1947-06-24

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement on the present problem of post-UNRRA relief, in relation, more particularly to an appropriation for that purpose which the government proposes to recommend to parliament. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) has a statement which he desires to make respecting fisheries. It will
include mention of one of the methods suggested by Canada to provide a part of Canada's contribution to post-UNRRA relief. The minister's statement will follow immediately the statement I am now about to make.
As all hon. members are aware, one of the great problems of the post-war period has been the provision of food and other basic essentials of life to the devastated countries of Europe. It will be recalled that the question of post-UNRRA relief was urgently discussed by the united nations general assembly at its last session in New York. Because the programme of UNRRA was coming to an end before the real need of the peoples in war-devastated countries had been fully met, the general assembly recognized that certain countries must receive financial assistance in 1947 to avert hunger, privation and suffering.
Canada had played a leading role in relief operations both during and after the war, and the Canadian government was in strong support of continuing international action to meet-genuine relief needs. However, it became clear at the second part of the first session of the general assembly that a new approach to the problem would be necessary. To this end, the Canadian delegation introduced a proposal which was embodied in a resolution adopted by the assembly on December 11, 1946. This resolution established a special technical committee of experts, on which Canada was represented,, to study the minimum import requirements of needy countries. The committee thus constituted took into consideration the carry-over of relief goods from UNRRA into 1947 and estimated the probable receipts from exports from each country, together with resources which could be regarded as available from foreign loans and credits, shipping receipts, remittances and other sources of foreign currency. According to the committee's report, European countries which had been receiving relief required $583 million of financial assistance.
Intimately linked with this proposal was the question of providing to specially vulnerable groups, such as children and adolescents, in the war-devastated countries the food, clothing and other essential supplies which they require. To meet this requirement, a concrete united nations plan was agreed upon. The general assembly established by unanimous resolution the international childrens emergency fund. The prime purpose of the fund is to provide for children, adolescents and nursing mothers in countries which were victims of aggression, but it will also be used
Post-UNRRA Relief

for child health purposes generally. The fund has presented a tentative budget of $450 million, having as its principal objective one 700-calorie meal a day for twenty million children.
The funds is to be financed by any residual assets made available by UNRRA, by direct contributions from governments and by contributions from voluntary agencies or individuals. The amount of assistance available from UNRRA for this purpose is not likely to be large. Receiving countries might, however, contribute $200 million from their own resources. This would leave a balance of approximately $250 million to be secured from government and from voluntary contributions in other countries.
In the absence of relief on a scale at least approaching the sums recommended by the united nations technical committee, there will be serious hardship and possibly actual starvation in a number oif European countries this year, particularly in the period prior to the harvests in Europe this summer and autumn. In May 1047 the United States Congress authorized an appropriation of $350 million for relief purposes, to be dispensed by arrangements made directly with the needy countries and expressly limited to Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, China and the Free Territory of Trieste. This amount includes a sum of $40 million, all or part of which may go to the international children's emergency fund. We have been informed that other states have responded to this emergency by providing funds for relief.
In the light of the need which we believe exists, the action of other countries in that regard, and the availability of surplus food supplies in Canada, the government has decided to recommend to parliament an appropriation of $20 million for post-UNRRA relief needs in 1947. This sum which would be spent subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, would include a contribution of approximately $5 million to the international children's emergency fund. The remainder of the sum would provide relief to certain specified countries, and would be administered by Canada in. consultation with other states which are adopting similar measures.



PURCHASES OF FISH-PROCLAMATION OF FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT ACT

Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, for some time the government of Canada has been giving careful consideration to the proclamation of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, and to the 
type of fish that the act should first apply to. This problem has been closely interwoven with what the government's policy on post-UNRRA relief would be, and also with the trade and tariff negotiations at present going on in Geneva. These negotiations have been and are being closely watched by the Department. of Fisheries, the deputy minister of fisheries having been present at Geneva during some of the negotiations on fish.
As the government's policy on post-UNRRA relief has just been announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I am now in a position to make a statement indicating the intention of the Canadian government on the matter of purchases of fish for relief for the 1947-48 production, and on the matter of proclaiming the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944.
As part of its contribution to international relief the government feels that it can make available out of Canada's production of fish during the present fiscal year, quantities of canned and salted fish of types suited to relief feeding. The types to be purchased will be dried salted cod, haddock, hake, pollock and cusk, pickled barrelled fish (herring, mackerel and alewives), bloaters, canned herring and canned mackerel and chicken haddie. In the case of salted fish which is produced mainly in eastern Canada, the commercial export markets are reasonably firm, but in frozen fish both the home and export markets are weak. It is the government's hope that the industry will divert as much raw codfish as possible to salting rather than to freezing. The government will be prepared to buy, at prices to be determined, up to 10,000,000 pounds of dried salted cod and related species, up to 40,000 barrels of pickled fish, up to
50.000	boxes of bloaters, up to 900,000 cases of west coast canned herring, and up to
100.000	cases of eastern canned fish, the latter being in addition to the current purchases being made in the east by UNRRA. It is hoped that quantities of cod and related species of fish can also be diverted from the frozen outlet into the canned form.
The details of the methods of purchase, of prices and other terms of contract cannot be announced until after discussion with the industry, and members of the industry are being invited to Ottawa to discuss this and related matters next week. The purchases however will likely be handled by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The prices to be paid for this fish by the government will not necessarily be at the levels at which UNRRA has purchased in the past season. Many raw fish prices have declined recently, and the increased volume of activity which

Post-L'NRRA Relief
these government purchases will provide to fishermen and operators should contribute to a lowering of costs. The government will, however, in establishing the prices give due attention to the raw fish prices being paid to fishermen. As I mentioned earlier, these operations are confined to the 1947-48 season, that is to the current fiscal year, and the government in no way commits itself to a continuation of relief purchases next fiscal year.
Of the $20 million just announced by the Prime Minister to be made available for post-UNRRA relief, up to $8,000,000 will be made available for fish purchases. This amount, it should be noted, will be confined to purchases of fish of the salted and canned varieties. For some time, however, the government has been endeavouring to find additional outlets for frozen fish in European markets, either through commercial channels or through relief purchases. Despite this attention no substantial market for frozen fish has been found in Europe. Exchange difficulties in some countries, lack of merchandising facilities for handling frozen fish in others, and expansion of Europe's own fish production have all militated against frozen fish exports. In the United States, the only remaining substantial export market, competition from expanded United States production and from the products of Newfoundland and Iceland have contributed to a lowering of prices, and have slowed down the rate of Canadian sales of frozen fish. In the circumstances the government believes that the solution to the frozen fish problem depends on increasing the consumption of frozen fillets in the domestic market. To effect such an expansion of our home market has its difficulties, but is a solution, as many hon. members pointed out in the recent debate on the fisheries research board bill, which would have a lasting benefit to the industry, and which should be physicall}' possible since Canadians consume only some 10,000,000 pounds of frozen fillets annually, or something like three-quarters of a pound per head. To take care of the frozen branch of the industry the government is prepared to proclaim immediately the Fisheries Prices Support Act 1944. Under that act a board will be established with five members and with advisory committees from the industry-both management and fishermen.
The act gives the board powers to buy and sell fish and to prescribe prices. The board will be established without delay. It will confine its operations during the present fiscal year to fish produced during the remainder of the 1947 season. It will be asked to prepare in collaboration with industry a
general distributional programme, including advertising, designed to increase domestic sales of fish of all species and kinds, and particularly packaged fish, and in particular to consider the specific species of the east, prairies and British Columbia in which the prices received by fishermen from the freezers are unduly low in 1947, and to devise means of maintaining these prices at or near their current levels. This programme of support will be related to the domestic market only. The government wishes it to be clearly understood that it is not prepared to support or subsidize the export trade in frozen fillets. The attention of the board, as I have just stated, is to be devoted mainly to the expansion of the domestic market. This expansion will be aligned to a new government programme of improving the quality, the grading of packaged fish, and the standards of inspection will be set up accordingly.
The prices support programme therefore for 1947 is aimed at expanding domestic consumption by improving quality and by giving close attention to the distribution costs of the industry which hitherto have tended to hold retail prices at levels that limited1 consumption. The programme of the board will be confined to the remainder of 1947 production. So far as fishermen are concerned, their current prices should be well maintained during the season, first by relief purchases of salted and canned fish, and second by the operations of the support board in maintaining fishermen's prices and in making additional sales of frozen fish on the domestic market.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian people will welcome the announcement of the Prime Minister with respect to the provision of $20 million for the post-UNRRA relief fund, and particularly the provision of $5 million out of that amount for the children's emergency fund. I believe I should take this opportunity to compliment the Minister of Fisheries upon the timeliness of his announcement.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Good old Halifax!


Mr. GRAYDON:: It took a by-election to do it.


John Bracken: I am sure he had nothing like that in mind when he made the announcement.


An hon. MEMBER:: A dirty insinuation!


John Bracken: It is very appropriate that the Fisheries Prices Support Act should be proclaimed at this time, and I am sure the

Post-XJNRRA Relief
fishermen of the maritimes will welcome the announcement that $8,000,000 will be spent in the purchase of fish for relief purposes in Europe.


Gordon Graydon: And relief here.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: British Columbia also.


John Bracken: This raises another question which I brought up the other day and which has not been answered, namely, the government policy with respect to apples. The minister of agriculture of Nova Scotia according to press reports has intimated that the British government will not be in the market for apples this year, and there are grave doubts whether a market will be found for our apples. Two or three days ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to make a statement on this matter, and he said he would consult the other ministers and then one of them would make a statement. I suggest that this would be an appropriate time for some minister to make a statement of policy with respect to markets for Canadian apples.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: In fairness to the statement which I have just made, I would direct the attention of the leader of the opposition to the fact that of the $8,000,000 to be spent for relief purposes, the larger proportion will be spent in British Columbia.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that a matter of this kind would1 be looked upon by all members of the house as something we were doing for humanity, and that our own marketing difficulties would be only incidental to the decision of the government. I am pleased to know that something is to be done for the relief of the people of Europe.
I think the Canadian delegation to the second part of the assembly of the united nations which met last year played a most important part in the effort to set up an international organization. That an intergovernmental committee of experts was established was due to the fact that Mr. La Guardia told the spokesman for the Canadian delegation, who happened to be the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that he would be reads' to accept any scheme that Canada suggested.
I think we could do a lot more out of our resources, but I am glad indeed to say something in appreciation of the announcement that has just been made.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are pleased to hear

that the government is determined to do something with respect to furnishing post-UNRRA relief to needy Europe. The announcement seems to be timely in that only yesterday one of the New York papers reported that persons in the United States are receiving thousands of parcels from Greece. Apparently the people there have been made to understand that the people of the United States are starving under the capitalist system. It seems to me that we should assist in gathering up those thousands of parcels and sending them back in order that the people in Greece may know that a capitalist society can more than match anything that is done or is being done by a communist society.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask one supplementary question of the Minister of Fisheries? In view of his last statement, can the house be given some assurance that the fishermen of Halifax riding will not be entirely overlooked in these purchases?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The fishermen of Nova Scotia and Halifax have shown good judgment in the past, and I aim sure they will show good judgment in the future.


Mr. POULIOT:: I will gladly support this measure provided that it is made certain that' needy children will get the food.


Mr. QUELCH:: Following up what the Prime Minister has told the house, may I ask if consideration is being given to the implementation of the Hyde Park agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked a question which I think might best be replied to by my colleague the Secretary! of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). May I say to him that all international questions of the kind he has referred to and which relate to present conditions are receiving consideration.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries, following the statement he has just made. Has he taken into consideration the fisheries in the prairie provinces, such as those on lake Winnipeg? Are they to participate in this arrangement?
Mr. BRIDGES1: I am sure that if the hon. member will read my statement which I made this afternoon he will see that we have taken into consideration the fishermen of the prairie provinces.

Dominion Day



QUESTION OF SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO BRITAIN- POSITION OF TREE FRUITS INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Fisheries, and of the stated inability of the British government to purchase Canadian apples because of a shortage of dollars, and of the situation facing the tree fruits industry, I should like to ask a question based upon letters and telegrams I have received from the Associated Growers of British Columbia. Will the government consider making arrangements for the shipment of apples to Great Britain this year similar to those that are being made with regard to the shipment of food as mentioned this afternoon?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say in reply that the government will consider the question that has been raised. I cannot at the moment go any farther than that.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Eileen Francis Murphy Iverson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Joyce Kathleen Reynolds Swards.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Anne Fishman Minsk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Muriel Alice Goddard Perkins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Irene Elizabeth Burke Robinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Gardner Hinkley Prescott.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Joseph Amedee Alexis Cousineau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Mildred Verna Ruth Schnaufer Case.'-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Robert Ralph Tripp.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Charles James Langevin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Edward Frank Fulton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Pauline Bertha Marwick Dallison.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Evelyn May McNaught Grandison.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Margaret Turner Shaw Ward.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Olivier Pierre Bernard Lagueux.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Hazel Mair Grant Rubin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Doris Louise Dickson McMurray.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Ethel Florence Barr Shiells.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Gabrielle Augustine Gilberte Desmarais Creelman.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Christos C. Koukouvelis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Aime Bibeau. -Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising from the attendance of a delegation from the housewives league. Will the minister reconsider his decision to grant this delegation only one-half of his time tomorrow morning?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I will give the delegation as much time as I possibly can tomorrow morning consistent with my other obligations.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Will the Prime Minister indicate what arrangements have been made with reference to the house sitting or not sitting on dominion day, July 1?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As hon. members are
aware, the leaders of the different parties opposite and myself met together a week or two ago to arrange a programme which would expedite the business of the session. We have been carrying on under that arrangement. As I recall, there was nothing said specifically at that conference with regard to July 1. Having regard to the remarkable progress that has been made since that arrangement was made, the government is of the view that it would be wise for us to continue sitting regularly throughout next week. If we were to adjourn over Tuesday, which is July 1, we would be breaking into the arrangement for the week. May I say that I think the Canadian people will feel, as the government does, that there is no way

United, Nations

in which we can better show the pride we have in our country and the concern we have for its affairs than to dispatch its business with the greatest solicitude possible.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: It is a poor example to set for the children of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend speak of the children of Canada?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: July 1st is Canada's birthday, and this is its birthplace. I said that it was a poor example to set for this country not to observe its anniversary. The government should set a good example by observing this national holiday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take strong exception to the suggestion that the representatives of the people are not observing the national holiday when we are doing our best to expedite the country's business.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv: I would ask the appropriate minister if while we are saving time on the first of July the people of Fraser valley and Chilliwack will be allowed to have meat on that day?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure that the people of Chilliwack and Fraser valley will be allowed to enjoy a nice hot dog on the first of July.


Mr. FRASER:: Following up that statement of the Minister of Finance, the order in council gives permission only to fairs and circuses to sell hot dogs on Tuesdays and Fridays. Is there any chance of that being extended to the ordinary taxpayer who runs a refreshment stand?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I think it is my duty to remind hon. members that only urgent questions should be put on the orders of the day.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the third reading of Bill No. 132, respecting article 41 of the charter of the united nations.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have not a copy of this bill. It is not in the distribution office or in the office of the clerk of the committee. I object to the way business is being done in the dying days of the session. When the business was announced on Monday night no reference was made to this bill, and I object to this bill being brought on at this time. The bill has not been printed in French.

Here we are considering something that will land Canada clean outside of the empire. Reference is made to the security council. In my opinion it is all council and no security whatever. We tried that in the old league of nations and you know' what happened. Now it is proposed on the ninety-seventh day of this session to turn over to the executive the functions and powers of this parliament to make treaties binding on this country and sign a lot of covenants anew. Why should we transfer to the executive these powers during the recess of parliament.
The minister referred this bill to the external affairs committee, and the committee met and whitewashed the whole thing. What countries have adopted article 41 of the united nations charter? The minister said that the foundations of the council have been soundly laid. It was mostly sound. They have not been laid at all. If this is the kind of security we are to have, it is no better than a second league of nations and we will get the same results.
I have never seen a copy of this bill. I have sent down to the distribution office three times for it.


James Horace King: Order. I think I should point out to the hon. member that the bill has been printed in French and English. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Gordon Graydon: Copies of the bill are
not available now.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	It was distributed
two months ago and a copy placed on each member's file.


Gordon Graydon: I have a copy of it, but the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has not. and a copy cannot be obtained now.


Thomas Langton Church: We tried depending on charters and peace pacts and notes in the old league of nations, but if you adopt the principle of charters you are inviting a third world war. The minister mentioned India as having adopted the charter. The government of India is only in the making. Britain gave India peace and justice and security for over a hundred years, what is going on there now? We have started the greatest civil war in history. The members of the British empire are our best friends, and unless we hang together we shall hang separately. None of them can go it alone.
The minister is a learned man, and he represented Canada faithfully and well at the united nations meeting. But the charter is a flat failure. Here we are at the ninety-seventh

United Nations
day of the session and not one hour has been devoted to the discussion of foreign affairs. I see my good friend the leader of the house is here today. I hope he will not allow a thing like this to go through. How many members have seen the bill? I have not seen it. I spent an hour trying to get a copy but I could not get one.
I am dealing with the charter of the UNO, March 1, 1947, the white paper I hold in my hand. How many hon. members have read it? How many hon. members know anything about it? I can tell the house that Australia will not sign article 41; they know something about it. There has been a lot of criticism of it. The UNO is a tower of Babel and a failure. The people are alarmed. We are transferring our powers and functions to make these treaties to our representatives, to the executive. the cabinet. I object to that principle. That is what led us into the first world war, and if we stick to this it will lead us into another war. The members of the empire are our best friends and dearest relations. They have always been our close friends. Instead of trying to keep the empire together we are disrupting it; we are allowing the UNO and the United States to scrap it. We are back to the old days of Geneva and security, and we all know what happened before. We all know what is going to happen because we are drifting into similar practices. The most notable effort made was made by the only real league of nations, the British empire. How does it come about that we are prepared to deal with every country of the seven seas but are not prepared to deal with the countries in our own empire? These are the people who stood by us in the past and will stand by us in the future.
The United States is a great country, and I am an admirer of it. They have representatives on the security council and you cannot blame them for that. As a writer in a great British paper said:
The most notable effort of the council so far. in my opinion is to divide the various parts of the empire one from the other. Ever since the United States of America left that great imperial group known as the British empire, because the British made it, the United States people have wanted to become a world power something like the one which they left. They want a new place in the sun.
They want a new imperialism. You cannot blame them for that. I do not blame them for it. We should be prepared to stand up for our country. We are going into a fools' paradise such as we had before, a second league, and making the same mistakes as the Geneva of old.
83166-291J
The United States have delegates there, and they talk about America first, last and all the time. The British delegates do not do that. Under the circumstances I think it is only proper that we should stick to the empire that we have had so long because they are the countries that have supported us. I would not call the government of India a government, and if we were told the truth we would all be of the same opinion. I tried to move the adjournment of the house to discuss these matters. This is the ninety-seventh day of the session and we have not had fifteen minutes devoted to this thing, the liquidation of the British empire. What are the conditions in India today? It is one of the countries that requested us to sign this agreement, to make a treaty out of it, to give the minister and the executive power over the head of parliament to bring us to the very verge of war. For 180 years India has been a great country and a great land. Under British rule India has had peace, security, liberty and justice for over 150 years. They have not much order there now. What would hon. members think of India if they could get a return giving actual information on the situation there today where there is civil war? Instead of tens of thousands there are hundreds of thousands being massacred in that land. We are proposing to give that country and its trade over to United States interests and to Russia. It will not be done with my vote. The outlook for the empire is too dark at present for me.
I wish to protest against this way of doing business. The Indian situation is a tragedy. The minister says that India has consented to this agreement, I would not call the government of that country a government. There are fifty million people there called untouchables who will be led like lambs to the slaughter. We do not know anything about it at all. It. is a serious tragedy. It is going to lead India to the greatest civil war in all history. Compared with what is going on in the Balkans it will be trivial.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask for the cooperation of the hon. member. Under this bill we are not discussing the question of India or of the British empire. The purpose of the bill is to empower the government to enable Canada to carry out article 41 of the charter of the united nations. I will ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, have you read article 41 of this big white book?


James Horace King: It is my duty to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that
United Nations

he is not confining his remarks to the principle of the bill, since he has not seen the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I am quite in order and I have not finished my remarks. India has agreed to article 41; the minister said so. The right hon. leader of the house may laugh, and all of that kind of thing, but I am sure that public opinion is not satisfied with the way in which we are doing business in this country, passing things over our heads and giving to the minister and the executive the power to make treaties. We have not discussed the liquidation of the British empire, because that is what it is.
In conclusion I wish to say, as has been said before, that I do not look upon this as responsible government. The government of India has not been properly elected; it has not been elected at all. Australia refused to sign this article. Britain has signed. Of course they are willing to sign. For many years past hon. members know what the record is under the present administration-internationalism, and scuttle the empire. Canada is asked to sign. If I get a seconder I shall move the six months' hoist. I shall move that this bill be not read a third time now but that it be read a third time six months hence. I am not going to be one of those who will give to the executive the power to make treaties during the six months that the house is in recess, because I know what they will do. I believe I have a seconder. If I have, that is all I wish to say about it. I do protest against this way of doing business. They are taking every opportunity to change the whole system of doing business with these treaties. We used to have two days set aside for a discussion of foreign affairs. I protest against this. If the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) will second my motion I will get the recorded vote on this matter, because I protest against such vast powers being taken away from parliament and put into the hands of the executive.
I wish to repeat that I could not get a copy of the bill. The bill has been passed over my head as a member of the house. I tried for over an hour and a half to get a copy. It was brought up last night when I was not in the house. I would have been here had I expected that it would be reached.
The committee on external affairs should never have been appointed. It has prevented the house from dealing with this matter. What have they done? They have forgotten all about matters raised here and have gone into extraneous matters of peace and security. These trips are wonderful things. They used to have them in the old league of nations. In fact it was suggested that I should be sent over there. They said that if I went over there they would

go home and pray. I never went over there and never had anything to do -with it. Wait until you see what will happen in India; wait until you see the civil war that will take place there. I am one member who is opposed to signing this or passing article 41. I have no faith in UNO or in anything it does.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: There was so much disturbance in the chamber I was unable to tell what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said. I gathered that he was asking for a seconder to his motion for a six months' hoist. If that is so, I will second such a motion. I was going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), that this bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence. I am not sure whether I have seconded the motion of the hon. member for Broadview; if not, I shall make the motion myself. In fact he and I feel the same way about the bill.


James Horace King: Mr. Blackmore moves, seconded by Mr. Church, that the bill be not now read a third time-


An hon. MEMBER:: It is the other way round.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Mr. Church moves-


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Mr. Church moves, seconded by Mr. Blackmore-


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: -that Bill No. 132 be not now read a third time but six months hence. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? All those in favor of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: All those against the
motion will please say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion, the nays have it.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I desire to speak in support of the motion. I started to. How can a person speak when he cannot be recognized by the chair?


James Horace King: I must declare the amendment defeated. The question is now on the main motion.

United, Nations


John Horne Blackmore: I rose to speak in support of the motion, Mr. Speaker. I am in favour of giving this bill the six months' hoist, because in my judgment it is a bad bill.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member cannot discuss the six months' hoist at this stage. The motion was put and carried.


John Horne Blackmore: When a motion is made and seconded, members have the right to discuss it before it is put by the Chair. I rose to discuss the motion before Your Honour put it, but Your Honour proceeded to put the motion in spite of my being on my feet.


James Horace King: I put to the house the amendment moved by Mr. Church and seconded by Mr. Blackmore, that the bill be not now read a third time but six months hence. I put the question and as I did not see five members rise to demand a registered vote I declared that the nays had it and that the amendment was lost. The question before the house is therefore the third reading of the bill.


Mr. LOW:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Lethbridge rose to second the motion proposed by the hon. member for Broadview he was on his feet prepared to speak and he asked Your Honour for the floor. Your Honour did not see him, though he called several times, drawing your attention to the fact that he wished to speak. I claim that the hon. member for Lethbridge has a perfect right to speak in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview.


James Horace King: I have put the motion. I read the amendment and it was up to the hon. member, if he wished to speak, to rise.


Solon Earl Low: He did rise.


James Horace King: I asked for the yeas and nays, and in my opinion the nays were in the majority and I declared the motion of the hon. member for Broadview lost. I would ask the hon. member now to proceed on the third reading of the bill.


