1947-06-19

[Stage Direction]
MR. STEW'ART-REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN TODAY'S "GLOBE AND mail"
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I rise to a question of privilege. An article on page 10 of today's Globe and Mail is, in part, completely wrong. The part of which I complain reads as follows:
When Mr. Stewart originally presented the petition, he said he did agree with the religious views of the Witnesses, but had undertaken to see that the petition sponsored by them reached parliament.
What I actually said was that although I presented the petition I did not agree with the religious views of those who sponsored it.



RENT CONTROL


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government does not intend to ask parliament for authority to retain rental and eviction control on commercial accommodation after the expiration of the Continuation of the Transitional Measures Act, March 31, 1948.
The house will recall that on March 1 last, as part of the programme of orderly decontrol, certain items of commercial space, chiefly new commercial buildings, commercial buildings rented for the first time or for a term of three or more years, as well as commercial space which had been sublet, were removed from control.
At the same time a provision was made which would enable the landlord of any com-

Questions
mercial space to obtain a 25 per cent increase of the maximum rental by offering to his tenant a two-year renewal lease on certain terms and conditions. These measures provided a free bargaining opportunity with respect to a substantial proportion of commercial space, and experience has indicated that many landlords and tenants have taken advantage of it. It is now felt that it will be possible to effect complete decontrol of commercial accommodation next spring.
Amendments being made to wartime prices and trade board rental regulations to take effect immediately will remove from control vacant lots used for motor car parking or sales, as well as gas stations owned by oil companies.
In the field of housing accommodation the only change made provides for the removal of rental and eviction control from all new houses, apartments, duplexes and other self-contained buildings completed after January 1, 1947. This is felt to be desirable as an encouragement for the construction of housing accommodation for rent at a time when it is so urgently needed.
Mr. TUST'IN: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question on the statement he ha^ just made? Is there to be no relief until next-spring for returned veterans to secure their own properties?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said a little while ago, the whole question of any possible relaxation of rental control with respect to necessitous cases has been under consideration for some time and is still under consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to what the result may be.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
p.E.I. CAB FERRY-CREW OF S.S. "ABEGWEIT"
['1 and 2. No credits have been authorized to foreign countries since January 31, 1947. However, the total amounts advanced and encumbered to June 18, 1947, of credits authorized prior to January 31, 1947, are as follows:\nAuthorized\nUnited Kingdom\t $1,250,000,000\nBelgium\t 100,000,000\nChina\t 60,000,000\nCzechoslovakia\t 19,000,000\nFrance\t 242,500,000\nNetherlands\t 125,000,000\nNetherlands Indies\t 15,000,000\nNorway\t 30,000,000\nUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics...\t3,000,000\n\nAdvanced $690,000,000 00 56,000,000 00 23,298,315 61 5,224,766 34 169,300,000 00 87,139,461 56 6,700,000 00 18,856,000 00 2,866,098 69\nEncumbered', 'Orders jor Returns']
Mr. CHEVRIER:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:-
1.	Approximately 80, assuming three shifts operated.
2.	(a) Two captains; (b) 78 of other ranks; working in shifts.
3.	Yes.
4.	Two masters, one first officer, one second officer, two third officers, one junior second engineer, one third engineer, three fourth engineers, one electrical engineer and one chief steward.
5.	Six.
6.	No, but will be stand-by ship and manned without delay when required.
7.	Deck officers, engineering officers and chief stew'ard now being trained. Chief engineer and chief electrician have been on ship since construction started.
8.	Until ship goes into service.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:-
9.	None, by law. However, under contract No. 35497 between the Department of Transport and Marine Industries Limited, one guarantee engineer is to be appointed by the contractor to serve on board. In addition under an agreement between Dominion Engineering Works Limited and Canadian General Electric Company Limited a guarantee engineer, with respect to electrical installation, is also to be appointed.
10.	Not longer than twelve months from date of delivery.
11.	None.



Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	Has the war assets corporation sold any property, real or person, to Robert Cauchon, mayor of the city of Salaberry de Valleyfield, or city of Valleyfield?
2.	If so (a) what property; (b) what quantity of each kind, in each year; (c) what was the selling price in each case; (d) when and where did each delivery take place; (e) when was such property paid for?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The wharf in the parish of St. Timo-thee, county of Beauharnois with the land leading to the wharf was sold to Mr. Robert
Questions

Cauchon on or about October 24, 1946, but later the federal government department reporting the wharf and land leading thereto as surplus was not able to provide title deeds to the land. On this becoming apparent the sale of land only was cancelled on April 22, 1947, with no change in sales price.
(b)	Only as in (a), in 1946.
(c)	$150.
(d)	Delivery was made on or about October 24, 1946.
(e)	The property was paid for on October 21, 1946.


ST. TIMOTHEE, QUE., WHARF
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	Has the wharf in the parish of St. Timothee, county of Beauharnois, together with the land leading to such wharf, 'been sold?
2.	If so (a) to whom; (b) at what price; (c) when was the payment made?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	The wharf in the parish of St. Timothee, county of Beauharnoig, with the land leading to the wharf was sold on or about October 24, 1946, but later the federal government department reporting the wharf and land leading thereto as surplus was not able to provide title deeds to the land. On this becoming apparent, the sale of t'he land only was cancelled on April 22, 1947, with no change in sales price.
2.	(a) To Mr. Robert Cauchon.
(b)	S150.
(c)	October 21, 1946.


CANBERRA CONFERENCE OF COMMONWEALTH NATIONS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has Canada been invited to an empire conference at Australia regarding the Pacific question and the proposed peace treaty with Japan?
2.	When is it to be held and where?
3.	Has the government received a copy of the proposals of last February from General Jlac-Arthur and Dr. Evatt, or from the countries they represent, on this matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	In replying to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) on June 16, page 4176, I informed the house that there is under consideration a proposal for a conference of representatives of the commonwealth nations at Canberra toward the end of August to discuss the Japanese peace settlement. I added that if that is arranged I have no doubt that Canada will be represented at the conference.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	So far as I am aware the only proposal with regard to the Japanese peace settlement made by General MacArthur in February last, was in an informal interview with a party of American editors and publishers reported in the press on March 1. General MacArthur made another and more widely publicized statement on this subject in a brief and informal talk at the Tokyo Correspondents club on March 17. The government has received copies of various press reports on these statements. The government has also received a copy of the speech on external affairs delivered in the Australian House of Representatives on February 26 last, by Dr. H. V. Evatt, in which, among other matters discussed, he made a strong case for an early peace settlement in the Pacific.


LOANS OR CREDITS TO OTHER COUNTRIES FOR PURCHASE OF CANADIAN GOODS
Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	To what countries has Canada made loans or made credits available for the purchase of Canadian goods and produce since January 34, 1947?
2.	What are the amounts of such loans or
credits?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. No credits have been authorized to foreign countries since January 31, 1947. However, the total amounts advanced and encumbered to June 18, 1947, of credits authorized prior to January 31, 1947, are as follows:
Authorized
United Kingdom	 $1,250,000,000
Belgium	 100,000,000
China	 60,000,000
Czechoslovakia	 19,000,000
France	 242,500,000
Netherlands	 125,000,000
Netherlands Indies	 15,000,000
Norway	 30,000,000
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...	3,000,000

Advanced $690,000,000 00 56,000,000 00 23,298,315 61 5,224,766 34 169,300,000 00 87,139,461 56 6,700,000 00 18,856,000 00 2,866,098 69
Encumbered

Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
architect's BRANCH
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many employees, permanent and temporary, are there or have there been in the chief architect's branch of the Department of Public Works in each of the years 1943 to 1947 inclusive ?
2.	What are the names, rank and length of service of each of them?
3.	How many of said employees have received promotions during the last four years and what increases in salary has each received in consequence thereof?
4.	Have any of said employees received a war work supplement? If so, who. and how much was paid to each in each of the years 1943 to 1947 inclusive?


WARTIME HOUSING-EAST YORK TOWNSHIP
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many houses were constructed _ in East York township, county of York, by Wartime Housing, and what is the total cost of each home constructed?
2.	Were any sub-contracts given out? If so, what sub-contracts and to whom?
3.	Who was the general contractor, and what was the contract?
4.	What is the present proposed or actual Tental for each 'home?
5.	What was the cost per unit of project overhead, and how was the same made up?
6.	Who were the inspectors in the area; what was their term of employment and what were their salaries?
7.	What qualifications did the inspectors have?
8.	Have any complaints been received about the construction or state of repair of any of the homes? If so, what complaints were received?
9.	On whose advice was the location for the
homes chosen?	[DOT]
10.	Who installed the various services such as street, sidewalk, water, sewer, electricity, or landscaping, and what was the cost of each?
11.	What was paid for the land per lot, whether by way of purchase or Tental?
12.	Did any municipality contribute to any part of the project and what was the cost of such contribution?
13.	What provision was made for schools in the area, or for the education of any children living in the area?
14.	W'hat are the details of any tax arrangements made with the municipality?
15.	What are the details of the management provided for the project and the costs of same?


NAVAL SERVICE-DESTROYERS
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many destroyers have been built or are being built in Canada today?
2.	By whom were they built or are being built and how many destroyers in each yard?
3.	Did the government contribute to the costs of these ship yards?
4.	If so, how much did they contribute to each yard?
5.	Have any destroyers been completed?
6.	What is the estimated cost of each destroyer ?
7.	Does this include the cost of their equipment?
8.	If not, what is the estimated cost of further equipment for each boat?
9.	What is the total expenditure to date on each boat?


BOOKS-DUTIES AND SALES TAX
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KNOWLES;
1.	Is there any duty on books brought into
Canada?	,
2.	If so, what is the rate and on what basis is said rate applied?
3.	Is there any sales tax on books (a) produced in Canada; (b) imported?
4.	In the ease of imported books, is the sales tax applied to the duty as well as to the value of the book?
5.	Are there any distinctions as between different kinds of books for customs purposes? If so, what are such distinctions?
6.	Is consideration being given to the removal of customs duties from books (a) educational; (b) scientific; (c) religious; (d) others?

Mr. CHURCH:: What action has the government taken with regard to adequate shore protection after the serious damage done at Toronto island to the federal government's breakwaters and groynes from high water levels and the floods in cottages at Ward's and Centre island?


INSURANCE COMPANIES AND CHARTERED BANKS- INVESTMENTS IN FOREIGN COMMON STOCKS
Thomas Langton Church: What were the losses incurred by each of the Canadian insurance companies and chartered banks in investments in foreign common stocks between the two great wars?


WHEAT BOARD
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Last Monday, in
reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) regarding the personnel of the Canadian wheat board, I suggested that pending further inquiry the question might be made an order for return. I have since looked into the matter and I find that it would not be appropriate to furnish all the information asked for. I had intended speaking to the hon. member direct but I have been unable to do so as yet. I therefore ask the house to allow me to table a partial answer to the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


ALLOCATION AGREEMENT-INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF LARGER QUANTITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May
I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has any comment to make on the statement that there may be a larger quantity of sugar for distribution under the allocation arrangement of the nations?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no
comment to make. I promised the house about a week ago that I would make a statement shortly with respect to sugar, in the sense that I was asked whether we would change our rationing policy in view of what was contemplated in the United States. I expect to make that statement within the next week. Apart from that I have nothing to add today.


CIVIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should1 like to ask a question of
the Secretary of State. In view of the equal rights of all Canadians as citizens, regardless of creed or colour, why is the word "colour" used as question 17 in the civil service application form?


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: The hon. member spoke to me
about this question, and I have made inquiries through the chairman of the civil service commission. There is of course no doubt whatever as to the eligibility of all Canadian citizens, regardless of colour, race or creed, for appointment to the civil service. I understand from the chairman of the commission that the question on the application form as to colour is to enable the commissioners, when an application is received from a member of the negro race, to place the applicant in a position which will be congenial.


HALIFAX DOCKYARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	,
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): In view of the statement made by the Minister of Reconstruction on Monday. June 16, and reported in Hansard, page 4208, in regard to H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax, employment, I

wish to ask the minister the following question :	When referring to men being laid off
in the Halifax dockyard, did he mean the men laid off prior to March 31, or is a further reduction in civilian employees proposed?
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: In my remarks in the house I referred to the lay-off that was discussed in the house last March. I did not in any way intend to imply that at present a lay-off is contemplated. I have made inquiries of my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and I learn from him that no general lay-off is anticipated, either at present or in the near future.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of Bill No. 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Those of us who listened yesterday to the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, had we been able to dismiss all other thoughts from our minds, had we been able to dismiss from our minds all recollection of what had gone before in the way of government propaganda, must have thought that the millennium had come as we heard the minister dilate upon the alleged virtues and excellences of the bill he was presenting. But there must have been a rude shock-
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would ask hon. members to moderate their voices. I cannot hear the hon. member who is speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. FLEMING:: It was with a dull thud, Mr. Speaker, that we turned back to the bill itself to see how far this puny measure fell short of the glowing description of it given by the minister. Again we are driven back to meditate upon the contrast between the fine words used by government ministers and the sorry performance that we see in actual fact, the usual contrast between the glowing praise they heap upon their measures and the disappointing reality of those measures themselves.
In the present measure, Mr. Speaker, we have a bill which will not only disappoint this house, if the house is free in all quarters to express its true opinion, but will bring profound disillusionment to many people in this country who had been ted to expect some-

Old Age Pensions
thing really substantial in the way of justice for our aged pensioners. They had been led to expect great things by the government's own propaganda.
There has been a great build-up for this measure. It has been going on for a long time, but it has been proceeding at an accelerated pace since the speech from the throne. Nearly five months have passed since we listened to that speech on January 30 of this year, when the government first announced this measure to bring relief in the form of increases to old age pensioners, and here, after waiting for five months, we are offered this puny bill, a meagre installment on account of the lavish promises of the government.
What has been done in the light of this bill is to perpetrate a cruelty upon old age pensioners in this country who were led to expect from it a reasonable measure of help. I wish to return to a theme I touched upon briefly yesterday, because in this bill, and in the reasons given by the minister in his speech yesterday for seeking the support of the house for the measure, we see the government turning its back upon a position which has been recognized by parliament and by succeeding governments since 1931, namely, that the primary responsibility with respect to old age pensions and the provision of those pensions rests upon the federal authority and not on the provinces.
I refer to the fact that that principle has been embodied in our statute law since Mr. Bennett put it there in 1931; seventy-five per cent of the pension has been paid at the expense of the federal treasury. But in what the minister had to say yesterdajq a clear attempt was betrayed^-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but it is impossible to hear him. There is too much noise in the chamber, and it is disagreeable not only to the member who is trying to make himself heard but to others who are listening and trying to hear what he has to say. I would, ask hon. members to be good enough to refrain from conversation. .


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the speech of the minister revealed an apparent determination on the part of the government to cast responsibility on the provinces with respect to meeting the needs of our aged people. What is the situation under this bill? Yesterday wre heard, from both the minister and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), words of praise heaped upon the provinces which have been going farther than others in supplementing the inadequate old age pension to which the dominion has been
contributing. Why? These are the provinces which were pictured by the minister and the hon. member for Spadina as setting an example which ought to be followed by the other provinces. In other words, the provinces are now to be asked to assume the ultimate responsibility with respect to old age pensioners. It is implicit in what was said yesterday in this house by the minister and the hon. member for Spadina, that the pension-even with the slight increase offered in this bill to the pension to which the dominion will contribute seventy-five per cent-is inadequate and therefore the provinces must make good any inadequacy. In holding forth that contention I say that this government is turning its back upon a principle which succeeding governments have acknowledged and which parliament has recognized ever since 1931.
Not only that, but this government is turning its back on and making a complete retreat from the proposals which it made to the dominion-provincial conference in 1945. The leading feature of those proposals with reference to the provision for the needs of the aged that the dominion should assume full responsibility for providing a pension of $30 a month without a means test to every person seventy years of age and over in Canada. Where is that principle today? This government has turned tail, has cast aside that principle and has made a complete retreat from it. It is absolutely idle for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to stand in his place, as he did yesterday, and have the temerity to say to this house that the government is keeping within the framework of its proposals of 1945. The fact is that this government has cast that principle and these proposals overboard and has beat a retreat from them.


Mr. MARTIN:: Not at all, and the hon. member knows it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister cannot
expect to change the facts simply by having his tongue wagging incessantly in this house and interrupting hon. members.
There is in the bill before us another illustration of this retreat. Is it realized by the house that by inviting the provinces, as the dominion still does in this bill, to supplement an inadequate old age pension contributed to in part by the dominion, the dominion is saying in effect that if the result of the old age pension with the provincial supplement and earnings is to bring the pensioner's income to over $600 a year, the reduction which will be made does not fall on the provincial supple-
Old Age Pensions

ment, does not fall on the earned income, but comes off the dominion pension? Let us take an example of that. Suppose an old age pensioner earns $250 a year at odd jobs. The maximum pension is $360. Let us say the province in which he lives contributes a supplement of $5 a month, or a total of $60 a year. The total income of that pensioner would be $670 over the year. What becomes of the $70? That is taken from him. Is it taken off the provincial supplement? No; it is taken off the pension to which the dominion is contributing; and the more . the provinces contribute by way of supplement in a case such as this where a pensioner earns some additional income, the more they are contributing to a reduction of the dominion pension. That is a fine state of affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask one question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I am told that I have only about ten minutes left.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is an important question. In view of what the hon. gentleman said yesterday, does he know if it is true that the premier of Ontario as a result of the discussions in this house has raised the contribution to the extent that the pension is now $40?


Mr. MERRITT:: This is a speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure if the fact is that the premier of Ontario has announced that it is the intention of the government of that province to increase the supplement offered by the province to eke out the inadequate dominion pension, it is not as a result of anything which the federal government has done by way of providing for the old age pensioners, but is a burden which has had to be assumed by the provincial government as a result of the failure of this government to measure up to the responsibility which it has recognized since 1931, which it recognized again in 1945 and has turned tail on since.
We shall not soon forget, Mr. Speaker, that the dominion government increased by $5 a month, by order in council in 1943, the old age pension which then was only $20 a month, only after they had been driven to it by demands from all parts of the country. The same situation exists today. This meagre advance which they have proposed in the pension has been brought about only as a result of widespread demands throughout the whole country. It is the old story of this government being roused from its. inertia only when it is driven. Apparently it must remain for those who sit on this side of the house, as well as for informed opinion throughout the country, to drive this government as long as it is in office and then
at the first opportunity turn it out and make way for a government which will measure up to its responsibilities.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: You tried it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You tried it several times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It seems that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) is in the debate again. I should like to remind him that the government of his province-and he was boasting yesterday about the record of his province-said that it was increasing the old age pension in that province several months ago as a temporary measure while they were waiting for the dominion government, of which he is a member, to do something adequate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may tell my hon. friend that we led the way as usual.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Knowing the record of this government as we do, the house will be able to add two and two together and make four. Putting the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare of yesterday with the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in this house on March 28, I think it will add up to this, that the provinces which have been induced to come into agreements have been forced to buy a pig in a poke, and this is as much as they may expect to get by way of old age pension. Here is what the Minister of Finance had to say in this house,' as reported at page 1841 of Hansard, when he was asked what was the meaning of the statement which he made in Toronto-[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -when he said-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Paraphrase it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am referring to a speech by the Minister of Finance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member must not quote from a debate of the present session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He said that the dominion government would have to take account, in coming to negotiate with the provinces with reference to social security measures, the increase that the dominion had given in its successive offers to the provinces with respect to tax agreements, and the increase in the last offer was $26,000,000. The Minister of Finance intimated at that time that when the dominion government comes to sit down with the provinces and discuss a comprehensive system of

Old Age Pensions
social security, if it ever does, that $26,000,000 would be taken into account. Now you have the answer in the speech made yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A good speech, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These provinces which had been led by the dominion government proposals of 1945 to expect that the dominion was going to honour those proposals and assume the entire cost of old age pension for persons of seventy years and over without a means test, find that now they may expect to have the load cast upon them and that the ultimate contribution of the dominion is to be seventy-five per cent of the pension of $30, with the continued means test. There, it seems to me, you 'have the complete explanation, putting two and two together. And of course the dominion government, politically astute as it is, is now seeking to cover up the tracks it made in retreating from its proposals. It has cast about for a scapegoat, and is trying to find in the governments of Ontario and Quebec that scapegoat to excuse the dominion government for its failure to honour its own promises made in 1945. It will take a lot more than the kind of guff that was perpetrated upon this house yesterday by hon. members opposite, including the minister, to satisfy any sensible person in this country that the responsibility of the federal government for failure to 'honour its obligations rests upon anyone except the federal government itself.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate my first words are of congratulation to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for the splendid speech he delivered the other day and for his outline of the entire history of old age pensions right from its inception, together with the steps in social legislation which have been taken by the Liberal government of this country right from 1927 to the present date. As I sat here yesterday afternoon listening to the discussion I wondered if once again the old people of this country were going to be deluded bj' some of the speeches delivered by the opposition the other day; if once again this important subject was going to be made a football by the opposition, in an attempt to ride into office on the backs of our senior citizens. So today I am warning our senior citizens to take some of the statements made here yesteray afternoon not with a grain of salt but with a quantity of salt, because some of them were simply preposterous.
I am sorry the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) are not here, at the
moment, because I have something to say about their speeches. Referring first to the remarks of the leader of the official opposition, let me say to the hon. gentleman and his followers that some of us are just wondering- though we are glad it has happened-why Colonel Drew has just seen fit to increase the pension in Ontario to $40 a month. They may say it has not been expediency, that it has not been pressure, that it has not been because of this bill. But why has he delayed until this late date in giving the poor people of the province of Ontario that to which they have been entitled for a long time?


Mr. FULTON:: Why did the dominion
government delay until this late date in giving them anything?


Thomas Reid: My hon. friend does not see the point. After a great deal of pressure, and after having a look at this excellent bill, this morning Colonel Drew saw fit to rush in and get on the popular band wagon, so to speak, by giving the people in Ontario what he knows they should have had long ago. When I was a boy there was an old precept, to the effect that he who is faithful in that which is little is faithful also in much. As I heard the speech of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, in which he wilfully endeavoured to chide this government for a reversal of its policy-about which I will have a word to say later-I could not help wrondering about the poor people who left the province of Manitoba during his years as premier, and who told me about the terribly meagre allowance on which the government of which he was head was giving the aged citizen of that province. He was in office then; and so I am asking the people of this country not to judge a man entirely by his words but to judge him by his actions. I repeat: he that is faithful in that which is little is faithful also in much.


Mr. IRVINE:: He was a Liberal then,
was he not?


Thomas Reid: He was a Liberal, so-called.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you?


James Horace King: Order.


Thomas Reid: Oh, they can call names if
they like; it may confuse but it will not help the aged people of this country one iota. Let them go to it. Let the country realize that they are more interested in calling names and trying to howl me down than in hearing a discussion of this important question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are calling the leader of the opposition names.
Old Age Pensions

Mr.-REID:	To continue with what the
leader of the official opposition stated yesterday, in my opinion the half truths that were stated by him and by the speaker who followed today are more dangerous than whole truths. They may be termed by them political truths, but in truths' name it is not true, because here is the statement made by the minister on behalf of the government, at page 4283 of Hansard for yesterday:	.
It is important at this stage to recall the proposals the federal government made in August, 1945, to the provinces with respect to a programme covering national health, public investment and social security. These proposals include a suggested scheme for a national old age pensions and old age assistance programme of a fundamental character.
Then on another occasion he said:
Pending final consideration of these proposals at_ the appropriate time, when it is possible to join with the provinces in consideration of our joint social security responsibilities, it is not the desire of this government to embark upon any programme which would jeopardize in any way the eventual implementation of these objectives.
In the face of those words how can any man honestly say there is now any reversal of government policy in this bill? It simply is not true; it is not according to the facts. I well remember listening to the great debate from across the other side of the house regarding what we were doing to the provinces when we suggested we should go to London and ask for a change in the British North America Act. Each and every member of this house knows that under the British North America Act the provinces have certain rights and jurisdiction, and, as the minister rightly says, they are extremely jealous of them. Would the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, if he were sitting on this side of the house, deliberately do other than this government has done? Oh, no; the speeches that he would make if he were in office would be far different indeed. So I say to hon. members that they should not be carried away too much by some of the utterances which have come from the opposition so far.
Now I want to say a word or two with regard to the leader of the C.C.F. party. An hon. member reminds me about the promises that were made by Mr. Bennett. I am not going to talk about those promises; I am not going to hold the leader of the Progressive Conservative party to promises made by others years ago. Those promises could be quoted, but I am not going to waste time doing so, because that is all water under the bridge, and I believe there are more important things to speak about. To come to the statements made by the leader of the C.C.F.

party, I agree with some of the things he said. In his opinion the pension should be the same in every province, and I entirely agree. Personally I think it should be national in scope. But the hon. member did introduce a remark about New Zealand, about the low cost of houses to rent in that country, and so on. Conditions in New Zealand is one subject to which I have given a little study. The other day I made a suggestion which I thought perhaps the hon. member had taken to heart, but evidently he did not. I suggested that the true guide in relation to actual costs in a country is how much labour a man has to expend for a suit of clothes, for his food, and so on. Yesterday something was said about the low rentals being charged in New Zealand. Well, one has only to remind hon. members that New Zealand farmers are getting far lower prices for their butter fat than are the farmers in this country, and have to pay two or three times as much for their machinery as our farmers pay. I have before me the official records, in case anyone doubts my statement. The price of butter in Canada at the present time averages 40 cents per pound. I have in my hand the latest dairy records of the dairy association of New Zealand, which is an official publication, and there the average price is around 31-48 cents per pound.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: What is the cost of producing it?


Thomas Reid: The cost of producing it? If they were paying in butterfat for some of the things they have to buy they would just have to pay about one and one-half times more in New Zealand than the Canadian farmer would have to pay. I will just give those figures.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is an entirely different climate.


Thomas Reid: I would like to have the whole afternoon to talk with the hon. member about New Zealand and Canada. I say that because I am proud of what this country is doing; I am not one who dangles something before our people, either, about what is being done in Russia or in any other country. I say there is no better country than Canada, and in no other are they in as good a position as we are in this country.
In that connection let me give just one more figure-and perhaps this will hold for a time the hon. member who interrupted. In 1943, if a farmer in New Zealand were buying a tractor plough of the same make and variety used in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, he would have had to put up 570 bushels of

Old Age Pensions
wheat, whereas in Canada the farmer in Manitoba or Saskatchewan would have been called upon to put up only 180 to 200 bushels, for the same kind of machine. That is quite a difference. We could spend the whole afternoon on New Zealand.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Has the hon. member the figure for 1947?


Thomas Reid: No, but I will tell you what I will do. You can ask about New Zealand in any year you like, and I believe I can show you that this country is much better off.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Are you proud of the Canadian old age' pension plan?


Thomas Reid: So far as it goes yes; and I will add that this process of making comparisons with other countries is not helping our aged people at all. Canada has treated its aged, destitute and other needy people better than any other country or government in the world. I realize that it does little good to make comparisons because we are not particularly interested in what other countries are doing. We are interested or should be more in what we are doing for our own people.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why not talk about it, then?


