applicants cannot qualify for a pension because of the stringency of our regulations. I hold in my hand the green book which was issued in August, 1945, and which contains the proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. At page 37 we find this statement with regard to -the deficiencies of the present -old age pension scheme in Canada. It reads as follows:
It has been noted that about forty per cent of all persons of seventy years of age and over make application, satisfy the means-test requirements and receive pensions. There is little doubt that a very considerable number in addition are not able entirely to support themselves, but are dependent upon their family, and refrain from applying for pensions because of the embarrassment occasioned by the ineans-test.
The percentage of those who qualify in Canada is far lower than in Great Britain and, I think, far lower than in any other nation of the commonwealth.


Brooke Claxton: Great Britain has a
contributory system which entitles the people as covered of right-


Howard Charles Green: If the minister will read his own proposals of last year and also the report of Doctor Marsh he will see that there was no doubt in the minds of the people who drew these documents that the position in Canada was not right, that it was not as fair as in other parts of the commonwealth.
In addition to those who cannot qualify, there are many thousands who, because of the present regulations, can qualify only for a partial pension.- For example, there is a provision which says that a percentage of the value of a person's real property can be counted as income, although actually there is no income; take the case of a man who has a piece of land or a building which is assessed at $3,500; whether or not he gets any income from that property, the old age pension regulations call for his being charged with an income of five per cent of the assessed value of the property. That is a most unfair regulation.
The fifth unpleasant fact about the Canadian old age pension is that thrift is penalized. Take a man who has put away a little money. He may have an income of $20 a month from the savings of a lifetime. Under the regulations as they stand to-day an applicant for old age pensfon is allowed an income of only $125 a year, which is about $10 a month. If he has an income greater than $125 a year his old age pension is cut down accordingly. That, I suggest-and I am sure no hon. member in this house can contradict me- penalizes thrift and is unfair to the Canadian who has been saving throughout his lifetime.
The sixth unpleasant fact about Canadian old age pensions-there may be many more but I picked out the six which I considred the most important-is that dominion governments as distinct from some of the provincial governments, have not faced the old age pension problem. There has been delay after delay. I have been a member of this house for over ten years and during all that time very little progress has been made in modernizing the Old Age Pensions Act. It is almost impossible to have any change made in the act or in the regulations. In this house there has been a tendency for the Minister of Finance, and through him the government, to take the stand that old age pensions are a provincial responsibility. I can quote from different speeches made by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to that effect, but I shall not take the time of the house to do so. That has been the outlook, that this

Old Age Pensions
question of old age pensions concerns the provinces and that the dominion government should not be bothered about it. It is true that now a change is coming about in that outlook, but there has been too little desire on the part of all dominion governments to settle this old age pension problem. The dominion government should take the lead in having the question settled.
Now, in 1946, of all times, prompt action is imperative. Of course the time element is always important to these old people because of the fact that they are old. They have few years left to live, and a delay of a year or two years at this time means great unhappiness to many of these elderly Canadian people.
Now in 1946 we are in the time of reconversion ; we are turning over from wartime to peacetime. We are laying new foundation for Canada, building for peace. There are hundreds of thousands of young Canadians coming back to go to work. The number of unemployed is increasing steadily across the country. Now is the time when something should be done about old age pensions, about our senior citizens.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I come to my suggestions. I realize that the dominion government has made certain proposals to the provincial governments in connection with old age pensions. I also believe that fact has been used as an excuse for delay. I suggest that at this session, not in the session' of 1947 or 1948 or some subsequent session, the government bring in legislation providing for a national old age pension for those of seventy years of age or over without any means test whatever.


Brooke Claxton: No matter what the
provinces say'!


Howard Charles Green: That was the proposal submitted to the provinces. I should like the government to show, by actually bringing in legislation, that it was not simply dangling that proposal as a carrot before the noses of the provincial governments. Let them bring it in, to show that they really meant business.
The second suggestion is that an amendment be brought in covering the years from sixty-five to seventy. When- the original Old Age Pensions Act was introduced the dominion government did not wait for the provinces to pass similar legislation. The dominion took the lead; then as the years went by province after province brought in the same act, thereby enabling the citizens of those particular provinces to get old age pensions. Let the dominion government of to-day do the same 63260-47
thing. Let it bring in an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act whereby any province wishing to provide pensions for its citizens between the ages of sixty-five and seventy years may be able to do so by the passing of complementary legislation.
Then there can be no excuse for -not revising the old age pension regulations, without further delay. The residence qualifications need to be widened. Those regulations dealing with income should be revised. Application forms should be changed. Allowance should be made for higher earnings of applicants. An applicant should be able to earn and to receive as pension up to a total of 8660, the amount which remains untaxed under the Income War Tax Act. In offering that figure, I refer only to the single man or woman. Applicants should be permitted to make higher earnings.
I have this final suggestion. Why does the governmnt not get busy at once on a retirement insurance plan under which Canadians could contribute during their working years and, then, as of right, and without any means test, become entitled to an adequate pension? If that were done, I believe the pension could be paid even at the age of sixty years, as recommended in this resolution. But some such scheme should be brought into being in Canada. We shall never have these old age pension problems settled, nor shall we settle other security problems of other types for the people of Canada until we have some broad retirement insurance plan.
In 1944, when discussing old age pensions, the Minister of Finance said, as reported at page 3535 of Hansard of that year:
The object would be eventually to work into a contributory scheme which would have very wide coverage. Of course it would not be contributory as far as present old age pensioners are concerned, because it is too late.
I am not suggesting that the present old age pensioners should be compelled to wait until there is a contributory scheme of this type, but there must be a retirement insurance plan for Canada. The government would have been much wiser if it had placed before the provinces some such plan. Had that been done, we would have got at the root of this problem, and of other security problems. But instead, so far as I am aware, no such retirement insurance plan has as yet been submitted to the provinces. I hope the government will get busy, working out the details' of some such plan. I feel confident that if the government were to do so it would have the support of hon. members of all parties in the house.

Old Age Pensions


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, it is most consoling to hear the words of the hon. member who has just preceded me, because it shows that Liberal processes of thinking can get across the floor and into the minds of our hon. friends opposite.


Howard Charles Green: The trouble is they have long since left Liberal thought.


Louis-Philippe Picard: What was the attitude of my hon. friend's party when that measure was initiated by the Liberal party? But that is the Conservative trend or frame of mind; they are always in favour of a project, but it is never the appropriate moment to introduce it. We saw the same thing in connection with family allowances.


Howard Charles Green: You did not.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I admit my hon. friend was one of the bright exceptions when that measure was introduced.


Gordon Graydon: Let us not make a
political football of the old people.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Hon. members must not interrupt the hon. member who has the floor. He can be asked questions only with his consent.


Louis-Philippe Picard: It is good, at times, to have a little brush-up, and remind ourselves where we stood a few years ago. I do not mind the interruptions; it is fun.
But when my hon. friend talks about delays he should not accuse us of having delayed, when the fact is that we were the first to bring this measure before the House of Commons, and when all the social security measures now on our statute books were put there by Liberal governments, and initiated by Liberal members.


Howard Charles Green: No, no.


Louis-Philippe Picard: There is not one that has not been.


Brooke Claxton: Every single one.


