1957-12-16

Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I was asked to table a copy of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister on December 13 by the chairman of the council of ministers of the Soviet union, Mr. Bulganin. As I reported at that time, this letter was in Russian and was accompanied by what was described as an unofficial translation. Over the week end the Soviet embassy printed an English translation in its official news bulletin. This translation has been checked by the Department of External Affairs and found to be a satisfactory rendition of the Russian language letter. I should therefore like to table the text of this translation.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the agricultural prices support board has been authorized to support the price of sugar beets grown in 1957 on the basis of $13 per ton for sugar beets with 17 per cent sugar content. Arrangements will be made in each producing area with growers' groups to make payments if necessary. It is intended that current grower contracts with sugar beet factories should continue to operate, and any payments which may be made will go direct to producers as a deficiency payment if the average returns to growers on 1957 sugar beets fall below the price level indicated.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the announcement he has just made, but perhaps I should wait till the question period.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: There is none today.


Some hon. Members:: Ask it now.


Ernest George Hansell: May I ask the minister if the price support is going to be uniform throughout all of Canada, or will the price support board take into consideration the peculiar interests of sugar beet growers in western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This price will be uniform throughout Canada.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. Would this in any way be affected by the resolution that was discussed on Saturday, the agricultural prices stabilization bill?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The order was passed to cover sugar beets grown in 1957, so whatever level of price support is put on sugar beets for the following year would then be announced in the spring or early winter period, in other words the January-February-March period.


Mr. Mariin (Essex Easl):: In that event
would the last three years be taken as an average, or just one year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this particular case the provisions of the legislation which is now before the house have not entered in at all. This is the same sort of ad hoc price which has always been established and used under the price support legislation which we have at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is based on the previous act introduced by the Liberals?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is under the present act; it has to be, of course.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture in respect to the announcement he made concerning sugar beets. Has the announcement he has made taken into consideration the brief that was presented to the minister a few days ago by the sugar beet growers of western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker; and I might say that the brief was not presented by the sugar beet growers of western Canada but rather by the growers in all sugar beet producing areas in Canada. [Later:]



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether in the light of the announcement he has now made it is not clear that anything that can be done under the proposed new bill can be done under the existing act and, if that is

Motion for Papers
so, will the minister consider action to increase the price on hogs that is currently at a disastrously low level?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that is not a question so much to elicit information with respect to the statement the minister made as one relating to a matter on the order paper for discussion later.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I would just like to say that this announcement bears no relationship to what is in the bill now before the house. There is no question of how much more that bill can do than the present act does.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Is the minister giving consideration to an immediate floor price on hogs under the present act?


Mr. Cardiff:: One thing at a time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, we in the department are giving constant consideration to the necessity for and the level of floor prices as far as any agricultural product is concerned, but at the present time it does not appear necessary to change the floor level as far as hogs are concerned. It may become necessary in the future weeks, but hog prices have been on the way up in the last couple of weeks.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are still very low.



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Assistance Act so as to remove the threshold provision from the agreements that have been concluded or that may be entered into hereafter; and to make certain changes for the better administration of the act through the deletion of a number of obsolete provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Mcllrailh:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal district commission and the city of Ottawa, since June 10, 1957, concerning the proposed new Bronson avenue bridge over the Rideau canal.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: There is no objection to the motion, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants and Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were retired, after long service, when salaries were low, so as to bring their pensions in line with those of the present.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity of moving this resolution, because I do not think there is a hardship in Canada today that would compare with what the retired civil servants of this country are suffering. I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not in his seat. I see the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) is here, and I expect to hear him step on it and just go because he is convinced, as I am, that this resolution is right.
I am not going to spend any time quoting the outstanding speeches which were made last year by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance, or the outstanding speech which was made by the former leader of the opposition. To me this resolution indicates an outstanding need. I have come to the place where I do not care very much which party grants this increase in pension to our former civil servants. Whether it is the Liberal party, the Conservative party or the party which is not as good as either, it does not matter very much so long as we get this increase. I have been at this for a number of years but that does not matter now. We are at it now and we mean what we say.
There are two reasons why I bring forth this resolution. The first is the justice of it, and the second, the need for it. Every member of this house will realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is one petition in the prayer given by our Divine Leader, namely that the government may have truth and justice, religion and piety. I am emphasizing truth and justice now, and my first argument is justice. This increase in pensions is absolutely just. Therefore if it is not granted the government will be doing an injustice to the retired civil servants.
I should like to quote just a little bit of the speech of the Minister of Public Works: "The clear understanding was that the basis of this superannuation itself when it was first introduced was that they receive a stated percentage of their pay when they retired which would be sufficient for them to maintain approximately the same standard of living they had received before they retired." The

law of this country is a guarantee to the civil servant when he enters the service that when he retires he will have a pension that will help him maintain the standard of living he had before. If the government does not do that, then it is not practising truth and justice.
Another reason it is just is that these people themselves contributed to their pensions during all the years they were working, and they are not getting a square deal. Many of them worked ten hours a day six days a week. Those doing the same jobs now only work eight hours a day and five days a week. Therefore I say that if retired civil servants do not get a pension in proportion to the salaries being paid now they are not being treated justly.
Other countries like New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain have increased civil service pensions. Great Britain has made six increases. The United States has kept up to date but poor Canada cannot afford to pay retired civil servants the pensions they were promised by law. I read the local Ottawa newspapers fairly regularly. In the Ottawa Citizen of December 12 there was an article by J. A. Hume with the heading, "Civil Service Superannuation Fund Up." In that article he stated:
At the end of the last fiscal year on March 31, the public service superannuation fund had a balance of $918,943,986 to its credit on the government's books. This represented an increase of $114,707,703 on the year's operations.
Therefore I say that if the government keeps piling up the superannuation fund and does not pay the pensions it promised by law it is not acting justly. If anybody can suggest stronger language to use I will be very glad to use it. I say the government is not acting justly toward retired civil servants in not granting an increase in their superannuation.
There is a need. I and other hon. members have received a submission by the civil service association of Ottawa in which some cases of need are outlined. The association tells us about a man who had to give up his apartment because his rent went up from $30 a month to $83. Another person had to leave his apartment, and others have had to cut down on clothes and recreation.
But the association did not give all the outstanding needs. I know a man in Fort William who, as I stated last year, had to give up his pipe. When a man has smoked for 40 or 50 years and has to give up his pipe so his wife can have a few more of the luxuries of life he is being hard hit, and it is not fair. If some of you had to give up your pipes you would be rooting around like wild
Public Service-Pensions men. I know when our hired man did not have his pipe we were advised to keep out of the way of his big boots, because he was not normal. When a man has to give up his pipe because the government does not pay him the pension he should have I say the government is not acting justly. I think that is strong enough language.
Some people say this country is hard up. I have listened to the members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups, who tell us how hard up the farmers are. I tell you their condition would not compare with that of the retired civil servants. If one compared the three meals a day which the farmers have with the two meals a day which our retired civil servants often have, then one would change his mind and be glad he was a farmer. I should like to prove the fact that this country is not hard up. I have here a report from the dominion bureau of statistics which proves that the people of this country spend $512 million on tobacco and $965 million on liquor. This means that a total of $1,477 million goes up in smoke or down the drain. If these luxuries were taxed in a small way the revenue would pay for larger pensions of our retired civil servants.
I am not going to say very much more, because I intend to keep my reputation for not making long speeches. I do not think it is necessary to do so. As the Minister of Public Works said last year, a speech on this question is not necessary. I am just stating that because of these two things, the outstanding need of the civil servants and because of the law of the land, the government should grant an increase in these pensions. As I look at my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and think of the speeches he has made in the past 22 years and the cooperation he has given in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I often feel he meant what he said. If he meant what he said we will have this increase in pensions. I cannot do better in closing than to quote the recommendations of this civil service association. They are as follows:
(1)	That the government increase the pensions of all those now on superannuation by restoring the full purchasing power of the original pension: and
(2)	That the government safeguard the future purchasing power of pensions by granting an increase in pension payments corresponding to the percentage of any general salary increase;
(3)	That the costs of the increases recommended be borne solely by the superannuation fund of the public service of Canada, without any increase in contribution rates.
Mr. Speaker, my last words are these. After I get my cheque and before I hand it over to somebody who knows more about spending it than I do, if somebody were to say to me "Hands up", and I handed over my salary

Public Service-Pensions you would call that highway robbery. But when the government say by law that you are going to get a pension according to your standard of living and then they fall down on it, what would you call that? I will not call it highway robbery, but if I were to use the language of the hon. member for Vancouver East I would use another word which I will not use here.
I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, in listening to me for these 19 minutes.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, for the warm-hearted and non-partisan manner in which the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has presented this important and significant resolution, I am sure all hon. members are deeply indebted. Perhaps it is appropriate that one who has announced his own retirement from the public service at the conclusion of this parliament should this day be championing, as he has in the past, the cause of those who have retired previously from other forms and aspects of public service; and that he should be championing them, as he always does, with such geniality and Irish charm of manner for which he is noted in this house.
This is an important and significant resolution, and one which deserves the best attention of all hon. members; because there are in it implications of far-reaching importance not only to the retired civil servants but to the public generally. I am sure it must be evident to all hon. members that the rights and conditions of employment of public servants have a direct and important bearing upon the quality of government which we receive. I confess that I belong to what might be called the model employer school, believing that it is the duty of government to provide conditions of employment and rights of ample retirement benefits to all civil servants which will serve as a model and an example to all other employers. Unless that be so we cannot continue to attract, as we must, the very best persons to the service of the state.
All hon. gentlemen will agree, I am sure, that the present civil service is a real credit to Canada. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, no other country in the world has a finer body of men and women serving the state. For diligence, for intelligent application, conscientious devotion to public duty and integrity, the Canadian civil service ranks as the very highest. The debate on this resolution I am sure will demonstrate that all hon. members have this high regard for our civil service, this admiration which I have expressed, and will demonstrate further the unanimous resolve of all hon. members that all aspects of civil service