Thomas Reid: Well don't interrupt so much. I will take you on with respect to New Zealand and a comparison with the country any time. I am proud of Canada and conditions generally here.
Then mention of Great Britain was made by the leader of the C.C.F. There again the same thing enters into the picture. I have before me the last statement of wages paid to the people in London. This is an official record right from Britain. I shall not take up a great deal of time to deal with it, other than to say that the highest wages paid to metal engineers in the shipbuilding trade works out at around S100 to $110 per month. Compare that with the wages paid in this country to our mechanics-and when doing so let us not overlook the fact that in England they work 47-4 hours a week compared to an average of only 44 hours.
I now pass on to something else. We are all I trust in favour of lowering the age limit somewhat, and increasing the pension further. But certain facts must be faced. None of us is entirely content with what the government has brought down, but we realize nevertheless that it will be of great assistance to our aged people. At this point I am going to urge upon
the minister something which I am surprised to say has not thus far been mentioned in the debate. I suggest that when seven provinces of the dominion have come to a financial agreement with the federal government, steps should be taken then by the government to implement complete social security. I ask that, and I feel sure that if that step were taken the other two provinces would not be long before they joined.
Something should be said about the means test. Anyone who has spoken to our senior citizens realizes that the means test is one of the things which should be certainly done away with. I realize it is of no use to tell our aged citizens that in all countries in which we find a system such as we have in Canada, the means test prevails. There is no country-and this includes Great Britain, Australia and 'New Zealand, and all other countries which have social security measures-which does not have the means test. Personally I am in favour of doing away with it, because I believe that the sooner we get to complete social security for all our people, the better it will be for all.
I believe the heaviest burden falls on the women of this land. I am sure every hon. member has met women of fifty, sixty or sixty-five years who are ill or whose husbands have passed on and left them in straitened circumstances. There is no hon. member here who has not met persons who have not dissipated their earnings, or what little means they had, but who in after years have found themselves dependent upon their families or on charity. In many instances there are no families upon whom they can depend, and so must depend upon some organization to help or tide them over to the end. I am sure every hon. member could say he has met with many cases such as I have described. Therefore I say no one person, or no one member of any party, should claim that his party is the sole champion of the unfortunate and the aged.
I look forward in the near future to a far better deal for our aged citizens. For a moment of two I shall place before hon. members a few important figures. According to the latest figures given by the income tax branch, out of a total of 4,101,980 workers receiving incomes, 3,449,990 earn $2,000 or less per year. In other words, if one goes further into these figures he finds that only fourteen per cent of the people are earning between $2,000 and $5,000. Then, those who talk about soaking the rich must bear in mind that while perhaps there are a few well-off people in this country, the number is not as great as some would have us believe. There
Old Age Pensions

are about 47,000 with salaries ranging between S5.000 and $10,000 a year; and 14.307 with salaries between $10,000 and $25,000. Those with more than $25,000 number only 2,750.
I am not particularly interested however at this time in the higher income brackets, because the income tax branch takes care of them-it takes care of them fairly well indeed. However I am more interested in those in the low income groups. We find that in 1943 there were 524,696 earning less than $1,000. To me those are startling figures. I cannot visualize a young man marrying and raising a family under those circumstances, who could find himself with anything at all left to take care of his old age.
I say that when one realizes these facts he cannot help rising in his place in the house to champion the cause of the less fortunate who have never had enough in this life to save for their later years. I should like at this point to read one paragraph from a letter-and I believe it should be read, because to my mind it is important. First of all may I say the giving of pensions as a means of social security is a good thing particularly because it lengthens the lives of those who are up in years. The letter I have before me is from Mr. Creighton, who is in charge of the administration of old age pensions in British Columbia. He says:
On more than one occasion observant officials of old age pensioners' organizations have remarked that the lives of many of their members have definitely been lengthened by the receipt of the pension. They assert with evident conviction that this is due to the added sense of security which even this modest income gives them. These expressions of opinion, and the awareness of the rapid lengthening of the lifespan of people generally, interested us in doing some research work to find out how well British Columbia pensioners really are doing relatively in the race for longevity.
He proceeds to point out that a survey was made, and it was found that in 1928, the year the pension was first paid in British Columbia, there were 210 male pensioners who died at an age of about seventy-seven years. In 1944 the figures show that of 810 male pensioners who died, the average age was something more than seventy-nine years. They come to the conclusion from these figures that the pension has had the effect of adding about two years to the lifespan of these aged citizens.
One could go on setting out the benefits of social security measures, and especially old age pensions to our senior citizens. Another striking example of what social security can do is found when one looks at the life span
[Mr. Reid.)
of members in the other place. I have seen them go in there sick and half bent over, so much so that you would think they would not last long, and the week after theil appointment you would hardly recognize them; the way they would revive was just wonderful. It seems to lengthen their span of life. If that can be done for those who in most instances are fairly well off, just what will it do for the under-privileged1?
I am sorry in a way that the leader of the Progressive Conservative party made a comparison between raising the members' indemnity and old age pensions. However, I noticed that he did not get up and denounce the increase when it was brought in, nor did he say that he would not take it. Nor did I hear him say one word about the $2,000 being tax exempt. I am willing to go just as far as he, and if he w'ants to have it taxed I will support him. I believe it should be taxed. But he never said a word. Now he gets up and makes a comparison which I think is not exactly fair.
As to increasing pensions the question may be asked: Can we afford it? Of course we can afford it. In Switzerland they have a wonderful philosophy. In that country they sacrifice something in peace time rather than wait until a war comes. This country of ours made great sacrifices during the war and did its full share. Perhaps it did not do as much as Great Britain and other countries, nevertheless our people rose to the occasion during the war. If we had the philosophy of Switzerland and were willing to do a little more in peace time, I believe our nation would be the better for it.
Let us look also at our bank balances. I am not saying that bank balances represent our true wealth, because after all, real wealth consists of labour and material things. In 1939 there were 4,846,000 depositors with $2,530,200,000 standing to their credit. In 1947, in spite of all the cry against this government that we had gone to the demnition bow-wows, some 6,902,000 depositors had to their credit $5,803,445,396, more than double the amount of 1939. When one considers those figures one cannot but come to the conclusion that this country can afford more for our aged. We have afforded it for our children; why not afford it for our aged people?
In British Columbia the unemployment insurance people made a survey of those seeking employment, and they found that life is getting more difficult for people in the forty-five years and over age group; it is harder for them to get employment. Perhaps we are losing sight of the principle that the life of every individual who reaches a certain age

Old Age Pensions
should be used, not just spent. We are not doing our duty fully by providing old age pensions alone. I believe we are drifting to the time where the aged people may become the forgotten men and women. We will have to take note of the conditions under which they live, and of course provide an adequate amount upon which they can live.
Because of superannuation and annuity schemes many business concerns today are reluctant to engage people who are forty-five years of age or over. In the government service, where superannuation applies to all permanent employees, age may be a determining factor in employment. There is a place in life for people of all ages, provided they are competent. I have just been reading a booklet put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare which is under the jurisdiction of the minister in charge of this bill, from which I should like to quote as follows:
Fitting the older worker into gainful employment is becoming more urgent every year as the age composition of our population changes. In .1971, it is estimated that more than five million Canadians will be over 45 years of age. At that time, 36 per cent of the population will be in this age group as compared to 26 per cent today.
I think we could very well take stock of what has happened in Great Britain. In that country it has been estimated that only some eighteen per cent of the workers are carrying the entire nation-a staggering figure. I am warning the people of this country not to let us go so far in that direction that our younger people will be carrying the entire nation. We must take steps to see that useful employment is provided for all who are able to work. The very fact that superannuation and annuity schemes are becoming so popular is evidence that the people of this country are social security minded. I am just afraid that we may be drifting in the same way as Great Britain has drifted. Some evidence was given before the immigration committee, and if hon. members wish to look this up they will find it on page 207 of the proceedings of that committee of Wednesday, May 14. A most interesting table was given by Mr. Forsey of the Canadian Congress of Labour, I believe, which shows that in 1921, 2-8 per cent of our population were seventy years of age and over and that by 1941 this percentage had increased to four per cent. I merely mention these things to bring home to our people that something more than merely providing pensions will have to be done. We shall have to take stock also of a class of our citizens who are below sixty or sixty-five years of age and who are unable to find employment
because of the age limit restrictions of superannuation schemes which have been put into effect by dominion and provincial governments and many industrial employers.
I see my time is going on, but before resuming my seat I want to say that in my opinion we should have or aim at an old age pension of not less than S50 per month and $75 per month retirement allowance under a social security scheme. No one in the house has ever quoted figures to show whether $40, $50 or $60 is enough. There are some in receipt of pensions who may be able to get by nicely, but there are many of our citizens who have rent to pay, who have food and clothing to buy who certainly cannot get by in our towns and cities on less than $50 a month or more.
I have no apologies to make for getting up in my place and advocating increased pensions for senior citizens, which should be the same in every province. The rate of $50 a month is not too much and that should be our aim, with at least $75 a month under a social security scheme for those who are deprived of employment, with the means test removed and with a lowering of the present age limit.


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when we strip the verbiage to which we were treated yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) from this debate, together with all the argument and crossfire we have had since, the simple fact is that this House of Commons now has before it a proposal that $30 per month be made the basic old age pension for Canadian citizens. That implies that we in this house, intelligent, responsible representatives of the people, are to be asked to approve the suggestion that old people can live on $30 a month. Mr. Speaker, it simply cannot be done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one ever suggested that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare make that interjection. In other words he knows himself that it cannot be done, as does every hon. member. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that after you have used such words as the minister used yesterday, when in one place he said "ultimately" and in another place he talked about long range plans, about moving stage by stage and not upsetting the balance of the social security plans, about doing things within an over-all framework, and so on-after you have heard all these words, after you have listened to the pounding of desks, such as we heard during the remarks of the last speaker,
Old Age Pensions

the plain fact still is that we have before ns a proposal for an old age pension which is disappointing and utterly inadequate to enable our elder citizens to live in comfort, indeed to live at all.
Last year the present minister of national health and welfare was Secretary of State. In that capacity he had the honour and the privilege of piloting through this house an historic piece of legislation which makes it possible for us to be known as Canadian citizens. It seems to me that he should be hanging his head in shame to have to bring into the house this 3'ear a proposal that Canadian citizens, when they reach the age of seventy, be asked to live on $30 a month. It is an insult to citizenship; it is an insult and an affront to the members of parliament to bring such an inadequate measure before us. The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows, as well as all the rest of us in the house do, that this amount is inadequate^ and I am sure that he knows from experiences of his own how distressing poverty is in the lives of old people. I am certain that in the cabinet he must have fought for something better than this. It seems to me that he should not be willing to continue in a government which asks him to stand by a measure so inadequate.
During the past number of months we have had a great deal of publicity leading up to this measure. We had the promise in the speech from the throne on January 30 that the Old Age Pensions Act was to be amended, and then we had a definite promise from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on February 4. On that occasion he was not able to tell us just when this measure would be before us, but he did say that when it came down it would include all that we had then, on February 4, and something more. Well, I suppose there are those who will argue that S30 is more than $25; but as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the cost of living today as compared with what it was a few months ago, $30 today is not worth as much to old people as $25 was on February 4. I submit that in practice that promise has been broken. Our old people are not to get more than they had on February 4. In terms of food, clothing and shelter, they are to get less than they had then. It seems to me, therefore, that this was no occasion for the boastful kind of speech we had from the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday; it was an occasion on which he should have come into this house in sackcloth and ashes.
The bill which is before us and the speech which was made yesterday by the minister

make two obvious admissions. Those two admissions are made in two ways. First of all there is the admission that $30 a month is not enough. That admission is made by the fact that the ceiling on the total income of old age pensioners is raised by this bill to $50 for a pensioner living by himself and to $90 for a married couple. I submit that these figures, $50 for a single pensioner and $90 for a couple, should be made by this government not a ceiling but a floor. The government should be coming before this house with a proposal to guarantee that our Canadian citizens, given the right last year to call themselves such, when they reach the age of not seventy but at least sixty-five should be guaranteed that for the rest of their days they will not fall below the standard of living which could be obtained at these figures.
The admission that $30 a month is not enough is also made in the appeal that the Minister of National Health and Welfare made yesterday to the various provinces. He appealed to the provinces that already have certain supplements in effect to continue these supplements; he appealed to other provinces to add to the $30, a frank admission that this government is not discharging its responsibility to our elder citizens, because he asked that the provincial governments take on part of that responsibility.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made no such appeal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest to the minister, who seems to be enjoying putting the remaining part of his speech in the speeches of other lion, members, that he go back and read his speech and see what he actually said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made no such appeal, and the hon. member knows it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other admission that is given in the minister's remarks of yesterday is this, and I suggest that it accounts for the bombastic way in which he presented this measure to the house. The admission is that so far as the old people of the nation are concerned, at least those in the four western provinces, this measure does not provide any increase at all unless the provinces continue to pay their supplements. This amending bill sets a basic pension of $30 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it does not do any such thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact in one sense the minister is correct. It does not even guarantee that there will be a pension of $30 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have not read the bill.

Old Age Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have read the bill carefully.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall give you a lesson later in the evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill, Mr. Speaker, does not-in legal language-provide any basic pension; it does say that the federal government will pay seventy-five per cent of $30 a month, or of what the province pays, whichever is the lesser. In other words a province can pay $20 or even $10 a month under this new act and it would be in keeping with the language of the bill itself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read the bill again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall be reading it during the committee stage and I hope to goodness that we can get some changes made in it. But, as a matter of fact, as I was just saying, the minister knows that unless in the case of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, they continue to pay their supplement there is no increase at all as a result of this bill, because in these provinces S30 is already being paid as the maximum pension.
I may say also, Mr. Speaker, that the minister knows that there will not be any increase in the eastern provinces, in Quebec and the maritimes, if you like, unless they agree to the increases.
Mr, MARTIN: That again is not true.


William Irvine: What is true?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am beginning to doubt the minister's understanding of the bill that he has brought before us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot give the hon. gentleman understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill clearly says that the federal government will pay seventy-five per cent of $30 a month, or of what the province pays, whichever is the lesser. That means for example, that Quebec or New Brunswick can continue, by agreement with this government, to pay $25 a month and draw seventy-five per cent of that amount. There is no guarantee that $30 will get to the pensioners in these provinces through the passing of this bill. It is no wonder that the minister had to indulge in so much boasting yesterday; it is no wonder he has had to interrupt every speaker who has spoken since during the course of this debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because you are wrong, that is why.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Here is one member who is not wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with the relations that the bill proposes to be made with the provinces, I may say that this strikes me as one of the worst features of the legislation that is now before us. I find it difficult to reconcile this feature of the legislation with the loud preaching about Canadian unity that we get from the benches opposite. For several years now the provinces have been telling their old people who have appealed to them for higher pensions that the responsibility rested with the federal government, and in that contention I say the provinces are right. But because the federal government has been so slow in coming through with any kind of increase, provincial governments of all political stripes have had sufficient moral responsibility to their people to realize that they had to do something for them pending action by this government. And so in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia- Conservative, Liberal, C.C.F., Social Credit, and coalition-we have had an attempt by provincial governments to fill in the gap and give their people something pending the time when this government may act. Each time these governments have made it clear to their people that these were temporary grants that they were making until such time as responsibility was really recognized by the federal government.
At long last we got this year, in the speech from the throne, the promise that the Old Age Pensions Act would be amended, and our elder citizens across the country, particularly in the western part of Canada, which I know best, took heart. They felt that at last the responsibility for them, which rightly belongs here at Ottawa, was being recognized.
Now what happens? The government comes down with a proposal for a basic pension of $30 a month, and the minister stands in the house and admits that $30 is not enough to live on-he admitted it today again by an interjection in the course of my speech a few moments ago-but appeals to the provinces to make additions to the pension to bring it to $31.75 or $33.75, or $40 or $50 or whatever it really ought to be. This is not only an admission that $30 is hopelessly inadequate. It is a course that helps to bring about disunity in the country. The only fair and sensible basis for dealing with this matter in a country like Canada is to recognize the complete federal responsibility for old age pensions. I shall have a little more to say about that in a moment, but before I do I
Old Age Pensions

want to express my deep regret and bitter disappointment that the government not only failed to raise the amount to something adequate, but failed to meet some of the other pressing demands in connection with our elder citizens.
The failure to abolish the means test is utterly reprehensible on the part of this government. The failure to bring down the age has no logical justification at all; and, as other members have been rightly pointing out during the course of the debate, the failure to recognize the need for other services simply throws out of court completely all claims which the minister and all his colleagues make to any interest in social security and human welfare. It is just so much talk. The least they could have done would have been to bring in some sort of plan for medical services for our old people. As a matter of fact, that is one of the main features that were included in the petition which the leader of this group laid on the table of the house some weeks ago, signed by over a quarter of a million citizens, for it included a request for free medical, hospital and dental care.
I have done a little figuring in connection with this matter on the basis of what the experience of the Saskatchewan government has been in providing these services to the old age pensioners in that province. My reason for mentioning this is not to get into a political debate but to show what it would cost to meet this request, and how niggardly the government is in failing to come through with it.
Since the government of Saskatchewan instituted free medical, dental, optical and hospital care for all old age pensioners in that province, they have found that it costs an average per pensioner of $33.70 a year. I would like to break that figure down.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member will realize that if I gave him latitude to continue his remarks in that direction I Should be obliged to do the same for other hon. members. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill which is before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I am seeking to do, Mr. Speaker, and if you detect me wandering from the proposal to amend the Old Age Pensions Act I shall be glad to be called to order. You will notice that I am not going to New Zealand, nor am I talking about dairy butter and such things.
And hon. MEMBER: Who did?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The last speaker went all over the map.


James Horace King: I think the hon. member will agree that what he was saying to the house when I called him to order was not relevant. He vsras discussing the social policy of the province of Saskatchewan, whereas we have before us a bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What we have before us is a bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, which is supposed to concern itself with the welfare of Canada's old people. I find, according to the census of 1941, that in that year the total number of Canadians sixty-five years of age and over was 767,815 and the total number of Canadians in 1941, seventy years of age and over, was 450,091. I am taking this figure of seventy years and over, rather than sixty-five, because it is the figure that the government still has in the bill. I am suggesting that this bill should have included provision for completely free medical care at least for the 450,091 Canadians who are seventy years and over. I know, although I have not the exact figures before me, that the number in that bracket has increased since 1941. I would suggest a round figure of 500,000, which I am sure is liberal. On the basis of the experience in Saskatchewan, where completely free medical services have been provided at a cost of $33.70 per old age pensioner, this means that it would cost only $16,850,000 to provide completely free medical, hospital, optical and dental care for all Canadians seventy years and over.
What the hon. member who preceded me has said about t'he longevity that comes from security applies particularly to the value of having medical care. I suggest that what it would mean to all our Canadians who are seventy years of age and over to have the guarantee of all the medical and hospital care they need simply cannot be measured by such a small sum as $16,850,000. Even if the government sticks by the bill the way it is and refuses to accept some of the amendments we should like to see made to it, I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his capacity as head of the department, will give consideration, even after this bill is passed, to implementing such a programme of free medical services for our elder Canadian citizens. Even if that benefit were given to all those sixty-five years of age and over, on the basis of the figure of 767,815 which I have given, it would still cost only $25,000,000 a year.
I now come back to the question of federal responsibility for old age pensions. I look upon old age pensions not as a form of charity and not as a social service. It is largely because it has been viewed in that light that

Old Age Pensions
people have argued about provincial responsibility. It is rather a matter of security; it is a matter of the rights of citizenship in a country the economic forces of which are controlled largely by the federal government. This has been coming into the thinking of our Canadian people and our leaders across the years. In the election of 1930, Mr. Bennett, then leader of the Conservative party, promised the electors that if he were returned to power he would raise the federal contribution to old age pensions from the fifty per cent, at which amount it was then, to one hundred per cent. In 1931 the government of the day brought before this house a measure to implement partly-and I suppose that is pretty good for an old party-the promise which had been made in the election of the year before. The amount was brought up to seventy-five per cent, but Mr. Bennett and his party are on record as believing that the federal government should pay one hundred per cent. In the course of that debate in 1931 the present Prime Minister called upon Mr. Bennett to implement his promise. I want to read one or two quotations from what the present Prime Minister said on July 27, 1931. First of all I quote from page 4197 of Hansard, and this is the present Prime Minister speaking:
So my right hon. friend need not regard any agreements existing at the present time as being either a bar to action or a cause for delay in implementing the pledge he made to the electorate that there would be a national old age pension system on a one hundred per cent basis.
He went on to quote from Hansard some remarks along the same lines made by Mr. Cahan, a former secretary of state, and then said this:
That, I think, is advice that might well be heeded at the moment.
A little later, at page 419S, the present Prime Minister, after proposing a dominion-provincial conference, said this:
Let the dominion, if so agreed, take over in its entirety the administration and control of old age pensions.
The present Prime Minister went on to say, in the second column on the same page:
I am just as strong an advocate of provincial rights as any person can be, but I do believe that the people of Canada sent us here not to represent the provinces but to represent the interests of the dominion.
In 1943 the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) who was then minister of finance and in charge of old age pensions, made a similar declaration in the course of a debate on that subject, as reported at page 5419 of Hansard 83166-279
lor July 24, 1943-this is the present Minister of Justice speaking:
I wish to say that I myself am in favour of old age pensions being within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament.
Then we have had the Rowell-Sirois report, the whole point of which was that in view of Canada's economic structure, if we are to provide for Canadian, unity and minimum social standards, we must do some of these things on a national basis. That too was the meaning, as I take it, of the proposals made by the dominion government to the provinces in 1945. Yet now, after all this development of the realization that old age pensions, as a mark of the security that should go with citizenship, is a responsibility of the federal government, we have the minister coming in yesterday, on June 18, 1947, and proposing that this house approve an inadequate pension, and that, in turn, the provinces be asked to add to that in varying amounts. For example, he suggested that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should pay a pension of $33.75. That would mean this government paying only 66 per cent of the total pension the pensioners would receive there, and the province paying 33 per cent. He also suggested that British Columbia might pay a pension of $38.75. There again, since this government's contribution would be only $22.50, that would be a split as between 58 per cent paid by the federal government and 42 per cent by the provincial government. Instead of moving on to 100 per cent the government is moving back toward the fifty-fifty basis, long since recognized as obsolete and unfair. Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare stood up and boasted of the fact that he has jockeyed the premier of Ontario into adding another $10 to the pension; in other words, that he has jockeyed Ontario into taking on part of this government's responsibility. I am glad that the people of Ontario are getting another $10. but I suggest it is a crime the way in which our old people are simply tossed back and forth from dominion to province and made the victims of a political football game, such as we have been having for months and years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member
think we shall get action in Saskatchewan now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There we are. I hope that is on the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Shall we get action?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a supreme example of the irresponsibility of a man who calls

Old Age Pensions

himself a minister of the crown. He says: Do you think we shall get action in Saskatchewan by not discharging our responsibility here and by throwing it on them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman has used a term which I believe to be unparliamentary. I will not ask him to withdraw it, because I am surprised that he ever used it. But I do ask him to answer my question. What will Saskatchewan now do as a result of this bill?


Mr. CLEAVER:: Will they pay the S40?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that Saskatchewan, along with the other provinces, will still continue to press for recognition of the fact that the responsibility for old age pensions rests with the federal government. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago this government made certain proposals to the provinces, including Saskatchewan, and asked them to make certain commitments in terms of taxation arrangements, in return for which the people of Saskatchewan were to get an old age pension of S30 a month at age seventy without the means test, and old age assistance from sixty-five to sixty-nine on a fifty-fifty basis. Saskatchewan, along with six other provinces, has fulfilled its part of that bargain. They made their agreement with this government, but the people of that province who were supposed to get old age pensions, ol 1 age assistance, public works programme and other things as a result of that agreement, are not getting them. Yet here in this house-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What will Saskatchewan do?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -as part of this disgraceful football game that goes on back and forth between the two old parties-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friends are the biggest politicians in Canada.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member answer the question?
Mr.	KNOWTLES:-we have the hon.
member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) yesterday and today complaining, and condemning the government because they do not implement their proposals, when as a matter of fact it is a prominent figure in their party-and rumours are that he may be more prominent as time goes by-who is helping to block complete agreement with respect to the dominion-provincial proposals of 1945.


Mr. FRASER:: He is not; absolutely not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is his name?


Stanley Howard Knowles: His name is Drew; and he has a friend by the name of Duplessis. On the other hand my friends across the way sit there and forever put the blame on Drew and Duplessis in such a manner as to give some of us in this house the impression that they would be completely nonplussed if Drew' and Duplessis should agree. Then they would be in the position of having to implement their proposals.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Didn't Drew get more money for Saskatchewan and the other provinces? Certainly he did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact of the matter is that if this government really wants to implement their proposals, the long range objectives the minister talks about in this house and in the speeches he makes throughout the country, they are in a position to do so right now; and I contend they are being irresponsible to the people of this country in not going through with the proposals they have made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then you refuse to answer my question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have answered the question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How about Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not a member of the legislature of Saskatchewan or the government of Saskatchewan. I am a member of this parliament. I will give this as an answer to my hon. friend, from an authority I think he will accept; that is, the present Prime Minister who said at page 4198 of Hansard for July 27, 1931, following a quotation from the same page I gave a few minutes ago:
I submit that is, or should be, our first concern in all matters between the provinces and ourselves. The provinces have their own representatives who will feel a corresponding obligation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the answer,
is it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer is that I
leave the representatives of the provinces to discharge their responsibility. My responsibility-and I am not going to be deflected from it by the statements of the minister'- is to press this government to recognize its responsibility to our old people. My hon. friend knows that just as well as I do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite
fair and quite correct; his responsibility is to this house, and so is ours. But will he

Old Age Pensions
not accede to this suggestion, that he might also direct his remarks to Saskatchewan and ask them now, as a result of this bill, to bring about an increase in that province?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact,
Mr. Speaker, good as it is for the old people in the province of Ontario to get the extra $10 they are going to get because of this jockeying that is going on; good as it was in the western provinces for them to get the extra S5, and good as it would be for them to get even more, in the long run it simply delays proper consideration of this whole problem. 1 am interested in the people of Saskatchewan. I am also interested in tne people of my own province of Manitoba, and the people of Quebec and of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Where are they in this picture?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about British
Columbia?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; even in British
Columbia they might get better consideration than they have been shown thus far. But they are not going to get it by simply making our old people the victims of dominion-provincial or interprovincial warfare and competition. The responsibility rests here; and I am glad to see the minister wagging his head up and down, which means that he agrees with me.
When one talks about this question of federal responsibility the question also can be raised, what about the cost? I want to dip back into Hansard again. It is a very interesting institution, this business of Hansard recording in black and white the things hon. members have said. I find that back in 1943, at page 5420 of Hansard, the present Minister of Justice, then minister of finance, was replying to a request of the then hon. member for Burrard, now one of those fellows who have had their longevity stepped up by being put in the other place, and told him that in his view the provinces should take on this matter of increasing old age pensions because of the substantial surpluses they then had. Let me quote:
I do not think there is anything unreasonable or uneconomical or obsolete about the view that, when the provinces have changed their position from a combined deficit of perhaps $20,000,000 before the war to a combined surplus of from $60,000,000 to $70,000,000 today, while we have changed our position from a balance before the war to a deficit of over two billion dollars today, the people who have the primary responsibility should take the thing in hand.
That is the sort of remark the then minister of finance made a number of times during the war; I have the references here, but I will 83166-2791
not bother giving the rest of them at the moment. That was a position we all remember quite well; he kept telling us time and again, "Oh. the federal government has a deficit. The provincial governments have huge surpluses. They are the ones who should increase old age pensions." If that kind of argument was logical then, it is logical now. Remember, this year with great boastfulness the Minister of Finance told us this government was now reporting a surplus, not of sixty to seventy million dollars as all the provinces together had back in 1943, but a surplus of over $350,000,000. Well, if surpluses of those days in the provincial financial statements should have been turned into improved old age pensions, I suggest that a surplus of S350,000,000 in this government's financial statement should be turned into a much better deal for old age pensioners than they are getting under the bill now before us.
I see my time is nearly up, and I want to put in just a word in reference to the blind, about whom I shall have something more to say when we get into committee. It has been pointed out already by the leader of this group that the provisions for this particular class of Canadian citizens are hopelessly inadequate in this measure. As a matter of fact they should be covered by a separate measure entirely, and I hope that before long we will get to that stage in this country, for it is long overdue.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this whole case which is being made in the course of this debate by members on all sides of the house should not be looked upon merely as. a matter of sympathy for old people. The statement has been made a number of times that no party has a mortgage on sympathy for our old people, and we all agree with that. The point I wish to make is that this matter of granting old age pensions should not be thought of as something that is done out of sympathy or out of pity for those sometimes referred to as "poor old folks." That is not the proper basis at all. Old age security is a matter of right, and what we should be building up here is a programme of security for all Canadian citizens; and our concern in this debate is not just for the so-called "aged poor"-I dislike that phrase immensely-who are now in their advanced years. We are also concerned about security as a symbol, as something that is achieved by Canadian citizens who live their lives here, who work and contribute to the wealth of Canada, and who have something to look forward to in their declining years. It is a
Old Age Pensions

symbol of something that can offset the fears, the insecurity, the feeling of frustration that comes over so many human beings when they realize that life consists of working from one depression to another and never having anything very sure to look forward to. The importance of this debate, the importance of old age pensions, as I have already stated, involves sympathy for our old people but it goes far beyond that. What we should be doing is building security. I contend that either we build security in this country or thousands of Canadians have died in vain. Either we build security or our way of life becomes too vulnerable to last in the kind of world w'e are in today. For the sake of democracy and freedom nothing is more important than that we establish security for Canadian citizens, for all our citizens. There is no better place to begin than with old age. The present government has failed to do that, but the fight for security goes on.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the introduction of bill No. 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, it was my fervent hope that the bill would be of such a character as to render unnecessary a prolonged debate. Unfortunately my hopes have been shattered tragically. I was also hopeful that the changes proposed in the Old Age Pensions Act would render it unnecessary for us to engage in certain types of debates which from time to time have already cropped up.
I sincerely hope that throughout the remaining hours or days of the debate-whatever time may be registered-we can at least keep this matter wholly and completely above the realm of party politics. It has been said, and rightly so, that no party has a monopoly on the interests and welfare of our pioneer citizens. But we all have a responsibility, and I for one fervently hope that that responsibility will be recognized and carried out. Possibly I was too optimistic when I assumed that since this is the twentieth anniversary of the passage of the Old Age Pensions Act, and also the twentieth anniversaiy of the Prime Minister's acceptance of leadership of the government in Canada, some satisfactory legis-.ation would be placed before us. I thought hat in the light of these anniversaries, and }f the further fact that we have a new and young minister in charge of the bill, something would be brought forward which all of us could praise to the skies.
But I was altogether too optimistic. Only recently I decided to look back through history in an effort to determine whether or not we have made any reasonable progress in connection with the treatment of our pioneer

citizens. I found, sir, that we have made some progress because I learned that primitive peoples disposed of their aged in the simple and straightforward fashion of dashing out their brains with clubs. We have gone beyond that. I have learned further that among some primitive peoples it was the custom simply to abandon the old people and leave them to die. I was going to say we do not do that- and possibly I should not say that. We are modern, or at least pride ourselves upon our being modern. We pride ourselves, too, upon our civilization. We contend that we are progressive and that we are Christian. No, we could not tolerate such inhumane treatment as was accorded the old people of primitive time. Our developments render those means more or less impossible. It is essential that we apply methods which at least are less repulsive.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: But more barbarous.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Today, in effect, we say to our pioneers, "If you manage by hook or by crook to survive until you are seventy, you may become eligible for pension." I place emphasis upon the word "may"-all the emphasis at my command. Then there are provisos-and it is with respect to many of these provisos that I feel most bitter. And before proceeding further let me say that while I may not display a great deal of heat, it is not because I do not feel that way. By the utilization of a vast amount of control I manage to suppress some of the feelings I harbour.
I have said there were provisos of extreme importance, one of which is associted with the iniquitous means test. On previous occasions I have said that through the provisions of that test we pry into the most personal affairs in the lives of these people. It is a continuous process, too. Periodically we go back to pry-at least once a year, and in some instances more frequently.
The second proviso, associated with the first, is one which seems to indicate that if upon some previous occasion the individual did have a few hundreds or a few thousands of dollars, and neglected to invest the sum in an annuity, with the result that the money disappeared, that person is not eligible for pension. Recently no less than four cases in one community came to my attention. It so happened that some years ago these poor unfortunate people had some money

not a great deal, but some. They were asked why they did not keep it and why they did not invest it. Because the answers -were not satisfactory to the officials those people were completely deprived of pensions.