Solon Earl Low: In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I must appeal to the house against your ruling on the ground that the motion has not been legally put.


James Horace King: I did not give a ruling; it was just the ordinary procedure of the house, and the hon. member knows it.


Solon Earl Low: I do not know it.


James Horace King: When a motion is proposed by an hon. member the Speaker has only one thing to do and that is to put it to the house.
It is then for the house to decide whether it is in favour of or opposed to the motion. I did that and I declared the motion lost after calling for the yeas and nays. I did not make any ruling and I see no reason for the hon. member to appeal the ruling of the Speaker.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask Your Honour a question? Is it the right of any member to speak in support of a motion or an amendment?


An hon. MEMBER :: When it is time.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, when it is time, prior to Your Honour's asking the house to vote. That is the issue.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word for the purpose of pouring oil on the troubled waters? My recollection is that the hon. member for Broadview moved the six months' hoist, but the member for Lethbridge could not have heard the motion clearly because he himself moved the six months' hoist subsequently, and he sat down. He had been speaking to his own motion, and under the strict rules of the house he forfeited his right to speak after taking his seat. I suggest it would be conducive to progress if Your Honour, who is quite correct, would allow the hon. member for Lethbridge to proceed.


Solon Earl Low: Hear, hear.


Mr. FAIR:: You are a good speaker, Mr. House Leader.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to speak to the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill because in my judgment it is a bad bill and one which this house should reject. I believe as the days go by it will become more and more evident to the members of the house that they should not pass this bill. May I give some indication of the reasons I have for taking the stand I have indicated.
In the first place this bill binds Canada still more closely to the united nations organization. A great many people assume that there is nothing else for Canada to do than to follow along the line of accepting the united nations organization. My contention is that we made a grave blunder in this house when we accepted it in the beginning, and for us to go forward adding more strands, we will say, to the bonds which attach us to the united nations organization, when it is becoming more and more evident that we made a mistake in the beginning, is in my judgment simply sending good money after bad.
United Nations

May I give the reasons for the stand I am taking? This bill, if put into effect, will place the average Canadian citizen in constant danger and dread of the most hideous autocracy the mind of man has ever conceived, namely, the united nations organization and its all-powerful executive arm, the security council. When in 1946 Canada accepted the united nations organization and the united nations charter, Canada became a signatory to what was in effect a blanket mortgage on a basis of goods and chattels. The Bretton Woods agreement and the united nations organization charter were simply gold bricks as well as booby traps. The members who went from Canada to represent this country at the Bretton Woods conference and the San Francisco conference fell far short of what in my judgment Canada had a right to expect of them. Parliament has already taken several footsteps into the morass, the bog, the quagmire of international entanglements involved in the united nations organization. Surely we can sense the danger which threatens us. Let us refuse to accept this bill just now. Let us cautiously withdraw to solid ground, at least ground less treacherous than that upon which we now stand. Let us there circumspectly review the situation confronting us as Canadians. Let us reexamine every aspect, and let us reconsider our course of procedure. Every move we make now is fateful. Let us exercise	extraordinary
discretion.
The first major reason for extraordinary discretion at the present time is the complete bewilderment which everywhere prevails, even among those who consider themselves well-informed, as regards the united nations organization.	There is an utterly disheartening
vagueness of phraseology used in the wording of the charter of the united nations. As an example of that may I read a passage which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) indulgently read into Hansard for my benefit the other day, in response to a request from me, many hon. members acting as though they thought I didn't know this passage was in the charter. For a long time I have known this passage was there. May I read it now:
Purposes and Principles
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

I had intended to read all four of these purposes, but I believe No. 1 will be sufficient for my purpose. May I draw the attention of hon. members, and of those in the country who may read Hansard, to that clause and especially to the portion beginning, "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." That passage sounds very beautiful, but that passage is a genuine booby trap which I can tell you has caught more people than you would have believed possible. It looks so different from what it is. It is made up of weasel words. Now may I go into some detail to show that, and if all goes well I will do so before I take my seat. Just to indicate how hopeless is the uncertainty and vagueness concerning practically eveiy matter pertaining to the wording of the united nations charter, I need only refer to the proceedings of the standing committee on external affairs which dealt with this very bill. In the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 10, of Tuesday, June 10, 1947, I draw attention to a passage commencing on page 282. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) asks the question:
Oh yes. I am not now thinking of that point at all, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to follow another line which is so vague that it means this whole charter needs considerable discussion and exposition in order to get anything like a picture of what would happen.
If you refer to article 39 of chapter 7. you have a statement that the security council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security. I am puzzled a bit about the precise meaning of that term, "any threat to the peace." The security council has the responsibility of deciding what constitutes a threat to the peace. What might that involve ?
Mr. Knowles:	There have been months of
argument over that.
The witness was Mr. Hopkins, legal adviser to the external affairs department, a man who I would imagine would know as much about this whole question as any person in Canada. He said:
The Witness:	That might involve the
security council deciding that there was a threat to the peace.
I do not know how anyone could possibly conceive of a vaguer situation than that. Here is the member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has been favoured through being present at many discussions at which the united nations organization was up for debate, and he says there have been many months of

United Nations
argument over the simple point of what is a threat to the peace. You would think there would not be any doubt about that matter. Surely anybody should be able to tell what is a threat to the peace; but there have been months of argument over that. And the witness finally says that might involve the security council deciding that there was a threat to the peace. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as long as there is such uncertainty in the minds of the men who should be best informed concerning this covenant, we ought to be very careful how we proceed to entangle ourselves further in the whole situation.
May I turn now to another passage which occurs on page 282 of the same proceedings. The member for Peace River is again asking a question:
You see how that is relative to the 'bill we are discussing. "Any threat to the peace"; I should like to get, if I can. some clearly comprehensive statement on ivhat they would consider a threat to the peace.
Mr. Marquis:	I understand, Mr. Low, your
point is this; the members of the security council may decide that something is a threat to the peace when it is only an internal dispute. That might be so, but I think we are bound to accept the jurisdiction of the security council on that point. Perhaps they may abuse it.
Well, I ask any hard-headed' member of this house-and the house consists of nothing but hard-headed members-whether he would sign a contract the terms of which were so vague. Yet you are signing a contract for your country, for your children and your children's children, when you accept this bill further agreeing to the united nations organization. Then to go on with what was said:
Mr. Coldwell:	Is that right? Take civil war,
for example; it is specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the security council unless that civil war has a bearing on the international situation.
Mr. Marquis:	Yes. but that is the point. It
is up to them to decide whether it has a bearing or not.
Ordinary Canadians like us could not tell.
Mr. Coldwell:	Of course the decision is one
for the security council.
What sort of supermen are these on the security counoil? How in the world could they think they could tell what was a threat to the peace when the ordinary man on the street in Canada could not? We had no difficulty in determining, when Hitler was on the move or when Mussolini was on the move, whether there was a threat to the peace. Are Canadians supposed to have lost their ability to reason on these matters, that we have to turn such things over to the security council?
Now I turn to page 283 for another very enlightening passage in this respect:
Mr. Knowles: There is no standard, in answer to Mr. Low, set down as to what would be a threat to the peace or an act of aggression; that would be a matter for the security council.
Dear, dear!
The Witness:	It is for the security council-
I cannot decide it.
That is perhaps the best informed man in Canada, and he does not know.
Mr. Coldwell:	Does not the .paragraph you
read from what the minister for external affairs for Canada said at New York pretty well explain to Mr. Low what all of us feel about the matter, that it is vague and it had to be vague because the nations which set up the charter sharply disagreed on many particulars and consequently there are compromises throughout this whole thing?
That pretty well supports my stand, does it not?
The Witness:	Yes, it had to be vague at the
commencement. It is hoped that a sort of jurisprudence will grow up around it as it has grown up around the British North America Act.
To my mind there is so much vagueness about that whole situation that it fills me with dread, especially when I consider the great number of possibilities which I shall draw to the attention of the house, if all goes well, before I finish. Now may I turn to page 281 of the same proceedings for the last illustration I propose to draw from that document. There the hon. member for Peace River read to the committee clause 7 of article 2 of the charter, which I believe it would be well for me to read into Hansard so those who may be reading Hansard without having the clauses of this document before them will know just what was under discussion. Clause 7 of article 2 of the charter of the united' nations reads as follows:
Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the united nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter VII.
I am not going to read chapter VII; but I would say that anyone who would read it, as I have-and I am sure all hon. members have done so-would see that there must be-


James Horace King: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I submit, with deference, that the hon. member is not discussing the bill. The bill is not one which has for its purpose the approval of the charter of the united nations, because as a nation we have already signed it.
United Nations


Mr. KNOWLES:: It was approved by parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; and it comes before parliament at the present time only so that we may authorize the approval of certain necessary orders and regulations. I submit the discussion is not in order.


John Horne Blackmore: I draw the attention of the minister, who has interrupted me, to the fact that, this is called the United Nations Act. I draw his attention to that fact. Consequently anything pertaining to the united nations ought to be in order when discussing the bill. I ask the minister this straightforward question:	will Canada be more thoroughly committed that she is now to the united nations charter after she accepts this bill, or will she not?


James Horace King: Order. I have called the hon. member's attention from time to time to the same point of order as that now raised by the leader of the house. I sincerely believe the hon. member who has the floor is out of order and should confine his remarks to the bill. As I have already pointed out, the bill before the house is not one which involves a discussion of the united nations organization or its charter. We have already had that discussion. The discussion is not even for approval of the articles setting up that organization. The purpose of the bill is to give powers to the governor in council to carry out article 41 of the charter of the united nations signed at San Francisco. Therefore I would ask the hon. member and all other hon. members not to discuss matters which are not related to the bill before the house. I would ask the hon. member who is now speaking to confine his remarks to the bill. There is an amendment before the house, and he may direct his remarks to that amendment, as a result of which the house will be called upon to decide whether the bill be read now or six months hence.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, every word I have uttered thus far has been in support of the general thesis that we ought to have a six months' hoist in respect of the bill, and the reason I have been advancing in support of my view has been that the united nations charter is worded so vaguely that it becomes the duty of the house to study the whole matter with great care.
I bow to Your Honour's ruling, of course, but I believe Your Honour would desire that in making my case I receive justice. It has been Your Honour's desire and endeavour to give justice.
I draw attention once more to the fact-


James Horace King: I cannot permit the hon member to go further in discussing the organization or the charter of the united nations, and I trust since I have expressed my opinion, the hon. member will respect it. My duty is only that of applying the rules. If it is the desire of the house to have a full discussion on the united nations organization, then the house must so decide. If it does not, and wishes to abide by the rules, it must discuss only the principle of the bill; and in that I hope I shall have the cooperation of all hon. members.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, everything I have adduced as evidence in my speech is taken directly from the proceedings of the committee on external affairs. How in the world can it be out of order when it is the very material discussed by that committee on June 10?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not make it relevant.


John Horne Blackmore: What I have said certainly refers to the bill; it could not possibly be otherwise. If Your Honour's mind is made up that I must not continue along those lines, then I can only bow to your ruling. However I submit that what I have been saying about the bill is in support of giving it the six months' hoist, and, in consonance with the principle that we ought not to associate ourselves any more intimately with the united nations organization until we know more about it. I submit that that kind of argument is about as effective and valuable as could be advanced before the house at the present time.
In closing may I say a few words which probably will not be offensive to Your Honour. Already the united nations is not being used. It will be noted that the United States dealt directly with Greece and Turkey, not through the united nations. Great Britain and France dealt directly with Russia, and did not deal through the united nations. We ought not to be deluded by this united nations window dressing. We ought to be more careful. We must be circumspect in regard to this whole question. I suggest that under the circumstances Canada ought to be prepared to withdraw from the united nations organization and from the Bretton Woods agreement, and should call upon all nations of good will to form an organization for international cooperation based upon the blueprint of the British commonwealth of nations.


James Horace King: Order. I am obliged to ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.

United Nations


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has completed his speech.


John Horne Blackmore: I have been told to take my seat, so I am through. Now I turn the matter over. I do not propose to fight all day over this matter; but I am right, I am sure of that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to cover much ground and still be in order on this matter. One may refer to what was said on second reading by the right hon. gentleman who sponsors the 'bill, and also what was said by the critic of the official opposition with respect to external affairs.
There is a rule which states that hon. members are not permitted to quote verbatim extracts from speeches delivered in another debate in the same session. But this is the third reading of the bill, and the debate is just a continuation of second reading. Therefore any member is allowed to refer to what was said when the principle of the bill was discussed on second reading. The interpretation of the rules indicates that debate on the third reading of any measure may be much broader than that on second reading, when only the principle of the bill may be the subject matter of a speech.
We now have an amendment to the effect that this bill be read a third time six months hence. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) has spoken in support of this amendment, because he is reported on page 3434 of Hansard of May 26, as having said:
At the present time there does not seem to be any urgent need for action to implement decisions under article 41 of the charter.
It is clear and definite that this is not a matter of urgent importance and that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and supported by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) is most timely. The minister said that at the present time there does not seem to be any urgent need, and that is exactly what the hon. members for Broadview and Lethbridge are saying. We should not be in a hurry. The session is coming to a close and we have this in the way of prorogation, as well as other bills having to do with the united nations. Hon. members are told not to speak too long, to be concise, yet we are trying to remove all obstacles in the way of Canadian sovereignty. That is why I am so glad to support the amendment which has been moved.
I should like to quote further from the statement made by the right hon. gentleman, 83166-292
for whom I have the deepest respect. We may disagree on certain matters of importance and still remain friends. We should not have only canned ideas in this house, canned ideas from the security council. That is all the security council is doing-canning ideas and propaganda so that it may be distributed throughout the world. The minister went on to say something that is right to the point; I agree with it, and I want to read quietly and slowly what he said so that every hon. member will realize that a most important statement has been made against this bill by the right hon. gentleman who was sponsoring it. He said:
Unfortunately-at least I regard it as unfortunate-proceedings in the security council have dragged to an extent and to a degree that has appeared to be disappointing and not to give us the feeling that it was capable and willing to take an active hand in preventing international strife.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member go on?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will finish the paragraph.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the first sentence of the next paragraph.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did I read correctly?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me go on and finish. If the hon. member interrupts me it will delay prorogation. The right hon. gentleman went on to say:
Nevertheless we have agreed to the charter. It is the only international instrument we have at the present time, and members on all sides of the house have declared that they support the policy of doing everything Canada can do to make the united nations succeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One more sentence.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want the hon. gentleman to be quiet. I will satisfy his mind. I have been drawing the attention of the hon. gentleman to the statement made by the minister. It would be a good thing for him to read it and re-read it until he understands its meaning. The minister said that it is the only international instrument we have at the present time. Considering the publication of white papers it may be the only one, but it is just a replica of the league of nations and the treaty of Versailles. It has shown a complete lack of imagination. It is not necessary to have all these papers. The one way to ensure peace in the world is for the United States and Canada to keep to themselves the secret of the atomic bomb, not give it to any other country. If we are as proud of our own country and our own citizens as we should be, we will realize that the only way

United Nations

to prevent war in the future is to use the big stick, as was described by Theodore Roosevelt.
We have on this continent a weapon which can destroy the whole world if the world does not behave properly. I read in the papers today that Russia has made an experiment similar to the one which was carried on so successfully on the shores of one of our Canadian rivers as well as in one of the states in the United States. The whole thing blew up because they did not know how to do it. We know how we can do it, and the United States know how they can do it. With the secret of the atomic bomb-not with the atomic bomb-and the determination to keep that secret, there could be no wars for a long time. That would be a much simpler arrangement that the bureaucratic organizations of the united nations, which is just a replica and copy of the bureaucratic and useless league of nations.	.
I will go on and quote the next paragraph. I would not have read it, but I will quote it to satisfy my hon. friend. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stops to think about these matters he will realize that the security council-as it is-is something more than dangerous trips to all corners of the world. The minister went on:
That being the attitude, we do not want to be subject to any reproach that any act or omission of ours was a reason for delay in having the united nations and the security council fully operative. We therefore ask parliament to authorize the governor in council, should occasion arise, to make such orders binding-
Note that word.
-upon Canadian citizens as might be required to carry out Canada's obligations-
Note that.
-under articles 41 and 25 of the charter of the united nations in respect of non-military sanctions imposed by the security council upon a recalcitrant member-
Note that, please.

of the united nations organization.
It is bad, ft is not working properly, but we must use it because there is nothing else. Is that an argument? If the dunces of the united nations have not found anything better than this, are we bound to Stick to them? This country might be considered a recalcitrant member of the united nations if we do not accept this. The argument is put forward that we are bound by that. Sir Robert Borden signed the treaty of Versailles in 1919 or 1920 and his signature was considered to be binding on Canada, but it was only about fifteen years later, at the time of Bennett, that Canada was called upon to

pass legislation with regard to unilateral treaties, exactly the same thing as we are doing now.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. gentleman, but I am obliged to call his attention to the fact that he should confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, with the greatest respect I am not to be called to order for commenting with as much precision as possible on the statements made on second reading by members who were not called to order for making them. Therefore I must be in order myself in referring to what they said.


James Horace King: The hon. member will understand that the Speaker should not argue with the hon. member and the hon. member should1 not argue with the Speaker. I have a duty to perform and it is to keep the discussion confined to the principle of the bill before the house. I would ask the hon. member to proceed accordingly.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have the greatest respect for the Chair, but I want to express my own feeling. I want to say why I am opposed to this, and if I cannot do that on the amendment I will do it on the third reading of the bill if the amendment is defeated.
We have now a whole pile of legislation. We are to substitute the concoctions of the minds of the bureaucrats of the security council and the united nations for the British North America Act. Our constitution will mean nothing if we bind ourselves to another organization that will be able to impose its will upon us.
I have something else to say. The minister in the very same speech said, at page 3435 of Hansard, in the same column, that similar legislation had been passed by the United Kingdom parliament and by the New Zealand parliament but had not been passed by the parliament of Australia or of South Africa. These people are more careful than the people of the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Why should we not do what they have done? The people of Australia and South Africa, especially General Smuts, are just as bright as the Canadian statesmen, and they have decided- not to go on with this matter.
I will tell you, sir, why I think that the adoption of the united nations charter by this parliament does not bind us in the same way as a treaty. It is precisely because of my experience with the treaty of Versailles that I say this. It was approved by the parliament of Canada, but it took fifteen years to approve the so-called unilateral treaties, which

United Nations
were just like the forms of procedure that lawyers find in a book but which are not procedure because they are not signed by anybody. It took fifteen years to discover that, these were "treaties", and when I asked the then minister of justice, Mr. Guthrie, who was also a good lawyer, how we could have a unilateral treaty, he could not reply. Now we have the very same thing. We are bound by those obligations.
I never took the united nations seriously because its direction is in the hands of people who think only of material gain, not spiritual gain. I remember giving an interview to a local paper two years ago to that effect. I said that the united nations would go nowhere because they pay no attention to spiritual values. They are those greedy mercenaries who will give orders that we will have to listen to. No, sir. I believe in freedom and in the sovereignty of Canada, and I will oppose with my last breath legislation of this kind, because since the united nations charter has been adopted we realize that it has been a fiasco from beginning to end.


John Horne Blackmore: Just window dressing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not only that. I have quoted one right hon. gentleman who sits on this side of the house. I will now quote another hon. gentleman of great experience in international affairs, a personal friend of mine for whom I have great regard, one who has attended these conferences which have always ended in a fiasco. At page 3437 of Hansard, in his admirable speech the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said:
One cannot look upon the economic sanctions end of our united nations work without thinking also of the collateral part, the military sanctions.
He went on, and I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to follow this to see if I read it correctly:
The military sanctions and the staff committee's report to the security council have been one of the most disappointing-
He used the word "disappointing", the word that was used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and goes even further; for he says:
-have been one of the most disappointing and discouraging things that I have heard or read since I have had anything to do with the united nations itself. It is not setting up an international army, navy or air force. It does not purport to do that. The report in fact says that, because there are so many of the big powers which have a veto and can say no, there is no use in 'having a large army, navy or air force at all. In other words, we are not even to have an international police force. We are just going to have a nice easy-going little body 83166-2921
of truant officers to make sure that the little boys throughout the world will not cause any trouble.
That is true, and it is a saddening experience. But some Canadian people have the idea that everything is good so long as it is not Canadian.


John Horne Blackmore: If it is international.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it is international, then everything is all right. We have the right to question the character of witnesses when they appear to give evidence. We have the right to question the character and the evidence of all those on the security council. They may mean well, but up until now they have not shown that they were meaning well, and that is the reason why I object as strongly as I can to this legislation, which I sincerely consider bad. I do this for future generations. The hon. member for Lethbridge and the leader of his party spoke of the future generations who would be bound by what we are doing now, and they were right. Those who are sponsoring this legislation, just as the Versailles treaty and the Briand-Kellogg pact which were to maintain peace throughout the world were sponsored, run the risk of leaving to future generations an execrated memory. I do not want to forecast evils that may not occur, but judging from the last two years only a miracle can save the world if we do not keep to ourselves the secret of atomic energy.
Spiritual values count. I do not wish to offend any of those who have participated in these negotiations, but if Canada was left aside, if Canada was not appointed to the security council, it was precisely because it was discovered, and discovered early, by the jackals and wolves of the big powers and those on the security council, that Canada was honest and sincere in her proposal to maintain peace. It was precisely because Canada looked sincere and honest in her endeavours for the establishment and the maintenance of peace throughout the world that she was discarded, that she was put aside. They said to Canada: We do not want you on the security council; we do not want a Canadian as secretary of UNO; you must stay at home; you may come to our meetings, but you must sit at the small table. That is why I resent deeply as a Canadian-and I do not say that to show disrespect to Canadian delegates, of any party, who have been there-the behaviour of the UNO regarding Canada. I feel ashamed, and it is time to give solemn warning to the government not to go too far in that direction.
456S
United Nations

Of course there are the Rhodes scholars who have been trained to see big, the spiritual children of Cecil Rhodes who have been trained to see big, to forget everything that is patriotic, to forget the land of their fathers, to forget all that for the international organizations.
Mr.	SINCLAIR	(Vancouver	North):
Nonsense.


John Horne Blackmore: Absolutely true.
Mr.	SINCLAIR	(Vancouver	North):
Nonsense.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are a menace to the future world because they have no patriotism. They called all people who did not agree with them isolationists, when they were only patriots, when it was only the virtue that their forefathers had, and they wanted the happiness and progress of their own country. At the present time they are jumping into international organizations, and because these organizations are bigger, because they are more bureaucratic, because there are so many doing nothing in these organizations they say that this suggested organization is a good thing. They do not realize that war may come nearer and nearer and that these incompetent organizations which have been a curse to the world in the past will be, God forbid, a curse to the world of the future.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on parliamentary law, but I do lay claim to having a big bump of common sense. In this house we have two groups, and they are represented here at this same desk. I admire my deskmate for the manful way in which he stands up and defends his own way of thinking.


Jean-François Pouliot: I admire you, too.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: But I have as good a right to stand up and say that I support the united nations.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: And make more sense.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: When we sent a delegation to San Francisco I think we sent an intelligent one and they obligated themselves. Instead of making a speech in defence of my position on this bill I should like to register my disapproval of this amendment by my vote, and I hope that every other hon. member who has not spoken will do the same thing instead of making a speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be only a couple of minutes. It seems to me that few debates
that we have listened to have wandered so far from the subject of the bill under consideration. We have not before us at this time any proposal for the adoption of the united nations charter, because it has already been adopted. . This parliament approved it unanimously, which means that even the hon. members of the Social Credit party did not vote against it when it came before the house. We have not before us any proposal to adopt article 41. That is already part of the charter; so is article 25, under which this parliament, by unanimous vote, undertook to carry out the obligations contained in article 41. By virtue of our adopting this charter by unanimous vote of this parliament we, this parliament, obligated ourselves to the commitments envisaged by article 41.
All this bill does is to transfer or delegate to the governor in council some of the obligations that we undertook under article 41 when we signed the charter. It seems to me that the matter is purely a domestic issue as to how we shall carry out within our country certain commitments we have already made.
Before I sit down I wish to say that the debate has served one purpose at least. It has given some hon. members an opportunity to make clear that what they are opposing is not article 41; what they are opposing is Canada's membership in the united nations. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) said that he felt the time had come when Canada should withdraw from the united nations. That is not the measure before the house. At least we now know the meaning of the opposition to bills like this, and I hope that if there is a vote either on the six months' hoist amendment or on the motion for third reading, the vote will be an overwhelming one not only in support of this bill but thereby in support of the united nations.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to say a few words as a member of the committee on external affairs. I do not know whether there will be another opportunity this session or not, but I should like briefly to say a few words on this bill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has just taken his seat, claims that because we signed the united nations charter in San Francisco we should give approval to this bill. Was that a blank cheque? Are we bound to accept everything that is done under the united nations from that time on?