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have this statement included in Hansard at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: The table is as follows:
Pensions Payable on Retirement
Retiring	Clerk	4	Postal Clerk 2	A	B	C	A B	CDecember 31	$	$	$	$ $	$in 1939	576	960	1,344	522 870	1,2181947	594	990	1,386	556 926	1,2961950	650	1,084	1,518	628 1,046	1,4651953	752	1,254	1,756	747 1,245	1,7441956	887	1,478	2,070	883 1,472	2,061Astronomer 4*	Geologist 4	in 1939	1,152	1,920	2,688	1,386 2,310	3,2341947	1,155	1,924	2,694	1,405 2,342	3,2791950	1,204	2,007	2,810	1,497 2,495	3,4931953	1,324	2,206	3,088	1,688 2,813	3,9381956	1,512	2,520	3,528	1,951 3,251	4,552
A-Retiring with 15 years service.
B-Retiring with 25 years service.
C-Retiring with 35 years service.
Astronomer 4 is a small group but it was difficult to follow back many of the classifications in this salary level. However, in recent years the salary levels of this classification are comparable with those of chemist 4, engineer 3, economist 4 and statistician 4.
Now, sir, there are other factors which make a simple solution of the problem impossible. Our whole pension scheme is almost incredibly complex. Some civil servants' pensions are computed on the basis of a five-year average of salary. Others, and indeed the great majority, are computed on a 10-year average. With two general salary increases in the last three years it is not difficult to see how much the pension rights of those civil servants on a five-year average are improved in comparison with those on a 10-year average.
Then there is the question of pensions paid to members of the armed forces. I notice, incidentally, that the resolution put forward by the hon. gentleman does not deal with the pensions of the armed forces. I assume that is purely an oversight, and that he intends us to consider them as well as the pensions of civil servants and members of the R.C.M.P., with which the resolution does deal.
I point out that pensions paid to members of the armed forces and of the R.C.M.P. are calculated on the basis of a higher formula than that used with respect to civil servants generally. The principal difference in the pensions arises out of the fact that they are payable immediately on retirement at an age which may be earlier than a civil servant's immediate pension age of 60; and the amount of the pension is based on average pay over,


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member such leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Richard Albert Bell: The table is as follows:
If annuity commences between- August 20, 1920 and June 30, 1955 ... July 1, 1955 and December 31, 1955 January 1, 1956 and June 30, 1956 ... July 1, 1956 and December 31, 1956 . January 1, 1957 and June 30, 1957 ... July 1, 1957 and December 31, 1957 .
Annuity not in excess of $1,500 shall be increased by-
12 per centum 10 per centum 8 per centum 6 per centum 4 per centum 2 per centum
Annuity in excess of of $1,500 shall be increased by-
8 per centum 7 per centum 6 per centum 4 per centum 2 per centum 1 per centum
The house will note from this table that the increases vary from 12 per cent upon the first $1,500 of pension income for those who retired before June 30, 1955, to only 2 per cent for those who retire from July 1, 1957, to December 31, 1957. In the legislation there is also a ceiling of $4,104, or in other words the increases will not apply to increase a pension beyond that amount. In congress there appears to have been little concern over what the public may have thought about these special provisions for retired civil servants, but perhaps this could be accounted for by the fact that it is now the accepted practice in that country to increase the benefits of recipients under their old age and survivors' insurance scheme after retirement without, of course, requiring any additional contribution. Actually the only real concern I was able to find voiced in congress was over the provision of funds to pay the increased pensions.
In this parliament I can find only one precedent for this type of action which is suggested, that being an amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in 1925 to provide an increase in pensions granted prior to July 7, 1919 so as to bring them up
to the same pension level as if the pensioners were retiring on the effective date of the amendment but with the service which was to their credit at the date of actual retirement. There was a further amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in 1930 which resulted in a readjustment of pensions, but by a means not material to this discussion.
In the provinces so far as I have been able to ascertain there is no general pattern. Three provinces, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have some provision. The province of British Columbia pays $1 per month for each year of service from the date of retirement until age 70, when this additional payment stops on the ground that the pensioner then receives old age security. In the province of Saskatchewan, under an order in council a bonus is payable to retired civil servants between ages 65 and 70. The bonus is a maximum of $45 additional per month provided it does not bring the combined pension and bonus above $75. The bonus ceases at age 70 when old age security payments commence. Thus it would seem to me that the position taken in British Columbia and Saskatchewan and the technique employed there relates wholly to the so-called

Public Service-Pensions hardship cases and not to the general problem we are considering in the house today.
I have not been able to ascertain in detail the situation in Newfoundland. Apparently it is under an order in council, because I have not been able to find any legislative authority. The other provinces appear to have made no provision, although it should be said that in most provinces the pension is based on an average of the last three years of salary and therefore the pension bears a closer relationship to the retiring salary.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: wonder if the hon. gentleman would not like to give credit to the government of the province of Ontario for having done something in this field with respect to its retired teachers.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite correct. In the province of Ontario provision has been made in respect of retired teachers, although that provision has not been applied to retired civil servants generally as yet. With regard to private Canadian employers there are isolated instances of pension increases to former employees but no general pattern appears to have developed yet.
I have taken the time of the house to make this rather comprehensive review of the legislation and the practice in other jurisdictions in order to show two things.
First, there is no insuperable obstacle to a just and fair readjustment of civil service pensions. On the contrary, it is possible, it is feasible and it is just, and it has been so established elsewhere. Secondly, the techniques of adjustment, or perhaps I should say of readjustment, are not simple; and to establish a relative justice between all classes of retired civil servants requires the most detailed investigation and study which are now proceeding with the greatest possible rapidity.
I confess, sir, that when I first started to study this problem I believed that if the government were disposed to act, the best and the simplest solution would be an overall percentage increase. And I think, from my review of the debates in this house, that that has been the more usual approach to the problem. But I have reached the conclusion, I have to say, that such an approach would create more injustices than it could possibly cure. In this respect there is a most apt reference on a slightly different point by Mr. Henry Brooke, to whom I have already referred, the financial secretary to the treasury, in introducing the United Kingdom
[Mr. Bell (Carleton) .1
bill on February 23, 1956, and I quote from page 588 of the British Hansard of that day:
Most unfortunately, the more one studies that seemingly attractive possibility, the more convinced one becomes that it would be impossible that way to do individual justice.
What we have to do is to take into account a total body of about 600,000 pensioners, who have retired after different kinds of services, with different kinds of pension, at different times over the past 30 years and more. What matters is to do justice, as far as possible, among all those individuals. One has to discard the idea of a simple, new scheme as soon as one discovers that whatever scheme of that kind one can devise, it will do justice that is too rough to be called justice at all.	.
There is another possible method of proceeding. This other method, which has weighty advocates, is to legislate to bring every old pension up to the amount which the individual concerned would be awarded as pension, if he were retiring today on the same record of service as he actually had. But, apart from any other considerations, this method, too, is seen to run into practical difficulties, which
1	am afraid are insuperable. We are concerned with more than a quarter of a century of turbulent, national history which has seen enormous changes in the organization of the various services with which we are dealing.
This quotation, sir, is all too true of our situation here. A flat percentage increase in all pensions to those retiring before a certain date would give a pensioner retiring just before that date an unjustifiable advantage over the person retiring just after that date, with the same service. In addition, even for those retiring at the same time there is the complication created by the fact that there are six different benefit formulae to be considered when determining what increase should be made in the pensions of the three groups which are under review, namely the civil servants, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the armed forces; because, depending upon the time at which the individual affected came under the relevant statute, he will have received a pension of
2	per cent of a certain salary, or average salary, over a certain period for each year of service up to 35 years.
As I have already indicated, the position is very much loaded in favour of the person who retires on the final salary or his last year's salary rather than on a salary under the 10-year average upon which most civil servants are at the present time. I think it will be agreed by the house that there is a strong argument for providing more than one series of adjustment factors. I think, Mr. Speaker, it should also be pointed out that this is one of several problems under the Public Service Superannuation Act for which consideration is now required.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and other hon. members have interested themselves in the problem of those who are under the retirement fund, who regrettably and