Old Age Pensions
Then there is another proviso which has to do with relatives of our older people. I know the act is not always administered in the way it could be, so far as the degree of viciousness is concerned; but when I learned that the department may go to the son-in-law of a prospective pensioner to ascertain whether he is in a position to support his father-in-law, it made me sick.


Charles Edward Johnston: And so it does everybody else.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am sure it does. I recall not so long ago assisting an applicant in the preparation of his form. Perhaps I should not have done it, but after reading the form I became so much disturbed that I said, ''Write on it 'it's none of your damn business' ".
Then there is another proviso which is wrapped up with a multitude of baby provisos. This one refers to residential qualifications. I am not saying there should not be some residential requirements. But when I see some of the methods employed in a determined effort, so it seems, to deprive persons of their just dues on this ground, I am greatly exercised.
We come, of course, to the matter of establishing age. It does not matter whether a person is so old and decrepit he can barely move; it does not matter whether fifty persons looking at the individual would place his age at one hundred, he must still produce proof before the pension is paid. I remember an old lady of about seventy-five who for some reason or another could not procure a birth certificate. Evidently there was something lacking in the census record. Finally the officials said to her, "Well, there is still another door open to you. If you can find some one who was present at your birth and who can complete an affidavit to the effect that you were born on that occasion, then we will grant you a pension". Such a ridiculous thing! I suppose such an individual would have to be from ninety to a hundred years of age to be able to complete that affidavit. Just how many such persons were present at these births? They do not usually call in all the neighbourhood. How many can produce the evidence essential for the establishment of age?
I know that the pioneer citizen advances certain arguments in support of his right to pension. He points out that possibly for fifty years he has struggled in order to develop Canada. He may have gone into some undeveloped backwoods area and helped to bring that area into production to add substantially to the wealth of this great nation. He says, "I have played a most important part in putting Canada in a position where today her production is valued at SI0.000 million to SI 1.000 million." He also points out, as was indicated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low') last night, that he has paid 820,000, $30,000 or $40,000 in taxes during the years he has been a resident of the country. He points out, and rightly so, that perhaps on one occasion he served in defence of this land, and he reminds us that in many cases his sons and his grandsons have also served in that capacity. It makes him bitter to realize that after all that, if he is still unable to provide for himself between the ages of sixty and seventy if he cannot meet all the conditions laid down and applied at the age of seventy, he is not receiving, from that land which he helped to build, justice in the smallest degree.
Many of these older persons point out that prior to the terrible depression they were in such a position that had things continued as they should have continued, they could have made adequate provision for their old age. Hundreds of them lost almost everything during those bitter years. They attained an age when they could not make recovery. Were it not for the fact that governments were responsible for the depression were it not for the fact that governments did not take the action they should have taken to alleviate the distress which prevailed at that time, his argument might not have been quite so good. He says, "I am willing to argue that I cannot be expected to secure and carry out my assignments in connection with employment." It is recognized by all reasonable persons, and it has been emphasized already in this debate, that competition in the labour market is becoming more intense all the time. Men over fifty years of age are finding it desperately hard to secure employment. Why should they, after all the working years they have put in, be expected upon attaining those ages to go out and seek work? I contend that their services are not required for the continued welfare of this country.
Then finally he says, "WTe found $20,000 million during the war for destructive purposes. We thought we were paying for it while it was being fought, but we find now that it has to be paid for completely." He says. "If that could be done, that which reflected the best productive capacity of this country, then surely Canada is in position out of the vast production of this day to make sufficient available to guarantee a standard of decency we deserve."
Old Age Pensions

Running parallel with those arguments are the observations of the officials to these persons and the rest of us. We are constantly advised of the great debt and the financial obligation of interest associated with it; we are told that Canada must honour these obligations, that we cannot add to this debt the amounts essential for the welfare of these people. That argument is advanced, and it is also pointed out that our present rates of taxation are tremendously high. They argue that we cannot possibly increase taxation if that is necessary-I say it is not-in order to make adequate provision for these persons. They endeavour to beat them down on that point.
They are told, "You cannot blame us for what you lost during the depression because that depression was an act of God." This man is told that his sons were adequately compensated, because they preserved their own freedom. He is told that he can find work if he 'wants it, I have heard that argument offered in connection with certain cases. He is told that the increasing proportion of older people in our population may later create an intolerable burden if we grant higher rates of pension to those who are now past sixty years of age. As a matter of fact, the same argument is used when we advocate increasing the pensions paid to those above seventy years.
Then we come to this extremely interesting argument that is advanced. It is said by government spokesmen, and the minister was as guilty as the others, that they expect that eventually their long-range programme will materialize and then these persons will be infinitely better off than they are today. That is small comfort for the individual who is in distress today. I am not one of those who contends that the government 'has abdicated the position which it formerly held in respect to this matter; I am not going to say that this bill is a reversal of government long-range policy. What I am saying is that it does not deal adequately with the problem which confronts us today.
The minister may talk all he likes about unemployment insurance, family allowances and veterans rehabilitation benefits, but he knows and I know that those things do not in any way alleviate the distress which is today facing so many of our older citizens. They may be part of an over-all long-range policy -they are commendable and I am not criticizing them-but for heaven's sake let us divorce them from the problem with which we are now confronted.
I have referred already to this question of proof of age. I sincerely hope the government will find it possible lo revise the regula-

Lions covering the establishment of age. When I look over the average payments by the provinces it fills me with horror. When you find these persons getting less than one dollar a day in actual cash it makes you wonder, especially when you realize that, all government statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the cost of living today as compared with pre-war years is completely staggering. Let us take food and clothing alone. I do not have to deal with these, but anyone should realize how hopelessly intolerable the situation is today, and goodness knows even during the pre-war years at the prevailing rates the situation was pretty hopeless too.
Those provincial governments which have extended medical, dental, optical, hospital and other services to their people are certainly to be commended, I do not care what the complexion may be. Possibly competition between provincial governments is a pretty fair thing. It seems to me that sometimes it is the only way that some persons do receive the justice which they deserve. But to those provinces which have not extended the services, I say, do it. If we are able to do it in the western provinces, the provincial governments elsewhere should be in a similar position, possibly not to extend the same degree of service, but certainly to extend some service in that respect to their people. I note too often when we talk about living costs-and I referred to it a moment ago-the old age pensioner has it indicated to him, directly or indirectly: Well, after all, the cost of living is pretty high and your pension is pretty low, but you should thank God you do not live in China. That is small comfort, but that, sir, is in effect one of the answers we constantly receive.
I do not like to hear hon. members continually going aboard to find that something there is better than or worse than something here. My philosophy is, let us make this country the very best. That is our concern. The thing that makes me feel very sad is the fact that these pensions are reduced in many cases on the slightest pretext. I cannot refrain from telling this story. In a community with which I am quite familiar we have an old gentleman of eighty-three years of age. He is a wonderful individual for that age. He is anxious to work; he does work; he has an old team of ponies; he has an aged cow. He has three or four chickens; possibly they have reached the maximum of production and just about laid the last egg. That old fellow goes out with the old team of horses. At Christmas time, for instance, when it was very cold, he peddled trees from door to door; he came to my house when the temperature was 40 degrees below zero. That man raised his own family and

Old Age Pensions
adopted two children. One of them is now around thirty years of age and served with distinction in the recent war. His little girl is eleven years of age. That poor old fellow's pension was cut down to $6.25 a month. After constant fighting we got it back. After quite a number of years I think it is now at the maximum. I know this is just one case, but I ask, is it isolated?.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am sure it is not.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Who would be the administrator?


Frederick Davis Shaw: All right; I expected that question. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Old Age Pensions Act is a federal act; that it is administered by the provinces under the strict supervision of the dominion which pays seventy-five per cent of the cost. In fact-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not right. Will the hon. gentleman permit me? The hon. gentleman will agree that that is not an accurate statement. The regulations are the result of a joint conference of the provincial pension authorities and the federal government. The regulations are administered by the pension authority, and if in the particular instance to which my hon. friend is referring there was a grievance I am sure he must admit that it was the provincial authority-in this case Alberta- who was responsible, and no other authority.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Actually the minister has not changed my mind one bit. I possibly have had a little more to do with this than he has, and I am telling him that the federal government, which pays seventy-five per cent, holds the big stick. The regulations under which the pension is paid are the creature of the dominion government which pays the seventy-five per cent, and the provinces have very little to say with respect to the nature of these regulations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Let me also suggest-


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows that that is not so.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Are the accounts audited by the federal government authority?


Humphrey Mitchell: All public money is audited.


Frederick Davis Shaw: And audited strictly in the light of the regulations which are laid down, as I say, primarily by the federal government. I am reminded that every estate is
checked over as well. You know, Mr. Speaker, it interests me when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) interjects, because I have had occasion to read more than one speech he delivered during the middle thirties when he sat in the opposition ranks, and I could probably quote him in defence of every argument I have advanced today. But I have more important things to do, and I would rather use myself as an authority.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was talking old age pensions when my hon. friend was not even a member of the House of Commons. I signed the agreement which brought old age pensions into existence in Ontario.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: All the more reflection on the minister.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I should like to ask the minister if he is proud of the thing as it stands at the present time. I do not want to deny the minister any happiness which he may procure from the realization that he had something to do with this; but I simply say to him that when he sat in the house as a member of the opposition he was just as vehement in his argument in defence of justice, which we are still fighting for, as anyone over on this side of the house, and I certainly hope-


Humphrey Mitchell: And still am.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -that in view of his proximity to the Minister of National Health and Welfare he will use strong arm methods if necessary in order to earn' out the very things which he believed in when he sat on this side of the house and which he says he still believes in.


John Horne Blackmore: Don't forget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott); go to work on him.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Under this proposed bill certain changes are forecast. Certain of these changes are welcome, it is true, but it amuses me the way the government emphasizes this question of outside income, because to the great majority of our elder people it means absolutely nothing. The great majority of them will be limited to the pay'ments made under the provisions of the act; whether they are permitted to earn $200, $300 or $10,000 it will make no difference, because for them the employment is not available. In many cases their health would not permit it were the employment available. As I see it, we can discard outside income so far as it applies to this act.


Mr. BENTLEY:: They could sell Christmas trees.
Old Age Pensions


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, there are still quite a few out there.


John Horne Blackmore: And be docked for it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, he would no doubt have his pension cut because he showed a desire to do something further in his declining years to assist this great country.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: This is another gift off the Christmas tree.


Charles Edward Johnston: You want to tax him for it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: On two or three previous occasions I brought up something in the house in connection with old age pensions, and I am still waiting for an answer. I trust that with a new minister the explanation will be forthcoming. I can at least expect an attempt to answer it. When a man becomes seventy years of age and qualifies for pension he will secure the maximum; let us say for illustrative purposes, that it is $30 a month, as it is in some places. If he has a wife who is under seventy, so far as the actual pension payment is concerned' she is completely ignored. In other words they as much as tell him he should not have been fool enough to get married. At least he should have married someone as old as he was-or she should. It works both ways. I wonder if, when they look upon a wife who happens to be sixty-five, they think that there might be still a couple of working years left in her. That is something I cannot understand. They completely ignore the presence of the wife ; because, if the man is a widower or bachelor he gets the same amount as though he were a married man. Of course, the old question of outside income might come in, but once again you can drown that as far as this bill is concerned.
I think I am safe in assuming that the citizenship qualification is to be eliminated, and that is a good thing. I understand there are to be modifications in the residential requirements, and I commend the government for that too. I understand also there will be a new arrangement for balancing off accounts as between the provinces, and that is proper. I commend the government for it. But that is about all that I can commend them for.
I regret that in this year 1947 we have not been able to offer our pioneer citizens something more than we are giving them. We have constantly boasted of what we are able to do in this country, and I may say to the government that they never hesitate when it comes to something that they consider it desirous of going ahead -with. Costs never seem to concern the government so far as some other things are concerned. They boast about the

great productive capacity of the country, and all that these people are asking for is an effective claim against enough of this production to enable them to live out their lives in decency.
I say that so long as this act remains on the statute book as it stands we had better keep our mouths shut. I have faith in the minister; I have not lost it all. I simply hope that he will within the cabinet shake things up as far as he can, even by using physical force, and I am sure the Minister of Labour will help him. I am not going to say more on this occasion. I am absolutely opposed to the present rate of pension. I expected the Minister of Labour to bite at that one. I thought he would say, "Well, are you going to vote against it?'' He realizes as well as I do that another $5 to the old age pensioner will mean something. I am not one to deprive the pensioner of another $5, although I feel mighty cheap in playing a part in offering him that paltry sum. I am unalterably opposed to the means test as one of the most vicious things. The Minister of Labour in 1933 dealt with that and said that the pension should be paid as a matter of right. In fact, he said, it is nobody's business what you earn. I commend the minister for that.


Mr. MacNICOL:: He was right then.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does he back it up now?


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't forget the qualification. Give the whole story.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I noticed, in reading the minister's speeches, that he qualified his statements, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt wdien I took that statement. It started with a capital letter and ended with the proper punctuation mark. In fact, it was a paragraph unto itself, and I know enough of the language to conclude that I repeated exactly what he said in this house, though not verbatim. I recognize that.
I am going to continue pressing the minister for an explanation of what I mentioned a moment ago, namely, the utter failure to recognize the existence of the wife if she is under seventy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true. My hon. friend has not read the bill. He will find that there is provision to cover that situation.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Only as far as outside income is concerned.


Mr. QUELCH:: He must have brought the wrong bill in.

Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not
read the bill, and I do not think he listened to my statement.


Victor Quelch: You have a different interpretation of it from anyone else's.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not know whether the minister's observation was directed to me, but he is rather presumptuous in it. I say to him that unless both the wife and the husband qualify for pension on the same basis they do not receive the pension in each case. Goodness knows I have had enough to do with these cases to know that. If the wife is seventy and if the husband is seventy and they meet all other conditions they can each get the maximum pension; but if the wife is sixty-five he is permitted to earn a little more per year than he would if he were single. But as far as the actual pension payment is concerned, it is not increased by virtue of the existence of a wife under seventy. If I am wrong I will apologize, but if I am wrong I shall be greatly astonished.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentlemen is now right as he has just stated the position. We are all anxious to get the situation straight. The provision which the government introduced yesterday is one that is more generous in that particular than any similar provision in New Zealand or the United States, in Australia or Great Britain.


Frederick Davis Shaw: As I said a while ago, I do not give one hoot about New Zealand. We are concerned with providing for our aged people a decent standard of living, payable on a basis that bears a proper and fair relationship to our capacity to provide that decent standard.
May I make one more observation before I conclude. If the minister reads my remarks with reference to the wife under seventy he will find that I did not change my position at all from the first statement I made. I said that from the standpoint of outside income the pensioner's position was improved. Even under the old bill, as far as outside income was concerned, his position was slightly better when he enjoyed the married status. But as far as the pension payment itself is concerned, the wife is ignored. I wonder how the women feel about a government which will simply write them off as it would a bad debt.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to make just a
few remarks on this bill. My hon. friend has read speeches of mine which I made a good many years ago when I was about as 83166-280
old as he is today. I like my hon. friend. He comes from one of the best provinces in this dominion.


Frederick Davis Shaw: And the best part of that
province.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have had a great deal to do working -with the government of Alberta since I have been Minister of Labour and before that. Like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Madnnis), I took part in the agitation for old age pensions years ago when they called us revolutionaries because we suggested such a policy. We were young people and we made many observations like some of those that have been made by my hon. friends, without responsibility, in this House of Commons in the last couple of days.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Was the minister applying
that remark to me?


Humphrey Mitchell: I was thinking of Mr. X; let me put it that way. I have a vivid recollection of the agitation that took place right across the dominion in connection with the establishment of the principle of old age pensions. I am not going to go into the history of this matter. It was introduced by the Liberal government of that day. Other people can take all the credit they wish for the crystallization of public opinion in that regard. In my opinion, notwithstanding views to the contrary, the greatest contribution made to the establishment of old age pensions in this country, and in the education of the people which is necessary before any forwardlooking policy can be put into operation, came from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and other labour organizations. I was closely associated with the trades and labour congress, and labour organizations can take an unpopular opinion and make it stick. May I say this with regard to political parties, and I do not exempt any political party in this House of Commons; as a rule, in a general way, they follow public opinion. But I remember the years of agitation until public opinion was crystallized and we established the principle of old age pensions in Canada.
This afternoon I mentioned, as I have mentioned before, that I was a witness to the agreement-signed by Hon. Howard Ferguson, a Conservative in the province of Ontario, and Hon. Peter Heenan, who was federal minister of labour-which established old age pensions in Ontario. Let us not wear our consciences on our coat sleeves. I think every self-respecting member of the House of Commons believes in the principle of old age pensions.

Old Age Pensions

But we went into the thing blindly, as one does in many things. I believe that any nation which over a long period of time gives away something for nothing is placing itself in jeopardy.


Frederick Davis Shaw: You are not doing that in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a minute. Do not forget that I supported the principle of a noncontributory old age pension plan at that time. I often talked the matter over with the late Tom Moore, with whom I was closely associated. I think one error in judgment which we made was that we did not adopt a contributory policy from the start, as a result of which the old age pensioner would get the pension by right and not on the basis of charity.


Mr. JAQUES:: That is not what we want.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know my hon. friends would print money and do it in that way, but I do not believe in their theory.


Norman Jaques: Piffle.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says it is piffle. He knows my opinion about money; if it. is not hard to get, it is not money. I believe that many of the troubles of the world today have been brought about by a nation which thought they could print their way out of trouble, as the Germans tried to do after the last great war. But that is a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with the matter now before the house.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It has nothing to do with social credit either.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not say this in a critical spirit, but I believe my Social Credit friends could render a service to the old people in Alberta if they would go back there and suggest to the government of Alberta that they follow the policy of the government of British Columbia, and, if I am given to understand it correctly, the policy of the government of Ontario, and raise the pension from $33.75, as I think it is there at the moment, to $40 a month, which it will be in those two provinces.


Charles Edward Johnston: And let the government here get out from under as regards responsibility.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend talks about responsibility. That is an easy thing to say. He knows something about the constitution of this country, and you cannot laugh
it off. It is my frank and candid opinion that the fathers of confederation builded better than they knew. When one is in a corner and wants to get out from under, it is the easiest thing in the world to say that they did not. I am not offering this as a criticism, but I know of no provincial government which is more conscious of its constitutional prerogatives than the government of Alberta; and I agree with them. I do not believe that the Creator ever meant that we should all be cast in a common mould, in a nation as big as Canada.


Angus MacInnis: Thank God for that.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says, "Thank God for that", and I agree with him. I do not think we were ever intended to be cast in a common mould. I believe that there is strength in diversity and decentralization, which is, may I say-and I am not talking politically now-good sound Liberal policy and philosophy. There are those in this nation who would centralize everything. As I said before in this House of Commons, I was in Germany when Hitler put over his revolution. Any fool can govern a country with a bayonet in his fist as long as he does not stick it into himself. What happened there? Everything was centralized in Berlin. I point that out to t'he great centralizers who want to get out from under in this present argument, if they say that responsibility should be on a national basis rather than on a cooperative basis in connection with the matter now before the house.
I believe that in the light of experience it will be proven that the act passed in 1927 was a sound one. I do not think that any political party in this house has a first mortgage on ability or willingness to make provision for improved conditions for the people of this nation in the sunset of their lives. When the suggestions made to the dominion-provincial conference by this government are carried out -and we mean to carry them out-and when we move to a policy of old age pensions, with a reduction of age, based on the contributory principle, I believe it will be a tremendous step in the direction of a sane method of approaching this vital question in the life of this nation. We must remember this. With a contributory basis, there is the right to have some say in the administration of the money which has been contributed. We have heard a good deal about the means test, and I suppose we shall hear more about it. On a contributory basis, of course, the means test is not necessary because when a person contributes, he is justly entitled to the benefits of the plan. We have heard Great Britain
[Mr. Mitchell.1

Old Age Pensions
quoted in this debate. If newspaper reports are to be believed, only this week a member of the British cabinet-a former member of a labour government; a member of the government of Lloyd George in the first great war- is placed in the position of having to make a public issue of his own position because of the means test in Great Britain. They have the means test for non-contributory pensions at the moment. I am not talking about whether the principle is sound or otherwise. What is done in New Zealand and Australia has all been pointed out. But let me say this to my hon. friends. All these social matters -and I am all for them, and have been all my life-in effect mean the redistribution of the national income of a country. I do not believe that a nation can have a body of rich people-as we see in some countries of the world today-and a mass of poor people at the bottom, and maintain its equilibrium as a nation. That condition, by its very nature, spells revolution irrespective of the country in which it exists. As these great schemes of social advancement are placed in operation we must be prepared-and I myself am prepared; I speak personally now-to pay the bill through taxation, as is being done in Great Britain, as we are doing in the Dominion of Canada, and as is being done in New Zealand, Australia, or any other country where these reforms have been placed in operation in the last generation or so. We must be frank and honest with our people and tell them that these schemes mean the redistribution of the wealth of the nation and require willingness to bear taxation in order that they may be put into force. I know some people in this dominion think it can be done in some other way. I have no objection to listening to their theories, but of course I still believe two and two make four, though I left school at a very early age. In connection with any of these schemes; whether it be workmen's compensation, where there is an assessment on the employer on the basis of the risk in the particular industry, which, of course, in turn is paid by the public generally so that in effect it is a tax; whether it be children's allowances; whether it be old age pensions; whether it be unemployment insurance, of course in smaller measure because that is contributory; in the same breath that you speak, in my judgment-and I know this is not good politics-you must tell the people frankly that this redistribution of the wealth of a nation can be done only on the basis of taxation. Those members who say in this House of Commons that we should do this here and that there; who advocate increased old age pensions and increased unemployment insurance, as the hon. member 83166-280J
for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) did this afternoon, cannot in one breath demand a reduction in taxation and in the next breath increased expenditures by the government of this country, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It needs increased production.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course it does; and may I say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


An hon. MEMBER:: Look out.


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't worry about that. I don't need to look out; I have been in this business too long. I wish my hon. friend would preach to the working people of this country that the wealth of a nation can be expressed only in the unit of production of the people within the confines of that nation, and would not preach pie in the sky, the old socialist philosophy of the less you do, the richer you are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is sheer nonsense. That is not what I have said at all, as the minister knows.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, you interrupted me; you stuck out your neck for that one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Any question you wish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister had something to say, and quite properly, about the part the trade union movement has played in building up the principle of old age pensions. Does the minister know what the trade unions think of the proposal of $30 a month?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. Some people express opinions on acts of parliament before they read them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have here a letter from the international association of machinists condemning it outright.


Humphrey Mitchell: I introduced a bill two days ago, I think it was, and before any member of this House of Commons received a copy of that bill some persons expressed an opinion on it. That is an easy thing to do. Getting back to my point-


William Irvine: Have you got one?


Humphrey Mitchell: Now, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) and I are friends of many long years standing. He is a little more mellow than he used to be, like myself. He learns from experience

Old Age Pensions


Percy Ellis Wright: He did not slip as far.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, I don't know; he has been pretty well all over the lot. He has about boxed the compass.
Getting back to my point, when my hon. friend interrupted me I was saying the wealth of a nation can be expressed only in the unit of production within that nation; and in my judgment-though I am quite frank to admit it is a matter of opinion-you cannot increase the living standards of the people unless the unit of production is increased. Of course I speak across the board, not of the exceptions.


An hon. MEMBER:: A vague generality.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, it is not. My hon. friend represents a farming constituency. Probably he never farmed in his life; nevertheless he represents that constituency. We are talking about production; and I think the farmers of this nation stand in a position unexcelled by any other group in the nation because they have increased their unit of production as individuals.


Victor Quelch: The price of that unit has increased; that is the most important point.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to develop that argument, but I have not time now.


Victor Quelch: I am talking about the farmer.


Humphrey Mitchell: So am I. What I want to point out, following the line taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that unless you increase that unit of production or at least maintain it, it does not matter how much you increase old age pensions, soldiers pensions, unemployment insurance or any other kind of insurance, because what counts is what you can get with the money you have in your hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is perfectly right, and we want the government to take steps to bring about increased production in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have been drawn off my track by some of these interruptions, but in conclusion I want to say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The subject is old age pensions.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right; but I can say to my hon. friend that I was talking old pensions before he lived in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And don't forget to tell us that you signed the agreement in Ontario.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, I did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Isn't that something to be proud of?