Louis-Philippe Picard: They all have been. Each time, when a new one was brought in we have been faced with the same opposition. In connection with family allowances, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) were for it, and voiced their opinions. But there was a lot of hesitancy on the other side of the house; and there was even opposition-not so much to the principle, but because it was not the right moment. It is never the right moment for the Conservatives to bring about a reform.
Since my hon. friend wanted to keep his remarks above politics, I shall carry on in the
fMr. Green.]
same vein. The point I wished to make was that the delay was not on our side, but on theirs, in introducing such measures.
Social security is not a cure-all for man's troubles, nor is it intended to prevent man from working for his living. It would not be right to bring into being any social system which would have as its outcome any diminution, if I may so describe it, of individual effort, or any crushing of initiative. On the other hand, it is impossible to do away with risks and responsibilities, and it would not be right to have a society based on paternalism. What must be created is equality of opportunity for all. Heredity, talent, initiative and work will soon make sure that equality of attainment will not be achieved. For that reason social security measures must be enacted, some in the shape of contributory plans, others in the shape of assistance for the less fortunate, without any contributions from the people who are to benefit.
As I said a minute ago, up to now Canada has been given one of the best systems of social security to be found on the statute books of any modern nation. We are not behind. Indeed, we are ahead in many of the fields we have entered. There are some, though, who because of their relative success in life, have failed to see the good fortune that helped them to higher achievements, and who looked down upon those who had not reached the same level.
They selfishly overvalue their virtues or their work, and blindly or ignorantly hold that equal work and equal industry will inevitably bring about similar results. That is far from the truth, and that is why we need social security measures. Assistance of the kind to which I refer is one of the urgent needs of modern society to bring about more equality of opportunity and more security against the hazards of life. Social security, which aims at preventing and controlling the hazards of life, meets an end which is not only vital to the individual but is essential for his morale and economic well-being.
During the session of last year I had dinner on a train with a business man, who had achieved considerable success. He said that he had not had any advantages, that he had started from nothing, He would not agree with any suggestion that another man working just as hard with the same talents could not reach the same level as he had. The fact is that chance and other considerations account for these inequalities. Social security is a necessity which is now recognized by everybody and there is no room for hesitancy

Old Age Pensions
in regarding it as essential. I am glad my hon. friends opposite have reached the same conclusion.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) stated that conditions for the working man throughout the world were about the same to-day as they were in the time of Burns, which would probably be a hundred and fifty years ago. I think he has overlooked a few of the things that have happened since then. Hours of work have changed considerably. Hours of work in industry generally have gradually been lowered until they are now from forty-five to forty-eight per week, and there are proposals to reduce them still further. The conditions in this regard are very different from what they were at the time referred to by my hon. friend.
Health conditions have changed a great deal. As a result of the advances made in science and economic development, probably the poorest man to-day lives better than the wealthy man of fifty years ago. The life of man has been extended considerably by the achievements of medical science. While all these things may not depend upon governments, I do not think my hon. friend would ask us to go back to the days of fifty years ago.
Consider the advances which have been made in housing generally throughout the world, and in Canada in particular. I admit that there is room for improvement, but much has been done over the years. Consider the conditions of the people who lived in the slums of England a hundred years ago. Some of those people-and I bow to them- came to Canada and helped to build up this countiy. To-day they are living under conditions much better than those which prevailed in England. Wages have gone up. Let us be just; let us not try to compare the conditions of to-day with those of a hundred years ago. What about child labour?


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Yes.


William Irvine: I think the hon. gentleman's point-


Louis-Philippe Picard: Is this a question?


William Irvine: I think the point made by my hon. friend (Mr. Maclnnis) was that in the time of Burns, they were mourning because of hunger and old age, and they are still mourning. If there has been so much improvement, how does my hon. friend explain the fact that there is still mourning for bread?


Mr. REID:: Not to anything like the same extent.
63260-47i


Louis-Philippe Picard: My hon. friend, and the hon. member who spoke before me, should realize that conditions have changed. I think everyone wants to be fair. No matter what government may* have been in power, is it not a fact that conditions have improved considerably throughout the world, and particularly in Canada? I admit that there is room for still more improvement, and in a moment I will say that I am in favour of better pensions. But I do not think it is fair to compare conditions of to-day with what they were a hundred and fifty years ago, even if some of our people have not reached the level which we should like to see achieved for the population in general. The standard of living throughout Canada is much higher to-day than it was in England and than it is at the present time in many other countries.
Among the different measures that could be included in social security-and which, if I may remind the house, were brought about by Liberal governments-are the workmen's compensation acts and measures to provide for the arbitration of labour disputes. The matter of health insurance is under consideration by the minister. It has been studied by committees, ancl as soon as the proposals are accepted by the provinces it will be placed upon the statu'te book. It is another innovation for which a Liberal government was responsible.
May I remind my hon. friends that when unemployment insurance was first brought before the house it was stated that the time was not opportune, economically or otherwise, to bring forward the measure. But we have unemployment insurance. It costs the government a considerable amount; it costs industry a considerable amount, but it has resulted in a tremendous improvement in conditions. Family allowances are now being paid, and they cost the treasury quite a large amount of money. Then there are old age pensions, as I mentioned a moment ago.


Howard Charles Green: I know the hon. member does not wish to be unjust. He will remember that this party advocated unemployment insurance, and actually the first unemployment insurance bill was brought in by Mr. Bennett.


Louis-Philippe Picard: If the hon. member will look up Hansard he will see that the objection was not to the principle, but to the time at which the measure was brought in.


Gordon Graydon: It was brought in by the Bennett government.


Louis-Philippe Picard: At a very opportune time-just before the election of 1935.

Old Age Pensions


Gordon Graydon: May I say to my hon. friend-


Louis-Philippe Picard: Does my hon. friend mean the,election bill?


Gordon Graydon: Unemployment insurance was brought in by the Bennett government.


Brooke Claxton: It was thrown out by the courts.


Gordon Graydon: The minister will have his chance. It was brought in by the Bennett government, thrown out by the present government and sent to the supreme court and privy council for decision. It was thrown out by the courts. Then it was brought in by this government in 1941. I happened to be a member of the committee which brought the bill in, and I know there was entire unanimity with respect to it. There were no reservations at all.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am glad to know that some Conservative elements approve of what we proposed at the right time.
Workmen's compensation has been in operation throughout the world for about fifty years. Most of the workmen's compensation legislation which is now on the statute books was enacted between 1911 and 1930. France started in 1898, and Spain in 1900, on a moderate scale. Workmen's compensation implies a modification of common law rules relating to liability for damage for the purpose of securing, with the minimum of litigation, limited compensation for all injuries incurred in the course of employment.
I am reviewing briefly these different measures because most of them touch directly or indirectly the question of old age pensions. Workmen's compensation is or should be related to old age pensions. Health insurance is another measure which has to do with it. The proposals made to the provinces have been read and are known by all members of the house, so I need not go back to them. Sickness is the most constant and , frequent risk, for the low income population and for wage earners in general. It is a risk which may entail the loss of health and earning capacity, the loss of livelihood, the loss of ability to pay for medical assistance.
What is needed is to place at the disposal of the people the facilities of modern medicine for the preservation of the health and detection of disease. As stated in the proposals to the provinces, under our present system, for those who cannot afford to pay, the cost of ill health falls at the very moment when earning capacity is cut off. Those unable to pay are left to the charity of benefactors. It is evident (hat a scheme of health