Major James William Coldwell: No. This parliament ratified Canada's signature. That is the point.

United Nations


John Horne Blackmore: It is time we changed our minds.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We did it unanimously.


Norman Jaques: There are ideas which have arisen since the charter was signed, and I can only hope, to the credit of those who signed it, that they had no idea then of some of the things which are now proposed under the united nations charter. For instance, let me refer to just one thing, and I think one of the most important, namely UNESCO.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MacINNIS:: We are not discussing UNESCO.


John Horne Blackmore: It is one of the specialized agencies, is it not?


Norman Jaques: One of the things the hon. member does not wish to hear about.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I did not hear all the hon. member said. I do not know what the hon. member is about to refer to. I should remind him, as has been pointed out, that Canada is a member of the united nations, and became a member by virtue of the unanimous vote of this house. The bill before the house at the present time is wholly with respect to special powers which should be vested in the. governor in council in pursuance of article 41 of the charter. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to that question.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this bill refers specifically to the immunities-


Major James William Coldwell: No, you have the wrong bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We passed the immunities bill the other day when you were not here.


Norman Jaques: Well, it does not matter.
What I wish to say will apply here.


Mr. MITCHELL:: You are in the right
pew but the wrong church.


Norman Jaques: You are not even in the
church.


William Ross Macdonald: I am sure the
hon. member will confine his remarks to this bill, which is an act respecting article 41 of the charter of the united nations.


Norman Jaques: It is stated that this act
may be cited as The United Nations Act, and under that I am entitled to discuss the matter I am referring to.


William Ross Macdonald: It may be cited as The United Nations Act, 1947.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the title is "An act respecting article 41 of the charter of the united nations."


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Who is Speaker in this
house?


Norman Jaques: Yes, who is Speaker? I
am discussing the United Nations Act and I wish to refer to a certain statement made last week by the Prime Minister. I say that that statement is most pertinent to the bill under discussion, and I should like to repeat the Prime Minister's words:
We stand today at the crossroads of the world. The release of atomic energy marks the opening of a new age. Whether the new era "will be one of unprecedented progress in human welfare or of unparalleled destruction depends more than all else on whether the affairs of nations are to be based on a Christian or a pagan philosophy.
Following the words by the Prime Minister of Canada were the words of a message to Canada from His Holiness the Pope. These were his words:
The Holy Father's special message to this congress is that liberty is dependent on truth. The Holy Father quotes the divine works. The truth will make you free. Truth is the mother of liberty. Truth is its light, its means and its glory.
Now what is the truth of this united nations organization? A part of its duty, or rather a part of its purpose and a very important part of its purpose, is to reeducate the world, and UNESCO is a leading part of the united nations organization, which I am now discussing. It is one of the specialized agencies of the united nations. The title of UNESCO, I may say, is the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization. The head of that organization is a professed atheist who has signed his name to a declaration that his purpose as head of the organization will be to teach the world that it no longer needs religion as a basis of its moral code. That is a fact, and how many in this house will stand up and face that fact? He goes on to say that his purpose


Major James William Coldwell: May I rise to a point
of order, Mr. Speaker? This is a simple bill. The question before us is whether we shall transfer certain powers from this parliament to the government of Canada. It has nothing to do with UNESCO or Julian Huxley, and it seems to me that in the interests of a proper discussion of the measure before us we should confine ourselves to its provisions. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to say what we ought to do. Someone suggests that I do not want to hear about it. I do want to hear about these things.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then sit down and listen.
United Nations


Major James William Coldwell: I want to hear about them, but I want to hear about them at the right time and in the right way.


Norman Jaques: And when is that?


Major James William Coldwell: When the matter of UNESCO comes before the house.


Norman Jaques: When will that be?


William Ross Macdonald: We are discussing the question whether or not the powers set forth in section 2 of the bill should be given to the governor in council. That is the whole question. There is also the question of penalties arising from default, but the question before the house is whether certain powers should be given to the governor in council.


Gordon Graydon: There is the question of the six months' hoist, Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: Hon. members may discuss whether or not it is advisable to defer the matter for six months. The question is whether or not the powers enumerated should be granted now, or whether the house should defer the whole matter for six months.


Norman Jaques: I was speaking to the amendment, which is to give the bill the six months' hoist, and I am trying to justify the purpose of giving the bill the hoist. I am not speaking only to the members in this chamber. I am trying to say something to the people outside this house who have very little idea of w'hat is entailed in the bill.


Mr. HARTT:: The hon. member has the right to hold meetings outside.


John Horne Blackmore: He has the right to talk here too.


Maurice Hartt: He said he is not speaking to the members of the house.


Norman Jaques: If you don't like what I say you can sit down.


Maurice Hartt: Who does? The hon. member wants to teach God Almighty his business.


An hon. MEMBER:: He recognizes him, anyway.


Maurice Hartt: Lie would not know him if he saw him, and he would not see him if he knew him. He talks about Julian Huxley.


Norman Jaques: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of the hon. member-


Maurice Hartt: For Cartier.


Norman Jaques: For Cartier.


Maurice Hartt: That is right.


Norman Jaques: I have heard the same sort of remarks many times in the past from the
man who used to sit next to me, Fred Rose, the former member for Cartier; he had the same objection to my speeches.


Maurice Hartt: It may not be long before my friend is with Fred Rose.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is where he would go if you had your way.


Maurice Hartt: I would let him loose on a leash.


Jean-François Pouliot: Say it with flowers.


Mr. IRVINE:: Enforce the rules, Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: I would ask
hon. members to return to the discussion.


William Irvine: We have never been on it.


Norman Jaques: It is evident that certain members in this house do not care for the words which the Prime Minister spoke the other day at the official reception of the Marian congress. They do not like to be reminded that the future welfare of this country, and of other countries, depends on whether they are to remain Christian or to turn pagan. That is the principle, and that is what I am trying to establish. Only a short time ago the Prime Minister said our existence as a nation depends upon the preservation of Christian principles. When I said that a month ago I was denounced across Canada as a menace.


Maurice Hartt: That is true, but you did not say that.


Norman Jaques: I will challenge the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt) to get up and disagree with what the Prime Minister said. He is sitting there now; let him get up and say he does not agree with it. Go on; get up.


Maurice Hartt: Mr. Speaker, I have been challenged in this house.


Norman Jaques: Say you do not agree with your own Prime Minister.


Maurice Hartt: Don't tell me what to say now. If I told you what to say you would say something worth while.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this house seems to be getting out of hand. I suggest that if the hon. member for Wetaskiwin challenges the hon. member for Cartier to rise and speak, the hon. member then forfeits his own right to follow the hon. member for Cartier -when he finishes.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is like a meeting of the big five.

United Nations


Maurice Hartt: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there is a rule that any speaker who yields the floor, or for some reason or other interrupts his own speech, thereby bars himself from speaking afterward.


Solon Earl Low: Quote the rule.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I would point out to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) that the only way the hon. member for Cartier may speak at this time is on a question of privilege.


Maurice Hartt: I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that I was invited to speak by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, who had the floor. In the middle of his speech he challenged me to rise, and resumed his own seat.


Norman Jaques: No; when I sit down.


Maurice Hartt: Therefore I not only have the privilege, I have the right to speak. If you, Mr. Speaker, agree that such things may be done in parliament I shall be glad to accept the challenge, inside the house or outside the house.


Norman Jaques: Let us get this clear, Mr. Speaker. I was about to repeat the words of the Prime Minister at the Marian Congress;
I was present, and heard him speak.


Maurice Hartt: I rise to a point of order. According to rule 43-*


An hon. MEMBER:: Who gave you that?


Maurice Hartt: It doesn't make any difference; it is in the book. According to rule 43 the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, by his challenge, has forgone his right to speak and has given me the right to speak. Let me read rule 43. It is not a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, but when an hon. member has the floor other hon. members are supposed to keep their seats. I have the floor now.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has not given way. He has the floor.


Norman Jaques: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let that be a lesson to you over there.


Maurice Hartt: Does he withdraw his
challenge?


Norman Jaques: I shall conclude my remarks-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Norman Jaques: -by repeating the words of the leader of these members over here, the Prime Minister of Canada. May I say that I agree absolutely and entirely with what was
said on that occasion by the right hon. gentleman. I was there and heard it; and here are his words:
The release of atomic energy marks the opening of a new age. Whether the new era will be one of unprecedented progress in human welfare or of unparallelled destruction depends more than all else on whether the affairs of nations are to he based on a Christian or a pagan philosophy.


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is that this bill be given the six months' hoist; and I submit that to carry this motion would be tantamount to an expression by this house that it had no faith in the united nations. That is a position I for one cannot take; and whether or not I am entirely in order in discussing this now, the situation is of sufficient seriousness for this house to consider it not in a spirit of levity but with the utmost seriousness.
The bill before us gives the government authority to deal with the affairs of the united nations. To withhold this authority from the government, who are the elected and responsible agents of the Canadian people, would be worse than an expression of no confidence, because it would be denying to the legally and democratically elected government of Canada the right to deal with a vital matter of external affairs.
The sort of debate which I regret has taken place in this house this afternoon is the sort of thing that weakened the old league of nations when that question was being debated in the United States senate. We have made fun of the united nations. We have belittled the efforts of honest people who are trying to bring about a world in which collective security will mean what it says. No one who has lived through the past two years will deny that the way has been tortuous and difficult, and that in many cases we have seen obstruction, childishness, stupidity and all the other individual frailties of members of the united nations. But to say now, by agreeing to the six months' hoist of this bill, that this house has no confidence in the united nations I submit would be one of the most retrograde steps any elected and free parliament could possibly take.
I regret having to disagree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), but I do so with the utmost sincerity. Unless we can make the united nations work, our very civilization may fail.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, having spoken at some length on the motion for second reading of this bill, I crave the indulgence of the house for only a
United Nations



* COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
few moments to place my position, and I believe the position taken generally by this party, before parliament.
It may be helpful to hon. members to know that when a similar piece of legislation was placed before the house at Westminster-not recently, but as far back as April 1946-it was not only endorsed by the government in Great Britain but received even greater support from those sitting on the benches of the Churchill opposition formed by the Conservative party at Westminster. Perhaps it received an even greater measure of support from that opposition than from the government itself. I commend to the house the degree of unity which characterized the position which was taken by the official opposition in the United Kingdom house, and which carried with it the judgment of other parties as well.
I would be the first to concede to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) who moved the amendment, and to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who seconded it, the highest degree of conviction and sincerity of purpose. Let us not take the stand that because some may disagree with us in matters of this kind, they lack either sincerity or conviction. It is a good thing that these matters are discussed in the open, so that all of us may express our considered and mature views and judgment.
I believe I am reflecting what was so well said a few moments ago by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) when I state that were we to tamper or tinker with legislation such as this, which goes to the very root of a great experiment in world peace, parliament might be interpreted in the country as walking once more on the dangerous threshold of isolationism.
John Horne Blackmore: What about the British commonwealth?


Gordon Graydon: I will not argue with my hon. friend, because his views and mine on this matter do not meet. But we cannot afford to have that kind of message go from this legislative chamber in Canada, when we have been in the vanguard, the very forefront, in our support of the united nations since its beginning.
Although many times we have been discouraged and disappointed by its failures, still it seems to me Canada is not yet ready, even in an amendment of this kind, to condemn the one bright ray of hope for permanent peace. Let us keep that light shining in Canada for many years to come. Some hon. members may feel that the six months' hoist is only a con-
sideration of time. But in the tradition of parliament this particular form of amendment has become more than that. I believe-and perhaps my view is shared by the government-that no great harm could have been done if the legislation had been left over until another session. But the fact is that it has been brought down at this session by the government; it is government policy, and we must either accept it or reject it.
Let us understand the meaning of the six months' hoist. It means killing the bill. In simple terms, that is the meaning of it, no matter what phraseology one may use to embroider it. It still means the killing of the bill; and I am not prepared to suggest to this party that such a course be taken.
May I read briefly from what I said on the motion for second reading:
I believe that many hon. members will be glad to endorse and approve this legislation, because Canada cannot stay out of a great structure of economic sanctions, since this nation must never leave itself in the position, so far as an offending nation is concerned, of being an international bootlegger in any sense of the term. That is not our role. It is not the kind of role that Canada has played up to date or intends to play in the years that lie ahead.
Either we mean business-
Let me emphasize this on third reading-
-in this international fight to keep the peace or we do not. If we do, then let us shoulder our full responsibility.
And this is one responsibility.
If we do not, let us not be hypocritical but rather abandon the whole thing now.
I am not prepared to abandon the whole thing now.
I believe I .speak for everyone in our party-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not the member for Broadview.


Gordon Graydon: in this house when I say that I for one want Canada to pull her full weight and, having that definitely in mind, I will support this legislation for the reasons I mentioned a few moments ago.
I reiterate that on this motion for third reading.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Gariepy). Had I voted I would have voted for the
amendment.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. WYLIE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LAPALME:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


James Horace King: The question is on the main motion.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I have just a word to say on the stand I have taken.


James Horace King: Order. I would draw the hon. member's attention to Beauchesne, second edition, citation 325, which reads:
A member who speaks in seconding an amendment is unable to speak again on the original question after the amendment has been withdrawn, or otherwise disposed of.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, just a word in connection with the stand taken by myself and my colleagues on this whole bill, and the stand taken also by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Our stand, Mr. Speaker, is a vote in favour of much greater caution and of realism in our attitude in international affairs. I know full well that there are those in this house who will seek to interpret our stand as indicating that we are opposed to the whole idea of the united nations and of international cooperation. The whole attitude of this government, as we have pointed out consistently, has been a tendency to rush headlong into any sort of international organization that may be proposed without taking time to give the matter careful consideration, or even to allow the necessary discussion.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he should confine his remarks to the principle of the bill. The question before us is not the organization of the united nations. That has already been organized.
United Nations


Solon Earl Low: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that our stand against Bill 132 simply means that we want greater caution exercised in international affairs, and that we are supporting the six months' hoist to give the Canadian people much more time for careful consideration.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, since I spoke this afternoon the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) speaking after me, implied that we in this group were opposed to doing our utmost in the interests of peace. I do not know whether he meant just that, but that no doubt will be the interpretation put upon his words by many people outside this house. I want to make it clear that I am just as much in favour of peace as anybody in this house or out of it. In fact I will go farther and say that there is no one in this house and no one out of it who is not in favour of peace. So there is no quarrel there. The reason I spoke-


James Horace King: Order. I should like to call the hon. member's attention to the fact that he must confine his remarks to the principle of the bill. If he does not do so I shall be obliged to ask him to resume his seat.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, as briefly as possible I was trying to explain the reason for my vote this afternoon. Let me put it as briefly as possible, if I may.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Horace King: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Some hon. members do not know the meaning of British fair play or Canadian honour. Shame on them.


Major James William Coldwell: May I rise to a point of order? I think the hon. gentleman will finish in a few minutes if the house will just keep quiet and let him carry on.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is reading his speech.


Norman Jaques: I am sorry I am not able to shout over so much noise; I cannot do it. I am not reading my speech. I merely want to quote from a magazine which justifies-


Gordon Graydon: Give the hon. member a fair show if you do not agree with what he says.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members to maintain silence. It is very difficult for the Speaker to follow the hon. member who has the floor.


Norman Jaques: In my remarks this afternoon I mentioned one of the main reasons
for my opposition to this bill. I now have the quotation. It is very brief and refers to the head of UNESCO, which is one of the main branches of the united nations. Its purpose is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I ask for the preservation of a semblance of decency in the house. The discussion today has nothing to do with the principles of this bill; it has not the slightest connection with it. The house has laid down certain rules, and I think hon. members should abide by the rules which have been passed by the majority. Surely we should get on with the business of the house.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members to keep silence in order that the Speaker may know what the hon. member who has the floor wishes to say, and to see whether he is in order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The reason I rose on the point of order was to ask the hon. member to throw down his magazine and speak up.


Gordon Graydon: He has not a very strong voice. Have some consideration.


Norman Jaques: It is sometimes useful to quote world authorities. I am now quoting Julian Huxley, the head of UNESCO, which is the main part of the united nations and which we-


James Horace King: Order. I feel obliged to ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Gordon Graydon: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. A few moments ago the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) indicated that he had read into the remarks which I made on the amendment some reference which he took as being offensive to him and to his party. If he will read my remarks he will see that the words are not there, and certainly it was not my intention to be offensive. On reflection I think he will wish to forget what he said, because it was not my intention to reflect on him or his party, and everyone in the house knew that.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order. I have asked the hon. member to resume his seat. Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.

Industrial Disputes
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.


Gordon Graydon: May I raise a point of order now? I do not ask for any ruling by Your Honour at this time, and perhaps it is not right for me to make this request. At some stage before the end of the session, however, would Your Honour indicate under what rule or by what power or authority the Speaker may ask an hon. member of the house to resume his seat in the middle of a debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: I call the hon. member's attention to standing order 12 of Beauchesne, first edition:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order.
In doing what I did a moment ago, I believe that I was helping to preserve decorum and dignity.


Gordon Graydon: If that were stretched too far it might become an abuse.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 267, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1929.
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 338, to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes.
Angus MacInnis: Before this bill is read the second time and referred to the committee on industrial relations, which is, I believe, the intention of the minister, I should Like to make a few comments. I shall have some criticism to make of the bill, and in an effort to avoid1 raising the ire of the minister I want to say at once that, all my comments will not be criticisms. The bill has its good points as well as its bad ones and I hope to refer briefly to both. I may say further for the minister's benefit that I realize as well as anyone can the difficulties, under a constitution such as ours, of drafting satisfactory legislation of this kind. In that regard the minister has my sympathy.
I would refer, first, to what I consider to be the favourable or good points in the legislation. In that respect I would say that the recognition of bargaining agents rather than bargaining representatives, as was the case with P.C. 1003, is a great improvement which,
I think, will meet with the approval of organized labour right across the country. Another good point in the measure before us is that it specifically provides that the Canada labour relations board which will be set up under this act shall consist of an equal number of representatives of employers and employees plus a chairman. I am sure that also will meet with the approval of labour organizations. Another good feature is the provision in subsection 8 of section 32 that- in proceedings before the board neither party can be represented by a lawyer or barrister or advocate without the consent of both parties, and1 even if the consent of both parties is given, the board may refuse to hear such representations. That is as it should be because conciliation boards are not legal proceedings, and every effort should be made to keep the proceedings under the board on a give and take basis of conciliation, free from technicalities and legal quibble. I commend the minister for putting in the bill the points I have mentioned. These three points do not, of course, exhaust the favourable features of the bill, but I wanted to refer to them first by way of appeasement. I am not ordinarily in favour of appeasing, but I thought it the best policy at this time.
To me, the fundamental fault in the bill is the restricted coverage. The provisions of the bill cover only a small fraction of Canadian wage-earners. Organized labour and others interested in legislation that would make for better employer-employee relations were hoping that when legislation for this purpose was drafted it would be much broader in scope than the measure before us. I am satisfied that in that way this measure is a disappointment to a great many. This bill can by no stretch of the imagination be called a labour code.
As I said before, I appreciate the difficulties that anyone attempting to formulate a labour code in this country would be up against, but that we have not something more comprehensive before us now is, in my opinion, due to the timidity of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). The house will remember that last year when the industrial relations committee made its report to the house the first recommendation in the report read:
(a) That the proposed dominion-provincial labour conference be called at the earliest possible moment to draft a labour code within the
Industrial Disputes

limits of the Canadian constitution and with a view to establishing machinery for the prevention of dislocations in industry.
That report was approved by this house, and I maintain that it constituted a direction to the minister from parliament to make every effort possible to draft such a measure as the committee had in mind. I do not think the Minister of Labour did all that could have been done to get the cooperation of the provinces for uniform labour legislation. I say that with all due recognition of the difficulties in the way. Of course I may be wrong, but I base this opinion on a statement made by the minister when moving the resolution on which this bill is founded, as reported on page 4230 of Hansard. He said:
Last year we had a conference with ministers of labour of the various provinces and their officials, at which we discussed the more important principles of a new federal law-and, I may add, in a very encouraging atmosphere of cooperation.
Now this is what I want hon. members to note:
The chief purpose of the conference, of course, was to obtain the views of the provinces as to when it would be most appropriate to restore to the provinces full responsibility for dealing with industrial disputes in industries ordinarily under their jurisdiction.
I was under the impression that the chief purpose of the dominion-provincial labour conference was to try to find a basis for national labour legislation. I do not think it was for the purpose of finding when it would be appropriate for the provinces to have restored to them the jurisdiction they held before labour relations were governed by the various orders in council passed under the War Measures Act. That would come, as a matter of course, when these orders in council or any legislation founded upon them expired. So that I think in that regard the minister has not done as much as he could have done, and the result is that this legislation and the provincial labour acts that were drafted during the last year do not provide uniform labour laws throughout Canada. Instead of having uniform legislation, we have nine or ten different acts relating to employer-employee relations, nearly every one of which is different from the other. If the Minister of Labour wants to achieve as large a measure of uniformity in legislation of this kind as I think his understanding of what is required d'emands, the arrangements made with the provinces in section 62 of this measure are altogether inadequate. Of the various provincial labour acts that have recently been enacted, in only one province, Nova Scotia, is the legislation substantially uniform with this measure. If 
we take the labour laws in the other provinces one by one we find that they have very little in common with this bill. The new act in British Columbia has some provisions similar to those in this measure, but taking it as a whole there are important differences. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec the labour legislation has little if any resemblance to this bill. In Manitoba. Ontario and New Brunswick the labour legislation is much along the lines of P.C. 1003, but again totally different from this bill.
The difference between the legislation in the provinces and this measure seems to me strange, if the provinces had before them the views of the Minister of Labour. Surely if the provinces had in their possession a draft of this bill before they drew up their own legislation they would have made some effort to bring their labour laws into closer relationship with the federal labour law. Either that or we must assume that the provinces are not interested in uniformity of labour legislation. In my opinion such uniformity is essential if we are to promote unity throughout this country. The conclusion I must come to, then, is that the minister did not impress upon the provincial departments of labour the desirability of labour laws such as recommended by the industrial relations committee and by this house.
There are in the bill two bad features I should like to mention. I may mention more than two, but I believe at least two merit special mention. The first is section 9(3)(a), which provides that there may be more than one bargaining agency in an industry. If that provision is maintained in the legislation when it is finally passed I believe the effect will be to make industry-wide collective bargaining more difficult, and it will also tend to create divisions and jurisdictional disputes in industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is to protect the craft organizations, as my hon. friend understands.


Angus MacInnis: I understand its purpose, but in these days of mass production, when the craft is losing a great deal of the value it once had, I think the provision in the bill is bad. I would take as an example the trade union in which I still have membership, the street railway men. For all practical purposes that is an industrial organization, though it is affiliated to the American Federation of Labor, which is supposed to be based on crafts. It brings in carpenters, blacksmiths, machinists, and all the different trades necessary in that industry. I know that over a period of the years craft unions

Industrial Disputes
have endeavoured to take these workers out of the amalgamated association and get them into the craft unions.


Humphrey Mitchell: Take the steel industry, for example, where bricklayers have been employed for a great many years. Do you not think those fellows, with their tradition and record in that industry, should have a right to some protection under this legislation?


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to enter into an argument with the minister concerning a particular industry. I say there is likely to be more harmony in industry, and that all sections of industry are more likely to benefit if all the employees are covered by one agreement. I have had enough experience with labour agreements to know how a monkey-wrench can be thrown into the machinery of conciliation and how the reaching of an agreement can be disrupted by one section or cra'ft making a separate agreement with the employing company.


Humphrey Mitchell: What about the railroads: what would you do there? Would you wipe out the machinists, the trainmen, the conductors, et cetera, and have one big organization ?