Humphrey Mitchell: I feel proud of it; and I also feel proud of the part I played in the establishment of workmen's compensation in Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think you should be proud of it, but I think you should follow the lead of the trade union movement, which asks for S50 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why do they not do that in Saskatchewan and Alberta and British Columbia?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The responsibility is federal, and all the ministers know it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says the responsibility is federal. No one knows better than he that that is not so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is so, and the minister knows it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't turn a sharp corner, now. No one knows better than my hon. friend the basic policy, how the grants in aid are actually made by the dominion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about family allowances?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows about family allowances, too. He is not out in the little red schoolhouse now; he is before a jury of his peers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I offer my apologies to the noble lord.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows the constitutional basis for the establishment of family allowances. It is as clear as anything could be. The dominion has complete jurisdiction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Humphrey Mitchell: Nobody knows that bettter than my hon. friend; and my advice to him-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not charity or social service, which might be called provincial. This is security, a right of citizenship.


Humphrey Mitchell: My advice to my hon. friend is that he go back to Saskatchewan and make the same kind of speeches to the government of that province that he has been making to this government, and the same indirect reflections on the parties to his right and to his left. But I say that, whether you like it or not, the real driving force behind this legislation came from the trade union movement of this country.

Old Age Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: They want S50 now.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend was not in this country at the time I am talking about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A good many times in this house the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has introduced as an argument- the fact that he was in this country before I was. I submit that has nothing to do with the case. I came to this country at a younger age than he did; and when I came here I was coming back to the land of my forefathers.


Thomas John Bentley: And I was here before the minister. Laugh that one off.


William Irvine: He is not all here yet.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The minister has allowed-probably encouraged- a great many interruptions. However I feel it my duty to remind the house that the minister has the floor and should not be interrupted.


William Irvine: What is the subject, Mr. Speaker?


Humphrey Mitchell: The subject is too interesting; that is the trouble. And if I might say so, if my hon. friends would stop interrupting and just listen for a while, it would be better.
Primarily, the men who are responsible for the establishment of old age pensions in Canada were the trade unionists of this country. And when I say that I am taking no credit away from the late member for Winnipeg North Centre, or from any other member from Winnipeg or any other place, irrespective of party. Let us give credit where credit is due. Old age pensions in British Columbia were introduced by a Liberal government. In Ontario they were introduced by a Conservative government. In Quebec it was a Liberal government, again; and so on, across the dominion. Let us not play politics in this, but give credit where credit is due. I say to hon. members from every province in the dominion: Here is the contribution of this government. Let those hon. members go back to their own provinces and make to the provincial governments the same kind of speeches they have been making in the House of Commons in this debate.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for a back-bencher to follow a minister, particularly after that minister has covered the field as widely as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He covered it widely, all right.


James Sinclair: It is also difficult for a back-bencher to rise in his place and be critical of his party. On most occasions, of course, it is the wise thing to keep silent, and do one's battling in caucus. However I should not like to remain silent on a matter which is of such great concern to the people of my province and of my constituency.
I can say to the minister who is piloting this bill through the house that the bill is a great disappointment to me, and it must be a very great disappointment to labour unions in my riding which have been such strong advocates of an improved scheme. And it must be a bitter, bitter disappointment to the old age pensioners of British Columbia.
Very high hopes were raised in that province and right across the dominion by the proposals in the green book of the dominion-provincial conference, which have already been referred to in this debate. I must admit that I stood on platforms and spoke with pride as to what the federal government would do in the way of better old age pensions, along the lines of what is contained in the green book. And so, when I find the present proposals so far from what was contained in the book I feel I must stand in my place, say my piece, and then, at the end, suggest what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) and I intend to do about the matter.
There are four major things wrong with the bill. They are the amount of the pension, the means test, the age limit and the failure now to begin to introduce a contributory pension scheme.
I need not go into these subjects,at length, because the basic principles have been repeated again and again for many years by all hon. members on all sides of the house. However adequate or inadequate the amount may have been before the war, I am sure no old age pensioner today could begin to provide for anything like an adequate standard of living on the pension proposed.
It is all very well to look back to 1926 when the government introduced old age pensions, and to say that it was never intended to be a living allowance, and that it was intended only to be as a supplement to the savings which an old person had managed to accumulate up to that time. But as the years passed, more and more attention has been paid to considering it as a total pension. The depression aided in this movement, be-
Old Age Pensions

cause few of our old people were able to save anything between 1930 and 1940, to provide for their old age.
So today at least in my province-and I am sure in many' other provinces-old age pensions are actually to the great majority of pensioners their total living allowance. The cost of living has greatly increased. We have seen the well organized trade unions fight for and receive substantial increases in their rates of pay, in an effort to compensate for the increase in the cost of living. And that cost of living affects the aged just as much as it does those who are today employed by industry or by the government.
More than that, as was pointed out recently by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) there has been a downward drop in interest rates on bonds and securities, a good thing for the country but which has affected those people who put their money into government and industrial bonds in the hope that the returns from them would be of assistance in their old age. Because of those two factors, I say the present proposal, so far as amount is concerned, is quite inadequate.
I need not say much about the means test. It has already been described as being offensive, not only because it carries the taint of charity, but because, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) there is a continual prying, again and again and again, into the personal affairs of these old people. Certainly it is a great discouragement to thrift, a point which was covered the other evening by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
There was brought to my attention a case which affected a postman in my constituency who had been retired on a pension of S52 a month. He was complaining bitterly that if he had not been so thrifty and had spent a little more on beer instead of contributing to the superannuation fund, upon his retirement he could have got what some of his fellow postmen were getting on retirement, a war veterans allowance of 860. He had applied and got the difference of SS. To him there had been absolutely no advantage to have, during the years in which he was working, tried on his own behalf to make some provision for old age, and not to rely upon charity.
I believe there is a growing tendency to rely too much on the state. Instead of encouraging this tendency with a means test, we should be going in the other direction and giving people encouragement to make their own plans for their old age. Certainly the

removal of the means test would be the first step to encourage people to make their own plans for their old age.
So far as the age level is concerned, the employment situation in Canada is not so good for people over the age of sixty-five, or even those over the age or sixty. We know that. The government itself, one of the greatest employers in the country, will not employ anyone anywhere near that age. Most industrial firms in Canada now recognize that at sixty-five years of age a. man's working days are practically over, and that the same applies to a woman at sixty. That is why industrial pension schemes set these age limits.
Then, there is one factor which makes the situation worse. There is the human factor that most men do marry girls a year or two, or perhaps more than that, younger. At the present time we have a situation whereby when the husband reaches the age of seventy he will draw a pension of S30, but his wife who is sixty-eight or sixty-seven years old will draw nothing. So that if they are destitute their total living allowance for the two of them is only S30 a month.
A few minutes ago the minister objected strongly to comparisons being made between this country and New Zealand, Great Britain and other countries. He said in that respect that by allowing the husband a little larger theoretical earnings we were compensating for it. I do not find it necessary to make that comparison. Let us look at our own legislation. We have another old age pension scheme in Canada which is known as the war veterans allowance, and referred to by the veterans as the burnt-out pension. The principle behind it is that service in combat prematurely ages a man. even though he suffered no wound in combat. As he becomes older, his nervous system shows the effects of shock and exposure to combat fighting. And so at the age of sixty we pay an old age pension to any man who has had combat service. When the man is sixty years old his wife collects too, and they receive the full burnt-out pension of 860, not 830. I suggest that it is not necessary to refer to New Zealand and Great Britain, but merely to look at the very good legislation passed by this government just last year in that respect, under the supervision of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), to get a precedent for paying double pensions to the husband, even if his wife is not yet sevent}'.
The point about which I feel most keenly in this whole statement is the failure to make any specific mention of the introduction

Old Age Pensions
of a contributory scheme. One of the excuses or defences against going ahead with a larger pension scheme is the enormous cost. We talk so easily in terms of millions and billions these days that at times we forget we are a comparatively small country in population and that our tax bill bears heavily upon those who pay income tax. The figures which were offered in this house for a $50 pension at sixty years of age were $800,000,000 a year. Last year there were about 2.000,000 taxpayers, so that would mean an additional $400 to be paid annually by every income taxpayer.
The figure mentioned yesterday by the leader of the opposition was $560,000,000 for a pension of $50 at sixty-five years. There again, with the reduced number of income taxpayers this year that would mean almost $300 extra for every income taxpayer in Canada. While that may be some defence it should not stop the consideration of an adequate old age pension, because the way it can be done is to inaugurate now a contributory scheme.
The excuse immediately offered is that it would take a constitutional amendment and that we made our promises to the provinces that in all these dominion-provincial agreements there would be no suggestion of an amendment to the British North America Act. I think we can carry that sort of thing too far. I see no reason why the people of western Canada and the maritimes should suffer because of the obstinacy of George Drew and Maurice Duplessis. The government is wearing these excuses a little thin. I am quite sure there would be a much better feeling throughout the country if the government in announcing this inadequate measure, had said, "It is just a stop-gap for we are now preparing legislation for a contributory scheme which the provinces can, if they choose, adopt, but which at least will be a start toward the payment of pensions on a decent basis." Most of the people in my riding that I know do not want charity from the government. The labour unions in my riding say that they are willing to pay for their pensions during the period of their working days. The sooner such a scheme is inaugurated, the sooner the large sums necessary will accumulate and a great part of the present load can be taken off the government exchequer.
I am speaking, of course, in a critical fashion on this bill, but I cannot join wholeheartedly with the remarks of some of the opposition members. I was not in the least impressed by the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). He ducked around, quite skilfully for him, what the Conservative
party would do. At the top of page 4294 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
. . . and it is further estimated that a plan covering people 65 years of age and over, at $50 a mouth with no means test, would cost this nation $560 million a year.
He gives no indication whether that is the committed policy of his party. More than that, he has a responsibility-after all, he is paid by the people of Canada to act as leader of the opposition-to suggest alternative programmes which are practical. He makes no mention of how that $560 million is to be raised each year, except by the old implication of the Tory party that it can be done by cutting out extravagance. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar rightly challenged him on that-his party has been challenged before -and on other occasions the only extravagance which the Tories suggested could be cut out was the travelling expenses of the national film board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I say that I can give you something on that.


James Sinclair: You were the one who suggested it; you have been challenged before.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I can tell you what they are doing.


James Sinclair: Are you asking a question?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


James Sinclair: Ask your question now and make your speech after I have finished.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What they are doing there-


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vaucouver North):: Ask your question. I will give the hon. member this credit; he is the one Tory who has suggested a way in which a little money could be saved. I want to say, however, that the people in the rural parts of my riding have a great admiration for the work done by the national film board, and would oppose reduction in their estimates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I can give you the whole story; I have it right here.


James Sinclair: You can speak after I have finished. As the estimates come out, on every item I should like to ask the members of the Tory opposition and the members of the C.C.F., who have shown a little appreciation of the difficulties of raising money because they have authority in Saskatchewan; "How much of this $560 million are you going to save on this item;
Old Age Pensions

how much do you want to cut out?" Instead of talking loosely with a complete lack of responsibility, they should consider the matter in that way.
The attitude of the Tory party is best described by a phrase which I am quite sure the leader of the opposition thinks be used unfortunately. He accurately disclosed the Tory outlook toward our senior citizens when he called them the aged poor. That is certainly a return to the Tory policies of the middle eighteenth century with their poorhouse system.
More than that, there are two provincial governments in this country which are Tory run, one openly and one under another name. Let them begin to measure up to what the poorer western provinces are doing, and then there will be some justification for the many remarks they have been making. We will watch with great interest when the estimates come up for the great slashes which the Tories have promised so that they can find $560 million a year with which to pay $50 at sixty-five years, without any increase in taxation.
The C.C.F. were a little bit more guarded. The real leader of the opposition is the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He has a little more expectation of being in this seat over here at some time in the very distant future. As I say, he was a little more guarded. He was not as explicit as the Minister of Labour, who got right down to the crux of the matter-taxes.
Out in British Columbia the C.C.F. are also quite guarded. Generally the C.C.F. in British Columbia are the revolutionaries of the party. That is the word they like to use. They are the great promisers. This spring they held a convention to which I have already referred. Colin Cameron, at one time member for Comox, was elected president. They discussed old age pensions at great length. Some of their delegates suggested, just like some C.C.F. members here have suggested, that we in the province should go ahead and give a $15 to $20 bonus. Mr. Winch, the British Columbia leader, answered, and I quote from the Comox District Free Press-this is interesting because this paper is published in the home town of the president of the C.C.F. in British Columbia-of Thursday, April 17, where he is replying to the suggestion that the C.C.F. as a provincial unit should pledge themselves to go on and increase the provincial old age pensions contribution. I quote:
At the convention, house leader Harold Winch, referring to old age pensions, cautioned against committing a future C.C.F. government to permanent bonuses for which finances would have to be found.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, the responsibility is federal.


James Sinclair: His friends at that convention did not think so. It was being urged that the provincial bonus should be supplemented. That is what they were wanting to do, but Mr. Winch seemed to think the mantle of leadership of the government was about to fall upon his shoulders and he was very guarded. That is the only reason I can think for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar being a little more guarded than the hon. member for Neepawa, on where the money was to come from.
A great deal has been said about the generous pensions paid in New Zealand and Great Britain, the inference being that those socialist countries are the only ones which can provide a decent pension. I am amazed that no mention has been made of the pensions paid in the western states of the United States of America, which, after all, is the last great home of private enterprise, such as Washington, Oregon, California and, above all, Colorado. Colorado has a basic pension of $45 a month which is paid for by taxes on racing and liquor, two admirable sources from which to provide old age pensions. They have a most excellent system-my source of information is the Canadian Press account of last Christmas, which I do not doubt-under which they do not allow any funds to accumulate from year to year. At the end of each year they declare a bonus out of the accumulated surplus, and this year the bonus was $220 per old pensioner. The result was that the pension paid in Colorado amounted to S63.30 a month. Therefore I do not think a government has to be socialist in order to pay an adequate old age pension.
Having been a little critical of the government and the government's proposals, as well as of the remarks of the Conservative and C.C.F. parties, I think it is only fair that I should say at this time how I think the pension should be paid for. I believe it would have been a most excellent start to have brought in today the actual proposals which were made in the green book. The fact that Drew and Duplessis do not agree is neither here nor there. Seven provinces have agreed, and I am sure that if that offer had come forward the others would have agreed. The federal payment would be $30 as of right without any means test, at seventy, and I am quite sure that my province, which is now' paying $16.75, would continue to pay $16.75 as a supplement, making an adequate old age pension. The federal government would also

Old Age Pensions
pay half of the pensions down to age sixty-five, which is getting the old age pension age limit reduced. It is true they were to have a means test there. Of course there is a defence for the means test. If you have only so much money in the national budget to devote to old age pensions then you should certainly see that it goes to those who need it most which means the means test does. There is a counter-argument, of course, that if paid to everybody, the rich would give it back in income tax. That is a fallacious argument, because even in the very top branch of the income tax there is at least a twenty per cent amount kept by the income taxpayer and in the lower branches the actual amount kept would be three-quarters. That amount would be kept by people who do not really need it.
I would suggest that the exact standard used in the family allowances be adopted. An hon. member said there was no means test in family allowances. But there is a restriction on a sliding scale up to $3,000 on the amount of family allowance given. The argument is used that those who have incomes above that level do not need the help; but to avoid the taint of charity everyone is paid as of right. I would suggest that if the means test for pensions at sixty-five in the green book proposals should be adopted, or even, if by unfortunate chance the present bill should go ahead as it is, that the same thing should be done. The old age pension should be paid as of right, and returns secured by our present income tax exemption on a sliding scale. Hon. members will notice that the total allowable earnings, announced by the minister, of the pensioner come very close to the bottom income tax salary or wage. Therefore there would be very little change there. It would remove the taint of charity, and it would also facilitate the payments of old age pensions across the country, as is the case in family allowances. I think, too, that the government could well copy their own act, the War Veterans Allowances Act and pay the double pension, not just permit double the allowable outside earnings, if any, but double pension to any man or wife who, on reaching seventy years of age, has a spouse just below seventy. That would be copying their own good legislation.
Lastly, and I think most importantly, a start must be made on a contributory pension scheme. The simple way to do it is as they did it in the United States, expand our Unemployment Insurance Act. We have the administration already set up, and an expansion of the unemployment insurance with a slight increase in premium would begin a contributory scheme for all the industrial workers in
the country. The matter of finding funds then comes up. As has been pointed out by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), we must face up to it. Any scheme which is not contributory must be financed out of the public treasury which means payment of taxes.
I did not speak on the budget. I have spoken neither on the budget in the house nor on the radio to my constituents, because I had the feeling that it would have been a far better thing at this time to go ahead and enact an adequate old age pension scheme rather than provide tax cuts. It is quite true, of course, that both the Tories and the C.C.F. went after the government for not having made greater tax cuts, but at the same time ask for increased expenditures. Anybody who is paying income tax today is earning enough to live on. I do not think anyone in my riding, which is composed mostly of industrial workers, would have given great opposition to a lesser tax cut had they known that out of that revenue an adequate old age pension would be paid. For that reason I say that I cannot stand here and talk lower taxes and higher old age pensions. I believe in an adequate old age pension, and will forgo tax cuts to get it.
There is one last thing I should like to mention as a British Columbian. My province has been mentioned a great deal here in a congratulatory way. The remarks made by so many hon. members from the other eight provinces only go to show that they are envious of our record, for today everybody has been speaking very well of British Columbia. But the thought that is left in the minds of most members is that British Columbia is doing this because it is a rich province. British Columbia is rich in natural resources, but unlike Ontario and Quebec it has not been made rich by artificial laws, by the tariff, by exorbitant freight rates over the mountains, by the concentration of industries such as has taken place in Ontario and Quebec. Whatever riches we have we have got in the face of merciless competition from the central provinces, by being forced to buy our supplies in their protected markets and sell our goods on the open markets of the world. We have managed to keep ahead only by plundering our natural resources. Despite our difficult economic situation, the government out there has a remarkable appreciation of the plight of the old age pensioner. Of course we have many more old age pensioners per capita than any of the other provinces. There are two reasons for that. The first is the mild climate. An old age pensioner who is drawing $30 a month cannot afford to spend very much
Old Age Pensions

of that S30 on heating the room in which he is living, and so comes to British Columbia where a minimum of fuel is needed. The second reason is, of course, the fact that there is a higher pension paid there and old people are naturally attracted by this. That extra 85 is a very important $5 in the small amount paid to the old age pensioners. That is one reason w-hy I cannot understand why the British Columbia government has agreed, as the minister says, to this new way of apportioning the provincial costs. If an old age pensioner has lived for the greater part of three years immediately preceding application in the province where he applies, that province is now to take the total cost. I foresee British Columbia paying old age pension costs for the whole of western Canada if that goes through.
I must say my feeling is that a basic old age pension sufficient to secure an adequate standard of living across the whole country is a responsibility of the federal government. But I also say that a progressive local government which feels that it should, because of either local wealth or local need, supplement that pension, should be encouraged to do so. as we are doing in British Columbia.
I had thought that to stand up today and simply talk and give my views would not be of much help, because they are not so very different from the view's of most hon. members. The difficulty, however, of discussing old age pensions in this house is that w'e are speaking only with the facts and figures supplied from the government benches, and from those brain-trusters who are brought in to relay answers through the minister; but we have never had a good opportunity to take this legislation apart ourselves and to summon our own experts in a committee away from the committee of the whole.
It has been said in this house that no party has a monopoly on its interest in the problem of the old people. Unfortunately, however, the government has a monopoly on the preparation of legislation in that regard. My friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni came to me at noon today and suggested that perhaps we could do something about the matter. Instead of this bill being referred to the committee of the whole and the same vague sort of discussion being held again, this bill should be referred to the committee on industrial relations, where we could get before us some of the experts and question them ourselves. We could find out for ourselves exactly what it would cost the country to remove the means test, and what the constitutional difficulties are now in introducing a
contributory scheme, and what the attitude of the provinces is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would cost 8200 million.


James Sinclair: That is what you tell us. If it is to cost 8200 million, then w'e should have the taxation people come before us and tell us in what way that money could be secured and what changes in taxes it would involve. The case of the old age pensioner could be much more fairly advanced and the plight of the old age pensioner more dramatically called to the attention of the country if, instead of this bill being referred to the committee of the w'hole after second reading, it were referred to the committee on industrial relations. Therefore, when it comes to that stage the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and myself shall so move.


Thomas Langton Church: We are now' dealing with the second reading of a bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. It brings into the act what has been done so far, including the start made in 1927 when the present government brought in the first old age pension scheme, as will be found in the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 156. By that act the dominion was to pay fifty per cent of the provincial expenditures. By an agreement with the provinces it was put on a fifty-fifty basis. By the revised statutes of 1931 that act was amended and the dominion increased its contribution from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent of the provincial expenditures, and twenty-five per cent of the expenditures were carried by the provinces. By the statute of 1937 the blind, who should have been included long ago, were also added when they reached the age of over forty. I wish to state that, so far as I see it, the government have now gone seventy-five per cent of the way. They should go the whole way, because of the difficulties of this particular manner of doing business. I do not believe that it should be any part of politics. I do not believe that there is any room for party politics when we deal with so important a manner as care for the aged and afflicted. The problem is not political, but social only. After all, he that hath pity on the poor lendeth unto the Lord. The whole problem relates back to two important matters, overgovernment and overtaxation. We must remember that times have changed since the British North America Act of 1867, because there were no aeroplanes, no telephones, no radio and no automobiles when that act was passed. The development that has taken place in every direction since that time has resulted in

Old Age Pensions
overgovernment and overtaxation and waste in this country, and it is almost impossible for us now to deal with any social problem because of overlapping of jurisdiction and duplication of effort between the provinces and the dominion. The municipal system is an extension of the provincial system; in other words, we have one local system within another.
I should like to refer for a moment or two to the history of this question. When I first entered the House of Commons I pointed out, as I have pointed out many times since, that the larger municipalities of the country had instituted in the very early days of the century, in 1904. pensions for firemen, policemen, schoolteachers and others engaged in various services, on a contributory basis. As I say, however, owing to changed conditions it is impossible under the system we now have, and owing to the difficulties involved in the British North America Act, to deal properly in a contributory way with this problem. In the early days in Toronto we had a pension scheme, not contributory, whereby we paid $6 a week at the start and increased it to $12 for every employee over the age of sixty who was incapacitated or getting too old to carry on. In Toronto we have a local old age pension board, and I might say that the actual number of residents of our city receiving old age pensions in December of last year, the last year of record, was 11,425. They qualified under the act, and the amounts paid out totalled $3,672,000. At December 31, persons receiving blind pensions, paid to those over the age of forty, received $83,000. The city was required to provide office space for purposes of administration.
When I entered the House of Commons in 1922, I had a motion on the order paper with regard to this whole question of old age pensions. It was on the order paper the first day I came here, and in that motion I proposed that we should follow the system which had been followed in the old country, in France and elsewhere so as to give some direct aid to the aged by a modern system of old age pensions. Everywhere people were lodged in gaol or in homes of one description rnd another for no other reason than the fact tnat they were no longer able to make a living. They were too old to work. As every medical health officer will tell you, there is always a large part of the population who will be unable to work. There are about twenty-five per cent of the people who, from physical causes, find it impossible to earn a living. As I say. I introduced a resolution into the house in 1922, and Mr. Woodsworth, at one time a
member of this house, put on the order paper a similar motion a few months later. Both resolutions were referred to the industrial relations committee and that committee reported favourably to the House of Commons, but evidently the members at large were not prepared to support the proposal. There were a few votes for it on that occasion. This matter was referred to last year by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), who gave a fair statement of what had been done up to that time by Mr. Woodsworth and myself.
In 1927 the present government introduced the first legislation dealing with old age pensions. I suggest that the government should go much further than it has gone. In fact it should go the whole distance. It is contributing seventy-five per cent, and with such economy as could be effected in the administration of other departments it might very well go the whole way. The minister has made a considerable extension under this bill. In 1940 the government's contribution was $29,141.000. Of course a stupendous war was on and not much could be done, but in 1941 the amount was $28,472,000; in 1942, $28,770,000; in 1943. $30,496,000. Then they brought in the blind. In 1944 it was something like $38,000.000 and in 1945 the amount was $40,722,000. Now it is $60,000,000 and, if I understood the minister's speech correctly', this year's bill is not final; it will go eventually to nearly' $100,000,000.
So far so good, but one of the objections I have to this way' of looking after the problem is the means test. I am opposed to it. It is well named when it is called the "means test". I know a family in Toronto with five children. The father died, having been unable to work for years, and, he had been getting an old age pension of a total over the years of $472. After he had died they billed his estate, which was worth very little, if anything, apart from a small house, because this means test had to be applied.
Some provision should be made in these grants to take care of the high cost of living, because today a room costs more than the amount of the pension for one person. You have to pay the amount received by the pensioner. $28 or $29 or $30 a month, and sometimes it is almost impossible to get a room for that amount.
The blind were brought into this scheme and throughout the provinces, from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia, there is an average of 824 per person. I suggest that special consideration shou'd, be given the blind
Old Age Pensions

because they must have a guide, and they have to meet other expenses that persons not so afflicted do not incur.
I hope that in the recess of parliament some study will be made of this problem. The government should canvass the whole situation and we should have a national system of old age pensions, because that is the only way in which we can properly deal with the problem. The day has long gone by when it should be made a political football, something peculiar to the party system-"You did this; we did that", and all that kind of thing. Where do the poor people come in in the meantime? "Faith without works is dead."
Another objection to the system is, I think, the residence provision of twenty years in the country and the five-year residence rule in the provinces. That rule should be amended, because twenty years is altogether too long to qualify for a $30 pension. I hope there will be some improvement in the law. The government should make it a national responsibility and' take it over from the provinces. Even if you pass this bill, you will have to make agreements tomorrow with the provinces, and that will take months, so that probably next winter no one will qualify to gain anything under the legislation.
Mr. ANG'US MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): Several members prefaced' their remarks in this debate by saying that no party had any monopoly of the concern for the welfare of our senior citizens, as the phrase has been used. I am quite willing to agree to that without any reservation. I have a particular interest in this matter myself because, among our group, as I suppose among all parties in this house, we try to have our members specialize in the things in which they are most interested or for the consideration of which they are best fitted. In the arrangement of work the matter of old age pensions was allotted to me. In the last two sessions I introduced resolutions urging this House of Commons to give an expression of opinion on the Old Age . Pensions Act. On both occasions I asked for three changes in the act: reduction in the age, an increase in the amount of the pension, and removal of the means test. This afternoon I shall try to confine myself to urging upon the government that they take further action in those three vital matters.
Yesterday the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) asked the leader of this party, just as he was concluding his speech, if we were opposed to the improvements in the Old Age Pensions Act amendment which

is now before us. That is an old political catch question. I want to reply to it right away and say that we will not vote against this bill as it is, although we consider it shamefully inadequate. I think the storm which the introduction of this bill has raised in this house, and what has been said on both sides, should be sufficient proof to the government that the measure they have introduced meets with the approval, neither of members of this house, nor of the people of this country.
When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) spoke a little while ago, he said he favoured a contributory form of old age pension, so that the pensioner would get his pension as of right and not as a charity. Surely the minister did not want to imply that the pension now is a form of charity. Even as a form of charity it is inadequate. But for my present purposes I do not care whether it is on a contributory basis or whether it is paid out of the consolidated revenue funds of the federal and provincial governments. I contend that it is not now charity and cannot be defined as such. By and large, the people who receive monetary benefits under this scheme have earned their right to them because of their contribution as citizens of the country, and I object to any attempt to place it on the basis of charity.
The first point I shall deal with is the amount of the pension. When introducing the measure yesterday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said that this was in effect an increase of $10 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I think that is what he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In statutory form.
Mr. MaeINNIS: That is quite right. I was going to point that out, because the $5 previously added was by order in council. That makes the old age pensioners' benefit $30 a month. I should like either the minister or some other member of the government to explain how they came to conclude that $30 a month was an adequate pension. What was the test or the formula applied as a result of which they found that a person, after the age of seventy, could live decently on $30 a month? [DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was never intended that they could.
Mr. MaeINNIS: If the government did not intend that they could, they must have come to the conclusion that they could not. Hav-

Old Age Pensions
ing come to that conclusion, how is it that they still made the amount $30 a month?


