1950-03-30

Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the union of Newfoundland with Canada. I am drawing the attention of the house to it today because I shall not be here tomorrow. Through the courtesy of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), with other members I am making a formal visit to the historic town of Granby; a number of members, therefore, will not be here tomorrow.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank hon. members for the courteous manner in which they have received the members from Newfoundland since they came here as representatives from that province. I should also like to express the hope that the sympathetic consideration that has been shown Newfoundland and its problems will continue in the future. I trust that history will record the union as a happy one, and that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will continue to feel proud of the major role he played in making union possible.



AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the night before last I agreed to answer certain questions asked by the hon. member for Brant-Went-worth (Mr. Charlton). They are to be found at page 1205 of Hansard, and read as follows:
How much of the $200 million has been used in each of the calendar years since 1944?
He was referring to the $200 million provided under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
What products have been covered? What is the amount of each product covered, and what is the amount of each product purchased under the act? How much of the butter that has been purchased is not up to the grade that it was when it was put in storage?
Most of what was asked for was answered in a return tabled on March 10 at the request of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I have other specific information which I
shall read into the record. The information as to the amount used in each of the calendar years since 1944 is as follows:
Cost to
Year	Commodity	December 31
1945
1947	1946 potatoes	
$ 170,748.481948	1947 apples (Nova Scotia)	
3,119,274.221949	1948 apples
(Nova Scotia).. $1,443,231.39 1948 apples
(British Columbia) 44,650.93 1948 potatoes	 1,646,839.34
1948	white beans ...	194,419.88
1949	dry skimmed
milk	 5,043.52
1949 apples	 867,992.33
Total 1949 calendar year
cost	 $4,202,177.39	4,202,177.39
Total net cost to December 31, 1949..	$7,492,200.09
Notes: Re agricultural prices support
1.	At December 31, 1949, the board held stocks of butter, honey and cheese as follows:
Honey-2,985,322 lbs. (reduced to 2,956,062 lbs. on March 25, 1950)
Butter-40,694,784 lbs. (reduced to 21,248,000 lbs. on March 25, 1950)
Cheese-18,680,469 lbs. (reduced to 17,636,153 lbs. on March 28, 1950)
2.	With the exception of 1949 the net cost as shown above is approximately the amount of money required for purposes of handling products under the act. However, in 1949 the maximum funds required for financing were in the neighbourhood of $40 million, since butter, cheese, dry skimmed milk and honey stocks were held at one time in November, 1949, at a cost of close to $35 million.
3.	Up until March 15, 1950, more than half of the 48 million odd pounds of first grade creamery butter placed in storage by the board in 1949 had been regraded and resold for consumption in Canada. On regrading this amount of butter about 95 per cent of it was first grade creamery butter out of storage.
The direct answer, therefore, to the last question would be that about five per cent was under grade.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) be substituted for that of Mr. Adamson on the special committee on railways and shipping.
That the name of Mr. Ward be substituted for that of Mr. Weaver on the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Proposed Legislation
NATIONAL DEFENCE	ONTARIO-MANITOBA BOUNDARY

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: In reply to the inquiry made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) on March 23 and March 29, concerning evictions which were to take place from the emergency housing accommodation at the R.C.A.F. Sea Island station, I desire to state that information obtained from Vancouver is to the effect that owing to the progressive deterioration of the wartime constructed buildings which have been in use as emergency married quarters, and the fact that there has been some increase in availability of alternative accommodation, notice of intention to vacate the emergency married quarters by April 1, 1950, was given on December 1, 1949.
Seventy families were occupying emergency married quarters on December 1, 1949, and of these, sixteen have vacated quarters since notice was given. However, five families have been permitted to move in, so there are still fifty-nine families in occupation. No families will be put out, but exten-tions granted to continue occupancy must be of a temporary nature, as it is desirable that these emergency quarters be vacated as early as possible.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if there is any building project under way Which would provide housing accommodation for these non-commissioned officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force at Sea Island? If not, is it a fact that the government is accepting no responsibility for obtaining housing for these men and their families?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: I regret that I cannot answer the question at the moment. I will take it as notice.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 86, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF MANITOBA AND ONTARIO BOUNDARIES EXTENSION ACTS

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 87, to amend the Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, and the Ontario Boundaries Extension Act.


Mr. Graydon:: There should be an explanation of this bill.


Mr. Ralph Maybank (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: This is a very short bill,
making certain small changes in the boundary between the two provinces to correct errors which I fancy have been discovered in the surveys, and on which the surveyors have agreed. I might put it this way: that it is just to straighten out a jog.


Mr, Graydon:: This has no relation to the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer)?


Ralph Maybank: I understand that suggestion was that Saskatchewan should be wiped out. I rather think the effect of this change will be to take away thirty-six feet from Ontario and give it to Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Have any Canadian loans or credits, extended to overseas nations since 1946, been wiped out?
2.	If so, what loans or credits, and In what amount?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


YUKON RIVER
Mr. Green:: 1.	Has the government of Canada entered into negotiations or a contract with any corporation whereby water will be removed from the lakes at the headwaters of the Yukon river and conveyed to Alaska, there to be used to generate power for an aluminum plant? If so, with what corporation?
2.	Is that corporation Canadian?
3.	Is it a subsidiary company of a foreign corporation?
4.	If such a contract has been entered1 into, what are the terms?
5.	If such a contract is proposed or contemplated, what will the terms be?

6.	What compensation will Canada obtain for allowing Canadian waters used for a project in a foreign country?
7.	If preliminary or other work has been performed in Yukon on contemplation of such project, what has the work consisted of?
8.	Where has such work been done?
9.	Is any such work now in progress in Yukon, and if so, what work, and where is it being done?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
6.	Answered by No. 1.
7.	Surveys have been conducted on the Yukon river in the vicinity of Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, and in the vicinity of the Yukon-British Columbia boundary.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	No.


YACHT &quot;SANS PEUR&quot;
Mr. Herridge:: 1.	On what date was the Duke of Sutherland's yacht Sans Peur chartered from the British ministry of war transport?
2.	On what date was the Sans Peur handed over to the Royal Canadian Navy, and at what port?


Mr. Blancheiie:: 1.	October 12, 1939.
2.	October 13, 1939, at Esquimalt, B.C.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Mr. Argue:: When a wife and husband are each declared eligible for prairie farm assistance on the grounds that the wife owns and actually operates a farm apart and separate from her husband, must the wife (a) submit proof that she owns her own equipment, or produce receipts for payment of custom work; (b) show proof of having purchased supplies necessary for the operation of her farm; (c) have her own permit book?


Mr. McCubbin:: Proof of eligibility required for a wife claiming to own and operate a farm apart and separate from her husband is the same as for any other applicant.


COLD STORAGE
Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	How many applications were received for assistance in the construction of apple cold storages in Nova Scotia, during each of the years from 1939 to 1949?
2.	In each of these years how many such applications were approved?
3.	To whom and in what amounts was assistance given in each of these years?
Questions


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	1939, nil; 1940, nil; 1941, nil; 1942, nil; 1943, nil; 1944, nil; 1945, one; 1946, nil; 1947, one; 1948, two; 1949, nil.
2.	1939, nil; 1940, nil; 1941, nil; 1942, nil; 1943, nil; 1944, nil; 1945, one; 1946, nil; 1947, one; 1948, two; 1949, nil.
3.	United Fruit Companies of Nova Scotia, Limited:
1947	1948	1949
Canning,
N.S	
$42,830.87	$19,987.74Coldbrook, 1 $38,082.06	17,771.63	10,155.22Coldbrook, 2	....	....	37,009.59Middleton ..	____ _________ 36,629.90



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What sums have been paid out for benevolent, work by provinces, by the army benevolent fund, in each year since its inception in 1947, to date?
2.	What sums have been paid out for the same purposes in the same period, by provinces, by the navy benevolent fund?
3.	What sums have been paid out for the same purposes in the same period, by provinces, by the air force benevolent fund?


GENERAL A. G. L. MCNAUGHTON
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What sums of money, as (a) salary; (b) expenses, were paid to General A. G. L. McNaughton, during the year 1949, as (1) Canadian representative of United Nations atomic energy commission; (2) commissioner of the international joint commission; (3) Canadian chairman of the permanent joint board on defence; (4) chairman security council of the United Nations?
2.	What income tax was paid to the government of Canada in respect of such salaries and expenses?
3.	What is General McNaughton paid, as (a) salary; (b) expenses, as commissioner of the international joint commission?
4.	What does General A. G. L. McNaughton receive by way of pension as a retired officer of the Canadian permanent forces?



EASTER ADJOURNMENT FROM APRIL 5 TO APRIL 17

Alphonse Fournier: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, the 5th April, it stand adjourned until Monday, the 17th April next.


Mr. Knowles:: Is it the intention of the government to propose any changes in the order of business for next week? In other words, if this motion carries, shall we have private members' days on Monday and Wednesday, in accordance with standing order 15?

Old Age Security


Alphonse Fournier: I would not want to be too definite about it; I would have to consult my colleagues, but that was the understanding. Next Monday would be private members' day, and the Monday upon which we reconvene would be private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Railway Act to increase the annual grant to the grade crossing fund from $500,000 to $1,000,000 for six consecutive years, from April 1, 1951.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament on old age security.
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, had the government placed on the order paper in 1946 this resolution to set up a committee to investigate old age pensions, I think they could have been commended for their action. But when it appears on the order paper now, four years later, the people may well ask what the government have been doing in the meantime. The people will undoubtedly look upon it as a delaying action. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) admitted that that charge would, in all probability, be made. I think it is well to remember that during the war the government promised the people time and again that at the end of hostilities an over-all social security program would be brought down. Surely by now the government must have the necessary information to enable them to do that.
Unfortunately the failure of the government to enact such legislation to cover our senior citizens is resulting in various industries being required by their employees to institute pension schemes. The cost of these schemes is included in the price of the goods that the industry provides, without the general consumer benefiting in any way from such a pension scheme. Whilst there may be,

and undoubtedly is, some difference of opinion as to how far a scheme of social security would have to go before it may be termed adequate, there cannot be any doubt about the need for the government bringing down this session an over-all scheme of old age pensions based upon certain recognized standards. I would say there is an overwhelming volume of public opinion behind the demand for such action. Much credit is due to the various organizations that have been mobilizing public opinion behind the demand for pensions for our senior citizens.
The minister took a great deal of time in drawing attention to what we are doing for our old age pensioners in Canada, and what is being done in other countries. It is a pity that the minister did not also, at that time, draw a comparison between the per capita wealth of Canada and the per capita wealth of those countries with which he made comparisons. I should like to have seen the minister make a comparison between what we are doing in Canada and what the productive capacity of Canada is actually capable of providing.
Let me explain what I mean by a scheme based on recognized standards. Most people believe a pension payment should buy the old age pensioner food, clothing and shelter. Most members of the house would agree that would require an amount of at least $50 per month. When the minister spoke in this house two years ago he admitted that $50 per month would not be too much for that purpose. I believe there would be general agreement, therefore, that the basic pension must not be less than $50 per month. Then, it must be all-embracing so as to cover everyone, without being subjected to the humiliating and iniquitous means test. This would enable pensioners to enjoy additional comfort as a result of the savings they may have made in the past, or which may flow from jobs they are able to do in their old age. The pension must be paid at the generally recognized age of retirement, which I think most members will agree is sixty-five. Then, as production expands in relation to demand and unemployment increases, the government could very well reduce the age to sixty, so as to enable people to retire at that age from the labour market, and make way for the younger generation.
On the question of financing, I realize that we are on more controversial ground; but if we keep on a broad factual basis, I think we shall avoid a good deal of confusion. The principle of taxation on the basis of ability to pay is widely accepted in Canada. The federal government have the income tax field, and they also have control of the national

financial policy. We in this group therefore believe that the federal government should assume the whole financial responsibility for the payment of the old age pension, and that funds for payment should be obtained in part from those with taxable incomes. I shall deal later on with where the balance might be obtained.
We in Canada have established exemptions from income tax on the ground that incomes below that level are too low to tax; that is to say, for married people we have established the exemption at $2,000 and for single people at $1,000. Apparently we take the stand that persons who are obtaining those incomes are obtaining only enough money to meet living costs, and that we therefore should not reduce those incomes further by income tax. For exactly the same reason that level of income should not be reduced by levies for old age pensions or other purposes. I therefore suggest that only income tax payers should pay into the fund. Then, at the age of sixty-five, all persons should be eligible to receive the old age pension; but to the extent that the pension exceeds the amount of the income tax exemption, the pension could be reduced.
It is interesting to note that that is the attitude taken by the Old Age Pensioners' Society of Alberta. I have in my hand a brief that I believe was sent to all hon. members. I want to quote from the first section of it, which reads as follows:
1. We want the pension age reduced from seventy to sixty-five years for men and sixty years for women, and the basic pension raised from $40 per month to $50 per month without the means test.
We want the standard of living that ia recognized in the Income Tax Act. That is to say, the ceiling on income in the Old Age Pension Act for a single man over seventy years of age is $600, but the single man over sixty-five years of age is exempt from income tax below income of $1,500. The married man with wife over seventy years old in the Old Age Pension Act has a ceiling on income of $1,080. The married man with wife is exempt from income tax if his income is less than $2,500. What we maintain is that the same standard of living should be recognized m both acts, and that the old age pensioners, single and married, should have their ceiling on income raised to the level of the exemptions on income for single and married as in the Income Tax Act. Both are based on a standard of living.
I think all hon. members will agree that that is a logical stand to take. When the committee investigates a scheme for old age pensions, I think they could well give consideration to this point. It would mean that no deduction would be made in the pensions of married persons with incomes below $2,500, and that no deduction would be made in the pensions of single persons with incomes of less than $1,500. After all, persons with
Old Age Security
incomes over that amount at the age of sixty-five would be able to live quite nicely without the payment of a pension. But in the first instance the pension should be paid to everyone, and then it could be recovered by income tax, from those with incomes above that level.
We are told that such a proposal would create a heavy financial burden. I contend that it would have just the opposite effect, that the payment of a pension of that kind would actually be an insurance, in part at least, against depression and would also provide security for our senior citizens. One of the main problems we face today is the question of markets. Lack of markets means increased unemployment, which means a reduction in purchasing power, which means a reduction in effective demand and consequently a reduction in production, resulting in depression. I therefore think it is of primary importance to maintain the purchasing power of the people at a level that is sufficiently high to buy the production of the country; because if that is not done, production will be reduced and unemployment will increase, and consequently the income tax base will be reduced. I therefore think it is of primary importance, Mr. Speaker, to maintain the purchasing power of the people at a level that will buy the production of the country.
When family allowances legislation was introduced into the house, it is interesting to note that it was recognized that the payment of family allowances would help to maintain the purchasing power of the people and would consequently help to maintain full employment. I quote from a revised draft, dated February 23, 1949, headed "Family Allowances-a Children's Charter for Canada", paragraph 4:
As the years go by, family allowances can help to reduce sickness, disease, crime, illiteracy, inefficiency, and other social ills that have their roots in child upbringing. Since they are given to people who will spend the money, they will create a continuous demand for necessities which will result in increased production and employment.
You will get exactly the same result when you pay out money for old age pensions. Money paid out for that purpose will be spent, and consequently will help to maintain a demand against goods. Hence, Mr. Speaker, when surpluses appear and unemployment expands, the government will be justified in issuing national money for the purpose of buying our surpluses. To that extent, therefore, old age pensions should be financed by debt-free money instead of by expanding taxation, which would have the effect of reducing purchasing power. In that way you would be stabilizing the economy of Canada and helping to prevent a depression.

Old Age Security
I was amused by a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis) and quoted with approval by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The hon. member for Vancouver East, speaking on old age pensions, reiterated the statement that was quoted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. But in view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was specifically referring to a statement that was made last year, I am going to refer to that statement only. I would say . that this statement would undoubtedly be acclaimed by Wall street and by St. James street; and I cannot help thinking that every time a prominent socialist makes a statement of that kind there must be rumbles of deep belly-laughter in high places; because after all, if that policy is adopted, it means that you maintain a tight-money policy which bolsters the interest rate. Let me quote what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, and it is to be found at page 644 of Hansard:
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.
I am sure that all hon. members would agree heartily with that statement. He goes on to say:
In this connection, I will recall the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East 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 . . ."
He goes on:
"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."
There is a remark that I should like to interject at this point. Unfortunately the number of claims coming forward at any given time are not sufficient to move your total product, with the result that surpluses occur; and if these surpluses are allowed to grow you will have either destruction of wealth or reduction of production, which of course means an increase in unemployment, reduction in production, a reduced standard of living and consequently a reduction in the income tax base. I go on to quote the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
I believe those words of the hon. member for Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker, deserve to be reechoed in this house. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that social security has to be paid for out of production.