Angus MacInnis: Where the principle is
already recognized, as it is in connection with the railroads, where the workers for years have been organized in their different trades or crafts, this provision would not be necessary in order to maintain the present situation, because it would be maintained in that industry regardless, I think. I just wanted to draw' that matter to the attention of the minister. Before he interrupted me-


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sorry; I should
not have interrupted.


Angus MacInnis: That is quite all right. I was pointing out that in my own trade union, attempts had been made to take out those belonging to the various crafts, but good judgment has always prevailed and for a period of nearly fifty years they have been covered by one agreement.
The second bad feature I want to mention is the length of time involved in conciliation procedure, even before a strike vote can be taken. I have calculated, I think correctly, the number of days provided in the bill; and it takes approximately ninety days, even if each step follows the other without any delay at all, from the time proceedings are started until a strike vote can be taken. I am sure the minister, with his experience, realizes the importance of dispatch in dealing with labour disputes.
There is in the bill another defect, what seems to me a departure from ordinary procedure, in that police court proceedings are to be applied instead of civil action by one party or the other, as I think has almost always been the case. The Ontario rights of labour act and the Saskatchewan act provide generally that:	(a) a union and its
acts shall not be deemed to be unlawful simply because one or more of its objects is in restraint of trade; (b) any act done by two or more members of a union, if done in connection with a trade dispute, shall not be actionable unless it would have been actionable if done without any agreement or combination; (c) a union shall not be made a party to any court action unless it could have been so made a party irrespective of the provisions of the collective bargaining legislation; (d) a collective agreement shall not be made the subject of any court action unless it could have been so made irrespective of the provisions of the collective bargaining legislation. I believe that is a definite defect in the present legislation.
There are several other points which I should like to discuss at some length; but, since the measure is to go to the industrial relations committee, before which witnesses can be called, and representatives from employers, organized labour and other interested parties may have their say, I am not going to take up the time of the house any longer.
In conclusion, let me say to the minister that I am in whole-hearted agreement with the words he used in concluding his speech the other day, when he pointed out that harmonious relations cannot be brought about in industry solely by legislation. Legislation can set the rules; and a provision can be made to make each party abide by those rules. That, of course, is as it should be. But before we can have harmony in industry, several things will have to be done. Employers will have to realize that, while they may own and operate the industry, it is really the use the people of the community or the country make of that industry which gives it its value. Consequently the community has a stake in the industry outside altogether the stake the owners may have in it.
Then again the employee must realize that the community has a stake in industry, and that when production is retarded or stopped the community suffers. So I say there are two important points which both sides will have to accept. They must respect each other's rights in their dealings with one another. Second, they must accept their social responsibilities to the community.
Industrial Disputes

With respect to organized labour, I wish to leave one or two facts with the house; anyone may verify these for himself by reading a little industrial history. Organized labour as we know it today came into being after the industrial revolution. For many years, indeed for nearly a century after that revolution, labour had no protection whatsoever from the state. As a matter of fact acts of parliament were passed to prevent labour from organizing to protect itself. So it is clear that labour organization had its birth in struggle and conflict, and it will take years of attempts at understanding and fair dealing before we can eradicate the evil results of the behaviour of employers toward their employees.
I am glad, and in my view the house and country should be glad, that in formulating this legislation, with all its shortcomings, the government did not adopt in its legislation the punitive provisions in the legislation which became law in the United States only yesterday. It augurs well for the future if we can resolve our difficulties on a basis of compromise and cooperation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, this legislation arises from the recommendation made last year by the industrial relations committee. It is an attempt to formulate a labour code for Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: Why not call it an act?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The resolution asked for a labour code. The minister may call it an act, if he wishes. I said it was an attempt to form a code. The minister may quibble about the word used, and I am prepared to accept his quibbles. It makes no real difference what it is called.
The basic reason for the legislation is, so far as possible, to have a pattern for labour legislation across Canada. In this connection any action taken by the federal government must in some respects come into conflict with the British North America Act, which definitely prescribes that, with certain limitations, labour relations shall be in the provincial field.
Those hon. members and other people throughout Canada who believe that labour legislation is an open and shut matter should ponder section 92 (10) (c) of the British North America Act, which reads:
Such works or undertakings as although wholly situate within the province are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to 'be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
That, in my humble opinion, still gives residual power to the federal authorities. That 
is a part of the British North America Act which might be interpreted in the widest possible way.
In a country like Canada there is bound to -be difficulty in formulating uniform labour laws. The conditions of work, and the varied climate must be considered. Types of industry vary widely from one end of the country to the other. Such things, as hours and' conditions of work, wages and other questions should, in my opinion, remain matters to be dealt with by the; provincial authorities. Therefore I do not think the criticism that there is not a uniform labour law across Canada is well taken when all these difficulties are considered.
The first criticism I have to make is that this legislation should have been brought down a long time ago. The bill was initially circulated at the turn of the year and it was ready for presentation considerably over a month ago. It is an important piece of legislation and it should have been brought down for full discussion, in this house at that time. In view of the fact that we are in the dying days of the session and particularly when the country is being faced with induced difficulties caused by a major labour dispute taking place south of the border, it is perhaps unfortunate that this legislation has been so long delayed.
The test of all labour legislation is this: Will it promote industrial peace and maintain production? The fundamental fallacy of much labour legislation is that it is written against some body or is intended to be a curb on some activity or another. This legislation avoids many of the pitfalls we have seen in legislation elsewhere and as such it is to be commended. Labour law must not be punitive either way.
The first thing labour legislation should do is to protect the people of the country. The second thing it should do is to protect the individual freedom of the worker. During the past year there have been many instances in Canada where the individual freedom of the worker was not protected. Extremely arbitrary strike action was taken without the support of the vast majority of the workers concerned. As I say, labour legislation should take care to protect the rights of the individual worker. This bill is a short step in that direction.
We come now to one pofnt in the legislation which is somewhat of a departure from the old law, that is, that- conciliation proceedings must take place before strike action can be resorted to. That is one of the fundamental things that should be included in labour legislation; there should be an opportunity to talk the matter over before direct action is taken. To have left out that clause

Industrial Disputes
would have destroyed the whole framework of this bill. This is being resented strenuously in British Columbia. I realize that the case in question is a provincial matter; nevertheless there exists on Vancouver island a situation which is in direct defiance of bill 39 of the British Columbia statutes. I feel that this provision for conciliation is a necessary part of the bill.
The next point is the recognition of the responsibility of unions. This bill makes the union an entity. While I have no legal opinion on the matter, I understand that the union will be a legal entity before the board; that is, before the law. I think that is good; I think that is necessary. The union must accept the responsibilities entailed in acting as a bargaining agency.
The next point is that this legislation provides an opportunity for both sides to state their case. There has been a bad tendency not to allow management to state its case to the worker, but this bill contains a clause giving management an opportunity to state its case. That provision should be a necessary part of all labour legislation. Both sides should have equal opportunity to state their case. That is the fundamental law of democracy. The regulations covering that should be definitely and precisely stated.
We come now to the question of representation. I disagree with the clause in the bill which prohibits lawyers from acting on the board. I am not a lawyer; I am an engineer and, as an engineer, my outlook on problems is finite; there is a yes or no about it. A thing is so long; it is so strong; it has definite shape and qualities. In the training of an engineer there is little room for compromise; a thing, is either right or it is wrong. But when you are dealing with men, and frequently with angry men, there must be room for compromise and conciliation, and to disbar the legal profession from that type of work would be a retrogressive step in labour legislation.
Lawyers are trained as conciliators. We may object to them; we may have our views about the methods they employ, but conciliation is the essence of their training. To deny the one profession which has this training drilled into them through the years of university and law school is not assisting industrial peace across Canada.
In most disputes there is heat. People are very angry with each other. Management is angry with the union, and the union is angry with management. There is heat; there is hostility; there is even hatred. When you have management and union appointing someone who is not a trained conciliator, what is likely to happen? We saw it happen last year. The heat, the animosity, is, if anything, increased. Therefore I cannot agree with that section of the bill.
There are other things in the bill which, I suggest, can be better dealt with in committee. The definition of "employee" needs a great deal of clarification. I will mention just one point in that connection. One of the definitions of "employee" excludes from the bargaining agency employees who are in a confidential position with regard to labour relations only. There are a number of extremely confidentially employed persons who are not dealing solely with labour relations. I give, as an example, a man in a motor car factory who has the secrets of the design of next year s model, which is one of the most closely guarded trade secrets in all industry. I also suggest the technicians who are responsible for the control of alloys, or the composition of certain steels, and have a knowledge of special processes-all closely guarded trade secrets. I believe that such men too should be considered as confidential employees.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of all labour relations legislation is to bring about industrial peace and continuity of employment by which true security is obtained. This bill will be judged by how well it accomplishes this.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very happy to be here this afternoon to say a word on this bill. I am one of those who in 1941 stood over in my place in yonder corner and commended the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the appointment which he had made of our present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I have had something to do with teamwork in my short life, and the man who does not play with the team on which he is chosen is not much of a sport. When the minister took over this department I could not describe it better than by saying it was a hornet's nest. Labour from the Atlantic to the Pacific was burning hot. The leaders that he had to work with in his own department were, to put it mildly, not kindred spirits. They were not out to make his department a success so far as I could read into their findings. I am sorry that some of those leaders have not grown bigger and better. Some of them have.
One of the fine things that the minister did was the appointment of his present deputy minister. I took some pleasure in that, because he comes from that great city where the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) knows that men think for themselves, and when Mr. MacNamara was appointed deputy minister of
Industrial Disputes

labour, I began to see the clouds clear and that light was likely to come in.
The press has received the announcement of this bill favourably, and I have noted that two prominent labour unions have commended it. These same unions did not commend the minister in 1941. I was very glad that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), whose way of presenting things and whose honesty I admire, pointed out some of the good things in this bill. I think that was a splendid recommendation.
This bill has many new things in it and, on the whole, I think they are mostly good. They may not be agreed to by all the unions, but the legislation represents in large measure a revision of the wartime labour regulations with modifications and additions which are considered advisable following experience gained in their administration and in the light of representations received from provincial authorities and labour-employer organizations.
One of the line things the minister has been capable of doing is this. The word may not be quite suitable but at all events it is expressive, and that is that he is able to dicker with labour leaders. He knows their language; he knows their work; he knows their problems; he knows the difficulties they have in handling their membership. The minister himself has a long and honourable record as a labour leader, and I think labour all over Canada can commend the minister for this highlight in labour legislation. It would be interesting, I am sure, for someone to go over this bill and point out all the new things in it and show what benefits it will bring to employees and to employers as well.
My experience is that the man who toils must fight for everything he gets. The man who toils is never overpaid. He may get paid the standard wage, but my experience is that he never gets much more than he needs for his daily living. My experience of certain employers is that they are willing to cooperate all the way. I have known such men. One of them I worked with. He was willing to go all the way in helping his men to build up their homes, to improve their working conditions and increase their bank accounts. One of the things we have to do in the future is to give a little encouragement to the man who toils, because the toilers today need encouraging just as much as they did when they were far more underpaid than they are today.
There are one or two things in the bill which I think will prove very helpful. Employers are prohibited from interfering with or participating in the formation or administration of trade unions or of con-

tributing to their support or from discriminating in regard to employment of any person on account of membership in a trade union or because of union activities. That is a summary of section 4. Then I find that where a majority of a craft or of a technical group are members of a union pertaining to such craft or technical skills, the union is entitled to be certified as the bargaining agent of that group if the group otherwise is not an appropriate union. This provision is similar to P.C. 1003 and is confined to craft groups. Growing out of this and out of sections 9 and 11 are two new things, the recognition as a bargaining agent denied to any trade union which, in the opinion of the board, is first influenced by an employer, so that its fitness to represent employees in collective bargaining is merely-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he should not discuss the sections of the bill.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I have not read very much in the house and I am not going to read now. The new principles in the bill commend it splendidly. I do not think an employer has a right to interfere with a union. This bill provides splendid means to protect the employer and the employee. If they are enforced, then the employer will be happy and the employee will be contented.
As I said, the toiler has to struggle for everything that he gets; but my experience as a one-time president of a trade union is that not all men in a union are reasonable. The minister will know that. The president of a union has to be as patient as the minister; he has to keep these men in line so that they do not go over.
I was greatly impressed this year when one of the great things that visited the capital city was an organization that many cabinet ministers attended. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) like myself attended this meeting. It was a play put on in the Capitol theatre under the title of "The Forgotten Factor". Many of our ministers were there, and it was no discredit to see many hon. members from the opposition there on a Sunday afternoon watching the play. To me, that is the key to the solution of our labour troubles. You know as I do, and dear knows I love it much, that the love of money is a great curse. Whether that love of money is in the heart of the man who toils or in the heart of the man who wants to make big profits and dividends, it does not matter. The cure for our trouble today, both capital and labour, is that forgotten factor, men being

Industrial Disputes
willing to get down and discuss matters on a common foundation. That common foundation must be one which will not give way, and which is not built on sand.
The pictures that I have.seen of the report of that play indicated that it was put on by men from many parts of the world who had awakened to the reality that if you want to get the best out of a man you have to treat him with the Christian spirit. If you do that you will be able to meet him and be happy to see him, and1 you will be able to have refreshments of the right kind with him.
As I say, that foundation must be solid. To me, that foundation-and I am sure hon. members will pardon me for saying it, because I believe it-must be the love of Christ. When you build on that rock you will beat the devil to it whether he comes through money or in some other way.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity for discussing the details of this bill, but if I have correctly interpreted one of the sections, there is lurking in it an objectionable principle, and it seems to me that this is the proper moment to direct it to the attention of the minister and of the government.
Under the heading of procedure it is stated that before a conciliation board the parties may be represented, but they have not an unlimited choice. The parties find themselves restricted as to the type of assistance they may retain to represent them before this conciliation board. Subsection 8 of section 32 indicates that lawyers, whether described as barristers, solicitors or advocates, may not appear before the board except with the consent of both parties. Even if both parties were to consent, it is still open to the board to deny such representation to either or both parties. It does not behoove me at this moment to enter into a lengthy discussion of this particular aspect of the bill. If there were brought before the house a bill in which it were said that a man suffering from a toothache might consult the grocer and the blacksmith, but might not go to the dentist; if it were said that a man much troubled in spirit might go to the theatre or to a concert but might not consult his pastor, and if it were said that a man suffering from appendicitis might see the tinsmith but could not go to the surgeon, we would think there was some peculiar aspect to the legislation and would wonder just why.
There is a profession which is neither young nor unknown that is peculiarly fitted by
training, aptitude and experience to represent other people.
The ordinary individual, not having given himself up to the studies that are necessary to the Marshalling and presenting of facts in all their ramifications, goes when he wishes his case to be fully presented to that profession which is learned in the statement of facts in their entirety. Just why it should have seemed proper to the draftsman of this legislation to exclude that body and deny the board such assistance as it could give is not entirely clear.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would point out to the hon. member that the section is not new. It was in the old Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I am not discussing the merits of the question or the position that my hon. friend takes, but there is nothing new in the section. It was in the old act.


Mr. HACKETT:: Yes; it was in an act
which was never enforced in that regard. But we are talking a great deal just now in this parliament and elsewhere about liberty and freedom, and here we are denying to the individual, who may not be able to state his own case, the right to retain somebody who can state it for him. We know that in many provinces, in fact in all, when an impoverished litigant comes before the court it is part of the function of the judiciary to provide that litigant with competent counsel. Indeed, there are cases of a certain type which may not be legally or properly heard until counsel is provided; yet forsooth here is a question which may involve and jeopardize the happiness, not only of a few people, but of a whole village of innocent children and helpless women, and we say by this bill, "You, the litigant, dumb and inarticulate though you be, may not avail yourself of the services of counsel."


Humphrey Mitchell: Labour organizations
are never inarticulate. You need not worry about that.


John Thomas Hackett: It is quite evident that the government does not want to be fair in this instance.


An hon. MEMBER:: They do not ask for this.


John Thomas Hackett: I do not know who asked for it. I do not wish to be drawn into a controversy at the moment. There is no suggestion that anybody should be forced to retain counsel, but if anyone wishes to retain counsel, then I submit that it is elementary justice, to say nothing of decency, that he
Old Age Pensions

should have that privilege. I thank you for affording me this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: This bill has twenty-eight pages and seventy-four sections. Dealing now with the principle of the bill, I think every member of the house agrees with the principle of establishing a national labour code. Whether this constitutes a national labour code or not remains to be seen. I will not attempt to discuss any of the details. The bill is going before a committee and evidence will be heard. It will come back to the house and, when it does, I shall be prepared to make whatever definite statement I may have to make on the bill at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of Bill No. 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the present old age pensions legislation it must be apparent to all hon. members that the Liberal party-and I do not say this in any slighting way-has found itself hopelessly bound by an outmoded financial system. I think every member of that party recognizes, just as readily as we on this side of the house recognize, that the old age pension should have been almost twice what is provided in this bill; in fact I am of the opinion that if the members of the Liberal party were given a chance to record a straight vote in caucus, that is -where they would put the old age pension, at about S50 a month; and I doubt very much that any member of the Liberal party would favour the means test. I doubt very much that they would favour a good many of the other unhappy things involved in this bill.
I know the Conservative party desire a better bill; I know the C.C.F. party do also. Why are the Liberal party not giving us a better bill? Just because they do not know' where the money is coming from. They say they are in

the position of responsibility, and that must be granted. It is an easy matter for people outside looking in to tell how things ought to be done inside. It is a different matter entirely when one tries to tell what should be done, when he is inside.
I believe it is well to point out to the house that notwithstanding all their talk, if the Conservative party were in the position the Liberal party are in today they would not be doing one cent better. In fact I doubt very much if they would be doing as much, for the simple reason that you hear more talk about economy, as you heard more of that talk while the Conservatives were in power during the depression, coming from that party, without any clear idea as to where the economy is to be exercised, and how, than you hear from any other group of people in Canada.
Our C.C.F. friends have never made it entirely clear where they stand with respect to finances, but I gather that they would endeavour to raise the money through taxation also. If that is so I can tell you there would be a whole lot of extremely subdued members of the C.C.F. if they were in power in Canada today. They would be saying very little at . the present time, because they, too, would be faced with the problem of raising the money from the people. After all, if the money you can raise from the people is all the money you can have, and in a democracy that means all the people will allow you to raise, then what 3'ou can do for old age pensioners or for anyone else will be rigidly limited, as the C.C.F. would find out very quickly.
This bill, as it stands today, constitutes a condemnation of the financial policy under which it was drafted. Let no criticism be levelled at the minister. And I am not sure that very much criticism ought to be levelled at members of the administration. Once they agree, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) apparently agrees, that there is no way at all of getting money except by taxation, their hands are bound; bound by bonds they themselves have put on, but nevertheless bound.
A person would not be very far from the truth if he said this bill is designed and drafted under a system of "rob Peter to pay Paul". If you are going to rob Peter to get all the money you can pay Paul, then what you can pay Paul will depend upon how much you can take away from Peter. Perhaps that puts the matter about as simply as it can be put.
Although the words I am about to use may sound extreme, I believe very few members of the house and very few people throughout the country will wish to quarrel very energetically with me when I say that in effect

Old Aye Pensions
45S3
this bill has banished the senior citizens of Canada to a sort of Siberia of scarcity that it consigns the older citizens of Canada to a sort of restricted area of deprivation. I wish those words were really harsh, but I fear they are only too true.
I should like to put on record a quantity of information that has come into my hands since the beginning of 1947, which I believe people in future years will find interesting history, which people today can only regret, but which ought to fire people to far greater action than is in evidence at the present time. First, I should like to give hon. members and the people outside who read Hansard an excerpt or two from a letter coming from the old age pensioners' organization of British Columbia, signed by Mr. J. W. Hope. In this letter dated March 12, 1947, he uses these words:
The $10 cost of living bonus granted by the B.C. provincial government applies to the pension granted in this province, but not to the pensioners of other provinces, except in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which did arrange for the interchange of the bonus of $5 and $3 respectively.
Therefore we have pensioners here getting $35 a month, others $30, others $28 and others $25.
As they are all in poverty conditions on such pensions, this discrimination, account of past residence, only makes their suffering more bitter.
The house will be interested to learn that early in the year, desiring to get some information right from the field, I wrote Mr. Hope asking him to have his investigators look up the cases of several people who were enduring life on the old age pension allowance. After he had conducted a sort of survey, he sent me this information in a letter dated February 20:
In response to our inquiry the following are the contents of the letters received from our members, showing the near destitution of the aged Canadian. This is the record and if you require the original letters I can send them to you.
(1) A. Wood, 2264 Triumph street, Vancouver, February 11, 1947:
"I am 72 years old, my wife is 67, so we have to live on our $30 a month for 'both. I prospected for 45 years, made quite a little money, and the same as all prospectors do, put it back into the ground. If it was not for the prospectors, there would not be the rich mines we have now. I helped to build the roads, bridges all over, to what are good sized towns today.
I applied for social assistance for help, but because I had a car I could not so turned it down as I have to take my wife in it as her legs are done. I went to work a little when I can, but my legs won't stand it any more, but I have to stick it so as to save my home by paying the taxes."
That is number one. All hon. members will agree that the present increase of $5
will do this man very little good. Thus from now on to the last breath this man draws he is literally banished to Siberian scarcity. He is confined to a restricted area of deprivation.
I have ten cases here. I am not sure how many of them I should read, but I believe hon. members would like to hear two or three more of them. Number two is the case of Mrs. P. Gaskin, 2607 Fern avenue, Burnaby, New Westminster, British Columbia. She is an old age pensioner-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Why not read some from Alberta?


John Horne Blackmore: I conducted my
inquiry in British Columbia because in that province the climate is more pleasant than it is in any other province. I believe that those who live in British Columbia would probably suffer less than some in other parts of Canada might suffer. I would say that if the people of British Columbia are suffering as intensely as these letters indicate, then heaven help the old age pensioners in the rest of Canada, and particularly the maritime provinces.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about
Alberta?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member persists in making this a political matter, and I have done my best not to do so. But if that is the way he looks at old age pensions I hope the people in his constituency will hear about it.
When I was interrupted I was about to read what Mrs. P. Gaskin had to say. She continues:
I need clothes, where am I to get them from? I would like to get around a little, can't afford to buy even car-fare. If only our government would find the means to build some small 'houses for us to live in, and raise our pensions a little, we would be the happy old people we were meant to be. It is asking such a little. I would like to draw attention to a passage in our Bible. "It is more blessed to give than to receive." I hope something will be done. Even I am] in favour of making public just how we are living. I have swallowed my pride. I have been made to do it. I would very much like the privilege of putting the whole of the government on the pension we get for just one month; it would be all they would want. Here is my expense bill for period February 1 to 11, eleven days.
To a basement room	 $ 8.00
Electric bill for heat	 5.90
Bill owing for January	 5.00
Groceries	 4.85
Meat and fish	 1.00
Vegetables and fruit	 1.20
Cheque $30.00 25.95

-Balance *4.95 to last me sixteen days.
Old Age Pensions

Then, here-is what Thomas Hepburn, of 5025 Union street, Vancouver, states on February 14, 1947:
I am at wits' end to know how to exist on the miserable pittance with the living costs increasing and coal up to $14.50 a ton. I cannot go to church as I have nothing to put on the plate. Cannot get clothes. Keeps me guessing to know what to do.
I will take one more. This is the letter of E. N. Veysey at 4411 Albert street, Vancouver, British Columbia. The letter is dated February 16, 1947 and states:
I cannot understand how the members of parliament can expect us to live on less than it costs them for cigars. However we are trying to exist. With coal $14.50 a ton. We can get no clothes. We are in bad straits. Cost of living increasing daily. So please do something.
I am going to read no more of those pathetic cases. There are some here which would almost make the angels weep. Here is the comment which Mr. Hope makes, after having given the list of ten letters:
Mr. Blackmore, I have seen some of these hovels, some unfit for habitation. These old people have to go the Vancouver Liberty to get warm. They are sick in body and spirit, how they continue to live and why is a mystery.
I believe that sort of evidence-and the rest of it is just as bad-is enough to show that I was not speaking unduly harshly or unduly severely when I said what I did regarding this new old age pensions bill.
Then, there are some most deplorable cases dealing with the incidence of the means test. I believe it would be only fair to those who would want to know the history of these times if they were told some of the things which have happened in connection with the means test. I shall take one example from Quebec and one from Alberta.
In a letter of April 25, 1947, from 487 Sanford avenue, St. Lambert, Quebec, Anna Hachey writes:
I am in hopes that it will eventually be decided in favour of the pension payments without a means test, because I know of at least one typical case where a man who is now over 80 years old and whose wife is 75 and an invalid, was recently refused his old age pension'for the reason that two years ago he was forced to make a transfer of his $2,000 savings to provide temporary lodging for himself and his wife. He now finds himself without any means of support, with no cash with which to secure clothing, medicine, etc., but the government cannot grant him his pension for another three years since apparently five years must elapse between the date of his transfer and his first pension payment.
What future generations will think of that kind of treatment of our senior citizens I tremble to reflect. I have a letter from

Alberta, from a man named Daniel Forbes who lives in Lethbridge. This is what he writes on March 6:
Enclosed find a letter received from the pension board at Edmonton as I have been making a few dollars to help me to have a comfortable living and the little I have made is none too much and the way the cost of living has gone up in the past six months if they are going to deduct that off my cheque I may as well not work for they are taking all I make.
Thanking you for the noble fight you are making for us to have the pension raised to a decent standard of living. Wish you the best of luck.
Yours truly,
Daniel Forbes.
And here is the letter dated February 25, 1947, he received from Edmonton:
Dear iSir:	According to the information on
our file you earned $295.54 during the year 1946. As this income is in excess of the amount permitted under the regulations our board regret that it is necessary to decrease your monthly old age pension to $10.78. You will however, still receive the provincial supplementary allowance of $5 per month, making a total pension of $15.78.
We are very sorry to have to decrease your old age pension but we trust you understand that the present regulations are very definite in the matter of income-, and the board has no choice but to comply with the regulations.
That is the kind of thing we are forced to by reason of the adherence to the present system of finance. It is not a question of how much milk, cream, butter, cheese, eggs and other kinds of food we have, how much clothing we can produce in Canada, or how much of anything else we can produce; it is a matter of how much money you can rob from Peter in order to pay Paul. If Peter has not enough money, then Paul has to go without, no matter how many goods the country is producing.
I wonder how many cases of this sort will be necessary in order to get into the minds of Conservatives and Liberals the fact that something ghastly must be wrong with a financial system which forces behaviour of that sort upon governments in this year of 1947. What is the matter that they cannot get to see that something is wrong? We have the people; we have the resources; we have everything in this country necessary to give everybody a high standard of living. Why are we not able to do it? How is it that the ordinary members do not ask themselves that question and demand of themselves that they find an answer? That is something which I must say I completely cannot understand. How it is that a member of this parliament, charged with the responsibility of conducting the affairs of this nation for four years, can disregard the potency of questions such as I have asked?