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they could not live on $50 a month, either.


Angus MacInnis: If they cannot live on $30 and cannot live on $50, why have we $30 in this bill? That is what I want to know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I might then ask the hon. member, why he does not oppose $50?


Angus MacInnis: Because I have a feeling that they could make a living on $50 a month. My friend shakes his head and I am glad that he does because it strengthens my position. If he wants to increase it beyond $50, he will have my support.


Humphrey Mitchell: Did my hon. friend say the pensioners could live on $50 a month?


Angus MacInnis: Yes. I believe they could. They would not have a very good living. I want to assure him that they could not live as well as he and I can live. Nevertheless I believe they could get by. But I do not think they can get by on $30 a month.
I know a great deal is made of the fact that the amount of income pensioners can have, over and above the pension, has been increased, and I am grateful that has been done. But those who receive benefits under this bill fall into two categories, namely, those who depend on the pension for their entire living, and those who have other income with which to supplement the pensions. The minister has said that they cannot live on $30 a month and that they cannot live on even $50 a month. I think there is general agreement that no individual in Canada can live on $30 a month and that if they are compelled to try to exist on that amount, it just means slow starvation. In this rich country, where we have demonstrated that we can produce so abundantly, I am of the opinion that no one should be asked to live on an income which means ultimate starvation.
Let us look at the situation as it really is. I obtained cost of living figures today from the bureau of statistics. Taking the cost of living index of 1935-39 as 100, as at May 1 of this year the cost of living index was 133-1. That was the general cost of living index. That is an increase of one-third in the cost of living since 1939. One-third of $30 is $10; and with the addition of this $10 the old age pensioner is where he was in 1939. In my own opinion he is even worse off, because the cost of living index for food, which was 100 for the period from 1935 to 1939, was 154-9 or 155 on May 1 of this year. Since those in the low income brackets spend a greater percentage of their income on food than those receiving larger incomes, consequently the $30 received by the old age pensioner is worth considerably less than it was in 1939.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is quoting the food index, not the cost of living index.


Angus MacInnis: I mentioned both. The first was the general cost of living index, or the average of the various items, which is 133-1; while the food index is 154-9. So we can say that under this measure we are not really holding our own. It reminds me of those folk in "Alice in Wonderland" who had to run with all their might to remain in the same place. Here we are doing exactly what we have been doing all along the line by our reductions in income tax, the elimination of subsidies and so on. We are helping those who have something already and taking away from those who have not, even the little they have. So I would suggest to the minister and the government that the proposal made by this party early this winter, of $50 a month, is not a bit too high.
The next point I want to touch upon is the eligible age. When the Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1927 the eligible age was set at seventy. I could never understand why it was done. I have a suspicion, realizing the familiarity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with scripture, that it was because in the ninetieth psalm it says the age of a man is three score years and ten, and they decided that if they made the age seventy, which is three twenties and ten, and made the pension $20, it would not cost the government much anyway as no one could live very long on that amount. And we are still sticking to it. I do not wish to bring into this debate any invidious comparisons as between what Canada is doing and what other countries are doing in this regard, but I will make a few comparisons. I should like, before doing that, to quote from the proposals of the dominion government to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction in August, 1945. On page 37 and other pages of this document considerable space is given to old age pensions, and I am going to quote briefly from those proposals because they express the opinion of this government at that time..
Today the question was asked as to whether Saskatchewan would now increase its supplementary contribution to equal that of British Columbia and Ontario. That question is one of those political catch-phrases that should not be used at a time like this. You might ask the same thing in regard to Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick or Nova
Old Age Pensions

Scotia or one or two other provinces. Some provinces in Canada can increase the amount of pension above S30 a month, but there are other provinces which, no matter how much they might desire to do so, cannot because of their limited financial resources. In the proposals made by the federal government to the conference in 1945 that fact was recognized. They said:
Thus, in one province 28 per cent of all persons age 70 and over were receiving old age pensions in 1945, and in another province 57 per cent. Likewise, the amount of average monthly pension varies from $18.63, in one province to $29.41 (including provincial supplement) in another.
Then I want the minister to pay particular attention to this:
Generally speaking, the need for pensions is, as might be expected, greatest in those provinces which are least able to finance such payments out of local revenues.
What is the use of all the tommyrot, asking is this province going to do this, or is it going to do that? As I have pointed out, several provinces, no matter how much they may want to increase the pension, cannot possibly do so, as the minister knows very well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does that apply to Saskatchewan?


Angus MacInnis: That applies to the
province of Saskatchewan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did you read the last
budget speech of the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan?


Angus MacInnis: Yes; and I can tell my
hon. friend that the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan pointed out that the province's good financial position was due, in some measure at least, to the prosperity of this country resulting from the war; that perhaps prosperity on that scale will not continue, and they have to think of the future as well as the present.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a difference between the C.C.F. in opposition and the C.C.F. in power?


Angus MacInnis: Well, I would not disagree with my hon. friend, because I think to disagree with him on that point would be dishonest. All parties when in opposition say things and ask for things to be done which they do not say or do not ask to be done when they become the government. The minister's friends and indeed some of his colleagues in the cabinet are sinners in that respect, as well as others.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: It took some courage
to say that, Angus.


Angus MacInnis: Well, I don't know: I
realize that it affects your effectiveness as an opposition member, but during my time in this house I have tried not to ask the government. to do anything I would not be prepared to do myself if I were in the place of the government. So now when I ask the government to increase the pension to $50 a month, I am asking them to do something I would do if I were in the government; and if it were not done I would walk out of the government. I will now put on record some of the government's own policies in regard to old age pensions, as presented to the dominion-provincial conference in 1945. The section to which I am referring is entitled "Deficiencies of the present scheme," and may I say this bill has removed very few of those deficiencies:
(1)	The means test is generally recognized as undesirable after a certain age. It has been noted that about 40 per cent of all persons of seventy years of age and over make application, satisfy the means test requirements, and receive pensions.
That is, forty per cent under the Old Age Pension Act as it is at the present time, which demands almost absolute destitution for qualification. Forty per cent of the people reaching the age of seventy years in this country, who make application for old age pension, satisfy the means test requirements and receive the pension. I say that does not speak well for the fairness of the distribution of wealth in this country. Then it goes on:
There is little doubt that a very considerable number in addition are not able entirely to support themselves but are dependent upon their family and refrain from applying for pensions because of the embarrassment occasioned by the means test.
If you have not there all the arguments necessary for the removal of the means test, particularly after the age of sixty-five, then I do not know what other evidence can be produced. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, it is the government's own statement. Then:
(2)	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. A strong case can be made for reducing the age limit to 65 in order to provide assistance at least for those in the age group 65 to 69 who are actually in need.
(3)	The statutory amount of $20 per month, although increased to $25 during the war, may still be too low as a national minimum.
That is an understatement, if I ever heard one.

Old Age Pensions
(4)	Any broad extension of the present plan would impose serious burdens on limited local revenues in a number of provinces. Even without such an extension, the costs will increase very considerably as the proportion of old persons in the population will continue to rise for 30 or 40 years.
In view of that, I ask this question: How can the government bring down a measure of this kind without a substantial increase in the amount of pension, and without a substantial reduction, if I may use that term, in the eligible age?
As I said before, I do not wish to make comparisons. I do not indeed want to say anything that would give my remarks any partisan or political connotation. But I must point out that, so far as I know, there is no other country, comparable in wealth with ours, which has an eligible age as high as ours, an eligible age of seventy years. In Great Britain the age is sixty for women and sixty-five for men. In New Zealand it is sixty for both men and women, and in Australia it is the same.
A person could go on for an hour giving reason after reason why the eligible age should be reduced at least from seventy to sixty-five.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We want to do that, too.


Angus MacInnis: The minister says they want to do that, too. If so, why do they not do it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can explain that, if the hon. member will let me.


Angus MacInnis: The minister will have an opportunity to close the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very well.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to hear him explain that one thing. I know that he will say that if they were to reduce the age, perhaps the provinces would not be able to carry their share. But in the proposals made by the government to the 1945 conference, a plan was offered under which the dominion was going to assume the total cost of $30 a month without means test for old age pensioners. That would be for all persons over seventy years in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Seventy and over.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, seventy and over. I tell the minister and the government there is nothing to prevent their doing that. In my speech on the budget last year, I urged that the government enter into agreements in matters of social welfare with those provinces which were willing to enter into such agreements. I am sure, if the government did that, the pressure of opinion in the other provinces
would force those governments to enter into such an agreement. As a matter of fact that was the basis upon which the Old Age Pensions Act was drafted in the first place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit me to say one thing-and I know he is interested. The government, and I as a member of the government, are interested, not only in seeing an adequate system of old age pensions, but also in seeing other types of social insurance, including health insurance. When one brings in a matter of this kind I think the hon. member will agree that one must bear in mind the whole scheme of social security which is wanted. We want health insurance. We want adequate old age pensions. We want different forms of social insurance. It is because of these considerations that, in the matter of cost, one has to bear in mind the consideration which at this time the government has borne in mind.


Angus MacInnis: It was pointed out yesterday that if what is involved in this particular instance, and what we are suggesting, were done, it would not equal our war costs for more than a week. Yet if the war had gone on for another year, or for several years, we would still find money to carry on.
I am not at all impressed with the statement made by the minister. In 1943 and 1944 we had before us a health insurance bill. A committee on social security sat for two sessions of parliament dealing with the provisions and implications of that bill. Yet, as I surmised would happen, after the election was over, nothing more was heard about it.
So when the minister tells me that the government would like to do this and would like to do that, I tell him the government has power to do it now. And if the government does it, it will receive the support of the group with which I am associated, and receive it most effectively.


Mr. CLAXTON:: Does the hon. member suggest that the government has power to introduce a contributory scheme?


Angus MacInnis: It may and it may not. The government has an agreement now with the provinces-at least with seven of them- for the collection of all income tax. The dominion government may-and perhaps we may use a stronger word-if it chooses the dominion government can use a proportion of that income tax as a contribution to a social security programme. I do not believe social security should be on an actuarial basis. I believe social security benefits should be provided for by contributions from income, and if those contributions are not sufficient to
Old Age Pensions

meet the monetary demands they should be supplemented by sums from the consolidated revenue fund. The social security books should be cleared off each year as we do at the present time with our ordinary expenditure. [DOT]
I do not believe the government has made out a good case in this matter, so I suggest that when the bill is in committee the minister move the necessary amendments to bring the eligible age down to sixty-five years. The retirement age for government employees is sixty-five years. Good employers in industry are endeavouring today to put pension plans into operation so that they can retire their emploj-ees at sixty-five years. Employers who do not come within the class I mentioned try to get rid of their employees as soon as they are unprofitable. When they reach that stage they are thrown on the scrap-heap. With the exception of those with special training or qualifications, it is impossible today for a man over fifty-five years of age to obtain any kind of work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It looks bad for me.


Angus MacInnis: It has been bad for me for a long time. In hiring, persons for the civil service, the government will not hire any one over thirty-five years of age unless he has a veteran's preference. Therefore I suggest that there is no justification for maintaining the eligible age at seventy years. The government's own proposals in 1945 made out the best case I know of for lowering the age and abolishing the means test. When I spoke on this matter last year I referred to the percentages of applicants for old age pensions who held real and personal property. The percentages I gave were:
Holding real property of value	Per cent
Under $251	 57-41
$251 to $500	 8-66
$501 to $1,000	 13-68
$1,001 to $2,000	 14-20
$2,001 to $5,000	 5-80
$5,001 and up	   0-25
For personal property, the figure was much less.
It is not right that people should be put to the humiliation of revealing their every- source of income in order to get the miserable pittance provided by the present act or by the bill now before us. I want to say that we shall vote for this measure. We have expressed our disapproval of its inadequacy in the strongest terms that we can use, and I believe we have done that with the general approval of this house. I want to make it quite clear that we

shall continue to point out the inadequacies of this measure in the country after parliament prorogues.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We shall seek to improve it in the light of our desire to realize a complete programme of social security.


Angus MacInnis: I rather think the minister did not make the best use of his time when this bill was introduced. If he had made better use of his time before the bill was introduced he would have made a better speech when introducing it. But not having made good use of his time, he is trying now to make good use of mine as he has tried to make good use of the time of every hon. member on this side of the house who has taken part in the debate. I suggest that, before this debate ends, he prepare himself to wind, up the debate and make a really good speech.
This bill does not meet the needs of the senior citizens of Canada. It is not what the country wants; it is not what the country expected, and it is not what the country is willing to pay for. To bring forward such a puny measure to meet so great a need will not, I was going to say add to the prestige of this government, but I must say more than that and say that it constitutes a disgrace to this government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: When the house took recess at six o'clock we were discussing the bill on old age pensions which had been brought down yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I cannot think of any piece of legislation this session that could mean any more or be any more important perhaps than legislation on old age pensions. I do not suppose that I ever visit any part of my constituency without having someone come to me and ask what is being done on behalf of our aged citizens. We are all asked such questions as:	When will the pension be
raised? When will the age limit be reduced? And what answers have we been able to give? Over the past few months, and particularly since the session opened and the speech from the throne was read, hopes were raised. At last the long expected has happened. The bill has arrived. I do not want to be considered too harsh this evening in my criticism; but I will say that the forty or fifty-minute speech which the minister made when he

Old Age Pensions
introduced the bill amounted to nothing more or less than an apology for a poor job badly done.
I cannot imagine how it is that, with all the wealth of our country, all that we are able to do is to increase the old age pensions by around $5 a month. We live in perhaps the wealthiest country in the world in respect of natural wealth and productivity, and yet all we can do is to give our aged people the barest necessities of life. With our abundant wealth we can keep the wolf only from coming too far inside the door.
In his speech the minister made a great deal of the Liberal government's desire for social security. He referred to the present Liberal leadership and carried us back over the years in an attempt to show the gradual growth of their social service programme. Then he projected the house into the future in another attempt to show how the present administration has worked toward contributory social services, including a scheme for contributory old age pension. The alarming thing to me is that, when he said that, he also told us that fifty per cent of our aged people are on old age pensions.
The present administration have been at the helm for a good many years. It has been their responsibility so to legislate and so to administer the affairs of this country that people should be able to have security in their old c.ge, and yet the same administration of which the minister boasted so much find themselves in a position -where fifty per cent of our aged people have not been able to make life secure and contented for themselves. I wonder whether the minister is proud of that.
In talking of a contributory old age pension scheme which he hoped the present government might be able to introduce at some time-he did not say when; perhaps when I am a very old man-the minister said that if the government went too far in giving to our aged citizens too large a pension scheme it might have the result of throwing everything out of balance when the time came to put in a contributory scheme. That is tantamount to saying to our aged, "We are sorry we cannot give you more because when we eventually ask our younger citizens to pay for their security when they are old they will revolt and say, why do we have to pay for this? Our mothers and fathers have all the security they want, and they did not have to pay for it." The minister might just as well have said that. When he made those remarks he emphasized with great tenderness, .if you please, that he was saying it with the greatest
respect. I said I did not want to be too harsh, but I say to the minister as kindly as I can that he said it with the greatest disrespect.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government want to move on from the present old age pension scheme, which is non-contributory, to a pension scheme which is contributory. In other words, they want to move from the present taxation scheme to another type of taxation scheme in order to pay them that pension. At the present time we are all taxed to pay the aged. That is nothing more or less than a form of charity. When we tax the people themselves under a contributory scheme, so that by that taxation they put aside something for themselves in their declining years, then we chisel on their present incomes. So that, what the government desire to do is to move from the principle of charity to a principle of chiselling.
Surely the citizens of this country have what might be called a common heritage. Here we are living in a very modern civilization when we can produce so much because of our scientific power age. Who is it that supplied that science and that power? Was it the present generation? Why, of course not. Throughout the centuries of time, civilization developed, one generation built upon another, and the reason we live in this modern age is that our forefathers long since left, us a common heritage. Surely it is not just to say that the only people who can inherit that common heritage are those who have invested their dollars; in other words, it is not just for that common heritage to go only to those who happen to have the monetary units that have come their way.
The minister gave a great number of figures and a great deal of statistics. His speech seemed to be loaded with figures and statistics. And what was it all for? It was all for the purpose of trying to impress the country with the idea that the government could not afford to pay any higher pensions. We cannot afford to do it! I wonder what that phrase means. I said we had come along through the centuries of. time to a very high order of civilization. Let us go back over the centuries and see what sort of civilization they used to have, and we can go back to the cave men if we want to.
I imagine the cave men are holding their council meeting and the chief of the council says: "Gentlemen, we have a younger generation coming along; our population is increasing; it is necessary for us to establish another community just across the river. Let us discuss the question how we < an establish that
Old Age Pensions

community. Have we enough stone in the vicinity? Have we enough lumber? Have we enough human skill in our tribe?" Through the council of these cave men they decide: "Yes; we have the stone; we have the timber; we have the human skill". In other words, they decide that it is physically possible to do it.
Now imagine some jmunger man of the council rising in his place. I do not suppose this younger man was from the constituency of Essex East; I do not suppose he was the minister of health and welfare in the tribe. But suppose some young chap in the council should rise and say: "Mr. Chieftain, may I have a word? It is true we have the stone and the timber, the man-power and the skill; but. Mr. Chieftain, do you think we can afford it?"
I think the chieftain would look at that young man and say: "Young man, are you not feeling very well?" Now, if we have come so far in bur modern civilization, if we have developed so much in our modern way of living, have we become so confounded with our science that we are behind the men of the stone age? They did what to them was physically possible, but even though it be physically possible for us to produce an abundance and to distribute it to all, the minister rises in his place and says, "Yes; it is physically possible but we cannot afford it." I feel like asking him if he is not feeling very well. Yet he is the minister of health. He should be feeling all right.
It is true, is it not, that the present Liberal administration of this country have the power to do three things. They have the power to legislate; they have the power to tax- and believe me they have been exercising that power-and they have the power to create the means of payment out of nothing, the way our present banking system is doing it today. They have all three powers, and yet they say they cannot afford to increase the old age pension. What do they mean? Do they mean that they cannot afford to create the means of payment? Do they mean that they cannot afford to create those monetary symbols we call dollars, which is only another name given to figures used for a certain purpose?
Suppose this country wanted a road somewhere and the minister should rise in his place and say, "Well, yes, we would like to have that road. WTe have the gravel, the machinery and the man-power, but we cannot ouild the road because we have not enough miles". Then we would surely ask him if he was not feeling very well. But he might just as well say that we cannot build the road
because we have no miles as to say that we cannot increase old age pensions because we have no figures. That is the truth of the matter. They have the power to legislate. They have the power to tax if they wish to, and we do not believe they have to tax to do it; they have the power over currency and credit.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says,,
"hear, hear".


Mr. BROOKS:: That is all he ever says.


Ernest George Hansell: I like to hear him say that. Then why does not his government use its power?


An hon. MEMBER:: It does not know
how.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Nipissing):: The water
is too high.


Ernest George Hansell: There is another thing
our aged people were desirous of, and this bill will be a sad disappointment to them. They were desirous that the means test should be done away with. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), in his speech this afternoon, said that in matters of this kind we should stop playing politics. I am now going to read to you, Mr. Speaker, an advertisement which appeared in every daily and weekly paper in this country prior to the last election. It was published by the national Liberal committee. The address is not given but it emanated from the Liberal headquarters in Canada. It is entitled "Just Plain Sense". In item 9 of this very large display advertisement I read this with respect to old age pensions:	"Higher pensions, lower age limit
and no means test." If anybody is playing politics, who is it now, after catching votes on the basis of that and then bringing in an old age pensions bill -which does not lower the age limit and still retains the means test?


John Horne Blackmore: That constitutes a
betrayal.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is Liberal politics.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, that is Liberal
politics, when they raise the hopes of our aged mothers and fathers and then dash them to pieces when they bring down the bill. The very word "pension" means that a person is given a certain security for life. The word "pension" does not carry with it any idea of charity. The very moment the means test is brought into the old age pensions scheme, it is reduced from a pension to charity. As soon as the factor of financial

status comes into the picture, the whole character of the plan is altered. It is not a pensions scheme at all then. It is nothing more or less than glorified charity which is imposed upon our aged parents by a system of beggary. Our aged mothers and fathers do not mind proving their age. Some of them are proud of the honour. Some of our aged people are revered. We respect them. One of the first Christian principles is respect for the aged. When they apply for old age pensions, they are quite willing to prove that they were born on a certain day and that they have now reached pensionable age. It is not humiliating for them to prove their age. But they must not only prove their age; they must prove their poverty. Furthermore, because of existing regulations, they must prove that they will continue to be paupers. I want to ask if that is a respectable old age pension scheme. Surely when a pensions act is brought down, it should be brought down with dignity for our aged people. Surely we should say to our aged people, "You have lived well. You have pioneered this country. We now give to you part of your heritage as a right of citizenship. We give you the reward .for being respectable citizens."
There is something else which should be involved in any pension scheme. Any government or any treasury board should administer a pension scheme with this one great principle in mind: we are now giving it to you and we want to give you more. But what has happened through all the regulations we have had in our pensions bills? We have had regulations which have made inspectors nothing more or less than white-collared sleuths going around to see whether or not our aged parents earned a dollar.


Mr. LOW:: Or found one.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, or found one.


John Horne Blackmore: Or had one given
to them.


Ernest George Hansell: Or if their son, who has
a fair position, gave them a little present once in a while. It is a great civilization we are living in, is it not? It is a great country we are living in, is it not? It is a great government we have in this country, is it not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is not much enthusiasm in those "Hear, hear's" from the other side.


Ernest George Hansell: If that whole Liberal side were filled with people over seventy, you would not hear one "Hear, hear," coming from that side of the chamber.
Old Age Pensions


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: They all want to be in the senate.


Ernest George Hansell: Our aged parents cannot earn a dollar without having the bloodhounds on their tracks. Parliament passes legislation for the purpose of providing pensions. That, shall I say, should be our objective. But the government comes along and makes such regulations that, in effect, they take upon themselves to do their best to prevent our aged people from getting the full pension. That is what actually happens in practice. I said that pensions as administered today and as administered under this new bill are a form of charity. Our aged people have to prove their povert3r. Let me ask one question. Why is an aged person poor in this country? Here is one thing I should like to say at the very start. As I used to go around in those depression days-and I do not want to refer to that too much-how often hive I heard this remark, "Oh, well, that man has not got anything because he was not thrifty enough; he did not save enough."


John Horne Blackmore: Too lazy to wark.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; that he was too lazy to work, and so on and so forth. Thrift was regarded as a sort of virtue. Let me say that it is time we were revising our thinking. In these days the term "thrift" has become perverted. We formerly used it in the sense that mother would sew patches on our trousers; she would save materials, and put away foodstuffs so that they would not spoil. Why? Because in an age of scarcity people had to practise thrift. But in a modern civilization thrift has become nothing but a pinch-penny business of never spending. How are the wheels of industry made to go around? By people spending. I want to say, with the greatest respect, that a good citizen is one who will spend his money. It is a poor citizen who will save his money, strange as that may sound, because you cannot save money and at the same time turn the wheels of industry.


John Horne Blackmore: Nor make jobs for oeople so that they can earn income.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: You can invest it.


Ernest George Hansell: You see this is an asinine system under which we are living. A man has to save or he will not have anything; yet the more men save, the less our ultimate production becomes, and the less we get. It is all back end forward, and the present administration evidently have not the wisdom to
Old Age Pensions

put the right end forward. The same thing goes for contributory pensions, which simply mean that money is taken out of the stream of purchasing power. We need to recognize that we have passed that pinch-penny phase of finance, and that we now live in an age of abundance.
I should like to refer to one or two other matters before my time speeds away. There is another disappointment which will be sad for our aged people; that is, that there is no reduction in the age limit. They were hoping that something along this line would be done. I can quite understand the government not being able to give us all the details and facts and figures of their pension scheme ahead of time, but at least they could have said something like this:	"We will raise the old age
pension, we will not say how much, but we will not lower the age limit." Then our aged people would have known what would happen. But that is not the picture; the picture is that our aged people were living in hope that the age limit would be lowered. Why did the government not come out and say, "We want you aged people to know you cannot expect the age limit to be lowered at the present time," instead of raising their hopes and then dashing them on the rocks of disappointment?
I should like to mention a few other things with respect to pensions, but I shall touch upon them only in passing. There is a class of people in this country who are entirely forgotten. I mentioned this last year; I shall mention it again now. I refer to those people who are numbered among the incurables. This does not, I know, come directly under old age pensions, but here are young men and young women who have been struck down by infantile paralysis, epilepsy, and so on. They are bed-ridden cases, pronounced absolutely incurable, and are thrown upon charity for the rest of their lives. In a land of abundance, a land of wealth, a land where we are short of nothing, we cannot look after them. I wish some Liberal member would explain why that should be. The only explanation they can give is: "We have not the money."


John Horne Blackmore: We have not the intelligence in high places.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) mentioned that. We have not as much intelligence in high places today as they had in the councils of the chieftains of the stone age to which I referred some time back.
I am not going to say just now how I intend to vote on this bill. This is what I

should like to see, and here I am speaking personally, on my own, without having consulted with any members of my group. I should like to see a solid opposition vote against this bill, if possible a majority against it, to send this government to the country to see whether or not the people are satisfied with the paltry increase of $5 a month to our aged people. If anyone ever worked a generation ago it was those people who have now reached the age of seventy, who pioneered this country. If I have to vote for this bill, what position am I in? Well, I am going to say this, and I say it in all kindness. If I vote for this bill I have to vote for a disgraceful insult; and that is my choice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the hon. member concludes, may I ask him a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, I do not mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said the pension under the bill was $30. Of course he will appreciate that the pension can be greater than that, in view of the provincial contribution. In the case of Alberta, without any further expenditure on the part of the province, the pension under this bill will be $33.75. Can the hon. gentleman tell me whether or not it is likely that the province from which he comes will follow the example of British Columbia, and the example set by Ontario today, and increase that pension to a higher figure?


Solon Earl Low: If I may reply, they are already doing so. They are extending a great deal more by way of medical services, dental services and hospitalization than either of those provinces mentioned by the minister.


Ernest George Hansell: I thank the leader of this party for answering the question, and I am going to answer it in another way. Is my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) proud to stand up in this house and argue over $3 a month?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you asking me a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; I want to know if you are proud to argue as to whether it should be $33 or $30.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am anxious to do all we can to help the aged; and in that responsibility the tradition and law of this country has been that the provincial and federal governments together will do so. I have asked the hon. gentleman a question with respect to Alberta. Is he prepared to answer it?


John Horne Blackmore: You will always find Alberta in the lead.

Old Age Pensions


Ernest George Hansell: My time is going and I do not like interruptions right at the end of my speech, but I can answer that question. I do not know what the government of Alberta is prepared to do. All I say is that this government has the power and the responsibility to make that which is physically possible financially possible; and it does not do so. I am not concerned about $33 a month. Why not $50 a month? Why not make it that, regardless of what the provinces do? The first thing the minister knows, he is going to compel me to vote against this disgraceful insult, by adding insult to injury.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking this debate has appeared to be of a very high order. I must personally congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) upon what I thought an able and well considered speech ;his afternoon.
I must confess, of course, that when I hear :he hen. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) tell about the' philosophy of the Social Credit party, even after three years in the House of Commons I am unable to follow him.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Some people are slow.


John Lambert Gibson: I admit I do not come from Pontiac, where all the privileges of education are available to everyone. But when I hear the hon. member for Macleod say that anything that is physically possible is financially possible, I know he is just quoting from the hallucination of some previous speaker.


John Horne Blackmore: Don't you wish you knew better than that?


John Lambert Gibson: It would be quite possible, of course, to take all our old age pensioners in Canada, obtain rooms in the Chateau Laurier for each and every one of them, and provide them with room service every morning. That, possibly, would be phj-sically possible. But I do not think I would care to sign the cheques the government would have to sign to take care of them in that manner.
As I say, the subject has been particularly well covered. Various statistics with regard to old age pensions have been given, and in what I have to say I intend to be brief. Certainly I do not intend to introduce into the debate anything which indicates I am a oeliever in paying for old age pensions with funny money of any kind.