Again let me interject: I am sure that all hon. members would agree with that statement, but shortly afterward the minister made an entirely different statement. I quote:
With that in mind, what we wish to do is to develop, within the limits only of the financial capacity of our people.
If the minister had said, "within the productive capacity of the people," I would have agreed with him one hundred per cent; but financial capacity and productive capacity are two very different things. The Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Vancouver East apparently regard the market value of the national product and the national income as being synonymous. They both ignore the fact that national income is invariably less than the market value of your national product. That is true of Canada. It is true of all highly industrial nations. Unfortunately in this country we have never set up a committee to investigate the question of the potential productive capacity of the country. But such a body was set up in the United States of America. A body of experts was asked by the Hoover administration to make a survey of the potential productive capacity of the United States. That body, under the chairmanship of Dr. Harold Loeb, made a careful analysis of the relationship between the national income and the national product. I quote from the report that was issued by the chairman in 1935, entitled "The Chart of Plenty," at page 71:
The total national monetary income in 1929 did not equal the total price asked for the goods which could have been produced by the plant then existing. But instead of dropping prices until monetary income was able to command full production, which is the classical answer to this situation, prices were maintained and production was restricted. Consequently national monetary income did net in 1929, nor does it today, command the full production of our industrial plant. Which is another way of saying that the national income was not what it should have been. In fact since 1929 the national monetary income has been commanding an ever-decreasing volume of consumer goods, and the actual national income has become but a fraction of the possible national income.
I would not bother to take the time to quote this extract if it were merely an opinion, but it is a statement based upon facts, upon a survey made by this body of sixty engineers and experts appointed by the Hoover administration to investigate the relationship between the national income and the national production, which showed very clearly that the national income is not capable of buying the national product. But that is only part of the story. Even if the national income were equivalent to the market value of the national product, there would normally still be a lack of effective demand, owing to certain practices which are inherent in our system, such

as the practice of saving, the re-investment of savings, and especially the plowing back of undistributed profits into new production, thus causing certain moneys earned by industry to reappear as costs before being made available as consumer purchasing power, thereby of course causing a deficiency of purchasing power to that extent.
That has been the history ever since the industrial revolution. People say: Well, if that is true, why did not the system collapse many years ago? Well, you have only to take what has happened to see how that has been overcome. For two hundred years prior to 1914 England maintained a very favourable balance of trade. Reginald McKenna, former chancellor of the exchequer, said that England's prosperity was dependent upon England's disposing of a certain part of her production in that way. The money paid out in that production, which was exported abroad and for which no goods were brought back in return, was made available to buy the goods that were left in the country. The same thing is true of the United States of America. From 1914 to 1949 the United States of America had a favourable trade balance of over $100 billion worth of goods. To a lesser extent it is true of Canada. From 1935 to 1939 the Liberals were in power in this country, and on an average we maintained a favourable balance of trade of $219 million a year. Will any hon. member say that the reason we did not bring imports into the country in exchange for those exports was that the people did not need them, when at the same time we had over a million people on relief? The importers in this country knew very well that if we brought imports into the country in exchange for that favourable balance of trade the people would not have the money to buy them, and the imports were not brought into the country.
I would say that the best example of the nation's inability to purchase the national product out of the national income may be found in the financing of the last war. Hon. members will recall that during the last war we maintained our production at a very high level, and the federal government found it necessary to take approximately fifty per cent of that production for war purposes. In order to pay for that fifty per cent of the national production they raised taxation to a very high degree. They borrowed enormous sums from the people-not merely the savings out of current national income but also savings of past income. And yet in spite of the fact that they taxed at a level higher than this country ever dreamed of; in spite of the fact that they borrowed enormous sums from the people, they were not able to obtain enough money from the national income to buy the
Old Age Security
national product. Therefore during the war the government had the banking system create for their use over $4 billion worth of new money, $3 billion by the chartered banks and $1 billion by the Bank of Canada. It must be quite clear that it is not possible to finance the purchase of the national product by money from the national income. On the other hand it is true that the physical costs of servicing the country must be met out of the national product. As I have already pointed out, the national product and the national income are two different things.
It will be remembered that during the war time and again it was reiterated in this house by the prime minister, the minister of finance and others, that no financial restrictions would be allowed to impede the war effort. The only thing we had to consider was whether we had the men and the materials with which to prosecute the war. Provided that we had the men and the materials available, we did not hesitate to carry on the production of planes, ships and other things needed in the war. But what happened after the war? As soon as the war was over we found the government going back to the pre-war mentality. Instead of considering whether we could do this or that in terms of wealth, we consider whether we can do it in terms of finance. The Minister of National Health and Welfare adopted that attitude when he spoke in this house. He said: "With that in mind, what we wish to do is to develop, within the limits only of the financial capacity." You never heard that expression once during the war. Nobody ever raised the question whether we could afford the money to build a ship or a plane. It was one thing and one thing only-whether or not we had the men and materials available to do it. Now we are being told that it is a question of finance. We have the goods all right, but we cannot finance the purchase of those goods. So, as I say, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already gone back to that reactionary pre-war mentality.
I should like now to quote from a memorandum presented to the dominion government by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada on March 9, 1950. This is a memorandum which, I suggest, should be studied carefully by every member. I refer particularly to page 4, where it states:
Throughout its history the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada has advocated that finance be the servant and not the master of the people. We strongly urge your government to take steps to revamp our financial operations. We note the continued existence of hungry people in many parts of the world and their needs for food and essentials of life. In Canada our producers are losing their markets rather than expanding them, only

Old Age Security
because our financial bottlenecks prevent the necessary adjustments whereby the growing chasm between our producers and the vast potential markets for their goods could be bridged. When we see such a situation we urge your government to find an effective solution to this problem of financing our home and overseas business. We are not prepared to remain as quiet bystanders watching the failure of our financial operations which, if allowed to continue, in effect will definitely assist in the spread of communism.
I do not think truer words than these were ever spoken. I am satisfied that if in future we allow surpluses to pile up on the one hand, and people to starve on the other, and permit a condition to continue under which the people who produce those goods cannot dispose of them because people requiring them have not the money we shall be permitting a very serious situation to exist in our country.
Some say that pensions should be on a contributory basis, meaning by that a basis similar to contributions to a pension fund on an individual basis. We in this group are definitely opposed to such a proposal, and for a number of reasons.
First of all, it would not be all-embracing. Those unable to contribute would not qualify; hence people in the low income group would derive no benefits from a scheme of that kind. I have in mind particularly subsistence farmers and small fishermen. Second, if contributions are on a compulsory individual basis, we will run into constitutional difficulties, and will also require complicated machinery for collecting the contributions. In either event the scheme would be greatly delayed. If on the other hand it was suggested that these benefits be available through voluntary contributions, I would point out that we already have that machinery available in the form of government annuities. My chief objection however to a compulsory contributory scheme is that people in low income groups require their total income to pay their living costs.
One point upon which I should like to touch before closing is that consideration should be given by the committee to including within the framework of the Old Age Pensions Act people who are permanently incapacitated, either physically or mentally. Some years ago the blind were included, and we believe the time has now come to include incurables within the act.
I would urge that in reviewing old age pension proposals the committee keep one main question in mind, namely the productive capacity of Canada, the ability to provide the goods required to meet the needs of an over-all old age pension scheme. If that capacity exists, then no artificial financial limitation should be allowed to defeat it. It
[Mr. Queleh.l	1
is time that once again the House of Commons should remember the statement made in the house time and again during the war, that anything physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible.


Mr. Little:: Mr. Speaker-


Ralph Maybank: It had not been my intention to make any extended reference to the position thus far disclosed by members of the Social Credit party, and I would not do so now were it not for one or two observations by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) who has just spoken. I believe that toward the latter part of his speech he showed a very good reason for the setting up of a committee of this kind.
I find the hon. member using a number of terms which have been used by others but from all I can understand they do not use those terms in the sense in which he uses them. It seems to me one of the necessary things in connection with old age pension, or any other social security problem, is that we clearly understand the terms, and that we all have the same understanding of them.
I caught the hon. member speaking about "contributions" as though he thought contributions were pretty much like premiums on an insurance policy-or, if he did not think so himself, that he was under the impression many others did. Well, I, and a great many with whom I have spoken, do not hold any such views. It seems to me this confusion in terms is one reason for a complete examination of the question at this time.
There is of course a sharp difference of opinion among most members of the house- and I fancy most people in the country-and the Social Credit party, with respect to the manner in which a comprehensive old age pension plan should be financed. I listened to the hon. member saying, in effect, that family allowances, to the tune of about $300 million, have done much toward upholding the economy of the country; that when family allowances were instituted, arguments in favour of them were made in this house, saying just that sort of thing.
In his statement the hon. member is correct, because such statements were made, and I think they were sound. Experience has justified the making of them. It does not follow, however, that something which is true under one set of circumstances will be equally and universally true under other circumstances. "Circumstances alter cases" is an old saying in which there is a great measure of truth. It does not follow that because expenditures of $300 million through family allowance payments do good in the way described, that the same sort of thing, to the

extent of a billion or two billion dollars, would have the same result, only in larger measure.
Surely that kind of reasoning must have some terminus. If such reasoning is applicable to money, then I am sure it would be asked why it could not be applicable to anything else. I am sure all hon. members will agree that while a drink of whisky may be exhilarating, and two drinks of whisky may be exhilarating, and three drinks-I do not know just how much further I should go in the counting, but we all know that a certain amount is exhilarating-there does come a time with practically everyone when the amount of whisky consumed does not exhilarate any longer, but rather it de-exhilarates. It knocks out. I do not know just where the taking of whisky should stop. With some of us it should stop before it starts, but some can go on for quite a while. That is the kind of argument that is made with reference to these so-called "support-the-economy payments": that if $300 million will be beneficial in supporting the economy when paid out as family allowances, an additional $1 billion paid out to old age pensioners, with the money just manufactured for the purpose, would do even more. It may be that in the proposed committee an examination of that sort of doctrine can take place. It may be that by process of question and answer we can come to an understanding of how far our Social Credit friends would like to go in this direction. It might even be that the rest of us, and the country at large, could determine how much sense there is in this doctrine and how much moonshine. Personally I have endeavoured to be as sympathetic as possible toward what I have heard, but I am forced to say I observe more moonshine than sense in social credit.
In thinking of this subject of social security Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a line of Lord Tennyson. It is an apt axiom to guide our thinking. It is:
Watch what main-currents draw the years.
It seems to me the "main-current" of the years at present is the movement towards social security. For my part I am happy to be living at a time when men and women are paying so much attention to this, and are seeking to achieve such a benefit for themselves and others. I suggest that the achievement of social security is of necessity a process of evolution. It has to come step by step. I think that is the case with all reforms. I suggest that the Russian revolution of 1917 was an incident that should fortify us in that view. The establishment of this committee is one of the necessary steps in an evolution. I certainly approve
Old Age Security
wholeheartedly of its being set up. I think such a committee can obtain and record all sorts of information that may be of great value to the people of Canada as well as to members of the House of Commons.
Since anything resulting from the work of the committee and other conferences must have the wholehearted support of the people of Canada, it is important that all possible information should be obtained. I emphasize the point for this reason. At the present time, when Canadian government revenues are not as luxuriant as they have been-j and they may continue to be not as luxuriant -a considerable number of people appear to be carrying on propaganda against what is commonly called social security, or, as they contemptuously express it at times, the welfare state. We see this not only in Canada but in a great many other countries. I believe the work of the committee can do a great deal by way of spreading facts on the record to negate this sort of propaganda so far as it is inaccurate or false.
I suggest that social security is a system to attempt to minimize the penalty for lack of financial success in our competitive society. Relatively few people can save enough in their most useful years to sustain them in the years when they are too old or too feeble to work.


Mr. Low:: Yes, because the government taxes most of their incomes out of them.


Ralph Maybank: I do not know why the hon. gentleman wants to make a speech at this precise moment, but I suggest that he should not attempt to do so right now, because I want to make one myself, and I have not quite enough time to conclude the remarks I had intended to make. As I was saying, relatively few can save enough to take care of themselves in their old' age or in periods of insecurity brought about by other causes. I suppose it is a fact that no person would be deliberately allowed to starve, but merely to have starvation prevented is not, as everybody will agree, social security. In my opinion social security is in the first place a recognition that those who have contributed to the national production should at least have the care of society when they cannot continue to contribute any longer. Second, it is a recognition that it should be received as a matter of right, and it should be received without humiliation.
In the motion before us we are only dealing with one aspect of social security, that of an adequate and sure old age pension. It must be that from the work of this committee a way will be seen to accomplish what we desire In the way of old

Old Age Security
age pension. The pension must be adequate, and it must be obtained as a matter of right. I think there is widespread agreement about the question of the means test. It must go. Contrary to some of the views that have been expressed in the house, I say at once that I believe the only certain way of doing this is to provide for old age pensions as a matter of contractual right.
Because I do not expect to be a member of this committee I should like to make some observations about the sort of thing that I hope the committee will discover and place before the Canadian people. As to the question of contractual right, it seems to me that when a contribution is paid, then we have the pension on that basis, the likelihood of any government having the temerity or effrontery to change the amount or conditions of payment adversely after the contract is made is reduced to practically zero. When there is no contract, the danger of reduction or changed conditions is always present. Some government will be more solicitous of its treasury than of the aged. The socialist government of Saskatchewan, having offered, with great fanfare, an old age pension increase, seized on the first plausible pretext to cut it. Socialists like to boast they are "in the van." They were in the van in trying to pare down old age pensions. Neither their act nor a somewhat similar act in the Tory province of Ontario would have been possible if we had had pensions on a contractual basis. So, from the point of view of benefit to recipients of old age pensions, a contributory system is by far the best system for us to adopt. There was a remark from the socialist benches a moment or two ago by way of defence against something I said, and it reminds me to point out a truth. We find socialists inveighing from time to time against what they are pleased to call the tardiness or the parsimony of the government of Canada. I think every person will agree, Mr. Speaker, that old age pensions legislation is not all it ought to be; but the record of the years can be searched in vain for an attempt by any Liberal government anywhere to seek to take something away from the old age pensioners, as the socialists of Saskatchewan did at the first opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You reduced the other
income allowable a year ago.


Ralph Maybank: Not only that; for the extra $2.50 they say they give they impose a special means test on their people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stick to the facts.


Ralph Maybank: Well, all right, Mr. Speaker. Apparently hon. gentlemen wish to make

intermittent speeches, but these will be shown to be facts before this committee; or if they can show they are not facts, they will have that opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fair enough.


Ralph Maybank: Old Age Security
resides in a committee. This mythical complaint stems from the member for Eglinton's experience on another committee. He regaled us with all his recollections of his experiences at that time. The trouble is that his statements do not square with facts. His trouble at that time was that he did not know what his rights and duties were, and because of his ignorance on that point he was helpless, and not very useful. One might have hoped that the passage of time would cure him with respect to this lack of knowledge. Unfortunately there does not appear to have been any advance. Perhaps he is a bit like the Bourbons, of whom it was said that they neither learned anything nor forgot anything.
The hon. member also read on behalf of his party some brave sounding phrases from their platform. The platform stated his party was in favour of pensions without a means test. The statement he read goes on to say, however, that there must be provincial agreement about this. We all know, and the country knows very well, what the Conservatives mean when they talk about provincial agreement. It has been made quite plain in this house that provincial agreement means unanimity. They have made it quite plain that there cannot be any kind of development in the country unless each provincial government gives its acceptance of the proposal.
A short while ago an esteemed member made a reference to the entrance of Newfoundland into this confederation. Despite the fact he came from the opposition side of the house, he spoke in what I thought were felicitous and acceptable terms. Every person was glad to hear him speak in this manner- even happier perhaps because the words were spoken by one who was on the opposition side of the house. As a matter of fact, we who were here remember that the Conservative party would have carried this unanimity idea to the extent that they would only have allowed Newfoundland into confederation if Mr. Duplessis would not have vetoed it. The Canadian people have shown that they know quite well that, no matter what promises are contained in the first sentence of a Conservative manifesto, there will be a "joker" around the middle of it. Unfortunately for the Conservative party, the ability of the people to read is not exhausted after the first ten, fifteen or twenty-five lines of print in one of their documents.
I wish to revert to some remarks that were made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about these contributory old age pensions. I believe the statements should be examined. This member has'indicated he is against a contributory old age pension plan, and that his party is against

it. He is in favour of a contributory plan only if everything is comprehended in it. According to him a contributory plan is all right for complete social security, but not for any part of it. This really means that he and his colleagues would favour the institution of several different sections of a social security program, one by one or all together. No one of these sections would be directly contributory. All possible sections of a social security program would have to be developed before any contribution could be required. It would be only after all sections of the social security plan had become effective that he, or they, would say the plan should be put on a contributory basis.
Just for example, take the idea of a pension of $50 per month payable at the age of sixty-five without a means test. This would involve a cost of $615 million annually, and in ten years the cost would probably be around a billion dollars. Family allowances are now about $300 million, and health costs account for quite a number of millions today. As soon as health insurance is introduced, we will expect some hundreds of millions more to be added to the social security expenditure. The socialist plan would be to have no direct contribution for any of those schemes at all until everything was complete, and then a contribution towards this social security measure could be exacted.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this would be very difficult for any government to do. In the second place, the element of contractual right on the part of the recipient would not exist. I should point out, too, that even the socialists admit that benefits must be paid for by contributions or from some form of taxation.
If there is no direct contribution or tax, then there has to be payment by indirect taxation. If income taxes were doubled, it would not be enough to pay for it by way of ordinary taxation and they would have to revert to indirect taxation; that is to say, these taxes would be hidden and it would be denied that there was any contribution toward social security. My comment on that is that it is a most cruel form of taxation. It takes away a great deal from people who are least able to pay and it is just about the .harshest sort of taxation there can be. Since they know that pensions must be paid for, and since they say there will not be direct contributions surely they must admit that the way they would finance social security is by many hidden taxes. The people all the time would be gulled-or the attempt to gull them would be made-that they were paying nothing for this social security. I think it is

just possible that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be credited with a smart form of political double talk.


Mr. Maclnnis:: You ought to know.


Ralph Maybank: Yes, I have listened to a great deal of it and I have become a fairly good judge. We have a plethora of double talk from the socialist corner and naturally I have become an expert in the discernment of it. I rather think that the acme of smart double talk has been reached by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that his colleagues will have to look to their laurels to catch up with him. It might well be, speaking of them and this proposal and their smartness, that an entirely different judgment would be rendered by impartial people when they were speaking of their integrity; it might be.
Before I close I wish to advert to certain other statements-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit an interjection?


Ralph Maybank: Not just at this moment, if the hon. member does not mind,


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just want it to be known-


Ralph Maybank: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that he just wanted it; and children are always like that: "I just want it now".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Ralph Maybank: He should wait until I am through. He has no right to interrupt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order.


Ralph Maybank: A point of order is a horse of another colour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to say that I was prepared not to raise a point of order; but since the hon. member would not let me say that, I shall now have to do so. Mr. Speaker, is it in order to accuse another member of the house of a smart form of political double talk? If it is in order, and the hon. member wants to say it, all right. But I question whether that is parliamentary language.


Ralph Maybank: May I speak to the point of order, Your Honour. What I said was that it may well be that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be credited with an extremely high order-or low order, the nadir-of smart double talk. These were my words. It may be that he will be so credited. I added, with reference to him and others, that it is also possible that in point of integrity a different sort of answer would be reached. If that was not in order, and you so declare, Mr. Speaker, I shall bow to your
Old Age Security
ruling and withdraw it. On the other hand, referring particularly to a certain remark I made, the hon. member said: "If the hon. gentleman wants to say it." Well, I do want to say it. I said what I was intending to say. I meant it, every word of it; and even if I were forced to withdraw it, I would still think it. If I am in order, I will continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To save time, Mr. Speaker, may I withdraw the point of order and say that I am quite prepared to submit my record to the people of Winnipeg North Centre.


Ralph Maybank: Quite so. I hope we can at least say that he has pronounced the benediction for himself and that he is now indicating that his contributions are closed for a little while. We cannot be sure, of course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Ralph Maybank: He may want to make another remark of the same sort. I suppose, however, this sort of thing is like fleas on a dog; the dog has to put up with them.
Before I close I have to say that there are some statements attributed to my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), with which I cannot quite agree. He, by the way, is my own member of parliament. I live in his constituency. I am satisfied with the representation I get. That is a general statement. But in certain remarks as reported in the press and in certain remarks in this house, he does not represent me adequately. There is an area of disagreement between us.
We part company, for example, when he describes the Canadian people as a fear-ridden people. He has conveyed the idea, it seems to me, that the Canadian people are so fear-ridden that they are striving frantically to effect security. Either the idea that they are fear-ridden has caused him to think that the people are frantically striving for security or else he thinks they are frantically striving for security and from that fact he concludes that they are ridden with fear. In the first place, I do not agree that the Canadian people are a fear-ridden people. I think there is a moral robustness about my co-citizens the equal of which is not to be found in most countries of the world, and which is not excelled in any country of the world. One will not deny that in every country there are some poltroons. I suppose Canada may have some but they are an inconsequential number, and as such they are clearly the exception to the general run of Canadians. I think that one should not single out an exceptional few for discussion and in such a discussion declare a conclusion about the Canadian people as a whole. Nor do I think there is a tendency on

Old Age Security
the part of the Canadian people to lean too heavily on government. The socialist endeavour to encourage them to do so has not borne fruit. The socialists did all they could to encourage people to follow them, with all their promises of getting something for nothing. The mere fact that there is such a small number of socialists in the house is in itself an evidence tending to show that Canadians scorn that sort of idea.


Mr. Thatcher:: Do not be too complacent.


Ralph Maybank: I am just laying down the facts as they are at the moment. There really was no bargain-counter rush to obtain something for nothing from our socialist friends.
Again, the party to which I belong made it quite clear that social security had to be paid for. We were quite specific about it, and there is a large number of my party representing the people of Canada in this house at the present time. This, too, tends to show that our people are not wanting to lean too heavily on government.
In my opinion my colleague is wrong when he seeks to draw a distinction between social security and social justice. I never heard of social justice as a political maxim in the course of the election. Social security, yes, but not the other. I think it is a mistake-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he has exhausted his time.