foolishly declined to elect to come under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Consideration must be given by the house to what extent we are to give them another opportunity to rectify what always was and what now appears even to them to have been a major error in judgment.
I do not need to refer, sir, to the problem of the employees of the soldiers' settlement board or the department of soldiers' civil re-establishment who were not considered permanent, and therefore were not under the 5-year average when it was in effect and are now under the 10-year average, because many columns of Hansard, as hon. members know, have been devoted to that.
These, sir, are but indications-and I see my time is rapidly drawing to a close-of the problem with which the new government was faced when it took office not yet six months ago. Immediately the new government gave instructions that the fullest possible review of all these superannuation problems be made by officers of the Department of Finance, the department of insurance and the advisory committee under the Public Service Superannuation Act. That has been going on and is going on today. It is only partially complete. Preliminary reports only have been made, reports of such a nature that a final decision cannot yet be made by the government.
As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have stated in this house, this statistical and actuarial review will be completed at the earliest possible date, and an announcement of the government's decision will be made immediately thereafter. This is the assurance I can give to the house. There will be no stall, no attempt to avoid the issue directly once the basic facts, upon which a wise decision can be made, are fully known.
I hope, sir, that the debate on this subject today will serve a useful purpose. I hope hon. members on all sides of the house will try to help the government to achieve a fair and equitable solution of this complex problem. That the government will welcome and will give earnest consideration to all constructive suggestions from hon. members I can give positive assurance.
The brief to which the hon. member for Fort William referred a few minutes ago was presented to the Minister of Finance on November 15 by the civil service association of Ottawa, and copies of it were sent earlier to all hon. members. That brief is a helpful and constructive document and personally I want to congratulate the association and its officers upon the excellence of their presentation.
Now, sir, specifically I invite hon. gentlemen to express opinions, which I say would
Public Service-Pensions be helpful, as to whether there ought to be a single formula for the pension adjustment if adjustment is to be made, or ought there to be different formulae, varying as to the types of pension one from the other. If there should be an increase, ought there to be a ceiling placed on the increases as in the United States or the United Kingdom; and if a ceiling, at what figure and why? These, sir, are questions upon which the opinions of hon. members in all parts of the house expressed today would be most helpful.
I want to close as I began, Mr. Speaker. Proper retirement benefits for all civil servants constitute an obligation of government. Once all the facts are known I do not believe this government will fail in its obligation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Fort William for having brought this resolution once again before the house. It cannot be said of the hon. member for Fort William that he is raising a subject, now that he is on the opposition side of the house, that he neglected to raise when he sat on the government side of the house; for, as the records make clear, the hon. member raised this question a number of times, supported it when others raised it, and in the session in the earlier part of this year moved a resolution almost identical to the one that is now before us. Indeed, the only difference between the resolution of March 4 and the resolution now before us is that the hon. member for Fort William has now included a reference to retired personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I believe it might be assumed, as the hon. member for Carleton has pointed out, that when we are discussing this matter we are indeed discussing retired civil servants generally, including members of the R.C.M.P. and of the armed services, and the hon. member for Carleton anticipated one of my points, namely that whatever is done in this field should also be done for retired employees of the Canadian National Railways.
I want also to extend a word of commendation to the hon. member for Carleton on the remarks he has made. It is to be noted that he speaks not only as the member for Carleton but as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, and that gives particular weight to the assurances he has given today. We might have hoped, with all the study that has been given to this matter in the Department of Finance over the past 10 years, that it would be possible for the present government to move a little faster on this question.
2428	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Pensions I can assure the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and the government generally that we will hold them to this assurance to move as rapidly as possible in connection with this important issue.
Before I get into the body of my remarks I think it might be pointed out that the members of the present government are indeed under a very real obligation to proceed with this matter as rapidly as they can, because no less a person than the hon. gentleman who is house leader has had a good deal to say about this question over the years. I find that, so far as I can ascertain by going into the records, the first question asked about superannuated civil servants was asked by the member for Winnipeg North Centre back in 1947. It is found on page 469 of Hansard for February 17 of that year:
Has consideration been given by the government to increasing the pensions of superannuated federal civil servants by the addition of a cost of living bonus or other supplement?
Mr. Mayhew, then parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance, answered "Yes". Then I put this second question:
If so, what is the result of such consideration? Is the matter receiving attention at the present time?
This was the answer I was given by the then parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance:
This question is still receiving consideration and the government's policy will be announced in due course.
The hon. member for Carleton will realize that one of the reasons I have read these words is that there is a certain similarity of ring between them and the words the parliamentary assistant has given us today. The matter is being studied in the department and just as soon as the government has reached a decision an announcement will be made. Well, we waited 10 long years for the previous government to reach the end of that consideration and make an announcement which failed to come. As a matter of fact it was a real disappointment last spring, after the assurance of some sort that the former minister of finance gave the hon. member for Fort William at the end of the debate on a similar resolution, that nothing was done by that government before it went out of office.
As the Minister of Public Works knows, he has taken part in most of the debates on this question across the years. I find, for example, that on April 1, 1949, as found at page 2267 of Hansard he said:
These people are now met with a greatly increased cost of living. There is no doubt whatever that many of them, certainly those receiving small amounts, are having a very difficult time.


Later on he said:
I cannot understand why the minister should just brush these requests aside and refuse to have an investigation made of the plight of the superannuated federal civil servants.
This was the Minister of Public Works years ago supporting us in our contention that something simply had to be done for these people. I am not going to read from Hansard of every year, but let me give just one or two more quotations. I turn to April 16, 1953, page 3958 of Hansard, and I find the present Minister of Public Works saying this:
Finally I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to retired civil servants. For a good many years he has been raising this point, and I believe I have supported him on each occasion.
That is correct; he did. I trust that he will still support us and that he will give strong support to this cause in the place where it counts, and that he will see to it that the action which has been indicated by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance will not be long delayed. We come down to 1956, and again we find the Minister of Public Works having something to say in this matter, as found at page 5586 of Hansard of July 2:
I believe the time has come when the government should take some action. I remember it being raised first in the session of 1949, I think it was, and every year since that time the same thing has been pointed out to the government. However, we have been brushed aside each year primarily with the argument that a contract had been made, that these civil servants knew what they were doing when they paid into the superannuation fund, and that the contract could not be changed now.
He went on to make it clear that that argument did not carry any weight with him, and I am glad the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance has re-echoed that point of view today, in saying there are no insuperable barriers to dealing with this problem if the government of the day has the will to deal with it.
Last spring when we were debating a resolution similar to the one now before us, also on the motion of the hon. member for Fort William, the Minister of Public Works said, as found at page 1845 of Hansard of March 4:
This is one case in which the government has been a long, long, long time meeting the need.
He referred to the debates across the years, and finally he said:
This need should have been met a long time ago.
The Minister of Public Works was quite correct when he said last spring that the need should have been met a long, long, long time ago. Ten years ago it was under study in the department and the government

of that day promised to announce its policy as soon as it was decided upon. I hope we are not going to have to go through another 10-year period before getting action out of the present government.
May I say one or two other things by way of the history of this matter. Something of what I might have said is now not necessary because of what the parliamentary assistant has done by way of referring to the practices in the United Kingdom and in some of the provinces of this country. He has also referred to what has been done by the federal government in the United States. He might also have referred to the fact that in some of the individual states improvements have been made in the pensions of those already retired. There are a few instances in private industry where it has been done, both in the United States and in Canada as well as in some other countries. It is also true that in New Zealand and Australia steps have been taken to improve the position of those already retired. We can take action here, and I hope the house will accept the invitation of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and make suggestions to the government so that action may be taken soon.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in the main we have to divide this problem into two aspects. Perhaps they will have to be separated one from the other because the first one is more pressing. On the other hand there is the problem of the large number of people, retired civil servants and others, who are having to get by on very small pensions. Any attempt to build some new principle into the Public Service Superannuation Act to solve the problems that will arise in the future will not help those people who are on low pensions now.
I think the government is going to have to find some way to cut the Gordian knot and simply raise these pensions to a floor below which retired civil servants of the federal government should not be asked to live. So far as these people are concerned, I do not think the government should waste time trying to find some principle, some percentage formula. I suggest that there simply be established a floor below which no pension should fall so far as retired civil servants are concerned.
Perhaps at this point I might put some figures on the record. I shall read mine because there are very few of them. According to the last figures that we have obtained in the house, there were last spring still 393 retired civil servants drawing pensions of less than $20 a month. There was a total of 3,170, including the 393 to whom I just referred, drawing pensions of less than $50
Public Service-Pensions per month. Similarly, there were 1,248 widows of retired civil servants drawing pensions of less than $20 a month, and a total of 4,395 widows of civil servants drawing pensions of less than $50 a month. In the case of civil servants, those on pensions of less than $50 a month constituted, last spring, 22 per cent of all those drawing civil service pensions, and in the case of the widows the 4,395 constituted 64 per cent of all of those drawing pensions as widows of retired civil servants.
Even after we have dealt with the problem of those who are drawing these low pensions, pensions upon which people cannot be expected to live, there is the problem in terms of justice of doing something to improve the pensions of those who have enough to stay alive but the value of whose pension payments have been reduced or destroyed as described by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that point, would he mind answering a question? In respect of such persons, does he believe the old age security provisions ought to be taken into consideration as has been done in some of the provinces?


Stanley Howard Knowles: my hon. friend maintains that some means test should be applied-is that what he is driving at?


Richard Albert Bell: No; some additional payment at age 65 to 70 and perhaps dropping off when the automatic old age security payments come in at age 70.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where some private employers have done that I have welcomed it as better than nothing, but I would not advocate it. To do that is to interfere with the basic principle with regard to old age security, that it is paid to everybody regardless of income, leaving it to the income tax to make any necessary adjustments. When you start taking into consideration old age security payments you create more problems than you solve.
I would prefer that what the hon. member has suggested not be done. There are other people with other kinds of income, people who are still working or who have investment income, whose private income is not interfered with by receipt of the old age security pension. We already have the case of the burnt out pensioner whose pension is interfered with because he receives old age security. I do not believe that should be the case, and I do not think we should extend
2430	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Pensions that principle into this field of the pensions of retired civil servants. In my view the universality of the old age pension is a good idea, and I do not believe we should interfere with it. In my view, if an employer has an obligation, as I believe he has, to provide a decent pension for his retired employee, that obligation is not taken away because of a state pension such as that provided under the Old Age Security Act.
I was about to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that not only do we have to be humanitarian and meet the plight of retired civil servants whose pensions are now in the lower brackets, but we have to consider the just claim of retired employees whose pensions might have been at reasonable levels at the time they retired, and see to it that the value of those pensions is kept up.
People have a right to receive enough to keep up with the cost of living. We go farther than that. We say that people have a right to receive enough, by way of pension, to keep up with a rising standard of living. After all, when people are retired any changes that take place in the economic levels are partly the result of the work they did in their working years. We do not believe that people, in their period of retirement, should be called upon to see the general standard of living rising while they have to tighten their belts and have life become progressively little more than mere existence.
We feel, therefore, that the whole Public Service Superannuation Act has to be looked at with a view to finding some formula whereby pensions can automatically be adjusted upward after employees have gone on those pensions.
Perhaps I could take this other half of the problem, as I was dividing it in the first place, and divide it into two parts. On the one hand there are hundreds, thousands, of retired civil servants now on pension, who right at this time may be getting a pension that sounds not bad when compared with these $30 and $40 pensions, but who feel that the value of their pensions has deteriorated since they retired.
In addition, there is the plight that will face some of our civil servants in the future, in that pensions which now sound adequate in due course will become inadequate. I have taken a quick look at one of these tables the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance placed on Hansard. It shows that if a civil servant retires today, after 25 or 35 years of service, he has a pension that is not too bad. I accept that. But do we not all know that five or ten years after such a person goes on pension