insurance such as is proposed by the dominion to the provinces is necessary, and it is to be hoped that an agreement in this regard will be reached. Any such scheme should include an extension of assistance to the blind, assistance to needy mothers, and maternity grants. Unemployment insurance, shall I say, to correct rvhat I said a moment ago, has been adopted unanimously by the house.
The outstanding feature of any social security act has been considered to be the old age pension. Social security for aged people can be arrived at by two systems, one supplementing the other, if we wish to have a real social security system. One is the retirement or long-service pension scheme on a contributory basis, as adopted in some countries and as we have it in Canada for certain trades and professions. We might classify old-age insurance plans as follows: schemes applying to salaried employees in general; schemes applying simply to occupational groups, such as bank clerks, civil servants, public utility workers, railway employees, and so on; schemes applying to workers in one entire branch of economic activity, such as all industrial workers, or all commercial workers; and schemes applying to wage-earners or employed persons generally.
The outstanding feature of the occupational scheme is the retirement or long-service pension at a given age. and with that are usually coupled invalidity provisions for retirement on practically the same conditions if the worker becomes an invalid and incapacitated from earning. The different definitions of invalidity or incapacity to earn a living can be considered later, as they are very elastic and differ from one country to another and from one scheme to another.
Many of these retirement schemes, depending on the type of occupation involved, provide a pension as early as fifty, but usually at around sixty-five, and in some cases at sixty years of age after from twenty-five to thirty years of service. That is the average of most of the schemes now in operation. The employee becomes entitled to a pension ranging from two-thirds of his average salary for the previous five years, and pensions for survivors are often provided in such schemes at the rate of fifty per cent of the pension which the deceased employee was receiving or would have received.
Most of these schemes are financed by contributions from the employers and employees, but not by the state. '
Insurance schemes for wage earners in general or in an organized trade present a much more complicated problem. l arge contribu-

Old Age Pensions
lions for the purpose of old age insurance schemes cannot very easily be levied on manual workers who are not permanently employed. Enough is already taken from their weekly pay by workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, and-probably later on-by the health insurance programme; and so for most wage earners a contributory scheme will not be practicable. The main object is to withdraw as little as possible from the wage earner's income for current consumption needs, because it is of the utmost importance to society generally that he should maintain a decent minimum standard of living and sufficient purchasing power to ensure large markets for our production, if we do not want our whole economy to be endangered and if we want to keep employment at as high a rate as possible.
We are left therefore with the necessity of providing pensions for old age on a noncontributory basis. The present old age pension scheme is well known, therefore I do not need to enter into details. But as we have to compare what is being done with the proposals contained in this resolution, it may be said that up until now the maximum amount of pension to which the dominion has contributed is $25 a month. Some of the provinces granted supplemental amounts. The monthly pension varies from $18.63 in one province to $29.41 in another, including provincial supplementary grants. This resolution, although it does not specifically mention any sum, it calls for an increased pension, and if I understood the mover aright he would like to see the pension increased to $50 a month. On the other hand the dominion government has made proposals to the provinces with respect to the old age pension, and it might be well to consider these before we go any further.
The proposals made to the provinces rather suggest that they cannot very well be applied, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) suggested, by separate federal enactment without infringing upon the rights of the provinces. This is an important consideration in some places throughout the country, and of course we must act with due consideration for the wishes of the provinces. We know how ticklish it is at times to get agreement from the provinces on schemes which we would normally regard as perfectly acceptable and to which neither side of the house at first seems to see objection; yet we find that one province or another objects. So I think that before we go into any new pension scheme for the aged we should have
the answer of the provinces tn the proposals which have been made by the dominion government.	.
I am all in favour of a higher rate of pension, and a lower pensionable age, but we must take into consideration the capacity of the country to pay and we must consider the burden it will impose upon the taxpayers. There are many people-some of them sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker- who, clamour for lower taxation, lower income tax, and lower corporation tax. If we want to reach that objective, and at the same time plan for higher government expenditures, it will be difficult for the Minister of Finance to make ends meet.
The proposal of an old age pension of $50 per month at age 60 would, I am given to understand, involve an annual expenditure of $851,000,000. That was the figure given by the minister last year, and I am told that further calculations have not changed it. On the other hand the expectancy of income tax revenue this year is $680,000,000. In addition to the $851,000,000 for old age pensions there will be the cost of the present social security programme of the government, which I entirely support. While I should like to see the old age pension increased to $50 a month and the age reduced to 60, I wonder if, in view of the figures I have mentioned, it would be at all possible to do it, and whether we could not say that the programme proposed by the dominion government to the provinces is a good one. Already, taking the figure given by the minister when he spoke to the house the other night on disability pensions, we have reached an expediture of over one billion dollars yearly, which does not include more than $39,500,000 from the federal treasury for old age pensions. If to that we add another $851,000,000 to finance the scheme proposed by my hon. friend, we would have an annual expenditure of $1,851,000,000. With income taxes as they are, I wonder how we would be able to get along with the system we had during the war, financing half our expenditures by taxes and half by loans. I think we would be top-heavy, or lop-sided, or whatever you call it, in our finances if we went all along with the proposals which have been made to-day.
Social security in all its phases is in a constant process of evolution. No system of government for the world has been found to be permanent, and no system of social security benefits has been evolved all at one time. I think the government has not done badly in years past with the programme it has put on the statute books. I think also that the present proposal should be considered an improvement and that it will be acceptable.
Old Age Pensions

One point in the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) which I heartily approve is his criticism of the means test. It is an awkward system and should be entirely discarded. The present proposals mention that the test should be disposed of for those who are seventy years of age or over. I would favour going farther than that and making the change applicable to all who come under the benefits of the act from the age of sixty-five years. The means test, and the withdrawal from the estate of the deceased man under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member are not, to my mind, the best of policies. They may be regarded as necessary by those who are better versed in such questions than I am, but I do not think they work satisfactorily, and I personally would favour their abolition. Let the payment outfight of $30 a month to everybody of the age af seventy and over be the obligation of the federal government; and, as to the age groups from sixty-five to sixty-nine, let the feder il government contribute 50 per cent of the cost of $30 a month. I believe that would be a considerable improvement on the present system and that it would be highly appreciated by the people of Canada.
While I am on this subject of old age pensions and still have some time left, I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton). The other night he took me to task because at the end of my remarks on the disability proposals I said, and I thought I was perfectly right in saying, that I would carry on the debate next Tuesday. I wish to apologize because I realized last eveningvthat I would have been out of order had I tried to proceed with that debate; but the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), who proposed this resolution, was under the same impression as I was. Probably at a later time he will find a way to say a few words on his resolution. Since it is intimately connected with the question of old age, I think I might say one word in this regard, that when amendments to old age pensions are considered it might be appropriate to consider some form of benefits for invalids or other people who are absolutely incapable of earning their livelihood. These people, of course, as do all workers, fall into different categories. There are those who during part of their life have been able to work but who have been incapacitated: some of them fall under schemes of pensions which give them definite benefits; others come under the provisions of workmen's compensation acts, if their disability was occasioned during the course of their work. But such protection is provided for only a certain number.

I believe that the majority of wage-earners, fo,r example those employed in agriculture, in domestic service, as casual workers, as daily manual workers, are usually^ excluded from all sorts of benefits or compensation laws dealing with disability. In these cases something should be done. If I understand well, in England there is protection in such cases up to the age when those concerned come under the provisions of the old age pensions law. I see here in a book by Beaman, although I cannot vouch for the fact, that the British law covers the field of need, because all wage-earners in the United Kingdom are insured for disability benefits up to the age of seventy, although I doubt whether that includes all occasional and daily workers. What of the unskilled labourers, the farmers, the fishermen, and, above all others, people who have permanent disability from childhood, people who have never worked, not people who are trying to evade the law of work but those who, on account of their physical build or their ill health, have never been able to work? All of us know in our constituencies many such cases which are not provided for under existing laws. It would be well, therefore, for the minister to consider a readjustment of the old age pensions law or some appropriate way of dealing with them. The other night, when he so ably presented 'his opinion on the matter, the minister mentioned disability as coming after certain other things. He said that unemployment insurance would come first, under the Doctor Marsh report and the recent speech of President Truman: he put second, health insurance; third, disability and old age pensions; fourth, children's allowances; fifth, sickness cash benefits. I think the minister in his speech included the people we are mainly talking about in the fifth class, namely sickness cash benefits. With all due respect for his higher knowledge, I think they should come in the third category, that of disability and old age pensions, and that they should be treated, as I have said, in one act or under one scheme.