Ralph Maybank: Very well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to [DOT]continue?


Ralph Maybank: I am nearly finished. If the house will permit me I shall conclude in a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Let him finish.


Ralph Maybank: Thank you. As a matter of fact I think no distinction should be drawn between these two terms. I think that one of them is an abstract term and the other concrete. They are not antipathetical. Social security is the manifestation of social justice, or one of its manifestations. In order to get a full measure of social justice you have to achieve social security. I suggest to my colleague that it is mistaken thinking that belief in one excludes belief in the other.
It is also objected-it has been objected by him-that people make sharp inquiries about such things as superannuation when applying for employment, as though it indicated a softness or a fear. I confess I see nothing wrong with this. I think it is a mark of intelligence, not a mark of fear. After all, what is wrong with people in this day and age

turning their thoughts seriously-and very seriously-and constantly, to endeavouring to accomplish a plan of security and comfort in old age? All of us can see the devastating effects of poverty. They are manifest everywhere in sickly bodies, stunted minds and problem souls. It is a fact that without help most people cannot possibly get freedom from that poverty in old age. That is to say, without help they cannot get what we call old age security. Here and there a person can struggle against grinding poverty, can make it sharpen his wits, can, through it, develop his determination and his ability. And so he will rise on obstructions to achievement. But where one triumphs over poverty a great many are broken or stunted by it. Hence it is no more than natural that people should seek constantly some means whereby penury in old age can be avoided. When we remember that one may succeed, we should not let the achievement of that one blind us to the breaking of the many.
We must never forget that poverty is wrong, vastly wrong, for it customarily produces those damaged bodies, minds and souls of which I have spoken. Therefore when people turn their minds and hearts to the avoidance of poverty they are acting naturally and sensibly. A person who thinks that way with respect to himself is using no more than common sense. When people think and strive in this fashion for the avoidance of poverty for other people their thoughts and their actions are simply applied Christianity. I cannot decry either common sense or Christianity.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I was going to take only five minutes on this matter, but in view of the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken I think I shall take ten. Probably I am a little biased, but I did not think that several of his remarks were quite fair, and they were not quite up to the speech that the hon. member usually makes. For instance, I did not like his statement that socialists are always decrying their own country. I do not think I have ever decried my country. I may have decried the government, but not our nation. I am quite proud of my country, just as proud as is the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: He does not know the difference.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am not going to take time to rehash a lot of political arguments.


Mr. Martin:: No, let us get on.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: However, there are one or two things I should like to refute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am approving.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: There are one or two things I must say. The hon. member who has just

spoken did not think that Saskatchewan has done a very good job on old age pensions. Certainly we have not done as well as we should have liked, but I can say that we have done considerably better than his Liberal friends in Manitoba. In Saskatchewan today we are paying a supplementary pension of $2.50 a month, which is not paid in Manitoba, and we are also giving hospitalization and medical care, which is worth at least $5 a month. This in total is about $7.50 a month better than my friends in Manitoba.
The hon. member who has just spoken suggested that we had a means test on the supplementary $2.50. We have a means test, but it is the means test which has been formulated and legislated by the federal government. We are only carrying it out. I am sure my hon. friend could hardly object to that. The member for Winnipeg South Centre said to his knowledge the Liberals have never cut down the old age pension. Well, they may not have cut down the pension, but in April, 1949, when the pension was raised, I remember they cut the extra income allowed, from $20 to $10 for single persons and from $30 to $10 for a married couple; therefore I think the effect was the same.
As I say, I am not going to talk politically this afternoon, but in fairness I thought the hon. member should realize these facts. I thought it was significant that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. May-bank) spent five minutes dissociating himself from his colleague from Winnipeg South. Many of us did wonder whether it was significant that on the day before the Minister of National Health and Welfare brought in this resolution a parliamentary assistant-the member for Winnipeg South-was describing social security as a snare, a delusion and a fraud.
I was a little surprised too at my good friend, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith), the other day, when he said that there would always be a means test on the old age pension. He said that opposition to the means test is just window-dressing. If there are many Liberals in the house who go along with that kind of philosophy, Canada's old age pensioners may have to wait quite a while for much needed reforms, from a Liberal government.
The resolution before us today calls for the setting up of a committee to study this whole question. As many opposition members have said, the chief fear we have is that the minister and the government may use this committee, as a kind of stall or a political dodge, to avoid taking action. We have seen that happen so often in the past that we fear such
Old Age Security
action today. We saw it happen on the prices committee; we saw it happen on the flag committee; and we saw it happen on the Indian committee. Repeatedly in the past, the government has used committees of this kind as a stall. We hope it is not going to do so this time.
Several weeks ago the minister gave an undertaking that this committee is not going to be used as a political dodge. I sincerely hope that his undertaking will be lived up to, because I am one who believes that this committee could serve a useful purpose.
Like other Canadians, I wish today that the government was placing before us concrete and tangible legislation which would be of some help to those who need assistance at once. After all, a committee to "study" the problem is not going to be of immediate help. Nevertheless I can realize the very real difficulties which face the government in bringing about the pension reforms that we want. I think most hon. members agree that there are about three main weaknesses in our present legislation. The age limit, of course, is too high, the amount of pension is too low, and the means test is something which is pretty vicious. All political parties recognize those weaknesses. I believe most members of all political parties today wish to do something about it. The question which this committee must decide is the best method which can be used to bring about the reforms we desire.
According to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), several weeks ago
293,000	Canadians are today receiving pension assistance. I believe he stated that the federal government is paying $103 million annually toward the cost, and the provincial governments are paying $32 million. In most places in which I have been in Canada I have frequently heard three specific reforms asked for. Most Canadians want a pension of at least $50, an age limit of sixty-five, and the abolition of the means test. That is the platform of the C.C.F. party, and I subscribe to it. Under certain circumstances, I believe it is absolutely feasible.
What would these reforms cost? As near as I can ascertain-if the means test came off, the number of pensioners would immediately rise from 293,000 to 675,000. Again, if my figuring is correct, such action would increase the cost of pensions to about $330 million. Then, if in addition we brought in the other two reforms, namely the age limit of 65, and the pension of $50 per month, it would cost about $660 million.
Every citizen will realize what that would mean. It would place an almost staggering burden upon a budget which, as we saw the
13S0

Old Age Security
other night, is already bursting at the seams.
There is one other point to remember, and that is the fact that medical science has made tremendous progress since the turn of the century. If it continues to make the same progress in the next fifty years, Canadians may hope to live to the age of ninety years. A child who was born at the turn of the century, could expect to live only forty-eight years in Canada. Today, in Canada a male child has a life expectancy of sixty-six years and, a female child, seventy-one years.
All this can mean only one thing, so far as old age pensions are concerned, and that is that pensions are going to be even more costly in the future. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) stated that C.C.F. members are always crying for something for nothing. I say that is not correct. We C.C.F. members who want pension reforms have no illusions, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has said, as to how they have to be paid for. They have to be paid for out of work, out of production, and out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
During the past week I received a letter from a trade union in the city in which I live. Last week I voted against a pension amendment offered by the Social Credit group, because it called for the deletion ^ of the word "contributory". This union, which is one of the largest in my city-I believe it has about twelve hundred members-has written to me, and I should like to place several paragraphs of the letter on Hansard. They say:
Our organization wish to express their disapproval of the stand taken by yourself in the recent debate in the House of Commons on the question of old age pensions ... We feel that the matter of old age pensions is a direct government responsibility, and cannot see the necessity for all workers to contribute to their old age pensions.
Trusting you will reconsider . . .
That union has done a wonderful job for the workers of Moose Jaw. Politically, I owe a great deal to it-indeed, I suppose I might not be here today if it had not supported me. Nevertheless, as their representative I must tell them that in my opinion they are labouring under a delusion and a misapprehension, if they believe that they can have pension reforms without contributing in one way or another to the cost. I wish they could have them without paying, but I am afraid the facts of life are otherwise. I have advised them accordingly.
I would like to see the means test removed right away, if we can find enough money to take such action. However, I admit frankly that if the means test is removed, it will probably have to be done on a completely

federal basis. I think of the government in my own province of Saskatchewan. I do not know what would happen if tomorrow morning the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, "We are going to eliminate the means test on the present basis." Such action would mean that the provincial government would have to pay a quarter of the cost. Frankly, I am afraid the government in Saskatchewan, and those in eight or nine other provinces, would have to renege, because they would lack the funds to pay that 25 per cent.
If the means test is to be eliminated-and I say again I would like to see it eliminated- it will have to be done on a federal basis. Otherwise the federal government will have to give the provincial governments other sources of revenue. It is as simple as that.
I said a moment ago that I believe the C.C.F. program for old age pensions is a feasible one, but I also say that I am one who believes it is feasible only if pensions are to be on a contributory basis of some kind.
I do not care what method is used, whether it is a flat levy on earnings, or whether the worker pays so much, the company so much, and the government so much. But I do believe that if we are going to have pension reform in Canada it has to be on a contributory basis of some kind. One such method has been advocated by the leader of my party. He has said that there should be a levy on all earnings above a minimum level, according to ability to pay. There may be difficulties in the way of bringing about a contributory old age pension scheme. The constitutional angle for instance has been mentioned.
I believe, however, that if there is a genuine desire on the part of the federal government, and a genuine desire on the part of provincial governments, we can soon have a contributory old age pension scheme in this country.
Let me repeat that I support the setting up of this committee, because I believe it could lay the groundwork for decent old age pensions in Canada. It seems to me that it is common sense to study the systems in New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, the United States and elsewhere, to reject the worst features of those pension schemes, and to take the best features in order to weld together a system for Canada.
I take the word of the minister, that this committee will not be a smoke screen; I hope he meant what he said. When the vote comes I shall support the motion.


Mr. J. H. Rooney (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clear up a statement made under date of September 27 last when the

Evening Telegram of Toronto carried a charge made by the Toronto labour council that "Rooney campaigned for 60 at 60 without the means test, and then voted against it when it was brought up in the house".
Under date of October 5, 1949, I received the following communication from the Toronto district labour council:
Be it resolved that the Toronto labour council condemns:
(a)	the attitude of Toronto and district Liberal members of parliament who recently refused to vote m favour of a motion in the Canadian House of Commons abolishing the means test for old age pension despite campaign promises to the contrary, and
(b)	the action of the Toronto Daily Star in suppressing the news of this vote in its columns.
And be it further resolved that we instruct the secretary to write to all Toronto district members of parliament who failed to vote against the means test requiring an explanation of their stand and communicate our feelings to the Toronto Star trustees.
Anticipating your reply, I remain
Yours truly,
Gwen Richardson,
Office Secretary.
My answer dated October 7, 1949, reads as follows:
Toronto District Labour Council,
167 Church street, Toronto.
Sirs: Your letter of October 5, 1949, received and contents noted.
I was sorry the Toronto labour council took the attitude it did in condemning people without knowledge of the facts. I also take exception to your Eamon Park, publicity director of the united steelworkers union, when he stated that I had campaigned for pensions without a means test. Never during my campaign was the means test mentioned.
If your body wishes my co-operation, as I had promised to you under a letter from me dated June 4, and addressed to W. D. Kearns, vicepresident, Toronto district labour council, Labour Temple, 167 Church street, Toronto, I would ask you to make sure of the facts before you put my name in the paper or pass any resolutions. I am enclosing circular dated May 30, 1949, from the Toronto district labour council, and I am also enclosing a copy of my letter as outlined above, in answer to same. You will notice that in my letter on your circular nothing was said of the means test.
In reference to paragraph (b) of your resolution I would say that the Toronto Daily Star was right in not publishing this news until they were sure of the facts, and may I be bold enough to say that it would be far better for your council to do the same thing. Over the period of years that I have been in the city of Toronto I believe I have done much to secure work for the unemployed, and it is my intention to carry on that work. I have never done this work from a political standpoint. I did it because during the trying times of the thirties I knew the hardship of the unemployed.
I am also enclosing my campaign pledges, and for your information in my campaign addresses I only appealed for the support of those who thought I had done a fair job for the people of St. Paul's.
Old Age Security
Anyone in the city of Toronto to whom I could be of assistance always knew that my door was open. I am your friend. I have always been, and I hope to continue so.
Sincerely yours,
J. H. Rooney.
I did not use the abolition of the means test as a campaign issue, Mr. Speaker. I never spoke on any political platform nor over the air on the abolishing of the means test. Furthermore, I never at any time even mentioned the means test in any of my campaign literature.


Mr. Noseworihy:: Are you in favour of removing it?


James Hendrick Rooney: I did not campaign on the means test last June-and this is your answer-but I am and always have been one hundred per cent behind the abolition of the means test. I am not only behind it; I beg this house and this government to be the ones who will make it possible. I am, however, going a step further than my colleagues. I advocate $60 at sixty years. Members of the house are professional and business men. My friends over there are laughing at me. I ask you man to man whether you would hire a min of sixty years of age or over? You know and I know that you would not. I am besieged with letters and telephone calls every day from men who are unemployed. The vast majority of them are from fifty up to seventy years of age. They spend days, weeks, months at the unemployment offices. You and I know that the vast majority will never be placed.
Have you ever taken a look at a man of sixty years of age who has earned his daily bread as a labourer?


Mr. Fleming:: The minister should listen to this.


James Hendrick Rooney: Have you ever taken a good look at a man of sixty years of age who has carried coal on his back for thirty years? Have you ever taken a good look at men who have toiled in offices, shipping rooms, et cetera, from the time they were boys of seventeen and eighteen years, and have never got to first base? I have-


Joseph William Noseworthy: Tell that to your minister.


James Hendrick Rooney: You and I know that the vast majority of men who have managed to keep themselves and their families in a respectable way, and still have managed to call the roofs over their heads their own by the time they are sixty or sixty-five years of age, are very lucky men. They are also very tired men. My plea for old age pensions is not just an impossible fancy. I base it on my experience

Old Age Security
during the depression. I do not think there is a man in this house who can speak with the experience that I had during the thirties. In the mornings, from 9 o'clock on, my room was filled with the finest of young Canadian citizens ready and willing to work, but what did we do? I am sorry to say we did nothing. Yes, we gave them a small hand-out every week, but if we had added another $7 per week and put them to work doing something, for example, building roads or power plants, things which we are now doing, it would have saved their morale, and in turn we would have had something to show for the extra money paid. We have nothing to show for the hand-out.
The city of Toronto has a wonderful island within its boundaries. We could have had a paradise and a great asset to the city. I tried and they said it was not practical, that Rooney was a dreamer. I acknowledge I am a dreamer. I dream that in some small way I can bring happiness to everyone in this great country of ours which has so much to offer but not people with enough imagination. You will want to, know where the $60 per month comes in. If we retired those who were sixty years of age we would thereby make work for those seventeen and eighteen and over who are out of work. If we do not, what do you expect these young people to do? That is the source of so much of the juvenile crime about which we hear so much today.
You will ask how it is to be paid. There are many ways. As an accountant holding the degrees of C.P.A., F.A.E. and R.I.A., I hope you will appreciate that I know bookkeeping entries. Let us think of Donald Gordon, chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways, who, when appearing before the royal commission on transportation, gave the following information and plans. He pointed out that interest-bearing securities held by the government amounted to $760,494,825.11, and that interest received by the government during 1948 was $21,627,032.82. Then the house is asked to vote to cover a deficit of $33,532,741.12. The suggestion made is to exchange the $760 million of interest-bearing securities held by the government for equity capital, and that the government should acknowledge an indebtedness to the Canadian National Railways in the amount of $300 million to bear interest at 3 per cent until discharged. This would be set up in the accounts of the Canadian National Railways as a capital fund to be drawn on from time to time to retire interestbearing obligations in the hands of the public, or for capital additions to the property.

I cite this as an example. Let us set up a fund, the capital assets for which would be our citizens and resources which are unlimited. I realize that during the last fifty years a steady and constant rise has taken place in the average length of life of the people and that life expectancy has increased by about one-third. For instance, a child born in 1900, according to the insurance companies, had a life expectancy of forty-eight years. Today a male child has a life expectancy of sixty-six years and a female seventy-one years. If medical science makes as much progress in the next fifty years we can look forward to a span of life of ninety years. I know that would mean changes in our economic life, and we would have an enormous new demand for certain types of goods and services. If we have to worry about what will happen in 1971, I say give Canada back to the Indians and let us start over again. Canada will be a great nation with a large population and well able to look after her citizens by 1971; and by 1988, if we have imagination, we should be as big and as prosperous as our neighbour the United States and have our own gold, which God put in the ground for us, to back our dollars and our obligations.
In connection with mining I want to quote from The Northern Miner:
This year the Canadian mining industry will reach a grand total of $2 billion paid in dividends.
Last year the mines distributed a record of $118 million.
That was more than the combined dividends of- all the banks all the oils all the liquors
and all the pulp and paper companies.
At present the basic pension is $40 a month at the age of seventy, with a means test. The federal government contributes $30 and the provinces $10, while some provinces are paying bonuses. According to my figures British Columbia now makes an added payment of $10 without the means test. Alberta pays an additional $7.50 without the means test. Saskatchewan pays $2.50 with the means test; and in addition all three provinces provide complete medical care and hospital service free of charge. I know the removal of the means test would bring in the remainder of the 625,000 citizens in Canada over seventy years of age, according to my figures, or the
675,000	according to my hon. friend.
This is a great country, but we must realize the fear of the aged. Freedom from fear was set down as one of the great freedoms for which mankind longed; but the fear from which the aged seek freedom is intense and practical. It is the haunting fear not only of lack of means but of facing failing health

alone without the assurance of some place of care and someone to care for them. That, Mr. Speaker, is our responsibility.
I have in my hand an account of the Moose River mine disaster in April, 1936, with which hon. members are familiar. All Canada stayed awake to hear news of Alfred Scad-ding, the late Dr. D. E. Robertson, and the other man who died in the mine. Remember, Mr. Speaker, there were three citizens; and all Canada stayed up to get the news about them. The other day in Ottawa a boy found some radium. All Canada was interested to learn what was going to happen to him. Remember, Mr. Speaker, in this case it was one boy. On March 1 of this year two miners and one mule got caught in a mine at Pottsville, Pennsylvania. Sixty diggers cleared away ions of coal, timber and so on, with their bare hands, and saved the men. Pete the mule was too big to get through the hole. At last reports they were feeding Pete and digging to rescue him a thousand feet inside a mountain. Remember, Mr. Speaker, in this case there were two men and one mule. I could go on and on, telling this house of the expense and work we would put forth to save someone in danger. Let us remember that we have
625,000	citizens in Canada, many of whom are equally in danger. Let us look after them.
I have read with interest the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on March 10, 1950, in moving for the appointment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on old age security. I believe this is a good start, and I will await their findings with interest. I hope the proceedings will not be so drawn-out that this house will die of old age in the meantime, since 1 notice that the first committee of this kind was set up in 1908, while we had another in 1924. Now, twenty-six years later, we are to have still another. I ask this committee to consider a contributory old age pension of $60 a month at sixty years of age, without a means test.
I remember reading some time ago a poem which I should like to quote:
I hope some fellow will lend a hand
To help my mother, you understand, '
If ever she's poor and old and gray,
When her own dear boy is far away.
Let us help them while God gives us time. My hon. friend across the way seemed to enjoy himself while I was speaking. I have a book here which gives the history of what I and my associates did during the depression, showing the close co-operation we received in all parts of Canada. Also,
Old Age Security
for my hon. friend's information, I might say that the Save the Children fund in London, England, carried the name of Jim Rooney, together with the name of a man from India, for the work they did during the war. So while I am ashamed of my hon. friend over there who has been laughing, I should be very glad to show him our record in the city of Toronto.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 30, 1950
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, Thursday, March 30, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General OLD AGE SECURITY



APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE TO STUDY LEGISLATION, ALTERNATIVE METHODS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament on old age security.
Mr. C. J. Henry (Rosedale):: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, since time is short may I say at once that I support the motion. As all hon. members know, considerable progress has been made throughout the world, particularly during this post-war period, in the matter of old age security. Better standards are prevailing today than were dreamed of in the years before the war. Canada holds a particular place of world leadership in this panorama of progress toward better standards of old age security. We Liberals take second place to none in wanting to see those standards maintained, because welfare enterprise goes hand in hand with private enterprise as far as we are concerned. Today it is a competitive race, as it were, in the field of welfare enterprise, to the end that private enterprise may survive and that we may have a system of old age security in Canada, amongst other things, which will enable democracy to prevail.
I direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that there are on this continent two great democracies, one in British North America, and the other in the United States of America. This problem of old age security

Old Age Security
is one of strictly internal concern to Canada, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is some necessity for setting our standards in accordance with those of the great democracy to the south, because it has always been the case that we must go shoulder to shoulder in many economic matters. I am adopting the comparative approach to this problem. I would remind hon. members that before Canada was a great industrial nation Canada was known primarily as an agricultural nation. In those days before 1920 a lost legion of Canadians were attracted towards the higher wage structure of the United States. That lost legion remained static in numbers throughout many years following 1920. It reached its greatest peak in the thirties, and I am glad to say the figures show that it has been steadily decreasing up to 1940, the year in which the last figures are available.
In 1940 there were 1,060,000 Canadians in the United States and when I say "Canadians" I mean people who were born in this country. Going back to 1930, the figure was 1,280,000; and in 1920, 1,125,000. It comes to this, then, that in the year 1940 we had something over 1 million Canadians in the United States. As against this, mention must be made that in 1941 there were 312,000 United States-born citizens in Canada. This reduced the lost legion, as it were, to approximately
748,000	Canadians. I say that this matter of a demand for wider social security today is bound to affect the wage structure of a young industrial country like Canada.
Let this committee consider what they have done in the United States about the question of old age security. Let this committee consider, too, what the United States may do within the near future. It is not my intention to tell the house at this time what the United States proposes to do; that will be a matter for investigation by the committee. But as the minister has said in his address to this house, there are some states in the United States that do provide old age pensions higher than the average in the United States, and higher than the average in Canada. The minister has referred to the fact that the average pension in three states of the United States is $60 per month. Those states are Washington, Colorado, and Massachusetts. There are six states of the United States in which there is a pension of $59 per month paid on the average. They are Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Nevada, New York and Oklahoma. This structure, of course, has to be taken in the light of the United States average which, I believe, is something in the neighbourhood of $46. I know all hon. members in all parts of the house were glad to know that the Canadian average monthly

pension for the aged stands up favourably in comparison with our neighbours in the United States.
This structure for old age security in the United States, Mr. Speaker, has produced certain direct results which are attractive to labour, business, and all others concerned with old age security problems. There is a federal old age security system in the United States -it is called "contributory" because there are contributions by the employer and the employee. These contributions towards a monthly pension yield about $26 per month on the average at the federal level without any means test. In other words, this is the basic pension upon which the whole United States structure is founded. It is the key to the pension system of the United States, which has enabled labour to negotiate pensions, over and above that basic pension, as high as $100 per month in the state of Michigan. This has been accomplished by the employees of the motor industry. Labour has been able to negotiate similar pensions in other industries throughout the country at roughly similar figures. It is this basic pension which we lack in our social security system in Canada today.
As for the remaining part of the United States structure for old age security, it is similar to the Canadian structure because we have on top of this a non-contributory federal-state structure similar to that which exists here between the dominion and the provinces. I urge upon the committee serious consideration of the present benefits at the federal level in the United States. I mention again that $26 per month which is available without a means test. I urge upon the committee the thought that this is a basis upon which to negotiate pensions in the various industries organized within the framework of the labour movement of the United States. I urge upon them the thought that there may be a pension of $100 per month negotiated by labour in Canada if we have such a basic pension in this country.
Before leaving my discussion of the United States pension structure, I should like to draw to the attention of the house the figures taken from the 1934 house of representatives report upon social security in the United States; that was about the time old age security was introduced in that country. In that report, there are figures which show the delayed benefits under the American system. These delayed benefits are benefits that arrive after 30 years of service, and 30 years of contributions under the federal part of the scheme. Where a person is receiving the average salary of $175 per month, after 30 years of contributing under that scheme, a monthly benefit arises of $51; where the

salary is $200 per month and there has been 30 years' service, under the United States system a monthly benefit arises of $61.25.
I conclude this part of my remarks by giving my submissions to this committee. In my view, the means test must go because it favours pauperism and snooping into the thrift of our Canadians. One more thought about the means test, Mr. Speaker. It must go because, in my view, it is childish. The premature retirement of our aged people from the labour pool is unthinkable in this day and age. One forces children to bed, Mr. Speaker, but adults retire.
The next submission I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is to urge upon this committee to examine the world picture. In the British commonwealth, there seems to predominate a common age of sixty-five years for old age security. In the dominion-provincial conference of 1945, a lowering of the age to sixty-five was recommended, and I urge this age limit upon the committee. Finally, I urge it upon them because it is equivalent to that of the United States, which is the one country that goes along with Canada in preserving private enterprise and the democratic way of life on this continent. The last suggestion I make is to let the committee look into the United States system, with its basic pension of about $26 monthly, which will enable labour to do its part in its way to bring up the standard of negotiated pensions on the Canadian side to that on the United States side. Let them consider the states that exceed the Canadian average with $60 at 65. Let this committee find out how that was done. I am sure that no hon. member of this house, including myself, wants this committee to recommend anything which is beyond the means of Canada to pay. But nevertheless, in this competitive scheme of welfare enterprise as between the United States and Canada, we must consider everything which has been done in that country. The minister . in his address to this house was quick to point out that in the states of the United States where the payment goes as high as $60 at 65 on a monthly basis, these figures in excess of the Canadian average have been obtained by special contributions on the part of the states involved.
I am going to make a suggestion to one of the most co-operative men in the province of Ontario, namely, the premier. I think that when this committee report comes out, he will be able to gain much from it; and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that, in the light of this report, if this committee does its part in recommending the abolition of the means test and in recommending the lowering of the age, it will lead to co-operation between the provincial government and the
Old Age Security
federal government on the question of increasing our pensions by joint contribtuions between the provinces and the dominion.
This is the twentieth century, Mr. Speaker, and it has belonged, up to the first half, especially to Canada. Canada is an industrial nation and not the agricultural nation it was in the twenties. Let every hon. member be vigilant to watch the wage structure and the comparative social security measures available in other countries on this continent for those who may choose to go there. Let us keep Canada for Canadians. I think that we must go forward with social security measures at this time and maintain our place in the world panorama. I am not one who says we will kill incentive by doing these things. There was the visit to Toronto of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) and briefly, I say this about his speech: although he is a colleague of mine on the government side, he said "much too Mutch" for me. I repudiate his statements and place on the record my remarks here today.
Look at the United States of America! Look at this Dominion of Canada! A war effort was ours which knew no bounds and a war effort was that of the United States which knew no bounds. If you look at the maintenance charge figures of the United Nations you see there world production figures which reflect what the various countries of the world do in terms of world production. The maintenance charge figures assessed against the great nations of the world are as follows. The United States pays about 40 per cent of the cost of that great organization; the Soviet union pays about 6 per cent and our country pays about 3 per cent. Those are figures which indicate what took place on the North American continent; and the war effort of Canada and that of the United States was not killed or delayed by social security measures. Let us have no fear about welfare enterprise at this time in aid of private enterprise. Let this committee give us a national minimum of old age security within the capacity of this country to pay. Let them weigh the facts. Let them be the judges. We shall receive their recommendations with all due respect.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I am not rising to say a great deal, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this matter. But in view of some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) respecting the policy of the Progressive Conservative party, I feel that a few words would not be amiss. There is not a great deal at this time that one can add to the discussion; after having heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), the hon.

Old Age Security
member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and representatives from the other parties, there is little left to be said. But as I listened this afternoon to the variety of opinions expressed by members supporting the government, I certainly agree that if any recommendation can come out of this committee, if it is composed of the members who have spoken this afternoon, the majority of them on the government side of the house, it will indeed be one of the most successful committees that have ever been set up in parliament. Even the parliamentary assistants cannot agree among themselves. The parliamentary assistant does not agree with the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister does not agree with himself.


John George Diefenbaker: As I listened to the last speaker, I noticed that he raised the ante to $100 a month. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Rooney) raised the ante also and decreased the age. Certainly all you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to have your own opinion, and there is something for everybody. As I listened to the debate this afternoon it appeared to me that parliament had now become an auction market where each exceeded the other in the variety of the suggestions that were made. You pay your money and you take your choice. What a variety of suggestions were made! What a series of auction market promises were advanced!


An hon. Member:: What is your bid?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; my hon. friend says "What is your bid?" That is a serious situation, as I see it, in discussing a matter of such importance as that of a social security program for this country. Indeed, as I listened to some of these hon. gentlemen speaking I found it difficult to understand why they voted as they did last fall on an amendment that was proposed in the house to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which had to do with the removal of the means test. They could have found themselves at that time in a position where they could not successfully vote against such a resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They all did it.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, Mr. Speaker, it is not the voice that counts in the House of Commons, it is the vote. It is not the opinion one voices as to what social security measure one wishes, but it is how one votes when one has an opportunity to convey one's wishes to the people of Canada. But it does look to one, even of a not suspicious turn of mind, as an endeavour on the part of the

government to postpone and procrastinate on this problem. Indeed it is not consonant with some of the promises that were made during the election campaign.
Many of the older citizens of this country believed that, if the present government were returned, old age pensions without a means test would be provided. Today there is disappointment among the hundreds of thousands of the older people across Canada, when they know that this matter is not to receive the attention of parliament at this time, but that there is to be a further postponement.
I cannot see this committee carrying out some of the promises made during the election campaign. The minister said that at no time was there ever any suggestion by any minister of the crown of the removal of the means test. That is as I understood his challenge. Well, I checked up the records, and I found that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made a radio address from Montreal on June 16, 1949, over station CFCF, and that was pretty close to the election. This is what the minister said:
The government will do away with the means test for old age pensions.
That is contained in the radio speech as reported in the Montreal press. Then I refer to the promise made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) at Nelson, British Columbia, on May 29, 1949, as reported by the Canadian Press. He extended the promise considerably when he said this:
Provision of hospital services for the people of Canada and compulsory contributory superannuation are measures expected for the next session of parliament if the Liberal government is returned.
These two promises made by ministers were in keeping with promises made everywhere in this dominion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is always the next session.


John George Diefenbaker: Today, sir, in this house one hon. member after another rises and [DOT] says: We believe in old age pensions without a means test, but we never said anything about it in the election campaign. Oh, Mr. Speaker, how this attractive promise was forgotten and not referred to is indeed an example of political campaigning that deserves the serious attention of this house. Those were the promises. Today what the people of Canada, including the old age pensioners, get in place of the carrying out of those promises is the setting up of a committee.	[DOT]
I rose for the purpose of suggesting an additional power for this committee, because the motion will pass. Since the motion will pass, it is the responsibility of all of us to

endeavour to give the committee powers to meet the situation as we see it in our country today. The resolution reads as follows:
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.
I suggest that that does not mean very much. That information is now available, and no committee will secure any further information than the old age pension administration has today. Further on, the resolution reads:
. . .possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test. . .
The door is left open there. "With or without a means test." That is a far cry from the promises made during the election campaign. I continue:
[DOT] *. -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.
It is not with this that I am dealing. What I would like to suggest to the minister is this. In Canada today many companies are setting up pension schemes of their own. Last December the CIO made a declaration in favour of a retirement pension of $100 a month. In various industries the matter is being discussed. Plans are being formulated much along the line of the human engineering that is being done today through many large corporations in the United States. Yet in this resolution there is no provision to have representatives from labour and from industry come before the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope they will be called.


John George Diefenbaker: But there is no power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will allow me-there is no power to correlate their plans with the national plan. In many parts of the country today we find haphazard pension schemes being set up. When I say "haphazard" I mean haphazard with reference to a national scheme. Before this committee is set up there should be some declaration from the minister on behalf of the government of Canada as to the entire plan. What is the social security plan that the government has? It should not be done by dribs and drabs, by bringing in one measure after another, but by setting up in detail a national plan for a period of ten or fifteen years in advance. Once having declared that national plan, labour unions and representatives of industry should be brought before the committee so that their plans could be correlated and made
55946-90a
Old Age Security
to fit into the over-all national plan. If something along that line is not done, and if the national plan is not announced in advance, by setting up the committee we are going to find ourselves in a few years with the national plan on the one side, and with company plans on the other, and it will be impossible to correlate them into the national plan. I feel sure that the minister would be doing a worth-while work on behalf of his plan for national security in the years to come if he announced it, because I have read everything he has said on the subject. I have read his speech, and I listened to it with attention. But I see nothing of a national plan. I see merely an endeavour to deal with these matters one at a time, instead of having a great panoramic plan which will set forth the objectives, the aims and the means. Having done that it would be possible to bring into agreement the national plan as well as company plans.
I do hope the minister will consent to the amendment to the motion setting up the committee. I have been on committees and I know that when anyone gets into committee and wishes to raise a question as to whether a certain power is within the ambit of the reference, he finds himself up against a difficulty.
For instance, I see no power to report, and I support the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in the position he expressed in that regard. The minister says the power is there. Well, certainly there is an inherent power; but there is no actual power granted to any committee set up to bring in recommendations. And if the government decides it does not want a recommendation that the means test be removed, then there will be no such recommendation.
That is the experience of every committee. In addition to that, if the government decides that it does not wish to have these company plans looked into, they will not be looked into. I suggest to the minister that he add a clause to provide for the convening, at the time the committee sits, of representatives of labour and of industry in those companies which today have company plans as well as those which have plans in contemplation, to the end that they will build their plans within a national plan.
I say that in all seriousness, because in the United States today the difficulty is becoming more apparent from year to year that within the national plan there is duplication with company plans, when such company plans are brought into operation.
In regard to the general question of old age pensions, our policy, the policy I support, is set forth in our party program. It is to

Old Age Security
this effect: A contributory social security program providing for retirement pensions at sixty-five, without a means test; and then there are various other matters not related to this motion.
No one need make any argument as to the removal of the means test. I think every hon. member would like to see it removed. Yet there would be no opportunity to vote on that question, unless the minister were to give his undertaking first that an opportunity will be given in that committee to vote as to whether the means test shall be removed and, secondly, that the committee will be given the opportunity to make recommendations.
If the minister will rise in his place at the conclusion of this debate and assure the house that the committee will be allowed to vote on the question of the removal of the means test, then I shall begin to see some reason for the setting up of the committee. If not, then it looks to me like postponement and procrastination.


Joseph William Noseworthy: May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The debate will be interrupted while the house goes to the Senate.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:	_
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Agricultural Products Act.
An act to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1S44.
An act to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947,
An act to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament on old age security.
'Mr. Diefenbaker.]
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have before us tonight a resolution calling for the setting up of a committee to study all phases of the question of old age pensions. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) introduced this resolution on March 10 he made an eloquent and stirring appeal on the necessity of having this committee set up. When we heard the echoes of the minister's speech reverberating in the words of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) we were led to believe that the setting up of this committee would mark an epoch in Canadian history. Some of us might be pardoned if, on listening to the minister, we thought this was the first time parliament had given any thought to the matter of old age pensions. One would hardly believe that old age pensions had been in effect in this country for over twenty years, but would have thought we were starting from scratch, with no knowledge at all of the subject.
The minister gave a long account, pointing out in great detail the various purposes this committee would serve. One of the first and probably one of the most important functions of this committee, we were told, will be to help the government arrive at a policy in regard to old age pensions. That is what we were told, notwithstanding the fact that this government has been administering old age pensions for twenty-two years, and notwithstanding the fact that back in 1945 they made it quite clear to the country that they had a policy which was so clear-cut that some five or six pages of the so-called green book, or the proposals of the government, were devoted to an outline of the details. Then for four years, from 1945 to 1949, cabinet ministers, Liberal speakers and Liberal newspapers all through the country persisted in telling us that we had not obtained the social security measures outlined in those proposals because of two men, Messrs. Drew and Duplessis. We were told that but for the obstinacy of those two men at the dominion-provincial conference, the policies outlined in 1945 would have been fulfilled. At that time there was no question whatever of the government being at all uncertain with respect to its policy.
Now it appears that the government just has no policy. Otherwise, why call for a joint committee to help them decide on a policy? There is no policy at the present time, in spite of the assurances given the country by government speakers during the election campaign of 1949. I have here a number of quotations from Liberal speeches made during that campaign, of which I shall read one or two. Here is a statement by Senator Roebuck. At the time he was not a member of the government-and certainly not a member of this

house; yet one would suppose that Senator Roebuck knew at least something about the Liberal party and its policy. The Toronto Daily Star for June 16 has this to say:
The means test by which people over seventy are denied old age pensions if they have other income was a hideous thing and he approved

That is, Senator Roebuck approved.
-a recent statement by Hon. Paul Martin that the government hopes to abolish it.
Some of the Toronto members including the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) had something to say about old age pensions. Of course he was a new man in the Liberal party at that time, but we had every reason to believe that he knew what he was talking about when, according to the Toronto Daily Star of June 2, he said:
The Liberal party was prepared to agree with labour on its demand for a $60 monthly old age pension without a means test.


Mr. Hodgson:: How many years ago was that?


