1950-03-10

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Herridge be substituted for that of Mr. Argue on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
That the name of Mr. Noseworthy be substituted for that of Mr. Knowles on the joint committee on the printing of parliament, and that a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: rise on a question of privilege. As the orders of the day will not likely be called today, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce give me an answer now to the question I asked yesterday in regard to radium needles and the handling thereof?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do so. The statement is as follows:
For years radium needles have been sent to the national research council for calibration purposes. A specially constructed receiving depot was built at the back of the main building to hold shipments for a brief period. Before being taken into the main laboratory building these shipments are checked for undesirable contamination and leakages which would seriously affect supersensitive scientific instruments used for research purposes. Needles are calibrated and returned to the owner as soon as possible. The commodity is commercially valueless until accompanied by a certificate.
Since the question was asked, the radium needles referred to have all been recovered; but as this receiving depot has been forcibly entered and the radium needles and lead containers to the value of from $2,000 to $3,000 and other equipment stolen, the national research council, together with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, are giving careful consideration to ways and means of improving protection against such vandalism.
An editorial in this morning's Citizen is based on an almost complete misunderstanding of the facts.
First, the suggestion that radium had carelessly found its way into garbage cans at the back of national research council property is nonsense. The receiving hut, which is substantially built, was forcibly broken into and the heavy lead containers with the needles in them, along with miscellaneous other tools and equipment, were stolen. As yet only the needles have been recovered.
The suggestion that radium to the value of $145,000 was in the hut and stolen is wrong by a large factor; the value of the radium needles was nearer $3,000.
The suggestion that the needles in small quantities are deadly is not correct, as these needles are prepared for treatment of people, and several are often inserted into one person. In quantity they would be a hazard and, if swallowed, would be dangerous. The reason we cannot take the needles directly into the main building is that it has been found some needles leak and in the past we have had trouble with contamination, not from the standpoint of any health hazard, but the presence of even small quantities of radioactivity in a scientific laboratory makes it impossible to carry on precise physical measurements.
On the other hand the incident proves that our receiving hut is not burglar-proof, and we are reviewing the situation with the R.C.M.P. who have general supervision over security matters.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is it not true that there was just a pane of glass between the radium needles and the intruders, and that was all they had to break?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there was a pane of glass covered by a heavy grating. The building was constructed for this particular purpose. It is not a hut; it is a well-constructed building. Nevertheless it was broken into by persons unknown, and everything in it was pretty well looted.



CURLING


Mr. Walter Little (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I desire to inform this house that a team of curlers from the Kirkland Lake curling club journeyed to Vancouver and came back with the championship. We in northern Ontario are very proud of these men, as I believe everyone in Ontario should be, because we are still part of Ontario even though we are the most northerly part. I am particularly proud of these men, because I have known them since they were young lads.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the next order I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public

National Defence Contracts importance, namely, the report that a group of Liberal members of parliament have met with the managing director of the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the purpose of discussing the placing of defence contracts on a patronage basis, together with the report that consideration will be given to reasonable demands for the distribution of some defence contracts where they may do the most good to party supporters.
I may say the last sentence is directly quoted from a dispatch coming from a well known correspondent in the press gallery and appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette. I think the country would wish to have this matter discussed and cleared up at once.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has moved the adjournment of the house in' order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. The matter referred to is a report that a certain group of Liberal members of parliament have met with the managing director of the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the purpose of discussing the placing of defence contracts on a patronage basis, and so on.
This motion is moved under standing order 31, which reads:
(1)	Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motion or orders of the day are entered upon.
It seems to me the motion has been moved at the proper time.
(2)	The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
(3)	He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker-
The hon. member has done that.
-who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance-
I think I must determine now whether this is a matter of urgent public importance, taking into consideration the matters the house will have an opportunity to discuss from time to time. It seems to me this is a matter that can be discussed during the debate on the speech from the throne, which will be resumed in this house on Monday.


Major James William Coldwell: Before you make a definite ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that so far as discussing this matter in the debate on the address is concerned, I should like to do so but I have exhausted my right to speak in that debate. In the second place, since very large amounts are being provided for


defence expenditures, I believe it is a matter of urgency that this question should be discussed before any further contracts are let.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is right when he says he cannot speak on the amendment to the amendment, nor on the amendment itself; but I should point out that he will have an opportunity to speak on the main motion, since he has not done so already. Therefore in the debate on the speech from the throne the hon. member will have an opportunity to speak on this subject. I should also point out that I gathered from what the Prime Minister said the other day that he would endeavour to arrange the business of the house so that at least one day a week a motion for the house to go into committee of supply would be moved on a day when hon. members could discuss their grievances.
In view of what I have stated I do not think that under the rules of the house this is a motion I should put at this time.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: This question having been raised, may I say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) sent me notice of a question, which I received at five minutes to three, in the following terms:
Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the report in this morning's Montreal Gazette concerning the appearance of the managing director of the Canadian Commercial Corporation before a group of Liberal M.P.'s a couple of days ago on the basis of which it is stated that there has been partial restoration of the party patronage system, with particular reference to defence contracts? Is this report true either in whole or in part?
I had not seen the report. Since the hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of it, I have glanced over it. It is entitled, "Revolt reported in Liberal ranks aimed to restore party patronage," and was written by F. C. Mears, Gazette resident correspondent. It reads in part as follows:
Ottawa, March 9. A sixty-man revolt by Liberal members during the past week has produced a partial restoration of the party patronage system, it was learned today from several reliable sources, even though efforts have been made to keep both feet on the soft pedal.
I have never had any suggestion from any quarter whatever of there having been a revolt of sixty, or even of one member. My own impression is that the newspaperman must have been drawing very heavily upon his imagination, or must have been naively led up the path by what he calls "reliable sources."


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has reopened this discussion, I submit it would be appropriate to have the motion which was placed before you dealt with.

Old Age Security OLD AGE SECURITY


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Unless the Prime Minister's remarks were directed to that motion, they had no place at this time. After all, the Prime Minister has seen fit to express an opinion in regard to that report; doubtless that is his opinion. I have no doubt that the laughter of the Liberal members was laughter at the fact that anybody should doubt that such a meeting took place. I believe this discussion should proceed now, on the basis of the remarks that have been made by the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My remarks were made because the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) referred to the fact that the orders of the day were not being called; therefore the member for Winnipeg North Centre would not have an opportunity of receiving an answer to a question which he considered to be of importance. It was for that reason I volunteered the answer.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the point made by the leader of the opposition should be considered by Your Honour and by the house. According to the press dispatch, this matter involves not only some government supporters in the Liberal party, but also a civil servant, one who occupies an important position which enables him to place contracts. Since the question has been reopened by the Prime Minister-I think it should have been dealt with when the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked the question he did-the house should have an opportunity of discussing it today.
Mr Speaker: When I made my ruling, no appeal was taken from it. May I point out to the leader of the opposition something which I am sure he realizes, namely, that he will have an opportunity of discussing this matter, because he has not spoken on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.


George Alexander Drew: I do not rise for the purpose of questioning the ruling or reopening the debate. I would point out, however, the validity of the contention put forward by the mover of the motion. If there is any basis for the report it should be discussed before we deal with the estimates of the Department of National Defence. If it is true, it is a most serious situation which should be known to the members when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are being considered.



APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE TO STUDY


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to examine and study the operation and effects of existing legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the several provincial legislatures with respect to old age security: similar legislation in other countries1; possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles; the probable cost thereof and possible methods of providing therefor; the constitutional and financial adjustments, if any, required for the effective operations of such plans and other related matters;
That twenty-eight members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house, and that standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto.
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time.
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and of parliament, and that standing order 64 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto.
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the adoption of this resolution, I should like to set out certain basic facts and considerations which may be of interest to the proposed committee and may receive further study at its hands.
At the outset let me say that, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated in the house on February 20, the government attaches the greatest importance to improving old age security in Canada.
Regardless of any improvements that may be made in our present pensions system, or any new system that may be suggested or instituted, all of us in this house, regardless of party, can agree on one common objective. This is to develop the best possible old age and retirement system that can be devised, with full consideration for the well-being of all Canadians. This proposed joint committee can do a real public service by its investigations in clearing the way for a better system of pensions, if that is thought desirable after analysis, for our senior aged citizens.
The idea of a parliamentary committee on old age pensions, sir, is not new to this house. Committees were set up in 1908 and in 1924; and in both instances were followed by beneficial results. The committee of 1908 was

Old Age Security
followed immediately by the enactment of the government annuities measure. The committee of 1924 led to the introduction in 1926, and the passage in 1927 by parliament, of the first Old Age Pensions Act. The act of 1927 is the foundation of the legislation which is in effect in all parts of our country today. It is based on the principle of dominion-provincial co-operation and partnership, thus conforming to the constitutional situation which prevailed in 1927 and which prevails today.
So far as the proposal to establish a joint committee of both houses on old age security is concerned, the facts of the situation will speak for themselves. What we want, and I think what the country wants, is a committee to study in objective fashion all the various aspects of this important and complicated problem.
I do not feel it would be appropriate at this stage for me to argue the case for any particular type of old age security legislation. I do believe, however, that changing factors and the complexity of the problem, which have been given intensive study by the department which I administer and by the government itself, should also be examined carefully and studiously by parliament, and that public opinion should at the same time have the opportunity to express itself on all aspects of this matter. The committee, if and when established, will represent both houses and all political parties. It will provide an opportunity to representatives of labour, industry, agriculture and social welfare organizations, as well as other interested groups, to make their views known on this vital social question.
The study which the joint committee will give to this problem will naturally, of course, take into account the limits of the constitutional powers of parliament in connection with old age security, and the relative areas of jurisdiction of both federal and provincial authorities. It was with full recognition of this division of constitutional responsibility that parliament passed the Old Age Pensions Act of 1927.
I think it is only fair to say that there is undoubtedly a growing feeling in Canada for some type of contributory system of old age security. While there are indications that some members are changing their views in this particular, the fact is that until recently, within the last few days, no members of the house except those of the Social Credit party have opposed this idea. It must be recognized, however, that a contributory scheme calling for compulsory payments by beneficiaries on a national basis will involve a constitutional amendment, just as our Unemployment Insurance Act was preceded by an amendment to the British North America Act.

These limitations on the federal power to legislate in the field of compulsory contributory social insurance remain today a vital factor in any consideration we may give to the question of planning proper measures of old age security for our population. At the conference to be held this fall undoubtedly the matter of old age retirement will provide a basis for discussion between the federal and provincial governments.
It will be a matter of the greatest importance, therefore, for the government, and I think also for the provinces, to have considered and careful study given to this problem, in the light of changing factors, by a committee made up of representatives of all political parties and both houses of parliament. When this committee starts its work, one of the first things it will want to do will be to assess carefully the facts of social benefit that have emerged since the passage of the act in 1927.
As the house knows, successive amendments have been made to the original legislation, particularly those of 1937, 1947 and 1949, which have greatly extended the benefits and the coverage of this important social security measure. It will be found that the present old age pensions provisions-in the language of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), by no means perfect-do provide features that make our legislation compare favourably with that of any other country in the world. Here are some of the facts that the committee will want to assess.
1.	The number of pensioners has increased sevenfold, from 42,000 in 1930 to 293,000 in March of 1950.
2.	The number of pensioners has doubled in the last thirteen years, from 146,524 in March, 1937, to 293,000 in March, 1950.
3.	The maximum pension has been increased 100 per cent in the last seven years, from $20 at the start of 1943 to $40 in 1949. There has been a sixty per cent increase in pension in the last three years, from $25 in 1947 to $40 in 1949.
4.	The amount of allowable income, including pension, has been increased from $365 per year to $600 a year for single persons, and $1,080 for married persons, with even higher limits of $1,200 and $1,320 where one or both spouses are blind.
5.	The federal government's annual expenditures on old age pensions have increased threefold in seven years, from $33J million in. 1943-44, to $67 million in 1948-49, and to $103,626,000 in 1950-51.
6.	Federal expenditures on old age pensions have more than doubled in the last three

years. For the fiscal year 1946-47 the expenditure on federal account was $45| million; for 1949-50 the expenditure on federal account was $94 million. When these figures are compared with those of comparable countries it will be seen that they represent a significant portion of expenditures on social security in one field, and are part of a significant contribution in the whole field of social security in terms of the total income or total expenditures of the nation.
7.	Federal pension costs have increased in the last year alone by $27 million, from $66,764,285.03 in 1948-49 to $94 million, estimated, in 1949-50.
8.	Total expenditures, federal and provincial, are today running at the rate of $135 million annually.
9.	Since March, 1947, as a result of amendments introduced at that time, 77,000 new pensioners have been added to the rolls, a 35 per cent increase.
10.	As a result of amendments made with respect to the blind in 1947, when the eligible age was reduced from forty to twenty-one years, the number of blind pensioners has increased from 7,311 in March, 1947, to 10,300 in March, 1950-an increase of 40 per cent in the three years following the 1947 amendments.
If one may say anything about the inadequacy, if that be argued, of the present measure, let no one fail to assess the very important contribution that has been made thus far, by the existing legislation and amendments, to the older people of our country.
I should, of course, add that a number of provinces have supplemented in varying degrees the statutory amounts provided to pensioners under the old age pensions legislation.
British Columbia leads the way in this by payment of a $10 supplement, without means test, to all persons on old age pension in that province, making a total available pension of $50 a month in British Columbia.


Mr. Low:: The same is true of Alberta.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Alberta also pays a supplement of $7.50 a month-


Solon Earl Low: $10 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -of $7.50 a month-


Solon Earl Low: $10 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to all its pensioners on a basis similar to British Columbia, making a total available pension of $47.50 a month.


Solon Earl Low: May I interject at this point? I am sure the minister wants to have the
Old Age Security
facts. The budget introduced by Mr. Manning early this week provided for an extra $2.50 to the old age pensioners of Alberta, which brings the supplementary pension to $10.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will see as I go along that I am not trying to draw invidious comparisons. When he hears my next remark I think he will be happy.
Saskatchewan pays a somewhat more modest supplement of $2.50 a month-


Solon Earl Low: That does not make me happy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and even this is, of course, subject to a means test-not on the basis of regulations prepared by the federal government, but on means-test regulations of its own, and similar in principle to the means test applied in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act itself.
All three provinces provide, in addition to the cash supplements, fairly complete medical care and hospital service free of charge for their pensioners.
Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, which formerly provided cash supplements prior to the increase in pension in May, 1949, have now discontinued these supplements; but Nova Scotia and Ontario provide a limited service in the field of medical care to their pensioners.
It will be apparent from the facts which I have recited that a great deal has been done, even within the framework of our present legislation, to improve the position of our aged citizens and to provide them with a measure of security equal to that which other countries provide for their older people.
The committee, I feel sure, will wish to study not only the facts of the present situation, but also the progress which has been made; and, in particular, it will no doubt wish to consider in the light of its study how our present program in Canada compares with schemes already in existence in other countries comparable to our own.
How does our program, for example, compare with that now in effect in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom?
In the United States a twofold system is now in operation. First, a contributory insurance scheme has been in existence since 1935. Employers and employees each contribute 11 per cent of payroll to a special old age insurance fund. The federal government makes no contribution to that fund. From this fund are paid old age insurance benefits to insured persons sixty-five and over so long as they remain out of covered employ-

Old Age Security
ment. The average primary benefit after fifteen years of contributions amounts at present to approximately $26 a month. This benefit is forfeited in any month when the beneficiary earns more than $15 in covered employment. Today approximately 1,200,000 retired workers, 10 per cent of the United States population over sixty-five, receive benefits on behalf of themselves and their dependents under this insurance program.
Second, side by side with this insurance scheme-the house and the committee will want to know and to consider this-we find in the United States an old age assistance program similar to that in effect in Canada. The numbers receiving old age assistance have continued to grow each year, despite the expectation that as the contributory insurance scheme developed the numbers on the means test program would decline. The maximum contribution to any state old age assistance scheme from federal funds is $30 -exactly the same as the federal contribution under the Canadian program. The federal government in the United States, however, contributes seventy-five per cent only in respect to the first $20; whereas in Canada the federal government contributes seventy-five per cent in respect to the first $40 of any pension paid.
While the federal contribution in the United States is roughly comparable to that under the Canadian scheme, state contributions are in some cases more generous than those made by the Canadian provinces. The result is a wide range in average benefit payments-from $19 a month in Mississippi to $75 a month in Colorado. The average means test pension for all states is just under $45. Almost 2,700,000 individuals-twenty-three per cent of the aged population-are receiving assistance under this means test program. The means test itself varies from state to state, but is on the whole more severe, as the committee will find, than in Canada.
In the state of Michigan, which I know best because of its proximity to my own city and my own constituency, the pensioner, either single or married, who has real property exceeding $6,000 in value is automatically debarred from pension, and the provisions effective in Michigan are among the most generous in that country. What is the situation in Canada in this regard? Such a person in this country would have his property taken into account on a fair rental value basis in the calculation of his income, but would undoubtedly be entitled to a partial or full pension, depending on his marital status. Likewise, in the state of Michigan, an individual with cash in the bank in excess of $500, or $750 
if married, is automatically debarred from pension until he reduces his cash reserves to the figures mentioned.
Under the scheme in our country, a single pensioner can have between $1,400 and $1,500 in the bank and still draw full pension. He is not completely debarred unless he has liquid assets in excess roughly of $6,000, because the calculation is not on the basis of liquid assets but on the basis of income derivable from those assets.
In the case of married pensioners, in Canada, a man and his wife would have to have liquid assets of almost $12,000 before going off pension altogether; and if the wife is under seventy years of age and not on pension, a married man could have close to $7,000 in the bank without affecting his right to a full pension of $40.
I wonder if hon. members who have been criticizing the administration have taken into account the liberality of the provisions of our Old Age Pensions Act as against those on a comparable basis. These comparisons are given to illustrate the great variance of the means test as it is applied in various countries.
In a committee such as the one now proposed, it would no doubt be the wish of the house to give detailed study to various features of the legislation in other countries whose systems are comparable to our own. It will be helpful, I believe, to have the committee examine, for instance, the New Zealand system, which has been referred to so often in the house, and which has an interesting feature known as the universal superannuation plan. Under this act at the present time payments are made, based on contributions under the general social security tax but without a means test, to all persons of sixty-five years and over.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if those contributions are made specifically in regard to the old age pension-the universal superannuation benefit, which is the real name for it-or is it for the total social security?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Angus MacInnis: What is the difference in the age?-and no means test?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Angus MacInnis: Before you leave New
Zealand-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Angus MacInnis: What is the difference
between the eligible age for pension in New Zealand and in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already answered that twice.


Angus MacInnis: No, you have not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I did; I told my hon. friend.


Angus MacInnis: What is the age in New Zealand? In New Zealand it is sixty and in Canada it is seventy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am giving the plan in New Zealand.