Gordon Graydon: The principle is now
recognized in the case of blind people, and it should, I think, be extended.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Yes, it is done now for the blind. Here the minister had in mind those who probably become invalids through sickness, and he put them into the fifth category. As I was going to say for the benefit of those who were not here the other night, I think it might be well to consider what the minister has done up to now for the building of social security plans for Canada. He has given of the best of his ability to evolving an

Old Age Pensions
entirely new system, one which is comprehensive, well organized and well balanced, and I think he deserves credit for it and the gratitude of the country for it. I know that he is anxious and desirous above anybody else in the house to bring about as speedily as can be done a comprehensive system of the kind which has been outlined. As I said a moment ago, this cannot be done all at one time; these matters are in process of constant development.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Other countries have done it, have they not?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Does the hon. member mean New Zealand? That is one country which has been given often by him as an example. But I do not think any one country has brought about at one time, in one year, a plan of social security. Does the hon. member, by any chance, mean Russia? I forgot about that entirely. Whatever any nation may do by means of revolution, I do not know of any country which, by process of evolution, can effect an immediate change in the present system. At any rate, so far as democratic countries are concerned, working along evolutionary lines, I do not think we in Canada are doing too badly. The situation is improving gradually.
I feel keenly about the question of disability, and what I suggest might well be done concurrently with a revision of the old age pensions law. Some people have raised the objection that it is quite difficult to define disability or infirmity, but there are three descriptions which are given as taken from the United States laws at the moment, and which I think I can readily bring to the attention of the house. Here I am referring to a publication entitled "Social Security Bulletin," for March, 1941, and in particular from an article by the chairman of the social security board of the United States, Mr. A. J. Altmeyer. I quote:
Under the retirement law for the civil service employees of the government, for example, an employee meets the test of disability if, by reason of disease or injury, he is totally disabled for useful, and efficient service in the position occupied by him. The Railroad Retirement Act requires that a railroad worker be "totally and permanently disabled for regular employment for hire" before he is granted a disability benefit.
There is quite a distinction there.
Under United States life insurance, purchasable by persons who served in the military or naval forces of the United States during the war, total permanent disability is any "impairment of mind or body which continuously renders it impossible for the disabled person to follow any substantially gainful occupation, and which is founded upon conditions which
render it reasonably certain that the total disability will continue throughout the life of the disabled person."	_
That, I 'submit, is an apt definition, because impairment of mind or body, which renders it impossible for a person to follow any gainful occupation, is more specific than simply the stipulation that in order to be considered an invalid a man should be subject to certain restrictions. The definition, I think, is broad enough. Of course there must be an avoidance of any duplication of benefits, but any objection in that respect can easily be met.
It is evident that we must consider a broader source of relief for the numerous persons in Canada who to-day have to depend upon relatives or upon charity, so that, as regards those who have parents to support, family resources which heretofore have been used for the assistance of such persons may be set free to meet the important needs of those who have to contribute such support. It would mean fair treatment and the removal of a source of anxiety.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order. I am no stickler for the rules, Mr. Speaker, but time is short, and I am suggesting that my hon. friend is not discussing old age pensions.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I have about concluded, Mr. Speaker, although I submit that what I am saying is directly connected with the question before the house. We owe it to the country to do something for these people. We all admit that the workers are entitled to rest after a life of labour, but we should not have to leave to the children alone the obligation to support their parents. Their burden should be lightened in order that they may see to the education of their own children. At the same time, we must see to it that the aged are not deprived of purchasing power, which is important if we are to maintain stable economic conditions.
The hon. member who introduced the resolution has done the house a real service. We must improve our old age pension system and provide for those who find it necessary to take advantage of it, and we must have a pension scheme that will cover all those who are not already taken care of. But let us do it in a way consistent with the interests of the Canadian economy. I submit that by passing legislation which will put into effect the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces we mty best attain our goal for the present.


Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, it is seldom that you
Old Age Pensions

hear from this remote corner of the house, but occasionally, when I see the storm clouds gathering and mounting in the sky, I feel impelled to say a few words. In my solitude down here I have been giving particular study to various members of the house, one of whom is the hon. member for Vancouver Bast (Mr. Maclnnis). I have learned tO' respect the hon. member for Vancouver East and I realize that he is a great humanitarian. He is always looking opt for the unfortunate individual and I have acquired an admiration for that hon. gentleman. To-day I must differ with him in certain respects, and I differ not so much in principle as in point of time and expediency. I know you will want me to explain that. Do not suppose that I am trying to use up the time of the house unnecessarily. Far from it;
I do not often speak.
When I speak of time and expediency, I mean this. We all know that the dominion-provincial conference is due to resume on the 25th of this month. Proposals have been set forth by the dominion government and with those proposals we are all acquainted. I would not want to see the premiers of the different provinces embarrassed in any way, nor would I want to see the federal government in any more complicated position than it may ibe in at the present time when it comes to ironing out the differences that may exist.
I regard the dominion-provincial conference as one of the most important conferences we have ever had in Canada. We must recognize that there are certain .powers which the provinces must have, and I for one have great faith in the premier of my province, the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald. Down there we all know that he will not accept any proposal from the dominion government unless he believes that it is for the good of his province, and I trust that all other lion, members have the same faith in. their provincial premiers.
I am sure that if they have as much faith in their premiers as I have in mine they will not do anything that will embarrass those gentlemen when they come here to discuss matters.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that in time we should reduce the age from seventy, but I do not know when.. That is something which will have to be discussed, and it should be discussed by the premiers "as well as by the federal government. I agree with the hon. member, in principle, so far as that is concerned.
One thing I loathe and have always loathed is the means test. I do not like a means test or anything else that is likely to make any man appear undignified in his old age. The 
Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) expressed his views, with some slight differences, on the same matter on October 3, 1945, as reported at page 729 of Hansard:
When the proposals were put before the provinces they received what I think anyone who was present would regard as a sympathetic reception. Certainly the provinces gave every assurance that the proposals would receive serious consideration, and we in this house can only take it to be the case that they are receiving serious consideration to-day.
I am sure that they are receiving consideration, because those premiers are all serious-minded men. I believe they are making an honest effort to come together with the dominion and to work out some sort of grand scheme which will have far-reaching effects, not only for us but for all our children and our children's children.
In what I am about to say I do not wish to be misunderstood. Sitting in this comer, I hear a lot of debate going on backwards and forwards. I find it interesting. I am particularly interested in the views I hear expressed regarding western Canada, because I do not know too much about that part of the country, but I am learning fast. From one side of the house we hear statements that we must lower the taxes. Then we hear that we must raise the allowances, raise payments and so on. The province of Nova Scotia, from which I come, is something like the highlands of Scotland where money is hard to come by and we value it highly there. I think the time is coming when we have to call a halt. We must make a reconnaissance and not move forward one yard until we have made a thorough survey of the entire situation. We must make that reconnaissance as quickly as we can. Then, when we have a solid foundation laid and plenty of support behind us, we should move ahead in the right direction. Our social legislation must be founded on rock bottom. If it is not, and we increase the old age pension now and lower the age limit, in time, if we do. not balance our budget and occasionally have a surplus, we shall reach the stage when our children and our children's children want the old age pension and there will not be anything to pay them. We shall all agree in principle, but there will be no principal to pay them. That is a matter we must take into serious consideration.
I was so much interested in the debate last fall that I wanted to take part in it again to-day. May I quote again from page 729 of Hansard of October 3, 1945, so that