the cost of living may well have gone up? The standard of living, we hope, will have risen, and these people will find that the pension which sounded all right when they went on it will be inadequate.
I am going to come to this in a moment. I realize that this branches out into a much broader field than just the problem of civil service pensions, but for the moment let us deal with it in the field of civil service pensions. This seems to me to lend real support to the argument that has been advanced by some who have studied this matter that there should be built into the Public Service Superannuation Act a provision whereby once a person goes on pension at the rate determined by the formula in the act, that pension will rise automatically as the cost of living or the gross national product goes up across the years. I had a few things to say about this in one of the debates that took place on the matter in 1956. The suggestions I made, which I had gleaned through reading, of course, are to be found on pages 6107 and 6108 of Hansard for July 17, 1956.
I suggested, for example, that actuaries could ascertain, by studying the experience of the past, just how much the cost of living could be expected to rise during the period that a retired civil servant could be expected to live from the date of retirement to death. In other words, actuaries could ascertain in advance how much that pension should be increased year by year so the retired civil servant, during the years of his retirement, would have a fairly constant income in terms of its purchasing power in relation to the cost of living. This having been done, the government or parliament could make a decision as to whether those increases should be provided out of current revenue, year by year-and I think there is every justification for that-or the government and parliament might decide that what would be desirable would be a slight increase in the rate at which civil servants pay into the public service superannuation fund for the purpose of providing for these automatic increases in the years that lie ahead.
Another way, of course, is to have a separate fund altogether into which civil servants contribute so as to pay supplements to retired civil servants.
The quid pro quo in that case for civil servants being required to pay into such fund would be the knowledge that when they are retired, civil servants of that day would be contributing to a fund to increase the amount of their pensions at the time of their retirement.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these two main problems are of equal weight and

equal importance. I refer to the immediate needs of those on low pensions on the one hand, and to adjustments to take care of future inflation, on the other. We must address ourselves to both of them. But I urge that the government not let the time it might take to solve the second problem delay action on the first problem. Here you have these hundreds or thousands of retired civil servants and civil servants' widows with pensions that are inadequate. The time it would take to work out a new formula to look after future retired civil servants is such that if the situation is allowed to go on, these people will suffer unduly.
I therefore urge that the two problems be separated and that something be done right now by way of establishing a floor for pensions of those in the lower brackets. When they have done that, let the government not think that ends the problem. I say again to the government that there is no use boasting about the fairly decent level of pensions that people can now retire on, and forgetting that in the course of time, unless something is done, these rates of pension will also become inadequate.
It seems to me that the only way this problem can be met is to build into the superannuation plan some arrangement for an automatic increase in the pension as the cost of living goes up, or as the standard of living goes up, or both. It appears that there are times when we look exclusively at the cost of living in relation to these matters. No one denies that old people should have sufficient pension to meet the rising cost of living; but I think in this age when we are becoming, I hope, a bit more humanitarian, we should learn that older people have not only the right to sufficient pension to meet the rising cost of living, but that they should have sufficient pension to enjoy or participate in a rising standard of living as well.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the argument we are advancing with regard to civil service pensions applies not only to those which come in that category, including the mounted police, the armed forces and the Canadian National Railways-let us bring them in as well-but it raises the whole question of the need for some rethinking about pensions generally. There is on the part of some a tendency to wage certain battles and then, after those battles have been won, to feel that nothing more needs to be done. There are some who feel that perhaps enough has been done in the field of pensions generally. I suggest that we are just moving into a time when we are going to have to face another whole problem with regard to pensions.
For a moment, if I may be permitted to do so, I am talking with regard to a field broader
Public Service-Pensions than just civil service pensions. There was a day, for example, when my predecessor, Mr. Woodsworth, had to stand up in this house and argue against terrific odds that there should be an old age pension. It was a long battle. Eventually that battle was won, and it became established that it was right for the state in certain cases to pay an old age pension. The battle moved on. In due course the issue became not just the paying of a pension but the paying of a pension without a means test. For the first number of years that some of us were arguing for the abolition of the means test we were met with the argument that this was ridiculous, that this could not be done, that this would break the treasury, and so on. Yet eventually that battle was won, and we have established the principle of a universal pension.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the problem we are discussing today brings to our attention the realization that we are moving into a new field, that the time has now come when we must not only pay pensions to our older citizens, not only pay them on a universal basis, but must provide for those pensions to be adjustable, for those pensions to increase automatically so that people generally can meet the rising cost of living and participate in the higher standard of living.
We hear this suggested by some who argue that the old age pension, for example, should be adjusted according to the rise in the cost of living. We contend that is not enough. We contend that you must meet these other factors, the rise in the gross national product and the rising standard of living, as well.
I appreciate the fact that you did not call me out of order, Mr. Speaker, because I got away from civil service pensions into this broader picture, but I was doing it because it seems to me that what we are dealing with today is an issue that is of concern not only to retired civil servants, but is of significance to the country as a whole. To the argument which the hon. member for Carle-ton has very properly dismissed-and I am glad he did so-by saying we cannot do this because it would be a matter of discrimination against other Canadians, the answer I would make in reply is that this would be a case of giving a lead in this other field. In other words, if in the field of civil service pensions we can first of all establish the principle of a floor below which no pension should be allowed to fall; and if, in the second place, we can provide for pensions to be increased automatically after retirement to meet changing conditions, that will be giving a lead in the field of pensions generally, and it may be that this will be the beginning

Public Service-Pensions of our moving into a better era in so far as pensions and retirement allowances are concerned.
It has been a long battle, both in this specific field of civil service pensions, and in the general field of pensions to get this principle of old age security established. It has been a long, hard battle. The victories have been won rather slowly, but we have made headway to this point. We contend that what we are discussing today is a very important aspect of the matter into which we are now moving, and that is the desirability of having all pensions put on such a basis that they will increase after retirement in order to enable people to meet the rising cost of living and participate in the rising standard of living that is made possible by the sweat and toil of our people, made possible indeed by what those now retired have contributed in their working years.


Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to congratulate the hon. member for Fort William not only for his willingness but indeed his determination to stick to his resolution until he sees some daylight. I consider it a pleasure as well as a duty to speak to this resolution which the hon. member for Fort William has presented, and which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants and Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were retired, after long service, when salaries were low, so as to bring their pensions in line with those of the present.
I want to say that I think those pensioners, and a mighty fine class of people they are, deserve some consideration. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Carleton, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, for the fine way in which he presented the argument on behalf of the government. If my memory serves me correctly I think that was his maiden speech in this house. I congratulate him on it. He has a fine speaking voice, is clear in his explanations and presents a mighty good argument. However, if he were in the opposition I think perhaps he would have taken a more positive view of this resolution and would not have submitted so much in a negative attitude.
Outside of those representing constituencies in the city of Ottawa, I think perhaps I have more retired civil servants in my riding than any other member in this house. The thing I find is that these people are now finding it mighty difficult to get along, because their expenses are far beyond their income. As the other hon. members who have spoken have pointed out, namely the hon. member for


Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Carleton, the devaluation of the dollar has caused them quite a bit of concern.
I found out two or three things while visiting these homes, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, I found that these pensioners are not greedy; they do not have the attitude that the government owes them a living; they do not have this "gimme, gimme" spirit that some people have. But they take the attitude that they should at least receive some appreciation for work they performed under previous governments. As I say, these people are not greedy. I think the greatest characteristics of greed are devastating and conquering. I do not think these people showed these characteristics, at least not during my conversations with them. They are now finding themselves in a very serious situation as a result of having to meet an ever-increasing level of municipal taxation out of a fixed income.
I found, Mr. Speaker, that these people are living in continuing fear. Someone has well said that one of the greatest evils of fear is fear itself. These people fear today, tomorrow, next week and next month. I think this government could do nothing better than relieve this fear, because so much continual fear and worry is driving many of them into trouble, and putting many of them on their sick beds.
I found, while visiting these people, that they do not try to be aristocrats, although in my opinion a lot of them have earned the right to aristocracy because as fine civil servants they were a credit to the government for which they worked, a credit to their country and now a credit to the municipalities in which they live. They want to hold up their ends, if I may use that expression, in their municipalities, but they are limited, as I say, by their difficulty in keeping up with ever-rising levels of local taxation. Nevertheless, they want to make those municipalities better places in which to live, and I think their efforts deserve a wealth of consideration.
One civil servant to whom I spoke told me he had heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) express at different times the opinion that the pensioner should receive more as prices rose. Indeed, I listened to the Prime Minister speaking over the radio from Toronto when he said that a Conservative government would raise the amount to a figure high enough to meet the needs of recipients, with subsequent adjustments tied to the cost of living. Then again, in a television broadcast on May 22, he amended this

proposal to make it more specific by this promise and I quote:
We Intend to fix a fair and reasonable amount for the old age pensioner and, indeed, for the other pensioners, and also to make provision for a formula whereby due allowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living.
And I well remember listening to election speeches made by the Prime Minister during his campaign when he stated on different occasions that it was time to take the unrepentant tax masters off the backs of the Canadian people. Well, we now have an opportunity to do this and I hope the government will acquiesce in the resolution so well presented by the hon. member for Fort William urging us to do something with regard to this problem and certainly by voting for this resolution we would be showing a spirit of reciprocity in the light of the work these retired civil servants have done so well on behalf of the government.
Mr. Speaker, at this time of the year, with Christmas coming close, we all know that the spirit and the theme of Christmas are based on the words "Peace on earth, goodwill towards men", and I say this, regardless of the political affiliation of any member of this honourable house, I think it is the duty- and I am not a minister-of every one of us to remember in our prayers each day the deliberations now taking place in Paris, and pray that we may see peace and unity in the years to come.
I appeal to the government to carry out the second part of this Christmas theme- good will towards men-and I am sure that if they would do something with regard to this resolution it would certainly make these people very happy, remove fear and anxiety from their homes and make their declining years upon this earth far happier than they are at the present time by giving them some assurance that they could at least meet the rising cost of living. If we could approve of this resolution I think we could throw back our shoulders and thrust out our chests with justifiable pride because we would have helped at least one class of people who performed their duty very well in the past on behalf of the administration of Canada in this wonderful service.
Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful Christmas present it would be if the government would announce that they intended to do something immediately with regard to increasing pensions paid to retired civil servants. I hope the government will act soon and that it will not wait too long for the report which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance has mentioned. Action is needed right now, not tomorrow or next
Public Service-Pensions year. These people are suffering, and it is up to hon. members of this house to do something on their behalf. I hope every effort is made to relieve the conditions under which many of our retired civil servants are living at the present time.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, other hon. members who have already spoken have dealt in the main with the subject of pensions paid to retired civil servants but have not dealt at any length with pensions paid to former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and others. I should like to say a few words this afternoon in connection with the pensions paid to former members of the R.C.M.P.
I understand that this is the first time the subject of these pensions has been included in the resolution, and it gives me great pleasure to say something about it. When I began to do some research into this matter I thought the best place to begin would be by looking through the mounted police magazines and bulletins. The mounted police veterans association have a magazine, and most magazines of this type have columns and articles devoted to complaints or, at any rate, to drawing the attention of the public to various difficulties. I went to our splendid library and looked up a recent issue of Scarlet and Gold which is a publication of A division of the R.C.M.P. veterans association. I also looked at the R.C.M.P. Quarterly, and the commissioner's annual report because I thought that somewhere in these publications I would get a fairly good idea of the situation of the mounted police retired veterans. But in none of these publications I have mentioned-and I looked back over quite a number of years-did I find any complaint or article referring to pensions. I read of the historic deeds of members of the force in the early days; I read stories about the activities of the mounted police at the present time, crime detection methods, jokes on the police and so on, but nothing about pensions. The R.C.M.P. Quarterly also has an old-timers' column, which I read, and I found that all it contained was news about reunions, stories of the past and reminiscences.
Mr. Speaker, I could only conclude after going through all these articles that either there is nothing to complain about, or else the members of the force both present and retired are carrying on their great tradition of duty without complaint. After looking into the matter, I feel that the latter is the case-the R.C.M.P. is not going to air complaints in public. In fact, there is provision in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