Angus MacInnis: I know, but you are not telling it all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did say what the plan was, that there was a difference in age,. and I repeated it. I have given it now a third time, if that will satisfy the hon. member, for whom 1 have the greatest affection and respect.
The situation in Australia is more comparable, because, like Canada, it is a federal state, and presents an interesting basis of comparison. Its system, in fact, is more closely comparable to that of Canada because it relies exclusively upon the means test program, just as we have done up to the present time. But that was not always the situation in Australia. Under the former Menzies government, a contributory old age insurance law was placed upon the statute book in Australia. It is interesting to note that the Labour government a year or so ago repealed this legislation and decided to rely upon expansion and improvement of the means
Old Age Security
test program, rather than to adopt a program embodying contributory insurance features. Full details of all these schemes, together with that now in effect in the United Kingdom, will be made available to the joint committee.
May I say this further with regard to Australia. While it rests entirely upon the means test basis, its means test basis is not. as liberal as the means test basis in the act passed in 1927, with amendments thereto, in this country. It is of further interest to note that the amount of pension payable under the Canadian legislation at the present time is more generous than that payable under the schemes now in effect in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. It is also more generous than the average benefit paid at the present time under the United States contributory insurance scheme. It is, however, slightly less generous than the average means test pension paid in the United States, the reason in part for this being, as I have already indicated, the relatively greater generosity of the state contribution in the United States as compared with the provincial contribution in Canada.
After intensive study of the details of existing plans in other countries, such as those I have mentioned, it will be desirable that the committee here proposed should consider possible varieties of proposals which could be considered for Canada. I am not seeking to indicate that our system is perfect; I am not seeking to suggest that it does not require improvement. But I am pointing out that in trying to find a basis for improvement it will be very helpful to rely, in part, on the experience of other countries, as well as to consider certain other contingencies, to which I shall later refer, in our own country, under our own economy, affecting all the people of this country.
In all this study it will be desirable, I believe, that such a committee make a full assessment of the financial implications of each proposal. Why? Because I believe every hon. member will agree that we want to show a sense of responsibility and maintain a sense of balance in any plans that may be considered desirable. We must not be unaware of our responsibility, financially or otherwise, in a wide variety of fields. There are other social security benefits which we shall want, and we shall not want to do anything now which would in any way interfere with the realization of some of those benefits.
I wish to say right here and now, by way of digression, that I take second place to no one in this house in the desire to see the means test eliminated. But we recognize that this depends upon arrangements to be worked

Old Age Security
out with the provinces, and upon the kind of system which is ultimately devised.
It will do us no good, I think, but rather infinite harm as a people, to embrace a scheme which is beyond our capacity to continue in future years. In that connection one knows what is happening in California. One knows something of the retrenchments which have had to take place in social security benefits in other countries, and we have read about the effects that this has had on the people of those countries.
It will likewise be unwise for us to embark upon a proposal of such magnitude that it will effectively prevent us from considering other important social security measures, such as health insurance, invalidity benefits and other measures which must be in the realm of the development of a social security program.
We shall be prepared, if the committee wishes, to present a variety of possible proposals for its consideration, and to submit along with the proposals themselves, full details as to the financial commitments which would be involved in any of the various plans.
In this connection, with the permission of the house, I should like to place on Hansard a table showing the cost of various old age security proposals, at various ages and amounts on a universal basis, free of means test, and incorporating many of the proposals which have already been made in the house. I shall place them on record for the convenience of hon. members, and comment on only one or two of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to put the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The table is as follows:
COSTS OF VARIOUS OLD AGE SECURITY PROPOSALS AT VARIOUS AGES AND AMOUNTS (on a universal basis, free of means test)
Population	$30	$40	$50	$60	$100. 674,500 (1951)	$ 242,820,000	$ 323,760,000	$ 404,700,000	$ 485,640,000	$ 809,400,000. 869,300 (1961)	312,948,000	417,264,000	521,580,000	625,896,000	1,043,160,000. 1,042,100 (1971)	375,156,000	500,208,000	625,260,000	750,312,000	1,2^0,520,000Age 70 (M) -	. 877,100 (1951)	315,756,000	421,008,000	526,260,000	631,452,000	1,052,520,00065 (F) -	. 1,119,300 (1961)	402,948,000	537,264,000	671,580,000	805,896,000	1,343,160,000. 1,337,300 (1971)	481,348,000	641,904,000	802,380,000	962,856,000	1,604,760,000Age 65 	. 1,101,400 (1951)	396,504,000	528,672,000	660,840,000	793,008,000	1,321,680,000. 1,372,500 (1961)	494,100,000	658,800,000	823,500,000	988,200,000	1,647,000,000. 1,630,000 (1971)	586,800,000	782,400,000	978,000,000	1,173,600,000	1,956,000,000Age 65 (M) -	. 1,354,100 (1951)	487,476,000	649,968,000	812,460,000	974,952,000	1,624,920,00060 (F) -	. 1,667,700 (1961)	600,372,000	800,496,000	1,000,620,000	1,200,744,000	2,001,240,000. 2,018,000 (1971)	726,480,000	968,640,000	1,210,800,000	1,452,960,000	2,421,600,000Age 60 	. 1,631,900 (1951)	587,484,000	783,310,000	979,136,000	1,174,962,000	1,958,272,000. 1,969,700 (1961)	709,092,000	945,456,000	1,181,820,000	1,418,184,000	2,363,640,000. 2,366,900 (1971)	852,084,000	1,116,110,000	1,380,136,000	1,644,162,000	2,760,272,000
This table shows, for example, that the cost of a $30 pension to all at seventy without means test would be $243 million in 1951, $313 million in 1961 and $375 million in 1971. A $40 pension to all at age sixty-five without means test would cost $529 million in 1951 rising to $659 million in 1961 and to $782 million in 1971. To take another example, a $50 pension free of means test to all women at sixty-five and all men at seventy would cost $526 million in 1951, $672 million in 1961 and $802 million in 1971. In my commentary I, have not taken other figures in the table dealing with certain proposals made in this house which will bring us in 1951 up to a total for one particular phase of social security alone of. more than the government of Canada is spending for all phases of social security, including old age pensions, family allowances, veterans benefits, the health program and so on, and not taking into account 
expenditures made for social security by the provinces and voluntary organizations in this country.
I will take second place to no one in trying to develop a social security program. I am not afraid to defend the principle of social security. I do not necessarily make the distinction between it and social justice that has been made, but I do say that no one who really wants to act in a responsible way in the development of such a program can fail to take into account the capacity of the nation to meet these charges. In view of the widespread interest in contributory old age pension schemes-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: We did not hear about that before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that he did not hear about it. I should like him tc show me one speech I have ever made in the

house or outside it to which I did not attach the important addendum to which I have referred.


John George Diefenbaker: Financial responsibility.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The trouble with my hon. friend, for whom I have every respect, is that he does not pay the attention to my speeches that I wish he would. In view of the widespread interest, as I said, in contributory old age pension schemes, I feel sure that the committee when established will wish to study with particular care the nature of the various contributory schemes in effect in other countries. It will want to know the essential characteristics of these various plans. It will want to study the various features of the New Zealand scheme which, as I have already said, operates side by side with a means test scheme. It may come as a surprise to some to see how low these benefits are in the initial years of the scheme, how long a period of time is required for the scheme to mature, how heavy a rate of contribution is required, and how heavy the financial costs of the scheme will be when it fully matures in that country in 1988.
The features of contributory schemes in other countries would also need to be examined, I am sure, in order that all possible approaches may receive full attention. The question of contributory pensions is of particular importance at the present time because of the development within recent months of a new approach to old age security by way of supplementary industrial pensions, particularly in the United States. I think we will all recognize, Mr. Speaker, and I think we will all agree that it is only right and proper for industry to appreciate that it has a responsibility to its employees, not only with regard to old age security but also with regard to other social security benefits as well. For that reason the interesting experiments taking place today in the United States will deserve the committee's careful attention, and I am sure the house will find that development to be one of increasing interest.
A number of agreements have been entered into in the United States between the unions and the employers calling for the provision of a total pension amounting to $100 a month to employees who retire at sixty-five after twenty-five or thirty years' service with an individual employer. This $100 pension is made up of two parts: (1) the benefit payable under the federal old age insurance scheme; (2) a supplementary benefit paid on a noncontributory basis by the employer to bring the old age insurance benefit up to $100.
Current developments in the field of industrial relations in Canada make it clear that there is a desire in some quarters to develop 55946-41
Old Age Security
industrial pension schemes similar to those of the United States which I have described. This approach to industrial social security most certainly will warrant the careful consideration of the committee which I am proposing in this resolution. We need to know, after careful study of all the details, whether we wish to adopt for Canada a scheme similar to that now developing in the United States. Before adopting such a scheme to which many attach great importance-a scheme which is finding favour now with some trade union organizations and being accepted in a significant number of cases by Canadian employers -I feel we should make certain that all the facts in connection with these schemes, and all their implications, are fully appreciated by the unions, by the employers and by members of this house.
In this connection I might mention one outstanding fact which I think is not fully realized, namely, that the $100 industrial pension in the United States is in all instances provided entirely at the expense of the employer and the employees.


Major James William Coldwell: And the consumer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government does not pay one cent. My hon. friend is of that opinion-


Mr. Knowles:: We say "and the consumer".


An hon. Member:: Who else is going to pay it?


Mr. Marlin:: And the consumer in the sense that he purchases products, but so far as direct benefit is concerned, no contribution whatsoever is provided by the individual states nor is any contribution provided by the federal government of that country. I do not want to prejudge the matter, but my question will indicate how I feel personally. Is that the kind of old age security scheme we want in Canada? Do we want the government to get out from under its present financial responsibility which involves the payment of $135 million annually by the federal government and the provinces? Do we want them to shift this burden to the employees concerned, and to industry, and leave it to industry and to its employees to pay the entire cost of their old age security schemes? The federal government could easily do this and, to the extent that it was successful in doing so, it would relieve itself and the provinces of the present pension bill of $135 million annually. All it would have to do to place itself on an equal footing with the federal government in the United States, in so far as the $100 industrial pension is concerned, would be to provide, at no cost to

Old Age Security
itself, the administration of the employer-employee contributions to a federal old age scheme.
Do we wish to develop in this country a contributory insurance scheme which places the full burden of the cost on employees and on industry and which is designed to relieve governments correspondingly of the burden which, to a great extent, they are carrying from general revenues at the present time? I place great emphasis on this because from the correspondence I am receiving from all over the country suggesting the merits of that scheme it seems to me, with great respect, that the question has not been examined as carefully as it should be.
I ask this question simply to illustrate the point that we need to study with the greatest care all the implications of these programs before making up our minds as to the scheme we would like for our own people.
Perhaps one of the most significant facts of all those the committee will want to consider is that, owing to the increased longevity of our population, the numbers of our aged are increasing. As of June 1, 1949, it was estimated that there were 625,000 persons seventy years of age or over in the Canadian population. In addition there were 398,000 persons between the ages of sixty-five and seventy, or a total of 1,023,000 persons sixty-five and over. But this is not the whole story, by any means; and in the calculation of policy for years to come we as legislators, and the committee particularly, will have the responsibility of assessing this problem in terms of the next decade in particular, and perhaps the next two decades.
Each year the number of our older citizens increases by from 25,000 to 35,000. By 1951, when the regular census will be taken, our oest available estimates indicate that on the basis of present standards the total number of persons sixty-five and over will be in the neighbourhood of 1,100,000, of whom 675,000 will be over seventy. By 1961 the total number over sixty-five will be close to 1,375,000, of whom 870,000 will be over seventy. By 1971 the total number over sixty-five will be in excess of 1,600,000, of whom well over 1,000,000 will be over seventy. In other words, twenty-one years from now the total number of persons over seventy will equal or exceed today's number of persons over sixty-five. This demonstrates, I think, with startling clarity the rate of increase in our aged population.
Some will say, of course, that this is a long way off; but twenty-one years is not a long time. We are now considering an act,

to which possible amendments will be considered by the committee, which was passed twenty-two or more years ago. When you think of the tremendously increased application of that act these figures, important in every context, will need to be considered by the committee. I should point out, of course, that our total population will not keep pace with this increase in the number of aged. All these and many other considerations which I have not time to mention I am sure will be given careful consideration by the committee.
It may be said, I am sure it will be said, and I would not expect it not to be said, knowing the character this debate might take, that this move to establish a joint committee is nothing more than a delaying action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I knew I would hear that at this point. I want to say most emphatically on my responsibility as a member of the government that this is not the case. We consider the next steps to be taken in developing a comprehensive program of old age security to be of vital importance to the people of this country, and we want to be sure of our ground in detail when we take these steps. I believe the country will expect that kind of responsible attitude.
In this connection I should like to stress again that we must view this problem as one in which we are associated in a close working partnership with ten provincial governments. It is important, therefore, that we should seek the solution of this problem in joint consultation with the provinces, since the jurisdiction for contributory old age insurance is clearly in their hands at the present time, and since the only way that financial responsibility can be properly apportioned is as a result of discussion and agreement with them. This procedure of consultation was begun when we called the provinces together in January of this year to discuss important conditions precedent to the discussion of social welfare matters in the fall. I know every hon. member of this house will share my feeling that substantial progress was made at this conference, thanks to the wholehearted co-operation of all the provincial premiers who were there represented. With this auspicious beginning we feel the chances of success are good in the further negotiations which will take place in the latter part of this year.
The over-all objectives which the government hopes to realize in discussions with the provinces have been stated already by the

Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); and with particular reference to the question of old age security I would direct attention to the statement he made a few months ago and which apparently has been overlooked in the discussions that have taken place in this house within the last few days. I think what the Prime Minister said last year in Vancouver deserves to be noted in the context of what I have to say today. He said:
One of our main domestic concerns is the provision of social security for all Canadians. The funds distributed under old age pensions, family allowances, pensions for the blind, health grants and other measures have also, in addition to the direct benefit received by the direct recipients of those amounts, added a strong upward influence in maintaining levels of employment. Our social security program is, as you know, by no means complete. We still have a good way to go before provision of social security in Canada reaches the level which will satisfy . . .
We are certainly not satisfied with our old age pension legislation, even though the scale of pensions is fifty per cent higher in dollars, than it was before the war. What has been our aim is a contributory system of old age pensions, one under which our old people will receive their pensions as a matter of right and without there being any means test.


John George Diefenbaker: Where was that statement made, may I ask?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In Vancouver.


John George Diefenbaker: On what date?


Peter Francis Martin: I have not the exact date at the moment. The Prime Minister went on:
By contributory pensions paid by the state I do not mean the kind of pension that any one of you could obtain by going to an insurance company and paying an annual premium. It is not a pension where there is going to be a separate account for every Canadian and where he will get as his pension only the return of his own contributions and interest thereon. What we mean by a contributory old age pension scheme is a scheme whereby all Canadians will contribute each year to a fund for old age pensions and where old age pensions will be paid out as a matter of right to those who will have attained the pensionable age-
Then he went on:
It will be a pension of an equal amount for everyone at pensionable age to which everyone of taxable age will make a direct contribution. But we cannot have a contributory system without an agreement with all provincial governments to have the constitution amended, as was done in the case of unemployment insurance ...
In respect of old age pensions, and of all social insurance, the constitution of 1867 placed those matters under provincial jurisdiction/ and as long as I am in parliament I will always oppose any attempt by the parliament of Canada to take from the legislatures of the provinces one iota of the jurisdiction given to them by the constitution, unless they agree to that being done.
If, and when, that is done, there will be the possibility of a contributory old age pension scheme which will be the same for Canadians in every province of Canada.
Old Age Security
Then he continues with this second and concluding paragraph. I commend these words to the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It reads as follows:
These are matters which require, and which are receiving serious consideration. I here repeat the assurance that we will stand by the proposals we made to the provinces in 1945, although of course we are always ready to consider modifications, if changes can be made which are justified by the conditions of today or the conditions of tomorrow, and which would make agreement easier to reach.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this still part of the Prime Minister's speech delivered in April, 1949?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what the date is, but this year.


George Alexander Drew: No, not this year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The leader of the opposition is right, it is last year. That is still the view of the Prime Minister and the members of this government.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt, but the statement which has just been attributed to the Prime Minister is of sufficient importance that we should have the date of that speech on the record, as well as the circumstances under which it was made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe the circumstances would make much difference. My hon. friend is entitled to the date, and I shall get it for him. I believe the Prime Minister has now become known throughout this country as a man whose word can be relied upon, no matter what the circumstances.


George Alexander Drew: That may be, but we have a right to know whether we can rely upon the repetition of it. We do not know the date.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall certainly see that my hon. friend gets the date before the end of the debate.
These words of the Prime Minister make abundantly clear the relationship between our attempts to achieve a better system of old age security for our people, and the consultations which are to take place later this year with the provinces. As we approach these discussions with the provinces, it will be helpful for us to have the considered views of all the parties in this house, of organized labour, of industry, of representative social welfare organizations, and of other interested groups in our population, who have given study through the years to the important question of old age security. I believe that in the formulation of a policy nothing could be more desirable, before we finally meet the provinces, than to take the organized labour groups of this country into our confidence through this committee, as well as the farmers and

Old Age Security
other organizations. I think that attitude, and that approach, will commend itself to all hon. members.
I must repeat however that, whatever we do, we must take care to ensure that any program we develop lies within the capacity of the Canadian people to maintain.
In this connection, I will recall the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) as reported on page 469 of Hansard for October 3, 1949. It reads as follows:
Up to this point I have not said anything about how a social security program should be financed. I am dealing with broad principles and not with details. I do not believe that I have any illusions about how measures of this kind are paid for. They are paid out of the national income. That in turn comes out of national production, and the national production is the product of those who work. When we provide social services of any kind we are providing material things such as food, clothing, shelter and services of one kind or another, which must be produced by those who are working.
On the same page, he said:
I say that, because there is an idea abroad that there is some mysterious source from which food, shelter and clothing can be paid for without taking it from those who produce it or have claims of ownership to it. There is no such way.
I believe those words of the hon. member for Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker, deserve to be re-echoed in this house. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that social security has to be paid for out of production. It is the people themselves who, through their hard work, must provide governments with the financial resources to maintain those social services. I believe we should deal with this thing frankly. As we go along with these various subjects, we should point out their cost, point out what it means by way of additional responsibility for the citizens. It seems that is the way they want it, and that is the responsible way to proceed.
With that in mind, what we wish to do is to develop, within the limits only of the financial capacity of our people, and with due ' regard to our over-all commitments in all fields of social security and other governmental responsibilities, the simplest, most effective and most humane system of old age security that it is possible for us to devise. We wish to do this, not in open disregard of provincial rights or interests or concerns, but in full consultation, agreement and partnership with them. This, Mr. Speaker, is our objective in the field of old age security. It is with this, along with other equally important matters in mind, that we look forward to our conference with the provinces in the autumn of this year. It is for the purpose of enabling us to consider every possible point of view which could be of advantage to

us in formulating future plans and programs that we are proposing to set up this joint committee of both houses.
In this way, we will be able not only to find out what is in the minds of the various parties in the house and in the other place, but to examine the program and the experience of other countries. We will be able to obtain the views of organized labour and of industry; we will be able to hear the expert testimony of representatives of social welfare organizations; we will be able to study the implications of the current movement for varied industrial pension schemes, and the extent to which these can be fitted into any over-all pattern; we will be able to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of our present scheme; we will be aible to study the relative merits of contributory and non-contributory measures, of means test programs such as still prevail in all the countries of the world; we will be able to study the reasons why Australia, when its Labour government was in power, rejected contrioutory old age insurance in favour of a continuation, with improvements, of the existing means test program; we will be able to examine the orthodox contributory insurance program of the United States, the universal superannuation scheme of New Zealand, the national old age security scheme of the United Kingdom, and the old age security schemes in other countries.
In effect, we will be giving this committee the opportunity of assessing the alternative plans in Canada which, among others, are at least four. First, do we want an extension and improvement of the present system, based on joint dominion-provincial co-operation, of a means test program, such as Australia has? Undoubtedly, much could be done to improve this. Second, do we want an orthodox contributory system as in the United States, limited as to its coverage, and gradual in its approach to full benefit rates? Third, do we want a universal superannuation scheme as in New Zealand, gradual in its approach to full benefit rates, designed to eliminate the means test gradually for. all the aged, but requiring 30 to 40 years to do so? Do we want to levy a special social security tax to finance the cost of this? Fourth, do we want a universal pension scheme, with full benefits to commence immediately at a stated age, as proposed by the dominion in 1945 in its proposals to the provinces? These are but four of the alternatives the committee will want to consider. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have stated, this resolution should commend itself to the house.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has chosen a new role for himself today. Usually, when the minister speaks in the house, he adopts the air of one who is announcing the advent of a new heaven and a new earth. His speech today was of a different nature. On the whole it was a most depressing speech. The information which the minister sought to recount must have had a most depressing effect on everyone who had come here with any hope of action on the part of the government or parliament in the near future.
In his speech the minister in effect sought to justify the existing old age pension system. His whole speech was in essence a defence of the status quo. He praised what he called the liberality of the present system. His words in connection with the means test- whether he so intended them or not I cannot say-were in essence a defence of the means test. The minister's statement leaves one wondering what possible purpose the committee can serve, because it would appear that the government has completely prejudged the situation and the committee must face a role of utter futility. I think a fair summing up of the speech the minister made this afternoon would be that the case for the appointment of a committee with any hope of performing a constructive or useful task is weaker now than it was before he started to speak.
From the resolution one would infer that the committee is to be a sort of fact-finding body. There are several things that the committee is to be permitted to examine and study. If it is information that is sought, I suggest that that information is available now. The minister has catalogued a good deal of information of a rather depressing sort, and it is quite apparent that when this committee is set up it will have to go to the same sources for its information as those from which the minister obtained his, namely, the officials of the department.
It is not more information that is required on this subject. I will put it briefly: what is required is resolute action on the part of the government. There is plenty of information available. All the information in the hands of the government today could be made available to the house by means of a white paper, in a speech or by some other method. It is not more information that is the great need in this field at the present moment.
The minister has sought to put some information before the house looking to the present and to the future, information as to the situation both in Canada and in countries abroad, particularly in the sister nations of the commonwealth to which he referred. Again I say
Old Age Security
the committee will have to obtain all its information from government sources; there is no suggestion that the committee will seek firsthand information from the other countries of the commonwealth. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that is all this committee is to be permitted to do, it is not going to have a useful or successful role.
Questions of law and the constitution have been introduced by the minister. Where is the committee to go for instruction on those points? It will have to obtain it from the law officers of the crown, if the law officers of the crcwn are to be permitted to come before the committee and submit to questioning. All this is available to the government now and can be made available to the house in five minutes if the government has not been neglecting the preparation of information.
I sum up my approach to this subject by saying that what is needed right now is not more information-there is ample information available; what is needed is action. We have been waiting for action on the part of the government for a very long time.
Let us in all fairness examine the proposal with respect to the functions and powers and purposes of the proposed committee. Its shortcomings are manifest.
In the first place, its scope is very narrow. It is to be confined to the subject of old age security. It is not to be permitted to inquire into questions of security for those who are disabled and prevented from obtaining a livelihood just as are those who are advanced in years. The minister talked about the danger of action with reference to old age pensions prejudicing or precluding action in other fields of social security; and he referred to health insurance. Would it not have been the part of common sense, if the minister is seriously hoping for the results he pictured from this committee, to enlarge the scope of the committee so that it could take that broad and well-balanced view of the situation that it must take if the matter is to be considered in any other way than that characterized by this government's approach to social security questions in the past, which has prevented a thorough and comprehensive solution, namely, a piecemeal approach and piecemeal politics? What is needed is a comprehensive approach to the problem, and this committee with its limited scope will not provide the opportunity to make a comprehensive study of social security.
In the second place, I would point out that the committee will be too large. There are to be twenty-eight members from this house, and, as it is to be a joint committee, presumably the other place will appoint a similar number. A committee of fifty-six members