Joseph William Noseworthy: That was on June 2, 1949.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Surely not just before the election?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes, a little while before the election. Then we have this quotation from the same newspaper under date of Oshawa, June 9:
The Liberal government plans to call a dominion-provincial conference to discuss establishment of a scheme for contributory old age pensions to start at sixty-five once the election is over and the political heat is done, Hon. Paul Martin said here last night.
That is a little variation, of course, from the policy set forth by some other Liberal speakers. There is not the slightest indication in that speech that the government would have to call a joint committee of the house, nearly a year after the election, to spend some time studying the question in order that they might be ready for the dominion-provincial conference. Not only were we promised old age pensions without a means test, not only did the government make it quite clear to the country during the period of four or five years that they knew where they were going and that they really had a policy, that they only needed to be re-elected in order to implement that policy, but we were assured that, along with the old age pension, there would be a national health insurance scheme. It is rather 'surprising to find the committee has not been asked to study that question. It was something which was generously promised to our people during the election campaign.
Old Age Security
The member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry), speaking in Toronto and as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of June 2, said:
The Liberal party will give Canada national health insurance. Our clearest policy has been on national health insurance. We are ready with it, and have a great legal mind at the helm to put it into effect.
The Prime Minister himself, speaking in Toronto, is reported in the Toronto Daily Star of June 15 to have asked his audience a number of rhetorical questions. He did not really expect the audience to answer them on the spot. He called upon his audience and said, Are you in favour of family allowances? Are you in favour of this and that? And then he finally said, "Are you in favour of national health insurance which we have instituted and have started to realize?" I do not know just what the Prime Minister and the Liberals understand by national health insurance. I am sure that the country does not understand national health insurance to be the paltry measure of assistance that is being given to hospitals and health services today. That was not the meaning which the Liberals gave to the term "national health insurance" during the 1945 or the 1949 campaign.
It now appears that, for some reason or other, the government needs some assistance in arriving at a policy with regard to old age pensions. The minister, in very solemn tones, informed, us that the country needed a committee. His statement to that effect will be found on page 636 of Hansard. Then, of course, he went on to state that we needed a committee to study the whole question of health insurance. I have received communications from well over 2,000 people in my constituency on this subject, but not one of them indicated that what they needed, or what they thought the country needed, was a committee. They implied in no uncertain terms that what they wanted was the removal of the means test now, in this session, by this government, and without any further delay. I am quite confident that the minister knows, and the government knows, what this country is asking for today. It is the removal of the means test now, during this session of parliament, and not to have the question delayed by a reference to any committee.
Apparently the government has undergone a change of attitude since it set forth its policy clearly in 1945. Just to remind the government, I shall quote again a few lines that have b^en quoted a number of times in this debate. They are to be found on page 37 of the proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference, under the heading, "National old age pensions at age 70". It reads:
As part of the general proposals now put before the conference, it is proposed that the federal gov-

Old Age Security
ernment will establish a system of national old age pensions entirely financed and administered by the federal government paid at the uniform rate of $30 per month regardless of means, to men and women age 70 and over in all parts of Canada . . .
That policy was quite clear. This country has understood that to be the Liberal government policy from that day until the time this resolution was introduced to have the entire question referred to a committee. There is some indication, in that resolution and in the minister's speech, that the government has changed its policy regarding old age pensions. Probably the note that is emphasized most in the resolution before us is the note of a contributory insurance principle, old age pensions based on contributory insurance principles. A number of the minister's remarks implied that the government is playing with the idea of establishing a contributory old age pension based on insurance principles. This would mean that each individual would pay a fixed sum, and would draw, as he does under an insurance policy, according to his payments. That appears to be the type of old age pension with which the government is toying at the present time, and which the minister particularly stressed during his remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nothing I said would warrant that statement.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What are some of the purposes to be served by this committee? One of the things is that the committee is to attempt to discover the rate at which old people are increasing. We have to have a joint committee to find out that the number of old people is increasing, and to find out at what rate they are increasing. The committee is to ascertain how that will affect our old age pension scheme. Surely a department that has been administering old age pensions for over 20 years has full knowledge of the rate at which our older people are increasing, and has full knowledge of the effect which that will have on our old age pension policy. I fail to see what a committee of this house can add to the information which must of necessity be already in the possession of the minister's own department. We are to have a committee to study what those schemes will cost. The minister or at least the officers of his department now know what they will cost. They knew in 1945. There are three or four tables set forth in the proposals of 1945 which point out what the old age pension would cost Canada for the next twenty or twenty-five years under the various schemes of old age pensions, with and without the means test. The minister's department has that information. The minister himself gave us a table which would indicate that he has that knowledge. I fail to see

where a committee can add one iota to that information which is already in the possession of the minister's department.
We are to study the various schemes of insurance in effect in other countries. The minister went on at great length to point out what those different schemes are. If you turn to the government proposals of 1945, Mr. Speaker, you will find there in 1945 almost the same information that the minister gave us in his talk on the introduction of the resolution. There is no question in the world that the department already has all the information obtainable with regard to the various schemes of old age pensions in effect in other countries.
This committee is to find out just what kind of insurance the labour congresses want. Just a few days before the minister made his statement-as a matter of fact, it was the day before he made his speech -the Trades and Labour Congress appeared before the cabinet, as they have on numerous other occasions, and pointed out quite clearly what they wanted by way of improvement in the old age pensions legislation. There is absolutely no reason for calling together a joint committee of this house and the other place in order to find out what the trade unions or the congresses of labour want. This is what they asked for in their brief to the government. They recommend:
1.	That the means test be abolished.
2.	That all old age and blind pensions become the sole responsibility of the federal government.
That, by the way, is exactly what the government promised back in 1945.
3.	That the monthly pension payment be increased to $60-
That was what the hon. member for Rose-dale (Mr. Henry) promised his people; he assured them that the Liberals accepted labour's demand for a $60 a month pension. -as a preliminary and interim measure while the machinery is being developed for the implementation of a full social security scheme.
4.	That the pensionable age be reduced for men to 65 and for women to 60.
We submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is just no point in asking a committee of this house to spend time trying to find out what labour wants. The minister and his officials know, as does every Liberal member of this house, that the trade unions and all other organizations interested in this question from coast to coast have been petitioning members of parliament and the government for one thing principally, namely the abolition of the means test here and now.
Then let us give a little bit of thought to what is going to come out of this committee.

Again the minister will have to pardon some of us for being a trifle sceptical. The minister took great care to point out that a committee was called in 1924 and that in 1927 we got the old age pension as a result of that committee. That suggests something to me. I, of course, may be somewhat critical; but that fact suggests to me that we are to get a committee now in 1950, as in the 1920's, and three years from now or in 1953 we shall be ready to abolish the means test or we shall be ready with a new scheme for old age pensions. By the time we get a committee and that committee takes the time necessary to go into all those fields of study that the minister outlined, and then by the time we get a dominion-provincial conference and get their agreement to a contributory old age scheme, get the legislation ready and get the legislation through the house, it looks as though it will be 1953, a most appropriate time for the introduction of an improvement in the old age pensions legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before the next election!


Joseph William Noseworthy: As I stated once before in this house, the withholding of much needed social legislation until the eve of an election has over the years become the standard practice of this government. In 1945 it was family allowances. The legislation was passed and the cheques were all ready before the election was announced. All we had to do was to vote Liberal and the cheques would be mailed out. In 1949 it was not necessary to introduce any great scheme of social security. The government had plenty of money to mail out to the voters throughout the country without having to rely upon any improvement in social security. There were a few hundred million dollars in compulsory savings that were passed out in April, just before the election in June. That was a very appropriate time. It just happened, of course, that the time had rolled around for those cheques to be mailed. Then, of course, there were other hundreds of millions to be mailed out to the western farmers for their wheat crops of the three preceding years. That was a very appropriate time. It was all purely incidental, of course; it was all just a matter of course, a matter of no particular planning on the part of the government, to have those payments made just before the election. We would not accuse them of that. But the point is that here we have in Canada a crying need for an advance in social legislation to the point at least of removing the means test, and we have the government taking steps that will of necessity delay this social security until we come to the eve of another general election.
Old Age Security
On the whole question of the means test I want to take just a few minutes. The means test today is regarded by the trade union movement, by labour, by the old age pensioners and by the Canadian public generally, to use the words of the Old Age Pensioners' Society of Manitoba, as one of the most iniquitous pieces of legislation that could be enacted by any government against its citizens. It creates a feeling of inequality, a feeling of dissatisfaction, and a feeling 'of suffering on the part of a great many people; it creates the kind of feeling that breeds communism.
If you want to breed communism in this country, continue to leave a large section of our people feeling that they are being discriminated against, and a large section of the public agreeing with them. If you do that you will be doing the very thing that will bring communism. In a country where freedom of enterprise is the watchword of our government, a government that prides itself on its support of free enterprise, one wonders when one sees the older citizens reduced to what amounts to a form of slavery. These older people must not earn more than a few extra dollars above their pension which, even with that pension, constitutes but a pittance, and is far from a reasonable standard of living. They cannot accept full or even parttime employment over any prolonged period of time. They have no freedom. They are regimented by a government that accuses other parties of regimentation. There is no country in the world today where older people are regimented more than they are under the means test which is in effect in this country. They dare not live in a respectable apartment, even if some friend wants to pay the rent for them, or a relative wants to do so. They dare not have more than a few dollars in the bank. They are not free men and women. As far as this country is concerned, this is not for our older citizens a free country, even though we are governed by a party and a government that prides itself on its free enterprise.
These older people cannot accept gifts from relatives or friends. They are discouraged from saving. If they save or accumulate a little they are penalized when they reach the age at which they go on old age pension. The means test reduces our older citizens to a state of pauperism, and leaves them the objects of pity, which, I submit, Mr. Speaker, is a condition that should not prevail in this country. There just is no excuse for the government dallying with this question until we come to the time when we are on the eve of another general election. It is unfair; it is cruel to these older people to pass this subject off to a committee that will require months

Old Age Security
and months to complete the study that is outlined to them; to bring the matter before the dominion-provincial conference; to reach an agreement with the provinces, and to get legislation through this house. The whole thing cannot be done in less than two or possibly three sessions of parliament. In the meantime the country is clamouring for the removal of the means test here and now. That, Mr. Speaker, is what this country and the people waht, and not, as the minister says, a committee.
A few days ago I picked up this special notice in one of the Toronto papers. It is called "sacrificial luncheon." It is a luncheon provided by Carlton Street United Church in Toronto. This is the notice:
All women of the church are invited to a sacrificial luncheon, Wednesday. April 5, in the assembly hall. The free-will offering of this luncheon will go directly to the benevolent fund of Carlton Street United Church, which provides hot dinners for 2,500 old age pensioners in that district.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this country is not reduced to that state of privation where it is necessary, or should be necessary, for any organization to have to provide hot lunches for 2,500 old age pensioners in one city, whose pensions and whose incomes are not sufficient to enable them to provide themselves with hot lunches. That I say is a disgrace to this country and to this government.
Here is a quotation from the Veterans Advocate:
It is our opinion that the means test puts a penalty on thrift and a premium on improvidence. The applicant who has made no provision for old age is eligible for pension, without question and without difficulty. His thrifty and hard-working neighbour has to pass a diabolical means test before his application is considered.
The wastrel is too often in a better state than the industrious and ambitious who scrimp and save for old age, but who never achieve complete financial independence.
To iron out inequality, we would prefer to see old age pensions, without means test, applied universally at age 65. The family allowance act is a bonus to every new citizen at birth. It is based in a measure on a potential contribution made to the country's welfare. We take the young on faith and hope. The other and greater virtue should not be withheld from the old nor if extended should it be niggardly, mean and circumscribed.
It will be a long time before old age pensions can be placed on a contributory basis. Till such time this country cannot afford to be ungenerous to those older citizens, who have little but memory to live on.
I have time for one more short quotation from the News-Herald of Vancouver.
The time is coming when old age pensions will have to be given to everyone, as family allowances are today. Rich and poor alike will receive them and those with incomes over a certain minimum will pay them back in income tax. This will take a lot of bookkeeping, but it will remove the stigma that for some strange reason some people still

attach to old age pensions. Many an old person is bitterly ashamed taking the pension and does his best to keep it a dark secret. This shouldn't be necessary.
I submit that what we should be considering at this time is how we can abolish the means test, or failing that how we can raise the ceiling on the earnings and income which old age pensioners may receive. These are two reforms one of which at least could be effected now and should be effected now. One is the removal of the means test, the other, the raising of the ceiling, as was already stated this afternoon, to $1,500 for single people, and $2,500 for married people.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, representing a constituency in which there is a very high percentage of elderly people, who live in that area on account of our usually mild winter climate, I should like to say a few words on behalf of those who are resident in my constituency and then I wish to say a few more words regarding a much larger group of elderly citizens who reside in every part of Canada. In the first place I must express some regret that the government has not seen fit to keep the election promises we have heard quoted, and to bring in some definite old age security legislation at the present time. However, seeing that the government is not prepared to do this, and that it intends to set up a committee, I am pleased to note that the committee is to be given wide scope.
At page 635 of Hansard, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), when introducing the resolution, stated that the committee would 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 and possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada with or without a means test. Then the minister went on to say that this committee-*
-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.
Two years ago, at the annual convention of the Canadian Legion, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs described the War Veterans Allowance Act as being a form of old age security, or old age pension, which was made applicable to men who had aged prematurely by service in an actual theatre of war during the first and second world wars. Because it was a recognized fact that men who had seen service in the trenches had aged prematurely, an old age pension-it was then called a burnt-out

pension, in the early years of the legislation- would be made applicable to veterans five years earlier than when pensions would be granted to the aged people of the country who had not seen service overseas.
May I ask the minister whether it is his intention to investigate, as one of the systems of old age pensions, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and to see how that will fit into his scheme for the new old age pension. Will those matters be referred to this committee?. Hon. members on this side of the house have asked and pleaded for the setting up of a committee on veterans affairs. That request has been forwarded to all of us through innumerable branches of the Legion. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) has seen fit to say that no such committee will be set up.
Many of the problems which affect the aged civilian citizens affect the aged veteran. So far as the application of the War Veterans Allowance Act is concerned, the same problems appear continually. Representations have been made by the Canadian Legion for the removal of the means test. Representations have been made toy the same organization for an increase in the basic allowance, so that that basic allowance may be brought in line with the old age pension schemes of the several provinces.
Representatives of the organized bodies of veterans will not have an opportunity of appearing before a special committee on veterans affairs. In view of this fact, and the fact that this committee is now being set up with the idea of providing the best possible pension scheme for all Canadians, will there be an opportunity for veterans to appear before this committee in exactly the same way as the minister intimated this afternoon that industrialists will be able to appear, and in exactly the same way as he intimated that representatives of labour would be able to appear? I am asking whether veterans, or the representatives of veterans, will be able to appear before the committee and point out to the representative members of the House of Commons serving on that committee why it is so desirable that the means test be removed' from the old age pension the veterans are receiving, and why it is desirable that the basic allowance should be increased. Will they be permitted to make their representations in exactly the same way as will organized labour and industrialists who are to be permitted to come before the committee and point out why certain matters should be dealt with and considered by this wide and all-embracing committee of this House of Commons, which the minister is
Old Age Security
setting up in the hope of being able to devise the best possible old age pension scheme for all Canadians?
I admit that at the present time the federal government is paying all the war veterans allowances, and that the provinces have not been asked to make contributions in that respect. But that is only one of the many matters which could be discussed. Therefore I should like very much to hear what the minister has to say with respect to the opportunity to be given the veterans of this land to place their problems of old age before this special old age committee. I believe it is most important that they have this opportunity, in view of the fact that they have been denied the privilege of appearing before a special veterans committee of the House of Commons.


Walter Little: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with the setting up of this committee to consider old age pensions. As hon. members will know, a resolution stands on the order paper in my name this session, as it did at the last one. For certain reasons I did not present the resolution to the house at the last session. At this session the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has placed this motion before the house to send the matter to a special committee for consideration. I am satisfied to wait until this is done and, if it brings in recommendations satisfactory to the old people I represent, I shall be for it. If it does not, then I shall have to have a chance to speak again with respect to it.
The resolution on the order paper at this session is in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of introducing an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act so that it would be on a contributory basis with no means test and paid to all persons reaching the age of sixty-five years.
I believe I should have said that it should be compulsory, because it is my view that we will never have a proper old age pension scheme as it is now. Mr. Ilsley said some years ago that that is the only way it would ever work, and I am of the same opinion. I would hope, however, that those in charge of this matter will not dilly-dally too long, until I am dead, and all the other old people are dead. I hope the committee will bring in a proper recommendation, so that the old people will be treated properly.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the debate at this stage I feel like someone who attempts to gnaw meat from a bone from which most of the meat has been consumed. I wish to

Old Age Security
make a few observations on the resolution and certain aspects of the financing of old age pensions which will be considered by this committee. For a few minutes I want to discuss the right of Canadian citizens to old age security, and the abolition of the means test. First of all I believe the resolution should call for consideration by the committee of overall security instead of being confined to one aspect thereof, the question of old age pensions. In my opinion there is no question that the country is waiting for the government to give consideration to a scheme of over-all security covering all Canadians. That is evidenced by resolutions passed by labour organizations across Canada, by both labour congresses and local labour organizations, by veterans' organizations, by farmers' organizations and by innumerable women's organizations. In addition to that, we find at the present time proposals for over-all social security in the platform of every political party in this house. Therefore there is no question that the country is waiting for the government to give consideration to the question of over-all security.
During recent weeks I think most hon. members of the house have realized more fully than ever that opposition to the means test is growing rapidly. I might say that even the Liberal government expressed the opinion in 1945 that the means test was undesirable. At page 37 of the proposals of the dominion government I find this under the heading, "deficiencies of the present scheme":
The means test is generally recognized as undesirable after a certain age. It has been noted that about forty per cent of all persons of seventy years of age and over make application, satisfy the means test requirements and receive the pension. There is little doubt that a very considerable number in addition are not able entirely to support themselves, but are dependent upon their families, and refrain from applying for pensions because of the embarrassment occasioned by the means test.
I think it is generally recognized by the majority of Canadians-


An hon. Member:: What about Saskatchewan?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -that the means test as it is imposed at the present time is a penalty on thrift, is unfair and is most unfortunate for those people who have small savings, industrial pensions, annuities and so on. During the last two or three weeks I have received dozens of letters from persons with small incomes, life savings, annuities or industrial pensions who cannot take advantage of the old age pension scheme and yet have not enough to live on.
I want to refer for a minute or two to the percentage of our population making provision for old age. In doing so I should like

to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on March 3, 1949. I suggest that anyone who is interested in the statistical aspects of the question should read the speech made by the hon. member on that date. I understand the figures used therein were largely supplied by the research division of the minister's department. What do we find? At that date there were in Canada a total of 829,936 who were making provision for old age. We also find according to these figures that the population between the ages of 20 and 60 years totalled 6,676,700. That means that about 13 per cent of the people of Canada are making some provision for their old age. You may question these figures because of the increase in population and so on, but I am quite sure that the minister will agree it is safe to say that not more than 15 per cent of the people of Canada are able to make provision for their old age.
That is the problem facing the house and the committee, and it is a serious and important one. These are several approaches to the question of old age security. In the main we find there are two plans put forward by members of the house and by people outside the house. The first is some scheme of compulsory contributions based on the insurance principle. The second is the payment of old age pensions from taxation based on ability to pay. I think those who know me and my attitude to many questions in this house will realize that I am not given to advancing unsound financial proposals unsound schemes, or giving voice to Utopian ideas. I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) is listening with interest, and I trust on this occasion with considerable agreement.