David Réal Caouette: We use the same kind of money you use.


John Lambert Gibson: I suppose you do. And I have found that is the only kind people will take.


David Réal Caouette: That is the only kind you ate taking from the people.


John Lambert Gibson: I trust I earn mine as well here as the hon. member evidently thinks he does.
I believe it is the duty of every hon. member to act with responsibility when he undertakes to spend the money of his constituents, the people who sent him here. After all, it is not our money we are spending; it belongs to the taxpayers of Canada.
Certainly we cannot pay out anything in old age pensions or any other kind of pensions until we first collect it from the people. And despite what the hon. member for Macleod says-and once again I admit I am not as bright as he is-the only way I know of getting it is through taxation.


Victor Quelch: Did you pay for the war in that way?


John Lambert Gibson: We certainly shall.


John Horne Blackmore: We shall, if we keep a Liberal government in power.


John Lambert Gibson: My objection, of course, to the present non-contributory scheme of old age pensions is the very fact that those who have contributed to it in the past and who will contribute to it in the future are the ones who, because of this means test, will be unable to collect any portion of it.
It would appear to me, personally, that we have certainly removed any incentive for the old person to go out and try to make a few extra dollars to supplement his income under the pension scheme. My experience has been that old people who have nothing to do and who do not feel useful do not last long.


Solon Earl Low: That is good sense.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about going to
the senate?


John Lambert Gibson: I said once in the house that I had no hope of getting to the senate because there are too many ahead of me. Probably there are some priorities in the matter.
The present means test of course places the stigma of pauperdom on anyone who applies for an old age pension, when one considers the investigations which take place, and to which reference has already been made in the house. I believe I can honestly say that there is no
Old Age Pensions

member in the House of Commons but who, because of the amount of expenses members have, will find a great deal of difficulty in making both ends meet, despite the raise of $2,000 we got last year. I do not believe there is a member in the House of Commons who would care to go to the old age pensions authority and ask for a pension for his mother or father. In my view that condition of affairs is wrong. If wre have an old age pension it should be available to every old person, and should not be payable by the children, even if they are able to pay it. Under the means test, the present pension is a form of charity, in the way it is administered.
I object very much to the fact that people who have been thrifty and who have provided for their old age find that, when examinations are made, their pensions are cut in half in some cases. There is no provision made for people of that kind, who have saved, to obtain a cost of living bonus. They certainly are not organized today, like members of labour unions, so that, because of the present high cost of living, they might be able to obtain some relief.
I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) to refer the bill to the committee on industrial relations is a good one; and I can see no reason, if the government were prepared to support that suggestion, why there should be any necessity to have this bill killed. There is no reason why we cannot go ahead with this old age pensions bill in this session of parliament. It seems to me that the average responsible member in the House of Commons would like to know what the removal of the means test would cost.


Paul Joseph James Martin: About $200 million.


John Lambert Gibson: The minister says it would cost about $200 million. I imagine he has w'orked it out. However I am not entirely convinced he has taken into consideration what we may recover from our income tax, if our income tax is applied and the amount is recovered from those who do not need this pension.
My principal objection is that in this measure we segregate the people into two classes, so far as old age pensions are concerned. I believe that in a committee of that kind we could get both the federal and the provincial viewpoints. I believe that if we went into that committee we would get away from a lot of politics. My own experience has been that everyone .tries to make a contribution, and in this instance they would try to work toward what everyone will agree is a worth-while thing, the provision of security for our old citizens.

I believe that if this -were discussed in committee it could be brought back to the house with recommendations as to what should be done. Each one of the members of the committee would feel a responsibility in the matter and would be prepared to support income tax proposals to make it possible to pay these pensions to our old people.
It is high time that a responsible and thrifty element of Canadian society were given an opportunity to present their side of the case for the removal of the means test.
Mr. DANIEL MoIVOR (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say, and I mean what I say. I am reminded of that great Scottish poet who has said:
0 wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as ithers see us!
As I try to see the minister as he is, as I try to see him as the government of Ontario has been seeing him these last few days, and as I try to see him as that great university of Michigan with its high standards saw him recently, when it bestowed upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws-and I congratulate him upon that; his head is not a bit bigger since he got it-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It could not be.
. Mr. McIVOR: -I note the contrast in these views. I believe this bill has come a long way in doing good. I was only sorry that this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that, on account of the bill, the minister should bow his head in shame. My experience in life is that no man should bow his head in shame unless he commits a sin. I believe the minister should hold his head higher because of what he has done in the bill for people who are in difficulties. I am pleased with the amendments that have been brought in, and there is one that I appreciate very much. I know of many people who moved from the country during the war, some going to the south and some to the old country. When they could not get back they lost their pensions because they had stayed away for more than the allotted number of days. They are now to be able to get their pensions and I thank the minister for that.
I notice that there is to be a fifty-fifty payment to those between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine years who are in difficulties financially. That is a good thing because some men are older at sixty-five than others are at seventy-five. I have no difficulty in proving that. Some men hold their youth because thej- take care of themselves; some do not

Old Age Pensions
because they do not take care of their minds. I thank the minister for that fifty-fifty payment.
I have heard some say that it is too little and too late. There were a lot of people in this house who said that the war effort of this government was too little and too late. I must admit that it went down below my diaphram when I heard that, because I thought we were not doing all that we could. What happened? The government was doing everything behind the scenes to help Britain and Russia defeat Hitler. It was not too little and too late because they won out in the end.
I want to tell the minister that I think he is on the right track. It may not be a large pension, but it is something. I know a couple whom I helped get an old age pension, and they are now each receiving $28 a month, or a total of S56. I had pancakes and coffee with them in their home and anyone would have been glad to have had a meal like that. Everything was clean and tidy and they were saving a little for their old age. They showed me their bank book.
I have used the words of that great Scottish poet because he understood human nature. I want to congratulate Ontario-there are some here representing that province-upon raising its old age pension to $40 a month. My hon. friends from British Columbia must now take second place to our great province. I want to thank that province for its generosity; I want to give credit where credit is due. There will be some people who are sufficiently hard-hearted to say that that is smart politics. If it is, let us have more politics of that kind because it will help many older people get their S40 a month. I believe the minister is indirectly responsible for that increase.
What is going to happen in Quebec, and I dare to refer to your great province, Mr. Speaker? I do not think Quebec will take second place to Ontario or British Columbia. I did not meet him there, but I see the premier of Quebec is attending the great Marian congress. If he gets the spirit of that congress there will be nobody in want in Quebec. He will go back to his cabinet and say, "We as a great province cannot stand idly by and not feed and clothe our old people, not give them a bit of fun and a little :obacco into the bargain."
There are some people who think members of parliament are paid a lot of money, and dear knows we are. However I am no richer today than I was ten years ago. The more we get, the more we spend and we are the happier at it. I would be glad to have my sessional indemnity held by the government if it would
increase old age pensions a little or help those who are suffering from arthritis or who cannot get treatment when they are suffering from cancer.
There is another side to this great question. When I was quite young I was taught to memorize the ten commandments, and there is one commandment I have never forgotten: "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." I do not think any young man or woman should take the farm or property of his or her parents, have it put in his or her name and then let the old folks go on old age pensions. It is not fair to the government.
There is another thing in this bill I like very much, the possibility of a national pensions scheme. The minister made it quite clear that we should have contributory pensions. Those who have worked in our day remember that there were many who earned fifty cents an hour but when the week was over they did not have a cent left. They had not the ability or willingness to save a little. If there were a contributory scheme on a national basis it would be a great thing for this country. I say to the minister, more power to your arm and to your head for your willingness to keep this thing going.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) congratulated the minister upon piloting the citizenship bill through the house. I am not an Irishman, nor is the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) a Scotsman; we are both Canadians and we thank the minister for that. I know, when the minister tackles this question of pensions for our senior citizens it will be like the balky horse I helped to break in. When he once got the bit in his mouth he would go his own way, no matter what any one did. I hope the minister gets the bit in his mouth and goes to the finish. As I said before, we shall not then be giving our older citizens $50 a month, we shall be giving them enough, no matter what the standard of living is.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I hope that nothing I say shall be interpreted as politics. To my mind politics should be left out of this subject. The distress of old folks should not be played up politically.
In the addresses so far in the debate, there is one matter that has not been touched upon. Most of those now coming into the old age pension brackets are those who have come down through the years without large wages or salaries. Something has been said about the large salaries and wages which have been
Old Age Pensions

paid in late years, but that does not apply to those now coming up for old age pensions.
When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) spoke this afternoon he referred to the length of time he had been advocating old age pensions. My advocacy of old age pensions and pensions for the maimed and blind goes back to some years prior to 1920. I became an enthusiast of pensions for the blind and for the maimed and aged workers from a long association with thousands of workers. Many times I saw them blinded and maimed. I saw thousands of them getting old. I am talking of the time when I was with them. I know these men with whom I worked, and multitudes of others now coming into the old age pension age down through the years who did not at any time receive * sufficient salary or wage to lay up a competence for their old age I think of the moulders, of the machinists, and of the artificers working in a big plant of whom I knew so many. I saw them laid off quite often for as much as three months of the year. A man cannot save very much for his old age if he is laid off work for three months of the year. I am not speaking of the last ten years because everything has been swimming in that time. I am speaking of the time years before that, of the people who are now coming into the old age pension age. Being working men, most of them had families. God blesses the working man. It is to those people that He sends the families. Many of their wives were frequently sick. If a man is out of work and has sickness in his home he cannot save at all. Therefore, sir, I am one of those who advocates as strongly as I can the abolition of the means test. That is my own opinion. I do not care a fig about what anybody else advocates. I give my own opinion and my opinions are based on my experience. We should abolish the means test. How in the name of heaven could a moulder, a blacksmith, a machinist or a carpenter fifteen or twenty years ago, out of the mere pittance of a salary or wage that he received, lay aside anything for his old age? They did manage to get together a little home. How in the name of common sense can we ask them, when they ask for old age pension after the struggle of a lifetime, to sign away the rights to their little homes?
I hold in my hand a letter which I received from a lady I know in Toronto. Her husband was a soldier. He went overseas in the first great war. He was not allowed to go to France because he was too proficient at drilling or in some other army service. He was an expert in that line and they kept him in 
England. When he came back to Canada he died. That service barred him from a military pension and also his wife. But through thrift they had managed to get together a little home. I know the home very well. It may be worth $2,500. I am not speaking of the inflated prices of houses today which will certainly be flattened out in the next few years. As I say, that house is worth $2,500, but it would probably sell at S7,500 today. She came to see me and importuned to get an old age pension, but she had to sign away her home. At that time her son, who was a returned soldier, was living with her. After a while he died and left her in straitened circumstances. She decided to sell her home because she could not possibly live on $20 a month and whatever was given in pension by Ontario plus the cost of living allowance. She sold her house after having received a pension for just a few years. Of course the old age pension board was at once notified about the sale of the house and they took from what she had received for the house all that they had paid her in old age pension; so she came to see me again. She has now bought a much smaller house for which she paid around $2,200. but it is not nearly as fine a house as the one she sold, because the one she bought recently was built recently and everyone knows what kind of houses they are.
She applied for old age pension again because she could not live on what was coming in from the little bit that she had left after selling her house. An old age pension official came to see her. I had appealed to the department to give this war widow of seventy-seven or seventy-eight years of age a chance to live. They wanted her to sign a paper for this little house worth about $2,200. I said to her: "Do not sign it." I am bound to say that she did receive old age pension this time without having to sign away her house. Whether it was a special ruling or not, I do not know. Anyway, she was given a pension without a means test. The means test should be abolished.
Some time ago I received a letter from her. I will not give her name. The letter reads:
I have had a note from the old age pension board to say they would reinstate me-
This is a month or two ago now. I continue:
-but they gave me no assurance that the same thing won't be repeated. They asked me to sign. I did not, as I don't trust them again.
I cannot blame her for that after her other experience. The letter continues:
It is too bad they can only gyp old people and poor widows who are left alone. I do think the thrifty people should be considered a little more

Old Age Pensions
after paying taxes fifty years and not penalize them for being thrifty and clean. 1 for one think it is a detriment to the housing shortage as people will not buy on account of that. I am sending you two more victims I cut out of the Telegram this week.
She sent me two items from the paper about two more people who had been victimized by their homes. Because of the numbers of experiences I have come in contact with, I am opposed to the means test. However I am glad to say that it has not been 100 per cent enforced. I know of two or three cases myself where the head of the hous<5 died; then the mother died; and the old age pension board in settling up with the estate, after my writing them a letter and telling them that one family had sent seven sons overseas-the parents had left nothing but the little home they had saved up-did not take the home away from the heir. While some lose their homes, others do not. I think it would be only fair all round to abolish the means test.
I know quite well that some people do not always do the right thing. They will sign away their homes to their children in order to get a pension without signing. A farmer will sign away his farm to his son or daughter in order to get a pension without signing. I do not think people should be put in the position of falsifying their financial status. It would be much better simply to abolish the means test.


Mr. HODGSON:: You would penalize thrift then.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; in my opinion the situation as it is penalizes thrift.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is what I say.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had a letter a day or two ago from a clergyman's widow; she is one of a multitude I know. She is getting up toward seventy years of age. Her husband had been a clergyman in a charge in Saskatchewan or Alberta. Anyone who knows anything about the salaries of clergymen in the west a few years ago knows that they could not save anything out of their salary. Before going to the first great war, he was invited to take some official position in the army which did not allow him to get a pension. He came home and died. That poor widow woman of sixty-five years of age or more cannot even buy car tickets; she cannot buy any clothes; she cannot go to a picture show. She lives in one room with another family. She has nothing for medicine; she cannot have her teeth attended to. She has nothing that makes life worth living. She is just living to be taken away to the next world. That is not a situation of which any of us can be proud. Therefore I am in favour of lowering the age 83166-281
limit to permit women, perhaps especially widowed mothers, to receive pensions at the age of sixty-five.
I know that this or any other government would have a stiff job providing pensions for everyone at the age of sixty-five. I am not one of those who advocate high taxes, but I believe in lowering the age limit for women to sixty-five, because, after all, women age more rapidly than men, particularly if they have, had families. That is the position I take, and one of the reasons I take it is that during the years I served in big industry, coming into contact with thousands of workers in my time, I have seen too many of them going down the years unable to put by anything against their old age.
I am strongly in favour of lowering, the age limit, for women in particular to sixty-five, and I also strongly advocate the abolition of the means test. I do not wish to say a word that would inject politics into this debate. Someone tried to do so earlier in the evening, but this is not a debate for politics. If, therefore, I say that I am very happy that the Ontario government has made the announcement it has, I hope no one will interpret that observation as political. The sum of $40 a month by the Ontario premier will cheer the heart and soul of many old folks in this province.
That brings this thought to my mind, and I am sure it will be shared by the minister, for he is just as much interested in these matters as any other member of this house, and perhaps more, considering that he is minister. I hope it will be an incentive to him, if not this year, then perhaps next year, to try to bring about uniformity throughout Canada. Forty dollars at least for every province would be an objective to aim at, because if we get it in Ontario and the people do not get more than $32 or $33 or $35, say in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick or elsewhere, that is a penalty imposed on them for living in those provinces. That is not fair. The amount should be uniform throughout Canada, and I hope the minister will look ahead to some time in the near future when the rate will be the same. throughout the dominion. I am well aware of the fact that Viscount Bennett did announce that the federal government would pay the whole pension, and I believe I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say that that had been in the Liberal platform. So there is no politics in my saying that, and I think that is the way it should be, that the federal government should carry the whole burden of the old age pension. After all, it goes round and round and it all comes back anyway. We get it in

Old Age Pensions

the form of sales tax or one tax or another, so that in reality it all comes out of the pocket of the federal government in any event.
I do not know that I have much more to say.
I have taken an interest in the old age pension question for many years. I do not take my hat off to anyone in the advocacy of it, for I advocated it as a necessity many years ago for those I knew so well. I do not think it is necessary for me to go further. I do not wish to criticize, because that will not get us anywhere. On the contrary, I would encourage the minister to go still farther, and if what I have said will help him to do so, when the bill comes in the committee it may be that, after consultation with his colleagues, amendments will be offered for the abolition of the means test or lowering the age limit, for instance. I hope someone will move an amendment to that effect and also propose that there be uniformity throughout Canada in the way I have suggested. If anything I have said will help the minister to go farther I feel that I have done my duty. I put my duty first to those who are in the class requiring old age pensions, and if I interject politics into the question I know it will do no good. It will not help either us or those who are in need of old age pensions.
Mr.' F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin): In discussing this measure, which is an act to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, I believe that we in this house should be careful not to become too deeply involved in dollars and cents. The question of how it will be paid for is, I think, a minor consideration compared with the question whether it is desirable or not that we shall have better pensions and at a lower age. It seems to me that what we need to do first is to set out for ourselves what are the desirable national objectives and then try to introduce measures in this house in order to make them possible. Everyone will agree that if we were to state our national objectives in a brief way we would desire, first of all, that the general welfare of all citizens shall be looked after. We would strive for the highest possible standard of public health and also the highest possible standard of education.
What we are debating at the present time is not the desirability of these things, because I believe that we can agree on them. We are debating, however, whether the present government and the measure which is at present before us are adequate toward attaining these desirable ends. If we take the speech delivered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) yesterday, and consider two parts of it together, it will give us

a lead as to whether the government, in this measure, is reaching out far enough to attain these desirable objectives.
First, I wish to quote from the minister's speech where he referred to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on a different occasion, and which incidentally I placed on Hansard on a previous day, having to do with what the Prime Minister declared in 1942, on October 9, speaking to the American Federation of Labour in Toronto. He said:
The era of freedom will be achieved only as social security and human welfare 'become the main concern of men and nations.
He followed that up with this significant sentence:
It is necessary that social security and human welfare should be expressed in definite terms.
I come back to the earlier part of the minister's speech in which he said, at page 4282 of Hansard:
This government has given conclusive evidence of its concern for the welfare of the aged among our population.
I do not know what he meant by "conclusive evidence", but I would take it that the present measure is the conclusive evidence to which he referred of the extent to which the government is expressing its concern for the aged of the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That and our proposals to the provinces.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Unfortunately we are not in a position to debate the proposals to the provinces, which are not placed before this house for consideration. The proposals that were made to the provinces are now a nebulous thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What we have before the house is the present bill, and we have to decide on the basis of its provisions whether the government is expressing its concern for the aged and to what extent in definite terms, using the language of the Prime Minister. This is the measure that is before the house. I hope the proposals made to the provinces will be repeated in definite terms in the form of a bill in this house at a future time, but at the present time this bill is all that we have before us, and on that basis I fear I must agree with those on this side of the house who have expressed disappointment and criticism of the method, not only for the meagreness of the provision under consideration, but also for the fact that the measure has been so long delayed.
I want to agree with something that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) said this

Old Age Pensions
evening. He observed that when we consider such measures as social security and other desirable objectives we should ask ourselves whether it is physically possible to provide the goods and services that are required before we get into any question of finance; because if we decide that it is desirable to have old age pensions at the age of sixty-five and at the rate of S50 a month, and if we have the natural resources and the productivity to provide the goods and services therefor, then the only question that remains to be decided is whether we shall divert the necessary portion of our production to provide for those people, or whether we shall not.
I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) came out pretty plainly and flat-footedlv when he said that it would be possible to provide for these people, that we could build them an hotel as good as the Chateau Laurier and bring meals to their rooms, but he asked, who is going to pay for it? So you see, we are not prepared to do these things for the aged people. We can do them but we are not prepared to do them. He does not think it would be fair for the other people to provide such facilities. I am not advocating that we build any hotels for our aged people, but I say that the people of this country have expressed in no uncertain terms their belief that people at the age of sixty-five are entitled to a pension of $50 a month. The leader of this group had the honour to present to this house a petition signed by over a quarter of a million people of all ages urging the government to make that provision. I have here on my desk a whole stack of letters, resolutions and briefs, as have many other hon. members, urging us to take those steps. I believe that many of the members on the government side of the house are in sympathy with w'hat I am saying; all that is required is for the government to decide whether they will take that step on a national basis, or whether they will not.
I also want to say that to me one of the most disappointing things was the fact that no mention was made of removing the means test. Another disappointment was the fact that the provisions for blind persons' pensions remain practically the same as before; particularly is that so as to the age. In my opinion the means test is the most objectionable feature of the present Old Age Pensions Act. Any hon. member who goes through his correspondence on old age pensions will find, I think, that nine out of ten letters he receives stem from the means test provision. People cannot understand the way in which the whole thing operates, to start with; and when they begin to fill in the old age pension 83166-281J
application form, a copy of which I hold in my hand, they find that they are in for a nightmare. It can truly be called a cradle-to-the-grave affair, because on the first page, in question 8, it asks for the date of birth and place of birth; and on the last page, in question 41, it asks, "Who will be in charge of your affairs following your death?" There they have you from birth to death and almost everything in between. I can give a few samples. Question 15 reads:
Give particulars of children living with you or with whom you are living.
They want the name in full, sex, age, occupation, married or single, number of dependent children, income during the past year, contributions. Not only that, but in the next question they say:
Give particulars of children not living with you.
How in the world would you expect anyone to know all about their children who were not living with them, when some might perhaps be living in a foreign country? Again they ask for all the particulars I enumerated under the previous question. Then we go on to page 4 and we find question 32 which reads:
Give date and amount of each contribution to your support by each member of your family during the year prior to making application.
That is another question which is almost impossible to answer. Then question 33:
If any members of your family have failed to contribute give names and reasons for said failure to assist.
It would take a Philadelphia lawyer and a couple of assistants to fill out a form of that kind. How can the old age pensioner know why any of his children or other members of his family failed to assist him? He is required to give reasons why they did not do so. Then there is question 37:
How have you been meeting living expenses during the past year?
That is a ridiculous question. What business is it of anyone how a person has managed to live within the last year? I have already quoted question 41, but it wants to know who is to be in charge of your funeral. I have other forms that go with it, and there are plenty of these. One asks for the assessment of the property owned by the applicant or his or her spouse, in detail. They want to know everything. In fact, under one of the questions, question 30, they' ask you to give the value and description of the furniture, farm equipment or any other property not yet specified. If you happened to have a couple
Old Age Pensions

of pipes and a few pipe cleaners and forgot to put them down, you possibly would be accused of having falsified your application.
The thing becomes ridiculous, and the reason for that is that the application must, of necessity, be based on the regulations which are in force. I am not criticizing the pension authorities who drew up the application form. They had to ask questions to cover all the regulations which are in force under this act. It is because these regulations are ridiculous that the application form is a nightmare, that it is nosey and confusing, and that it is almost impossible for the ordinary person to answer the questions without legal assistance. All that is based on the fact that we have a means test. If there were no means test; if the old age pension were payable to all people as a matter of right-in the same way as family allowances are paid, for example-it would then be unnecessary for every person to go through that nightmare; and it would also be unnecessary to send out, twice a year, a letter or form which has to be filled out-almost as complicated as the other one-to prove that you have not received five cents from anyone else while you were receiving your pension cheque. All that could be wiped out and we should then have our pensions on a commonsense basis. Therefore,	had	the
Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and those associated with him included in this bill a provision to wipe out the means test, I believe that in itself would have been a great step forward in providing a proper system of old age pensions.
I now want to come back to the other disappointment I mentioned, namely, the fact that the age limit for the blind still remains at forty. I have here resolutions and briefs from various organizations making representations on behalf of blind persons, asking that the age limit be lowered. In his speech the other day, the leader of our group advocated that the age limit should be lowered to the point where the family allowance stops; in other words, that at the age of seventeen they should become eligible for the blind pension. That seems 'i be only common sense because, after the age of dependence ends and he or she is not eligible until the age of forty, there is a gap there of almost twenty years, and sometimes more than twenty years, in which the blind person has absolutely nowhere to turn for assistance, except to charity.
While I am at it I also want to say that I had expectedi that the government would sooner or later make some provision to pay the old age pension to Indians, but apparently nothing has been done in that respect. All

I can say is that our record so far, in our treatment of these people, has not been the best and leaves much to be desired. I hope that in the future they will be included.
I was particularly interested in listening the other day to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) speaking on behalf of the Conservative party-and what I want to say now is not said in any spirit of carping criticism- and in listening this afternoon to the hon. member for Eghnton (Mr. Fleming) who was speaking vigorously and with great volume. I was reminded that on a previous occasion he accused me of shedding crocodile tears. I am not going to go that far. I want to be far more charitable to him and his party than he was to me. But as the leader of the opposition spoke, I remembered that I had an advertisement which appeared during the Portage la Prairie by-election; and it struck me as being a little incongruous that the same party which advocated such drastic cutting down of expenditure by this government were now advocating the spending of more money for social security. I want to say clearly that I am not criticizing them in any way for advocating greater expenditures on social security, particularly under this measure, because we are on the same side on this question. But I believe that if the policy advocated during the Portage la Prairie by-election had been followed by this government it would have been impossible, not only to increase the amount of the old age pension, but to pay any old age pension at all, or to pay any family allowances at all. Why do I say that? I have an advertisement here, with the picture of the genial member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller); and incidentally it is a very fine picture.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: A very fine fellow, too.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes. It is headed, "Make Miller your member," and underneath that in large letters it says, "He believes in and will work to stop billion dollar government spending." If that were taken seriously; if we were to make a move in this house to cut the expenditures of the government to less than a billion dollars, which is the only way you can stop billion dollar spending, it would be impossible to provide any old age pensions or any family allowances at all.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If I may ask a question, does the hon. member think this government is an extravagant spender, or not?
MR. ZAPLITNY: Certainly on old age pensions i.t is not.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is hardly an answer to the question.

Old Age Pensions


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will say this to my hon. friend, that I am not criticizing the speech of the leader of the opposition yesterday, but I think if we are to make proper expenditures in, regard to these matters we should be careful at election time not to go out advocating the cutting out of billion dollar spending. I want to say quite frankly that I am not against billion dollar spending. I would be just as happy if the government spent twice as much as they are spending now, provided that we got a dollar's worth for every dollar we spent, and that the people who most needed the expenditure were the recipients of it.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: How is the C.C.F. party going to pay the extra taxes?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is hardly a question which requires an answer.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Oh, yes, it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We spent five billion dollars a year during the war, out of production.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: And we owe it now.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I hope hon. members have had their little chat and that I may go on with what I was saying.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: How about going on with old age pensions?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Exactly; that is what I am going to do. I also want to remind hon. members who sit across the way that if there has been a delay in improving the old age pensions situation it has been the fault of the government, but not only of the government itself. There are members who are not part of the government, but who support it, private Liberal members on the other side of the house, who in previous debates have advised the government to go slowly. I say this merely because one or two hon. members opposite have expressed their impatience over the lack of progress in this matter. I strongly sympathize with them; they are not the members who gave the advice to which I just referred. I find that in 1946, when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) introduced his almost annual resolution seeking higher old age pensions at a lower age, one of the hon. members sitting opposite, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker), had this to say at page 745 of Hansard for April 10 of that year:
However, I believe the motion is premature at this time. I hope that some day in the future, and the sooner the better, we shall be able to have these things so arranged in Canada that the old and aged people will be able to pass through the twilight of their lives with dignity, comfort and security.
I agree with the latter part of that statement; but if hon. members on that side of the house are as anxious as we are that some progress should be made in these matters-and I believe they are-why do they advise the government, when we present a motion of this kind, that the matter is premature? When shall we be ready to do the things we believe are right?