Old Age Pensions
people who read this debate will be able to refer readily to the previous debate. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said:
[DOT] * . for old age pensions to be paid to all citizens on attaining the age of sixty years, at $50 a month without a means test. The estimate which the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has given me would indicate that in the year 1948, $50 a month to every person of sixty years of age and over would cost the federal government $850 million for that year alone. When I tell the house that the total amount raised by personal income tax for the year 1944-1945 is estimated to be $667 million hon. members will see something of the magnitude of the proposal put forward by the hon. member.
In other words, the cost of this proposal would be more than the total personal income tax paid by the Canadian people during the last year. That has a definite bearing on our relations with the provinces.
I maintain that that has a definite bearing


An hon. MEMBER:: So what?


Loran Ellis Baker: An hon. member said, "So what." I cannot say, "So what" when it .comes to large sums of money like that. People all over this country and the men and women in the armed services bought victory bonds. If we reach the stage where our dollar drops to the extent that it might, if we go ahead too rapidly-I mention victory bonds because that is something with which outside concerns have nothing to do; that is something we all own; the country belongs to us

the bonds will depreciate and it will hurt the people who need the money most. I agree in principle with much that the hon. member for Vancouver East has said. I know the hon. member for Vancouver East is a champion. What Angus was not a champion? There is Angus Maclnnis; he is a champion for humanitarian causes and I grant him that. There is Angus Walters who was the skipper of the undefeated north Atlantic fishing schooner Bluenose. There is Angus L. Macdonald, who is Premier of Nova Scotia. He is another champion from my province. I want to give my champion a chance to come here to see what he can do, and work things out for my province. I shall give him my support and I am sure that many other hon. members will do the same.
I have not a great deal more to say on this subject because I am not trying to take up a lot of time. However, I believe the motion is premature at this time. I hope that some day in the future, and the sooner the better, we shall be able to have these things so arranged in Canada that the old and aged people will be able to pass through the twilight of their lives with dignity, comfort and security.
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton
East): Since this debate started I have noticed that approximately one hundred Liberals have walked out, joined, I must say, by a great number on this side of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about your own group?


Mr. ASHBY:: I said that they were joined by a number on this side of the house. Therefore I must come to one of two conclusions: either they are not interested in old age pensions, or they realize we have done nothing but talk. I think that is the correct answer; they realize that we are doing nothing but talk. That is true.
I have listened to the impressive figures, , financial and otherwise, that have been given here this afternoon. The only figures that I am interested in are the figures of our old folk, and they have just about lost them.
I visited an old folks' home, and I can assure the house that the old people I saw there had no figures left. The skin that was hanging over their bones looked to me just like a coat on an old senator. I wanted to aid some of these old people, but they did not want me to help them even to walk. The woman in charge of this particular place said; "Pat has come to see you." Immediately there was a scramble to get up to have a look at me. I saw one poor soul trying to come down the stairs. He had on a shabby dressing gown which looked like a thing that had been thrown out in the garbage months before, but he did not want any help. He was an independent fellow. His knees were about the size of the old gray mare's that I used to have, swollen up with arthritis, knocking together with a clatter that could be heard like the bones on the prairie in a windstorm.
I am not deaf and dumb, as apparently the Minister of Finance and this government are.
I do have fairly good eyesight, and I can see the plight of these people. My hearing is not too bad. I can hear their' groans. They have been in need for years. What are we going to do about it? Stand up and talk all day? What I want to see is a bill brought into the house so that we chn vote on it. Who is holding it up? We brought in a bill in the latter part of the last session giving each hon. member a couple of thousand dollars tax free, and it went through like a house afire. Had it not been for the fact that the bill was held up by one or two members who wanted to get their names in the papers, it would have gone through in half the time. That is all there is to it: Bring on the bill; who is holding it up?


An hon. MEMBER:: You are.

Old Age Pensions


Patrick Harvey Ashby: No, I am not holding it up. I will support a bill if you will give me an opportunity to vote on it.
When I listened to this talk about millions and millions-well, what about it? Did we talk about that when war was declared? No; we went ahead and produced abundantly, and gave it all away to the enemy. Well, surely to God we can provide our old folk with a few crackers and some thin soup.
I am not interested in methods; I am interested in results. However I must bring to the attention of the house this fact, that there are four methods of dealing with our old folk. There is the present method we are now using, that of starving them to death. I do not agree with this method. I suppose my disagreement is due to some weakness on my part, but it just makes my heart bleed to see these old folk slowly dying. When I have an old mare who has fulfilled her usefulness I sell her to the fox farms. I do not just tie her up somewhere and let her starve to death. And so I disagree completely with the present method.
Another fellow did have a better method, I believe; that was the gas chamber in Germany. That was Adolf's method. I think it would be far better to put our old-age folk in a gas chamber, because it does not take long to gas them to death, and we would not be bothered with them any more. If that were done we would not hear their cries, but of course I would object to that method, on more than one ground.
Then there is another method known as the guillotine. I would object to that too, because it is a terribly messy job. Besides, in these days one has to have a licence for everything. You have a licence for this and a licence for that and a licence for the other thing.
Folks are not keeping as many dogs as they used to have, so that we have not enough canine scavengers to clean up the mess. So I think the best answer is to let them live. Yes, I do. Just let them live as they want to live. So far as I can see when I walk through the city streets, there is plenty of food for sale in the stores. The storekeeper is always right behind the counter, ready to sell it. I can see no reason why these old folks should not be able to buy all the food they want.
I have asked them what they want, and they tell me they do not want very . much. A great many of them have said to me, "You younger men"-and they look upon me as a younger man-"want a car, fine clothes, luxuries; you want far more than we do. But when one gets along in years, to sixty-five or

seventy years of age, one does not want very much. We do not want to go gallivanting around the country as you do, in automobiles. No, we do not even care about going to the moving pictures. All we want is a street-car ticket once in awhile, so that we can go to the cemetery and have a look around at our last resting place."
I heard some hon. members talking about some contributory method by which in their younger days people would be able to contribute part of their savings to a fund for their old age. Well, have they not already contributed? I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of dollars they have contributed. I'll warrant some of them have paid in as much as $25,000 or $30,000 in taxes during their lifetime. And what about those taxes? Where did the money go? Did someone burn it up? It must be around somewhere. Where is all this money that was said to have been spent during the war? There were billions and billions of it; I should like to see where it is. They talk about money being scarce; what became of it? Did it go up in flames like the wood-pile across the river? What became of it?
When hon. members begin talking about a contributory system I feel like telling them to go and chase themselves. I could have brought down to the floor of this house dozens of resolutions I have received. My suggestion was $60 a month at fifty years; but no; our old folks are so generoijs that they do not want that. Certainly they are not greedy when they say, "No, we can get along on $50 a month at sixty years." I said to them, "Well, if you feel that $50 a month,at sixty years is sufficient, it is perfectly all right with me."
If a bill were brought in here to-morrow which would enable our old folk to receive $50 a month at sixty years, without a means test, it would receive my support and the support of this house. It is none of our business what their means might be; that is their private concern. It is not my business to pry and spy into the affairs of my people. Just imagine me, a member of parliament, going along the street, stopping folk and asking them how much they have in their pockets, or to let me look at their bank books. Just imagine my going up to a lady, grabbing her bag from her arm, opening it, and looking inside of it. Of course I would not do that in these days, because women wear their finger nails so long. But I have not the right to pry and spy into the affairs of the people I represent. What reason have we collectively to employ civil servants and demand that they must know all about the