Old Age Security
will be a clumsy committee, and it will not make rapid progress with this problem. It may serve the government's real purpose to have a clumsy committee which will be bogged down by its own numbers, but such a committee will not achieve the purposes the minister has pictured.
Two years ago, when a similar proposal came from the government, for the appointment of a special committee to investigate the causes of the rise in prices, one thing the government put forward in defence of the committee was that it would be a small committee of only sixteen members, including the chairman. It was to be kept small so that the task could be more expeditiously disposed of. But this committee of presumably fifty-six members is going to be hopelessly bogged down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend will want to know that it is not intended to have such a large committee. There will be twenty-eight members from this house and I understand about nine members from the other place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has no control whatsoever over the number that will be appointed to the committee by the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put them all on. They are on pension anyway.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You just wait and see.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The resolution states that the other place is to be invited to appoint some of its members to serve on the proposed joint committee. [DOT]
If it is an effective committee that the government want, why do not they follow the advice they gave the house two years ago and appoint a small compact committee? They said then that such a committee could proceed with the task much more expeditiously.
I come now to the third obvious shortcoming of this committee. It is given no power whatsoever to make so much as a single recommendation to the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will have that power.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has not that power. There is not a word in this resolution that gives the committee the slightest power to make one recommendation to this house. That is a matter of first importance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is now interpreting the rules of the house. Under the rules of the house there is no doubt that a committee has power to make recommendations. My hon. friend
fMr. Fleming.]
will remember the prices committee, and he knows that it made recommendations. I expect that this committee will be so inclined.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I take direct issue with the statement made by the minister, and I shall have something to say about recommendations made on a previous occasion, and the way in which they were smuggled in after the committee and the house had been told that there was not such a power.
Sir, on this question of the power to make recommendations, let us go back to the instance of two years ago that the minister mentioned. On February 2, 1948, the house had under debate the government's motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the causes of the rise in prices, and we of the official opposition said, if we are going to have a committee let us have a committee that will really do a job. We asked that that committee be given power to make recommendations. And, sir, we brought in an amendment to the government's motion. We sought to add these words to the government's resolution, which will be found on page 760 of Hansard of February 2, 1948:
That as well as reporting its findings the committee shall from time to time make recommendations to the House of Commons, as in the opinion of the committee may be considered necessary to secure as far as possible fair and just returns to producers, employees and employers and fair and just practices in marketing and distribution that will safeguard the interests of consumers as well as of producers.
That amendment was ruled out of order, if you please. On objection taken by my hon. friend's leader of those days, they got the amendment ruled out of order, and when the ruling was challenged the house divided and of course my friend, and those associated with him, lined up in support of the ruling that eliminated the amendment as being out of order. If the minister will take the time to go back and read the debates leading up to the adoption of that resolution two years ago, he will see there that the prime minister of that day defended the motion lacking any provision for recommendations because he pictured the danger of recommendations, the danger that the committee would make recommendations at variance with government policy. It. was that embarrassment that led the prime minister, and the government of which the minister is still a member, to oppose giving to that committee two years ago any power to make recommendations.
I submit to you, sir, that the reason we find no power to make recommendations provided for in the present resolution is the very same reason: that the government is seeking to handcuff the committee so that it will not bring in any recommendations which might run counter to government policy. Every

syllable the minister uttered this afternoon shows clearly how anxious the government is to keep the brakes on this committee, to prevent it from making any independent recommendations that might offend the dictates of government policy.
My fourth observation on the shortcomings of this proposal is that it is a recommendation for the appointment of a special committee. If there is need for a committee- and there is-then it ought to be a standing committee of the house, not a mushroom committee that will be permitted to sit while it serves the purpose of the government, and then will be eliminated when it has served the government's purpose.


Mr. Pearkes:: Like the veterans affairs committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The same thing again. The government will have a special committee when it tends to suit the government's purpose, but the moment the committee shows any independence, or ceases to knuckle down to government orders, pr tries to meet the needs of the veterans, then of course the government steps in and says it will have neither a standing committee nor a special committee in that field. The same thing is true here, Mr. Speaker. If there is any merit in the arguments the minister has submitted to the house this afternoon for the appointment of a committee, the merit lies in the appointment of a standing committee, not a mushroom committee.
At the last session of parliament the government had the opportunity to accept my proposal for the appointment of a standing committee of the house in the fields of health, welfare, social security and housing. That resolution was debated in this house on October 12, 1949. It was defeated on a called division by the government voting against it, after the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), then acting minister of the department which the Minister of National Health and Welfare heads, had vigorously opposed it as being the sort of thing that he said would run counter to proper parliamentary practice and responsible government.
I do not say that the minister is wrong today in recommending a committee. The trouble with him is that he does not recommend a proper or adequate committee. The minister who was speaking for him last October 12 was utterly wrong in his condemnation of the establishment of a standing committee of the house in these important fields.
It is worth remembering, sir, that when the then acting minister of national health and welfare was commenting on the scope and
Old Age Security
purposes of such a committee he had this to say concerning recommendations, which will be found at page 725 of Hansard of October 12:
In the first place a committee considering policy, administration, appropriations and expenditures would be useless unless it made recommendations to the house.
On the reasoning of that minister this committee, which is not being given power to make recommendations, is accordingly doomed to be useless. I do not know how many hon. members will wish to approach a committee task like this with a feeling that their efforts are doomed to futility before they start.
The next observation I make is that if the purpose of the government, when they conceived this committee, was to fly a kite and obtain whatever information they wanted as to the views of various political parties, or other organizations interested in the field, or the people of Canada, they have had ample opportunity to obtain those views. There has been ample discussion on this question in the house in recent debates to show the minister and the government where the political parties stand on this question. It goes back to this, sir, that what is needed now is action, and resolute action. While there is ample ground for the appointment of a standing committee in this field, the government does not give us any assurance of action.
What is the real reason for this recommendation now, this proposal from the government, which in effect runs counter to and in the teeth of the case sought to be made out by the Minister of National Defence, speaking in the debate that I have referred to, namely, on October 12, 1949?
It is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the government is under pressure on the subject of old age pensions. Members of parliament are under pressure on the subject of old age pensions. The public is aroused to the inadequacies of the present pension scheme, and to the intolerability of the continuation of the means test, as it has not been aroused thereto before.
Undoubtedly supporters of the government in this house, in the light of promises that so many of them made so readily during the election campaign last spring, are under very great pressure to fulfil their promises. Therefore the government has obviously found it necessary to steer a course now that is somehow going to relieve the pressure. I submit to you, sir, that is precisely what we have before us now. The pressure, sir, has unquestionably doubled ever since the government showed its position very firmly on September 19, 1949, with reference to the means test. There was

Old Age Security
ample opportunity at that time for the government to say that they were going to replace the present system, and its means test, with a national contributory system that would eliminate this invidious means test; but oh, no, the government chose to line up solidly in favour of the maintenance of the means test. Government members, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare, voted to a man against the amendment which will be found on page 50 of Hansard of September 19, 1949, in these words:
We regret, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose legislation to remove the means test from the old age pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was not the purpose of the motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the effect of the motion, and these are the words of the motion. The government accepted it at its face value, and they voted against it to a man, and the minister was one of those who voted against it.
I have said enough to indicate quite clearly that the government felt it necessary to devise some tactic which would offer an opportunity to relieve the pressure because, as hon. members must be well aware, the pressure is very strong. So we see the government sitting down and cogitating on the problem, not with a view to meeting the real necessities of the situation, not with a view to facing up to the realities or shortcomings of the present pensions system, but sitting down to devise means of evading the issue and delaying.
Sir, you see a very good example this afternoon, in the speech made by the minister, of the full flower of that favourite government tactic-to gain time, to spar for time. Obviously we have before us today evasive action, and the well-known government Fabian tactic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not on your life!


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member to my left is a little too modern. The real reference to the original Fabius is a reference to a man who delayed. That was his chief military tactic; he was a man who delayed. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) fits very well and naturally into a government whose principal tactic is the tactic of delay.
There are those who were members of the house two years ago, and who will recall the debate of February 1948 respecting a problem which was then just as acute as the problem of old age pensions today. Those hon. members will not have failed to observe both the
similarity of the conditions and the similarity of the government's method of meeting the problems.
I am sure it will be well recalled that at that time just the same kind of pressure was exerted on parliament to take some action to halt the soaring cost of living. Many of us had some direct proposals to make as to how the government could meet that problem, and concrete suggestions were made from the official opposition. But the government were not prepared to take that kind of action. No, they fell back on a method by which they would relieve the pressure- because the pressure, we will all recall, was very great indeed. So they devised this pretty tactic-I shall be generous enough to call it a tactic, sir, though in reality I think it is a stunt-to sidetrack that pressure, and to route the steam engine off on a siding.
I point out to the house the similarity between the government's method then and the government's method today, because what is going to follow is directly relevant. The house will be neglectful of its duty today if it tolerates treatment of this committee it is asked to set up, in the way the committee was treated which was set up two years ago. I point out that while that committee was sitting prices continued to go up, perhaps even faster than they had been going up before. Today, while this committee sits, those who are suffering from the inadequacies and shortcomings of the present outworn old age pension scheme are going to be permitted to continue to suffer.	___
In the second place, that committee sat for a very long time-four and a half months altogether-and held in all seventy-seven public meetings. It spent a great deal of the country's money to find the facts. Apparently today we are to be treated in the same way. A committee is to be appointed to find the facts-when the facts are known. It is not more facts or more knowledge of the facts that are required; it is action.
Third, that committee embarked upon a perfectly futile task when denied the right to make recommendations, and, unless the government lifts the hampering restrictions, this new committee will be doomed to equal futility.
Fourth, I am sure no hon. member can believe that this fact was absent from the minds of the government when this resolution was devised, namely, that it is going to have the effect of preventing discussion in the house of matters which are within the scope and purview of the reference to the committee.
Won't that be a happy situation for the government! In the debate on the throne

speech many attacks have been made upon the government because of its indifference and its inaction in the face of the very serious situation facing many of the elderly people in this country, and the conditions from which they are suffering-and I use the word "suffering" advisedly. Can one imagine anything that would suit better the purposes of the government than to have a stop put to all that kind of discussion in the house? Nothing would suit the purposes of the government better, as happened in the instance two years ago to which I have referred when, for four and a half months, while the cost of living was continuing to soar, any discussion of the subject in the house was precluded. Nothing on the subject could be discussed in the house until the committee reported a day or two before prorogation, at the end of June, 1948.
So hon. members will see that, despite all the protests of the minister-and, I think like the queen in Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much".-the minister had a very uneasy feeling somewhere in the locality of his conscience when he started out today to assure the house, with great seriousness and gravity, that the idea of a delaying action or of preventing discussion in the house was far from his innocent thoughts. Well, there are in the house, perhaps, some in reference to whose simplicity of thought the house could be naive; but I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare, before he hopes to convince the house that this consideration was absent from the minds of the government, will need to buttress his arguments much more than with a statement such as he made today.
As did the prices committee which sat two years ago, we have on this occasion the problem of interim reports. As one who went through the anguish of sitting on that committee and wasting four and a half months on a task which, before the committee ever began its deliberations, was doomed to uselessness, I well remember that some of us on the committee held the belief that we were in a position from time to time to say something worth while to the house, and wanted to make an interim report. As a matter of fact the prime minister of that day had said in February of 1948, before the committee was appointed, that it could bring in an interim report. But there was a dominating government majority on the committee, and every time we made the suggestion that an interim report be made to the house, that proposal was rejected by the majority on the committee.
I submit, sir, that if this committee is appointed, with no expansion of its powers or its status, the house will not receive from it
Old Age Security
an interim report which the house could discuss, and will not get a report until the end of the session, I suspect, on the eve of prorogation.
I do not need to reiterate what I have said about recommendations. I might touch again upon the fact that the committee of two years ago was told all the way through that it did not have powers to make recommendations. That attitude on the part of the government was reflected through its spokesman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as chairman of that committee, all the way through-"no recommendations", because the committee was not given power by the house to make recommendations for which we of the official opposition had asked.
Do you remember what happened? I, for one, will never forget it. I will never forget that at a sitting of that committee in executive session-oh, what a euphonious title, "executive session"!-at a private meeting, where the public was not admitted and the press were not admitted things were done and perpetrated that the government would not have dared to permit to happen in the committee, if it had been held in public. The draft report the committee considered from ten o'clock in the morning until late at night-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order.
I think I have given the hon. member sufficient latitude in his attempt to set out the similarity between the committee then set up and the one indicated in the resolution. I believe I should .now ask him to come back to a discussion of this committee, and to speak about it rather than the one which sat two years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will be relieved to hear that I am nearly finished with this subject, but may I say that I prefaced what I had to say by drawing parallels between this committee and its terms of reference, and the committee of two years ago and its terms of reference. You will remember that it was the minister himself who, by way of interjection in my remarks, introduced in this debate a reference to the committee of two years ago on the question of the power to make recommendations. With great respect to you and your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I submit I am entitled to deal with a subject raised by the minister.
On the question of recommendations I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that we were told all the way through that the reference to the committee of two years ago did not include on its face the power to make recommendations, and that therefore it did not have the power to do so. I know that the minister is going to tell me that the committee made recommendations, and I want to answer that by telling him that though
650

Old Age Security
the committee sat all day in executive session, there were not any recommendations before it, and an adjournment was proposed at eleven o'clock. The majority of the members went out for a five-minute recess, came back about three-quarters of an hour later, and after midnight the committee was handed a whole group of fourteen recommendations all ready made, just as neatly done up as any cute little package you ever saw. I do not wish to see the present proposed committee treated in the same way as the committee of two years ago because of the fact that there is no power to make recommendations given to the committee in the terms of reference under debate today. I do not want members of the proposed committee to be told all the way through their sittings that they have not the power to make recommendations when some of those who may be members of it may desire at some stage to make recommendations to the house. I do not want to see the committee told then that we have not the power to make recommendations, and then have the government majority in the last hour of the sittings of the committee bring in a whole list of recommendations handed to them in a neat package by the government. If the government has any recommendations to make to the house, then I submit that now is the time and this is the place to make them.
There is one matter that I think deserves more than a passing reference. The subject of old age pensions is not a new one in the house.


Mr. Dickey:: It was introduced in the house in 1926 by the Liberal party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is about as far as the Liberal party has ever progressed with old age pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under pressure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: From that day to this anything that has been done so far as old age pensions are concerned while a Liberal government has been in office has been done by a house that went about the task of prodding the government. It has been just like drawing teeth to try to induce them to take some action.


Mr. Maybank:: Is prodding like drawing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As a matter of fact we have had to resort to almost every honourable means at our disposal to flay the government into taking some action. As everyone knows, it has been an uphill battle in the face of the needs of many people who were not getting enough to live on decently in past years. Of course the government would not take action. It was the same old story. I repeat for the 
benefit of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) that every action that has been taken since 1926, in the direction of providing a better system or a less inadequate allowance, has been taken-


John Horace Dickey: By a Liberal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -as the result of insistent prodding and effort on the part of the opposition to rouse a government that showed itself unwilling and reluctant to take action to meet the needs of our old people. This government has always been away behind public opinion on this question. Having regard to the position of the parties, I would have thought that was perfectly clear.
I shall leave the parties to my left to speak for themselves, but when the minister talks so airily, as he did today, about the other parties, I want to say that, so far as the Progressive Conservative party is concerned, it made its position clear long ago with reference to old age pensions. That position had been made clear before the national convention of the party held in Ottawa in 1948, but at that time it was made a plank of first importance in the platform of the party, a plank adopted by the unanimous vote of all delegates at the convention, in these words:
The Progressive Conservative party proposes a "contributory social security program", available to every Canadian irrespective of occupation to include the following benefits:
1.	Retirement pensions at 65 without a means test;
2.	Accident, sickness and disability benefits;
3.	Health insurance-to include adequate medical and hospital care;
4.	Extended unemployment insurance benefits- to include payment for time lost due to accidents or sickness.
5.	Similar benefits on a non-contributory basis for "unemployables".
This "contributory social security program" will be established in collaboration with and be administered by the provinces. Enabling legislation will be enacted with permissive power to the provinces to adopt the plan, thus avoiding the necessity of constitutional amendment or immediate over-all dominion-provincial agreement. Until the contributory plan becomes fully operative the dominion will pay 75 per cent of a retirement pension of not less than $40 per month.
That is the verbatim statement appearing in the platform of the Progressive Conservative party which was adopted by unanimous vote at that great national convention. The views of the Progressive Conservative party on this subject are these. We believe that the present old age pension system is entirely inadequate, outworn, and the time is long past when it must be replaced by a national contributory pension plan. The features of the plan that we propose are:
1.	The plan shall be national in scope. It is to include every Canadian irrespective of occupation.