Public Service-Pensions forbidding the members of the force from laying complaints except through their own organization and superiors.
For that reason I have a great deal of pleasure in bringing to the attention of the house some of the problems relating to retired members of the R.C.M.P. and their dependants. While the mounted police themselves do not seem to be unduly preoccupied with the question of pensions an examination of the statute indicates that this house and those members of it who framed the original act were definitely concerned. The record of the service, the desire to attract able and qualified men as recruits and to maintain a high standard of service led to the establishment of a complete and complicated system of pension.
The act setting up the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its pension scheme is found in the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, chapter 241. In this act there are 115 sections and of these sections 43 deal with the establishment of the force itself and 72 deal with pension matters. The very distribution of the sections of the act seems to indicate that the original legislators were concerned with this question. Two-thirds of the act deals with pensions for officers, constables and their wives and orphans and if that was the intention at the time the act was set up and the force was established I believe it should be no less our intention and concern today.
I think it must be assumed that it has always been the desire of this house to provide the personnel of the mounted police with a certain freedom of mind as to their retirement and as to the care that will be given to their widows and children if they suffer accident or death in the service and sufficient funds for themselves upon retirement or injury. This well drafted provision has now become slightly out of touch with present day conditions. The basis of the difficulty is easy to locate and I think it is rather in the same line as the general pension plan of civil servants. The basis on which mounted police officers and constables are given a pension is the pay and allowance they receive during the last year of their service and therefore if they retired when service rates were considerably lower than they are now their pensions would be correspondingly lower.
I would like to mention at this point some of the provisions in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Section 67 of the act provides for the pension of a constable on retirement in the following language:
(1) The pension of a constable on retirement shall be,

(a)	if he has completed ten but less than 21 years' service, one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowances during the last year of his service for every year of service;
(b)	if he has completed 21 but less than 25 years' service, an annual sum equal to twenty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances during the last year of his service, with an addition of two-fiftieths of such pay and allowances for every completed year of service above 20 years; or
(c)	if he has completed 25 years' service an annual sum equal to thirty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances during the last year of his service with an addition of one-fiftieth of such pay and allowances for every completed year of service above 25 years, but the pension shall not exceed two-thirds of such annual pay and allowances.
From this provision it is quite clear that the entire system is based upon his pay during the last year of service. This provision refers only to constables and section 44 of the act makes almost identical provision for officers of the force. The pension for widows and orphans is contained in another section of the act. This latter pension is somewhat different because while it is based on pay and allowances during the last year of service it is also made up partly of a contributory system. The constable during his service pays 5 per cent of his salary by way of deduction and the amount of the total accumulation of the deduction based upon his last year's pay and allowances forms the basis on which his widow and children are provided care. We can readily see from this that those retired members of the force who left the service some years ago and their widows and orphans are receiving pensions based upon rates of pay of perhaps five, ten or 15 years ago.
There was a general pay increase in 1956 at the same time the general civil service increases were granted. An examination of this pay rate indicates that it is a reasonable one and that the general pay and allowances of the mounted police, while they may leave something to be desired, are fair and equitable. This will work very well for those who are presently in the service and will be retiring following the granting of this increase but it will also work a hardship on those who are trying to get along on a pension based on what they made a few years ago. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has stated that the matter is receiving serious attention on the part of the government not only with regard to the services and the R.C.M.P. but all other classes coming within the general scheme.
As is the case with all classes of persons in receipt of pensions, those in receipt of mounted police pensions have problems which are not simple to deal with. The first thing is that widows and orphans' pensions are contributory and therefore the basis of

payment is the basis of a contract. During his service a constable has paid into a fund, which has been set up, a percentage of his pay and when he retires from service or loses his life while in service the widow and children receive the amount which has accumulated and therefore this also raises difficulty with regard to other pensions. A contractual basis is there.
The government of Canada has agreed to assist R.C.M.P. veterans and they have agreed to accept such pay and the allowance as based on a contract. We have to consider to what extent the moneys of the general public should be used to increase an amount which was originally started off on a contractual basis. As pointed out by the hon. member for Carleton, other people who contributed to retirement allowances and similar schemes are not entitled by any stretch of the imagination to receive increases from the government merely because what they receive is lower than what is received by some one else. That is the first difficulty in meeting this particular problem.
The second matter which has to be considered is that many of the persons who are going to be particularly affected by an increase are those who retired some years ago. It would almost be safe to assume that most of those people would be within the old age pension bracket and we do know that at this session of parliament there has been at the public expense a general increase in pensions for all persons and those who come within the age 70 and older group have benefited as a result of those increases.
Then, there is also the 65 to 70 years of age group who may be receiving Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans' allowances as well as old age assistance. There again, something is to be gained from a serious consideration and adjustment of the problem. There are also a number of people-and this is well known-who retired from the mounted police in what might be called the prime of life. If they entered the service when they were fairly young and served 20, 25 or 30 years and chose to retire, they did so with a reasonably good pension and they still have the opportunity of going into similar work. A good many of the chiefs of police in the smaller towns and persons of that kind are retired mounted police constables who gained a lot of experience in their service with the force. Those people have a regular income and probably they consider that their pension from the R.C.M.P. is in addition to that income and is something on which they can always fall back in case they lose their present income.
In Ontario and Quebec we have provincial police forces, but, except in those two provinces, the entire mounted police force do
Public Service-Pensions provincial duties as well as federal duties, which they were originally set up to do. Those who are relying mainly on their pension granted under the act referred to and who retired under the low rate are no doubt experiencing financial difficulty owing to the increase in the cost of living. Those are the people who must be considered. We must consider those who have no other source of income and who have suffered from the general increase in the cost of living.
I have not made any attempt to outline the great history and tradition of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its predecessor the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, but in considering this matter we must remember that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are recognized the world over. They are a sort of badge of Canada. In addition to the maple leaf you see figures of the mounted police. In the minds of many people the world over they do represent Canada. Therefore, it is important-and it was the original intention -that the mounted police be kept on a high standard; that the pay and allowances be kept at a rate which will induce persons of high calibre to enter the force, and we should give them pension allowances which will remove from their minds any concern about their retirement. We must consider that they might take another position in life and probably earn a great deal more with a lot less hardship as an average citizen.
May I say just a few words about police duties generally. We all know, of course, that police duties are not the most pleasant in the world. In general, the police have the duty of carrying out the legislation which we pass in this house and which is passed in the legislatures of the provinces. Police duties involve those people who either wilfully or carelessly resist or ignore the laws of the land as they are established. At one time it was thought that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had to do only with policing the cold and vast hinterland of the north of Canada, and that their duties perhaps were not onerous except for the privations that they must endure and their obligation always to get their man throughout the snow-covered wastes of the northwest. Their duties have changed now. As I mentioned a minute ago, they carry out normal police duties in eight of the 10 provinces under arrangements with the various provinces.
We must consider this also in relation to the duties they must perform. The standard of conduct of the R.C.M.P. is very high. I mentioned a few moments ago the fact that a large number of sections of the act deal with the pension scheme of the R.C.M.P. and

Public Service-Pensions their dependants. In addition to that, one of the sections deals with no fewer than 24 offences which the R.C.M.P. constable may not commit and if he does commit them it may result either in his being arrested and fined or discharged from the service. These particular offences in the normal course of human existence in this country would not all be considered extremely serious; but the standard of service which is set in the act is high and the offences which they may not commit in service are very difficult to follow out.
In view of all these matters, Mr. Speaker, I do feel that very serious consideration should be given to the matter which is the subject of this resolution. I have not said anything about the civil service because it has already been very capably dealt with by hon. members who have made a serious study of the matter not only at the present time but over the years. The same rules should apply here as apply to the mounted police. This resolution is opportune and I think the mounted police pensions were well included. I am in favour of supporting this motion.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the stand taken by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), I do not see that there is much to be gained by using up the time of the house on this resolution. However, in the light of his request for information, we may be able to dish out a couple of points which may be of use to him when he really gets down to the consideration of this resolution.
Of course, his address was in many respects quite negative. I followed it as closely as I could and I did get the general impression that he was in favour of the resolution but how actively in favour or how enthusiastically in favour, of course, is another matter. You can be in favour of something, but in a case of this kind the people are aging and dying off and you can keep giving consideration to it and being in favour of it until the problem has solved itself. The hon. member gave acceptance to this resolution in just about the only manner in which the government could because, I am sure, that in the face of the debate which took place in March of last year the reaction could not be otherwise.
It is true he did not present many figures as has been done by past ministers of finance and departmental heads, and perhaps that too is in accordance with the words of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), when speaking in the debate on March 4, 1957. As found at page 1856 of Hansard, he said:


I do not believe this house will be satisfied with listening to a lot of figures the Minister of Finance will put on the record later, perhaps only to show that it is going to cost this country a geat deal of money.
In the face of that I think the hon. member did about all that could be expected. He did not talk too much about money. He talked about the difficulties of working out scales and he made one statement to the effect that he did not feel the taxpayers' money should be used to assist a small minority as it might be an act of discrimination against larger classes. I think that was the meaning of what he said. I agree that all pensions have got to be reasonable. I do not believe in discrimination. I believe in fair play to all. On the other hand, we are dealing with a particular problem here and I think we might ask ourselves this question. Must this small group of pensioners be left to struggle and suffer, because the employer, in this case the government of Canada, did not provide a scale of pensions to meet their needs, while a plan is being worked out that will avoid any semblance of discrimination?
There is also the fact that in dealing with this question we are dealing with human values, values on which a dollar price tag cannot be placed. As I said earlier, I cannot see any need to spend too much time in deliberation and consideration in order to work out a scheme that from the financial point of view will be absolutely fair and actuarially sound. I agree with the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that in the meantime, in order that we may get on and meet the needs of these people in some way, a pension floor could be established. Some amount of money could be set as the minimum that would be payable to these people and action should be taken immediately to raise their pensions to a floor which will guarantee them a reasonable standard of living. I am going to quote another authority in support of that suggestion in the person of the present Minister of National Defence. As found at page 1855 of Hansard of March 4, 1957, he said:
If the government is not able to check inflation, then it seems to me only fair and just that the government must find some other means of helping those who are really the underprivileged class of the nation.
He is referring particularly to the deterioration in the purchasing power of the dollar. A few years ago $100 a month looked like a reasonable pension but we know how little the real value of that amount of money is today. Therefore I say that any floor that might be fixed as a matter of expediency and urgency should have regard to the cost of

living at the present time. That would be in keeping with the view of the Minister of National Defence in the remarks to which I have just referred.
I was also pleased to hear the hon. member for Carleton say that an adjustment is possible and that the matter is being given consideration. But I should still like to know whether the government is going to vote for the resolution and whether the consideration is going to be prompt or whether the matter is going to be stalled along for many years. When the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) spoke in the debate on March 4, 1957, he said, as found at page 1860 of Hansard:
-unless the government takes action, nothing will be done this year just as nothing has been done in previous years.
We know that nothing will be done this year but we would have felt much better if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance had assured us that their studies of the problem had reached the stage where they could assure the house that legislation would be introduced at the next session of parliament. Time is running out. After years of trying to eke out an existence on ridiculously low pensions, these people are finding it more and more difficult to finance their daily living. They are finding that under the present government just as under the former government the purchasing power of the dollar is shrinking daily and the problem is growing more acute. There is also the fact that many of these people are reaching the last stage of their life expectancy and I think it is high time that the government improved the treatment it has been handing out to them and raised their pensions at once so that in the latter years of their lives they may know something about what a reasonable standard of living can do for them. Many of these people are passing out of the picture altogether and, as I said, the longer the government waits the smaller the problem becomes due to the decrease in their numbers. I hope that prompt action will be taken and something will be done before the problem solves itself in its own way by these aged pensioners passing completely out of the picture.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to commend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) for the warmth with which he has brought forward this matter for discussion today. I refer to his warmth of feeling for a class of citizens who find themselves in some difficulty. I think I should also acknowledge and commend his persistence and his consistent arguments year after year on this subject.
Public Service-Pensions
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, and there are some phases of it that I should like to refer to particularly. I notice that the resolution deals with increasing the pensions of civil servants and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that in the course of the discussion of the resolution other matters have been raised with regard to finding a new method of dealing with the Civil Service Superannuation Act generally.
I think it is probably well that I do not digress into that field because, while that subject is quite interesting and I do not want my failure to deal with it to indicate lack of interest in it or support of it, the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) went a bit farther than the resolution and, indeed, form the subject matter of something that should be discussed separately when the Civil Service Superannuation Act is being discussed by itself.
In the early stages of his remarks, the hon. member for Carleton paid high tribute to the civil service, and indeed in doing that he was only being consistent with the views expressed by ministers who form the present government. It has been a very common practice for them to do that since this house opened, a practice which I indeed find very pleasing. I think it is a great tribute to the former government to have this government, which has so recently taken office, commenting on and commending the building up of the administrative arm of government which is held in such high esteem. I hope that will be the condition when governments change from time to time, as inevitably they will in the future. I hope that any new government coming in will be able to make the same remarks with as much conviction as they have been made in recent weeks by the present Conservative government.
I am one of the few members of the house who recalls the previous change of government, and who heard many of the speeches made in this chamber at that time. I was not a member of the house, but was occupying another part of the house and heard the speeches. The truth of the matter was that the civil service of Canada, at the time the new government of that day took over in 1935, had become so demoralized, so completely broken down in confidence and in ability by the wanton dismissals, if I may use that term, by the reductions in pay, the stopping of statutory increases and the stopping of promotions and reclassifications, that it was indeed a civil service about which the same remarks as were made by the hon. member for Carleton could not have been made.

Public Service-Pensions


Thomas Miller Bell: Why do we not keep politics out of this?


George James McIlraith: I want to express the hope that that condition will not arise in the future. I believe that the approach to these matters has very much improved in the intervening years, and I can only say that it is my very genuine wish that the views the hon. member for Carleton has expressed about the civil service today will prevail and that the views of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McPhillips), as reported in the Victoria Colonist, will not prevail. I hope that this hon. member's views do not represent any substantial body of opinion amongst the supporters of the government, and that is a very genuine remark on my part. I believe that the hon. member for Carleton would very strongly support me in such remarks.


Mr. Hodgson:: The hon. member had better not say the same thing about Victoria, Ontario.


George James McIlraith: I think the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, has a little more judgment, and having had some contact with the civil service since his appointment as parliamentary assistant he will come to share my view on this matter.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The best there is; I mean my department.


George James McIlraith: Well, that is a pretty good compliment and just the way the civil service should be kept, in my view.
As to the hon. member's remarks about the government as a model employer if I turned up the references I could show the hon. member for Carleton remarks made in an earlier speech some years ago by one of his close neighbours in the house, where similar mention was made of the government being a model employer. The hon. member for Carleton's remarks along that line are ones that have been made previously in the house, and not by a supporter of the Conservative government. I was quite pleased with them.
I took it from his remarks that he was trying to approach this matter in an objective way, and not in a partisan way; that was the interpretation I placed on them. Indeed, I am looking forward with interest to getting the actual text of his remarks to see precisely what he did say on that point.
I should like to take him up on that, and to try to approach this problem from the point of view that may bring forward helpful considerations. I, for one, would like to see the matter voted upon by the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
would be unanimous.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


George James McIlraith: I hope it will not be talked out, and for that reason I will not spend as much time as I would like on developing the question of the need of certain civil servants and pensioned R.C.M.P. for assistance. I take it that case has been made. Certainly as I was looking at the remarks of some ministers of the crown, I take it that it should not be necessary to convince the present government of that need.
The matter is somewhat complicated. There is no doubt about that, and no useful purpose would be served by trying to make it appear a simple matter. One of the difficulties I always found in working on the problem was that the statistical tables showing the average amount of superannuation being drawn by civil servants could be misleading. In some of the groups of low payments you would find persons who were receiving very low payments because they were superannuated before the pay increases had been granted and were, therefore, receiving very low pay. These persons, even though they had long terms of service, were suffering real hardship. In the same set of statistics you will often find a few who had been superannuated when they were quite young because of the abolition of their positions or for some other reason. They received a small pension because they had only worked in the service the required ten years and had not made it their care er. It is not quite good enough to just take the statistical figures as they stand, and argue the case from there.
The real hardship comes from the fact that there are many superannuated civil servants who were superannuated on the basis of earnings of the last ten years of their employment, but the date of whose retirement was prior to the date when pay increases became effective. For all practical purposes, pay increases in the civil service started about 1948. There were certain other increases, but for the purposes of this argument I shall ignore them. The pay increases started in 1948 and have continued during the years until now we have had two general increases in the last three years. This problem is not to be confused with problems relating to the superannuation rates that will be applicable to presently employed civil servants who will be superannuated in the future after having worked on the higher pay levels for the required ten years. This is a particular problem applicable to those civil servants who were superannuated on the basis of ten years' service before the pay increases were effective.
Because this problem arises in that way, it makes it somewhat difficult to find a general principle that will be applicable and that will