Old Age Pensions
private affairs of our people? Certainly that is not democracy; it is pure unadulterated nazism. It is the sign of dictatorship.
When we refer to $50 at the age of sixty, we must remember there are many whose wives have not yet reached sixty years, or sixty-five-whatever the age at which the pension is to be made payable-who are incapable of earning anything. The people, not members of parliament, have the right to decide at what age these pensions shall be payable. And if the people decide that the age of sixty is the one they want, then the wife of every old age pensioner should also receive a pension. I see no reason why she should not. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred she is incapable of earning anything, or of going out to work.
I must say that old ladies are sometimes tougher than men. Indeed I have seen some old ladies whose vitality puzzled me; I wondered how in the world they kept alive. Surely they must be made of better material than any other animals with which I have associated.
I do not think there is any use in talking any more. We have talked and talked about it. Dozens of resolutions have reached me -indeed, they have been coming in for years. And why not? I know it is useless for a private member to introduce a bill involving an expenditure of public money, but I am wondering why the government does not bring in such a bill. It would not take long to do it. Meantime these old folk are groaning in their old age and suffering poverty and want in this great country of abundance.


William Irvine: 
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman proposes an
Old Age Pensions

amendment to the present old age pensions legislation to reduce the eligible age to sixty years, to increase the amount of the pension in order to enable the recipients to live in health and self-respect, and to delete the income requirements. By the latter I suppose he means the means test. I propose to take only the same amount of time as the preceding speaker. I think the rules should be changed so that members would be allowed only ten minutes instead of forty minutes when speaking on private members' motions.
Prior to 1927, when the old age pensions legislation was first passed, these aged people were the responsibility of the municipalities. Cities had to take care of their aged and infirm in public institutions or by private and public charity. A city like the one I represent had to pay millions of dollars to establish and maintain these institutions. Many of these people were left to drift or care for themselves.
Our system in Canada has been a disgrace, and I shall refer to only two sections. When the legislation was first passed in 1927 the government reimbursed those provinces that participated in the scheme on the basis of fifty per cent. In 1931 this proportion was raised to seventy-five per cent, the increased contribution to start on November 1 of that year. Then by an order in council passed under authority of the War Measures Act the maximum amount of income allowed was increased from $240 to $300 a year. This legislation has been in operation in all the provinces and the northwest territories under the conditions set out.
The city of Toronto, in which there are( so many industrial people, established a local board. However, that local board had no power; it simply passed on the applications to the provincial government. The number of Toronto residents who received pensions last year was 11,044, and the amount paid was $3,651,000. In 1944 the blind were brought under this legislation, and there were 252 blind persons in Toronto who received $83,000.
Long before 1927 the city of Toronto had established pension schemes in the police and fire departments, and the school board and other public departments under which pensions were paid at the age of sixty-five years. This scheme covered departments like the police department, the fire department, the schoolteacher and others. The employees contributed from five to seven per cent. Further, $12 a week was paid by the city hall to all employees in various departments until recently.
The minister should reconsider a readjustment of thq whole system. Last year an
]Mr. Church.]
increase in pension was opposed for financial reasons, but I ask the minister to consider what happened in the old country ten years ago. They passed what is known as the determination of needs act. Under that legislation a poor person did not have to be a pauper in order to draw a pension. In 1940 the pensionable age for women was dropped from sixty-five to sixty years and some 3,000,000 women workers were able to secure these benefits. That country also inaugurated a supplementary pension scheme for the aged and widows in need.
Our system is nothing but a pauper system with its means test. It is well named. It is the meanest test that was ever applied in any civilized country. Then the government puts it up to the municipalities and the provinces to enforce this pauper rule. What was done in Great Britain in 1944 under the Churchill government? Legislation was passed to abolish the means test, and the same thing should be done in this country right now.
The determination of needs act, 1943, brought within the scope of the supplementary pensions scheme, widow pensioners under the age of sixty with children to support. As a result of regulations made in 1944, improvements were made in the method of calculating supplementary pensions, and the rates for women were made equal to those for men.
That is what should be done in Canada. We should abolish the means test and have a needs test. The physical fitness branch which has been established under the federal government should also be abolished immediately because it is useless. All the work it is doing is already being done by school boards throughout Canada and by local sporting organizations throughout the country. The money spent on this branch is absolutely wasted.
I wish to give one example of how the means test operates, and this is the meanest case I know of. It concerns the widow of what one might call the dean of the press in Canada. He died a few years ago and left a widow. I do not want to mention any names. She applied for the old age pension. She was 76 years of age, having been born in 1868, and was in poor health. She had resided in Canada since 1884, was a citizen of Toronto for twenty-five years, and was entitled to the old age pension, I quote from her letter to me:
It came as an unpleasant surprise to be told by an investigator-
They are all over our city.
-that old age had nothing whatever to do with the payment "it does not matter whether you are are seventy or ninety, the pension is only for those persons who are in want."

Old Age Pensions
I have only one son and he married in September, 1944. He and his wife were obliged to continue living with me in this upper duplex, 310 Wright avenue, where my husband and son and myself had lived for over five years.
It whs a tentative. arrangement as my son's wife naturally wanted an apartment all to herself. The acute housing situation has forced us to remain on here. The overhead expenses are too heavy for my son to carry so an arrangement was made that I would stay on and contribute towards household expenses and pay all my own personal needs without any assistance from my son, which I was able to do while I had the pension.
I do not want to be made feel that I ain a pauper and have no rights as a free citizen.
That is what our old age pension scheme is-nothing but a pauper system-and it would be better to wipe it out altogether and place the onus on the municipalities and the provinces and private charity to administer, with federal aid, directly rather than this means system we have.
I know another old citizen in Toronto who owned a little bit of a house, and he got a measly pension of $28 a month and then died a few years later. The members of his family at that time were attending the university and They were asked to reimburse the government $265 which this pensioner had received over a period of a few years. The whole system should be changed. To-day we are spending one billion and a quarter dollars, and all on material needs and we have not a dollar to take these poor old people out of the poor-house. It is a disgraceful system. The city of Toronto during the depression had to spend almost half a million dollars monthly on relief, all loaded on real estate, for the relief of those who were suffering in the depression between the two wars, and then on relief.
I ask the government and the minister in charge of old age pensions to consider the British statute and to abolish the means test and bring in a needs test, so that all people who need it will receive immediate assistance, without any deductions. It seems to me that the present system is operated on the principle of "to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." There should be a reorganization of the whole old age pensions department, and a new agreement should be arrived at with the provinces at the dominion provincial conference next month. The amount of the pension should be increased, and there should be a needs test and not a means test applied to these aged people, and direct federal aid to many old age people's homes across Canada on a per diem basis.