An hon. MEMBER:: When you stop talking.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud), who. is a charming member, in the same debate at page 749 of Hansard, had this to say:
... I do not consider it advisable that the house should adopt it at this time.
And at page 751:
If the resolution is put to the vote I shall vote against it 'because I do not think it advisable to pass upon it while the proposals are before the dominion-provincial conference . . .
Well, it appears that this conference has not been a succeess. It has not finished its deliberations, but for all practical purposes it has ended, and today I do not think those hon. members would take that attitude, or at least I hope they would not. Then I find that on October 3, 1945. speaking on the same subject at page 718 of Hansard, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Cote), also a charming member, used these words:
... I am of the opinion that this resolution is premature and inappropriate at this time and should not be adopted.
There is the record, which shows there have been hon. members, I suppose on both sides, who have not been prepared to do what we think is right because it has been premature, or inappropriate, or not the right time to do it. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminds me, they promised this in 1919, and still they think it is premature.
I am not going to take much more of the time of the house; I am going to follow the advice of the hon. member opposite who said that as soon as I sat down they would start doing these things. I am so anxious to see them done that I am not going to hold up the house longer.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the question of improving our old age pensions, putting them on a national scale, removing the means test, making better provision for the blind and including in that category also the crippled, is something that has been before this house actively for the last three years. It has been before the house in one form or another for the last fifteen or twenty years, or perhaps longer;
Old Age Pensions

and I believe it is time, before this parliament ends, that we should take this matter seriously and, even though we may have to pass the present bill, inadequate as it is, on this occasion, immediately after that we should set up a committee charged with the responsibility of bringing into this house a proper bill covering all these meeds, including pensions for the blind and crippled, old age pensions on a national scale and so on, to bring before the house something of which we can all be proud.


Mr. P. E. COTE (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to open my remarks by referring to a word which the previous speaker emphasized, and which he extracted from, speeches made by two hon. members on this side of the house during the debate on this matter a year or two ago. The hon. gentleman objects to the word "premature", as it was used at that time. If I may, to please him I would use that word again today and say that in my opinion this debate is premature. We all agree on the principle involved in this amending bill, which is the improvement of the Old Age Pensions Act; but most of the criticism that has been heard here should have been reserved for the committee of the whole when this bill was considered clause by clause. This is a money bill. No hon. member can do anything to increase its provisions, and a great deal of time is being wasted without any benefit. I had intended to make a few remarks during the committee stage; but since the debate has taken the trend it has taken, I feel that, coming from the province of Quebec, I should voice my opinion.
I do not intend to speak at length; but what I should like to emphasize, first, is that, despite the criticism we have heard yesterday and today on this point, for the past twenty years this party has been interested actively in old age pensions. The first bill was introduced, in 1927; and if one will refer to the various steps which have been taken since then to improve the original statute, he will realize at once that our system of pensions has developed gradually during those twenty years.
The opposition is not satisfied with the milestone we reached today with the amendment contained in this bill. I would repeat what has been said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), that this measure will bring our system on a par with other systems in force in countries having a similar constitutional complexion. I refer more particularly to New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States.
I would say to hon. members opposite that old age pensions legislation has been on the
	*
statute books of New Zealand for the past fifty years, while in Canada we have had it for only twenty years. Yet, during that half century New Zealand has covered only about the same distance we have covered in less than half the time. The same statement could be made if a comparison were made between our system and that in other countries to wdiich I have referred.
I would emphasize the fact that our government has been more interested in the broader picture of social security. Listening to some opposition members, one would think they are concentrating, all their thought and action upon old age pensions. I believe it would be unwise to act as some of our critics are acting at the present time with respect to this matter, because since the beginning of the last world war more particularly, social security' at large, and as an over-all scheme for the protection of our freedoms and privileges, has been in the minds of the people, not only in this country, but in countries throughout the world.
Our people are not thinking in terms of this or that piece of legislation as much as in terms of a system for which our country fought during the last war, a system of security for each and all of us in our way of life, and to cover our various requirements. This state of mind developed more particularly after the Atlantic charter gave expression to certain principles in August, 1941. To the principles contained in that charter, Canada has subscribed through her acceptance of the declarations of the united nations signed in Washington on January 1, 1942, and we have subscribed on a great number of other occasions in the years following.
As all hon. members know, the principles of freedom proclaimed in the Atlantic charter were the foundation upon which was built the constitution of the united nations organization and they have served as guiding lights to the various committees set up under its supervision and control.
Our country has not delayed unduly her action to implement the obligations she has assumed jointly with the other united nations. On March 8, 1943, this house appointed a select committee whose order of reference was to examine and to report upon a national plan of social insurance which would constitute a charter on social security for the whole of Canada. The committee sat during the session of 1943, was reconstituted in 1944 and did a great amount of work.
In the course of a debate such as this, which deals with old age pensions, it is proper that one should ask himself what importance he should attach to the setting up of an overall scheme of social secuiity, and what place

Old Age Pensions
old age pensions should have in such a scheme. I was particularly interested in the views expressed before the special committee which sat in 1944, by the then executive director of the Canadian welfare council, a gentleman who, since that time, has been honoured with the appointment to the important post of deputy minister of welfare in the dominion government. To precise questions on this point, Doctor Davidson offered the following order of priority:
1.	The maintenance of the fullest possible measure of employment;
2.	The establishment of adequate minimum wage levels;
3.	Children's allowances;
4.	Health insurance;
5.	Old age and retirement insurance.
Before the close of the last war, parliament
agreed to and passed important measures of social security which have done much to bring our country into line with other leading nations of the world. I refer more particularly to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Family Allowances Act, and an important step was taken with the establishment of a special department for national health and welfare.
How has our government acted in the matter of expressing its firm belief in the necessity for setting up an over-all and comprehensive system of complete social security in Canada? I have already placed on record the expert views of a gentleman who certainly had sufficient knowledge and experience to express such views.
The minister referred to the fact that the national health programme represented a great gap in our social security programme, and he pointed out the necessity of improving our old age pensions.
The federal authorities have held, and rightly so, that the only constitutional way to act was to confer with the provinces, and they have done that on several occasions since 1945. They made proposals which involved the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars by this government, provided that those proposals were agreed to by the provinces. More particularly, the scheme of old age pensions which they suggested called for an expenditure of S200 million by this government, while the scheme of health insurance called for an expenditure of $150 million. Family allowances, which have since been put into effect, called for a net expenditure of $200 million by this government.
I do not intend to go over the explanations given by the minister of the amendments provided by this bill. He has stated that this is the maximum pension possible, and he has
stated that there is to be a relaxation of certain restrictions in the application of the means test and so forth. I may have something else to say when the bill is in committee.
At this time I wish to state my views in connection with certain criticisms which we have heard since this discussion commenced. As the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has said, the foundation of the criticism from all quarters of the opposition seems to be that this measure has been too long delayed and that it provides for only a partial measure of justice to the aged. That is the usual refrain of the opposition, and if one takes the trouble to read Hansard since this parliament opened in 1945 he will notice that in each case the criticism of the opposition has been along the same theme-too little, too late.
I shall not go over the legislative activities of this parliament prior to the last war, but I would point out that Canada has been marching forward and has achieved a success which has placed her in a leading role among the medium nations of the world, in spite of the criticism which we have heard throughout the war and since, that she was doing too little and it was coming too late.
Listening to what has been said on the other side, I wonder what would have been the reaction if the minister had brought in a bill containing the exact proposals of the green book, proposals which have been agreed to by seven out of the nine provinces and which are still waiting for the agreement of the other two. I can hear the criticism by the opposition. I am sure they would have blamed the government for taking an autocratic attitude and for disregarding the rights of the provinces in doing something which had not been agreed to. I do not see any soundness in the stand taken by the opposition on this bill.
We could have waited even longer. The proposals made are definite and concrete. Thej'- were made two years ago and the provinces were invited to cooperate in their realization. There are still two important provinces which have not yet come forward. We could have waited and I think we would have had valid reasons for waiting. However, the government has felt that the aged people should not be penalized by having to wait until the agreement had the signature of all nine provinces. We have today a compromise, a measure which comes halfway between the present system and that contained in the proposals which we had hoped would be accepted by the provinces and by which we would
Old Age Pensions

have had a more comprehensive and complete social security programme in Canada.
Criticism has been heard with reference to the means test, but there has been no mention of the fact that the countries which have been compared with Canada., such as New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States, still have the means test. They are in the process of transition toward an over-all contributory plan. After twenty years of operating our old age pensions in Canada, it is our hope-and I believe that is shared by hon. members in every corner of the house-that some day, with the cooperation of the provinces, we shall have a contributory old age pension plan in Canada.
It has been suggested during the debate that if this bill provided for hospitalization, medical, dental and optical care for our aged people, it would be much more acceptable. But this suggestion does not strike me as being quite in order, since all these matters are under provincial jurisdiction, and I do not see what more we can do until all the provinces agree to allow us to enter these fields. These hon. members have certainly not followed the reaction in some of the provinces when we were discussing health insurance in the committee of this house on social security three or four years ago.
Suggestions have been made to increase the maximum pension payable to S50 at the age of sixty. Others are advocating the payment of a pension of $60 at the age of sixty, but I do not see any soundness in these proposals. I cannot see any argument to support them, unless at the same time it is advocated that our taxation should be set up at a higher level in order to meet these additional expenditures. From the estimate of our population for next year, a pension of $50 at age sixty would cost $850 million. This is nearly as much as the estimated receipts from the income and corporation taxes for the fiscal year 1946-47. If the pension were put at $60 at the age of sixty the cost would exceed the receipts from these two taxes and would involve an expenditure of over one billion dollars.
I should like to have heard something about the fiscal system which would be advocated to meet the requirements of all these proposals that we hear about for additional benefits or services or to increase those that we already have, such as old age pensions. If hon. members on the other side are sincere when they say that we should aim at a coordinated social security programme which would provide for every hazard that a man is apt to come up against in modern society, they might give more importance to coopera-

tion between the provinces and to the necessity of an agreement between those to whom our constitution has particularly entrusted the responsibility to take care of these hazards and needs of our population. I do not see that anything worth while can be achieved in the field of social security when considering an over-all long-range scheme, unless we discuss at the same time our constitution and the cooperation that we need. To lay down any durable foundation for the future of our country, as is done in the proposals to the provinces with regard to old age pensions, we should not just pick out that particular hazard by itself and offer to spend $600 million or $700 million or more every year and give old age pensions to a greater number of our citizens. We have aimed, first, to cover a wider field; we have given a place of importance to old age pensions, and we have given a more important place to a service which our country does not have, to help ensure a national health programme with the intent of filling the important gap and with tha desire of laying the basis for a continual and worth-while alleviation of the difficulties and needs of our population. I think we have a balanced programme of social legislation already in our statutes and in the proposals to the provinces. It is the duty of hon. members, as it is the duty of the citizens of Canada, to impress upon the provinces which have not as yet agreed to these proposals, the necessity of concurring with their sister provinces in helping to lay down a foundation for a social future for our country.
Coming from Quebec, I could not conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without pointing to what the situation is in my province. The province of Quebec entered into agreements with the federal authorities with regard to oldi age pensions in 1936. In the years following, until the war broke out, nothing was done by Quebec to increase the maximum pension payable to our destitute and needy citizens. It is true that during the war, from 1939 to 1945. a good excuse could be offered for not doing so; but for the past two years, if one bears in mind that the provincial budget has had substantial surpluses, if one has regard for the economic and financial position of Quebec as compared with that of the other provinces, one cannot avoid asking himself how it is that in Quebec there is but $25 as maximum pension payable to the aged. The example set up by our neighbour province of Ontario today should be an invitation to Quebec and to its neighbour provinces to get closer to the other provinces and to the federal government in a true association and partnership in the working out

Old Age Pensions
of a greater future for our country. The first step that Quebec could take toward that aim would be to take the necessary steps for the immediate voting of increased pensions. I would not be satisfied until such time as Quebec is on the same level as the great provinces of British Columbia and Ontario as far as the alleviation of the lot of all our old people is concerned.
May I refer to a statement which was made on the 16th instant by the provincial treasurer of Quebec, Hon. Onesime Gagnon, at the bankers' convention in the state of New York. The statement is in the French language, but I may say, from what the newspaper La Presse reported in its issue of the 17th instant, that if the Quebec provincial treasurer would translate into legislative action the feelings to which he gave expression on the occasion of that convention, Quebec would no longer consider Ottawa as a foreign country; Quebec would no longer consider her sister provinces as competitors from whom she should keep away in case they might lean against her and infringe upon her privileges, traditions and rights. I would hope that Mr. Gagnon would communicate to his leader the premier of Quebec the spirit which he has there expressed and that from now on there will be between Quebec and Ottawa the same spirit of partnership as Mr. Gagnon preached between Canada and the United States in the course of his statement. This is what he said. I quote in the French language:
(Translation):
Only the close cooperation between the United States and Canada, can prevent the catastrophe of a third world war, which would surely destroy civilization.
(Text) :
And later on, Mr. Speaker, he said:
(Translation):
The Canadians and the Americans, united in their love of freedom, struggle for the progress of civilization. Both countries are staunch supporters of the federal system and both are equally interested in the return of peace to the universe. To achieve these aims they must cooperate and such cooperation is bound to ensure important results.
Mr. Gagnon said to the 600 delegates assembled here since Saturday. "That there can be no question of staying aloof or of minding our local business alone."


Mr. McIVOR:: Hear, hear!
(Text):


Paul-Émile Côté: It woidd appear, Mr. Speaker, that for the past two years, if the Hon. Mr. Gagnon is sincere in his statement, there has been some progress in the attitude of the provincial government of Quebec toward 83166-282
the government of any place outside the province. I hope that what I have read will be true so far as the relations between the provincial government and the federal government are concerned. I trust that we may expect closer cooperation between the two governments, to start with, in order to improve the situation of the aged of the province of Quebec, and, in the second place, in order to build for Canada a great future, social security in the province of Quebec, in the whole of Canada, which would be better, and in the whole world-and that is what Mr. Gagnon had in mind the other day. That is, I am sure, the aim of each person of good will on this continent and elsewhere.
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): The old age pensions bill we have before us should never have been drawn up in the first place, and, in the second place, it should never have been brought before this house, because it is none of our business.- Here are we assembled like a lot of old bachelors discussing among ourselves, as it were, whether or not Mrs. Murphy's kids should have peanuts or popcorn. Let me illustrate what I mean when I say it is none of our business.
When I was a little boy "my mammy done told me" that God was a great and good being, that He was all that was right, just and honourable, but that there was another called the devil, who was the very opposite, and I often wondered as a child why God permitted the devil to hang around. Over a quarter of a century ago I dissociated myself from artificial entities and dealt only in realities. In other words, I went back to the farm where I became intimately acquainted with nature, with God if you like, and, having in mind since childhood the puzzling fact of the devil and God existing side by side, I asked God one day, figuratively speaking, of course, why He did not knock the devil out of Old Nick and be done with it. The answer I got made me stagger back on my heels. My mouth opened, my eyes nearly bursting from my head, for the answer I got was: Demon est deus inversus. "You", I said in amazement, "don't say so". Well, isn't that queer, that it never occurred to us before? I began to see and to realize things that I had never seen or understood before, and one was that we merely have things turned wrong side out, upside down. That is all that is the matter. Put things right side up and everything is all right. There is nothing to it.
Getting bolder, still figuratively speaking, I asked God if He minded my taking His place for a while. "Oh," I hastened to explain, "I do not mean I want to dominate the world. I am not an internationalist, a communist. I

Old Age Pensions

do not even want to dominate Canada. I am not a bureaucrat, a socialist. I do not even want to dominate our old folks; I do not even want to set their standard of living. All I want to be is a small god', a little bitty god on my own farm, over some pigs and sheep." "Sure", He said, "go ahead". So I clambered onto a pedestal, which happened to be a mound thrown out of the barn door, driving off the barnyard rooster, who had been flapping his wings and crowing to the world like a politician at election time. Climbing to the top of it, I raised my hand and said, "Let there be life" and there was life; for, as I said before, I was dealing in realities and not in artificial entities. I was not dealing with pens and pencils, with paper and figures, with words, with budgets and estimates and old age pensions. I was dealing with chromosomes, and determiners, germ cells, with living things. I was dealing with life itself, and, having created life of my own choosing, I discovered many interesting and instructive things, among which was that I must not interfere with the freedom of any individual under my care. I also learned that there was one Divine right that I must never encroach upon, and that Divine right is this: We have no right to take from one to give to another. I am making this statement, that any human being who takes part in this taxation swindle is committing a crime, not merely against his fellow man, but against the Almighty God, who has that Divine right, and Him alone.


Mr. LESAGE:: Taxation?


Mr. ASHBY:: Taxation, yes. We have no right to tax anybody. There was a time when human beings believed that a king had that divine right, but at the time of magna carta we took that divine right away from kings and introduced checks and balances which governed taxation. Today this divine right is being usurped by bureaucrats who claim they can force their fellow human beings to hand over to them money which belongs by right to those who earn it. Taxation results in all this confusion. Taxation is robbery. Taxation alienates production, or goods, from the people who are the rightful owners.
I should just like to point out one or two things, Mr. Speaker. So much has already been said, and I do not want to repeat too much, but here is a typical case, a little old lady who writes as follows:
I am a widow, sixty years of age. What is there in life for us? Many people think there is a widows' pension; they are confused with the mothers' allowance which does not help a widow of this age.
We are old, tired, and afraid of the future . . .
All the discussion on lowering the age limit for the old age pension is good but in the meantime many widows are desperate and afraid.
[Mr. Ashby.)
Then -we talk about freedom from fear! What a sham I Here are poor old souls who live in fear. They know not where the next meal is coming from. I have a soft spot in my heart for the ladies, and when I was in the city of Edmonton I spotted a dandy across on the other side of the street. She was just like a little partridge hurrying through a crowded barnyard, ready to take off at any moment. There being no policeman around, I took after her, breaking the traffic rules. I caught up to her after a while, puffing and blowing like a grampus. I raised my hat to her and told her who I was. I am a kind of mind-reader, and she said to herself, "So what?" and grabbed her handbag all the tighter. I took her by the sleeve of her coat. No wonder she was backing away from me because she had a hammer handle in it; that is, I thought it was a hammer handle until I saw her hand dangling on the end of it. She had no meat on her bones at all. I do not think that poor little soul would have weighed over seventy pounds. I think I could have picked her up like a suitcase and carried her home. And what hands she had, tool-lined with dirt, broken fingernails. Her clothes were old but neatly mended. I got into conversation with her, and this is the little story she told me. She was over seventy. She earned her living at odd jobs-picking berries, digging potatoes, weeding people's gardens, doing charwoman's work, doing any job at all. But her eyes showed nothing but fear. There was no smile of happiness on her face. That was right here in Canada, in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, in this day and age. Can you imagine it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame 1


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I asked her where she lived. She told me she lived in a cot she herself had constructed under the cellar steps of a home, where the people permitted her to stay at night.


An hon. MEMBER:: That happened in Canada I


Patrick Harvey Ashby: She told me that as a girl she had been a schoolteacher and had taught school for nearly twenty-five years. Can you imagine it? I have another letter here with me which reads:
I am a widow ... I am seventy-nine today. I have nothing coming in only what I can earn.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: What about her pension?


Patrick Harvey Ashby: She has to remain in Alberta for another year, I think, before she gets any reward at all. I asked this old lady to whom I spoke, what she did. She said, "I am a contractor. I contract to hang wallpaper."

Old Age Pensions
I believe that old lady would contract to paper this hall, absolutely unafraid of high places on scaffolding. Sometimes when I see our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) sitting over there, I wonder how he would be able to earn his living if he and she were put side by side under identical circumstances. I think she would be the one who would bring home the bacon.
What is the solution? I am not going to take up very much more time, Mr. Speaker, because so much else has been said. The solution is to free every individual. Who are we to decide whether others shall have their freedom or not? Once they get their freedom, suitable education will enable all these old folks to enjoy their remaining years in their own way. I think that is all I need to say.
To sum up, I might once more say that we must get rid of this bureaucratic rule or statism. We have an abundance of experts. If they do not know how to do the jobs, it is time we discharged them from office. We know what our old folks want. If we put it up to a vote throughout Canada I am sure they would soon let us know. [DOT] Why not give instructions to these hordes of experts, the civil servants, and make them civil servants? I notice they no longer sign their names, "Your obedient servant." They are usurping the power of this parliament and it is time we put them where they belong. In the meantime, instead of calling this an old age pension or an allowance, why not say that this shall be a refund of taxes which have been collected from these old people during their lives and the refund shall be at $60, $75 or $100 a month as they see fit, not as we see fit?


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: I am rather nervous in rising tonight, Mr. Speaker, following a member from Alberta. I cannot exactly understand why anybody in Alberta should be entirely short of money. I understood that everybody in that province received at least $25 a month. Inasmuch as I have had something to say in the past about quoting from notes, and since I intend to quote quite extensively, in order that there may be no misunderstanding I would suggest that a member of the Conservative party and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) sit on either side of me to see that I am not reading my speech when, in fact, I am quoting.
Strange to say, though I support this government, I do not at all like the bill that has been introduced. I do not think it goes far enough; I do not believe the people in my riding think it goes far enough. Early in 1943 we from 83166-282J
British Columbia sitting on this side of the house were not satisfied with the Old Age Pensions Act of that day and appointed a member from our province to represent us. The member we appointed is now in the other place, to which I am not permitted to refer as I should very much like to. He was a distinr-guished member of this house, the former member from Burrard and mayor of the third largest city in Canada, which in a few years will be the largest city. These recommendations were unanimous, though two of our members at that time were serving overseas. I endorsed the recommendations on behalf of the hon>. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), as his representative here. He was a squadron leader in the R.C.A.F., serving in Africa at that time. I simply give this explanation to show that our recommendations, which were made to the leader of our party in British Columbia and to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), were unanimous on the part of the British Columbia members on this side of the house. I want to quote what we recommended at that time:
1.	An amendment to the constitution making old age pensions a federal responsibility.
2.	Reduction of the age limit. In the case of men from seventy to sixty-five years and in the case of women from seventy to sixty years.
3.	Increase in the maximum amount payable from $20 per month to $1 a day.
4.	Removal of the onerous and restrictive regulation now in force.
5.	In addition to the existing old age pension system the establishment of a contributory system as a part of our unemployment insurance scheme now in operation.
6.	Similar adjustments for the blind veterans in need and invalids.
To follow that up, I should like to quote also what the special committee on social security, set up by this parliament, recommended in its report on July 23, 1943:
That the government review the existing regulations governing old age pensions, pensions for the blind and war veterans' allowances, and consider the advisability of adjusting the eligibility age to a lower level, and of increasing the amount of pensions. That an investigation be made into conditions and bases of grants of these pensions in the various provinces, cost of subsistence, inequalities, responsibility for and distribution of obligation, and all the matters relating to the problems involved, in order to effect greater coordination, equality and adequate adjustments.
At that time I was speaking, as I think I am still speaking, for the British Columbia members. If our recommendations had received the full support of all the provinces in 1943 the present inadequate bill would not have been brought down now. This matter was discussed in the house on April 1 and July 4, 1943. At that time the present Min-
Old Age Pensions

ister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) was Minister of Finance. I have the greatest admiration for him, because I know he has the greatest ability of any man in Canada to say no. On July 24, 1943, he announced an increase in old age pensions from S20 to $25 a month; that is at page 5490 of Hansard for that year. My point is that if in 1943 it required $25 a month, for the Minister who is sponsoring this bill to tell me this increase from $25 to $30 a month meets the present cost of living just does not add up. In July, 1943, the then premier of Ontario agreed to carry on the increase of S3 a month in this province, and British Columbia agreed to $5 a month. At that time the British Columbia members on this side of the house pointed out to the provincial premiers that we thought the age should be lowered. We did not go only to our own premier; we went further and tried to convince even Ontario that this should be done. In fact we wrote the premiers of all the provinces. We thought we had a very good reason for doing this. We believed in a contributory old age pension scheme; but, pending that, we felt the old age pensions should be adequate, because it was obvious that people now in receipt of these pensions were not in a position and should not be asked to contribute.
I now want to quote from a man who, I think, has done more for old age pensions in Canada than any other man in this country; a man who, I believe, has at heart the interests of the old age pensioners as much as any man in Canada, if not more. I refer to the present Prime Minister, my leader. I think this ought to be good enough. I am referring to pages 2260 and 2261 of Hansard for June 2. 1931; and when I am through, I am sure the minister sponsoring this bill will bring in an amendment to bring it into line with what I think it should be. This is what the Prime Minister said:
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 and have all the moneys which are necessary for the payment of those pensions voted by this parliament.
I believe that policy has been reaffirmed by the Prime Minister on other occasions. We from British Columbia on this side of the house, after hearing the then minister of finance on April 1, 1943, wrote our provincial premier, with copies to the premiers of all the provinces, giving our understanding of the policy then laid down:
il. The responsibility for old age pensions is primarily of provincial jurisdiction;
2.	The amount paid to old age pensioners is inadequate;
3.	The dominion government will not contribute any portion of any increase in the amount payable;
4.	The provincial governments are now in a better position to meet the cost of old age pensions than is the dominion government;
5.	The dominion government will give consideration to a request made by substantially all of the provinces for a reconsideration of the maximum limit in the Old Age Pensions Act (as outlined on pages 1789 to 1793 of Hansard April 1, 1943.)
That was our conception of the policy of the then minister of finance. We were not in accord with that. We wrote to our provincial premier and to the premiers of the provinces as follows:
That the British North America Act be amended to nationalize old age pensions;
That the age limit be reduced;
That the maximum payable be raised;
That many of the arbitrary restrictions now in the act, and the regulations, be repealed; .
That the policy adopted for old age pensioners should be extended to include pensions to the blind, and mothers' allowances.
And note this, that this is the recommendation by members from British Columbia in the House of Commons, recommendations to our premier in 1943. We continued:
That the proportion paid by the federal government for pensions and administration should, pending the amendment to the constitution, be increased to 99 per cent.

Old Age Pensions
The reason we thought that, and still think it, is that we realize it takes time to amend the constitution. Some may think it takes too much time, but the fact is it takes time to amend it. However, while it takes time to amend the British North America Act, it takes no time to make a grant in aid to a province. That could be done tomorrow by this parliament.
I should like to quote just a few figures; because, frankly, I do not like the present bill. I do not think it meets conditions as they exist today. I for one cannot understand why in a country with our vast resources we do not give more thought to our greatest resource, the youth of our country. We financed' the war through taxation and borrowing; and we financed our borrowing on the strength of our resources. Let us recognize that our greatest resource is the youth of our country. This country was built up by our pioneers, and we owe them a pension which would be adequate- not charity, but a pension which is due to the pioneers of this country.
I would point out that as of the latest figures, those published for 1942, the amounts paid per month, and the daily allowances are set out as follows:
Province	Average Amount Paid per Month	Daily AllowanceBritish Columbia 	. $19-02	cents 61Alberta 	. 18-63	60Saskatchewan 	. 17-17	55Manitoba 	. 18-70	60Ontario 	. 18-66	60Quebec 	. 16-20	52New Brunswick 	. 14-89	45Xova Scotia	. 15-06	45Prince Edward Island .	. 11-37	36
While I am not prepared to admit that Canada is not the greatest dominion in the British commonwealth, the following table as of March 31, 1942. will give the comparative situation as between Canada and Australia in the matter of pensions:
Canada Australia
Population	
11,586,650	7,000,000Number of old age pensions	185,992	275,456Number of invalid pensions	Nil	60,597Total pensions	
185,992	336,053An increase of Australia over Canada 150,061 Amount paid to pensioners .[DOT]	
$28,530,000 $93,580,000
Increase of Australia over Canada $61,450,000 Age limit
Men	 70 years 65 years
Women	 70 years 60 years
That just does not add up, to my mind. Half a loaf may be better than no bread, but it does not add up when I am told that Canada cannot afford to meet the cost.
In this connection I wish to quote the words of my leader, a man who, in my opinion, has done more for the unfortunate people in this country than anyone else has done. I speak as an old-time Liberal, one of the few free traders on this side of the house-


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Who is the other one?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I quote the Prime Minister as of March 26, 1926, as he is reported at page 1976 of Hansard:
If we were legislating as my hon. friend has suggested, for young people of the age of ten or twelve; if we were providing an old age scheme for page boys about the house, for schoolboys and girls, then it would be wise to lay emphasis upon the importance of a contribution on their part towards a system intended to help to maintain them in their old age. But I take it that this house at the present time, in discussing old age pensions, is not thinking of your people of ten, twenty or thirty years of age or even of persons of forty or fifty years of age. We are thinking more particularly of that large body of men and women now in Canada who are approaching the age of seventy years. We have in mind those between the ages of sixty and seventy who are finding it difficult to get the assurance that their declining years are not going to be spent in dependence on charity.
In the course of the debate today reference has been made to the old age pension scheme as though it were something related particularly to inmates of poorhouses. I am inclined to feel that there is no class in human society today that has not in its numbers a very considerable percentage of persons who are living in- constant dread of the moment when, in their advanced years, they will be thrown upon their children or upon society for support.
One of the greatest needs in the industrial life of Canada today is that the standards governing industrial relations should be more or less identical as between one province and another. That can only be brought about by some kind of action on the part of the federal government leading to cooperation between the federal government and the provinces and among the different provinces themselves. I submit that this scheme of old age pensions as here drafted will have that effect.
It will be the natural thing to ask the representatives of the provincial governments to meet with the departments of the federal government which may be administering the old age pensions plan, to discuss further its details, and to consider the regulations for its effective operation.
I do not see why old age pensioners throughout Canada should be penalized because of the selfishness of two provinces which claim to have the greatest population and the greatest wealth, which has been built up at the expense of the test of Canada. I refer to
Old Age Pensions

Ontario and Quebec.- Why should the rest of Canada, including the old age pensioners, have to wait because Ontario and Quebec have been selfish, through their present administrations? I suggest that is where this government and the minister are falling down, because, if Ontario and Quebec do not want to come in, then why should all the rest of Canada be penalized?
An lion. MEMBER:	What does your
leader say?