Old Age Pensions
When social crediters offer their solution, which is the only solution offered, the Conservatives do not show the slightest difference between their mentality and that of the Liberals. So far as I can judge, the C.C.F. do not have the slightest difference either. Surely, when people stand and advocate a change such as we social crediters have done for years, something which can be supported by as much evidence as our arguments can be supported by, it seems to me that more attention should be givdn to it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where is that $25 a month you are going to give?


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask Paul.


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder how much time the hon. member for Fraser Valley has given to a study of the possibilities of monetary reform. I wonder how much time since he came to this house he has given to a sincere, earnest, factual and scientific study of the principles of money.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I paid fifty cents for your book and I still do not understand it.


John Horne Blackmore: I suppose that is as far as you went; you never read it.


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who is speaking.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He is referring to me.


John Horne Blackmore: That is quite all right; it is a good thing to have on the record evidence of sudh speeches so that the people can see how seriously some hon. members take their responsibilities.
On previous occasions I have presented to the house evidence showing the incomes being received by the Canadian people. I have here a letter from the bureau of statistics, dated September 25, 1946, giving details of incomes earned by Canadians according to the census of 1941. One paragraph reads:
The percentage of wage-earners earning less than $450 for the twelve months period prior to date of the census, June 2, 1941, was 32-9 per cent; 28-7 per cent of the wage-earners reported earnings between $450 and $949; 29-9 per cent earned between $950 and $1,949 and 6-8 per cent earned $1,950 and over. 1-7 per cent of the wage-earners did not state the amount of earnings for the year.
How can people whose incomes are as small as those of the great majority of people indicated in that letter have a chance to help old people? What chance have they to save for their own advancing years? It is against that background that we must consider this
bill which provides only $30 a month for people who are seventy years old. All we need to do is to bear in mind one more fact, ' that it is almost impossible for anyone over fifty years of age to get anything like a satisfactory job in this country. Then we must realize that for twenty years-from the time a man or woman is fifty years old until he or she reaches seventy-he or she is faced with the awful prospect of being thrown into conditions such as are indicated by that report. It is simply bizarre; it is something which gets near to the point of being hideous.
There is a great deal more material which I should like to place on the record because I am sure hon. members would like to have it; but, after all, I do not propose to spend all my time tonight just talking destructively. All that I have said up to the present time has merely indicated the unsightly aspects of the picture. If I went into any considerable detail trying to explain how matters might be improved I would be called to order immediately, but I believe the Speaker will tolerate my reading a quotation from an eminent authority, the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland bank in England. The Right Hon. Mr. McKenna was so highly thought of in England that he figured prominently in the investigation of the Macmillan commission in Britain. His words are accepted as being of great worth. He presented a report to his shareholders which was printed in the London Times of January 30, 1936, so that it is pretty well up to date. He used these words:
Additional currency, however, can now he furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers, without reference to the central bank's holding of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control.
Hon. members can find that passage in the London Times in the House of Commons library. If they go to Mr. Hamilton he will find it for them very quickly and they can read that statement. In the light of that statement, I am going to ask a question of three hon. gentlemen-I do not think they are all here now; I did not know whether they would be here or not; I shall not refer to them by name but one is a minister and the other two are private members on the Liberal side-who have spoken slightingly about social credit. They have been so sure that any departure from our present financial system would constitute rubber money or phony money.


An hon. MEMBER:: Funny money.
Old Age Pensions


John Horne Blackmore: Or funny money. I should like those three gentlemen, and any other hon. member who felt inclined to applaud them when in some cases they made their rather smart-aleck remarks, to read those words and do a little bit of good careful thinking. If those words are carefully observed and carefully reflected upon they will indicate a way out of the difficulty we are in.
It is the conviction of hon. members that conditions are painfully bad. Everyone in the house is ashamed of those conditions. Everyone is filled with regret, and no one more so than the minister, over the limitations which are obvious in this bill.
What are we going to do about it? Just talk and talk and talk while the time passes? That seems to be about all that some members think is necessary. I think myself that the time has come for us to do something effective about it. I would say that the Liberal party today, unless it is bound by some influence in New York or somewhere else, unless it is bound by some hidden hand in Canada, could do itself honour beyond anything it has ever done in its history if it would come out frankly and take that passage and say: If Mr. McKenna was wrong, someone prove he was wrong; if Mr. McKenna was right, somebody prove he is right; we are here to be shown, and until this gentleman is proved to be wrong, we are going to assume, having all the reputation that he has, that he is right; and we are going to direct our financial policy in this country in accordance with the principles he lays down in that passage.
If they would do that we should not have to have a ghastly thing like this bill come in next year. We should have something which would give us all gladness and let us all go out to the country full of confidence. We should have something that would meet Communism head on. Is it any wonder that communism thrives in surroundings such as are depicted by the letters from which I have read? Is it any wonder that the children of those people become reds? If we want to meet Communism-and I think every member of this house recognizes that Communism is probably the most dangerous threat to Canada at the present moment-we have to meet it with measures that are just as good as those of the communists. We have this advantage, that in this country we have one of the richest countries on earth. We have one of the finest sets of industrial development to be found in the world. We are fresh from a war in which we covered ourselves with glory by our achievements in production. We are operating under a system which can produce in super-
abundance. Surely if we make up our minds, we can produce so superbly that no other organization can possibly compare with us.
I propose to leave that aspect of the question and move an amendment to the bill. I have endeavoured, before moving this amendment, to express the opinion of a solution that I had in mind. Having done so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low):
That Bill No. 339 be not now read the second time, but that the same be referred back to the government for their earnest consideration of the following provisions:
(a)	Reduction of the pensionable age to not more than 65 years.
(b)	Increase in the general pension to not less than $50 a month.
(c)	Complete abolition of the means test.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can a member second a motion who is not in the house?


James Horace King: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then in order that my hon. friend may get his amendment before the house I will second it.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to have the hon. member for Fraser Valley second it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is elementary that a member cannot move an amendment which involves even a contingent impost upon the taxpayers; it does not need to be an actual one. The amendment asks for consideration. Even that might involve a contingent impost on the people and I therefore submit that the amendment is out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: Will Your Honour now give your ruling?


James Horace King: I will consider the amendment and give my ruling in a few minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: In the three or four minutes remaining at my disposal I desire to express my appreciation of the earnest attention which the members have given to this matter. Before I resume my seat I wish to say I believe that there are enough forward-looking men in this house willing to concentrate their attention on a general reform of the financial system, to render it possible that before this parliament dissolves we shall be able to do something to help solve the problems of this nation. I earnestly submit this problem to the members of the house for their most thoughtful consideration.


Mr. BENOIT MICHAUD (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I could support this bill whole-heartedly, but

Old Age Pensions
after seeing it I find myself in a position where I cannot support it whole-heartedly although I shall have to support it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Half-heartedly.


Benoît Michaud: Yes. I also find myself in the position where I must agree with most of what the previous speaker (Mr. Blackmore) has just said. There has been a reference in the course of the debate to his book. I have read it, and although coming from this backward province of New Brunswick I think I managed to understand what was written in that book, although I would not be in a position to discuss it in detail just now, but I am confident that I had a fairly good grasp of it at the time.
I agree that the blame for this bill not being a little better than it is should not be laid at the minister's door. It is the system. It is due, as I shall show later on, to the fact that this government is squeezed between the theories of its experts and reactionary forces among some elements in the country on the one hand, and the advanced theories of some of our friends here of the Social Credit party and perhaps of the C.C.F. party on the other hand, and the government has to try to steer a middle course. I shall come back to that later.
I consider that $30 a month is not sufficient. It might have been all right in August, 1945, when we were emerging from a terrible war. We had been used then to deficit budgeting to the tune of two or two and a half billion dollars a year, and our financial position was none too rosy. Yet at the time the federal government had made proposals to the provinces that it would undertake to pay $30 a month to people over seventy years of age. Since then we managed to balance our budget, and during the last fiscal year we had a substantial surplus, a surplus larger than all the surpluses taken together since confederation. For that reason I feel that we should be in a position to do a little better today then we were prepared to do in 1945. With the increased cost of living, $30 a month in 1945 is hardly less than $40 a month today, and it is very small.
A previous speaker referred to the fact that some old people have no relatives in a position to help them. I have knowledge of some elderly people in my own town. I know their sons and daughters, and they cannot look after their own families. How can they help their old people?
I agree that the means test should have been eliminated for the reasons which have been so well advanced by other speakers. It could be, I think, retained for people between the ages of sixty-five and seventy; it could be
in the nature of a compromise, and it would answer the arguments which are advanced by those who favour the means test. My suggestion would be that it be enforced between the ages of sixty-five and seventy and then eliminated entirely.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Benoît Michaud: I am glad my good friend the hon. member for Fraser Valley agrees with what I have to say. Incidentally I must tell him that I was rather shocked the other evening. When he was speaking I applauded him generously and sincerely, but apparently he did not think I was serious. I wish to inform him as well as any other hon. members that if I applaud anybody I mean it. While I am on the subject, I might as well refer to the disparaging remarks which he made with reference to New Brunswick. It is true that as yet New Brunswick has not deemed it expedient to add to the 75 per cent-25'per cent basis of the pension; that is, it has not added anything in addition to its 25 per cent share under the federal act.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Benoît Michaud: I must say, however, that the figures quoted by the hon. member for Fraser Valley the other day are not accurate. In 1944 we ran a provincial election in New Brunswick. I happened to be a candidate.


An hon. MEMBER:: What happened?


Benoît Michaud: I was elected with a handsome majority. In our election propaganda we had some literature which showed that New Brunswick was paying the highest average of old age pensions in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Benoît Michaud: That is what we had.


James Arthur Ross: It must have been campaign literature.


Benoît Michaud: If the hon. member will wait I shall tell him what happened to the old age pensions; I shall tell him something about the history of old age pensions in New Brunswick.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Benoît Michaud: In the summer of 1930 a Conservative government was in power in New Brunswick.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Shame.


Benoît Michaud: Before going to the
people, they passed an old age pension act under which the old people would get a pension as soon as it was proclaimed, immediately after the election. They put the act on the
45SS
Old Age Pensions

statute books, and it remained there until 1935 when they went before the people and, of course, were handsomely defeated. That is what the Tory party did in New Brunswick with old age pensions. I hope these things will be of some use to the hon. member who interrupted.


James Arthur Ross: How much did the old age pensioners get? That is the question.


Benoît Michaud: I am sorry, I missed the remark of my hon. friend. I agree also with those who have expressed the view that wives under seventy of men over seventy should be looked after a little more generously than they are.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Benoît Michaud: Yesterday I received a letter from an old gentleman in my riding who is seventy-five years of age. His wife is sixty-four. If he gets $25 a month he and his wife must live on that $25. In addition, there are widows over sixty years of age who are in destitute circumstances. The bill should have provided something for them as well. To sum up on this point, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the majority of the people of this country expected that this old age pension bill would be at least as good as the 1945 proposals. I think it would have been possible to have provided for those between sixty-five and seventy years of age on the basis outlined in the green book. The provinces would have been free to come in under this provision in somewhat the same manner as they were under the original act passed in 1927. As we all remember, there were quite a few provinces which were late coming in, but eventually they all came in. If a similar provision were made in the present bill, eventually they would all come under the act and the old people would be deriving some benefit from it.
Somebody referred to our pre-election propaganda in connection with the bill. I do not recall exactly what it was but I know we spoke about it. We were led to believe that something -would be done in the near future for persons of sixty-five years of age. On the strength of that, I and other hon. members, I presume, answered inquiries from old people, expressing the hope that something would be done. We have been doing that for the last two years; we have been writing to them and expressing the hope that the provinces would agree with the federal government and that there would be some provision for them under our old age pensions laws. I am afraid that if nothing is done these people will be sadly disappointed.
I agree that under the constitution the primary responsibility for old age pensions is
(Mr. Michaud.],
on the provinces. At the same time we all know that considerable development has taken place in this country since confederation and that the provinces have been unable to secure or procure the social services which are necessary today. Because of this they have been getting grants from the federal government. Grants have been increased at different times. I do not know what has been done for the western provinces, but I understand that at different times they have received special attention from the federal government. The maritime provinces have received increases in grants. Under the agreements which have recently been signed, seven of the provinces will be receiving considerable grants from the federal government. In New Brunswick I believe it will correspond to something between one-third or one-half of our budget, and I should not be surprised if the proportion were equally high in the other provinces. What I should like to see in this bill is a provision somewhat along this line. For instance, the federal government could pay to the extent of, say $24 a month, provided that the provinces contributed not less than $12, which would bring the total pension to $36; or the federal government could pay to the extent of $30, provided that the provinces paid not less than $15, which would bring the total to $45.
I suppose the objection of the government and of those who are responsible for the bill is one of a financial nature. The members of the official opposition who have criticized the bill have not to my knowledge made any constructive suggestions. Their criticism has been destructive only, not constructive. They have not told us where they would get the additional money to pay the increased pension. If we believe what they had to say in the course of the estimates, I do not believe they have made any constructive suggestions as to where expenditures could be cut down. They have, of course, emphasized lower taxation. In the amendment to the budget they referred to the oppressive burden of taxation, which goes to show that they are not in favour of higher taxation. Apparently they want to reduce taxes and increase expenditures at the same time, but under their philosophy of financing I do not believe that is possible.
I have listened, not to all, but to most of the speeches in this debate, and I understand that our friends of the C.C.F. did advocate last night a reduction in connection with the Exchequer Court Act, in the payment of the registrar. This would have meant a reduction of one-quarter of $1,500, or $375, but with that reduction we could not go very far toward helping the aged.

Old Age Pensions
It cannot be of great value to criticize the bill and claim greater benefits under it unless some sort of constructive criticism is offered. On May 8, speaking on the budget, I did offer one suggestion which I feel is constructive, and that is the matter of eliminating from the budget this huge item, the largest item of the budget, of some $434 million which we pay annually to a privileged class, a class which some eleven million or twelve million people pay-the bondholders. I am quite sure our friends of the loyal opposition, the official opposition, will not agree with me on that point. On the contrary, they seem to be very much concerned about the matter of interest rates. The official critic of the party, in the course of his able address, made inquiries from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to find out whether the rates of interest would remain tied down tight, and his appeal was pathetic. I was too far from him to see the tears in his eyes, but I distinctly discerned the sobs in his throat. Apparently the Progressive Conservative party is looking forward to an increase in the rate of interest.
I know that some hon. members will laugh at my suggestion, but there is a French proverb which reads somewhat like this:	"He laughs
best who laughs last." Perhaps in ten or twenty or thirty years from now our children or grandchildren, when looking over the deliberations of this parliament and seeing what attitude we took on this matter of interest rates, will be in a better position to tell who should have been laughed at-those who now advocate monetary reforms or those who oppose them. I think they will laugh at us-


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is no doubt about that.


Benoît Michaud: -for insisting on retaining a system of financing which was designed for a time of scarcity and which is entirely inadequate to meet the needs of an era of abundance. I am inclined to think they will look down on us with pity and possibly with some degree of shame and will ask themselves why we continued in that course. I believe they will have a right to ask themselves whether it was on account of inertia, self-interest, honest ignorance, pathetic blindness or misguided loyalty to the past, as somebody put it, and possibly they may come to the conclusion that we did it from self-interest, because the system served our purpose, because a great many of us derived part of our income or other advantages from the easy business of coupon clipping. I do not wish my children or my grandchildren to accuse me of such blind stupidity; hence my stand. I know it is not 83166-293
popular. It may not be politic, but I would rather look stupid now than after I am dead.
I wish to assure my good friends who do not share my views, particularly those on this side of the house, that I speak from a sense of deep conviction.


Charles Edward Johnston: They had better listen to you.


Benoît Michaud: I speak after years of intensive and impartial study of monetary matters, and I wish to assure them that no part of my income is derived from interest on bonds or other such securities.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you any?


Benoît Michaud: I had some and I sold them.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know lots of working people who own bonds. Surely my hon. friend does not wish to deny them the right to the interest on their bonds. I am not talking about bankers and insurance companies.


Benoît Michaud: If the minister will listen to me for a few minutes I will try to make my point clear. As I said before, I do not blame the government for this state of affairs. They are pressed from two different sides, particularly by the forces of reaction from the Tory party, and for that reason, I suppose, they feel they have to steer a middle course.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do we have to read all that?


Benoît Michaud: I am sorry I missed the interruption. I do not know whether it was really very constructive. I think the task of this government will be much easier, as far as monetary reform is concerned, when the new parties constitute the official opposition and the Tory party occupies third place in the opposition, where they belong. Because of the tremendous amount of propaganda being spread about by some people who have an interest in retaining the present outmoded system, a considerable portion of the public is held in ignorance. It takes some time for public opinion to crystallize on this matter, and this makes it particularly difficult for those who believe that a better order could be inaugurated.
I mentioned something about our financial experts who advise the government. When those experts realize the danger of losing their jobs as a result of the awakening of public opinion I think they will be willing to admit that the so-called crack-brained monetary reformers, as they so despicably call us, may be right; and when they realize that they may be willing to recommend that the necessary reforms be implemented. On May 8 I

Old Age Pensions

referred to Mr. Krug, who has been writing in The Liberal Advocate for some years. He writes articles with which I agree, which make sense, on these monetary matters. Since he has been writing in The Liberal Advocate, I gather that the Liberal party should not be too much opposed to his views.


Mr. BROWN:: Is that an official publication?


Benoît Michaud: I do not know; I only know it is The Liberal Advocate. I should like to suggest to hon. members who have an open mind, and who do not believe that monetary reforms or changes would ruin them, that they read and study some of the able letters Mr. Krug writes. I have in my hand one dated May 7 and another dated April 15. I do not wish to take the time of the house in reading them, but I consider that they constitute food for thought, and any person reading them with an open mind cannot help being impressed with the facts they contain. Recently I read a little book, a copy of which I hold in my hand-I do not believe it is for sale as yet-written in a businesslike manner by a businessman. It is entitled, "Letters from a businessman to a student of economics." The gentleman is a businessman of consequence. He operates under the capitalist system.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't we all?


Benoît Michaud: Yes, but he operates in a big way, not like some of us little fish.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Do you know him?


Benoît Michaud: Yes, I know him. He told me he had many years of banking experience, and he writes this book for the man in the street. It is very interesting; it contains great truths. Much as I should like to quote extensively from it, I shall content myself with just one paragraph.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Who is the writer?


Benoît Michaud: It is anonymous. I understand that the book is subject to minor corrections and that it will be reprinted. Possibly then the name of the author will appear on it, but at the present time I believe he wishes to remain anonymous.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Benoît Michaud: It is rather stupid, I should say, always to ask for the name. It is not so much who said it as what has been said. Whether or not this book is signed does not alter the substance of what it contains.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is like a verbal agreement, not worth the paper it is written on.


Benoît Michaud: I am sorry, but I missed that remark. I will say to the minister that this gentleman was appointed to a high office by the present government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is his name?


Benoît Michaud: Out of loyalty to the man who gave me the book, I do not feel justified in divulging his name. This is what he has to say about the reluctance of these so-called financial experts to advise us properly;
We have too many economic advisers in this country in high places who are wedded body and soul to the system practically as it is, for it is all they understand. They are highly paid and will be as long as they can keep the old system on its feet, but they know full well that a real modernization scheme would leave them living with the past, and possibly with a minor job, for they have never opened their minds to what is going on around them in this changing world. They are like a court interpreter who interprets a certain language, and although population changes have come and the language he interpreted has become quite outdated, as Latin for instance, he still clings to it and wants it used quite exclusively in the court for it is all he knows. In other words he put his own interest ahead of progress and the world in general.
It is the same with many of those who receive a large income either directly or indirectly from the workings of the present system. They cling to it at all costs no matter how outdated it has become, for it is the only system they know or understand.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding); Order. I hope the hon. member will try to discuss the bill which is before the house. Monetary reform is not under consideration at the present time; it is the old age pensions bill.


Benoît Michaud: A number of the hon.
members who have taken part in this debate have offered destructive criticism. They did not tell the house where the money would come from to pay increased pensions. I offered a constructive suggestion, that the financing of the bonded debt of Canada be done through the Bank of Canada. I am not going to attempt to go into the technique of it, but I believe this is our target. This huge sum should be eliminated from our budget as quickly as possible. We have printed bonds; why not print dollars?


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. The bill before the house is one to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, and I suggest that every hon. member should confine his remarks to that bill.


Gordon Graydon: And can the hon. member quote from a debate in the senate?


Benoît Michaud: I bow to your ruling,
Mr. Speaker, and1 in conclusion I urge the government-

Old Age Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: To be anonymous.


Benoît Michaud: -to listen a little more to those who advocate reform. With this saving of $434 million, it would be in a position to pay liberal old age pensions, increased family allowances, and give us considerable by way of social services, as well as eliminate the nuisance income tax in the lower income brackets.


Mr. EDOUARD RINFRET (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest and attention to what the hon. member from Restigouehe-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) has just said about the $434 million paid on bonds of the Dominion of Canada, and I wish to take strong issue with him on that question.


Benoît Michaud: I expected you would.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: These people have invested their money in Canada, and Canada cannot refuse to pay them what they are entitled to. They have helped Canada when she was in need, and now Canada must help them, because not only rich people hold those bonds; there are quite a number of poor people. There are some small holders. Among them are some working people and some widows. And we have no right to deprive them of that to which they are justly entitled.


Benoît Michaud: I made no such suggestion.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We have listened to two
speeches tonight, one of which was of a constructive nature, so we have been told, and the other was destructive. The first one we listened to was by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Not until 7.25 p.m., twenty-five minutes after he opened his speech, did he use the words "solution to the problem", then he mentioned them only; and it was not until about two minutes before the end of his speech that he offered his amendment.