2.	The plan shall be contributory. It will in effect be a savings plan.
3.	It will provide a pension, not charity. The pensioner will be entitled to it as of right.
4.	It will be paid on a retirement basis, that is to say, it will be designed to enable everyone to live in decency in advanced years.
5.	It will be payable at age sixty-five. The present age limit of seventy debars many who are in need.
6.	There will be no means test. This objectionable test has often penalized the thrifty, created unfair discrimination in the treatment of elderly Canadians, and has resulted in officious intrusion into the private affairs of good citizens. It must be eliminated in favour of a contributory scheme.
7.	The plan will require joint dominion-provincial participation in view of the requirements of the Canadian constitution. The provinces under the constitution must administer it, but the dominion ought to bear most of the governments' share of the cost.
I say that such a plan is urgently needed. The present old age pension system has many shortcomings. One of its worst features is the means test. The amount paid is not adequate. At the present time the pension is not acquired by the recipient as of right; it is not, in fact, a pension at all, but a charitable allowance based on necessity. We should have something better than this in Canada. Canada should have had a national contributory pension plan long before this. The need of it is seen more clearly today than ever before. The public are impatiently waiting for it.
A new and very strong argument has lately appeared in its favour. The inauguration of a national contributory pension plan will help to prevent industrial unrest. Adequate provision for retirement in advanced years is one of the avowed objectives of organized labour. A national contributory pension plan can make a major contribution to industrial peace, and thereby to the creation of wealth through the one possible source of new wealth, namely, production.
It is quite obvious, I think, as we look over the record of the government, that there has been too much toying with this problem by the government in the past. What we need today in Canada is a resolute, well balanced approach to the problem of social security; and we need a comprehensive plan. Parliament's approach in the past has been bedevilled by piecemeal politics practised by this government. The time has come for bold and resolute action. Canada wants a national contributory pension plan.
55946-42*
Old Age Security
I am left to wonder just what really is the government's position today. One gathers that the program or platform or policy of the government in reference to old age pensions is simply to appoint a committee. That is all we learned from the minister's speech this afternoon, except a great many negative arguments which, if they were accepted, would lead us to throw up our hands in despair and say nothing could be done.
The minister and two other members of parliament were invited to contribute articles to the Canadian railway employees' magazine of February of this year setting forth their views on the subject of old age pensions; and as interpreted by the minister we find that the policy of the Liberal party is to appoint a committee. That is the extent of government policy today to meet the needs of the situation and satisfy the requirements of many elderly people in this country who are suffering hardship now and who will continue to suffer while this committee is sitting.
There is one thing we of the Progressive Conservative party always take pains to say in reference to questions of social security. Today the minister spoke of the cost. Certainly the party of which I have the honour to be a member has a very responsible approach to this question of social security. What we say as to the needs of the situation carries with it our statement as to the means by which those needs may be met. We say and have always said that social security measures do cost money. The source from which the cost of those measures must be met is the national income. Therefore if we are going to be able to afford the measures of social security the people of this country desire it will be necessary that those policies be followed which will contribute most to the enlargement of the national income. There is no other source of wealth than production. There is no other means by which the cost of social security measures may be met than the national income, represented by national production. Therefore we say and have always said that the system whicfi promises most in the way of social security for the people, the system which will produce the highest national income, is this system of free competitive enterprise which we have so stoutly supported.
The Minister has sought to arrogate unto himself a great deal of credit for alleged action taken by parliament at the request of the government in connection with the tardy measures of improvement introduced in this

Old Age Security
house in 1947 and 1949. He makes this becomingly modest statement at page 69 of the magazine to which I have just referred:
It has been my privilege over the past three years to get the approval of parliament-
That sounds as though this crusader was just wringing out of an unwilling parliament these needed measures of improvement for the benefit of the aged pensioners, when as everyone knows the situation has been exactly the reverse. Actually the opposition were prodding the minister and government to do something, and had waited a very long time for this delayed action on the part of the government. But in his modest way the minister said:
It has been my privilege over the past three years to get the approval of parliament to increase pensions, relax income ceilings and lower the age of eligibility for the blind-increasing the number of pensioners by one-third and more than doubling the payments.
That is worthy of a thought or two. I have said something in general about the people who stirred this government to action after it had shown great reluctance and tardiness; but I wish to be a little more specific now. The minister speaks about relaxing the income ceilings. It is true that there was some relaxation of the income ceiling by chapter 67 of the statutes of 1947. But what about the amendment of 1949, which the minister introduced with a great hurrah and much fanfare, on the eve of the election? I submit that if it had not been for the fact that we were on the eve of an election, and if it had not been for the action of my leader in demanding that the government really get down to business on the resolution it had on the order paper, we would not have had that amendment put through at that time.
Let us look at what happened in 1949. With much fanfare the minister introduced amendments which had the effect of increasing the basic pension, to which this government would contribute 75 per cent, from $30 per month to $40 per month. He was asked in the house, and quite properly, "What are you going to do about the allowable income of these pensioners from other sources?" Of course the minister just passed that over; that was one of those embarrassing questions, and he did not have time to deal with embarrassing questions at that time.
What about the situation now, when we have the minister claiming great credit for what he calls the relaxation of income ceilings? What is this generous income ceiling? The fact of the matter is that since the amendment of April, 1949, a person receiving old age pension is not entitled to any greater

aggregate income, including pension, than he was previously. Today he is allowed the handsome sum of $120 a year, or $10 a month apart from the pension. If he gets one copper over that it comes off his pension of $40 a month; and that is the minister's idea of liberality. He spoke today of the liberality of the present system. What about married people? They are permitted an aggregate income, including pension, under this act of $1,080 per annum. No change was made in that total when the increase was made from $30 to $40 in April of 1949. What is the position of a married couple receiving old age pensions? Well, $40 a month each for two people is $960 a year, and they are allowed a total income of $1,080, so there we have the princely allowance of $120 other income per year for two people. In other words, those two people are permitted to receive an additional $120 a year or $10 a month between them; but if they make a copper over that the minister has what satisfaction he can get out of seeing that a corresponding deduction is made from the basic pension of $40 a month.
In the face of that situation the minister has the temerity to put in print a statement in which he speaks of the credit due him for relaxing the income ceilings!
Then let us come to another of these boastings by the minister. He speaks about lowering the eligible age for the blind. Who is entitled to credit for that? In 1947 this government brought in an amendment to the act under which they proposed that the age of blind pensioners should be reduced to forty years. My then leader, Mr. John Bracken, rose in the house and in one of the best speeches to be heard here in a long time challenged the government to do the sensible thing and reduce that age to twenty-one instead of forty. It was his effort that drove the government, before that debate ended, to reduce the pensionable age from forty to twenty-one, as we find it in the Old Age Pensions Act today. Forty was the age the government thought suitable when the amendment was introduced in 1947. I say to you, sir, that the full credit for that change goes to the opposition.
When one looks at this vast majority to your right and to your left, sir, one would have thought that, if the government was looking for ample support before taking action, with 193 members they must by this time have mustered enough strength to warrant their showing a little bit of courage in grappling with this problem. How many more members are they going to need, Mr. Speaker, before they screw their courage up to the point where they will take action to meet the needs of the situation? If 193 members are

not enough, then it is utterly impossible for any person to look hopefully for any action whatever from this inactive and reluctant government.
What is their position? I have suggested it is difficult to find the government's position. We do know that their policy is to appoint a parliamentary committee, and apparently that is all the policy they now have in this field of old age pensions. Yet, I recall that the Minister of National Health and Welfare made this statement in a speech in Kitchener on March 27, 1949, as recorded in a Canadian Press dispatch:
The Liberal government program is now directed toward giving the national contributory old age pensions and a national health program.
Well, how about it? How about some action, Mr. Speaker? Let us have less talk and more action on the part of the government towards bringing about that promised national contributory old age pension system. If the government meant business when the minister made that statement in March, 1949, why all the obstacles that the minister plastered on the record during his speech today?
Then, of course, there is a speech made by the Prime Minister. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has not indicated to us as yet just when it was that the Prime Minister made that speech in Vancouver, but it may have been on that tour the Prime Minister took through the west during the Easter adjournment last year. At that time, he put his toes in to feel how warm or how cold the election water might be. While the Prime Minister was on the same tour, he made a speech in Edmonton which was not read today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but which is recorded in a reliable newspaper, the Toronto Telegram. The press report was written by a highly respected member of the press gallery, who accompanied the Prime Minister on that tour. The article reads as follows:
"Most people do feel that a basic pension of $30 a month isn't worth, in purchasing power at the present, what the pension was worth before the last increase," he said.
The basic pension policy of the government is directed towards a contributory system without a means test, he added, but that end can't be achieved until some way is found to assess the contributions. He foresaw no difficulty in getting an amendment to the British North America Act to permit the setting up of a national system of contributory old age pensions.
Let me just interject: If he saw no difficulty in getting that amendment, why on earth was it not obtained long before this, to bring about a national contributory old age pension system?
Old Age Security
Then the article continues:
The more attractive the present pension becomes, however, the greater difficulty of preparing the public mind for acceptance of the contributory plan, Mr. St. Laurent said.
To delay increases in old age pensions until a contributory system is worked out might be unfair to present pensioners and to those about to qualify for them, Mr. St. Laurent added.
To pay pensions under the present plan without a means test would take another $200 million a year from the federal treasury, something not practicable if the people want reduced taxes. The inauguration of a contributory system depended not so much on parliament as on public opinion.
A national contributory system of old age pensions and social services generally would make all Canadians equal, said Mr. St. Laurent. A Canadian might move about from one province to another without having to consider whether he would gain more in these benefits than he would lose. As national unemployment insurance, made possible by the consent of the provinces, had increased the mobility of Canada's labour force, so would a national social security system make Canadians freer generally.
I am convinced that the Prime Minister was right in saying that there would be no difficulty in securing whatever was required, either in the way of provincial co-operation or by means of an amendment to the British North America Act, to make the inauguration of a national contributory pension plan possible. Other government officials are on record on this subject. The minister of welfare in the province of Ontario, the Hon. W. A. Goodfellow, said in September of 1948 that he urged the immediate establishment of a nation-wide contributory system of old age pensions. He gave detailed reasons why that system would remedy the serious difficulties that exist under the present system.
Before I leave this subject, I have one final quotation from a speech made by the Prime Minister in Ottawa on December 16, 1948, which reads as follows:
The Liberal aim is a contributory scheme in which everyone can pay in something during his working years to help provide security for his old age.
Now, sir, if that is the policy and program of this government, then I say to this government and to the house, there is no excuse whatever that will justify continued delay and inaction on the part of the government. No more information is required; no more delay is justified. What is required at this time, having regard to the needs of the people of Canada, and what is demanded by the members of this house who are alive to the needs of the people, what will be required of this government having regard to the promises made by it and many of its followers who were elected in June, 1949, is action-immediate and resolute action, to

Old Age Security
bring about that co-operation with the provinces which the government itself admits will be easily obtained, and to inaugurate a national contributory old age pension plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, during the eight years I have been in this house, I have listened to a great many fine speeches. In fact, a number of those speeches have been the sort that could lead one to believe that a new heaven and a new earth was just around the corner. I think of the speeches that were made by the prime minister during the war years, when we were told that the government was planning then for a better world after the war. I think of the speech made by the minister of reconstruction and supply (Mr. Howe), as he then was, in April, 1945, in which he outlined the government's post-war employment policies. I think of the speeches we have had from time to time about housing. I think of the important speech delivered by the former prime minister in May of 1948, with respect to health matters. I think now of the speeches we have heard before, and the speech we heard today from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) about old age security. All of them have been fine speeches, phrased in such a way that press reports could give the country the impression something wonderful would happen very soon. We are still waiting for that new world; we are still waiting for the implementation of those employment proposals; we are still waiting for adequate housing; we are still waiting for health insurance; and we are still waiting for adequate old age pensions in this country. Having listened closely to the speech of the minister and having thought about it since he made it, my candid opinion is that it is in the same category with the others. It was nice to listen to; he gave some interesting quotations to which I shall refer; but it does not envisage any early action on this problem of old age security.
I think the minister started off on the wrong foot. In the first few minutes of his speech, I take it in an attempt to give the impression that it was a good idea to set up a committee on old age pensions and that action would follow, he said, if I heard him correctly, that there have been committees on old age pensions on two other occasions, one in 1908 and the other in 1924. The minister said that immediately following the committee in 1908 something happened, the old age annuities act was brought in, and he said that the committee of 1924 led to the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Act in 1926 and its enactment in 1927. I assume the minister knows that those were not the only two committees on old age pensions.


Peter Francis Martin: Two others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was a motion for one made in 1907 which was withdrawn. There was the committee of 1908; there were committees in 1912, 1913, 1921, 1924 and 1925. The minister told us about only two committees. As for claiming that the committee of 1908 had anything to do with the inauguration of government annuities, I should like to read this paragraph about that committee, taken from a later report. It reads:
On the 10th February, 1908, a select committee of nine was appointed. The chairman had made arrangements with Messrs. Blue, Acland and King for certain information to be supplied to the committee. Professor Adam Shortt and two other eminent sociologists had been communicated with who were expected to give valuable evidence, but after three sittings had been held it was found impossible, owing to morning sessions of the house having begun, to reconvene the committee. No report was presented to the house, other than a verbal statement made by the chairman on the 10th of July, ten days before the Old Age Annuities Act, 1908, was assented to by the Governor General.
A report was made on July 10, and second reading of the bill-I remember this very well because it was the day I was born-was on June 18, 1908. The point is that that committee was not responsible for the annuities act. The reason I mention that is to deflate, and I feel a job of deflation should be done, the inference made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that the setting up of committees produces results. We have had a great many more committees than the two he mentioned and it has taken a long time and a great many committees to bring results of any kind.
In addition to the committees I have mentioned there was a committee on social security in 1943 and a committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation which went into these matters as well in 1944. I submit that the record is not very good so far as this parliament is concerned as to the effectiveness of committees on social security. They pile up a lot of information that can be used for debate on the floor of the house and I should admit that they help to educate our people in the whole field of social security, but they are not vehicles for bringing about action.
In connection with the setting up of committees, I think it should be emphasized, as it was by the previous speaker, that when committees are asked for from this side of the house to go into various matters the government spokesmen take an opposite attitude. On October 12, 1949, when a motion was made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) for the setting up of a standing committee on social security, housing and related matters, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) opposed it vigorously.

The minister pointed out that it would be a case of cutting across the whole theory of responsible government, that you could not have policies made, particularly where they involved the expenditure of money, by committees representing all parties. The minister said that policies have to be brought before the house by the government which is responsible to parliament and in turn responsible to the people. The minister went into the matter at some length. He is an expert on this question because at one time he wrote an article in a magazine in which he took the other side of the question. Having changed his mind, and he has stated that change of mind several times on the floor of the house, he opposed the committee idea again on November 3 and November 18, 1949, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was asking for a committee on defence.
That is the position the government takes. I agree that we have responsible government. At times we have tried to get into the heads of the ministers what that means. We had quite a battle with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) last fall as to what responsibility on the part of the government meant. But at the moment I am talking of this in relation to committees of this house. Committees can make studies; committees can bring out information and disseminate it among members of parliament and in turn throughout the country; but they are not vehicles for getting action. The only way to get action is for the government, which is responsible to parliament and in turn to the people, to bring its policies before this House of Commons in the form of legislation.
I regret very much that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has today done the very thing that the Minister of National Defence on October 12, 1949, said should not be done, for he failed to state the government's views on the matter and simply said that the whole question will be referred to a committee.
I should like to indicate the nature of the minister's speech. He put a number of opinions on the record and by asking rhetorical questions, the answers to which were supposed to be obvious, he hinted at his own opinions on one or two points. He quoted the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in Vancouver on April 14, 1949. He commented on the situation with respect to the plans in the United States. He lined up four different plans which might be assessed by the committee. As a result of all these words that were uttered, I have no doubt that the newspaper reports will give the people of Canada the impression that something is coming out of this committee. But the minister on behalf of the government did not
Old Age Security
pinpoint any one of those propositions and say, "We are going to bring in legislation to implement this policy or this point of view." The whole matter has been left to the committee, which in turn has no legislative power. As the Minister of National Defence said last fall, "What is the use of having a committee unless it can make recommendations, and what is the use of a committee making recommendations if they have to be approved, first of all, by the government?"
I submit that it was the responsibility of the minister today not just to give us this interesting discourse on the subject of old age security but rather to tell us what the government intends to do by way of legislation at this session.


Mr. Ferrie:: What about Ontario and Quebec?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Mackenzie is again making references to the provinces and perhaps I might as well deal with that right now. I was going to deal with that later, but it is just as well to do it at this time because the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that he hoped that we could get rid of the means test but it depended upon making necessary arrangements with the provinces. If I heard him correctly there was a somewhat similar reference in the quotation he gave from the speech of the Prime Minister in Vancouver last April.
May I remind the government and the hon. member tor Mackenzie that that sort of argument figured largely in the discussions back in the middle twenties when old age pensions were being considered in this House of Commons. At that time there were the same objections raised to old age pensions that are being voiced today against a better old age pension. One of them was the constitutional argument and another was that you had to consult the provinces. Another was the financial problem. Another one was the supposedly high moral consideration that the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) is now advocating, namely, that we have to consider whether this kind of thing is good for the people as a whole.


Mr. Blackmore:: Anything for an excuse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I say, back in the middle twenties one of these committees, I think it was the committee of 1925, collected reports from the various provinces as to their attitude toward instituting old age pensions at all. In addition they got an opinion from the Department of Justice, and I want my hon. friend, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I assume the minister is fully aware of this-to realize that the opinions of the

Old Age Security
provinces, and the opinion of the Department of Justice at that time, looked liked hurdles that could not be got over. The provinces in their replies to the queries sent out from Ottawa ranged from lukewarm to cool-in fact, to cold-toward the whole idea.
I will not take the time to read them all, but here is an interesting one. This was a reply under date of November 19, 1924, from the Hon. Mr. Gardiner, who was then the minister of labour and industries in the province of Saskatchewan. Listen to this. I am reading from the Journals of the House of Commons of 1925 at page 456:
The government of Saskatchewan is of opinion that an old age pension scheme for Canada can best be adopted by the federal government alone.
That was the young Jimmy Gardiner of November, 1924. I continue:
There would seem to be so much difficulty in the way of providing any scheme that would be suitable to all the nine provinces of Canada as to make it almost impossible, and it will be readily understood that if any number of the provinces were to remain out, it would be almost impossible to adopt any scheme that would not subject those provinces within the arrangement to considerable expense that should rightfully be borne by those outside the scheme.
Listen to this last sentence:
While we are disposed to think that an old age pension scheme should be undertaken, the difficulties in the way of the suggested scheme appear almost, if not entirely, insurmountable.
As a matter of fact that is not the most negative of the replies of the various provincial governments. In addition to that, the committee of 1925 got a ruling from the Department of Justice, which was to the effect that in the view of the Department of Justice the whole question of pensions lay with the provinces, and the federal government could not institute any old age pension plan if it involved the federal government trying to obligate individuals within the provinces to make contributions toward it. That same ruling from the Department of Justice admitted that the federal government could go in for the paying of old age pensions-and the assumption is that they could pay them out of the general tax revenues-but they made it clear at that time that any attempt to obligate individuals to pay directly for old age pensions would be unconstitutional. I do not know that there has ever been a court ruling on the matter. All we have that is stated officially, so far as I know, is this opinion of the Department of Justice, but at any rate it has stayed there ever since. I was thinking when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was speaking about the possibility that we might have to call the officials of the Department of Justice before the committee and get their opinion on this, that old

rule of stare decisis that we heard so much about last fall might stand in the way of our getting any other ruling than the one given twenty-five years ago.
What I want to say is this. In addition to the opposition of the provinces toward the federal government in 1925 and 1926 going ahead with old age pensions, in addition to the adverse opinion of the Department of Justice, there was a strong and spirited opposition to the measure' on the floor of this house from the official opposition, the Conservative party of that day. I hold in my hand some quotations. Here is one from Mr. Bennett-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can't you let him rest in peace?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -of March 26, 1926, Which will be found at page 1971 of Hansard:
The members severally-
Mr. Bennett was referring to the members of the committee of that day.
The members severally were of the opinion that there should be no old age pension legislation by this parliament unless the various provinces had agreed and had arrived at a conclusion with respect to it, and as the correspondence indicated that they were not agreed, and as the minister stated this afternoon there has been no further correspondence, therefore it follows that this parliament should not proceed with this matter at this time, and, Mr. Speaker, I do venture to plead with my friends opposite not to urge the government to proceed with it at this time.
Mr. Stevens also took part in the debate. My time is going by, therefore I will not read all of these quotations.


Peter Francis Martin: Who was the speaker the hon. member just quoted?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Bennett. I started to say that I have a quotation from Mr. Stevens who was here at the time, and who urged that the legislation of 1926 be not proceeded with until, as the hon. member for Mackenzie says, the government had seen the provinces. What did Mr. King say after Mr. Stevens asked him not to proceed with the legislation? On March 26, 1926, as recorded at page 1979 of Hansard the following appears:


Mr. Stevens:: Therefore would it not be better to
have the conference prior to the passing of this legislation?