George Alexander Cruickshank: You can make your speech, and you will have to explain away the province of Ontario. You stay with us in British Columbia, and we will do our part. But why should we be asked to wait because Ontario and Quebec, for purely political reasons, and no other, ask us to? It does not add up.
I wish to point out why I think the present bill is inadequate, and why the present policy of the Liberal party is not sufficient. The leader of the C.C.F. made a quotation today in an excellent speech-although in it I believe he was taking an unfair advantage because after all, no party in Canada ever intends to live up to the promises it makes in a national convention. The Conservatives were going to blast their way into the markets of the world. We were going to reform the other place. Providence is doing its best to help us.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That started in 1896.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and you were going to reform Saskatchewan, too. You were going to nationalize the breweries, but you did not do so. And you said we got campaign funds from them. But you have not nationalized them.


George Hugh Castleden: That is part of the
national programme.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Since when has
Saskatchewan become national?


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member said it was part of the C.C.F. provincial programme.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and you said you were going to nationalize the breweries.


George Hugh Castleden: We said it was part
of the national programme.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You were going to nationalize them. Then you said we were getting campaign funds from them. I wish someone would give me some. You have no intention of nationalizing them. I know you raised prices and all that. I will tell

the house what they did in Winnipeg in 1919, and here I should like to quote the Prime Minister, as reported on page 1116 of Hansard of June 25, 1940, as follows:
Insofar as it may be practicable, having regard to Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence, old age and other disability should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces. When the Liberal administration came into office in 1921 we indicated our hope that while we were in office we might soon be in a position to enact some measure of social insurance. It took time to gain that end. It was a new field for a federal administration to enter. Old age pensions appeared to be the obvious place to begin. It was possible to obtain the cooperation of the provinces for such a measure more readily than for one respecting unemployment, invalidity or health insurance. An old age pensions measure was enacted by the Liberal administration in office in 1927.
I believe the Liberal party has gone a long way in that connection; but, as I understand the policy of the Liberal government, it has not gone far enough. You have your choice and there can be no buts or ifs about it. We are not living in the ox-cart days, at least in British Columbia; we are living in the modern, atomic age. We do not want socialism in that province and we will never have it. I am not prepared to tell the people in my riding, and I do not think any member from British Columbia is prepared to tell his people that we cannot finance a decent living for the pioneers of this country. Any country which can finance $10 million to $12 million a day at times for destruction, surely can find ways and means to do this. I know nothing of monetary reform, but I do know something of common sense. No one can tell me that we cannot find the money to give a decent living to the pioneers of our country.
I want to tell the minister that I am a supporter of this government and I intend to support this bill, just as do my hon. friends opposite, because half a loaf is better than nothing. If I could move an amendment to double what these pioneers are to be granted, reduce the age limit and wipe out the means test I would be glad to do so. However, I realize that, since that would involve the expenditure of money, I cannot do so as a private member.
Let me say to the hon. member from New Brunswick who enthusiastically supports me: Will you go back to your riding and tell your people that that is the policy of the Liberal party, this measly little bill?


Mr. MICHAUD:: I will tell my story tomorrow.


George Alexander Cruickshank: 
James Horace King: I ask the hon. member who has the floor if he will kindly address himself to the Chair.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer to 1943. A pension of $38.75 is paid in British Columbia, but New Brunswick, which should know better, being at the extreme other end of Canada and, like British Columbia, always having had a dirty deal from central Canada, paid $14.89 a month.
I ask the hon. member to answer that tomorrow in his speech.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has just reminded me that I have not said a word about Port Arthur or Fort William. They are at the head of the lakes and that is a wonderful country. Edmonton is a wonderful place for raising sheep and hogs. I admire even Calgary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am speaking low and I hope he will not hear me.
I can say the same for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum). For once I am not in accord with my party on this bill. I do not think it is worthy; I do not think it is adequate; I do not think it is doing justice to the pioneers of Canada, and I do not think it is doing justice to the Liberal party.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being on the first committee appointed to consider old age pensions. From the evidence giveni before us at that time. I came to the conclusion that a pension of $50 a month should be paid to the people of Canada who had reached the age of sixty or sixty-five years and that this should be a federal responsibility. I was alone in the committee in that regard, but I have not seen any good reason to change my mind on the matter up to this time.
I should like to preface my remarks with a brief quotation from an official summary of the legislation of the state of Washington providing for old age pensions. This states:
On no other issue are the people of the state of Washington as well as our nation as united as they are in the recognition of the economic and social necessity of returning to our senior citizens, the fathers and mothers of our country, part of the wealth which their labour helped to create.
I imagine that is the sentiment of this house. There is no issue upon which there is so much unanimity in Canada as that of the need of taking care of our older people. As a matter of fact old age pensions are not of interest only to our older people; they are of equal interest to our young people. Many
times it relieves them of burdens which they are unable to bear, the burden of taking care of old parents, or grandfathers and grandmothers. But apart from that, if any person in Canada is lucky enough to live long enough he may want an old age pension. So it matters not how you consider the thing, this is an issue which directly affects every one in this dominion.
Most speakers have repeated the statement made by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) to the effect that no party can claim a monopoly of interest in this question. Most certainly I do not make any special claim and I do not think any one has made that claim. We all recognize that it is not a political question in the narrow sense of partisan politics, but we also recognize that it is fundamentally a political as well as an economic question in the wider application of those terms. Nevertheless, while it is not necessarily a partisan political question, there can be no doubt that the views which form the background of party policy do necessarily affect the actions of a party in power with respect to this or any other issue.
I think it is true to say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is piloting this bill through the house, did strike a political note in introducing the legislation; and perhaps he merited the criticism which a number of hon. members made to him for having done so. I think, however, that he perhaps made a mistake in his own interests He quoted to us the programme which the Liberal party offered to the people of Canada at the last election. It was a fairly good programme with respect to old age pensions, even though it did not go far enough; but it did propose to increase the amount paid to old age pensioners; it did propose to lower the age at which pensions were to be paid, and it did propose to remove the means test. Of course that is not being done. It is true that they are raising the dominion contribution slightly, so that it makes possible a pension of $50 a month; but I venture to say that if an account should be taken of the increased cost of living as between 1947 and 1926 when the Old Age Pensions Act was originally introduced, the present proposal will grant a pension very much lower in purchasing power to the people of this country than was done in 1926. Therefore this does not really represent an improvement over the original act.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare went on to say that the reason why the programme as promised by his party was not being implemented to the full in this legislation was that the provinces had failed to come

Old Age Pensions
to a satisfactory arrangement with respect to taxation and other matters of interprovincial and dominion importance. In this way he found for himself an excuse, if not a reason, for the limited advance which he is proposing in his legislation. Then he rose in his place today when some hon. member from the Progressive Conservative party was speaking and suggested that the legislation now proposed had so stimulated the premier of Ontario that he had come forward with a proposal to pay $40 a month old age pensions to the people of that province. I thought that was very well counteracted by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) when he pointed out that, in doing so, the premier of Ontario was doing what this legislation or the parliament of Canada had failed to do for all the provinces of this dominion. But I think the argument might be carried beyond that. It is time that Premier Drew has been one of the stubborn figures that have prevented a satisfactory arrangement between the provinces and the dominion-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is not so at all.


William Irvine: -in matters of this kind. I am not criticizing Mr. Drew in that. I am merely saying that he was one of the stubborn ones, in the sense that he had some ideas which were not satisfied. I am- not blaming, him; he may have had a good idea. I am only pointing out the fact, and he might now very well say to the other provinces which have accepted the agreement: "Look, our province which did not accept the agreement is now paying $40 a month and you have to be satisfied with $30 or less as the case may be." Therefore I think from a political point of view' the minister -was perhaps not as astute in the particular efforts that- he made as he usually is.
In this connection I should like to say that I deplore the inequity which is likely to develop between the provinces in a matter of this kind, an inequity which is inexcusable and indefensible. The fact that British Columbia may have a little greater natural wealth than some of the other provinces and may be able to pay a little more to its older people is no reason why people in another province with a little less natural resources from which to draw should have to receive less; especially let us say, people living in the city of Winnipeg, living in a country which is very cold in the winter time, where older people need more warm clothes, more coal to keep them warm, a better house in which to live and such improvements as must be available in a country with a climatic condition as
rigorous as the winter is in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan; whereas in, say Victoria, where they can almost live in a shack and still be as comfortable as they are in Winnipeg in the winter time and-


An hon. MEMBER:: At any time.


William Irvine: All right, at any time, and where they can live on less food of certain kinds. It seems ridiculous that there should be that disparity. I am emphasizing this point, sir, that whatever amount of pension is paid in Canada must be paid on the basis of Canadian citizenship; that to be done in that way it must be fundamentally a federal responsibility, and to allow this hole-in-the-corner business to go on is representing a viewpoint that is beyond comment.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), in commenting on the bill, had something to say about the necessity of changing the constitution. I have no doubt that it may be wise and necessary to change the constitution here and there. But I want to point out to him and to the house that the same constitutional right which the government now exercises in paying a pension of $30 a month at the age of seventy with a means test can enable them to pay S50 a month at sixty-five without a means test. There is no fundamental change in the constitution which will differentiate between a pension of $30 a month and a pension of $50.
Most of the speakers from all sides of the house have indicated in this debate that they intend to vote for the measure. I will not go so far as that at this moment; I am not so sure about it. The other day I was reading a letter from an old pensioner who said virtually this: "I cannot live on $30 a month. I am less than existing, and if it is not going to be improved sufficiently to make an existence possible it might be better to stop it altogether and end the matter much more quickly." That is the view of a pensioner. Perhaps the house would not wish to go that far with him, but still there is a good deal of logic and reason in what he says. Everybody admits that $30 a month is too little for one to live on. Well, if they cannot live on $30, what do they live on when they have nothing to live on but $30? They try to eke out an existence which gradually saps their strength until they tumble into the grave a few years sooner than they otherwise would. That is a miserable way for our old people to end their lives. Moreover, taking the argument that if we vote against this measure it may appear to the old age pensioners that we are depriving them of the proposed increase

Old Age Pensiom
of $5 a month, by that same logic we would be prevented from amending this bill at any time in a manner that is worth while, and sooner or later we shall have to do what I once heard a French-Canadian friend of mine, who got a little mixed up in his English idioms, say: "Some time we will have to grab that bull by the tail and look her straight in the eye." I say that some day we shall have to face up to this issue and not be afraid of its political implications. The fact that we stand for a greater pension may for the moment put us in the position of being opposed to the pension bill which is now before us.
The burden of criticism so far levelled at the bill by those who are opposing it may be summarized, and I shall summarize it, very briefly; because the same road must be travelled by me in this regard as by others. I do not wish to weary the house by going into details and an elaborate comment on joints that have already been dealt with pretty thoroughly by a number of speakers. But perhaps I may put it in a little different language and do so briefly.
The first and most obvious, criticism is that the pension is too little. It may be assumed that a little of something is better than nothing of anything. I think that much may be said for the bill: A little of something is better than nothing of anything. But $30 a month is not enough for anyone to live on in Canada. The minister himself admits that. He said it was not enough.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the result of this bill in six provinces not more than $30 a month?


William Irvine: I am going by the bill, and if the minister can show me how it produces more than that, and how it might not produce less, I shall be glad to listen to him when he replies to some of the questions that have been asked by a number of speakers, who have taken the same view of the legislation that I am now taking. As I say, if we have misinterpreted the bill, then, in the first place, the minister has no one to blame for that but himself. He should have spent his time in telling us exactly what the legislation does mean instead of leaving us to interpret it for ourselves and then saying that we have not the right, interpretation of it. Instead of that, he spent much of his time in building up party propaganda, which, I think, may be a boomerang and come back at him later.
It has been mentioned in the debate that not only is the $30 a month too little for any individual; but in the case where the old age pensioner, the head of the house, has a wife, who is younger than he is by a few years, he still has to maintain his wife. This view was
first expressed in this house, so far as I am aware, by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), and I believe it has been implemented in the soldiers pension act. But the point I want to emphasize is not only that, in the case of a man who has reached the age of seventy, who has a wife of sixty-five, that thirty dollars has to do both of them. I would point out the case of the woman whose husband has died before she gets any pension at all. I had a letter yesterday from an elderly lady about sixty-five years of age, whose husband had just died of cancer, and she told me that, in order to pay the hospital bill and bury her husband, she had sold their cows and even their chickens. There are no pensions for widows of that type in any of our provinces. She is left absolutely stranded. She is not able to work for a living, and she has no means, until she reaches the age of seventy, of receiving any income at all. How she is to reach the age of seventy without any income at all is more than I am able to say.
The minister frankly admits that $30 is not enough. But if it is not enough, why is it not enough? I reiterate the question put by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):	On what basis were the calculations made? How did the government arrive at $30? What was the object of arriving at $30 if it were not to make it possible for the older people to live on that amount? I want to emphasize again that if the people of Canada, with our great wealth of natural resources, with the extent to which modern science has been applied to production, with our great plant equipment and our capital equipment, and with our technical skills, can produce the food and clothing as well as the homes necessary to keep our old people in decency during the last years of their lives, then there is no reason under heaven for stopping them from getting what is necessary.
Can that be done ? Can we produce enough for our older people, or must we submit to a condition under which the old people of Canada must be allowed to go on suffering under an inadequate provision during their old age? I say, in the first place, that we can produce more than ample of the goods required for sustaining the lives, not only of our aged' people, but of all our people.- The Minister of Finance, (Mr. Abbott) indicated that our production in Canada this year will reach $12,000,000,000. That is a considerable income for the nation and represents a vast advance over 1926, when this legislation was originally passed. But I suggest to the minister that not only can we produce $12,000,000,000 worth, but with the increased facilities of production which the war stim-
Old Age Pensions

ulated we can produce in the next few years very much more goods with even less labour than we did before.
I saw an estimate by a competent statistician in the United States that in 1947 they will be able to produce, with approximately 30,000,000 men, what it required 40,000,000 men to produce in 1938, and I imagine a similar advance has taken place in Canada. So that there are two grounds, as I see it, upon which we should arrive at a pension that should be paid to our older people. The first is, what are the essential needs of our old people, in food1, clothing, shelter and a little bit of the comforts of life? What are the irreducible minimums of services that they require? The second is that our old age pension should either be based on that or be commensurate with the national income when production is in full swing. Those are the underlying principles.
The next point of criticism is that not only is the pension too little, but it is too late. It is too late because many of our older people from sixty to sixty-five and up to seventy die in poverty and misery before they are seventy years of age and never get any pension at all. It would appear to me that the principle behind the present bill is, "Not to many and not for long"; for if we maintain the age limit of seventy it will not be to many; and it will not be for long that those who get it will continue to do so.
I now wish to mention what is done with regard to the age limit and the means test in a few other countries of the world. Denmark pays pensions at sixty and Sweden at sixty-five; Britain, at sixty-five for men and sixty for women; Australia at sixty-five for men and sixty for women; Russia, at sixty for men and fifty-five for women. None of these has a means test at all. With regard to the means test, I think the thrift argument was pretty well exploited. As a matter of fact, it is a double-barreled argument, but I think the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) and my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) fired the same barrel. They pointed out that there was no incentive given to those people who tried to put away a few dollars each year in order' to secure for themselves an annuity at a certain age, because when that time came they were not recompensed as were other citizens who qualified for the old age pension; thus they had little encouragement to save. But. the same argument applies to the old age pensioner himself. Up until this bill came in, I think it was something like $125 a year
which he was allowed to earn, if he could. Here and there there are individuals who might have done a little better than that; but if they did, it was taken away from them or their pension was reduced accordingly. In this bill the amount has been silghtly raised. The limit of the means test has been modified somewhat. But still, if the pensioners received the highest amount they could receive, they still would not have a sufficient income on which to live comfortably in Canada at the present time. The pensioner himself should be allowed to make all that he can, if he can make anything, and his pension should be paid regardless of his income.
The next point is that no permanent plan for adequate old age pension is contemplated in this legislation. I want to emphasize the point of view that my group has constantly put forward, that there should be an over-all social securits^ programme for Canada, which would have to be carried out through federal legislation, whether by cooperation with the provinces or whether by an amendment to the constitution which gives the federal government the complete right to pass such legislation. I do not think we are going to worry about what the actual details of the technique of bringing it into fulfilment may be. What we are interested in is to see that it is brought about. I believe that it can be brought about even under the constitution as it is. But if not, let us take steps to change it.
In the second place, I believe that such a system might very well be contributory. If we look at the amounts which reasonable pensions would involve, we shall see that perhaps it would be wise to have a contributory system started as soon as possible. The programme which the government promised, but which it is not giving, would have cost Canada in 1947 over $550,800,000; in 1951, $731,520,000; and in 1971, $1,100,880,000. I am not worried any more than anybody else about the millions and the billions. Under the system under which we are living, every government must find the means by which this is to be done. That means collecting through taxation under our present system That could very well become a burden in taxation which was too great. But in the last analysis, all our old age pensions must come, somehow, in some way, from the people. It is merely a matter of arrangement. I think it might be advisable for the government to undertake, as quickly as possible, a scheme by which contributions may be made by individuals, starting young, so that very soon we should have a contributory system fully developed which would afford to all

Old Age Pensions
the people of Canada a worth-while income. I am in thorough agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver North. I want to take this opportunity to pay a compliment to that hon. gentleman. I want to congratulate him. He is a brilliant young man and he has shown courage. He stood up for the thing he wanted. In doing that, not only did he do honour to himself, but he honoured the membership of this house; more than that, he honoured the party to which he belongs; for no party which holds within its ranks people who are free to say things, as he was today, can be said to be utterly dead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You cannot do that in
the C.C.F.


William Irvine: Yes, we can, or I would
not be in it. We have always taken that attitude; that is why I feel free to congratulate the hon. member on what he did and what he said. I want to press the minister, when he closes the debate, to indicate that he is willing to allow this bill to go to the appropriate committee for more careful consideration. I venture to say that if it had not been that an amendment to the motion for second reading, to send the bill to a committee, might have had the effect of killing the bill, such an amendment would have been moved long since. No one wants to kill the thing, though it is only a matter of S5 a month or S60 a year for every old man and every old lady of seventy. That is al'l we are talking about; but, even so, no one wants to take the responsibility of killing it and preventing them from getting that much more. But none of us is satisfied with it. When hon. members say they are disappointed they put it very mildly indeed; and those who have said that are just echoing what all Canada will say.
In conclusion, I repeat what I said in the beginning, that there is no other issue upon which all the people of Canada are more completely united than this one, and I hope the minister has realized that in listening to the reaction of this house to the bill he has introduced. I should like to support the bill, provided that it goes to that committee where there may be some hope of amending it. Until I am sure it is going to that committee, I shall not commit myself as to whether or not I shall vote for it. But I would say the time has come when we should cease playing with an issue of this sort-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: I hope my hon. friend
means that from his heart-an issue which is fraught with so much misery or so much
happiness for the people of Canada, depending upon the contents of the measure now before the house.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) on his contribution to this debate. I think he said many things to which the government and the minister might well listen, coming as they do from a member of the government party. I was particularly interested when the hon. member quoted the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1931, in which he said he would go as far as grants in aid to the provinces in order that the dominion might take over the whole cost of old age pensions. I could not help thinking, when I heard those words read, how very far below that principle the Prime Minister and the government have now dropped, and what a great recession from the green book proposals is being made in the measure presented to the house by the minister.
In what was said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, there was only one thing with which I did not agree. He suggested that there was some need to wait, in connection with this matter of old age pensions, until there was a general agreement with the provinces and a new conference. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need to wait for a new conference or for fiscal agreement before the policy to which the Prime Minister pledged himself in 1931 is carried out. If the dominion is to take over the full cost of old age pensions for those over seventy years of age, why is there any need to wait? I have here the green book proposals of August, 1945. After referring to the national health programme and pointing out that it provides for dominion assistance to a series of provincially administered health schemes, those proposals go on to say, at page 42:
The proposed system of old age pensions payable as of right without means test to persons seventy or over would be instituted and administered by the dominion government and specific agreements with provincial governments would not be essential to its implementation.
I simply want to say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley and to the minister that there is no justification whatever for the government to hide behind the projected dominion-provincial conference and neglect to implement its green book proposals on old age pensions. I suggest to the hon. member that, instead of getting up as he does and criticizing the government from that side of the house, we shall never have action of the kind he wants as long as he continues to support this government. I want to make this prophecy now, that
Old Age Pensions

the social security programme set out in the green book proposals of 1945 will never be implemented by this government. It is my belief that they have gone a long way from those proposals and that they have no intention of carrying them out in the form in which they were made in August, 1945.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the case; we have gone toward them.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister interrupts and says that is not the case, but we have only his statement to that effect. I have made my prophecy and I stand b3' it. I am quite satisfied that what I have said will prove to be the case, and that wre shall never have these proposals carried out by this government.
What is there in this bill? There is not even an increase of $5 provided by the dominion government. The actual increase in the pension being provided by this government is $3.75, and a further $1.25 is being placed upon the provinces. When I look at the figures concerning my own province I find a peculiar situation. Under a Conservative prime minister in 1931, the dominion assumed seventy-five per cent of the cost of old age pensions, leaving twenty-five per cent for the provinces. That was an advantage to the provinces over the original scheme brought in, as we have heard ad nauseam, by a Liberal government. Now, only fifteen years after Mr. Bennett took over that, additional twenty-five per cent, I find that British Columbia is once more bearing almost fifty per cent of the actual cost of the pensions being paid there. The province is paying 43-75 per cent of the cost and the dominion is paying 56-25 per cent. It looks to me as if in this bill all the good work done by Mr. Bennett in 1931 is being undone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did he raise the pension?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: You heard what he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did he raise the pension?
' Mr. MERRITT: I think the minister is not being very successful in his interruptions in this debate. I happened to be away yesterday, but we received almost hourly bulletins. There were reports as to his continual interruptions when people were speaking, and the reports were that he had been very unsuccessful in those interruptions. So I suggest to him that he might be well advised to desist in that practice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Mr. GRANT:: What did Bennett promise to pay?


Arza Clair Casselman: Oh, keep quiet.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That very interruption by the minister brings me nicely to my next point. The minister has asked how Mr. Bennett's change helped the old age pensioners. I will tell him. The worst feature of this bill is not merely that it is not raising the pension as much as it should, but rather that it is pushing all future responsibilities and initiative on to the provinces. And in doing that, it is making it very dfficult indeed for the provinces to raise the pension in the future. It is putting an almost insuperable barrier in the way of the old age pensioner getting any increase, so long as the ultimate, whole responsibility lies on the provinces.
The old age pensioner can best hope to have his pension increased by the dominion assuming a greater proportion of the total cost. And the proof of that is in the fact that my province has been able since 1931 to add $12.50 to the amount they were paying, while the dominion has added only $7.50 in that time. As you continue to push the provincial government percentage of payment up, and as you bring it, as it is going now, back toward fifty per cent of the total pension paid in my province, so you reduce the power of the province to give any further increase.
When one reads what the minister said in introducing the bill, and when one sees that he relies so greatly upon the provinces to give increases over the uniform pension he is providing in this bill, it is clear that it is his definite intention to leave any future increase entirely up to the provinces. And I feel sure that that policy is one which will not do the old age pensioners much good in the future.
I wish to turn to a point which arises out of the regulations. There were many who hoped that the dominion would carry out its promise of 1945 and bring in an old age pension at the age of seventy, without a means test. But that hope is now completely dispelled. What I would not have expected was that the means test would be tightened up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has not been.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: There is the minister, interrupting again. And he will prove to be wrong in his interruption, as he has in every other case. I have before me the old and new regulations. I find that, under the old regulations, an annual visit to old age pensioners was required. The purpose of the annual visit was to check up on the means of the old age pensioner, to find out if his circumstances had changed, and if, therefore, he was no longer entitled to pension. However, in section 6(c) of the old regulations, the pension authority was permitted to waive that

Old Age Pensions
annual inspection, in cases where it was satisfied by other information that the circumstances of the pensioner had not changed. But when we turn to the new regulations and look at section 5(5) we find that the discretion given to the pension authority to waive the annual visit, and to be satisfied on other information that the circumstances of the pensioner have not changed, has been removed. The pension authority is now bound to make a personal annual visit every year to check up on the circumstances of the old age pensioner, whether or not there is any real need for that personal visit.
I wish to ask the minister to look into those subsections I have mentioned to see if he cannot restore the previous position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course your statement is inaccurate.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have the regulations in my hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is treating you in the way he has treated everybody.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister can look it up for himself and see w'hether or not I am accurate. If he looks it up and finds that the new regulation is not different from the old one, I shall be satisfied. But he will not find it so.
When I am on this question of means test- now that we are going to keep it-let me say it seems to me that one of the nagging and undesirable parts of the test is this annual check-up. If the minister will look at Hansard for April 10 of last year and refer particularly to page 733 he will find where the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) put on the record the holdings of real and personal property of old age pensioners in British Columbia for 1944-45. I shall not read them into the record at this time, but shall simply say that eighty per cent of the old age pensioners in British Columbia in that year had less than $1,000 worth of real property to their names. Then, ninety-four per cent of the old age pensioners had less than $1,000 in personal property to their credit.
It seems to me that this annual visit might well be made for the purpose of seeing how the old age pensioners are getting along, and whether they have any complaints or needs which social welfare authorities can satisfy, rather than asking them questions to find out whether they have inherited any money or come into any property, so that the pension can be cut down. I believe the annual visit is a good thing if it is done for the welfare of the old age pensioner, but it is a bad thing
if it is done simply to pry into his affairs. The facts are, and these percentages show, that the vast majority of these old people have not a great deal of chance of being forced off the pension by sudden wealth, once they have passed the original means test. Could not instructions be issued that this visit should be one for the welfare of the individual and not primarily for the protection of the treasury?
I believe that the pensions for the blind should have been treated differently from old age pensions, particularly with regard to the age limits and residence qualifications. The age of forty is a most arbitrary figure. I am at a loss to understand how a man who has got along without his sight until he reaches forty years of age becomes much less fit to look after himself after forty. I am sure that the age limit could be reduced without any great added expense to the country. Then the residence requirements should be vastly different. Blindness does not only happen at a young age or at birth. A person may be rendered blind through an accident, and I feel that if the individual needs help he should be eligible for a pension without having to wait for any period of years.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as it is close to eleven o'clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: There are still ten minutes to go.


Mr. HARTT:: There are still five minutes to go. We wish to hear you, you speak so well.
On	motion	of	Mr.	Mitchell	the	house
was adjourned.)
(Text):
On	motion	of	Mr.	Mitchell	the	house
adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, June 20, 1947