Victor Quelch: Because he would have
been ruled out of order.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The amendment is much
less ambitious than the one moved last year by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette). I say that the Social Credit group have reduced somewhat their demands on this question. Last year the hon. member for Pontiac suggested that all people of the age of sixty or over should receive a pension. Now the Social Credit group has changed its mind and asks pensions only for those at the age of sixty-five. Last year the hon. member for Pontiac asked for $60 a month, but this 83166-2931
year the Social Credit group reduces its demand to $50 a month.
We have heard tonight a most destructive speech in which reference was made to the Siberia of scarcity. We have heard about some sort of survey, carried out chiefly in British Columbia. However I noted that one letter came from St. Lambert, Quebec, and it was stated in that letter that no one can receive a pension before five years have elapsed between the time of transfer of property and the receipt of the first cheque for pension.
Siberia of scarcity?-we have not heard much about Alberta in all that. But I believe it is about the worst part, and gives evidence of the worst Siberia of scarcity. I have before me a manual which, I believe, was issued by the Social Credit group, and was written by the late Mr. Aberhart. This was written in 1935, and states:
It is not very difficult for most people to understand the philosophy of social credit, and the three simple fundamental principles are also easy to comprehend.


Victor Quelch: Is this a debate on the old age pensions?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will come to it in a minute. It continues:
With some application of these principles to the affairs of the province as a whole and to the various units within the boundaries, does present numerous problems-


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: And one of these problems is old age pensions.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, I wonder if that is dealing with old age pensions.


James Sinclair: He just mentioned it.


Charles Edward Johnston: If it is going to involve a debate on social credit we would be only too pleased to take part in it.


James Sinclair: He just got to old age pensions.


William Henry Golding: I would call the attention of the hon. member, and of all other hon. members, to the discussion before the house. We have before us a bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. I would ask hon. members to try to follow that.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is interesting to see what Mr. Aberhart has to say about the general principle, and then to apply it to old age pensions. The last words he uses
are these:
It is to the solution of these peculiar problems that this pamphlet is directed.

Old Age Pensions
I now turn my attention to a clipping from the Globe and Mail, the heading of which states. "Didn't buy annuities so Alberta won't pension man, 105". A few minutes ago we heard from the hon. member for Lethbridge about people ranging from seventy-two to eighty years of age. But here is one 105 years old, living in Alberta. He lives in Wetaskiwin. The article states:
Jim Winters, Alberta's oldest resident, will be 106 years of age next month and the argument is still waging as to whether or not he should get an old age pension.
Citizens of Wetaskiwin say "yes." The provincial government pension officials say "no."


Victor Quelch: The federal government says no.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is the provincial government which has the authority.


Victor Quelch: It is a federal act.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: And jt continues:
The government says the $2,000 he received from the sale of his farm 45 years ago should have been put into annuities. His friends; ask "what man of his age would buy annuities?"


Victor Quelch: Federal regulations.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: So far, both sides are unconvinced and the battle still wages.


Charles Edward Johnston: Federal regulations.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The question I ask the Social Credit party is: Is this man Jim Winters on their Indian list? Because at page 33 of this pamphlet I find this:
What if a citizen squandered his dividends and was hungry or improperly clothed?
And Mr. Aberhart's answer was:
The credit house inspector would warn the citizen that he was abusing his rights and privileges and that it must be stopped or he would lose his dividends. If necessary, he could be put on an Indian list.
So I am asking whether Mr. Jim Winters is on the Indian list. For him I demand that at the age of 105 he be given a pension.


Victor Quelch: Page the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: When he sold his property ie was sixty-one years old. Who can imagine a man of sixty-one taking out an annuity?


Charles Edward Johnston: It is a dominion
regulation.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is the Siberia of scarcity.
Then, we have heard about an increase of a mere $5. This bill does not increase the pension by a mere S5, because the $25 is based

upon an order in council which was passed during the war, and was to apply only during the period of the war. The law as it reads at the present time provides for $20 a month.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Therefore the increase
being provided for by this bill is an increase of fifty per cent, not a mere $5 a month.


Victor Quelch: Why boast about it?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The $30 a month which is suggested at the present time is 125 per cent more than what it was in 1927. It was suggested that the government should pay two-thirds and the provinces one-third, but there is nothing in the legislation which would prevent the government of any province from paying the same amount as the federal government is paying. The federal government is agreeing to pay $22.50 a month, so that would mean that the old age pensioners would receive, not $37 as has been suggested, but $45.
We must remember that when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1927 it was intended to encourage the passage of social legislation by the provinces. The provinces did not want to go into the field, and for some years after 1927 the contribution by the federal government was fifty per cent. Then in 1931 the contribution by the federal government was increased to seventy-five per cent, and the four provinces which had not come into the scheme then came in. It is up to the provinces to see that their old people are properly looked after, and it is only just that they should be prepared to pay the same proportion as the federal government is paying and thus provide a pension of $45 a month for our old people.


Victor Quelch: And restore the taxation field.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will come to taxation in a minute. If the amendment now before the house providing for a pension of $50 at sixty-five years were agreed to it would mean that 767,815 people would receive $600 a year, which would mean a burden of $460,689,000 upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of the country. The statement by Mr. McKenna might be advanced as an argument, that additional currency would do the trick, but that is an infantile way of thinking. I do not believe there is anyone in Canada with any common sense who thinks that he would not have to dig down into his own pockets to provide the money. Everybody knows that when you spend five cents you have not that five cents any more. If the government is to put up the money it will have to be obtained through taxation.

Old Age Pensions


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member seems to know more than Mr. McKenna. What a wonderful authority he is!


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It makes sense.


John Horne Blackmore: Not to any one with sense.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If we want to follow the suggestion of the Union des Electeurs, represented by the hon. member for Pontiac, there would be 460.000 persons who are more than seventy years of age and who would1 be entitled, to receive a pension; then there would be 307,000 between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine years and 407,000 between the ages of sixty and sixty-four years. That would make a grand total of 1,174,966 persons receiving pensions without a means test. That is exactly one-tenth of the population. If each of those persons is to receive 860 a month it means a grand total of $845,975,520. The people would have to pay for that. If you added to that the $20 dividend which has been spoken about you have a grand total of over three and a half billion dollars a year. That is more than was spent during the war. The people would have to pay in taxation eight times the exemptions they were granted this year by the budget. Not only would they have to pay what they have been exempted, but the amount would be increased eight-fold. I do not- think the people of Canada are ready to accept anything of that sort.
I was surprised to hear that proposal made by the hon. member for Pontiac, a riding in the province of Quebec. I recall some years ago that a certain gentleman who apparently has certain authority in outside circles complained that Quebec was receiving more than its share of the baby bonus or family allowances. It turns out that in 1946 Quebec received $8,753,000 more than Ontario. I am not suggesting that it would be bad if the shoe were on the other foot, but the fact is that if we followed the suggestion of the hon. member for Pontiac, Quebec with only 104,000 old people would receive $75,000,000. whereas Ontario with 184,000 old people wrould receive $133,000,000. If the reasoning of the hon. gentleman is good, then I do not think the province of Quebec could be called upon to pay $57,000,000 a year for older persons in Ontario. I do not say it is good, but the argument is just as sound as that made by Mr. Drew some years ago.
If my hon. friends on the other side want to pay a pension of $50 a month; if the hon. member for Pontiac wants to pay a pension of $60 a month, there would be no difficulty about doing it on a contributory basis. There
is nothing to prevent the Dominion of Canada from paying three-eighths of the $60, which would be $22.50; the province could pay one-eighth, or $7.50, which is exactly what they are called upon to pay here, and there could be a contribution by the whole of Canada for the other half.
A contributory plan could be worked out whereby one-third would be paid by the dominion government, one-third by the province and one-third by the whole of Canada. Employers could be called upon to pay a certain amount and employees also. If each of the groups which I have mentioned paid an amount similar to that which will now be paid by the dominion government, $22.50, it would not be $60 that these older people would be receiving, it would, be $67.50.
I do not think it is fair to the population of Canada to burden them with taxes or to burden future generations by borrowing money. The federal government should not be asked to take out of its coffers at the present time the $875,000,000 which is asked for by the hon. member for Pontiac. People who are suggesting these large advances in the pension other than on a contributory basis are rendering a very poor service to our aged people. They are putting in their minds dreams that cannot be realized at the present time. That is a disservice they are rendering to these people, because they are making them unusually and unnecessarily unhappy.
The present bill contains a provision for a pension for the blind at the age of forty. Last year, according to the public accounts of 1946, 6,945 blind people received a total of $1,526,747 in pensions. If the age limit for the pension for the blind people were reduced from forty to twenty years it would add only 1,164 people, and at the current rate would mean an additional expenditure of $314,280- I did not say millions, but thousands. That is an amount that could be very easily absorbed in our budget. The blind must have been resident in Canada for twenty years to receive a pension, so that if they started to receive their pension at twenty years of age it would mean that they had been here and been blind practically from birth. It would be a great help to them to receive the pension at twenty.
I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the old age pension is primarily a provincial matter and the federal government went into it only because the provinces did not want to act, I think the provinces should do as well as the federal government and pay $22.50 to each one of their pensioners, who thereby would receive a total of $45 a month.

Old Age Pensions


Anthony Hlynka: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) on the fine address he delivered tonight, and more particularly on his courage and sincerity in speaking out his mind as he did. I would point out that, unless * the old age pension is approached from the angle that he advocated and which the Social Credit members have advocated for many years, the problem will not be solved. I am glad that the Liberal party has two new monetary reformers in its ranks to take the place of the former member for Vancouver-Burrard, now Senator McGeer, and the former member for Parry Sound, (Mr. Slaght). If we may judge from their speeches these two new monetary reformers are the hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska and the hon. member for Fraser valley (Mr. Cruickshank). We welcome them, and I would suggest that they should begin to work on the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Rinfret). I think that would be a good beginning.
The problem of old age pensions, pensions for the blind, and pensions for the physically infirm who are incapable of supporting themselves is so important that I do not consider it necessary to apologize for taking part in this debate. The large majority of the members of this house will, I think, concede one point to the minister, and that is that the amending bill will improve the old act. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that the majority of members on both sides of the house were disappointed and shocked when they read the provisions of the bill, especially after the build-up and the promises which the government have made in the course of the past few years. I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is conscious of this fact without its being told to him. But in fairness to the minister I will give him credit for the few improvements made by this bill. I consider it proper that I should point out the defects which have not been removed from the old act and its shortcomings.
The most disappointing feature of this bill is that it does not lower the age at which assistance can be provided between the ages of sixty and seventy years to people who are in dire circumstances, with no means of livelihood, and who must depend on charity. The exclusion of this group from the benefits of thp act is cruel, inexcusable and unforgivable.
The large group of aged people who should have been taken into consideration are those between sixty and seventy years of age who have no means of livelihood. I have in my

hand a report of the old age pension board of Alberta, giving the numbers of those granted pensions in 1943. There were 769 who had reached the age of seventy, or 58 '65 per cent of the total number who qualified for old age pension; 145 received the pension at the age of seventy-one, or 11-06 of the total; 94 received the pension at the age of seventy-two, or 7-17 per cent; 69 received the pension at the age of seventy-three, or 5-26 per cent of the total; 52 received the pension at the age of seventy-four, or 3-93 per cent; 30 received1 the pension at the age of seventy-five, or 2-28 per cent; 92 received the pension who were from seventy-six to eighty years of age, or 7-01 per cent of the total; 56 were granted pension who were from eighty-one to eighty-nine years of age, or 4-27 per cent. Only four who were ninety years of age and upwards received the pension, and they constituted 0-3 per cent of the total. According to the Canada Year Book, there were 767,815 persons of sixt}r-five years of age and over in Canada in 1941. Those of seventy years of age and over numbered only 450,091 persons. These figures prove conclusively that the old age pension problem is not entirely in the group of those of seventy years of age and over but also of those of sixty years of age and over.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare gave sixteen methods by which the old age pension problem could be solved, and I wish to place these on record. Speaking in this house on June 18 on this very subject, the minister went on to point out the way in which the old age problem could be solved. I took the trouble to dissect from his speech these statements and I shall now put them on record. He said1, as reported on page 4285 of Hansard:
The measure which is being introduced today will make it possible for the provinces to increase by 20 per cent or more the assistance which has been given to date to this substantial section of our aged population. Where, because of outside income, pensioners have not been receiving the full pension, the increase which the provinces will be enabled to give under the new legislation will be even greater than 20 per cent.
The second suggestion for solution of the old age pension problem reads as follows. I quote from the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
It is estimated that when the provinces have taken full advantage of the increases in maximum income allowable for aged and blind persons which are permitted by this proposed amending bill, the result will be an increase in the pension rolls of something between 60,000 and 65,000 additional persons.
There again, Mr. Speaker, you will note that the minister endeavoured to push the

Old Age Pensions
problem on to the provinces. I continue with solution No. 3:
If the provinces take full advantage of these new provisions, the provincial share of old age pensions under the act itself will advance from approximately sixteen million dollars to approximately twenty-three million dollars.
Solution No. 4:
It is proposed, in this amending hill, to do away with the provision which has been in the act up to the present time, section 9 (d), setting the maximum pension which any province is permitted to pay. Under these new amendments, therefore, the provinces themselves will be free to fix the maximum pension.
There again the minister endeavours to shift at least part of the weight of the problem of old age pensions upon the provinces. The fifth method for the solution of this problem reads as follows:
The practical effect of this will be that any province will be free, if it chooses to do so, to set a pension rate as high as $50 a month or $600 a year for a person who has no other income of his own with which to supplement his pension allotment.
Solution No. 6:
I have already stated that the department's estimate for this increase is about 60,000 additional pensioners, assuming of course that all the provinces will take full advantage of these higher income limits.
Solution No. 7:
In other words, a province will be assured that, on the basis of a pension of $30 a month, it will receive reimbursement from the federal treasury to the extent of seventy-five per cent Df its net payments. At the same time it will be free to provide pensions higher than $30 a month if it deems it advisable to do so.
I do not wish to weary the house with these quotations, but I believe that in arriving at an explanation we must consider the statements made by the minister in the course of one speech. Solution No. 8 reads as follows:
By removing the pension ceiling and by increasing the federal contribution the government is, in fact, opening the way for the provinces to pay more than $30 a month.
Solution No. 9:
No bill which this parliament can pass can in any way affect what a province may do within its own constitutional jurisdiction.
Solution No. 10:
In summary, it will be apparent that the result of the present amending bill will be in effect to set a standard minimum pension of $30 a month in all the provinces, assuming, of course, that all the provinces will be anxious to take full advantage of the federal contribution. More than this, however, it will undoubtedly result in a number, and perhaps even a majority, of the provinces of Canada going beyond this $30 pension to set higher pension rates in their respective provinces.
Solution No. 11:
Nothing in the federal Old Age Pensions Act as it will be amended by this present bill debars any of these provinces from incorporating their present provincial supplements into their basic pension rates, and it is thought that the provinces already paying provincial supplements will, in fact, be encouraged to maintain their provincial contributions on at least the present basis.
Solution No. 12:
What this bill will accomplish, if the provinces take full advantage of its provisions, may be summarized in this way:
1.	It does away with the provision limiting the maximum pension which any province is permitted to pay.
2.	It establishes a basic standard pension of $30 a month to which the dominion will contribute and leaves the provinces free to increase the standard pension rate as they deem advisable.
I have only four more references in this regard. Solution No. 13:
What we do now must be consistent both with present need and the need of tomorrow. It must be consistent with what we are trying to achieve with the joint cooperation of the provinces.
Solution No. 14:
The measure which is today being placed before hon. members of this house for consideration lias been deliberately designed to keep within the framework of the dominion's proposals to the provinces on assistance to the aged.
Solution No. 15:
The task of this government in cooperation with the provinces is to provide for the welfare of the nation as a whole.
Solution No. 16 and the last:
National programmes of such a broad and fundamental nature cannot be achieved in a country like Canada only by the central government. They can be achieved by all governments. dominion and provincial, acting in cooperation to ensure the greatest possible measure of well-being, economic security and social welfare for the Canadian people.
This present measure, representing as it does a joint cooperative effort of the dominion and the provinces, brings us one step nearer to the achievement of the objective that we seek.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out at the outset, my purpose in reading the statements which the minister made in the course of his speech was to show that the present position of the government is to shift a large part of this responsibility upon the provinces. Some of the ministers have gone so far as to say that it was the traditional policy of the government to recognize only a part of the responsibility for this problem and the provinces had to assume the rest.
I must congratulate the minister on his ability to put over his speech as well as he did. As a matter of fact, it did occur to me that had anyone else endeavoured to deliver the speech which the minister delivered the other
Old Age Pensions

day he simply could not have covered the inadequacies of the bill as well as the minister did. Not only that, but he was successful in getting the provincial premiers and legislatures to bite. The very next day or the day after, the premier of Ontario came through with a grant that made up the difference between what the federal government contributes and the provincial contribution to make a total of $40 a month. As I said, some of the provincial premiers and provincial governments considered that they were taking advantage of a situation and felt it would be a popular thing to do, so they went ahead and said, "We will pay a certain amount."
The other day the hon. member for Fraser Valley read part of the same quotation I intend to read. The former member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. McGeer, did place the same quotation on Hansard once before, but in this connection it is important to point out the position which the party now in power held on this question and the position to which they have lately shifted. Reading the debates in Hansard of June 2, 1931, I find at pages 2260 and 2261, the following words in a speech delivered by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King):
The Liberal administration fought for many years for an old age pension act, and care I think was taken to make it clear that an amendment to the British North America Act would be required before this federal government would have power to administer an old age pension scheme. It was recognized that an amendment to the British North America Act would take some time, and for that reason the government of the day adopted the method of agreeing to give these grants in aid to the provinces on condition that they would carry out a scheme framed by the federal government which would be similar in all the provinces.
An hon. Member:	A vicious principle.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	The principle, from a
financial point of view, was unsound. I am quite prepared to concede that. But I will go a step further and say that, in my opinion, this parliament ought to remedy the unsoundness of the principle, not by discontinuing to vote money for old age pensions, but by assuming the entire obligation, one hundred per cent. This government should take over the whole scheme and itself pay out the money. That is the position that should be taken; that is the proper way to remedy what there is of unsoundness in the principle.
Obviously the principle is thoroughly sound. I have always taken that position and have fought strenuously for it; and to get that principle recognized by parliament I was prepared to go so far as to support a grant in aid, which I am perfectly frank to admit was, from the point of view of financing, an unsound method. Now I say, let us recognize that the principle of old age pensions itself is perfectly sound and involves an obligation which the federal parliament should assume. Let us undertake to administer the Old Age Pensions Act from Ottawa
[Mr. Hlynka.l
and have all the moneys wdiieh are necessary for the payment of those pensions voted by this parliament.
Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does that not prove conclusively that the government at the present time has switched around in its position on this question? That is plain enough. I mentioned that there were six disappointing features in the bill, six extremely disappointing features, and when the minister speaks in closing the debate I should like him to tell the house and the country how he would propose that persons between the ages of sixty and seventy should live, persons who have no income, persons who have no means of earning a single dollar. How does he, being responsible for this legislation, propose that these people shall get along? What has the federal government in mind for these people? That is what I should like to know, and I am sure the country would like to know it as well.
The second disappointing feature of the bill is that it fails to provide any assistance whatsoever for persons who, for reasons of physical infirmity, cannot earn a livelihood, regardless of age. The total exclusion of this group from any benefits under this bill is also nothing short of cruelty.


Mr. MARTIN:: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. gentlemen would wish to revise his language. When he considers the government's proposals to the provinces; when he realizes that the minister introducing this bill has given a good part of his life to this sort of thing, I would ask him to withdraw the word "cruelty." It does not represent what the hon. gentleman, on reflection, would wish to say.


Anthony Hlynka: I do not wish to reflect in any way on the minister or, in a way, even on the government, because I know that the minister has done a good deal for these people even in presenting this bill to the house, but I would ask him to suggest to me a term which would adequately describe the fact that the government at this time refused to recognize any obligation for persons who are physically infirm and have no means of making a livelihood. Can he give me the right word?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that in the proposals which the government made Co the provinces, proposals which were our policy in 1945 and every day since, have continued to be our policy, this government is prepared to bring in legislation once it can get agreement with the provinces on fiscal matters.

Old Age Pensions


Anthony Hlynka: Until we get into committee I do not wish to be putting questions to the minister, but I would ask him to tell us whether he would refuse to make provision for those persons who are physically infirm if the provinces do not enter into an agreement with the federal government. Will he refuse? Will this government sit tight and do nothing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will say at once that if we cannot get an agreement with the provinces I will certainly bring to my colleagues proposals to meet that very situation.


Anthony Hlynka: I thank the minister for his kindness in this regard, because that is one serious problem which has so far been ignored. You see old men, crippled men, amputation cases, sitting on the sidewalks in every city of Canada begging. I think it is a disgrace to this country. Surely this government or any other government that is responsible for the care of these people should by now have granted some assistance to them so that they could live like human beings.
To go on from there, the third disappointing feature of the bill is that it does not lower the age qualification for blind persons to at least twenty-one and preferably to eighteen, when normally young people cease to depend upon their parents. The fourth disappointing feature is that the amending bill does not remove the means test, and finally the fifth criticism I offer is the serious shortcoming in the inadequate amount of the pension. Time will permit me to point out only a few of the more serious shortcomings, but I might say that, but for the minister's ability to cover up, by his oratory, the hopeless inadequacies of the bill, there would be sufficient reason for a nation-wide protest in connection with this legislation.
I had intended to place on record some of the resolutions which have been sent to us, and if time permits I may still do so. However I should like now to rush through a few of the suggestions I have jotted down. I must say that truly I did not expect a much better bill from the government at this time. In the past few years I have learned that these things are brought in ordinarily in such a way as to coincide with elections, and I realize that to grant all these benefits at this time would rather let people cool off by the time an election came along. So I quite appreciate that the government had to keep something in reserve for an eventuality which no doubt will come about. I do not blame them for it. They have made a great success; they have capitalized on this scheme, which has paid dividends to the party in power. But it seems to me that this question is too important to 83166-294
be used as bait in any election. It is a question which should be faced, regardless of where the member may sit in this house and regardless of his views. I believe this is one problem which must be approached from a humanitarian point of view. I regret that the minister's speech had a political tinge, as a result of which he brought upon himself a great deal of criticism which he could have avoided by refraining from his references to what the government did in 1927, and so on, though that is only a suggestion. I also realize that we are criticizing the wrong minister. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is absolutely innocent as far as any sins in connection with this problem are concerned. He is simply told by certain gentlemen, "You are going to have so much money at your disposal, and that is all." The poor minister has to make the best of it. The minister whom we should bring here to question about old age pensions is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Better still, we should bring in some of the men mentioned by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, those who are responsible for our financial policies. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare has a heart of gold; he is a personal friend of mine, but what can he do under this system? It seems to me that this problem should have been considered in some committee, where the persons responsible for our financial position could have been called and questioned.
Then I should like to mention two or three newspapers which have done immeasurable good in championing the cause of old age pensions. For instance, there is the Edmonton Bulletin, which I think has done more than any other newspaper in Canada in bringing this cause to the attention of its readers. Then we have the IFestern Producer, and we might also include the newspaper published by the Social Credit party. These newspapers have continuously brought this problem to the attention of the people; but until public opinion in Canada is sufficiently aroused actually to force the government to grant adequate old age pensions, in my opinion this problem will not be solved. I might also say that some of these cards which are being circulated are very good. Here is one which reads:
Mr. Prime Minister,
and Members of the Cabinet,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sirs:
I wish to support the proposal that your government :
(1) Retire all women of the age of fifty-five years and men at sixty years of age, on dominion government allowance of sixty dollars ($60) per month and abolish the means test.

Old Age Pensions


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Who is going to pay for it?


Anthony Hlynka: (2)	Thirty dollars per month at 70 years of age is substandard and an insult to the pioneers. If your government gives no reduction in the pensionable age, and no increase in the pension to meet the advancing cost of living, if the means test is not abolished-you will get no votes!
That is plain speaking.
Do you want to do that for the voters during this session of parliament? If not, we must get new public servants in Ottawa who will respond to our needs.
Yours respectfully,


John Lambert Gibson: Is he a taxpayer?