Mr. Mackenzie King:: I think my hon. friend, if
he looks into his heart of hearts,-
That is quite a phrase.
-will agree with me when I say that if we are in a position to put before representatives of the provinces a plan which has been drafted and carefully considered, and an act passed by this parliament, and to invite the attention of the provinces to what may be essential in the way of amendment to it or its relation to their own legislation, a measure

of co-operation can be obtained that would not be possible if the provinces were simply brought together without any concrete legislation before them for consideration.
Later in the same session, on April 15, 1926, as recorded at page 2487 of Hansard, Mr. King said:
In reference to the answers from the nine provinces, which the hon. gentleman has just read, I might say that those very replies convinced the government of the futility of ever having an old age pension scheme enacted by correspondence with the provinces. We concluded that the best way would be to enact concrete legislation. We thought that was the only way we could get anywhere.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the government of 1926 had listened to the objections of the provinces, had listened to the ruling of the Department of Justice, had listened to the protest of the official opposition, that act would not have been passed that year, and who knows whether we would have had the beginnings of old age pensions on the statute books yet. But no, the government of the day-under pressure, to be sure-felt that it was necessary to act, not just to consult, nor just to hold conferences, not just to study, and so they put the act on the statute books. Well, that act, as most hon. members know, was defeated in the other place. The hon. gentlemen over there seemed to agree with the idea of pensions for themselves, but they voted down the first old age pension act. To complete the record I must say that it was the Conservative majority over there that killed the first old age pension bill. What did the then prime minister do? He made it an issue in the election campaign of that year, and said that if he came back to power he would put that act back on the statute books. In the next session it was put on the statute books, and the leader of the Conservative party at that time got up in the House of Commons and said that they were in favour of the measure.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what happened in that case was that the government went over the objections of the provinces, the objection of the Department of Justice, the objection of the official opposition, to the highest court in this land, to the people themselves. The people said they wanted that legislation, and when the next parliament met the legislation was put on the statute books.
I submit that is the way the government should be acting now, not finding all possible ways and means to stall; rather, legislation should be brought in at this very session.
I have criticized the minister for not pinning himself or the government down to anything concrete. I would have to criticize the hon. member for Eglinton on the same score. He says that what this house wants is not a committee, but resolute action, and he stated
Old Age Security
the general position of his party as being one in favour of a national contributory old age pension plan. But I did not hear him tell the minister what he thought should be put into legislative form and brought before parliament at this session. Since I have criticized both of the previous speakers for that shortcoming, I must try and state clearly and without evasion what I think should be done; I must and will state the view of the party I represent on this matter.
In what I am about to say, I am going to have to use a word that I wish to define a little more fully. I refer to the word "contributory". But, bearing in mind the fact that I am going to define it, may I say that we believe in and advocate an over-all social security system on a contributory basis. But let it be clear that we support the contributory idea only in relation to an over-all plan. Anything piecemeal would have to be noncontributory. By "over-all" we mean a social security system which includes old age and retirement pensions, unemployment insurance, health insurance, sickness benefits, pensions for invalids, family allowances

everything that is necessary to provide real social security in the modern sense.
That is what we advocate. It is set out clearly in the platform we have circulated throughout the country, and it is toward that end this party is working. We recognize that a program of that extent will have to be attained by a few stages. Having admitted that, the next thing for me to do is to state clearly what I think the first stage should be. That is what I wanted the minister to do this afternoon; and I am sorry also that my hon. friend to my right failed to do it.
What do we say should be the first stage? As I said on Monday in another debate, we say

and I repeat it now

that the first thing to do is to get rid of the means test. I believe there is real significance in the way public sentiment has welled up against the means test the past few years. No one would now stand up and defend it. The idea of saying to people who have saved a little, who have got their own homes together, who have paid taxes and helped contribute to the wealth of the country, that, whereas others in destitute circumstances can qualify, those people cannot qualify for the old age pension-that just does not make sense at all. I insist that these thousands of cards which are coming to this building these days represent a very sound opinion; and I hope that even the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) will credit the people who are sending them in with holding very honest convictions that the time has come to do away with the means test.

Old Age Security


Mr. Mutch:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South seems to have got under your skin. Make your own speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not heard anything so amusing for a long time as the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am getting along very well with the people in south Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is interesting to note that the press seemed to get the point which he was trying to get over.
I have said that we say the first hurdle to get over is the removal of the means test. Liberal members in the house who have been embarrassed by the fact that they voted against our amendment on September 19, 1949, to do away with the means test, are trying to get themselves off the hook by saying that they favour the abolition of the means test along with the introduction of a contributory system. In other words they are taking that good word "contributory" out of our program of over-all social security, taking it completely out of its context, and trying to put over on the people of this country something which is, if I may quote a couple of words from my home town friend across the way, a snare and a delusion.
Proof of what I am saying was given by something the minister said in his speech today. If I heard him correctly, he said that only ten per cent of the older people in the United States are receiving retirement allowances on the basis of contributory schemes now in effect in that country. He said that in addition to that small percentage there were a great many people drawing pensions from public assistance schemes such as we have in Canada. But the point I make, and which he substantiated, is that when you start with the contributory idea, as related only to the old age pension, you leave unsolved the major problem, namely the problem of universality, the problem of getting the pension to everyone, as of right.
There are a lot of things which could be said about the program of social security in the United States; but their major fault is their lack of universality. They made the mistake of going in for the contributory element first, rather than for getting rid of the means test first.
The thing that concerns me, and the reason that perhaps I get worked up about it, is that I fear from what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said in the house on February 20, and from what is being said by Liberal party members about this whole question, that the government is going to be under pressure to get started on a partial

system, a system which is contributory and without a means test, but which would cover only a limited number of people.
Bear in mind the difficulty we have had getting unemployment insurance applied to all the people of the country. Bear in mind the difficulty the government has in collecting income tax from all the people of the country. And when you think of those problems, any body of officials who are instructed to work out a contributory system are going to balk at the idea of trying to work it out so that it will collect from everyone in the country.
The kind of pressure that is being put on today, to my way of thinking, is likely to result in the drafting of a scheme which is only partial in coverage, but which takes the heat off government members of the House of Commons, because it will solve the problem for some of the Canadian people. I urge the minister most strenuously to resist any pressure from members of his party or others in the cabinet to start off on that foot. Let us start the right way, by taking off the means test and by making the pension completely universal.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: May I ask a question. You say you represent your party, and you talk about the means test. Why have they carried out the means test in your party in Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the hon. member did not listen to the quotation I gave a moment ago, referring to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he was a minister in the Saskatchewan government.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That has not anything to do with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It certainly has. The Minister of Agriculture knew when he was in the provincial field that this sort of thing could not be carried out provincially, and that the only possible way to carry out a universal old age pension would be on a federal basis. Not only did the Minister of Agriculture know it in 1924, when he was a minister in Saskatchewan, but he knew it in 1945 when, as a member of the federal government, he was party to a proposal for a universal old age pension in Canada that was to be paid for and administered one hundred per cent by the federal government.
There is nothing embarrassing about the question the hon. member for Mackenzie has asked-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You see-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a moment-for the fact of the matter is that it is only at the federal level where there is control over the economy of Canada, and it is only at the federal level where there is unlimited power in the raising

of taxation and other revenue. That is the only place where a complete social security program can be totally financed.
That, if I may say so, is one of the things which I dislike and deplore about the kind of talk that is going on and the kind of things the hon. member for Mackenzie is saying. If any legislation which is recommended by this committee is still on a dominion-provincial basis, then we will not have solved the problem, and we will not have complete social security.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: What about British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


An hon. Member:: What about Alberta?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We live in Canada; don't you?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benidick-son for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago, when I spoke for a few minutes on this bill, I indicated that my opposition to its passage is on the same grounds on which I opposed it last year, namely, that the route to be followed is not indicated. As a matter of fact all indications are that the company intend to build the major portion of the pipe line through the United States if they can secure the necessary permits and permission. I think this is abundantly shown by the fact that the company in its original application for a charter set out the route it was going to follow. On November 22, 1949, during the discussion of this bill, I read their application into the record, and it is to be found at page 2094 of Hansard for that date. I will not take the time to read the application again, except to refer to that part of it which deals with the route and reads as follows:
. . . commencing at a point in the general Calgary area in the province of Alberta and thence to a point in the vicinity of Blairmore in the said province and thence to a point in the vicinity of Kings-gate in the province of British Columbia and thence to the United States of America, leaving Canada at a point at or near Kingsgate in the said province
Prairie Transmission Lines of British Columbia and re-entering Canada in the vicinity of Blaine in the state of Washington and proceeding north to Vancouver area in the province of British Columbia . . .
The company indicated the route clearly at the time they made their original application, and evidently they were then under the impression that they needed to specify it although subsequently, as I have said, it was not included in the bill which was submitted to us. In addition to that fact, the sponsor of the bill in introducing it a week ago today indicated that the company still wished to build the pipe line via this route. At the same time he said that the company was willing to build it wholly in Canada if they were forced to do so. He went on to speak of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, the Alberta government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce from whom it would be necessary to secure permits before the company could build the line.
I think that establishes the point that the company will build the route through the United States unless they are forced to build it in Canada. From the first my contention has been that the primary step necessary to make sure that the route is constructed in Canada is for it to be specified in the bill which the house will pass, and that it should not pass unless an all-Canadian route is specified therein. I should like to refer to some remarks which the sponsor made when he introduced the bill a week ago. At page 445 of Hansard for March 3, 1950, he said:
It is of primary importance, however, to see that the interests of Canada are protected in connection with this project.
On the next page there are these words:
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the interests of Canada in this matter? I suggest that the primary requirement is to see that potential Canadian consumers are provided for before any gas is exported.
I agree thoroughly with those statements, but all along my contention has been that the interests of Canada can only be served if the route is an all-Canadian one. To begin with, it seems perfectly obvious that the requirement which the sponsor of the bill has laid down, namely, that potential Canadian consumers should be provided for before any gas is exported, can only be met if the pipe line is constructed so as to serve the maximum number of Canadian consumers. There is no question that an allCanadian route is going to bring gas to far more Canadian communities and thus far more Canadian people than one the major portion of whose length is on the United States side of the border.
In addition to that, once the gas leaves Canada and enters the United States it

Prairie Transmission Lines passes beyond our control, and whatever the needs of the people of the United States may be in regard to gas they are going to be met before any of it is shipped back to Canada to serve the needs of Canadians. Following that, the sponsor of the bill argued that the cost of gas to consumers in British Columbia will foe less if the route runs through the United States than if it is an all-Canadian route because the line will be shorter. That argument will only stand up if you assume that the gas to be sent through the pipe line is going to come from the Pincher Creek gas field in the southwest corner of Alberta. As a matter of fact the probability is that the major source of gas for export will be from fields considerably farther north in the Edmonton area. By the "Edmonton area" I mean the big perimeter around the city and the area to the north of that. If the major portion of the gas comes from those areas, then a route entirely on Canadian soil from there to Vancouver will be shorter than a route through the United States.
There is another point that enters into our consideration of the matter. Various people who have investigated the piping of gas from Alberta to Winnipeg are on record as saying that the best field for them to draw from so as to have the shortest and cheapest pipe line is the Pincher Creek field. If the pipe line is constructed through the United States it will draw off the major portion of the gas from that field, and it will probably be impossible for another pipe line to be built from there to serve Winnipeg and the cities in between.
During the past month a gas hearing has been going on in Calgary. It has to do with the application of the Westcoast Transmission Company for permission to build an all-Canadian pipe line to the west coast. In the course of the inquiry before the Alberta natural gas and oil conservation board, as I believe it is called, some interesting figures were brought out. I have here an article from the Calgary Albertan of February 2 of this year which gives some of this information. I should like to put it on record, in order to indicate the comparative costs as between a Canadian and a United States route for a pipe line, as far as consumers of gas in Vancouver and other points in British Columbia are concerned. The article is headed, "$14 million annually from Canadian route" and it reads:
Transportation costs of gas by the all-Canadian route would put an annual $14,500,000 into Canadian pockets, it was revealed in Thursday's gas hearings.
On the previous day it had been shown that out of $114 million of construction costs, $95 million would be spent in Canada.

The total transportation costs of the gas, which after the fifth year would run around sixty billion cubic feet annually, would in a large part accrue to Canadian pockets in American dollars, it was evident from the Thursday testimony of William B. Poor, maintenance engineer on the staff of Ford. Bacon and Davis, U.S. engineering firm with headquarters in New York.
Mr. Poor estimated the average transportation cost for the first five years of the line would run about $17 million a year. Some $14,500,000 would be spent in Canada and $2,500,000 in the States from the international boundary to Portland.
It had already been revealed that three-quarters of the gas exported would be consumed in the States. Therefore the great bulk of the transportation costs would be payable on the Canadian side of the border in American funds.
It was obvious that if the line were constructed through the States with Vancouver at the tail end, the great bulk of the transportation costs would never reach Canada but would be paid to an American affiliate company with headquarters in the U.S.A.
The annual amount, it appeared, would be considerably increased when the line swung into full steam operation from the fifth year forward.
Transportation costs for gas sold in British Columbia would total 29-2 cents per thousand cubic feet. This would be made up of 5-9 cents per thousand cubic feet gathering costs in Alberta, and 23-3 cents transportation costs from Edmonton to Vancouver.
The U.S. would pay the total of 29-2 cents per thousand cubic feet plus 6-4 cents per thousand additional transportation costs from the border to U.S. points. This would amount to 35-6 cents per thousand cubic feet, compared with Vancouver's 29-2 cents. About three-quarters of the gas would cross the border for U.S. consumption, and costs on the Canadian line would be payable in American dollars.
That summary of the proceedings at the gas hearings in Calgary brings out very clearly, I think, the advantages to Vancouver and other British Columbia points of having the line run entirely in Canada. It indicates that the delivered price of gas to them would be between 5 and 6 cents less than the delivered price to the United States cities immediately to the south. What that would mean from the competitive point of view, with respect to the cost of manufacturing for companies using gas for that purpose, is quite obvious. It would mean that plants in Vancouver and other British Columbia points would be at a decided advantage as compared with similar plants in the United States. If on the other hand the line ran through the United States, with a stub up to Vancouver, exactly the opposite situation would prevail. The cost of gas in Vancouver would be 5 or 6 cents higher than in the United States cities to the south, with the result that people using gas for manufacturing purposes would be at a distinct disadvantage. The same thing, of course, would apply to people using gas in their homes for heating and cooking.
Those facts which were brought out at the gas hearing, and reported in this dispatch, in themselves should be sufficient to persuade

almost everyone in British Columbia that this should be an all-Canadian route; and it seems to me that if these facts were appreciated by the members of this house they also would be persuaded that the route should be all-Canadian.
Now I should like to turn to another phase of this matter. There is no question but that a gas pipe line from Alberta to the west coast will be a natural monopoly. Only one pipe line will be built; there is only a sufficient market for one line to justify the very high expenditure involved. Since that is the situation, and since it has now developed that there is sufficient gas to justify the construction of such a line-or at least assuming that to be the case-the main consideration facing us is where the pipe line should run, what should be its route in order to bring the maximum benefit to Alberta, to British Columbia and to Canada as a whole. It seems to me that is really the only important point we have to consider in connection with this or the other pipe line bill now before the house. These bills call for the incorporation of companies; but if we are to exercise any influence in relation to this extremely important matter of where the pipe line will run, our only opportunity to do so is before any charter is granted.	[DOT]
With regard to the best set-up as far as Alberta, British Columbia and Canada are concerned, I do not think there is any doubt but that it would consist of two things, first a gas-gathering system in Alberta, and second a pipe line to take out to the Pacific coast the gas so gathered. The gas-gathering system in Alberta of course would consist of pipe lines linking up the gas fields in the south with the field at Pincher Creek, then on to Turner valley and Jumping Pound west of Calgary, then on up to Edmonton, linking the numerous gas fields east and north of Edmonton, and then north again to the Peace river country in both Alberta and British Columbia. No matter where the pipe line may be built, I think there is no doubt but that a gasgathering system of that sort will come into existence. The only question in that connection may be the extent of the gathering system.
The second main requirement is the pipe line to carry that gas to the market on the Pacific coast. It might run from anywhere along the length of that gathering system; but my contention is that, other things being equal, the farther north that pipe line runs the greater will be the advantage to us in Canada, for the reason particularly that the farther north it runs the more new country it will open up for development, not only in
Prairie Transmission Lines the way of drilling oil and gas wells, but also the building of roads, railways, and the opening up of the area for agricultural purposes.
At the last session, I believe I made two or three speeches on this subject. At that time I outlined, as did various other people, the advantages of an all-Canadian route. These are so obvious that I think anyone who studies the subject is bound to be convinced that such a route is a must, so far as we are concerned. However, I should like to summarize those reasons. Some of them I have repeated tonight, so I will not expand upon those.
The first of these advantages is that a Canadian route will give the maximum number of Canadians a supply of natural gas; that is quite obvious. There is no question but that the more Canadian communities the line goes through, the more opportunities there are going to be to develop industries along that route, and the more people will be able to heat their houses and do their cooking with this cheap fuel. Second, control of the gas would remain in Canada until Canadian needs were satisfied. I have dealt with that question to some extent tonight. Third, more Canadian employment will result from the construction and maintenance of the pipe line, if the Canadian route is chosen. At the same time, more Canadian employment will be provided through the manufacture of pipe and fittings, things of that sort, in Canada. At a time such as this, when a considerable amount of unemployment has developed in this country, and when there is fear as to what the employment situation may become, it seems to me that any project which is going to increase the amount of employment in this country should be given the greatest consideration.
It is, of course, quite obvious that if three-quarters of the length of this pipe line is built in the United States, it is going to be built by American labour; the maintenance crews that keep the pipe line running afterwards are going to be American. All that employment will go to people in the United States, and not to Canadians. If the line is built in Canada, somewhere between two and three thousand Canadians will be given employment during the construction period which will cover two or three years. Then, the people who are required to maintain the line will have jobs indefinitely. In the same way, if three-quarters of the length of this pipe line is built in the United States, the pipe used in the construction of it, the various fittings and compressor stations, will all be manufactured in United States plants.
The fourth advantage is that more new country will be opened up by the building of this line in Canada. As a result, some stimulus
6S2

Prairie Transmission Lines
will be given to new drilling. One way in which that will be done will be by the amount of road construction which will be necessary, and this will open up new areas. As a result, people will be able to get into places where they cannot get at the present time. The story of the search for oil is also to some extent the story of the search for gas. If a pipe line runs close to a certain area which it is possible to develop as an oil-producing area, even if oil is not found in large quantities but gas is discovered, a considerable amount of drilling will result in such areas. When there is no market for the gas, or no market to which the gas can be taken, such areas are left undeveloped.
The fifth point I should like to make is that the Canadian route will mean that the cost to the Canadian consumer in British Columbia will be less than if the route were built in the United States. I have already dealt with that point, so I will not enlarge upon it.
The sixth point is this: The competitive position of the manufacturers using gas will be advantageous as compared with the same type of manufacturer in the United States coast cities. I have dealt with that point tonight, too.
Number 7: More American dollars will be earned by having a Canadian route. I believe that point was dealt with in the article which I read from the Albertan. It indicated that with the Canadian route some $14,500,000 in American funds would be earned in transportation costs. With a route chiefly in the United States, you would probably have a proportion of approximately $3 million in United States currency for transportation costs, and the remainder of the transportation costs would be paid in the United States. The advantage of receiving that amount of United States dollars, considering our present trade situation and the adverse balance with the United States, is important in itself.
The eighth point I should like to make is that it will be a distinct advantage from the defence point of view to have the line in Canada. The construction of wartime factories in the mountains, which could make use of a source of cheap power of this kind, might be a distinct advantage. Certainly it is a considerable advantage to have that cheap and vital type of fuel available in the interior of our country, rather than having to depend upon other fuels for our power. This applies particularly, of course, to inland British Columbia points, such as Kamloops, Trail and so on.
I should like now to say something about another point. Last year, and again this session, speakers have been arguing that we should pass this bill, and that the route is
'.Mr. Harkness.]
none of our business. They say that is a matter for the board of transport commissioners, for the Alberta government, and for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). We have not anything to do with it. All we have to do is grant a charter or not grant a charter.
I think nothing could be farther from the truth. In matters of this sort, the members of parliament have a responsibility to see that no charter is granted which may be used to dissipate Canadian resources, or which would result in action being taken which would be injurious to the various parts of this country. In this case, I am referring particularly to British Columbia. It seems to me that as members of this house we must decide whether the route should be indicated in the bill. It is not possible to move an amendment to that effect at this time; if it were I would do so. It is also our responsibility to decide whether the route of the pipe line should be Canadian.
Some hon. members have said that they will vote for second reading in order to get this bill into committee so that the matter of route and other things may be discussed in detail. In view of what has been indicated so far this year, and in view of what was indicated last session by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I have no doubt that the bill will be pushed through. If the bill should go to committee I am sure that the information given to hon. members will be along the lines I have indicated and will show clearly that all the advantages are with the Canadian route. If hon. members are not satisfied with the information they are given, if a Canadian route is not specified, then I hope they will oppose the bill if it should come back to this house for third reading.


Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Edmonton East, which constituency is located in the midst of the most productive oil fields in the province of Alberta, I rise to express my concern that a small minority in this house should attempt to delay the business of the country. This minority is controlling our right to vote on the question we are now discussing. This minority is not allowing us to proceed with public bills and private members' resolutions which I believe are most important to this country. I submit that hon. members of this house should now be permitted to register their opinion on this matter, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Welbourn):
That the question be now put.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, at the last session of parliament the Prime

Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) felt it desirable to allot extra time for the discussion of a bill similar to the one now before us because of the importance of that bill to the people of Canada. For an hon. member to get up and suggest that it is not in the best interests of democracy that all phases of this bill should be discussed is simply preposterous.
I spoke on a similar bill last session because I believed that if the pipe line was routed through Canada it would be advantageous to that part of the country which I represent. I felt that it would be advantageous to Canada as a whole to have the pipe line routed solely through Canada. I am not going to repeat the arguments I advanced at the last session, but I do submit that we should look at this proposal from a broad national point of view rather than to consider only the advantages which might accrue to our particular constituencies.
In his closing remarks the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) referred to the importance from a national defence point of view of routing this pipe line through Canada. I want to enlarge upon that because I believe it to be of prime importance from a defence point of view that the line should be routed through Canada. It was mentioned that industries might be located along the line and that certain military establishments might be constructed or maintained in the mountains at points in the vicinity of the pipe line where they could get cheap power.
Before I deal with that particular point may I say that I think it is well for this house to realize the position of our defences on the Pacific coast. I spoke about this at the last session when I referred to the gap in our defences which exists along the Pacific coast from the United States boundary between British Columbia and the northwestern states to the boundary between British Columbia and Alaska. Nothing has been done since last session to fill that gap. In fact the situation has deteriorated.
Last year the Royal Canadian Navy had on the Pacific coast a cruiser which was considered to be an operational vessel. Toward the latter part of last session we were informed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that that cruiser was to be turned into a training ship. There are no submarine hunting units on the Pacific coast such as there are on the Atlantic where they have the carrier Magnificent and certain frigates which would be available for the hunting of submarines which might lurk in those waters should there be another war. Within the last few months there have been reports from
Prairie Transmission Lines United States sources that unknown submarines have been off the shores of British Columbia and the western states. On the Pacific coast we have no vessel of the Royal Canadian Navy that can hope to cope with the new submarines that we know other powers possess. That is merely one phase of it. Only a few months ago, when answering questions which were prompted by the Mainguy report, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made it quite clear that in his estimation the defences on the Pacific coast had to play second fiddle to the defences on the Atlantic seaboard. Even questions such as a laundry, which was one of the very minor points brought out in the Mainguy report, which the naval authorities at Esquimalt had been asking for for years, was turned down because other places had a higher order of priority.
Only today I received a copy of the Victoria Colonist, dated March 4, in which I find an editorial deploring the fact that there is no air force headquarters at Victoria.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The remarks of the hon. member are not relevant to the pipe line bill.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, my endeavour now is to show how weak our defences are on the Pacific coast, which emphasizes the supreme importance of the moving from the vicinity of the coast, and the coast cities, some of the manufacturing establishments that are there. After removing them where are they to go unless they are to go where they can get cheap power? And if the cheap power is to be sent east of the Rockies and south of the international border, then there is no place to which these industries can be moved.
I do emphasize the point that the air defences of the Pacific coast are amazingly weak. Year after year those who have been connected with the R.C.A.F. in Victoria have been pleading for an auxiliary squadron to be established, or for a headquarters from which the training of air force personnel might proceed. As this editorial says


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Mr. Graydon:: He is right on the beam.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that natural gas is a very hard element to confine.


George Randolph Pearkes: If you so rule, Mr. Speaker, I will not refer to the headquarters which the air force personnel wish to have established in Victoria, except to mention a letter that I received today from the Minister of National Defence in which he said that the matter

Prairie Transmission Lines will be kept under review along with other requirements, and that construction will not be proceeded with until such time as a number of other needs of greater priority have been met. I should like to emphasize the words "of greater priority". Quite obviously the Minister of National Defence feels that there are other places where defence votes should be spent first before they are spent on the Pacific coast. One might almost come to the conclusion that British Columbia is to be written off as expendable, should there be a third war, so deplorable are the defences on our coast. That only brings out in greater emphasis the importance of moving from such metropolitan centres as Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster these manufacturing establishments which are being maintained there, and which will be so vulnerable in the event of a hostile attack on the Pacific coast.
All up the Fraser valley, all up the two trans-continental railway lines, up the valley of the Thompson river, there are many opportunities to decentralize the industries that are now collected around Vancouver and are so vulnerable to the possibility of attack.
Some years before the last war, plans were made to select a point where reserves of stores and ammunition might be co"ected. The r. ost central point that was found was in the area of the city of Kamloops. Army, navy and air force stores have been established there. I am not going into the nature of the stores. Let it be sufficient to say that they are of immense importance to the defence not only of British Columbia but of the whole of Canada. These stores have to be maintained. Certain of that equipment has to be maintained at constant temperature. Certain of that equipment requires repair facilities, machines and so on which are required to do the necessary repair work. It requires power to carry out those tasks. That is only one centre. It is a logical centre because the two trans-continental railways go through there, and so will the trans-Canada highway. There are other highways leading up to the north country, going from Ashcroft up to Cariboo, up to Prince George and perhaps on from there ultimately connecting up with the Peace river block and on up to the Alaska highway. There is also the possibility of a road being constructed following the line of the Canadian National railway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The debate is not on highways or on railways; it is on pipe lines.
I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


George Randolph Pearkes: In order that this pipe line be constructed, it is essential that there shall be a railway and a road. I cannot conceive
IMr. Pearkes.]

of a pipe line being constructed without either a railway or a road on which to bring the material to that pipe line. I would point out that those facilities do exist on the Canadian National railways running from Edmonton, through the Thompson valley to Kamloops, along which there is a road at least partially constructed. I am sure that road would have to be improved.
From all the reports one reads in the newspapers I do not believe the trans-Canada highway is to follow that route. Only last week I received a copy of the Edmonton Journal, I believe it was, which went to considerable lengths in advocating that the trans-Canada highway be built through the Yellowhead pass. I do not imagine that that route is to be constructed as part of the highway. However, there is no earthly reason why a second route should not be constructed along there which would-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The principle of the bill is not the construction of roads or highways, but rather the construction of a pipe line.


George Randolph Pearkes: I apologize if in the point I am trying to make I have become a little involved, but I have been prompted to speak by the observations of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald), and I had not prepared my speech in advance.
The point I am trying to emphasize is that while that area may not be served by the trans-Canada highway, either it will have to be served by a highway before the construction of the pipe line is completed or else a highway will have to be constructed and maintained after the pipe line has been laid, so that there will be an alternative route.
That is a matter of immense importance so far as the defence of this country is concerned, because at the present time there is no highway striking northeast from Kamloops up toward Edmonton. One has to go around the Big Bend, through the Rockies, through Banff national park, or in to Calgary and thence up to Edmonton. This would shorten the route tremendously.
So the very construction of this pipe line, with its attendant road, would be of value not only from the point of view of national defence but also from that of opening up that country. I hope therefore that before final consideration is given to the bill, however indifferently I may have presented my argument, these serious points may be considered. There is a Canadian aspect to be considered, and the defence point of view which is affected by and dependent upon the route selected for this pipe line.

If British Columbia is to be liquidated, if British Columbia is to be considered as expendable, if the government is going to adopt in that province a scorched-earth policy, then by all means put the pipe line east of the Rockies and run it across into the United States. But, please, tell the people of British Columbia that you want to wash your hands of them, and perhaps they might even then consider that the Rockies would provide a good defence.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this measure. Perhaps I would not be on my feet now were it not for the amendment moved. Perhaps the hon. member felt that by offering the amendment he would expedite matters. I would advise him however that the amendment gives everyone who has spoken the chance to speak again.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Hear, hear-and we will, too.


Clarence Gillis: It merely throws a monkey-wrench into the matter. I am not particularly anxious to accept that kind of measure.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: It is part of a pattern.


Clarence Gillis: In the House of Commons there is sufficient latitude for the consideration of any matter, and I do not like anyone to inject these methods into debate. In many organizations throughout Canada high priests have grown up, and this is the kind of method we find them adopting. They receive their orders from the head table, and carry out those orders. But we want to keep clear of that in the House of Commons.
I am interested in the principle of the bill. Thus far the discussion has been between Alberta and British Columbia, Alberta apparently wishing to sell oil and wanting a pipe line built as quickly as possible, and British Columbia, on the other hand, saying that it should be an all-Canadian route. There may be some selfishess in both arguments, but I am with the British Columbia group in their desire to have this an all-Canadian route.
With all due respect to the hon. member who presented the bill, he told us that it would go to a committee, that they want to get a franchise and want to build a pipe line. That is as far as he could go. But what happens after these pipe lines receive their franchise? We have already put five bills similar to this one through the House of Commons. On those occasions we were told that the building of these pipe lines was going to create a lot of employment in Canada for
Prairie Transmission Lines Canadians, that factories in Canada would be turning out pipes-hundreds of thousands of tons-and that Canadians would be working on them.
Well, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix states that 78,000 tons of pipe required to build the line from Alberta to Wisconsin is being imported from the United States into Canada. Those who sponsored the bill at that time, when they said it would provide work for Canadians and keep our factories and steel plants going, believed that.


Mr. Robinson:: On a question of privilege, I think I sponsored the bill to which the hon. member has referred, and I made no such remark.


Clarence Gillis: There were five of those bills, and a lot of speeches were made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Green:: Adjourn the debate.


Clarence Gillis: I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour reserved for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin:
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to examine and study the operation and effects of existing legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the several provincial legislatures with respect to old age security; similar legislation in other countries; possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles; the probable cost thereof and possible methods of providing therefor; the constitutional and financial adjustments, if any, required for the effective operations of such plans and other related matters:
That 28 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house, and that standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and of parliament, and that standing order 64 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Security
above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw together the remarks I was making before six o'clock in reference to this motion for the setting up of a committee on old age security.
I had pointed out that we in the C.C.F. believe in and advocate a program of over-all social security. We believe that the program should protect Canadians against all the exigencies over which they have no control, and that it should include health insurance, sickness benefits, unemployment insurance and the like, with an emphasis, in the light of the motion before us, on proper old age security. I said before, but I wish to emphasize it now, that when a social security program is an over-all program we believe it should be on a contributory basis. I want to make it equally clear that we do not support the contributory idea for any piecemeal one point plan such as seems to draw support from many sections of the house. I think the remarks of the minister this afternoon should be qualified on that point. He included us with those supporting a contributory system, without stating the qualification I have indicated. We do support a contributory over-all system but when you talk about one point coverage we feel that to put any such piecemeal proposal on a contributory basis would be "a snare, a delusion and a fraud," if I may again quote the hon. member on the other side.
I have stated that, Mr. Speaker, as a summary of our basic position, the ideal towards which we are working, and towards which we believe this country should strive. Before us at the present time, however, is a motion that does not deal with over-all social security. It deals with only one phase, namely, old age security. The motion envisages only the setting up of a committee, but if I can anticipate that it might involve some legislative changes after the committee has done its work, at the most it envisages a change by way of perhaps one step with respect to one phase of social security. In concrete and practical terms the question that is actually before parliament at this time is this. What is the next step to be taken in the field of old age security? I said on Monday of this week, and again before six o'clock this afternoon, that we feel the first step to be taken is the removal of the means test from the present old age pension.


Mr. Larson:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I permitted so many interjections before six o'clock that my time is just about up. If you will ask me your question just as I sit down I will be glad to answer it. Don't forget to do so.


Frederick Hugo Larson: I will ask it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I think there is real significance in the thousands of petitions we are receiving these days which emphasize the need for removing the means test from the old age pension. I think it is also significant that in the memorandum presented to the federal government yesterday by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada the section having to do with old age pensions asked for a number of changes, but the first point was that the means test should be abolished. The point I am driving home as strongly as I can-and let me repeat it-is that at best there is before us the possibility of some one change being made in the field of social security, indeed one change in the field of old age security. I insist that the first change to be made should not be the introduction of the contributory feature, thus getting into the difficulties that they have got into in the United States. The first hurdle to overcome is to get rid of the means test, thus making old age pensions in Canada universally payable to all of our citizens as a matter of right.
Since that is the situation at the present time, one of the things that I dislike about the wording of the motion now before us is that it does not give to the committee that it is proposed to set up the right or authority to discuss or study the possibility of the immediate removal of the means test from the present old age pension. Hon. members know that the terms of reference of a motion setting up a committee are very important. They become the constitution which restricts the activities of the committee. Please note that the committee is to have the right to study the operation and effects of existing legislation. Then it is to have the right to study possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles.
I submit that that clause is the heart of the motion. The rest of it refers to the right to study the probable cost, the constitutional changes that may be necessary, financial problems and so on, but the heart of the motion is in the words that the committee is to have the right to study possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles. Please note that what it gives the committee is the right to study other schemes altogether, not possible changes in the legislation now in effect. It does not give the committee the right to study the possibility of taking the one step which I

insist is the first step to take, namely, the removal of the means test from the present old age pension. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of that serious shortcoming in the motion as it is before us-


Peter Francis Martin: The committee can study anything. This motion is very wide.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Don't put a stumbling block in the way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can make interjections and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) can throw in his interruptions, but anybody who has been here for any length of time knows that a committee is limited by the terms of reference. Anyone who has been on committees knows that chairmen of committees see to it that the committee does not go beyond the terms of reference.


Peter Francis Martin: This does not limit anything, and you know it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pardon?


Peter Francis Martin: Nothing is limited by this motion, and you know it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely limiting. It limits study to possible alternative measures, and the emphasis with regard to possible alternative measures is on plans based on contributory insurance principles. Please note that-


Peter Francis Martin: Pure quibbling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -it does not provide for a discussion of the kind of contributory scheme that the minister referred to this afternoon when he quoted from what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said in Vancouver in ' April of 1949. The Prime Minister was not talking there about contributory insurance principles; he was talking about people paying in accordance with their ability to pay- in other words, on a basis built into the income tax structure-and drawing their benefits as of right rather than in relation to the amount paid in. On the other hand, the so-called contributory insurance principle is what the Prime Minister talked about on February 20 in this house when he said he favoured a direct contributory system, when he said it had to be a matter of contract, when he said he knew of no way in which you could get rid of the means test unless there was a contract on the basis of which the individual person had paid for his own pension.
I am glad that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) put on the record this afternoon the statement of the Prime Minister on April 14, 1949, in Van-
Old Age Security
couver so that it can be set against the statement the Prime Minister made on February 20, 1950. In fact I hope the statement put on the record today washes out what the Prime Minister said on February 20, and that we are through with that kind of approach.
I now wish to move the amendment I suggested a moment ago for the purpose of making absolutely sure that the committee will have the right to discuss the step that is most important in old age pension legislation in Canada at the present time, namely, the removal of the means test. Therefore I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein after the words "contributory insurance principles" the following words: "and also the possibility of the immediate removal of the means test from the present old age pension."
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has interjected that the committee can discuss anything. I have already argued with him on that point, but from the experience I have had I know I am right when I say that your terms of reference must include what you want to discuss for you cannot go beyond them. If, however, the minister means what he implied, namely, that it is all right for the committee to discuss the possibility of the immediate removal of the means test from the present old age pension, then let him accept this amendment so that the terms of reference of the committee will be quite clear.


Peter Francis Martin: Will you let me make an observation on that point right now? The resolution as drawn will permit the widest study of the question of old age security. The purpose of the amendment, I suggest with great respect, is not to clarify in any way what is already clear, but something else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. The purpose of my amendment is very clear, even though the minister may try to suggest that there may be some untoward motives behind it. The fact of the matter is-and I think he will agree with me-that the question involved in this amendment is one that certainly has to be discussed at the present time. I hope he agrees with me that it is the most important step to be taken in the field of old age security; but I repeat, and there are plenty of members around me who know from experience how right I am, that when you get into a committee whose terms of reference are not broad enough, you are soon prohibited from discussing those matters which are not included.


Peter Francis Martin: You will not be prohibited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the minister would render a far greater service to the

Old Age Security
cause of improving our old age pension legislation by accepting this amendment rather than by trying to suggest that I should not have moved it. If, as he argues, he favours the taking of forward steps in the field of old age security legislation, let us not find ourselves in the position when we get into committee of discovering that we have to stick to a discussion of alternative schemes, and with particular reference to plans based on contributory insurance at that. Even if the committee should bring in a report on that basis I suggest that nothing could be done in that connection at least until the conference next fall, and perhaps not even until the time of the next election. What we want, and what I have been arguing for throughout my remarks, is to have less of this general talk and something specific put before parliament at this session.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Let's go to work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For once I agree with my hon. friend. Let us go to work and get rid of the means test in connection with old age pensions at this session of parliament.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: But you won't let anything go through the house.


Frederick Hugo Larson: In this year 1950, when everyone is social security minded, I should like to know how the hon. member reconciles the position taken by the socialist government in Saskatchewan, where they impose a means test on one of the smallest supplementary old age pensions in the country, and have the smallest mothers' allowance in the country, while the party in this house takes the position that we should remove the means test entirely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may answer that question, I have two things to say. In the first place, this afternoon I quoted from a statement made back in 1924 by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who is my hon. friend's high priest, to the effect that provincial governments could not possibly participate in any old age pension scheme. The Minister of Agriculture knew in 1924, and so stated; and he knew in 1945, when he was a party to the proposals made to the dominion-provincial conference-


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been asked a question; let me answer it. The minister knew that the only way you could pay for a universal old age pension without a means test was on a federal basis. Not only Saskatchewan; no province in this country could afford a universal old age pension without a means test.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Don't skate around; answer the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members do not even seem to want an answer. The only government that can finance a universal old age pension without a means test is the federal government; and that applies to all provinces. The other answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) is that the means test in effect in the province of Saskatchewan is the means test laid down in the federal old age pension regulations.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: What about the mothers' allowance?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, go and get one.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, after this bit of by-play my contribution to this debate may appear to be a sort of anticlimax. Sitting in this corner as I do, surrounded by hon. gentlemen of socialist mentality, I must say that I sometimes feel like Daniel in the lions' den. I do believe the question just put to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was rather well taken. I agree with the hon. member that any over-all social service scheme perhaps would have to be on a federal basis; but the question asked was why a provincial government, which is also able to tax the people for revenue, should impose the means test for an extra $2.50 a month. That was the question, and it cannot be answered by saying it must be done on a national basis.
The answer is that the province of Saskatchewan is short of revenue; we may as well admit that. So are other provinces that cannot augment the present old age pension. There is no mystery about that. Saskatchewan is not as fortunate as some other provinces, which are able to collect higher revenues. British Columbia, I understand, has a sales tax. Saskatchewan had one and then took it off.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: Does the hon. member not know that Saskatchewan's revenues today are $55 million, the highest in its history, and that it still has the sales tax, which yesterday was increased by one cent?