bring the desired relief. So far as I am concerned, relief there must be. I am inclined to think that the practical method of working out relief for those persons is not through waiting to amend the superannuation act by tying superannuation to the cost of living, but rather by seeking to make some direct payment to those former civil servants who, for the reasons I have mentioned and other related reasons, find themselves now unable to live on their superannuation.
That may lead the government into having to deal with them on a separate basis outside the superannuation fund. If in the study of this matter they find that it is necessary to do that, I would urge them to do so. The civil service superannuation fund is now on a good basis. The whole act was well administered and it is a very effective act. Indeed, the hon. member for Carleton, unlike his minister, was quite modest about the claims he made for the superannuation act. Having regard to any acts that I could examine and with which I could compare it,
I believe it is the best one that I have found. Certainly that was my experience, and over the years I have done a fair amount of work on it.
In seeking to cure this problem I would not want to have the government in any way weaken the act itself. On other occasions I may have something fairly sharp to say about' the failure of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to support the civil service superannuation fund with the $50 million contribution proposed to be put in it by his immediate predecessor. However, I do not want to open up that subject now, other than to say that the civil service superannuation fund and the retirement funds that preceded it have been built up over the years. If you examine the history of them you will find that there were periods when they were in a very much weakened condition, or when they were not actuarially sound. As far as I am concerned, I want them to be brought on to a sound actuarial basis and kept there. A great deal has been done-and I think I can claim some credit for the former government for this-in putting that fund on a proper basis and indeed the whole superannuation legislation as it has developed since the superannuation act of 1924 and the basic amendments in 1944 and 1947. I think that is something for which the former government can claim a good deal of credit.
In meeting this problem, I hope it will be treated in such a way that the administration of the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the fund will not be impaired. But in saying that I want to make it clear that I am not in any way minimizing the need for action in
Public Service-Pensions accordance with this resolution. Action is desperately needed by a number of superannuated civil servants. I do not think the number can be determined just by taking the statistical tables that have been given from time to time in answer to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, the number is substantial.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would he consider that it might be possible to meet this problem by putting an item in the estimates in the same way that the Intercolonial railway employees had their pensions increased, pending some statutory changes with regard to the other problem?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can
give a perfectly dogmatic answer to that question. My whole point is that it must be met in that way. It seems to me that it must be met on the principle that it is a payment by the crown to former employees who had a long record of faithful service to the crown and in recognition of that service. It seems to me that that is a way in which to deal with it now.
I could deal with the mounted police aspect of the resolution. It arises somewhat differently because when you go into the history of the mounted police you find that the fund was not always a contributory fund on the same principle as was the civil service superannuation fund. There is quite an early history from the days when it was an arbitrary amount paid by the crown as an ex gratia payment and so on.
While the history is different, the need is just as great. As a matter of fact, the need for a more comprehensive piece of legislation with respect to the mounted police was probably greater than with respect to the civil service in the early days. In any event, there is this number of persons who served with the R.C.M.P., who were pensioned under the old provision and who are in real hardship today. Indeed, if you check into such places as the corps of commissionaires-that very splendid force so well known in many parts of Canada and very well known in Ottawa-you will find in the personnel some of these pensioners of the R.C.M.P. who are doing their duty now and doing it well. However, when you question them about their pension, it is just a shocking situation that you find. That situation must be met. I see no difficulty in meeting their case directly.
2440	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Pensions It does not do violence to any of the principles of the contract relationship at all because they were not always on a contributory basis. There is a case to be made there-a somewhat technical case, I may say-on that ground.
One point that troubled me a bit was that near the conclusion of his remarks the parliamentary assistant spoke about the fullest possible review of the facts being made, and he made reference to the advisory committee under the Civil Service Superannuation Act and so on. I hope that in dealing with this matter that did not mean that the R.C.M.P. part of the resolution was being neglected in any way. In other words, it would require some other body than that advisory committee to do the fact finding on the R.C.M.P. part of it, at least to supplement their work. I hope he will watch that matter as the work is being done in the department. As a matter of fact, I hope he will press this matter for this reason. I believe he will find that the Department of Finance officials have done a great deal of technical work on this matter and have a great mass of information already available. I hope that the delay is not a delay on the part of the government. I know something of what work the Department of Finance have done on this subject and I should think they are close to being able to give all the information asked for. An enormous amount of work has been done on the matter over the years.
I could go on. If you look at Hansard, you will find a great many remarks on this subject made by the present members of the cabinet when they were in opposition. I think it would be easy to pick them out and to embarrass them thoroughly with those remarks. However, I am going to refrain from that pleasure in the interests of getting the measure forward. I must say that the temptation is great. I have been looking at some of the remarks and I wonder at times how they came to be appointed ministers of the crown after being so-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks)-


Mr, Mcllraith:: -careless in their remarks. In any event, perhaps I had better let that subject drop. I want to get something done about this. But I hope the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance will, privately, remember something of what they said, because if he does not get effective action taken on the matter I suspect he will


find that the ministers of the government will be reminded of these remarks, and reminded many times.
The hon. member for Carleton, in concluding his remarks-and I have treated his remarks as if they were a statement of the government's position, although he did not say they were, and all sorts of technical arguments could be raised as to whether or not a parliamentary assistant can state the government's position-spoke, in particular about action "once all the facts are known". It seems to me that the whole matter turns on this phrase "once all the facts are known". I suggest to him that these facts are all known already, that they are all available. Then the hon. member went on to state a very strong belief in the government. I must say that I cannot share it, but that is another matter. As a matter of fact, I think a great many hon. members in this house, having watched the government's program over the weeks, may not share it either. But in any event I want to say that so far as I am concerned I will wait and see. I hope the hon. gentleman's speech meant what it appeared to mean, that is that the government intends to take action on this matter, and intends to take action on it right away. I take it the intention is to act once the facts are known and, as I say, the facts are all known and on record.
So I conclude my remarks with a hope that a vote will be taken on the resolution and that the vote will be followed quickly by action by the government to meet this problem.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with those who have congratulated the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) for bringing this matter to the attention of the house, and to say to him at the same time- quickly, before I am ruled out of order- how much we on the back benches appreciate the many occasions on which he has walked across the floor to say hello to us and provide us with encouragement. We do, indeed, appreciate this, recognizing his interest is in the best traditions of this house without fear of being suspected of bi-partisanship.
I should also like to say that the area I will cover, very briefly, has already been dealt with, namely the question of the R.C.M.P. veterans. It was dealt with, first, by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who made a very comprehensive survey of the position, and then by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) who has just resumed his seat. My reason for making a comment or two is that I had the privilege some two and a half months ago of arranging for the presentation of a brief



IS, 1957

[Stage Direction]
to the government by the R.C.M.P. Veterans' Association and I propose to fill in the background by making one or two remarks which may be relevant. Let me say, though, that it must not be assumed that because I am not dealing with the whole field of retirement pensions that I am not in sympathy with those comments which have been made on other aspects of this matter, such as the pensions paid to employees of the Canadian National Railways and the civil service. It would be mere repetition on my part to say that I agree with the sentiments so well expressed by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and that I welcome his assurance that some positive action by the government will be taken in the very near future.
I think, too, I can say that all hon. members who have participated thus far in the debate have resisted the temptation to make this a political issue, with perhaps the near exception of the hon. member for Ottawa West, which shows that the house feels it is in the best interest of these pensioners to proceed without conflict and see that some time in the New Year, or in the immediate future, some action will be taken.
It is not necessary for me to deal at length with the problem of the R.C.M.P. veterans and it is certainly not necessary for me to bring to the attention of a body of this nature the position which this group of veterans has occupied over the years, gained by their outstanding contribution to the development of Canada. I think we will all take for granted that this body of men, the veterans of the R.C.M.P., have done perhaps as much as any unit, or organization or body to contribute to the early growth of this country through the policing of vast areas of Canada in many difficult circumstances. We accept the fact, also, that they did this work at a time when they were surrounded by extreme hazard and at a time before hazard pay and allowances were known. We accept the fact that many of these men discharged their duty at extreme risk to themselves personally, and, of course, as many were career policemen made great personal sacrifices. I think I can say, in addition, that we will remember that the standard of pay which this country gave the force in those days was perhaps-and this may be the understatement of the year -not in keeping with the work which they were called upon to perform at that time.
Let us accept that all this is generally agreed, and let us look to see what has happened since that time. Like the hon. member for Ottawa West, my main concern in discussing this matter is that since pensions were first awarded many of these men now find themselves in a very serious financial
Public Service-Pensions position unless they are able to supplement their income by means of some other employment. It has been mentioned to us here that many of them do perform useful functions at the present time. In fact, I have heard this used as an argument why an increase in pensions should not be awarded to them, but I think hon. members will agree that this factor should not disqualify them from receiving an increase, or handicap them in any way, because if we are realistic we must realize that if a man has not enough to live on and pay his bills he is bound to take some other employment.
On one occasion a former minister of finance said, in justification of not awarding increase in the payment made to these veterans, that the pension was never intended to maintain them, but only to supplement their incomes. But I think the hon. gentleman who said this, if he was here today, would agree with us that in the light of the declining purchasing power of the dollar the value of the award should at least remain constant, and that these gentlemen should not be placed in an unfortunate position merely because they gave their service at a time when the rates of pay were not high. There has been a suggestion to the effect that any increase in the pensions might establish a precedent which would create problems for a government in the future. It is interesting to note that two increases were granted to them, one in 1927 and a second in 1930, but it is equally significant to observe that it has been 27 years since government consideration has been given to increasing pensions for this particular group of men.
It is important to remember that any lengthy delay in recognizing the need for increasing pensions for this group will result in many of these men being deprived of the increase through death. An examination of the figures indicates that there are very few men in this special group who are alive today. The cost of increasing pensions for this particular group who came under the old scheme will not be large by virtue of the fact that in approximately ten or 15 years, based on the mortality rates, many of these men will not be with us. It therefore seems imperative that we should act quickly in recognizing the service these men have given through increasing their pension without delay. As the hon. member for Ottawa West said, the need for increasing the pensions of this group is perhaps more urgent than that of any other group who are in receipt of pensions under consideration in this resolution.
The actual pay of R.C.M.P. officers has increased, I think, by something like 70 per cent over the last six years and I maintain
[Stage Direction]
Public Service-Pensions that this is as it should be, but in view of these increases surely there should be a close relationship between the pay of the men in active service and those who served in years past and have now retired. The hon. member for Carleton has asked for some advice as to how this could be implemented and how actual income could be related to an increase in pension. It may be suggested to him, as it was suggested in the brief of R.C.M.P. veterans, that this income could be related to the salary of those presently serving as it goes up or down, but in any event it should be related to some formula that will be indicative of the actual cost of living.
I find it revealing to examine the rate of pay and allowance of a veteran who leaves the force today. It is a sad commentary on our system in the past years to observe that when a constable retires today he receives a greater pension than that of an inspector of the force who retired under the old rates of pay.
I have traced here for my own information a rather long list of representative groups who have since retired from the service and the discrepancies in the rates speak for themselves. I think this is the most forceful argument one can use for the need of an increase in their pensions. I am not going to continue to develop this particular aspect of my argument because I think a strong case has been made for the obvious and urgent need of recognizing the outstanding service provided by these men of the R.C.M.P. in developing our country. I think it is important that this government recognize as quickly as possible the urgent demand of this diminishing group who have made such a fine contribution and who unfortunately may not be with us for too many years to come.
In conclusion may I just say that I sympathize with the argument that we must give general over-all consideration to these problems so we will not bring into effect legislation, or increases in pensions to be more specific, which are going to have to be amended the day after the enactment of the bill. One factor which has contributed to the stability of employment in industry in the last few years is that practically all industries recognize that if they are going to maintain a standard of employment satisfactory to their production trend it is only going to be done if they provide those benefits which this modern social age expects of them. Certainly our retired civil servants, R.C.M.P. and C.N.R. employees should not be told that they are the exception to the rule. I take my seat believing that the government will act on its stated