Anthony Hlynka: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) has lately been gibing at members of this group when they speak on monetary matters. If he is inviting one of the social crediters to lock horns with him he will find someone to accommodate him, but it seems to me that nothing can be gained at this time, in a matter of this sort, by forgetting the old age pension problem and trying to prove something to the hon. member. If he refuses to agree with others, that is his privilege. If he refuses to learn these things, as the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska mentioned today, again that is his problem.
I understand that I have only three minutes remaining, and in closing I should like to put on record this resolution which was passed at the provincial social credit convention held in Edmonton, Alberta, on November 27 and 28, 1946:
7. Whereas the amount paid to the old age pensioners is inadequate, with the high cost of living; and
Whereas the majority of men and women reaching the age of 65 are obliged to carry on their work under much strain and with difficulty, while younger ones are available to step into their work with greater efficiency and satisfaction; and
Whereas those who are able to work will have their incomes adjusted by means of the income tax, thus abolishing the "means test;" and
Whereas there will be a feeling of social security which will be beneficial to the health and happiness of pensioners;
Therefore be it resolved that we request the dominion government to:
(1)	Increase the amount of the pension to at least $50 per month.
(2)	Lower the age to 60 years.
(3)	Abolish the means test and said pension be put on a non-contributory basis.
That brings me to my last point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just understand that last sentence? Did my hon. friend say the pension should be put on a non-contributory basis?


Anthony Hlynka: Yes. I just wish to say a word about the contributory pension being advocated in the house. If old age pensioners have to contribute, they could do so by taking out insurance policies with any insurance company, and of course receive the benefits when the policy matured. They could do that without any trouble, and they would not have to have the government do it for them. But where the problem arises is that these old age pensioners, throughout their lives, would be contributing their money, and not only supporting themselves but having to support an army of civil servants in addition who would be handing back to them part.of the money they would contribute. Surely, as my leader pointed out when he spoke, when a Canadian citizen lives in this country and works for years and years he pays enough taxes to provide for himself a non-contributory old age pension in his declining years. He pays for it many times over. He pays for it in hidden taxes. He pays for it in income taxes taken from him. He pays for it on every hand the government can find. Surely that is sufficient.
The Social Credit group in the house is the only group which does advocate a non-contributory old age pension to persons at least from the age of sixty years upwards, and in an amount of not less than $50 a month. Other: advocate a contributory pension. I do not say they have not the right to put their views before the house and the country, but I point out again it is our sincere view that our financial policy can be adjusted in such a way as to pay a decent and adequate old age pension to all the groups I have mentioned in the course of my speech tonight.
I do not wish to detain the house longer. But on this occasion I have touched on at least a few things which have been drawn to my attention by the people I represent. They have been writing letters to me and bringing the problem before me from time to time. I felt that the government was wrong, and that it should be pointed out that the government is now trying to shift responsibility to the provinces. That is an easy way of wiggling out of a situation into which they got themselves. I feel that these points should have been pointed out, and I thank hon. members for the attention they have given me.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), who has just taken his seat, made reference to myself. After listening to some of the arguments he has advanced, lam tempted to ask if there is a psychiatrist in the house.

Old Age Pensions


Victor Quelch: If there is, you had better apply to him.


Anthony Hlynka: On a question, of privilege, just because I do not care for his gibes, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has just used unparliamentary language and has made unkind reference to me. I ask him to withdraw his nasty remark. I think that this gibing at social crediters, and statements that they are all crackpots, and all the rest of it, has been going on too long. The time has come when some hon. members should be asked to withdraw those remarks and to respect others as others respect them.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said anything offensive I am sure he will gladly withdraw it.


Anthony Hlynka: He should.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, if you so rule, I shall be glad to do so. But I cannot see anything unparliamentary in any remarks I have made.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, the present amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act which we are now considering deals with such an important problem that I feel I need make no apology for taking the time of the house in an endeavour to convey to hon. members what folk in my riding think about the present old age pensions set-up.
However, before going into that, may I say in passing that it is amazing to me how some hon. members-and I do not exclude myself- will offer arguments on an entirely mistaken premise. The hon. member who has just taken his seat made a speech in which I suggest practically all the criticisms he offered were based upon misapprehension of what this bill proposes to do. That is most unfortunate.
If I could have thirty minutes across a committee-room table with the hon. member who has just spoken I know that we would reach agreement. Yet he gets up in the house and makes all these criticisms, none of which,
I suggest, has any justification in fact.
I do not say he did this intentionally; ' indeed, I do not think he did. But he entirely overlooked the fact that the present amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act is a temporary measure. It is a stop-gap, a bridge, if we may so express it, temporarily to take care of an emergency situation until necessary taxation agreements can be reached with the provinces. Surely we are not going to throw aside all the benefits which will flow 83166-2941
from those agreements, when we achieve them, for a purely temporary matter at the present time.
The hon. member has entirely overlooked
what the minister said in his opening remarks. He did not hide anything from the house. Here is what he said in his opening remarks, as they are reported at page 4283 of Hansard:
What we do now must be consistent with the diominion government's proposals to the provinces. We have a plan and it is a good plan. What we do today must not in anyway prejudice the over-all plan.
What could be plainer than that? I would not be on my feet supporting the present measure if this were the final measure to be introduced by the government in regard to old age pensions. I would be on my feet, just as my hon. friend was, bitterly denouncing the measure. But it is not a final plan; it is simply a temporary measure to grant urgent and needed relief for the time being until we can achieve what we are seeking.
Some other hon. members have been even more extreme than the hon. member who has just spoken. The present amendment has been dubbed "puny", "peanuts", "mouse" and the like. All these statements show clearly that at least seventy-five per cent of the critics of the bill do not know its provisions. They did not take the trouble to listen to the minister, or to read his speech, if they were not in the house when it was delivered.
In the first place, as honestly as I can and as fairly as I can I want to convey to the house what my folk back home are thinking about old age pensions. I find widespread feeling, a. positive demand, for social security. They want us to banish the fear that arises in men's minds as the result of old age, illness, unemployment and the like. They feel too that Canada is a wealthy country, that a country which made the magnificent contribution this country made in time of war can afford such a measure. They have no doubts on that subject.
There is another widespread feeling, just as prevalent as the one I have mentioned. They do not want charity; they do not want a dole; they want these things as a matter of right. They want to contribute to these different plans, to the health plan, to the old age pension plan and to the unemployment insurance plan. Canada did not reach her present, proud position among the nations of the world by anything but thrift and hard work and courage. Our people are self-reliant people. They do not want the dole; they do not want charity; they want these things as a math r of right, and they
Old Age Pensions

want to pay for these pensions in advance during the years that they are working and able to pay for them.
Another thing; my folk back home do not like the tangle we are in today. They are very critical of it. They say to me, "It is our money you are spending; it is our money the provinces are spending, not your money." It is money that we take from the taxpayers that we are talking about, and they do not like the present tangle we are in. Anyone, whether it be the premier of a province, a member of this government or anyone else who holds up the procession will have to answer to the voters of this country in the long run. I find that folk are determined- that fear shall be banished from their lives, fear arising out of old age, ill health and the like.
I think we should take sufficient time to get all the different viewpoints and we should seek honestly for a solution. But in seeking for a solution I think the first thing we have to do is to face up to the facts even if some of them are unpleasant to me and to my hon. friends of the opposition. In the first place, I think we all agree that under our constitution nothing can be done in the way of a contributory health scheme or a contributory old age pension scheme without the concurrence of the provinces. I do not think anyone would dare to question that statement. That being so, the first thing we have to do is to reach an agreement with the provinces. That being so, let us have a look at some of the facts.
We all know that during the war the federal government, by -agreement with the provinces, was given the entire taxation field in regard to income taxes and- corporation taxes. The provinces vacated those field's. Why? Simply that we might make an all-out war effort. The scheme worked very well. No one was hurt. We came out of the war with the provinces all having surpluses. So I suggest that the provinces had no right to be suspicious of the proposals made to them, by the federal government at the time of the dominion-provincial conference.
Let us have a look at those proposals for a ninute. The reason I am bringing this up is ;hat statements have been made across the floor of this house-the last speaker who spoke made it-that the government has gone back on its proposals. The bare making of a statement of that kind does not carry much weight, but it does arouse suspicion in the mind's of the general public. I want to show if I can in all fairness that that statement is not factually correct.


Anthony Hlynka: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hughes Cleaver: Yes.


Anthony Hlynka: Does the hon. member agree with the Prime Minister's statement made on June 2, 1931, which I have just quoted, or does he say that the Prime Minister made a mistake then? What is the explanation for the Prime Minister's stand then and the government's stand now?


Hughes Cleaver: When I extended to my hon. friend the courtesy of asking a question I was under the impression that his question would be directed to the point I was then arguing. I shall be glad to answer his question when I am through, but I do not intend to permit anyone-and I do not say this discourteously-to	interrupt my line of
thought. I do not speak often in this house, and I want to make my point because this subject is close to my heart.
Here are the federal government proposals. They proposed a general over-all post-war scheme. First, there was a public investment policy, a policy under which millions of dollars would be spent at the right time for the welfare of our economy. Then they proposed under social security a national health programme and outlined that in detail. Then they proposed a national old age pensions scheme and outlined that in detail. Then they proposed further unemployment assistance. For the purposes of the debate tonight I am just going to elaborate the national old age pensions scheme.
Briefly, the scheme was that the provinces would vacate entirely the field-it is their field-that they would voluntarily vacate it and that the federal government would assume full responsibility for the payment of pensions to persons seventy years of age and over; that $30 a month would be paid without a means test.
Just here may I digress for a minute? I do not think many of the speeches in this house have struck at the core of the problem. While it may not be the most serious feature of old age pensions, I think the biggest part of the problem is created by folk who have worked hard and saved a little money, who have a little bank balance and perhaps own their own homes. They want a pension when they come to seventy years to supplement their own earnings and to make the declining years of their lives pleasant ones instead of years of poverty. That is perhaps the greatest part of the old age pensions problem, although perhaps not the most pressing. That problem has not been emphasized at all in the discussion tonight and I just wanted to call attention to it.

Old Age Pensions
The federal government offered that it would assume the entire cost of pensions of $30 to everyone whether they needed it or not. Everyone would get a pension of $30 a month at seventy years as a matter of right. Then, in regard to those in need, whether through illness, unemployment or otherwise, they would be taken care of at sixty-five years. That type of pension was to be purely a provincial matter; the provinces were to retain administration of those pensions, to which the federal government would contribute fifty per cent. Those were the government's proposals in printed form made to the provinces in August, 1935, and that is still the policy of this government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the present minister who is piloting this measure through the house and other ministers have stated repeatedly that that is still the policy of the government. I am not sufficiently conversant with the financial structure of the provinces or with the financial structure of the dominion to say who is right and who is wrong in regard to the proposals made to that conference. I do not know whether this government was too niggardly or whether Ontario and Quebec were too selfish. But I do say this, that two of the provincial premiers came to that conference with their minds made up.


Mr. FULTON:: The whole dominion
government had its mind made up.


Hughes Cleaver: If my hon. friend will
wait a moment I am going to quote chapter and verse. It hurts me to say this-and please don't smile-because on a question of this kind too many political fires have already been lighted in this dominion and I do not want to add fuel to the fire. But I am not afraid to face the facts. I say-and I say it advisedly-that two provincial premiers came to that conference in the wrong frame of mind. They issued press releases after the conference. I did not issue them; our Prime Minister did not issue them; the minister piloting this measure through the house did not issue them. This is what George Drew himself said about his viewpoint toward the conference. I am quoting from a Canadian Press dispatch in the Ottawa Journal of December 8, carrying this heading:	"Drew
won't be ruled by Ottawa". Then follows the dispatch:
Premier Brew of Ontario said today-
Listen to this:
-there is not the slightest chance that the Ontario government would sign a dominion-provincial agreement . . .


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was after the conference.


Hughes Cleaver: After the conference.
Not the slightest chance! Now what sort of attitude was that for the premier of Canada's largest and wealthiest province to take?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was after the conference.


Hughes Cleaver: After the conference. He was not the only offender. What did Mr. Duplessis have to say after the conference? But before I leave Mr. Drew, so that there will be no misunderstanding, my hon. friend across the floor by his interruption leads me to conclude that perhaps he thinks Mr. Drew made that statement because he was not satisfied with the terms. Is that right?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will answer at the proper time.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member interrupted and I was just asking what was in his mind. He does not deny it, so I take it I am right. Mr. Drew went on to give his reason. He said:
. . . there is not the slightest chance that the Ontario government would sign a dominion-provincial agreement which would "centralize power in the hands of an incompetent government in Ottawa."
He was not complaining about the terms of the agreement. I hate to think he was thinking politically. He may have been offended that the federal government was going to take over full responsibility for this old age pensions scheme which would be so popular without a means test. I do not know what was going on in his mind. But I do know this, that he came to the conference and issued his own statement after the conference showing a frame of mind in which he was hot prepared to enter into any dominion-provincial agreement with "an incompetent government" in Ottawa.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He evidently told the
truth.


Hughes Cleaver: I was in hopes that what I am saying might have some effect on the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), who has been listening, and I thank him for doing so. If I had him in a committee room I think I would get somewhere with him.
What did Mr. Duplessis say? This is from the Ottawa Citizen of December 18. It bears a Quebec dateline, December 18:
The government at Ottawa is trying to put the provinces under an oxygen tent, charged Hon. Maurice Duplessis, Premier of Quebec. He charged that the Mackenzie King forces were adopting the totalitarianism of Hitler and Mussolini, also Stalin.
Old Age Pensions

What hope was there for the conference when two of the leading premiers came to it holding views sucl) as these? I want to say to my hon. friends across the way that if they want to do something for the old folks of this country they can do something. Let my hon. friend the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who is an able and influential member of that party, and my hon. friend the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and others, go and have a talk with George Drew and persuade him to withdraw from that attitude that he will not under any circumstances enter into a dominion-provincial agreement. Then if he withdraws from that attitude, let these two provincial premiers state what they want. They have been asked by letters to state what proposals would be agreeable to them. They have not yet made their proposals. True, the Ontario premier made a proposal at the last conference that apparently he himself was ashamed of because afterwards he himself stated that we should not have taken him too seriously; he was willing to do better. Let them come along with their honest proposals and let us get together and have a proper contributory social security scheme for this country which can so well afford it. I say that we should make a real try for a dominion-provincial agreement.
I am now going to say something else, and I hope that offence will not be taken, but I think it should be said. Let us make a real try for a dominion-provincial agreement.


Mr. ROWE:: Call another conference.


Hughes Cleaver: I think my hon. friend was one of those who urged the calling of another conference and I want to say this to him. You do not call a dominion-provincial conference as casually as you ask folk in to dinner. There is a lot of work about a conference. Delegates have to travel long distances. There is a lot of expense and a lot of time spent. What is the use of calling two men to a conference after the statements which George Drew and Duplessis have made and which they have not yet recanted. What would be gained by calling another conference to have another failure?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What they said was after ;he conference.


William Earl Rowe: They are now asking for another conference.


Hughes Cleaver: I am wondering why George Drew made such an exorbitant demand at that conference. I can guess. Did he ever have any hope of its being accepted? Did he want an excuse for the conference to fail?
I come to my last suggestion, and it is this. I say, let us make every effort to reach an

agreement with the provinces. Let my hon. friends across the way use their good influences with George Drew and my hon. friends here their good influences with Duplessis, and let us get together if we can.


William Earl Rowe: And you use your good influences with your leader.


Hughes Cleaver: If we cannot get together I think, Mr. Speaker-and I say this advisedly -that the seven provinces which have reached agreements should march on to the goal they want. Ontario and Quebec should not be allowed to hold up the procession.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I had intended, in speaking on this bill, to make some remarks in closing in regard to the very matter which has been referred to by the member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Cleaver) and to urge again that a dominion-provincial conference be called to discuss these matters and see if some measure of agreement cannot be found. I said I had intended to deal with that in my closing remarks, but in view of the line taken by the hon. member I think it would be more appropriate if I dealt with it at the outset. There are several things which the hon. member said which simply cannot be accepted. I should perhaps not say that they do not jibe with the facts, but I will say that they certainly are more susceptible of another interpretation than the one which he has given to them. In the first place, he called this bill merely a stop-gap measure. He said it does not reflect the permanent policy of the government; it does not reflect a departure from policy enunciated in the green book; it is only a stop-gap measure. If the bill is a stop-gap measure the speech of the hon. member certainly blew the stopper, because he showed again just how far this proposal falls short of the proposal put forward in May, 1945. He showed in his own speech just how desirable it is and to what extent the people of this country are demanding that all the provinces and the dominion get together to put these proposals or proposals like them into effect.
As I listened to the speech of the hon. member, it seemed to me that he was not concerned so much with making a contribution to the debate on old age pensions as he was to throw the onus for the lack of agreement, lack of the implementing of this policy, on to the provincial governments and particularly on to the governments of Ontario and Quebec.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is where it
belongs.

Old Age Pensions


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the course of my remarks I shall show that it does not belong there; that there is nothing standing in the way of implementing the proposals by the federal government as made in May, 1945. It is not any action taken by any province which prevents the fulfilment of these terms. The only thing which can stand in the way is a reluctance on the part of the federal government.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat made a great deal of the fact that Premier Drew and Premier Duplessis went back to their provinces and issued certain statements which, as he said, showed that they had had their minds made up and were unwilling at all times to sign any agreement with the dominion. In answer to the question which I asked him he admitted that these statements were made after the conference; they were not made before the conference. Both premiers, and particularly Premier Drew of Ontario, repeated on many occasions at the conference, and it was evident at the conference and can be found in the proceedings by anyone who cares to read them, that he had "hn open mind; that he was willing to discuss and discuss again the suggested proposals of the dominion. I think it is fair to say this, that the Premier of Ontario and certainly the Premier of Nova Scotia showed by their attitude that they were unwilling to sign financial agreements, to make financial arrangements involving them in certain obligations and in the surrendering of certain tax fields, before they knew just what final arrangements would be made with regard to social security and so on. In other words, they were unwilling to make financial agreements binding them for five years until they knew what responsibilities they would be called upon to assume. I see nothing intransigent in that attitude. It should be pointed out again that they made the statements referred to by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) after they left the conference, not before they came to Ottawa. I would ask him what the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia said after he left the conference. He made statements quite as burning, more burning perhaps, than any made by the Premier of Ontario or the Premier of Quebec. He indicated that he would finally sign the agreement under protest. It would be interesting to know, whether the province of Nova Scotia has actually signed that financial agreement yet or not. Certainly there has been no announcement of the signing.
On this question of intransigence, of having your mind made up, I should like to refer hon. members and you, Mr. Speaker, to what the
Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) said after the conference. I give him credit. I do not say that he said this before the conference; I admit freely he said it after the conference. In answer to a request made in the house by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) that the dominion-provincial conference be reconvened he said, "We have already indicated to the various provinces that in our view there is no point in reconvening the conference until the provinces have signed a financial agreement." He went on to -say that all provinces have not yet signed and that, therefore, we are not reconvening the conference. Now, if we are to talk about having one's mind made up and taking an uncompromising attitude, there I think is the best example. He refuses to reconvene the conference to discuss all these matters which the dominion government says it regards as so important, until after the provinces have accepted the dominion's terms and sign the financial agreement. The two provinces which have indicated that they will not sign simply say, we will not sign a financial agreement committing us to certain responsibilities, taking away from us certain tax fields, until we know what is the purpose to be served by these agreements; until we know what we are getting, what we shall have to undertake and what the federal government proposes to undertake.
One statement was made by the hon. member for Halton with which particularly I think it is not possible to agree. He made it as a definite statement to which he said he thought all members would subscribe, that it is not possible to work out a contributory scheme of old age pensions or annuities without the consent of the provinces. I certainly do not subscribe to that statement. As far as I can understand it, there is no constitutional bar to the dominion government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has my hon. friend ever read the speech of Mr. Bennett on this very point? In 1927 he made a speech in this house on the subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He may have made it; he is not here at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; that is quite obvious.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is quite obvious. I certainly do not claim any of his qualifications-


William Earl Rowe: Your leader made a speech, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point is, that the dominion government has power to impose direct and indirect taxes. As far as I can recall it, there is nothing in the constitution
Old Age Pensions

which imposes any limitation upon the manner in which the revenues from these taxes will be spent. There is nothing to prevent the dominion government from saying that a portion of your taxes will be set aside as a contribution to an old age pensions scheme upon which you will be entitled to draw when you reach the required age. It is not correct to say that such a scheme cannot be instituted without the consent of the provinces. It is merely another effort to place upon the provinces the whole onus for the failure as yet to implement the social security proposals.
It is not straightforward dealing with the Canadian people to tell them that the only reason these proposals are not put into effect is that there is not yet a financial agreement with the provinces. I am not arguing the case of Ontario and Quebec so far as their stand on financial arrangements is concerned, although I have previously said and still maintain that the correct method of getting agreements is, first, to discuss the objectives which we desire to accomplish and to agree on that. If you fail the first time come back again. Confederation was not achieved in just one try. Continue your discussions until you get a measure of agreement upon the objectives which you desire to achieve. Then, having that agreement, work out your financial details accordingly so that you can implement the agreement. That course was not followed at the conference because the conference took the course rather of financial bargaining, and it was on financial grounds that the conference fell down. But I wish to point out that the lack of a financial agreement is no bar to an old age annuity or social insurance scheme.
There are figures to support that contention. In the first place, as a result of the fact that two provinces have indicated that they will not sign, and by their not signing, the federal government is being saved-rather, not the federal government but the people of Canada are being saved-approximately $100 million a year; for, according to the figures given by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, that is what it would cost the federal treasury to pay to Ontario and Quebec the grant which was offered in the latest proposals made to them. Second the great tax fields of personal and corporation income tax, which it was regarded as essential that the dominion should use exclusively, are as open now as they would be if all the provinces had signed, because Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia have not reentered these tax fields and therefore they are fully open to the dominion government to be used for the purposes of its own old age pensions scheme or any other

social security scheme which it may envisage. Third, the government of Ontario is pressing and has pressed consistently since the breakdown of the conference on financial matters for a reconvening of the conference to discuss the social security and other measures involved. Actually it is too expensive for us to go on paying grants to seven provinces which have signed, without getting together and implementing a social security scheme, because those grants are costing $100 million a year more now without the social security scheme than the first proposals of the dominion government which included that scheme. This last figure is based on the statement of the Minister of Finance on page 1841 of Hansard.
Having dealt with the subject of dominion-provincial relations in its relationship to this question, I wish to come to the bill actually before the house and to outline what I regard as certain weaknesses in the present old age pension scheme now in effect and to be in effect when this amending bill passes the house. The first great lack is that it does not take any steps toward a contributory old age pension scheme. It is important to keep clear in our minds that the two things are quite separate. What this bill envisages is in no sense a contributory old age pension scheme, but I am sure that if we are to have a proper social security system in this country we must eventually arrive at a contributory old age annuity or insurance scheme. So that the first failure of the bill is that it takes no step in that direction.
Second, the bill continues certain of the unjustifiable restrictions and unjustifiable hardships present in the current old age pension system. It continues certain restrictions as to eligibility which impose tremendous hardships on applicants; particularly, the proof of continuous residence in Canada for twenty years, and the other provisions in that connection. These contain qualifications which it is almost impossible for many applicants for pension to fulfil or prove.
Third, the bill continues certain measures with regard to deductions from pension which will be made if the pensioner has a certain income, so-called, of his own, for instance, the rent calculated from property. This is not actual income received by the pensioner. It is only hypothetical income and is received only in the minds of the government or of the pension authority. If the pensioner owns a home the bill provides that he shall be regarded as if he received an income from it and he will be charged what they figure to be a reasonable rent for that home. This actually penalizes thrift and discourages good citizenship, because the person looking toward the