Mr. BENOIT MICHAUD (Restigouehe-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak
to this resolution, although I am in sympathy with its principle, I do not consider it advisable that the house should adopt it at this time I realize that what I have to say will not add materially to the debate, but we have already heard a great many repetitions this afternoon and I should like to say a few words.
I consider that it would not be advisable to adopt this resolution at this time because certain proposals have been made with respect to the old age pension by the dominion government to the provinces, and we should not do anything now which might hinder the work of the conference.
My hon. friends opposite have been consistent in their demands for a more liberal old age pension, but they have not been consistent in the particulars of their demands. Since I came into this house less than one year ago I have heard a great many opinions expressed on this question of old age pensions. Some hon. members have asked that the old age pension be increased to $50 a month; others have suggested $60, payable at varying ages from 60 years upwards, and if my memory serves me aright, one hon. gentleman suggested a pension of $100 a month payable at the age of 40. If I am not mistaken, very different suggestions came from hon. gentlemen directly opposite to me.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: They were all sensible suggestions.


Mr MICHAUD:: We all feel that our suggestions are sensible, the most sensible, so that I am not at all surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite consider that their suggestions are logical and consistent.
As to the C.C.F. group, their views have changed on this much debated question, because I recall that in the provincial election in New Brunswick in 1944-and that is not very long ago-their party advocated an old age pension of $50 a month payable at the age of 60, and I can say with assurance that that was the main plank of their platform in New Brunswick. But their appeal to the people of my province did not get very far because they did not succeed in electing a single member, which would seem to indicate that the people of New Brunswick are not in favour of that plah. In the last federal election that party retreated to some extent because they simply advocated an old age pension at 60 years of age without stipulating any amount. This is practically what^they are asking for under the present resolution.
I do not question, the sincerity of those supporting the resolution, but I suggest that it is much easier to advocate advanced social security measures while in opposition. On this point I cannot avoid referring to what
Old Age Pensions

happened in my province in 1930. In that year there was a provincial election. A Conservative government was seeking renewal of its mandate. During the last session, before going to the people they had enacted legislation providing, for old age pensions and mothers' allowances, and an elaborate machineo' had been set up to that effect and considerable information had been gathered apparently with a view of implementing that legislation. Even the opposition forces honestly believed that the government of the day was in earnest, that it meant business. Just to what extent this legislation affected the voting on that occasion is not easy to ascertain. The fact remains that the government of the day was returned, although with a decreased majority. For some reason better known to the members of that government the people of New Brunswick never got the benefit of this legislation, which was never proclaimed by the then government. It was not until the return of the Liberal government to power in 1935 that old age pensions came into operation in New Brunswick.
I mention these facts to point out that it is much easier to promise social security measures while sitting in opposition than it is to put them into operation after attaining power. For that reason I am wondering whether our good friends who sponsored this generous resolution could actually implement it if they were in power.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Why not?


Mr. BURTON:: You are afraid to give us the chance.


Benoît Michaud: It is up to the people to give you the chance, I should say.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the hon. member
aware of the legislation which has been passed by the Saskatchewan government in regard to health, medical and hospital services?


Benoît Michaud: We have heard different things from Saskatchewan.


George Hugh Castleden: I ask the hon. member if he is aware of it.


James Horace King: Order .


Benoît Michaud: 
George Hugh Castleden: But is the hon. member aware of the facts?


Joseph William Burton: He does not need to read only the Liberal papers.	[DOT]
Mr. MaeINNIS: Better look up the statutes.


Benoît Michaud: I am prepared to give the government of Saskatchewan a chance, but let us see what we can do or should do in this house on this important question.


John Horne Blackmore: Well said.


Benoît Michaud: I come to another aspect of the problem, which is, what is the attitude of the old people to the present scale of pensions? In my profession and, shall I say, on account of my political activities for the past ten years, I have been in touch with a number of old people seeking to obtain a pension, or an increased pension, and I must say that I have always found them most reasonable. I have yet to meet a single pensioner who is dissatisfied with the amount which the law provides for him at the present time.


Gordon Graydon: Better be careful with
that statement.


Benoît Michaud: I am careful with that statement.
Mr. MaeINNIS: They are getting far too much if that is the case.


Benoît Michaud: A statement was made this afternoon by an hon. member as to the "humiliation" of filling up these forms. I have helped a number of people to fill up application forms for the old age pension and I have never noticed the feeling expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Some difficulties have been mentioned by old people with respect to getting the pension. In certain instances they have complained about delays, and they have complained about certain other things; but I reiterate the statement I made a moment ago. Two years ago an additional $5 was granted. I think one hon. member said in the course of his remarks this afternoon that the Liberal government had not done anything for these people since the act came into operation. He must have forgotten for the time being that an increase of $5 a month was brought about two years ago. I can say that the people of my province, of my town and the vicinity were pleased when this came along, and if the present proposals go through and there is a further increase of $5 I am sure they will be pleased.
Mr. MaeINNIS: But they are satisfied now. How can they be more pleased than that?


Benoît Michaud: I stated that I have yet to have one old pensioner come to me and

Old Age Pensions
say that he is dissatisfied with the amount he gets when he is receiving the full amount. Some have come making representations that they were not in receipt of the full amount and have asked me to intercede for them in order that they may get the full pension, but in most instances the full amount of the pension was granted, and they were highly pleased.


William Irvine: I wish the hon. member would write about all mine.


Benoît Michaud: As has been stated this afternoon, the old age pension was never meant to be a cure-all; it is in the nature of assistance, to meet the bare subsistence requirements of life. In my province, and I suppose in other provinces, there are institutions which take old people for the amount of their pension and look after them, and as far as I have been able to ascertain they have been well looked after. An old gentleman well known to me, who is a widower, went into one of these institutions. He managed so well that after five or six months he married an old lady living in the same institution, and they seem to be very happy.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is he raising a family?


Benoît Michaud: I dare say that if he does not it is not because the amount of the pension is insufficient.
On the point of reduction of the age requirement from seventy to sixty years, I consider that a desirable suggestion. A number of people, particularly those between the ages of sixty-five and seventy, people unable to engage in a gainful occupation, have come to me asking for the old age pension. This is also provided for in the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces; and we should not pass any resolution which might jeopardize the success of those proposals. As far as I can recall, people looking for the social security measure are people between sixty-five and seventy years of age who are suffering from some sort of disability, and for that reason I consider that legislation along the lines of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) would serve a very useful purpose.
With the third point of the resolution as to the means test I am heartily in agreement. It will certainly improve the situation. There are a number of old people who make transfers of property when they reach the age of, say sixty-five, with a view to being in a position to draw the full amount of the pension. This is undesirable and with the disappearance of the means tset there would be no reason for doing that. Moreover, the means test to
a certain extent destroys the initiative for thrift and it should be done away with. There are many people even over the age of seventy years who keep on working. I know some. One in particular made application for his old age pension. He had his papers prepared and Everything was set, but he would not take it. He kept on working. I daresay most of those between sixty and seventy years of age, if they are in good health, would rather keep on working.


An hon. MEMBER:: If they can get jobs.


Benoît Michaud: Yes, if they can get
suitable jobs.	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Not much money in it.


Benoît Michaud: The usual good wages.
If the resolution is put to the vote I shall vote against it because I do not think it is advisable to pass upon it while the proposals are before the dominion-provincial conference, being somewhat in the position of a case before the courts, designated as sub judice.