Mr. Goode:: Not with interest; you make a mistake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But with agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I favour payment from taxation mainly for two reasons. First, I believe it is unfair and unjust to collect contributions on an equal basis from the people of the country under the insurance principle to build up old age security. This afternoon, and in previous debates on this question, a good many members have said that they believe in the abolition of the means test. That does not mean a thing if you say at the same time that you believe in a compulsory contributory scheme based on the insurance principle. All you are saying is that you are going to give the people of Canada an opportunity to buy a life annuity or insure themselves against old age, and the government will be willing to accept the cost of administration. The bare fact of the matter is that would mean many

people would be worse off than they are at the present time. It would simply mean that the government would spend $4 million or $5 million for administration and save $100 million at this time.
Throughout the ages it has been the accepted duty of the working population to care for the aged. Under the conditions that prevailed years ago, and possibly even up to recent years, it was much easier to do that than it is today. For instance, on the farms years ago there was ample room. Old people assisted with odd jobs. Costs of living were lower; standards of living were lower; and in the towns there was. more room than there is today. People were not living in flats, small suites and crowded quarters. Odd jobs were available for older people under conditions which are not present today. Life generally was much less complicated and wants simple.
I want to emphasize that by paying taxes today for old age pensions we are only doing jointly and collectively what has been done individually for ages, namely, caring for the aged out of current production. I consider that is our duty, and this duty has scriptural authority for those who view life from that point of view. In my opinion contributions to old age security based on the insurance principle are unethical. I think that type of thing represents a form of swindle, and I want to demonstrate that by quoting a few figures. We know that the value of money has been declining all through modern history. To illustrate I wish to deal with a short table I have here. I have the complete table for one hundred years, and any member who wishes to see it is welcome to do so.
This is a table showing the purchasing value of the dollar as measured by the consumers' price index. It has been prepared by the Institute of Life Insurance, and for the year 1939 the dollar was taken as worth 100 cents. In terms of the dollar being worth 100 cents in 1939 the purchasing value in other years would be as follows:
1830
1850
1870
1890
1910
1930
1949
261-8
258-4
147-3
184-2
149-7
86-9
59-1
This means that a person who commenced to pay into a fund for old age security in 1910, having paid in for forty years, would
Old Age Security
have put into the fund dollars worth 149-7 and would be paid today in dollars worth 59-1. I believe that is a sound argument against asking people to accept a contributory basis for old age security under the present money system. I do believe that current contributions are satisfactory, adequate and fair for current requirements such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, sick benefits and other current risks; but I repeat that anyone who has studied the history of money must realize that it is a form of swindle to ask people to contribute for old age security through the years on the insurance principle.
In further support of my argument I want to quote briefly from a news item from Washington appearing in the Christian Science Monitor of March 22:
Federal social security plan held unsound
A Brookings Institution official has hung tags "thoroughly unsound'' and "financially reckless" on the federal social security program. He urged a pay as you go system.
The spokesman was Lewis Meriam, vice-president of the foundation that carries on research into governmental activities. He told the Senate finance committee the old age and survivors' insurance program is "socially questionable".
From a public finance standpoint, Mr. Meriam testified, it is "thoroughly unsound."
The committee is studying a bill passed last year by the house to widen the coverage of the present social security act.
Calling the present program "financially reckless," he said:
"The old age and survivors' insurance system, as we have it today, saddles future generations of American citizens with a tremendous commitment for benefit payments in addition to other costs of government.
"The safe course is to adopt a true pay as you go system, giving such benefits as are reasonable and within our present economic ability, paying the costs each year, and trusting to future generations to do likewise."
He said the government has no "contractual obligation" to continue the present system.
"In our judgment it should make fundamental revision now before the present benefits are readjusted to offset the change in the cost of living." he added. "The present offers an opportunity to shift to a financially sound system that may not come again."
He said the law should provide benefits immediately for all persons in need because of old age or permanent disability . . .
The levy, he added, should be high enough to pay the expenses of the program year by year. And he said the money should be earmarked for this purpose.
Therefore I claim that for financial reasons alone it is unsound, unethical and unjust to establish old age security on the insurance principle through compulsory payments.
My second reason for supporting old age security from taxation is that under present conditions in Canada I believe any other method is impracticable, when we deal with

Old Age Security
old age security alone. It might not be so difficult if we had an over-all security plan, but knowing the large number of submarginal farmers operating in Canada, the low income groups in the cities, the widows and others with small incomes, I believe it would be impracticable and utterly unsound to attempt to collect on the basis of a contributory system. There would be the expense of accounting, the expense of administration, and the cost of investigation. As far as the old age pension means test is concerned, I understand the cost of investigation accounts for a large portion of the cost of administration in the field.
Before concluding I want to say a few words about our ability to meet the cost. I am shortening my remarks considerably because I know the minister wishes to conclude this debate this evening, so I am not going to deal at length with this matter though I had prepared some figures I thought were quite sound and logical. As to our ability to meet the cost, our gross national income from production is around $16,000 million. According to the minister's figures I understand the possible cost of paying old age pensions in Canada on the present basis but without a means test, at the age of seventy, would be about $300 million, or something less than $200 million more than our present costs. If paid at the age of sixty-five without a means test the cost would be about $391 million, which means additional $300 million would have to come from the federal exchequer. In the first place, the money paid to old age pensioners is returned to society. It goes into the hands of merchants, and then into labour and other costs incurred in production. That sounds like a large amount of money; but with our tremendous production I say it is simply a question of organizing that production to serve human beings first. I noticed that when the minister was dealing with the possible increase in the cost of old age pensions in the years to come he mentioned some substantial figures; but in quoting those figures he failed entirely to take note of the possibility of greatly increased production in the years immediately ahead. I believe that is a factor which must be considered when discussing the cost of old age pensions in the future.
I believe these costs can be met by the Canadian people, and would be met cheerfully if they were raised by the imposition of a tax as an addition to the income tax, based on ability to pay. I quite agree with other speakers that we do not get something for nothing; everything has to be paid for. But this cost, like other costs of government, would come out of production and our production
LMr. Herridge.l
can meet these costs. I understand that during the war we made gifts to other countries totalling over $3,000 million, and rightly so. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in times of peace, with our opportunities for greatly expanded production, we can do as much for our own people. If we could do this for others in wartime, we can give our senior citizens old age security today, paid out of taxation based on ability to pay. If this administration thought it was necessary to increase the defence estimates by two or three hundred million dollars, they would be increased without any question. The money would be provided, and this house would vote it. We can do the same in the war against poverty and insecure old age.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that this house, if it were concerned about providing old age security, could establish legislation, and could vote the money to see that our old age pensioners have security on a satisfactory basis without a means test. I hope the work of this committee will result in this government finally taking action to improve the position of the worthy section of our population which is entitled to old age security.


Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforih):: My anxiety, sir, is to see this committee struck, and to see it get down to work. I should like to see this committee do something about this problem; that is all that is concerning me. I am anxious about those with whom I have lived during the last forty years, who worked side by side with me, and who find themselves still working without too much security. I can think of 200; I can think of another 300; I can think of another 50 of them out in western Canada. Through no fault of their own, Mr. Speaker, perhaps because they have not been privileged to land on their feet, they find themselves getting older. Their wives, their brothers and sisters are all getting older; and they find themselves bereft of the security which you and I, sir, in this chamber have promised them for the last two or three years.
Now, let us get on with this job. Let us have this committee, and let us try to do something for those of our own age, and our own kind. Being the old man of Canada's House of Commons, it is easy enough for me to say that. I say it most sincerely. Eliminate the means test? Yes, for all of us who do not need to have a means test. Surely the committee can find some method of testing you and me, sir, and perhaps leave us outside the scheme. That is all right as far as I am concerned. I am thinking of those thousands and thousands of people who have been able to acquire for themselves only a modest home without a mortgage, and to raise a family. I

am thinking of them. Do not tie the means test to them. The income tax department has reports on the rest of us, and you can do as you like with us. Do not apply the means test to these men and women who have perhaps less than ten thousand to their credit. Let them go free. They paid the shot in Canada during their lifetime. Give them an opportunity.
I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) had to say. I agree with him one hundred per cent in what he said about those who went through northern Italy, Dieppe, and elsewhere. Such an experience added ten years to their lives, and I think they should receive special consideration. Let me go one step further than the member for Nanaimo. I am thinking, sir, of three different families whose boys did not come back. I saw the hair of the lady next door turn from a beautiful black to white within two weeks. A little farther up the street there is a family that lost two sons, and I saw that family age twenty years within two years. Ten doors down the street from where I live, I saw another lady's hair turn from black to grey, and from grey to white. I think the member for Nanaimo might add to the category which he enunciated so well a few minutes ago, those of our citizens who lost their boys overseas. Through no fault of their own, they find themselves aged from one to ten to twenty years almost overnight. I say to this committee that when it is established it should find some means of giving consideration to those people who find they are not as physically fit, not as strong as some of the rest of us. Let us have the committee set up. Let us get down to brass tacks.
I have another reason for requesting action on this matter. In my office tonight there are two different plans from organizations with which I am associated, and in my office at home there are three different plans, if not four, concerning some sort of pension scheme for employees for whom, as president of different companies, I happen to be responsible. Some of them are insurance company ideas. I have forgotten, for the moment, what the name of one is, but it is from some sort of economic adviser. We who are responsible for employees must of necessity give consideration to these plans. We must think about those who believe we are honest, and who look to us to provide them with their weekly pay envelopes; that is our responsibility. Yet, in the offing, there is this committee which this house has not got guts enough-
Soms hon. Members: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: I believe Churchill said that was a proper word. If it is not a
Old Age Security
proper word I am sorry, sir, and I withdraw it. I am sorry if I have offended the finer sensibilities of some of those whose sensibilities are not as fine as some of the rest of us.
Apart from that, I meant exactly what I said, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to escape our responsibilities, but we want to accelerate consideration of methods for helping our aged people who helped the general economy of Canada. We do not want to clutter it up, Mr. Speaker, with large premiums which are being paid to men who sit in mahogany chairs behind mahogany desks, and take a rake-off from the premiums which employees and employers pay these insurance companies. I am not mentioning insurance companies particularly, but if the state is going into this business, then it should get into it and get going. It should give those of us who have the honour and privilege of signing payrolls a chance, not to get out from under our responsibility but to co-operate with you in the responsibilities which belong in this chamber, so that, in the final analysis, we can work out some sort of economy as a result of which our Canadian people will take new interest in their work, and will go to work and help this country of ours to the destiny which belongs to it.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who just took his seat does not imagine for one moment that those of us who are taking time to look this proposition over a little bit before we leap have not the intestinal fortitude to appoint that committee. Our concern is not that we do not dare to appoint that committee but rather that we suspect every committee that Liberals appoint. I have been in this house for almost fifteen years and I have never yet seen a Liberal-appointed committee before whom it was worth while to go and present a case. I will wager that the chairman of the committee knows exactly what they are going to find before ever they start at all. Just try to get by the chairman with something that he does not want you to say, and see how far you get. I speak as one who has been on these committees. I am not a newcomer who has had no experience. In my judgment, this committee is nothing in the world but window-dressing. I do not believe that it intends to do anything except just to whitewash the whole situation and deceive the people.	*
I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, a little bit about why I think that. We had a remarkable budget the other night. Everybody cheered the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). His picture appeared on the front pages of the newspapers all over the country; he was the hero of the day. That was quite as it should be. The Conservatives will not be able

Old Age Security
to find a flaw in that budget, to save their lives; and the C. C. F. will And it next to impossible to criticize that budget. The only flaw they will find in it is that it did not swat the rich quite hard enough. That budget was based on paying our way at the present time and paying off a little bit of our debt. I would say, in a general sort of way, that if we are unable to pay off some of our debt today, I do not know what chance in the world we shall have four years from today; so that from the minister's standpoint the budget was a perfectly sound one, and I do not see how he could go much farther than he did. But if you put into that budget $300 million, you will have a widely different result from the one he obtained; and it will take upwards of $300 million to accomplish the objective which most hon. members seem to be all settled and agreed that we should have.


An hon. Member:: You know how to get it.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I know more about getting money than my hon. friend will ever know, because my hon. friend is so obtuse that he is not open to a new idea of any kind whatsoever. If that were not the case he would be listening now instead of trying to get a speech in between mine.
Nearly everyone that I have heard speak here agrees that the means test must be abolished. I am in agreement that it should be abolished. Most of the hon. members, both on the Liberal and the Conservative side, are agreed that the pensionable age should come down to 65 or 60. I am in agreement that it should come down to 65 or 60. Most of them have the idea that there should be an increase in the pension. I also think there should be an increase in the pension. The problem is this: Where is the money to come from? If the members of the Conservative party, when they rise to speak, would give us the slightest idea as to where they would propose to get the additional money, I am sure that the Minister of Finance would come in here and listen with great eagerness all through their speeches. If our C. C. F. friends would tell us where they would get the money, I am sure he would listen to them. He might not agree with them, but he would listen to them. '


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You tell us and we will listen to you.


John Horne Blackmore: Good. I could ask for nothing better. Keeping in mind the budget we had the other night, Liberals and Conservatives, I ask you to tell me how you are going to figure out the additional money necessary to remove the means test, increase the old age pension and reduce the pensionable age to 65 or 60. When you begin to tell me that, I will be an eager listener. Merely

to get up and say you want it done, with no suggestion as to how you are going to do it, remains just a weak futility. Let us face facts exactly as they are.
I am going to turn my attention for a few minutes to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). Unfortunately, he is not in his seat at the present time. I want to talk to that man. I think that probably I should include with him the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), because all those gentlemen are sure that the money must come out of the taxpayer. If that is the case, they are right in accord with the Minister of Finance. They have no criticism of his budget or of his means of building a budget. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre this afternoon said that he had given considerable attention to the proposals of Social Credit and that he was quite convinced that there was in Social Credit not nearly as much sense as there was moonshine. It might be suggested that, generally speaking, a man finds what he goes out to hunt; hence I presume the hon. member has been spending a good deal of time in hunting moonshine. I am going to propound a suggestion for the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Social Crediters are not going to take this nonsense lying down. In the Social Credit group are men who are just about as well informed on economics and finance as any that are to be found in Canada, and they are not going to take the silly remarks of a lot of half-baked people without having something to say about it.
In the first place something must be done to discover how to make what is physically possible financially possible, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) pointed out this afternoon. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had nothing to say about that. I suppose he agrees, and I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West would agree-that is what I gathered from what he had to 'say-that all we need to do is to increase production and we can take the money out of the production. I will ask him how much he would have to increase the fruit production of British Columbia in order to get any more money out of it, when he cannot sell what he now can produce. That is the question. Just as soon as we get to the point at which we are producing all we can sell, to increase production brings down the price under the present financial system and decreases the money you can get out of the goods. Let us face that fact

and put aside the nonsense. Let us remember that this parliament was elected to govern this country, not to talk nonsense. If the country is demanding that the old age pensionable age shall be reduced to 65, that the means tests shall be abolished and that the pension shall be increased, it is our business to find out how to do that. If we cannot do it under the system we are using today, we had then better begin to examine some other system.
Let us consider any one of the commodities you wish to name. We in Canada of course have not a great many surpluses. But down in the United States-and all hon. members are familiar with what is going on down there-there is in the neighbourhood of $4 billion worth of surplus agricultural products ranging over something like twenty different commodities. Can anybody tell anyone in the United States how they can increase the amount of money they can get by increasing the production of any one of these commodities or of twenty of them? As a matter of fact, every increase they make in such things as soya beans, cotton, wheat, oats, barley, rye, peanuts, and a whole lot of other things, weakens the state, because there is danger of a collapse in prices, and tends to decrease the amount of money they can collect from the people producing them. That is the kind of thing the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) must face.
What do you find when you face it? We find in the United States this remarkable thing. We find $4 billion worth of surplus goods already in the possession of the government, bought as surplus to keep the price structure from going down; and it is being held at a colossal cost to the nation. They have already appropriated, or they are thinking of appropriating, $2 billion more to buy the surpluses of next year. Will anybody, including the hon. member for Vancouver East, tell us how they are going to get money out of that production? They put money into that production, not get it out. In other words, an increase in production does not increase the amount of money available to the state beyond a certain amount unless they can sell the produce. These are cold facts.
Now, according to the information I have, at the very time when the United States has a surplus production of so many different kinds, they are talking of decreasing their military appropriation by $2 billion because they cannot afford the $2 billion. If you can think of anything more fantastically absurd than an attitude like that you will be doing
Oid Age Security
wonderfully well. You will have to think about it in a nightmare, because no intelligent person can concede that a nation that can produce more of every kind of thing than they can possibly use, with a surplus of everything, cannot afford to have defence.


An hon. Member:: Talk about Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: That is all right. The United States has the same financial system as we have. I am making this speech. If the hon. member is not content with the illustration of the United States, one of these days I shall come down with Canada as an illustration, because the situation is identical. We can take our beans in Canada as an illustration. I am using the United States as an illustration. The simple point is that where there is an abundance of goods, where there is a surplus of goods, surely the nation that is producing that surplus is able to afford greater expenditures. The big question is how to do it.


An hon. Member:: Social Credit.


John Horne Blackmore: 
An hon. Member:: Is it simple?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, it is simple. It is just as simple as it is to breathe, but there are a lot of simpletons who have not got sense enough even to breathe right.
In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, there are three things which need to be done this year without further delay. In this respect I agree with the other hon. members who have

spoken. There simply must be an increase in the pension. The age must be lowered to at least 65 and the means test must be progressively eliminated. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia and several other hon. members today, to give substantial old age pensions all over the country would have a powerful influence on the production in Canada, because it would provide a market and certainly would have a tremendous influence on our consumption and a very material influence on employment in the country, because the pensioners would be able to buy the goods which we are able to produce. It would provide for us a market. ,
There is a greater urgency for this increase of old age pensions and the spreading out of the pension over a wider area of population than some people realize. The age of the machines, which is rapidly developing against our generation, is putting more and more people out of work. For a good deal of time there has been opposition to that idea. Men have been trying to establish that machines do not put people out of work; that they actually increase the work which is available. Even the most hard-headed and reactionary thinkers in the United States are beginning to discover that the machines actually are putting men out of work. I hold in my hand a clipping from a newspaper or a periodical called Labour, which I think all hon. members receive. This issue is dated March 18,
1950.	Here is an article on finance based upon findings of two of the best authorities in the United States. First of all we find the heading, "Higher efficiency blamed for addition of 750,000 to ranks of jobless". That is in the United States. The article states:
This startling testimony came from J. A. Livingston, financial columnist, who is syndicated in many conservative papers, and from the magazine Business Week. Neither can be remotely regarded as "radical".
"Production efficiency cuts jobs" was the headline on a column by Livingston. Then he went on to say: "Efficiency is beginning to creep upon us . . . you can see it in the unemployment statistics." He
fitfiirnc. A nr\r\ nnn	,v' PoVin

highest in nine years.
In part, Livingston said, this is because "Post-war technological improvements are coming home to roost." Industries of all kinds, including the railroads, have installed labour-saving devices, and now "these improvements begin to pay off"-in layoff of workers.
"Fewer men or less time are now required to do the same job," he declared.
In the past year, unemployment rose by 1,500,000 and Livingston estimated that "half of that is attributable to higher output per worker." In short, labour's higher productivity has caused a loss of 750,000 jobs in one year.
Very bluntly Livingston put this question: "Will increased efficiency raise hell with full employment?"