Ernest George Hansell: If that is so it is all right with me. I am not quarrelling with Saskatchewan; let them run their own business. All I am saying is that to use the argument that it must be done on a national basis is but to avoid the question of whether the means test must be imposed by Saskatchewan if the pension is to be increased by $2.50; so I say that answer is not well taken. However, I will let those hon. gentlemen fight it out between themselves.
Some of us have been sitting in this house for a long time, Mr. Speaker, and some of us

on the opposition side have been waiting patiently for many years to have the government in office bring down some legislation that would eclipse in proportion what I have termed over the years as the miserly old age pension scheme we have today. Each election the Liberals go to the country saying, "Put us in and we will do something to better the lot of the aged." I have kept a record of the advertising that has been carried on for several past elections, dating back to 1935; and almost every election the same thing occurs.
Now, I am saying this for a purpose. The other day the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) concerning what might be done for the incurables. What was the answer? The minister's answer was that this subject is continually under review by the government. Of course, that is no answer. What is responsible government supposed to do but review things, and on the basis of their review bring down legislation? If the review had only occupied about six months, the answer might have some merit. Since the review must have been going on for the last ten years or more, I do not believe that sort of answer is good enough. Surely, if the government has been reviewing the question of old age pensions, even under a contributory scheme, they should be in a position today to bring down definite legislation covering their proposals and policies.
It is for this reason that some of us believe this motion to set up a committee becomes a sort of red herring drawn across the trail to attract attention, to make people believe we are about to do something, the only result being to delay the start of a better old age pension scheme. I am in agreement with some of those who have spoken today in saying that, if the government has been reviewing this question over a period of ten or fifteen years, they surely have the facts and figures before them. They must have these facts and figures in sufficient detail that, even though the committee is set up, they could not get them in any greater detail. If that is not so, then the government has failed in its attempt to adequately review the situation.
I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason for having this committee investigate the matter of old age pensions according to the terms of reference is that the government has reached the limit of its ability to tax the people of Canada. They say, "We know that if we are to bring in a better old age pension scheme, it is going to cost a tremendous amount of money." The next question is, where is the money to come from?
Old Age Security	*
The people cannot be taxed any more, and that is the government's problem. They say, "We shall go further and bring in a contributory scheme of old age pensions; by that means we will shift the burden from the general tax revenues, and place it upon the people who pay into a designated fund called the old age pension fund." What they are really saying is that they will not tax the whole nation in the sense it is being done today; they will not raise the taxes of the nation as would have to be done in order to bring in a better scheme. But the people will be taxed in another way. By adopting a contributory scheme, the people would have to pay into that fund, which of course is just another form of taxation. Then the government would argue that the more the people can put into this fund, the more they will be able to draw out. I suppose that might be logical.
I am not so confident as the minister seems to be that this will lead to progressive legislation. I believe it could be regarded as a way of escaping responsibility, because the government cannot put in a more elaborate scheme without raising taxation. This, therefore, is just a way of escape for responsible government, by bringing in a contributory scheme and shifting the burden of taxation from the ordinary revenue to the old age pension fund.
I do not know whether this question has occurred to the government, but I should like to ask what they consider the purpose of an economic system is. It seems to me that the purpose of an economic system is to give the highest standard of living and security that the production of the nation is able to obtain for the people; in other words, the goods and services the nation is able to produce and distribute. How does this government operate the economic system, or any other government that might replace it which would have the same monetary mentality? Under our present administration, the way it works is simply this: We reach a high capacity of production, and then when our people do not have the money to buy it we attempt to get rid of it in a series of ways, instead of devising a distributive system that would make it available. Surpluses continue to pile up, and unemployment becomes prevalent. We then have low incomes and unemployment in the midst of abundance. The government begins to sweat and stew about what it is going to do.
Then, of course, they look at our aged citizens with heads bowed in shame and say, "We are sorry; although there are plenty of the necessities of life, we cannot give you more than a pittance." That is the picture,

Old Age Security
and I do not think anyone will gainsay that picture. What is going to happen under the proposed contributory scheme if the financial policy is not changed? The old-line party thinkers will look at our aged people and say, "It is your own fault; here you are in the midst of abundance with no pension to draw upon. You did not contribute enough in the past." I believe that is what will be said. Not only is the government shifting the burden of taxation, but they intend to shift the responsibility.
Let me say this, that personally I do not think it takes any brains to run a government under a taxation system. Surely it does not take any brains to say, "We will do just what we are able to pay for and that will be counted in terms of how much we are able to get out of the taxpayer." It does not take any brains to work that out. Any schoolboy could figure that one. He goes downtown to buy some marbles or something and he says, "I can buy only the marbles for which I have money to pay." That is schoolboy stuff. It does not take any brains for a government to run a nation's business if they have the ability through legislation to stick a gun in the taxpayer's ribs and say, "Now, pay up; we need so much money to run the country." It does not take brains; it takes a little gall and political acumen to do it and still stay in office.
What is going to happen under a contributory scheme to those who cannot contribute? What is going to happen to those who have been transients in bygone years through no fault of their own? What is going to happen to those farmers who are on submarginal lands? Some of us know of these farmers who in days gone by lived on a starvation level. I am not one to paint harsh and dark pictures when there is no need, but we remember how in the thirties the farmers were coming to us. They were mortgaged to the hilt, prices were depressed, crops were not good and the mortgage companies were going to take their land. They came to us almost on bended knees and said, "Isn't there something you can do?" That was the reason the Aberhart administration brought in a moratorium on debt-simply to save the farmers.
It was not until war broke out and prices began to rise that the farmers were able to get out of debt and retain their farms. How are they going to contribute to a contributory scheme when there are no crops or prices are depressed?


Paul-Émile Côté: Those are questions for the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has not the government the answers yet?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought we had responsible government.


Ernest George Hansell: I hope that goes down in
Hansard. I hope the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour speaks with some authority because I have doubted that that committee would investigate the economic factors that this country has had to deal with over the years. If they do they will have to come to us who are Social Crediters for assistance. I do not want the minister or the parliamentary assistant to keep quiet now; I want them to stick out their necks just a little further.
It is all a matter of whether the government is willing to change its financial policy It should be willing to face the facts and say "We will change our financial policy if the suggested policy is sound and reasonable, if it will work; we will do it in order to bring about the operation of an economic system that will give our people security and contentment all their lives".
There is one sentence in this motion to set up a committee to which I should like to draw attention. This sentence in the terms of reference might go unnoticed if I did not mention it, and besides I intend to expand upon it. It says in the first paragraph that the committee is empowered to investigate the probable cost thereof and possible methods of providing therefor. I thank the minister for putting that in the motion. I believe he was conscientious when he did it. I am going to ask him to answer this question: Is it understood that the committee will call in various financial experts of the different schools of thought so that the committee can recommend changes in financial policy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister told me the committee could study anything.


Ernest George Hansell: I want the minister to answer that* question when he replies. The minister said in his speech that they were desirous of having the views of all parties. They will do this anyway, but let the Liberal party call in their financial experts. Let the Conservative party call in their financial experts.


An hon. Member:: the same ones.


Ernest George Hansell: Most likely they will be the same ones. If they are not, I am certain they will give the same advice. Let our socialist friends here call in their financial experts.


An hon. Member:: They will be the same.


Ernest George Hansell: I am inclined to think they will be the same also.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will be the intelligent
ones.


Angus MacInnis: Whom did Aberhart call in?


Ernest George Hansell: Let the Social Crediters call in some of their financial experts.


An hon. Member:: Douglas?


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: We want to conclude our business this year.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not think they dare do that. If it is a matter of getting money the Social Credit experts will be the only ones able to give an answer.


John Horne Blackmore: I defy them to come out and debate it on the floor of the house.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister said that he wanted to have the views of all parties and then he began to lay down the views of himself and the government as to monetary policy and then he said: There is no other way. If there is no other way, then why does the minister want the views of all the other parties?


An hon. Member:: Why does he want a committee?


An hon. Member:: He loves you all.


Ernest George Hansell: When the minister said, "There is no other way," he said it with such emphasis that I thought he was speaking with the voice of the gods. When he looked around for a monetary explanation as the only way, I fancied that he would have gone to some other authority, some wizard of finance, some top man versed in monetary techniques. Perhaps he did, I do not know; but the best authority he could get was that great wizard of finance and monetary technique, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I have a great regard for my hon. friend from Vancouver; he has been here a long time. He has a good many years' experience behind him. He is an original thinker and a practical man in many ways. I have a high regard for him, but I do not think he would class himself as an exceptional wizard on economics and finance.


Angus MacInnis: I have proved that I am not.


Ernest George Hansell: I am happy to have my friend say that. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is sponsoring the resolution, quoted him, and then he said: "I believe that. That is my position. There is no other way; for tnoney must come out of production."


Mr. Hatfield:: Social Credit.


Ernest George Hansell: We believe that money must come out of production. We Social Crediters believe that, but the interpretation as to how he should get it out of production is entirely different from ours. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) also said the same thing. Of course he amplified his remarks a little bit. He said it has to come out of
Old Age Security
national income, and that of course if there were a Conservative party in power they would follow policies leading to the highest national income. But that was talk, because he did not say what policies they would pursue, and I am saying to him-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a secret.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Free enterprise.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member interjects "free enterprise". I am an admirer of the hon. gentleman, as I admire the hon. member for Vancouver East. He says: "We would follow policies of free enterprise." So has the present government. When he tells us that, he must say what policies he would pursue that would raise the income any higher than the policies pursued at the present time have raised it. Then he says: "There is no source of money other than production."


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say "money"; I said, no other sources of wealth than production. There is a difference between money and wealth.


Ernest George Hansell: I will not engage my hon. friend in that at the moment because I fancy he is tying himself up now. I do not want to take an advantage of that kind. Let me ask this question, and let the minister answer it. If the only place you can get money is out of production, let him answer this. The war was fought out of our national production and not out of our national income, because there had to be an expansion and the creation of $4 billion during the war, and yet the war was fought out of production, not income.
I am not arguing against the axiom that money must come out of production. I am saying that our interpretation of that phrase is different from those advanced by other parties. Furthermore, let me ask the minister this. If he believes what he said, let me take him back to the period of the thirties just as an illustration, and it is apt to happen again. It is beginning to happen now. Here are goods piled sky high on the shelves of our warehouses, on the shelves of our department stores, and rotting on the ground. That is high production. And here are the citizens standing by looking on with empty pockets and unemployed. Here they are on relief, unemployed, with no money, and there is the production. Let him tell me how he is going to get money out of that production. There is the production. Does the government get money out of it? No, they do not do that. They destroy the production. Does that bring them money? In the United States they dye their potatoes blue. Does that bring them money? These are the questions I am asking these hon. gentlemen who say the only source of money is production. Let them answer

Old Age Security
that. If they cannot answer that, then they will never broaden the old age pension scheme and bring the security and contentment to our people that this wealthy productive country is able to give them.
Once again I am saying the only group in this house that can answer that question is the Social Credit group. There you have it. You have to tax or you have to get the money in some other way, shift the burden, contributory pensions. You have got to do it in that way or listen to us. It is either one thing or the other. You can turn a deaf ear to us if you want to. That is your responsibility.
Let me conclude by saying this. There is something about this resolution that I am disappointed in. I feel that there is a class of citizens that could very well be included in this resolution so that the committee without very much extra effort would try to investigate as to whether they could come under some sort of pension scheme. I refer to the incurables. There is a class of people that could not possibly come into any contributory pension scheme, because by reason of their physical condition they are not able to earn an income. I believe that that is one of our first responsibilities.
Without taking up any more time of the house I wish to move an amendment to the amendment that has already been moved. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston):
That the following words he added at the end of the first paragraph: "and to examine the possibility of granting pensions to incurables who are unable to earn a livelihood."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Perhaps I might refer hon. members to standing order 50. I would direct the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Hansell) to that standing order, and would also suggest that they look up Hansard for May 17, 1929, page 2588, and also the Journals for 1945 at page 234.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this resolution on the order paper. Before your comments, sir, I had thought that the subamendment offered by the hon. member for Maeleod was one that had a good deal of merit, and which certainly would have received my support. 1 did gather from the amendment that there were by-elections in the offing, and that the hon. member had probably guessed that this was a good time for it.
The amendment would seem to indicate that, because from reading the resolution I

gathered that it provided ample opportunity to discuss almost anything within its scope. In any event I am happy to see that now for the first time in twenty-five years we have an opportunity to deal with what I consider to be our foremost domestic problem, and one that has very great implications.
Here is an opportunity for a committee to make a comprehensive examination into the pension schemes in Canada today. Anyone who knows what we have by way of pensions in this country will surely agree with me when I say that our plans at the present time are not only unbalanced but overlap and, in some ways, compete. We have the federal and provincial old age plan, with the means test; we have the employer-initiated plans in this country; we have the union-negotiated plans. Along with that we have to some extent provincial supplements.
This resolution in my opinion gives us an opportunity to take stock, to see what we have done up until now, and to recommend what we ought to do in the future. As the minister pointed out, for twenty-three years we have been building a welfare state- and I emphasize the word "welfare". I conceive it to be the duty of a modern state to ensure the security and welfare of its citizens; and the desire for economic security in old age, in one form or another, is generally looked upon as one of the normal desires of enlightened human beings.
I am a believer in social security and I am a believer in the welfare state. I would remind hon. members, particularly those sitting on this side of the house, that we were the welfare-state party at the last election, and that the people endorsed us overwhelmingly. So I take this opportunity to do what I have wanted to do before, namely, to protest emphatically against statements made in this chamber or in the other place that by extending welfare by way of further social security we are making of Canadians a nation of leaners, that we are pampering them and coddling them, that we are making them soft and taking away from them their initiative.
I have heard that story twice in my generation. I remember hearing it in the thirties, when it was my responsibility from 1929 to 1939 to look after the welfare of people in Ontario, through the operations of various offices I held, particularly my provincial office. At that time it was my direct duty to look after their welfare-to feed them and to clothe them. I remember well that when we decided to increase the relief we were told we were making people soft. When we decided to make the allowances in cash rather than by chit we were told that

the recipients would spend the money and use it for things other than food.
I remember these stories; but I also remember that there was a war in 1939, and that our enemies never looked upon Canadians as soft. No one ever suggested that we did not have the proper initiative to become the arsenal of democracy. And so when I hear this talk once again in my own generation I know exactly how it should be treated- because I do not believe that social security makes bums out of people. I do not believe that unemployment insurance makes bums out of the unemployed.
Is there anyone in Canada who believes that we were better off before we had old age pensions, unemployment insurance or family allowances? Does anyone suggest that the social legislation of the last three administrations has been bad for Canada, or that we have not been able to afford it, or that it is beyond our means?
I said it was a natural desire for everyone to want a measure of security. Our own personal security is threatened when we are in want, when we suffer from ill health or when we reach old age and are unable to work. That condition breeds instability, anxiety and fear-and fear is a very contagious thing.
I conceive that this resolution gives the committee an opportunity to make recommendations in keeping with the times, so that we may arrive at a new era of long-term security for the individual, and so that no one need have any fear of spending his declining years in poverty or disability.
There are in our society two groups who need our help most at the present time; they are the young, and they are the old. We must provide for each of them according to their needs, and compatibly with our ability. But we must not prefer one to the other.
Let me remind the house that there is no reversal in the security trend in the world. If there is any lesson we can learn from the British election, it is that all the parties and the people endorsed the social security measures which, by the way, are one generation in advance of ours. Remember that.
I agree with the minister that we must wait for the dominion-provincial conference. There are problems which must be solved-financial problems and constitutional problems. But we can be heartened by the last meeting which was held early in January, and which indicated to all of us that there were around the council table men of good will who meant to come to an agreement, and who know that they must come to an agreement. Because we now have upon us not only the old and the near old, but we have the industrial workers,
Old Age Security
we have management, and we have finance, all of whom are more united than they have ever been in their lives. They are converging upon us wanting leadership and action with respect to pensions, because the shoe is beginning to pinch a little for the industrialist and the financier.
The committee has a job of great magnitude and of tremendous scope to perform. It need not be concerned with constitutional and economic problems. But the matter of pensions is one of the great human problems with which we have to deal. It is true that we require a knowledge of the plans of other countries-a knowledge of all plans, both private and public. I agree with the speakers who have said that the committee must produce a national over-all retirement plan. I believe that plan must compare in scope, purpose and effect with the Archambault report which was a landmark for thoroughness in its own field.
Most of the objections that have been raised today by the opposition have carried the suggestion that we are stalling, that we are playing for time. I say to the house that if that were true I would be the first to protest. This is too important a matter for us to be stalling on it. I believe it was the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who said that we have plenty of information available. How much do we know about pension plans in Canada? I should like to refer to the dominion bureau of statistics, an organization which ought to know. In their reference papers issued in December, 1949, they say:
There is little information available on the cost and the adequacy of protection provided by employees' pension plans in Canadian industries.
Evidently the dominion bureau of statistics does not know all the answers as to the various pension plans in the Dominion of Canada. I conceive that the committee will make recommendations to provide adequately for the old by way of a retirement pension which will at the same time be a basis for industrial pensions. Any recommendation will have to be tailored to our future needs in an expanding economy, and it must cover every person in the country no matter where he finds himself.
How many pension plans are there in Canada? I think the house will be interested to know that at the present time there are 464. Of those 64 per cent, or 293, were established during the war. I call that to your attention particularly because it is an important aspect. Sixty-four per cent of our present operative plans came into effect during the war. Perhaps you know the reason. During the war years wages could not be raised but pensions could be granted. Employers wanted to hold their employees. Possibly other people were

Old Age Security
offering them more money, so employers provided for pensions. There was also such a thing as excess profits taxes and they were minimized by the provision of pensions. All the money they were paying out for pensions in the war years was deductible as it is now, except that at that time there was more of it. Therefore these pension plans grew. We have a responsibility with respect to them which I will point out later on.
Of these plans 455 were contributory and nine were non-contributory, and as to the 455 contributory plans all took advantage of the tax exemption which they were entitled to under the income tax law. I assure hon. members that the more thought you give to the pension problem the more complex and difficult it becomes. I confess that I do not know all the answers. I am not as fortunate as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who seems to have many answers to the problem.


John Horne Blackmore: You have got a lot to learn from him yet.


David Arnold Croll: There is one thing I do know. I know that the many-headed monster called the means test certainly must go as a result of any committee that we set up at this session of the house. I think it is far too late for anyone to attempt to bolster the means test by raising the question of permissive earnings or by saying that it is generous in many respects. It is more generous than some other plans, but it is just a question of which of two teeth that are hurting hurts more. Neither should be there.
I say to the minister that the means test has been discredited; its time has run out; but in any event people will not have any part of it any more. They have made up their minds on that point. I was very glad to see that the legislature of Manitoba passed a resolution on Tuesday of this week endorsing a contributory system and at the same time suggesting that the means test should be done away with. In the past our greatest opposition to doing away with the means test has come from industrialists and financiers, but there is a remarkable and rather interesting change. In the Globe and Mail of March 3 there is a report of a pension dispute in Windsor between the Ford Motor Company and the United Automobile Workers. They could not agree on the amount and the newspaper article says that they came down here to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in order to discuss the means test with him. There is one part of the article which is significant, and which reads:
The delegation came here at the suggestion of the company, and were accompanied by Wallace Clark, personnel director of Ford Motor Company.