Brooke Claxton: There are
still several hon. members who would like to speak on the motion, and I am obliged to them for letting me have the ten minutes remaining before the house rises at six o'clock to submit some facts that have a definite bearing not only on this resolution but on questions of social security in general.
As I believe hon. members will appreciate, the officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare have had under consideration types of social security legislation in every part of the world, and have been studying these matters ever since the department came into existence. Before that, social security legislation was studied by other branches of the government and in consequence the proposals made by the federal government to the dominion-provincial conference were worked out. They are proposals which we believe can be carried out by the Canadian people and which will work to their advantage. We also believe that the burden can be carried by the Canadian economy.
When we come to consider a single item of social security legislation we should take it in relation to the total picture to see what can be done and what it would cost. If the house would permit me I would put on Hansard costs of old age pensions of different types and different amounts at different ages. With the unanimous consent of the house I would like to put on Hansard estimates of costs of old age pensions, estimated for the years 1948, 1951, 1961 and 1971 on various plans. The plan proposed by the federal
Old Age Pensions

government to the provinces would provide for the payment of $30 a month without a means test to everyone at the age of seventy, and that it is estimated would cost $200,000,000 in 1948.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To every person?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, over seventy. In
addition, we propose to contribute on a fiftyfifty basis to the payment of old age pensions with means test to everyone from sixty-five to sixty-nine years of age, and the cost would be certainly not less than $34,000,000, and probably $40,000,000.


Howard Charles Green: For a $30 pension?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. The table is as
follows:



ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF OLD AGE PENSIONS 1948, 1951, 1961, 1971

[Stage Direction]
Amount per Month	Basis	Sex	Age	Percent- age on means test	Total Cost in $ Millions	1948 '	1951	1961	1971% 25	' (A) Means test (a)	
(Present system including war bonus)	M &F	70 plus	% 40	64	30	(B)	M & F	70 plus	40	80	(Present system plus $5 per month)	30	(C)	M & F	70 plus	200	220	291	350(Present age, $5 per month more, payable to all)	30	(D)	M & F M & F	70 plus 65-69	200 34 (b) 234	25	(Dominion proposal of August, 1945)	25	(E) Without means test	M & F	65 plus	280	305	384	457
30	(F) Without means test		M & F	65 plus		336	366	461	548
								
30	(G) Without means test		M & F F	65 plus 60-64		336 82 418	366 88 454	461 99 560	548 124 672
	Without means test								
								
50	(H)	M & F	60 plus		851	919	1,105	1,330
								
(a)	Where means test operates, the amount per month used n calculations is the maximum, not the average pension, except in Basis A where March, 1945, averages are used in the calculation of cost.
(b)	As noted on page 40 of the Dominion's Proposals, the figure of $34 million may reach $40 million. Source: Calculations based upon population data supplied by Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
There is no country in the world, of all those that have old age pension legislation, where there is a non-contributory system that is not on a means test. Either you have a contributory system of insurance and no means test, the people receiving the pension as of right, or else you have a non-contributory system on a means test. That is the invariable rule. In other words, there is no system in the world along the lines of that suggested, as I understand his proposal, by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis).
Further, there is no system of old age pensions in the world which provides for a pension of anything like $50 a month. The rates at the present time are these-
John Ritchie MacNicol: Put that on Hansard too.


Brooke Claxton: This table is not in a form in which I can put it on Hansard. In Canada, under the means test, the rate proposed is $30 a month maximum; in the United Kingdom, they are putting into effect a plan which is going to come gradually into operation, by which twenty-six shillings a week or $5.77, or $300 a year will be paid as of right to those who contribute. This will be supplemented by a means test plan which has not, I believe, yet been announced by the present labour government. In Australia there is a means test plan only, under which there is a payment of 32 shillings and sixpence a week, or $5.77, or a total of $300 a year. In New Zealand the new plan for payment without a means test, which is just beginning-in 1945-and which is a modification of their previous plan-


Angus MacInnis: It is 1941.


Brooke Claxton: The 1945 plan is a modification of the one they have had there for a great number of years and it comes into effect by degrees. The annual benefit is today 22 pounds, 10 shillings or $79.88, working up to a maximum of two pounds a week, which is $8.88, or $369.20 a year, which will be achieved in 1978. That is supplemented by a means test plan payable to men and women at the age of sixty of two pounds a week, with a maximum of $369.20: They will have a combination of both plans until 1978, when they will have worked out, they hope, on a basis without the means test. People pay for this in New Zealand out of the security tax of 7i per cent of the income payable by the employer and the employee-7i per cent by each.


Mrs. STRUM:: May I ask the minister a question?


Brooke Claxton: I have only a minute before six o'clock and I am afraid I cannot answer any questions at the moment. In the United States, they have a contributory plan, without a means test, under which payments and benefits are related to average wages and it covers three-fifths of the gainfully employed civilians. They also have a means test plan under which the average payment per month is $29.46.
The total picture presented by these plans is that the Canadian proposal put before the provinces is a fair and workable one in line with what is in effect in other countries. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that we might have proceeded before discussing it with the provinces. I ask him seriously if that is the policy of his party.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Brooke Claxton: I understood the hon. member to say. that we should proceed at this session to put on the statute books legislation to provide for old age pensions along the lines he suggested. There is no more certain way of retarding progress than to proceed by any means other than constitutional process and by consultation with the provinces, as we propose to do when we meet on April 25 to continue our discussions.
One further word. We can have old age pensions of this size, but we can meet the cost only out of taxes or out of borrowings or out of printed money.


Angus MacInnis: Or out of production.


Brooke Claxton: There are only three ways, and if the people of Canada want to pay taxes on the scale required, or to contribute to loans or to see their money go to pot through inflation, then I think they should arrive at that decision after they really size up the facts.
The budget estimate of the total revenue to be obtained by the federal government from income tax in 1945-1946 is $680 million.


An hon. MEMBER:: On individuals.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. Hon. members can see something of the magnitude of the proposal to pay an old age pension of $50 at age sixty without a means test, which we estimate would cost $851 millions or more than the total sum raised by personal income tax. When this matter comes up again at this session I should like to continue these remarks and develop the general ideas behind the federal government's proposals, the reasons why we have chosen this figure of $30 payable at age seventy, and also the reasons for
Penitentiaries

the particular type of contributory plan that we have in mind. I believe that when that is done hon.' members, as well as the country, will appreciate that the steps we propose are the most constructive, the most reasonable and the effective way in which to do what we all have at heart, namely to secure more to benefit those people who need it.
There is another table I should like to place on Hansard. This is a table showing the proportion of gainfully employed and nongainfully employed in 1941 as fixed at the census of that year. From that it will be seen that in the age group from sixty to sixty-four, only fifteen per cent of the males in the population were not gainfully employed. From sixty-five to sixty nine, 31 per cent, and seventy and over, 69 per cent. In other words, if you extended the non-means test plan down to the age of sixty you would be paying money to a large group of people who were gainfully employed. The table is a follows:
Gainfully
Age Group	Occupied	Others	Total
(Males)
60-64	
186,033	(85%)	32,524	(15%)	218,557	(100%)65-69	
112,627	(69%)	49,890	(31%)	162.517	(100%)70 and over	
71,716	(31%)	156,676	(69%)	228,392	(100%)Total	
370,376	(61%)	239,090	(39%)	609,466	(100%)
(Females)
60-64	
19,215	(10%)	169,379	(90%)	188,594	(100%)65-69	
12,268	( 8%)	132,939	(92%)	145,207	(100%)70 and over	
8,477	( 4%)	223,222	(96%)	231.699	(100%)Total	
39,960 ( 7%)	525,540 (93%)	565,500 (100%)


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister a later year than 1941?


Brooke Claxton: No, it is based on the census of 1941 and there are no later figures.
On motion of Mr. Claxton the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 11, 1946.