Well, that is pretty serious, in the light of the situation which confronts us. The condition is very much like that in Canada. Further down I cull this from the article: "Magazine Echoes Warning"
Business Week, a leading organ of industry, made the same point-in perhaps even stronger terms. It did so in a lead article entitled "Unemployment, prosperity: Strange Pair."
"Labour productivity is rising-rising fast." the magazine said. " A Business Week survey confirmed that fact beyond question. It's taking fewer workers each year to produce our high volume of goods-so unemployment is creeping up."
Hence, "there's an unemployment problem again
__even though the business boom is going full
blast."
Output of goods and services in 1949 was about $259 billion, about the same as for 1948, after adjustment for price differences, the magazine explained.
"But in 1949 it took 3 per cent fewer workers to produce that output," it said.
In agriculture also, "the trend toward higher and higher production per worker is striking." Since 1947, employment on the farms has been dropping while production "has been as high as ever," the magazine reported.
The truth which is borne out in this article I have read is a very solemn truth. It indicates we have simply got to find some way or other of making the goods we are able to produce pay off in terms of finance, so that we can help those who are being displaced by machinery. This is having a very important effect on the old people, and it makes it more and more necessary that we be able to give munificently to those who are displaced after reaching the age of sixty-five years, and those who have reached the age of seventy.
An interesting article along the same lines appears in the Ottawa Evening Citizen, home edition, page 6, for March 16. In that article a United States scientist visualizes machines running the world in twenty years or less. Professor Norbert Wiener, the famous American mathematician, spoke in this fashion before an audience in the national research council auditorium at Ottawa on March 15. His speech is reported in the article of which I have given the head note. He says the time will come when we will displace men on a far greater scale than they are now being displaced. He says that the machine could take over a whole chemical plant, and that the du Ponts are doing it now, with an oilcracking plant. He states further that the automatic factory can be used in manufacturing automobiles.
The meaning of all this is the same as the meaning of the evidence set out by Mr. Livingston and Business Week. It means that we shall be able to have plenty of production, but with fewer and fewer men, which means that man will be disposed of at an earlier age, so that probably by the time he
Old Age Security
reaches the age of fifty or fifty-five it will be no longer possible for him to obtain a job. And if we are unable to give a man a job, unquestionably we have to find some means of giving him a living without a job. That is just as simple and as clear as a star in a starlit, clear sky.
What are we going to do about it? Are we going to wait until the problem develops to such an extent that we can do nothing about it, or are we going to go into the matter now, closely, while yet there is time?
The percentage of our population made up of people sixty-five years of age and over is rapidly increasing, as was indicated this afternoon by one hon. member. In an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal of recent date we find the heading "Sixty-five too young to retire", a statement attributed to Glen R. Shepherd, M.D.
In this article are some figures which I am sure hon. members would find interesting if, in their busy lives, they may have overlooked them. These figures show that in 1940 there were 9,200,000 people in the United States more than sixty-five years old, and it is said that in 1980 there will be at least 18,501,000 who will reach that age. But the working ages of twenty to fifty-nine will not increase one bit. How are the increasing numbers of people over sixty-five years of age to live off the static or decreasing number of producers?
This is another problem which faces us. We are right up against it; we cannot sidestep it. What are we going to do about it? It is all involved in this matter of making financially possible that which is physically possible, and finding money from some source other than taxation. There is no question that we can produce the goods-all the goods we need. There has never been any doubt about our ability to do that. But to get money out of those goods is going to be our problem and that is the thing we are discussing tonight. There should not be a bit of difficulty in having those people in the United States who are able to produce support the 18 million people in 1980 over the age of sixty-five years, to whom I have referred, if the goods they could produce could be turned into money to support those people. They will be able to produce the goods.
We must find the means whereby we can translate goods into terms of money, and there is no conceivable way except through the use of debt-free money, as Social Crediters have advised and advocated, and as the Guernsey islanders demonstrated in their famous experiment of 1815.
There is no question whatever that we can pay adequate pensions in Canada. I do not

Old Age Security
doubt for one moment that our Canadian economy can produce more goods by far than our old age pensioners could possibly use, including all the people over sixty-five and all the people over fifty-five, if we have to put them all out of work, if we had just time enough to expand our economy, as we can do, and if we once get to the point where we can be realistic and turn into money the goods we are able to produce.
I have a letter here from which I should like to quote some excerpts. I think nearly every member received it. This letter is dated March 20, 1950, and comes from the office of the ex-chairman of the Welland county board of old age pensions and mothers' allowances, at Fort Erie, Ontario. This letter indicates that the writer of it has no doubt whatever that we can organize affairs in this country so that we can pay all old age pensioners, without a means test, a good pension. In the second paragraph he says:
The total expense involved in this welfare service must amount to more than one-half of the cost of the actual pensions themselves-with all the machinery necessary in paying of same-and the initial and periodic investigations which many times cause real heartache to some of these elderly people who are afraid to earn an extra dollar in case they have it deducted from their cheque.
Taking everything into consideration-the number now employed in keeping records, the expense of office equipment, furniture and supplies essential under the present system, I feel that it would be far cheaper to the country and more satisfactory to the pensioner if the following plan were in effect.
When any person becomes seventy years old, he should send proof of age to the board at Ottawa with his application for pension. (Ottawa has the census records for checking.) The board could then issue in his favour a book of twelve cheques, dated one for each month-with an application blank for renewal inserted before the November cheque to be mailed to Ottawa then. This book should be taken immediately to any chartered bank and left there so that on the first day of each month, the pensioner could go to the bank, endorse his cheque for that month and receive his money.
Under this system, all provincial and local boards, investigators, etc., would be eliminated. The old age pension should be paid to all persons, regardless of their financial condition, when they become seventy years of age (it should be sixty-five). I "firmly believe that this proposed system would actually save the country money, and at the same time wipe out a great deal of the present dissatisfaction on the part of pensioners and provide comfort for many who really need it but are doing without under the present system.
There is a man who gives us hope even under the present system, under our way of doing business now. I think I am perfectly within the bounds of moderation when I contend that the old age pension must be increased, the pensionable age must be brought down to sixty-five, and the means test must be progressively removed. There is no need to have a committee to do that. If a committee is appointed to find ways and means of doing the thing we all know we
[Mr. Blackmore.l
ought to do, that is a different matter. Then the resolution should be so worded as to say that; but it is not so worded. In fact, I suspect that when the committee is in session if anyone were to attend and try to explain to the committee how Social Credit would be able to solve the problem he would not be given a respectful hearing at all. It would be a wonder if he were not ruled out of order by the chairman. Nevertheless, whether or not members of the house are prepared to back proposals to use debt-free money to finance what is physically possible, the simple fact remains that beyond any question it is the duty and responsibility of this house to see that these three objectives are achieved, namely: increase in the old age pension to make it adequate for the needs of the times; the reduction of the age to sixty-five; and the progressive elemination of the means test.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I offer no apology at this time for rising to speak for a few minutes. I have notes here for a forty minute speech but at the request of the minister I am going to cut it down to about five minutes. If it had been any other minister than the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) I think I would have had more heart to refuse, because I think a man should have the right to speak as often as he likes and as long as he likes. That is why we are sent here. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has been a very good friend of mine. When I could not find a bed on which to sleep in Ottawa he was good enough to provide his for Mrs. Bryce and myself, and I appreciate that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will give a bed to every member of the house if they will follow suit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are quite a bedfellow.


William Scottie Bryce: I had thought that by this time the government would have been ready to introduce some arrangement whereby the means test provision could be removed. Most people with whom I have been in contact in my constituency were quite sure that it was going to be abolished after the election. I have visited other parts of Canada as well and I find the same feeling there. Everybody believes it is time that the means test should be done away with. I have the Winnipeg Tribune for March 25 and I see that the finance committee of the Winnipeg city council is in favour of the abolition of the means test. The heading of the article is:
Abolish pension test, finance board urges.
The article reads in part:
Abolition of the old age pensions means test has been advocated by city finance committee. By a 3-2 vote Friday it recommended to council support for a Winnipeg labour council brief proposing end of the means* test, lowering qualifying age limit for pensions from seventy to sixty-five.

I shall not take the time to read the whole article, but in every paper you pick up today you find the same thing. Many people besides myself must have been misled by the propaganda of the Liberal government at the time of the last election. Many of our aged citizens, who have done a wonderful job of trying to provide for the eventide of their lives, find that the means test interferes so much in their getting what they really deserve. As I have said before, the man or woman who has been thrifty and tried to provide for a rainy day is penalized in obtaining the old age pension at the present time. No law should be allowed to exist that penalizes a man or woman for thrift, long considered one of the great characteristics of the Scottish race.
Having given my word to the minister, I do r.ot want to take up too much of the time of the house. I have spoken on different occasions about old age pensions and have brought to the minister's attention the deplorable conditions existing among some of our elderly people who have no homes of their own. Let us look for a moment at the circumstances of the married male pensioner who has reached the age of seventy but whose wife is a little younger. He receives a pension for himself but nothing for his wife. Here you have two people trying to live on $40 per month. I am sure the minister or anyone else cannot expect a woman of sixty years of age to go out and work to provide extra income to maintain the home. It has always been my contention that women should receive the pension five years earlier than men. Other countries do it, and Canada should never need to take second place to any country in looking after her aged citizens, the men and women who have built Canada and made her what she is today, a great nation becoming greater.
This week I received a letter from a gentleman in Manitoba whose father is one of the men who are handicapped by the means test provision in securing the old age pension. He is over ninety and is one of the men who teamed wheat to Winnipeg with oxen. These are the people we are penalizing, the men who broke the trail, the men who built Winnipeg, the men who made Manitoba and Canada what they are today. When speaking on the question of old age pensions I always feel that we should forget our political affiliations, because there is no member of the house, no matter on which side he sits, who does not have sympathy for our aged citizens. As the law stands today, men and women who have been thrifty, who have paid taxes, and who have now reached the age of seventy years, find that they cannot get any money to augment what they have saved themselves in
Old Age Security
order that they may live in comfort. But the men and women who have never done well for themselves, perhaps through no fault of their own, who perhaps in many cases have never even paid taxes, are able to draw the full pension, small as it is. I would ask the minister to ao away witn tne means test, to see that women receive the pension five years earlier than men, and that he blend old age pensions into an over-all social security scheme which will be contributory and will take care of people with arthritis and other incurable diseases who are unable to provide for themselves.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) had something to say today about double talk which I did not quite follow. Perhaps I was not listening closely enough. I do not think he made his remarks quite plain when speaking about New Zealand this afternoon. He told us what the people of New Zealand have to pay for social security and what they get for old age pensions. He made it appear that was all they received for their social security contribution. The fact is that they get over-all social security for the one contribution, including health insurance, sickness benefits, invalid benefits, maternity benefits, family allowances and old age pensions, as well as certain other benefits. In addition there are emergency benefits for any special situations that might arise. This makes quite a difference. Instead of the contribution paying only for old age pensions, it pays for all these other benefits I have mentioned as well. When I speak of an over-all social security scheme, that is the sort of thing I mean.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to take exception to the statement by my good friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) that we in this group are running down Canada. Personally I resent that very much. I came to this country as an immigrant more than thirty years ago, and I can assure every hon. member who is listening to me that my ambition has always been to be the best possible Canadian. Though my Doric has been a handicap in mastering the language of this country, in my travels to different parts of the world by land, sea and air, which I am sure compare favourably with those of the average member of this house, I have tried to be a good ambassador for Canada, in the land from which I came as well as in the other countries I have visited.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hold up the minister, but he will have plenty of time to close this debate before eleven o'clock. I have listened with a good deal of attention to the various speeches that have been made, and

Old Age Security
I want to say a few words at this time because in my opinion some clarification is required with respect to this matter of social insurance and social security, contributory and noncontributory.
I am not going to argue over the justification for the setting up of a committee. The government has a sufficient majority to set it up, and we can do nothing to stop it. But if it is being set up on the assumption that there is not in this country already sufficient evidence on which to decide this question of old age pensions, retiring allowances, and all that sort of thing, I do not agree; that is not the case. As recently as 1942 the government employed a man named Marsh to gather the data this committee is now going to gather. He laid down for the government at that time the Marsh plan of social security. Every angle was gone into thoroughly, and he made certain recommendations with regard to an over-all social security plan.
If that was not good enough, we had the Beveridge plan, which is now partially in operation in Britain. Sir William Beveridge was brought to this country in 1942 and appeared before the reconstruction committee of this house, where we had a long and learned discussion with him on the same subject.
The point I want to make is that both the Beveridge plan and the Marsh plan were founded on evidence to support the establishment of a social insurance scheme. I do not agree with social insurance, for the reason that it covers only those who are able to pay and leaves the great majority, who are not in a position to contribute directly from their pay envelopes for that protection, not covered at all. I do not agree with that type of social insurance because it leaves out the very people who should be covered.
On the other hand, as we state, we believe in an over-all social security plan covering the more unfortunate people of the country, and this means taxing the wealth of the country. It will have to be contributed to. Often we hear the expression, "We must make it noncontributory," but I am afraid those words are loosely used. There is no such animal in this world. Nothing is non-contributory; the cost of everything has to be contributed to; and the only fair and just way of contributing is the way the people are taxed today. You strike certain exemptions, and tax the people above those levels; and in this matter of social security you would tax those who can afford to pay and cover all the citizens of the country, including those who cannot pay. That is contributory through taxation, and it is the only way you can cover all the people. So I 
wanted to draw this distinction. Social insurance only partially covers your people and leaves uncovered the great majority who are not in a position to contribute. On the other hand, social security will cover all your people, but you tax those above a certain income level, and all those below that level are also covered.
As to old age pensions, I think that is a misnomer which should be changed. The words "old age pension" presuppose charity, poverty, a gift from the state to enable you to just drag through the rest of your life. I think in future we should call it a retiring allowance. But if we are going to take one, two or three years to study the matter and then do something about it, I believe we should first take some steps to relieve the present plight of our aged people. One thing the government could do which would not cost them anything would be to step up the permissible earnings. I believe that could and should have been done. If the government does not want to remove the means test at this time-and it appears adamant on that point-then I think the minister should have recommended that action. There are thousands of aged people on the old age pension today who are not permitted to even try to earn a little something on the side to supplement it. If the government would remove the ceiling on permissible earnings many old people who are immobilized today would get out and try to do something to earn a little in addition. That would not mean anything to the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).
Another very bad feature of that pension has to do with the person who has accumulated a little property. It is a lifetime struggle for the average person in the low income brackets to establish a two, three, four or five thousand dollar house for himself. Finally he arrives at the point where he receives the old age pension. The most disgraceful part of the whole matter is the position in which it places his heirs, in the event he draws that pension for three or four years before he dies. Before that little property can pass to his next of kin, the old age pension board in the province take the position that they have established an equity in that home. I have a file on my desk which covers such a case. I am not going to read it into the record, but in this particular case the man drew $2,000 by way of old age pension. The property was worth $3,000, and the old age pension board went to the courts to claim some of that money. They received $1,900, and that was paid to the old age pension board before that property could be passed on to the next of kin. I believe that is not generally known. I have heard it said on the platform by government supporters that

that sort of action was never taken. I do not know what is done in the rest of the provinces, but that certainly has been done in the province of Nova Scotia. I believe in the province of Saskatchewan there is a saw-off around the $4,000 mark, and there is no interference with the property.
There are two things which I believe the minister could have done while we have been discussing this matter. I believe the equity established by the old age pensions board in properties such as those I have described should be wiped out. I believe the procedure followed in Saskatchewan should be made uniform across the country. Then the permissible earnings could have been stepped up. When the minister introduced this resolution, I heard him argue that all the provinces are in a position to do something for themselves by way of supplementing the old age pension. He said he did not want to make any invidious comparisons, and I do not think he did. He is a rather innocent person, good-hearted and quite charitable. In this particular case, however, he slipped a little. He went on to point out that the province of British Columbia had stepped up the pension to $50 per month. The minister said that Alberta had stepped up their pension with a supplementary payment, but that Saskatchewan had not stepped theirs up quite as high. The thing the minister failed to make clear was that conditions vary from province to province. The province of British Columbia, for example, last year had a provincial income of $105 million. A lot of that $105 million was gathered from extra sales taxes and luxury taxes. This enabled that provincial government to supplement the pension.
The province of Alberta is not as well off, but it had an income of approximately $79 million. The income for the Saskatchewan government last year was about $74 million. When you look at the provincial income of the maritime provinces, you realize those provinces have not the kind of income that would enable them to step up their pension. If there is any field in which unity is required, it is in this particular field of old age pensions. If the minister proved anything by his speech in the house, it was that, insofar as this matter of old age pensions is concerned, it is a national problem. He proved conclusively that there are differentials between provincial incomes from coast to coast. Unity will not be obtained until such time as old age pensions are made a federal problem.
In addition to considering the matter of the old age pension, we should be considering the whole question of a retiring allowance for those who produce the wealth. When
Old Age Security
the committee is set up, I hope it will take it upon itself to examine representatives of the unions across this country, as well as representatives of management. I have stated in this house before that I think the great difficulty between management and labour in the future will be this problem of providing a retiring allowance for workers. In wage negotiations across the country today, the employer and employee are locked. The minister knows that is the situation in his own city, in which the auto workers are having difficulty. There are stoppages of work, and it is all due to this matter of establishing a retiring allowance.
The only way the problem can be solved completely is to establish, as I have suggested before, national social security contracts covering all the workers in this country. It is the only way the white collar worker, the farmer and the industrial worker can be covered. If the pensions now paid under the different schemes by employers across the country, and contributed to by the employees, were all centralized under the federal government and put on a proper actuarial basis, then we would build up uniformity across this country. There would not be the overlapping of administration that there is today. We would not only settle this business of old age pensions, but settle the whole business of a general retiring allowance for the workers of this country who are on a very meagre allowance at this time.
I believe it was the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) who made a comparison with what happened in the United States. I have heard it stated that certain industries in the United States were paying pensions of $100 per month. That is not true, because under the social security arrangement in the United States $36 per month is paid out of the federal treasury. The industry that has established a pension of $100 per month is only contributing $64 and the other $36 is paid by the federal treasury. I do not think that is a good arrangement. There is a lot of duplication in bookkeeping and administration. I believe the whole question should be investigated, and instead of establishing old age pensions-I think that name should be abolished-we should strike a general retiring allowance covering everyone in this country. A tax could be taken off at a certain level, just as it is now, but everyone in this country should be covered. I just wanted to make it quite clear that I am opposed to social insurance, because that presupposes that only those who are able to pay receive it. I am in favour of social security. I believe in the abolition of the means test now. I think it should be done. If the

Old Age Security
minister is not prepared to go that far, then I think he should at least try to do something about that property angle. There should be an adjustment there. While we are discussing the matter, may I say that I think the permissible earnings should be stepped up in order to give encouragement to many aged people who could go out and earn something if it were not for interfering with the present pension.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I had to hold up my hon. friend, but he has already had about twenty-five minutes on the subject. He still has some little time to go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Clarence Gillis: I want to make a correction, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who is my legal adviser, tells me that it was not the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) who mentioned this $100 a month but that it was the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry). I want to make that correction.
Motion (Mr. Martin) agreed to.



JOINT COMMITTEE-APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO ACT OF BEHALF OF COMMONS

Paul Joseph James Martin: With the unanimous consent of the house, I should like to move that we set up the committee now. I would move accordingly, seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier):
That Messrs. Ashbourne, Benidickson, Beyerstein, Blair, Brooks, Brown (Essex West), Corry, Cote (Verdun-La Salle), Courtemanche, Croll, Diefen-baker, Ferrie, Fleming, Gingues, Homuth, Knowles, Laing, Lesage, Maclnnis, Macnaughton, Picard, Pinard, Richard (Gloucester), Robertson, Shaw, Smith (Queens-Shelburne), Weaver, and Welbourn be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of the joint committee of both houses of parliament on old age security and that a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that the above members have been appointed to act on behalf of the Commons on the said joint committee of both houses.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister a question? I understand that arrangements have been made with the other place for the appointment of twelve members of the other place to complete the personnel of the committee. Am I correct in that? My second point is this. Will it be possible to have the additional members from the other place appointed and the committee convened so that some steps may be taken prior to the Easter recess to plan the work to the end that while the house is in recess work may be put under way and that rapid progress may be made when the house reconvenes?
[Mr. Gillis.l


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for mentioning that. My own desire to see the committee established at the earliest possible moment must have been obvious tonight. It was for that reason that I did not take advantage of the opportunity, at the end of the debate, to reply to what had been said during the course of it. It is the desire of the government that the committee be set up at once. I understand that arrangements are being made in the other place to deal with their motion tomorrow. I hope it may be possible for the committee to meet on Monday and to prepare for the major part of its work which, of course, will be after the Easter recess. I am sure that we shall all accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Harris) who, in his speech tonight, urged that the committee get down to work at the earliest possible moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister himself not to be a member of the committee?