They are the people who want the means test removed, and they are just as emphatic about it as their workers. As a matter of fact, I have considerable information here that is rather enlightening. For instance, there is a report on the Bank of Nova Scotia monthly review in the Toronto Telegram of March 3, and in it are these words:
It Is widely felt that contributory schemes encourage self-respect, that the absence of a "means test" allows other forms of saving and removes the stigma of pauperism . . .
While I am on that subject I might as well let you have it all. May I refer now to an article in the Ottawa Journal of January 27 which reads in part:
"A minimum needs" pension without a means test was suggested today by H. D. Burns, president of the Crown Life Insurance Company . . .
My object in reading these to you at this time is to indicate that those who are opposed to doing away with the means test are thinning out. The numbers in their ranks are becoming less and less, and now we find ourselves in the position where industrialists and financiers are advocating the taking away of the means test. Mind you, they may have a motive. I do not suggest that they have not a motive, but I am not concerned with their motives. I agree with them. Certainly it is going to be cheaper for them if we do away with the means test, but at the same time if we are serving the public what right have we to look for a motive? When you look around today it is difficult to find anyone who is in favour of the means test. The only answer you get is that we cannot afford it, that it is beyond our capacity. I was not here when old age pensions were first introduced, but I have read the record, and they said the same thing then. I certainly know they said it about family allowances, they have repeated it, and some of them are still repeating it despite the fact that family allowances are here, we require them, and we can afford them.
The usual thing that one hears is that we must have a contributory system. We say "contributory" quickly and glibly and it sounds very good; everybody seems to agree with you about it. But there is nothing magical about a contributory system. In the first place you have to consider how much a man can contribute. We say that a man should not spend more than 25 per cent of what he earns for housing and yet there are very few who can secure housing at that figure. We say that a man should not spend on food more than 25 per cent of what he earns, and yet there are very few who can purchase the food they need for that amount. We must not forget that we have to leave something in a man's envelope for him to take home. The word "contributory" means

so many things to so many of us. If we mean the insurance principle, then all he receives is what he pays for, and I assure you it will take him all of thirty years in order to buy himself a pension of $40 a month. If, on the other hand, we mean the public treasury, to which everyone contributes, then that is another matter entirely. In the common comparison that is made at the present time people say, "Well, let us have contributory retirement pensions in the same way that we have unemployment insurance." That is a great fallacy; people just do not understand the exact problem when they say that. That is one reason I think it important that we should take our time and discuss this problem so that people may learn and understand it.
It must not be forgotten that unemployment insurance was introduced about ten years ago. For the first nine months no money at all was paid out; it was just collected. Then for nine years it was all "put" and very little "take", with the result that the fund was built up to the extent of $600 million; and it was not until February of this year that expenses were even a little higher than receipts.
The problem is very different with respect to retirement pensions. Pensions have to start payment immediately. The old are here; the others are becoming older at the same time, and there is no ten-year period in which to build up a fund. We have to start paying immediately. The usual retiring age in this country is considered to be sixty-five, but the life expectancy of men is twelve years greater than that and of women fourteen years greater. Surely the increased longevity is something that should give us comfort and pleasure. It cannot possibly be a matter of either regret or neglect on our part. It seems to me a hideous mockery if we spend millions of dollars on science in order to make it possible for people to live longer, and cannot meet the challenge properly by providing for [DOT]them decently.
I support a contributory system, but I have no delusion about it at all. I know its coverage is incomplete. I know that under the contributory system in Britain twenty per cent of the people are not covered, while in the United States forty per cent are not covered; and I know that the pension is very small. I know that in New Zealand after ten years of payment into the contributory pension fund a person is able to draw only $9 a month, while in the United States after fifteen years of payment a person draws only $26 a month. They need supplementary assistance, and they apply the means test. So if any of us are telling the people that if we add a contributory system to the system we have at the present time, with a means test, this will be the answer to our problem, we are
55946-43J
Old Age Security
wrong in telling them that, because that will not solve any problem for us at the present time. It may solve a problem thirty years from now, but not today; it is confusing and misleading, and if we are giving that impression we ought to stop doing so.
My feeling is that there is only one solution. I believe we must have a universal pension plan under which everyone is covered, farmer, self-employed, domestic; everyone must be covered, and there must be a guaranteed minimum at a fixed age. We should pay for it in the way we pay for other things, by a social security tax which ought to be imposed to the extent we can afford. Here is an opportunity for us to do some original thinking on this problem comparable to the thinking we did in connection with the family allowance. Our family allowance legislation was copied; we were praised for it everywhere. So far in connection with this problem we have been groping, and I think it is time we started thinking it through.
When we speak of a contributory system, that will look after the future of those who are working today; but what about the present? Are we doing for those aged people what we expect will be done for us? Are we not penalizing the older workers because we procrastinated and failed to introduce a contributory system many years ago? Why, the labour unions of this country have been pleading for a system of that kind for as long as I can remember. Now we have on the scene the new industrial pensions. They are no longer academic; they are really here. The unions are concentrating upon retirement pensions and disability and sickness benefits; and they have made progress in the United States in textiles, in automobiles, in rubber and in the mining industry.


An hon. Member:: And in coal.


David Arnold Croll: Yes; I thought the mining industry covered coal. I said we have some 464 plans in Canada covering textiles, pulp, mining and some other industries. At the present time we have before us the Ford plan which provides $55 a month, subject to a means test; but the unions are prepared to fight to a finish for their demand that the pensions be free of a means test. It may surprise hon. members to learn that management regards their request as very reasonable in principle, and supports it. I could read some statements by management which might surprise hon. members. Here we have the United States chamber of commerce appearing before a committee in Washington requesting that the minimum benefits paid to a family should be increased from $85 to $120. That is something new; but it shows how aware they have become of these problems.

Old Age Security
The tendency has been for the labour contract in the Canadian branches to conform with that of the parent plant in the United States if the situation is the same in both countries. The joker is that the situation is not the same in both countries. Here lies a potential cause of great industrial strife, and that is one reason labour and industry are pressing so hard for a solution of this pension problem. In the United States they have a pension base. As I have indicated already, after contributing for fifteen years there is a pension base of $26, which in some instances may be somewhat increased. In the United States the worker has an opportunity to build on that pension. He may do so as a result of collective industrial agreements or from his personal savings. We have no such base in Canada, because we have the means test, which is the big stumbling block. I think the time has come when we in Canada should have a universal pension with a minimum guaranteed as a floor under poverty.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) asked some questions, and I am going to ask this question. Here we have two men working in the same plant, receiving the same wages, having been employed for the same number of years. One scrimps and denies himself to buy an annuity which will pay him $40 a month at the age of seventy, and finally he gets that annuity. The other man saves nothing, but at the age of seventy he draws $40 a month in old age pension, and if he is lucky enough to live in British Columbia he gets $50. Should we not try to correct a situation like that? You may say there is something the matter with the man but I believe there is something the matter with a system which permits that sort of thing.
Let us look at some of the larger plants. I will agree that Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and Goodyear can pay pensions; but can the smaller plants employing fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty men pay pensions, and if they do, will their pensions be the same? In order to have harmony in this country are we not obligated to see that we have a plan upon which people can build? Have we not a responsibility, particularly where we grant tax exemptions, to see that pensions are paid every month and every year for life? The government should have something to say about those pension plans when they give tax exemptions. I can think of no greater catastrophe that might befall this country than if some of the pension plans could not pay off when they ought to. So the government must safeguard, it must certify, in the same way that it handles insurance companies at the present time. I have said that my own feeling in the matter was that
[Mr. Croll.l
we ought to have a universal pension, in the same way as we have family allowances. It has an advantage. You may think of some disadvantages. I know what crops up in your minds: can we afford it? I shall deal with that problem in a moment or two. A universal pension gives Canadians uniformity of treatment, and it averts formidable administrative problems.
This thought occurs to me. I know quite well that the industrial workers will get their pension, even if they have to hammer it out on the picket line. Everyone knows that. What will happen under those circumstances if the farmer, who also makes a contribution to the economy of the country, finds himself paying for the industrial worker's pension while, at the same time, not having one for himself? Are we not asking for trouble? I think the time has come when we must provide a basis that will permit all individuals, whether they are farmers or labourers, to build upon that base with their savings. The industrial worker could, at the same time, build upon it through his collective agreements. You must not forget that what goes to the industrial worker by way of a pension is deferred wages, and it must be non-contributory. Then the provinces may supplement the pension.
I welcome this committee, because I feel the country is looking for guidance, leadership and action. The usual objection to a universal pension is that it will cost money. Of course it will cost money. Are we not paying too big a price in this country in fear and insecurity? Must we not look at this as a great human problem, rather than as a financial problem? I feel certain that we can afford the $200 million or $250 million we were talking about. In addition to that, it seems to me that if I were living outside the province of Ontario, I should look at the redistribution of wealth such a scheme brings about. There is a levelling process going on, as there is with family allowances, and it is a levelling up.
I come from the province of Ontario, and we pay 45 -5 per cent of the taxes in Canada. We collect in family allowances 29 per cent of the tax. Some 16 per cent, therefore, is levelled out through the other parts of Canada. The same thing would be true with respect to universal pensions. In Ontario we would only be receiving 24 per cent of any pensions that were paid, so there would be 21 per cent more of that money that would be distributed to the less fortunate parts of Canada. I have always believed that if I raised the standard of living of a man in Saskatoon I improved the job possibilities of a man in Spadina.
I feel that the true measure of our strength as a nation is not our military establishments

alone, but the vigour, health and spirit of the people themselves. That is what makes up the living tissue of Canadian democracy, and that is our greatest all-round defence, come what may. I realize that I have not been very specific about a universal pension. I believe, however, that if we endorse the principle, we will not have any difficulty in agreeing on the details. I agree with the statement by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and what was repeated by the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), that the money to be paid must come from the national product. The man who works must pay for the benefits going to the man who cannot work. Employers will charge their contribution to the cost of doing business; therefore in some instances consumers may have to pay higher prices- although from the appearance of profit sheets which are published now and then in our newspapers, I would not know why. In short, the man who has earned a loaf of bread must share a slice or two with his needy neighbour.
In all the history I have read, I have never read about a state that went broke by reason of underwriting a social minimum for its citizens. I have, however, read of states that disappeared because they did not do it. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this motion, which gives us an opportunity to hold an open forum on pensions, which gives us the opportunity of having men, women and organizations come before us to present their views, will have an educational value in this country. People will more readily understand what our problem is, and perhaps will help us to reach a solution.
Last session we passed what I considered a very important amendment to the housing act. It is beginning to bear fruit for the people of Canada in the form of more and better houses. I believe that this parliament can write its name indelibly in the history of our country by bringing in a universal security measure which will make those homes secure for the people. I intend to support the motion.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of immediately following the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I should like to congratulate him on a very fine speech which this house has enjoyed during the last few minutes. I agree with him, Mr. Speaker, in welcoming the motion to set up the proposed committee. The wording of the motion outlines the government's intention to hold a full examination of our old age pension system. The government is turning to the proper instrument of parliament in order to carry out that examination under our parliamentary system.
The subject of old age pensions is one which is being discussed a great deal these days,
Old Age Security
both in this house and throughout the country. It is quite apparent, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the extent of the problems involved in expanding our old age pensions, as well as other social security measures, is not fully understood by some individuals in this house, or by many individuals throughout the country. Since the opening of this session we have heard members calling for increased pensions, the removal of the means test, and other changes in our present system. From this it would seem to be clear that we should at least take a searching look at the question of old age security in this country, and come to some conclusions upon it.
For example, the Prime Minister, in speaking at Vancouver on April 14, 1949, said:
We are certainly not satisfied with our old age pension legislation, even though the scale of pensions is 50 per cent higher in dollars than it was before the war.
We have had old age pensions in this country, Mr. Speaker, for 23 years. It is still an interim program which has been improved and extended on five occasions in that 23 years. I agree to some extent with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who said this afternoon that in the past we had dealt with old age pensions in a not too well organized manner. The changes that have been made have been forward steps and as far as they went they have been productive of good to the social well-being of the people of this country. The government is proposing today to the hon. member for Eglinton and all hon. members of this house that we use a committee of parliament in order to look at the whole question, to see how we have progressed in the past, to see how we should move in the future in order that extensions of this program will not be open to criticism of having been adopted without full consideration of all the circumstances. For that reason I submit that much of the opposition expressed this afternoon by the hon. member to the setting up of a committee was illogical and not well taken.
There are four main points around which the discussion of the extension of our old age security program has revolved. These are:
1.	The abolition of the means test.
2.	The reduction of the age at which men and women shall become entitled to old age assistance.
3.	The payment of pensions on a higher scale than at present.
4.	The introduction of a contributory system of old age pensions.
In order to illustrate some of the important and complex problems which have to be considered in dealing with this question, I should like to discuss briefly each of the four points which I have mentioned and which have been referred to by previous speakers in this

Old Age Security
debate to some extent or other. At the present time we are paying old age pensions on a means-test basis to persons over seventy years of age. There are approximately 625,000 people over the age of seventy years, and some 42 or 43 per cent or approximately 265,000 are receiving 'old age pensions of $40 per month, plus certain additions in various provinces, on a means-test basis. The pensions now being paid involve an expenditure of over $100 million on federal account, something over $33 million on provincial account, or a total of $133 million.
Suppose we consider putting into practice what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to this afternoon as the first step in improving and extending our old age security program, that is, the abolition of the means test. By doing that one thing alone we would increase the annual cost of a $40 pension to all persons over seventy years of age to $300 million a year, or an additional $200 million.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that the speakers who had preceded him had not suggested any concrete step that should be taken with respect to abolishing the means test or anything else. He said that he was satisfied that the first step we should take was to abolish the means test. However, he did not go any further and explain just where he thought the additional $200 million that would be required to take that step was to come from. I am not saying that we will not have to find that money, but the point I want to make is that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or any other hon. member is going to come to grips with this problem he will have to say, not whether we should do thus and so but that we should do thus and so and the money will come from such and such a source.
The purpose of this committee is to study what we should do and how we are to provide the funds wherewith to do it. The hon. member cannot point the finger of scorn at any hon. member in this house for not making a concrete suggestion when he himself makes only half a concrete suggestion in saying, "Abolish the means test", but omitting to say anything about where the money is to come from. That is one consideration we have to keep in mind when we say, abolish the means test.
The second suggestion is the reduction of the age of eligibility for pension. Suppose that in addition to abolishing the means test we considered that the time has come when the age of eligibility should be reduced. One suggestion that has been made outside the house is that the age of eligibility for women should

be reduced to sixty-five years while the age of eligibility for men should be kept at seventy years, with a $40 pension for all. To pay a $40 pension to all women who had reached the age of sixty-five years and to men who had reached the age of seventy years would cost $390,624,000 this year. If we were to lower the age of eligibility for both men and women to sixty-five years, the cost this year would be $491 million, or almost $500 million.
I point out these figures merely to show the problem that has to be met, not to say what should or should not be done or what we can afford or what we cannot afford. I simply point out that in advocating these changes we must come to grips with the problem of how they are to be paid for. Suppose it is decided that a pension of $40 is not sufficient. Many in this house have argued strenuously that this is an absolute minimum pension that has to be added to; that it cannot be left at that level. Suppose we decide that a minimum pension of $50 would meet the present requirements. For a pension of $50 at age sixty-five the bill this year would be $614 million, and by 1971 the pension bill on that basis would be $960 million, almost $1 billion. That shows the extent of the problem that we have to meet.
I have dealt with three of the points that I mentioned earlier. The last one, the introduction of a contributory system, has been dealt with more fully by some of the speakers who preceded me in this debate. However, I should like to point out that any system is a contributory system. The money comes from the production of the country and goes into the fund, either the general fund of government through taxation, or into a special fund from special taxes which are called contributions. Simply by saying that it is a contributory system does not change one iota the expense involved. It simply is a suggestion of methods of raising the money that is required.
The committee is being empowered to look into and to examine all these important complex questions. I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), with respect, that in my view the wording of the resolution is as wide as could possibly be expected within the limits of the English language; that the power that he wishes the committee to have, as expressed by his amendment, is there in the wording that has been used, and that we would simply, by adopting his amendment, be saying the same thing twice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it would not do any harm.


John Horace Dickey: It would do you a lot of good, though. I do not think it is necessary to adopt the amendment.
In addition to these questions that I have outlined there are other important problems that the committee will have to face. Because of the legislative authority of the provinces on property and civil rights there is involved in this question a constitutional problem which must be solved by agreement with the provinces. In passing I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that that is not always an easy problem to solve. The agreement with all the provinces to bring into effect the system that we now have took nine years from the time of the passage of this act in 1927. It was 1936 before the last two provinces came in and joined in that scheme. That is another problem that the committee is going to have to consider.
The committee is going to have to consider the opinions of many people who do not all agree. For instance, there is general agreement that something should be done about the means test. I agree with what the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) had to say in that respect; but there are many people who have expressed the opinion to me. that the first thing to do is to make sure that we are providing for all the needy cases before we provide public funds to pay old age pensions to people who clearly do not need them, and that would be one result of removing the means test.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) made a plea which has been expressed in this house before, namely, that attention be paid to the needs of the incurables. Many people in this country think that some action should be taken about that before we pay pensions on a no means test basis. Many people feel that other aspects of our social security program need attention before some of the problems arising out of old age pensions.
I should like to add something to what the hon, member for Spadina has said about industrial pensions and the view being taken by many people in industry in this country today about the means test. Many hon. members seem to think that, when they rise in their places and say, "we must do away with the means test", they are saying something that is unique and does not meet with general agreement. I think that today in this country it does meet with general agreement. Just over two months ago I heard the president of one of the greatest corporations in this country tell a meeting of a board of trade that he felt the means test was working a hardship on the employees of his company who had a company-financed retirement fund and retirement scheme, and that some conoid Age Security
sideration should be given to adjusting the means test to remove any unfairness to men in that category.
In conclusion, I should simply like to say that all hon. members who think that they have access to all the information which may have a bearing on this subject, or even those who think that all the information that is necessary to make a wise decision on this question is in the possession of some hon. members-all hon. members who think that they have the answers to these questions, and all hon. members who are satisfied that they can stand up and say to the people of this country, "I have a solution to this whole problem which is bound to be the right one, and which takes into consideration everything that should be considered"-should vote against this resolution and the committee because the committee is not necessary. To all those hon. members who, like myself and the hon. member for Spadina, feel that there is a great deal of information on this question that we have not been able to obtain, and have not been able to comprehend-who feel that they have not all the answers to these questions and that in order to carry out our responsibilities to the people of Canada we should see that all these questions are gone into with the greatest care and as fully as the powers of this parliament will permit-I say they agree with the hon. member for Spadina and myself and should vote for this motion and be glad to see this committee set up.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), but when I sent a note I was the last one on the list. No one had sent word to Mr. Speaker that he was to speak before me. My name followed that of the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). However, I do not want to take the place of the hon. member for Royal, and if he wishes to proceed I shall be happy to take my seat.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution contains in the first paragraph a summary of the whole social question. I congratulate the industrious and diligent Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on having sponsored it today. It is timely for members of parliament to meet together and to discuss all these questions without partisan spirit, in an effort to come to the most satisfactory conclusions for all.

Old Age Security
As the junior member for Halifax has pointed out, we shall consider the whole matter objectively for the good of those who are to benefit from any enactment by parliament. At this stage I should like to congratulate all those who have spoken on this most important matter. May I remind the house that some personal friends of mine, the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Blanchette) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), have taken a particular interest in the matter.
I agree that hon. members In the Progressive Conservative party, the C.C.F. group and the Social Credit group, and even my independent friend from Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), are also interested in the matter. No one should contend that he is more interested in it than anybody else, because we are all interested and are trying to do our best for the people of Canada, especially those who suffer from disability and who are in an unfortunate condition that can be remedied at least partially.
Any member of parliament meets a large number of people. I am not boasting, but I state as a fact that when I am at home I see between fifty and sixty callers a day at my office. I do not practise law; my parliamentary duties do not leave me the leisure to practise my profession as I did before. I take a case occasionally, but I cannot follow the practice regularly.
My office is almost a drawing room or a reception room for those who come to see me and tell me about their troubles. And, sir, you will realize that when a poor man comes to you to disclose to you his intimate feelings and to tell you troubles he would confess to no one except a friend, you feel honoured by that confidence. This happens very often. Constituents will go to their member of parliament for the redress of their wrongs and to tell him their troubles.
This is the only way one can become informed as to the effect of legislation passed by parliament. People come to us in all confidence and speak openly, asking for something. That is legitimate. I do not complain about it; and so long as we keep our mandate to represent the people of Canada we have to do it. It is part of our job; I am not complaining, and the day I feel like complaining I shall resign with the feeling that I am no longer fit to be a member of parliament.
From the stories told to us of the intimate events of the lives of our constituents we can form a composite picture. Each member of parliament who listens to his constituents has in mind that same composite picture of the happiness and misery of certain sections of the Canadian people. Those with whom
I sympathize most are the ones whom, in French, we describe as "les pauvres en habit noir", the poor who are just as well dressed as they can afford to be. They try to make the best of it. They are too proud to beg but, for the sake of appearances, they show up as best they can. No one should be insensible to the approach of these people who are so proud, but who will come to someone to tell them their handicaps and their disabilities. No one should fail to pay attention to what is said in order some day to be in a position to help them.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: One moment more. When I say this I feel sure I am expressing the feelings of my colleagues in the House of Commons who have been in similar positions- and I am sure all have been.
Therefore I consider this problem placed before us by the minister as one of the most important to be discussed by parliament. Light comes from discussion. While this is not the only important subject for our consideration, certainly it is important, and we must not take for granted that every request will be acceded to.
When the old age pension was granted with only one condition attached, namely that of age, I stated sincerely that a mistake had been made. I have repeated that to my constituents, and have received a good response to what I have said. In my view, age should not be the factor in granting a pension; rather, it should be need. There are men and women who have not reached the age of seventy but who are deserving of pensions. Proof of this is that pensions for the blind are given to younger people; parliament has agreed to that, the only objection being that the age was not low enough.
Before concluding I shall make only one further observation, following which I shall adjourn the debate. Pensions will be paid from taxes; but pensions to the disabled will be paid from taxes paid by people who are not so unfortunate and who, although disabled, are in a position to earn their living. The higher the pensions will be, the lees will the taxpayers be in a position to pay for them.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will resume the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 13, 1950