Old Age Pensions
eventual receipt of a pension will find that he is better off if he parts with his home or does not build one at all. Surely it is not logical or proper to continue a provision which discourages a person from owning his own home.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the hon. gentleman
read the regulations?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I have read the
regulations and that is why I have made this statement. I read them carefully, and the regulations say that a deduction will be made for things received by the pensioner in cash or in kind and mention specifically rent calculations on property occupied by the pensioner.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will discuss that in
committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So will I. There is also
a deduction for what he may receive by way of rations and quarters provided by his children, so that we have the situation that if the children do support the parent, the parent is penalized. In other words, the parent is better off if the children do not support him. I suggest that there be no charge made or account taken of this income, which is only hypothetical income, where the pensioner owns a house or is supported by his family and children.
Another weakness of the bill is that it continues the hard and fast rule as to the age limit. It sets the age limit at seventy. I have not the time to go into the details of the various suggestions as to ages which should be set as the limit before one can receive an old age pension, but it is important to point out that no provision is made here for any who are prematurely aged, as many are, before seventy, being unable to support themselves or to secure employment because they are burnt out. Persons of this type are left either to individual or to local charity, or else to starve.
The final objection which I thinfk should be made at this time is as to the amount of the pension. The minister himself has indicated that he considered $30 a month not sufficient either for an old person or for anyone else. He so declared at page 4361 of Hansard. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr.' Knowles) was speaking, and he said it was impossible to approve the suggestion that the old age pensioner could support himself on $30 a month. The minister replied that no one ever suggested that. I am glad the minister takes that view and agrees that no one can be supported on $30 a month. But if this bill is taken at its face value, the dominion considers that $30 is adequate,
because actually the federal government only pays seventy-five per cent of a $30 a month maximum but leaves the province entirely responsible for bringing the pension up as high as $30 and solely responsible for raising the pension above $30.
In this connection I would refer to what the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) said in support of the measure. Speaking in this chamber tonight, he said that actually the dominion government was generous in making an increase of fifty per cent, by increasing the pension from $20 to $30 a month. I think that is typical of the length to which government supporters are driven in their efforts to justify the measure, because actually there are three facts, all of which show that that statement is inaccurate. At present the dominion government's contribution is not $20 but $18.75. It is now increased by the dominion to $22.50, or an increase of only $3.75.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is making a very good argument, but perhaps he will permit me to say a word just to show the relative proportions. When this bill is passed the federal government alone will be spending $68,000,000, as opposed to the present expenditure of 817,000,000 by provincial governments apart from provincial supplements.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is an interesting statement, I am prepared to admit, but I do not think it has any bearing upon the argument I am making at the moment, which is that the dominion government is not giving a lead in this matter and is not making the generous increase suggested by the hon. member for Outremont, because the increase is only $3.75 a month, which is twenty per cent and not fifty per cent. In the third place, the dominion government does not increase the pension to $30 a month, as stated by the hon. member. It is left entirely to the provinces to decide whether or not the pension will be increased to that amount.
I should now like to suggest certain improvements which I think should be made now, even before another dominion-provincial conference, in the old age pensions system as we have it in this country. From a review of the old age statistics available in Canada today, it seems that there is necessity for two things. The first is a scientific study of the whole question of old age and our approach to the problem; the second is a contributory scheme of old age insurance. Statistics show that ninety years ago the average life expectancy of a Canadian was forty years. This has increased until at the present time it is approximately sixty-five years, and information available indicates that in future the
Old Age Pensions

average person will have a life expectancy of seventy-eight years. When one reads that, in the light of the fact that there are now some two hundred thousand people in Canada on old age pensions-


Paul Joseph James Martin: 217,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and that the number of people over the age of sixty-five more than doubled between 1900 and 1930 and increased by a further thirty-four per cent between 1930 and 1940, and when one realizes that there are now in Canada 768,000 people over sixty-five years of age and 460,000 over seventy years of age.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; 539,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am giving the figures from the 1941 census. Then I think one realizes the tremendous financial burden it will be to this country to take care of this growing group of older people unless we have a sound approach to this question; and that, in turn, indicates the ultimate necessity of instituting a contributory scheme of old age annuities. I have disagreed somewhat violently with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), but with one thing he said tonight I agree completely; that is, that the older people of this countiy do not want these old age pensions to be charity. They want to contribute; they want to provide for their own old age, for their own requirements now and in the closing years of their lives.
The statistics I have given indicate further the desperate condition which will prevail if the welfare aspect of this question is not studied. Of the two problems, financial and welfare, perhaps welfare is as important as, if not more important than, the financial problem. If you consider the position of a senior citizen, surely it will be seen that it is bad enough to have the spectre of financial hardship looming, over you when you reach the declining years of your life; but when, in addition, you have uncertainty as to whether your closing years will be of any use to yourself or to anybody else, whether you will be perhaps a trial and a burden to your family or to the state; when you have this spiritual and moral uncertainty, as well as the physical and financial questions looming over you, then the picture for our old people is pretty grim. I believe this emphasizes the need for assurance to these people of adequate housing, food and care; and perhaps most important, the provision of an adequate method by which they may train themselves to make full and proper use of the leisure time available to them and to do all these things without being a burden to any individual, to their family 
or their friends, and without being regarded as a burden on the state. Those who have experience in these fields are aware of, and have frequently emphasized, the independence of spirit of our older people. It seems to me that this is a tremendous asset which we should recognize and on which we should capitalize, so that instead of as at present, if I may use this phrase, the older people of Canada in large measure being a wasting asset, we should regard them as a tremendous potential asset capable of making a real contribution to the community and the country in which they live. If we make provision for them to train themselves not only to look after themselves, but to help the community in which they live, then we shall be rendering, not only to these older people, but to Canada itself, a tremendous service.
It seems that at the present time there are only two or three alternatives open to older citizens in this position. They may go into an institution, one of our old men's homes; they may be a burden upon their family or friends; or they may eke out their last years in loneliness, in single rooms or shacks perhaps as far away as they can get from the companionship of their fellow citizens. This, I am afraid, is where you find most of them. I believe this is partly due to the inadequate financial measures which have already been discussed, but it is perhaps also largely due to a lack of effective interest-and I repeat the words, effective interest-on the part of the country and the community, and a lack of leadership on the part of the dominion government. No effective approach to this problem has ever been made along the lines of helping these people, by training and encouragement, to work out their own arrangements for the closing years of their lives so that they may be lived where they have been accustomed to live, in the company of their families and friends, where they can continue useful work, making a contribution to the community and to the country, instead of being forced to adopt one of the alternatives I have outlined.
In closing this section of my remarks, I wish to draw one parallel, if I may. The problem of juvenile delinquency is recognized, and steps are taken to counter that threat to our national life. But juvenile delinquency is not inevitable. Old age is inevitable, and surely in itself that is an argument in favour of recognizing the problem and taking effective steps to meet it.
In conclusion, then, may I say that I feel there is no reason, merely because we have not yet reached financial agreement between

Old Age Pensions
the dominion and all the provinces, why a large measure of the proposals of the federal government, put forward in May, 1945, cannot be implemented; and I have produced figures which substantiate that position. Even if that is not done, there are certain inadequacies in our present legislation which I have enumerated which could be cured. It may be that we shall not be successful in having any variation made in the age limit of seventy years, but I urge that when we get into committee the government accept the suggestion that some provision be made for those not yet seventy, but who are able to prove or who local authorities are able to show are otherwise completely unable to provide for themselves. I would call on the dominion government through the minister, whom I know to be intensely interested in this sort of problem, to provide some leadership; not necessarily financial leadership, but moral and spiritual leadership to provinces, communities, service clubs, women's auxiliaries, to take an effective interest in the problems of the old people of this country, so that they may be encouraged to live useful closing years, instead of the present bleak prospect which faces them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is significant that several of the most effective criticisms directed to the bill have come from members sitting behind the minister. I refer to the speeches delivered by the hon. members for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) and Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). While the hon. member for New' Westminster (Mr. Reid) set out to support the legislation, he ended up by suggesting that in his opinion old people in Canada should not be expected to live on less than S50 to $75 a month.
In view of the criticism which has come from all parts of the house, I suggest that the minister and the cabinet, before we meet again tomorrow, should give serious consideration to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), that pensions should be made available without a means test, that they should be made available at the age of sixty-five years, and that1 pensioners-	.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You would kill the bill, would you?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -should receive not less than-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what the amendment does.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If members of the government would agree that in this day and age citizens of Canada should not be expected to live on the amounts proposed by this legislation-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We want to know how you stand, whether or not you would kill the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I realize that hon. members who have been critical of the bill are in an awkward position. We do not want to be in the position where we are going to take away from people anything which might be offered by the legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what you do when you support the amendment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Before I conclude, I believe I shall prove to the house that the proposal made by the hon. member for Lethbridge does not impose any great strain upon the resources of this great country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has not anything to do with the matter at all. It would kill the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to proceed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, see you vote for it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would remind the house that the dominion government recognized in 1945 that the whole legislation should be overhauled. At page 37 of the proposal of the government of Canada, there is a comment to the effect that pensions vary from $1S.63 in one province to $29.41 in another.
Generally speaking, the need for pensions, as might be expected, is greatest in those provinces which are least able to finance such payments out of local revenues. I submit that the speech of the minister who is piloting the bill through the house did not serve a useful purpose in trying to bring the different provinces together to work out with the federal government a programme to provide more adequate provisions for our older citizens.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the hon. member humbly:	is he in favour of the bill,
or is he opposed to it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear that I should not like to vote against giving an old age pensioner the extra S60 a year that is proposed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the amendment, then?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I believe that the provisions made by this bill are quite inadequate,
Old Age Pensions

and I shall submit some evidence which would indicate that we can do a great deal better than we are doing.
The dominion's proposals also mentioned that the means test is generally recognized as undesirable after a certain age. I am sure the minister should listen to those who are sitting beside him and who have been most critical of this disgraceful procedure in this day and age.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Be careful of your words, if you wish really to achieve social security.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am drawing attention to the government's proposals where it is stated that "the means test is generally recognized as undesirable after a certain age".


Paul Joseph James Martin: And that is still our view.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They state:
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.
But the legislation still leaves the age at seventy, and still continues the means test. The majority of citizens in our country will not be able to have a decent standard of living, in view of rising costs. I would remind the minister that, now that agreements have been reached with seven of the nine provinces, there is no good reason why we cannot proceed to implement those proposals. I would remind the house that it was British Columbia which first signed an agreement with the federal government to provide old age pensions. That was done first on September 1, 1927. Saskatchewan followed in the following year, and Manitoba came next. Alberta was fourth. Quebec did not take advantage of the legislation until August, 1936, nine years after the citizens of British Columbia took advantage of old age pensions legislation.
If the dominion government was serious in its proposals of August, 1945, then I say it should proceed to carry out its proposals to those provinces which are prepared to go along with the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure my hon. friend
once and for all that we are sincere and serious about those proposals. He need not say any more about that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish the minister
had made that clear when he introduced the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly I made it clear
in my statement. If the hon. member would only do me the honour of reading my statement, whether he agrees with it or not, he would find that I clearly stated that we

have not for one day since August, 1945, relented from that position. And the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his telegram to Mr. Douglas, the Premier of Saskatchewan, stated clearly that as soon as we get sufficient acceptance we are prepared to call a security conference to deal with all our proposals, which lend to the general objective of social security.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I must remind the
house that the bill before us does not indicate that the government is serious about the proposals. The pensions are still inadequate. We still have the means test. Pensions are not payable until the age of seventy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member
understand the proposals? I do not think he understands them, when he says that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister made
his speech at the beginning of the debate and he will have a chance to make another later on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I have been sitting
here for four hours, and naturally I am becoming a little impatient. However I am sorry I interrupted.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister's backbenchers have been even more critical than some hon. members on this side. I suggest that, in view of that criticism, the cabinet should give this matter further consideration before we meet again tomorrow.
During the debate there have been some comparisons made with respect to social security legislation available in Canada and that available in other countries. I find that we are backward in providing for our old people, our invalids and the blind. I call as one of my witnesses the former member for Vancouver-Burrard who now sits in another place, and is also mayor of Vancouver. Speaking in this chamber on July 24, 1943, the then member for Vancouver-Burrard compared old age pensions in Canada with those in Australia. He said that if we were paying in proportion to our population the same amount as Australia is paying we would be paying out $146 million a year. A few minutes ago the minister interrupted someone by pointing out that this year Canada proposes to pay $68 million. But the member for Vancouver-Burrard at that time said that Canada was away behind Australia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister did not
give us up-to-date figures when he was discussing the matter. New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden have made adjustments to meet

Old Age Pensions
fluctuating costs of living. We in Canada have not taken steps in that direction. But I wish to proceed with my argument that Canada can do a great deal better than the minister is proposing in the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not like to interrupt, but it is important to say that when this bill becomes law there will be no country, with the exception of a few states in the United States, where the monetary benefits will be greater than those in Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister is just not going to be able to convince the old age pensioners in Canada that that is good enough. I am proud .to be a Canadian and I do not wish to live anywhere else, but when one considers what Canada did during the war, our proposals now for our old age pensioners are simply not good enough. During the war Canada was able to make gifts of over $2,000 million, to Great Britain, and we were able to make gifts-


Mr. WARREN:: What is wrong with Saskatchewan coming across and doing the same thing?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish hon. members who are interrupting me would use their own time to speak afterwards. It is difficult to hear their comments. What my hon. friend may wish to say about the Saskatchewan government can be said in his own time.


Ralph Melville Warren: My question is quite simple.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to proceed with my argument.


Ralph Melville Warren: I should like an answer.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member who has the floor cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. During the war the people of Canada gave to Russia $167 million worth of equipment; we gave to New Zealand, $15 million worth; to India, $18 million; to France, $25 million; to China, $39 million, and to Australia, $91 million. I am not complaining about those gifts, because I supported Canada's mutual aid programme enthusiastically during the war, but I contend that if we were able to make that sort of contribution toward victory we should do better now than to expect our old people to live on $30 a month.


Ralph Melville Warren: I did not get an answer regarding Saskatchewan.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member may make his speech following mine and I shall
be glad to answer his questions. We gave to the United Kingdom 196,961,000 pounds of cheese, 9,979,000 pounds of butter, 566,000 cases of milk, 907,000 cases of eggs, 29,403,172,000 pounds of bacon and so on down the list. In addition, we were able to create for ourselves a higher standard of living than we had ever before enjoyed in the history of the country.
Unfortunately our old age pensioners were unable to take advantage of the improved business conditions in Canada. Their incomes were fixed; their cost of living went up, and actually they were compelled to live on less food than they. were getting before the war. The last issue of the Canada Gazette contains statistics in connection with the rising cost of living. I find that the cost of food is up fifty-six per cent this month as compared with the pre-war period. I find that stewing beef is up ninety-one per cent; lard is up 141 per cent; shortening, 115 per cent; butter, 64 per cent; prunes, 74 per cent, and corn syrup, 81 per cent. Consequently the old age pensioners of Canada are compelled to get along with less butter, less bacon, less milk, less cheese and less bread. When we exported such huge quantities during the war, why should we, as we enter the post-war period, tell our old people that they will have to tighten their belts even further?
Just today the Prime Minister announced that Canada is going to give $20,000,000 as a contribution toward the post-UNRRA programme. The leader of this group spoke for all of us when he said we were for that. How is it that Canada is able to give $20,000,000 on the announcement of the Prime Minister, and we are prepared to give only $20,000,000 to supplement the incomes of our old age pensioners?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This will cost more than


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister said the other day that this would cost the federal treasury about $20,000,000 more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We shall be spending almost $100,000,000 this year on old age pensions.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like the minister to correct me if I am wrong when I say that he said the other day that this proposal would cost the federal government about $20,000,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An extra $20,000,000 for this year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That it will cost the federal government around $20,000,000 more than we are spending today.
Old Age Pensions


Ralph Melville Warren: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is there any reason-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have asked the hon. member to withhold his questions until I have finished. What the old people want is a share of the current production of Canada. They want butter; they want eggs; they want shelter, and they want fuel. We are denying them the necessities of life, because the cost of living is increasing so rapidly that the pensions we are now paying actually do not provide the old age pensioners with as high a standard of living as they had before.


Ralph Melville Warren: Will Saskatchewan do what Ontario and British Columbia are doing?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would appreciate it if my hon. friend would withhold his questions!* He can say anything he wants when I have finished. I should like to ask the minister how he comes to the conclusion that $30 or $32, $33 or $38 or $40 will provide an adequate standard of living for elderly people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will recall that in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East I said that $50 was not enough.


Angus MacInnis: Let us make it S50.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to be permitted to conclude my speech. Canada has been most generous to some of her citizens. I mentioned that our standard of living was higher during the war than during any previous period in our history. I have here the statistical summary of the Bank of Canada, and on page 48 there will be found a table showing the net income to stockholders in the industrial classification. If you compare the net income received in 1938 with that received in 1945 you will find that in the case of grain mill products their position improved from $0-2 million in the red to $2-6 million in the clear. Those in the food industry improved their position from $8-5 million to $12-2 million. Those in the drink business improved their position from $5-8 million to $12-3 million. The tobacco industry did not fare quite so well, but the pulp and paper industry improved their position from $0-3 million to $15-8 million, and so on down the list. It will be found that industrial concerns in Canada greatly improved their position during the war.
At my request, certain sessional papers were brought down showing just what the government is doing with regard to the payment of pensions in some of the departments. I suggest that the Department of Justice is the department in which citizens of this country should seek to find employment if they wish

to have adequate pensions for their old age. I find that eighty-two pensioners listed by the Department of Justice are getting pensions totalling $372,397, or annual pensions of $4,541. I might point out that these pensions are paid without any means test; there are no questions asked as to whether there are children who are able to provide support, whether you have stocks or bonds and so on. When those eighty-two citizens receive $378 a month without a means test I find it difficult to understand how 200,000 citizens of this country can be expected to get by on $360 for the whole year.
In conclusion, 1 wish to say that Canada has done many things of which we are proud. "Canada from Sea to Sea" states:
Land, climate and people are generally recognized as the chief elements in making of a nation. What the people do with the land and its resources, helped or hindered by climate, makes the country's economic history. How they organize their united strength for freedom and security makes their political history. Social and cultural development can be measured by the extent to which people master their environment and build on the traditions they have inherited.
It also mentions that about thirty per cent of our vast output of raw materials was allocated to our Canadian forces during the war. It says:
Almost overnight Canada was transformed from a producer of food and raw materials into one of the world's major manufacturing nations.
It mentions that Canada leads the world in the output of newsprint, nickel, radium, platinum and asbestos, and ranks second in wood-pulp, aluminum and gold, and that sufficient Canadian wheat is grown annually on Canadian farms to meet the normal bread requirements of 92.000,000 people. It goes on to say:
During the war Canada supplied the United Kingdom with 72 per cent of its bacon, 52 per cent of its wheat, 35 per cent of its canned fish and a quarter of its cheese. Canada stood fourth among the United Nations in total war production.
Let me remind the house that Canada gave of these riches to help feed people who were fighting for our liberty, and all I ask now is that we should give of our surplus so that the elder citizens of this country will not have to look forward to the years ahead with fear and dread, but we should see that they get enough food to eat and enable them to obtain warm clothing, medical services and adequate shelter.


Jean-François Pouliot: of people whom I know personally who are entitled to old age pensions due to their disabilities or infirmities and who cannot get them because they have not reached the age of seventy or because they are not blind at forty. That is a story which is common knowledge to all. Therefore, sir, one must realize that reform is a very difficult thing. It requires determination, good will and honesty of purpose. It is very difficult indeed and takes a long time to be accomplished.
Of course, if some hon. members agree that a survey should be made, after a selection, an honest selection, a fair selection between the needy cases and the other cases, everybody will realize that it is a hard thing to do. Once more what will be considered will not be the need today but what is to be done to please. That is that. The aim is not to accomplish one's duty; the aim is to please the largest possible number. Well, if it is the definite purpose of the government to please the largest number of people they are bound to make that survey; they, are bound to complete it after a selection, and they have to decide not to pay any longer pensions to those who have received it as a pure gift or a bribe without being entitled to it, and to use that amount to fill the gaps and to help those who are really in need. I hope that is clear enough.
I shall make another suggestion to the minister. It is impossible to pay pensions from the cradle to the grave to all persons in Canada. But in a society, in an organized state, support must come from the state to those who cannot get it otherwise. There should be a campaign of education to teach the people the purpose of old age pensions. It is to help those who cannot get any help otherwise. I will tell you more than that. I said at first, that the contribution to the provinces is necessary because the provinces have no means to pay the old age pensions alone, but the management of old age pensions by the provinces was a mistake, as it should be by the municipalities themselves.
I have been informed that in some western provinces no old age pension is granted unless it is approved beforehand by the municipal council. That is one thing, but I will go one step further. Since the municipal administration is the closest to the people and since the taxpayers have the opportunity to judge if the money is well spent or wrongly spent by the municipality, there should be in each municipality a list of those who receive old age pensions. If such lists were posted at the entrance to the city hall in each municipality, I am sure, that the effect would be magical,

and there are many people who would be ashamed to consider any longer the acceptance of any grant of old1 age pensions.
I do not want anyone to conclude from what I have said that I am opposed to old age pensions; far from it. The thing is now on the statute books and we cannot dispense with it. This is the danger of social legislation. When the people have tasted something like this it is impossible as a rule to deprive them of the whole thing. But the matter can be settled in accordance with the very high principle of justice, fairness and honesty to which I have referred, and the people will appreciate the fact that pensions must be paid only to those who are entitled to them on account of sickness, disability and poverty, lack of support, and the fact that they are alone in the world. When a man or a woman is alone in the world the state must come to his or her help, because he or she is one of us and we cannot abandon them on the road.
These are a few considerations that I have wanted to make for a very long time. It is high time to come to our senses and not to practise "electoralism" with matters such as old age pensions. What is "electoralism"? It is spending the people's funds without a useful purpose and just to please or appease a certain category of people. At the present time we are pleasing the old; it is all right; I have respect for the old. My best friends were very old people who were very kind to me and whom I shall never forget. I have respect for the old; I am ready to assist the old, but I think it would be an insult to offer crutches to an old gentleman who is able to walk and that is why, sir, I shall not insist any longer on it. I think I have made my position clear. I sincerely believe that if an independent and honest survey were made of the whole question of old age pensions one would realize that in many of the cases these pensions are a waste of money because they are given to people who do not need them. I believe it is absolutely absurd to put all the old people in the same category. It is unfair to them, and if it is accepted by them it shows how low our population has fallen, but I do not believe it. If hon. gentlemen who are not convinced of what I have said received the complaints, the just- and fair complaints, that I receive from people who will not be allowed to receive anything under this scheme and who deserves it more than the old Croesuses who get it they would change their mind immediately. It is not because I have a heart of stone that I have spoken as I have done.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The hon. member has a warm heart.

Industrial Relations


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend very much, and I can pay the same compliment to him for whom I have the deepest admiration.
We have reached the time when we cannot bribe the old by giving old age pensions that they are not entitled to get while others deserve pensions that they cannot get. There should be an adjustment, not on a basis of age, but on a basis of need, and that is what I wanted to say. I thank the house very warmly for the kind reception that was given to me when I made these remarks, and I hope again that the hon. gentlemen who have listened to me so closely will think about what I have said. If they do, they will realize that I was not in the wrong when I came down to brass tacks to improve the old age pensions scheme.


James Horace King: I will now give my ruling on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and on the point of order raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). The amendment moved by Mr. Blackmore reads:
That Bill No 339 be not now read the second time, but that the same be referred back to the government for their earnest consideration of the following provisions:
(a)	Reduction of the pensionable age to not more than 65 years.
(b)	Increase in the general pension to not less than $50 a month.
(c)	Complete abolition of the means test.
I would direct the attention of the house to the language of the motion, that the bill be not now read the second time but that the same be referred back to the government for their earnest consideration. An amendment to refer a bill back to the government is an expanded negative, if you consider that the government is the sponsor of the bill. The house may, after second reading, decide that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole and it may, in certain circumstances, refer it to a select committee, but there is no precedent of a bill having been referred to the government, which in the present case is not only the sponsor ol the bill, but moreover is not a parliamentary agency. Hon. members know that when a bill has been introduced in the house the bill becomes the property of the house. It is the privilege of the house to refer a bill to the committee of the whole, to a standing committee, to any agency of parliament; but it is out of order since the bill is the property of parliament, to refer it to an agency which is not a part of parliament. The amendment offends all principles of parliamentary procedure and cannot be moved. I would go farther. In my humble opinion, if it were the privilege of members of the house to
move that a bill be referred to the government, it would be also the privilege of any member to refer a bill to one of the parties sitting in this house. If a bill could be referred to the government, I think it could be referred to the Progressive Conservative party or to the C.C.F. or to the Social Credit party. I have therefore no hesitation in declaring the amendment out of order.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 25, 1947