Mr. Marlin:: The minister will certainly follow with great interest the work of that committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But will have no voice on it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson: That votes Nos. 64 to 84 Inclusive, of the main estimates 1950-51 be withdrawn from the committee of supply, and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: In view of events during the last three or four years, Mr. Speaker, and especially in recent months, since it has become known that Russia may have the secret of the atomic bomb, and with all the talk about the hydrogen bomb and its possible devastating effects, the result is that most Canadians at this time are deeply concerned with regard to our position as a nation in international affairs. The pillars on which our western civilization has been constructed were those of freedom, truth, mercy and justice. We find that during our time and in recent years two monstrous regimes have emerged which have not only challenged the principles of our civilization but also have gone out to mock and to defile them. The first was Hitlerism which, after a bitter struggle which brought a great deal of bloodshed, suffering and misery to millions of people, has been finally subdued and, we hope, eliminated for all time to come. The second

was communism, which also defiled the virtues of our civilization, even before the second world war, and which has as a result of the last world conflict emerged much more aggressive, much more powerful and much more arrogant than ever before. Today it threatens our very existence and our way of life.
The world today is divided into two camps with two opposing ideologies:	our western
world with our way of life as we have shaped it through centuries of struggle for freedom, starting as far back as Magna Carta; and on the other hand, communism with its headquarters in the Kremlin, and which although purportedly championing the cause of the working class is doing nothing but carrying on a clever form of propaganda for the extension of Muscovite imperialism. During the course of this debate practically every hon. member who has participated has indicated a keen desire for peace and for some definite understanding with the Soviet regime. I share the same views and the same feeling. The sentiment of the Canadian people, I think, was ably enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he spoke on March 3 on the floor of this house; as reported in Hansard at page 430, he said:
Certainly this government would give every support to any new beginning which gave any promise of success. Let us not forget, however, in our determination or desire, our anguish to do something, that the road ahead will in any case be long and difficult. We shall have to walk it with patience and with caution, with persistence and with realism. If a new approach, for instance, did not get us anywhere-there is always that possibility-we must not even then give way to the inevitable reaction of despair which would follow.
In our efforts to seek a solution to our position as a nation in international affairs, it is worth while that we be reminded with whom we are dealing, based on the actions of the Soviet regime. It is the ardent desire of the Canadian people and, indeed, of all the people of the western world, to come to some understanding or devise some formula which would dispel the fear now existing and which would ensure us a lasting peace.
In our attempt to find some solution and to come to some understanding with comrade Stalin I think we should pause and examine some of the characteristics of communism and how it has operated to achieve and maintain the mighty power now held by Mr. Stalin and his advisers.
In bringing out certain facts pertaining to communism, and in making certain suggestions, probably a diplomat would do it in different form. However, I do not pose as a diplomat.
External Affairs
If a businessman wants to enter into a contract or some agreement with another person, he endeavours to find out all he can about that other person. Therefore let me, with a great deal of indebtedness to Dr. Watson Kirk-connell, president of Acadia university in Nova Scotia, who has made a similar enumeration at a public address recently given in Winnipeg, show instances of how Mr. Stalin and his group have operated. This, I say, will indicate with whom we are dealing. After completing a gangsters' agreement with Hitler in September, 1939, Stalin's army occupied eastern Poland, and the communists then proceeded to liquidate all educated and politically conscious elements in the population. Stalin ordered to be shot or transported from eastern Poland to Siberia 1,700,000 people who were either Jews, Poles or Ukrainians. Of these, approximately half a million were repatriated, and the Russians now report that there are no others left.
Another instance: A great many of the officer personnel of the Polish army in the last war, consisting of ten thousand officers, were mercilessly killed., most of whose bodies were found in the Katyn forest. These officers were official prisoners of war, protected by the Red Cross convention, and it is significant that the nazis were not found guilty of this crime at Nuremberg as the evidence points directly to Stalin's personal orders.
A further instance: Details of Stalin's type of genocide are available with regard to the three Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which the Soviet armies occupied and incorporated into the U.S.S.R., not as a strategic move against Germany but in fulfilment of the agreement made between Hitler and Stalin.
Let me quote again from Dr. Watson Kirk-connell in this regard, with reference to the three Baltic states:
Between August, 1940, and June, 1941, over 200,000 men, women and children from these little countries were shot or deported in cattle-trucks to perish in slave camps in Siberia and central Asia. In every known case, husbands were separated from wives and children from parents. After the Russian retreat in 1941, thousands of corpses of murdered citizens were dug up in jail yards and elsewhere and identified by their friends. Many of those whose photographs I have seen had been bestially mutilated by the communists.
Gregory Aronson in his book called "The Jewish Problem in Soviet Russia" summarized by Clare Boothe Luce before the House of Representatives, July 6, 1945, says:
Approximately 50 per cent of the Jews who, before the revolution, had engaged in trade or in the professions, were physically exterminated. Partially this extermination was direct and violent; partially it was by the means made familiar to the world in German slave camps-the control of wages and of food and the forcing of labour to a point

External Affairs
which prevented those marked for liquidation from obtaining enough food for their bodies . . . Likewise the cost of survival included the abandonment by Jews of their moral principles, their religious beliefs and practices.
From Dr. Watson Kirkconnell I again quote:
In other words, Hitler massacred those who were racially Jews; Stalin massacred those who were spiritually Jews. In Soviet Russia only the apostate Jew could survive, the atheist who had renounced morality and religion as bourgeois prejudices, the recreant who had spit on his Jewish faith and had become a rootless revolutionary. Not a single Jewish newspaper remains in Russia today.
Another group that has been exterminated is the Greek community of the Kerch peninsula. The entire population, men, women and children, were shipped to perish in an Arctic slave camp and Russian colonists took their place.
A further instance: The Russians in the second world war began their fighting by liquidating five supposedly autonomous republics within the Soviet republic, namely: the Volga-German Soviet republic; the Kal-muk Soviet republic; the Crimean Soviet republic; the Chechen-Ingush republic and the autonomous national region of Kara-ch'ayev.
This was confirmed in an official Russian statement on June 25, 1946. The murder of these national groups, equal to the population of Canada's maritime provinces, had been disclosed in the Manchester Guardian as early as March 23, 1945.
Everything points to the fact that today the extermination of entire social groups is in full swing in Czechoslovakia and Roumania. But by far the greatest victims of Stalin's mass murders and extermination have been the Ukrainians. Between 1926 and 1932 there was a complete extermination of the Ukrainian Orthodox church, with all its clergy and its leaders. Between 1928 and 1930 the extermination of the Don and Kuban Cossacks, with all their officers and intelligentsia, took place. Since the occupation by the soviet armies of western and Carpathian Ukraine, during this last war, the soviets are effecting the extermination of the Ukrainian Catholic church in that area.
Stalin's supreme victory in mass extermination and annihilation, an achievement which he can look upon with pride and satisfaction, was in the period between 1930 and 1935 when he liquidated the Kulaks, and then exploited a famine for political reasons, which resulted in the death of millions of Ukrainians from starvation.
It is difficult for me to understand why so many people in the United States and Canada fell for that communist propaganda, when

this famine was explained by the politburo as social engineering. We have heard of famines at various times, but never was more bestiality displayed than this famine exploited by Stalin and his commissars. Again using an expression by Dr. Watson Kirkconnell, "as a murderer Hitler was a small time operator compared with Stalin."
The legal term "genocide" had been invented by an American professor, R. Lem-kin, in 1944, and was used in the indictment of nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. The crime of genocide is defined as an act committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group as such." It was intended to define Hitler's, liquidation of the Jews, but the irony of the Nuremberg trials was that during such trials soviet judges participated, whose master comrade Stalin far surpassed the acts of any person in the history of mankind in wholesale murders and exterminations. Hitler murdered the Jews as Jews, but Stalin never murdered the Jews as such, or the Poles as Poles or the Ukrainians as Ukrainians. His explanation is that he was liquidating these people as class enemies, as saboteurs and as traitors to the spiritual homeland of the workers of the world. To him the Soviet union is the fatherland of all progress, and all acts of mass extermination through shootings, famines or slave camps are for the benefit of the bourgeois world, acts of social engineering.
Again I quote from Dr. Watson Kirkconnell, where he says:
But let us look at the evidence a little more closely. We may note that it is precisely as Jews that more than half the Jews in the Soviet Union were exterminated. Those who were prepared to abandon their Jewishness and become atheistic communists were spared; but Jewry as a religious community was marked down for destruction. The same was obviously true of two other religious communities-the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous church and the Ukrainian Catholic church. It was not a recalcitrant individual here and there who was seized upon. The whole community had to be destroyed. The same is true of many national communities-the Ingrians, the Kerch Greeks, the Crimean Tartars, the Volga Germans, the Cossacks of the Don and the Kuban, the Kalmuks, and the peoples of the Karachayev and Chechen-Ingush autonomous regions. These people have disappeared forever from the map of the world. On the long lists of electoral districts of the U.S.S.R. published in Pravda of January 12, 1950, one will search in vain for these vanished communities, most of them formerly listed even in the Stalin constitution.
I have enumerated only a few instances of Stalin's modus operandi, and as based on the research work of Dr. Kirkconnell. I have done it for two reasons:
Firstly, in our ardent desire for peace let us know with whom we are dealing and how

our potential enemy operates. Let me remind you that we are now in the midst of a cold war. We must not fall into that fatal fallacy whereby we want peace at any price and lose our self-respect. We certainly want peace but we want to have it with honour based on freedom, mercy, truth and justice.
My second reason is for defence purposes, and on this I shall elaborate. Although we must not underestimate the Soviet union's strength, we must also for defence purposes not overlook her weakness.
It is my submission that the manner in which the thirteen men in the Kremlin, with Stalin as the chief, acquired strength, is the source of their weakness. We may think for a moment that in exercising his acts of genocide on the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Jews, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Lithuanians and other national minorities as well as on religious groups, Stalin's problems within the Soviet union have come to an end.
We realize that, within the Soviet union, effective resistance to Stalin and his advisers has ceased under the circumstances. However, it should not be overlooked that there are certainly millions of people still living who have not yet forgotten the famine in the early thirties and the mass murders and extermination during the last war.
It is my submission that there are today millions of potential fifth columnists within the Soviet union who, although helpless at the moment, are waiting for the opportunity. Even today a certain force known as the Ukrainian insurgent army, UPA, is operating against -the communists. Under date of February 22, 1950, in the New York Times as well as the Toronto Globe and Mail there appeared a news item concerning these insurgents. I quote the following from the Globe and Mail:
Russian troops sent to Ukraine to quell revolt.
Units of Soviet troops in Germany have been ordered to the Ukraine recently to assist in putting down an insurrection there, according to a front page article in today's Der Abend published in West Berlin.
Der Abend today asserts that this story has been confirmed by Finns who have just been sent back from Russia and also by Stockholm reports.
As in its account of the Leningrad plot, Der Abend's current version of Ukraine events declares that the participants include numerous Soviet officers who have deserted to the partisans because they believe that the politburo is preparing to war against the western powers. . . Estimates of the number of individuals active in resistance in the Ukraine total 20,000 to 30,000 Der Abend reports. They are, the story says, actively supported by a great part of the population.
We realize how difficult it is to get any real information from behind the iron curtain. I am not suggesting that the Department of
External Affairs
External Affairs is not informed on this situation. It is my submission however that the Canadian government, as well as other governments of western democracies, should be prepared to take advantage of this weakness within the Soviet union for defence purposes, should the time arrive and we had to resort to all defences at our disposal. It is therefore my further submission that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have in his department the type of assistant who could keep him fully informed on this matter.
When we consider the Kremlin's position outside the borders of the Soviet union, then it is apparent that Stalin's main difficulty at the moment is with his satellite nations. I now quote from page 111 of James Burnham's recently published book, "The Coming Defeat of Communism":
The Soviet union has not yet succeeded in integrating the satellite nations into the communist system. The great public expression of this failure is Tito; but potential Titos and potential Titoism have been widespread throughout the satellite nations. Purges, liquidations, mass exilings to Siberia, trials, denunciations, have had to continue and multiply. Vice-premiers, generals, ministers, party members and non-party members, as well as cardinals and priests, have had to be dismissed or tortured or imprisoned or shot. Agricultural policy has had to tack and veer in trying to hold its course against the stubborn and sullen peasants.
We are hardly in a position to overstate the importance of Tito's defiance of the Kremlin even though he should eventually capitulate or be liquidated. Titoism is present in all satellite states-Gomulka in Poland and Markos, head of the Greek guerrillas, Hoxha in Albania, Rajk in Hungary and Kostov in Bulgaria.
Interesting developments are taking place in Czechoslovakia today.
Those who have made a study of communism as directed from the Kremlin realize that the ultimate goal is world domination. There is no question that the long and continued existence of Titoism would create a backbreaking strain within the communist movement and empire. Professor Burnham in his book with reference to Titoism says at page 112:
From the point of view of the communist high command, there is this peculiarity to the Tito issue. If Tito succeeds in maintaining his independent position (which he can do only by aid from and links to the west, and a correlated wider political separation from the Kremlin) and if other Titos arise, then the communist plan for world domination cannot succeed.
We must realize that the threat of Kremlin world domination in its threat to our way of life and our very existence is startling and real. We appreciate the menace and we have taken certain defensive steps. The North Atlantic pact is an example as well as the

External Affairs
huge budget appropriations for defence this year. Probably we would not worry too much about the means test, concerning which we have heard so much lately, and other forms of social security which we Canadians would like to have, if we did not have to appropriate these huge sums of money for defence purposes.
There are, however, very few Canadians who, realizing our position, have any quarrel with the government's huge appropriation of money for defence purposes. It may be that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) may not see eye to eye with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as to how the money should be spent, but I do not think there is any question on the part of the Canadian people as to the amount of money we appropriate for defence purposes. We are doing so because we are realists, because we cannot completely rely on wishful thinking that some day we will come to a definite and amicable understanding with comrade Stalin on the question of peace. The same principle applied when Canada took such a leading part in bringing into effect the North Atlantic pact. Being realists, our defence should not lie merely in the amount of moneys appropriated for guns, planes, tanks, submarines or other war material, although that is very important. We must also rely on other things that are available for defence purposes and especially take full advantage of the weaknesses of the potential aggressors. I have endeavoured to point out some of these weaknesses within the borders of the Soviet union as well as within the satellite states.
I should like to draw your attention briefly to our internal position in Canada. In doing so I should like to quote a portion of an article appearing in the Financial Post of March 18, 1950, which reads:
Already a lot of organizations with fine democratic names have been exposed as ideological boiler shops. A lot of unthinking liberals and do-gooders who didn't investigate what they were getting into have been left holding the bag. Today there are three or four world-wide communist sales organizations. All are selling a highly marketable and desirable product, peace.
The line is this: "If war comes it will be the fault of the Trumaniacs. The Soviet Union wants to ban the bomb. The others refuse to do so." In other words, condition our minds to accept the big lie, that if war does come, it will be of our making, not Russia's.
Then the article deals with a certain convention that took place in Budapest and it reads as follows:
Recently the communist youth movement staged a world youth and student festival in Budapest behind the iron curtain. A young American who attended, writing in a United States magazine article, said he was "appalled'' by what he called the "defamation" of the west. Among the hundreds of young delegates were thirty-two Canadians representing these organizations.

Then the organizations are listed, and the article continues:
At least twenty of the thirty-two delegates were known communists. Some were members of the "Beaver Brigade". This is a communist youth shock troop group. Since the war they have made annual trips behind the iron curtain to work with pick and shovel on communist work projects.
My reason for reading this article is to point out that, although there is the iron curtain, we in Canada allow Canadians to enter the Soviet union and her satellite states where they receive training and instructions in the art of communism and how to conduct a revolution. When they return to Canada we accept them, and naturally they act as leaders of potential fifth columns and continue to spread communist propaganda. I am not going to suggest what we should do, but I am leaving this matter with hon. members for their consideration. It may be, however, that our conception of freedom may go a bit too far.
The recent election in Great Britain has aroused world-wide interest and concern, not so much because we were interested in the victory of the Conservative party as such, or the British people's experiment in socialism, as because of the stand with regard to the Kremlin which that great wartime leader, Churchill, took after the second world war. Mr. Churchill was the first important statesman to warn the world at Fulton as to the intentions of Soviet Russia. He was widely criticized at the time but now four years later we know that he was right. He was roundly condemned for his stand on Greece when he was still prime minister of Great Britain, but subsequent events have proven that again he was right.
I do not wish to create the impression that I am a calamity howler so far as our relations with the Kremlin are concerned, but let me remind you of Mr. Churchill's speech approximately a year ago at Boston when he made this statement:
I must not conceal from you the truth as I see it. It is certain that Europe would have been com-munized and London under bombardment some time ago but for the deterrent of the atomic bomb in the hands of Bthe United States.
I am sure I am expressing the sentiment of all in the house when I say that I hope Mr. Churchill was wrong when he made that statement. Nevertheless he was right on so many other occasions. As a leading statesman of the world he probably knows Stalin better than anyone else in the western democracies. Since he made his speech at Boston we have learned that the Soviets have the secret of the atom bomb. If Mr. Churchill was right in making that statement, then the interesting and at the same time breathtaking question arises as to how long we have

to wait, now that the Soviets have the secret of the atom bomb, before they choose to bombard London or Edmonton.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house for many minutes but there is a matter of considerable importance which I should like to bring to the attention of the house before we go into committee. Earlier in the session I drew attention to the fact that the Canadian freighter, Lake Canim, sailed from Hong Kong with war supplies for communist China, and that she ran the nationalist blockade in order to deliver those supplies to the communist-held port of Shanghai. She made three attempts to do so. The first one was successful and two later ones were not. The matter of the blockade has been dealt with by the Department of External Affairs and a ruling has been given that the nationalist blockade could not be recognized as a blockade because it was not effective. As recently as March 22 a Canadian Press dLpatch stated that the Montreal-owned freighter Argovan was to sail from Vancouver on March 23 with war supplies for the Chinese nationalist stronghold on Formosa. The dispatch goes on to say:
Captain F. Delaney of Vancouver, master of the ten thousand-ton freighter, said that his ship will unload 75 surplus United States army tanks on the island's north coast . . .
The Argovan is the fourth Canadian ship to take cargo into the Chinese civil war zone.
There we have two examples, one of a Canadian ship delivering war supplies to one side, the communists, and a few months later another Canadian ship taking war supplies, though they have not been delivered yet, to the nationalists. Canada is guilty of supplying war materials to both sides in a civil war. That is repugnant to a very large section of
External Affairs
the Canadian people, and is not something of which this government can be proud. That has been brought about because the government has not declared a firm policy with respect to China; and I do feel that when this committee is set up it should be given definite directions by the government as to how it is to deal with this situation, because the Canadian people do not want to be guilty of fostering a civil war by supplying arms to both sides.
Motion (Mr. Pearson) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will go into supply and consider the trade and commerce estimates until six o'clock. From eight to nine we will have private and public bills. After nine o'clock we hope to pass the motion of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) to set up a committee on radio broadcasting and the motion of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) to set up a committee to consider amendments to the Dominion Elections Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will those motions with respect to the setting up of committees not be called until nine o'clock?


Alphonse Fournier: Some days ago I had an understanding with the opposition that we would try to get into supply one day a week to take up estimates. One of the most important departments is trade and commerce, and tomorrow afternoon I think we will take up those estimates.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
55946-91 i

Friday, March 31, 1950