intention and give immediate consideration to this matter so that the needs of the people for whom I have made my case specifically can be attended to as urgent business.
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this resolution I should like first of all to compliment the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) for his perseverance and persistence in presenting this resolution year after year as he has done. I have supported it on previous occasions and I rise to do so again today. I should also like to compliment the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) not only for the very lucid explanation which he gave of the difficulties that would have to be overcome in implementing this resolution but also for the very sympathetic attitude he displayed toward it. The hon. member for Fort William rested his case on two arguments. One was that justice demands it and the second was that necessity requires it. To these I should like to add a third argument, the argument of the necessity of the government accepting the moral responsibility to live up to its contracts.
The hon. member for Carleton said that the government should be a model employer and I agree with him wholeheartedly in this. We all know that the predicament in which retired civil servants find themselves today is due mainly to two factors. One is that their pensions are low, and they are low because salaries at the time of their employment were low. I think it is well known that over the years civil service salaries generally have been much lower than those paid for the same services and responsibilities in comparable jobs in industry and commerce; but civil service salaries were low because the salary itself was only part of the contract. The other part was represented by security. When a civil servant became employed in service he did so with the understanding that his salary was going to be lower than what he would receive for comparable work in industry but on the other hand he was going to have a certain amount of security during his retirement years. The second factor is that that security has not been provided and it is the moral responsibility of the government to provide it as quickly as possible.
There are three reasons why civil service pensions are not adequate to meet the increasing needs of pensioners. One is that continued inflation has depreciated the value of the dollar almost continously over a great many years. The second reason is that the pension, at the time it was calculated, was geared to the living standards of that day

and we all know that living standards have improved considerably every year and will continue to improve as the years go by. The third reason is that, along with rising standards of living, we have had a continued rise in the living costs.
The hon. member for Carleton solicited suggestions as to how this problem should be met. In my opinion these three factors must be taken into consideration when the solution is being worked out. Since the dollar has depreciated roughly at the rate of 3 per cent per year, to restore the purchasing power of the pension it should be increased by at least that amount, 3 per cent per year for the number of years the pensioner has been retired. Then, there should also be a clause to make sure that under no circumstances will the pension remain below the subsistence level. The third factor should be an extra bonus, included in the formula, to compensate for the increase in living standards over and above the living standards of the period to which the pension was geared.
During this session we have already taken action to alleviate the condition of our old age pensioners. We have treated them on an emergency basis on the assumption that the people concerned could not actually live without an increase in their pensions. We have justified the pension we have given to those old age pensioners, as a matter of right, on the basis of their contribution to the general economy of the country during their working years and on the assumption that today we are enjoying the fruits of their labour. We must remember that the civil servants also made their contributions to the economy of the country in the same way as every other worker did, and for that reason they are entitled to the same consideration as we would give to old age pensioners and other groups whom we have assisted with benefits during this session. But, on top of that, not only have they given their contribution to the economy, they have made a contribution to their retirement in two ways. One of the ways is by a direct contribution to the superannuation fund, but they made it in another way by accepting a much lower salary than they could have received outside of the civil service in comparable positions in industry and commerce. Therefore, they have a triple claim to our consideration and their case should be treated with the same urgency as we have treated other pensioners.
I would therefore suggest that action be taken at this session. I think a rough calculation can be made and the terms can be worked out afterwards. Some allocation should be included in the supplementary estimates at
Public Service-Pensions this session so that the government can discharge its moral obligation to those faithful old servants. Action on this obligation has already been too long delayed.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, once again a resolution comes before us for the consideration of the civil servant who is on pension and who perhaps was retired some years ago when the cost of living was considerably below what it is today. Once again we have heard some speeches similar to those we heard in days gone by. Once again I rise to support the resolution which stands in the name of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I do wish to pay the hon. member a compliment and I believe we all should. We should express our appreciation for his bringing this resolution before the house consistently year after year. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants and Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were retired, after long service, when salaries were low, so as to bring their pensions in line with those of the present.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government would see fit to pass this resolution and bring in legislation in the very near future, for I believe that if the hon. member for Fort William is to retire later on-we all hope he might return to the house-it would be a pleasant thing for him to be able to retire and know that in his honour perhaps- if I can put it that way-legislation had been passed to increase the pensions of civil servants. I think that would be something that would give him a good deal of satisfaction. Since he is a veteran of this house, it seems to me we could very well honour him in this respect. When a man retires it is pleasant for him to know that he has some sort of memorial that he can leave behind. In the case of the honourable member, a piece of legislation that has helped those who have been the unfortunate victims of policies that have not kept pace with the rising cost of living.
We support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, because we recognize it is just; we recognize it is fair; we recognize it is the thing to do.
I do not think there can be any arguments against it. I should like to see it go much farther. Of course, governments have no responsibility in respect of the increase in pensions in other fields, but they do have responsibility for the amount of pension which is paid to civil servants. In the past I have talked with a number of people not civil servants who have had to retire on industrial pensions. I was out to the west coast a year or two ago and I happened to

Public Service-Pensions visit West Vancouver. It is a very fine community in which I found there were quite a number of retired people. I held one or two meetings while I was there and almost invariably some retired gentleman, mostly retired bankers, I must say, would come to me and ask if something could not be done about increasing their pensions. I mention this because it is apropos of the whole subject. A banker usually retires on what might be considered a fair pension. Banks have pension schemes and when bank managers retire they are supposed to retire with some considerable dignity, something that is commensurate with the position they held. Some of these old retired bankers find that their pensions have diminished in purchasing power far below what they ought to be and they cannot live in dignity any longer. That is something to be considered.
All this arises for one reason. The monetary policy of the country has been such that it has permitted the purchasing power of the dollar to become less and less as the years pass by. I have felt that perhaps it might be advisable to have some sort of escalator clause in all pension schemes whereby when an increase in the cost of living takes place the escalator clause will become operative. I am not prepared to say that it 'would be easy to write such a provision into a piece of legislation. I think it would require a terrific amount of research in order to accomplish it. However, under the present monetary policy that would be the fair thing to do because the combination of the depreciated dollar and the increased cost of living is something that is important to the living standards of the people of Canada who are on pension.
We who have been in public life for the last couple of decades recognize the importance of this matter. Civil servants who were retired some years ago were able to go to the grocery store and purchase enough groceries to make them feel that perhaps they had a fair pension. But when we consider the amount of their pensions in the light of the quantity of groceries they can buy today their pensions are pretty small because they will not buy very many groceries.
I had occasion at one of my meetings to have a chart indicating the amount of groceries that $10 would buy about 20 years ago compared with the amount of groceries of the same type that $10 will buy today. If you look at that picture it is a pretty grim one. Twenty years ago I suppose a man could buy a suit of clothes for $25 to $30, but go to your tailor or to a department store today

and see how much you have to pay for a suit of clothes. A person is lucky if he can get a suit less than $65 and they run from there up to $100.
Take the matter of shoes. Some years ago a man could walk into a store and get a pretty good pair of shoes for about $4 to $6 but if you go into a store today and try to buy a pretty good pair of shoes what do you have to pay? You have to pay considerably more. I have a pair of shoes on my feet for which I paid $19, and I do not think they are particularly exceptional. Of course, being a small man I think I should get clothes and shoes cheaper than a bigger man because there is not as much leather goes into my shoes or cloth into my clothes as in the case of a bigger man, but I do not get any consideration in that respect. My clothes take about half as much wool cloth but I have to pay just as much for a suit.
When we think of the depreciated dollar and the cost of living for the pensioner today compared with a few years ago I say that that should give the government a terrific amount of concern. When the hon. member for Fort William introduced the resolution this afternoon he talked in terms of an allegory. He spoke of a shotgun hold-up. It is a good allegory indeed. If somebody should come up to you, stick a gun in your ribs and take half the contents of your pocketbook away from you you would say that was robbery and everybody would be out to catch the robber and put him in jail.
But let us follow the illustration further. Suppose a man now on pension was able to save a little stake during his working years which he thought he would be able to use in future years. Suppose he bought $5,000 worth of bonds or put $5,000 in the bank some years ago. Suppose he cached away in one form or another bonds or savings to the extent of $5,000 15 or 20 years ago. Suppose he takes the money out of the bank today and attempts to live on it. What do you suppose he is going to get for it? He is only going to get half what he would have got some years ago. In other words, the purchasing power of the money that he put away, whether in the form of savings, bonds or in a pension scheme, is only half as much today as it was before.
Somebody robbed him. Who was it who robbed him? He is not at present sitting on one of the front benches of this house. You cannot very well put him in jail, but certainly if somebody robbed with a gun you would put him in jail. That is where he belongs. He is a criminal. But what has happened? A financial policy which controls the amount of money in circulation and has

an effect upon business-you can use what terminology you like; you can talk about inflation, deflation, or whatever you wish- has affected the cost of living. What has happened? The financial policy of the country has stolen half the pensioner's savings. That is a fact.
Who has been responsible for the financial policy of the country which has robbed the civil servant of half his income? Somebody is responsible for financial policy. The resolution advocates that mounted police pensions should be raised. I think we should bring in the mounted police for another purpose. We should bring them in to track down the real criminal so that we can put him in jail. If it happened to be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) we would say to him, "Here, how is it that you have robbed the retired civil servant?" Oh, I know what he would say. He would say, "I have not robbed him of anything".
Somebody is in charge of the financial policy of the country. My hon. friend says, blame the Liberals. I think we could blame the Liberals because over the last 20 years they have been the ones who have been in charge of monetary policies. If they have not been in charge of the monetary policies of the country, then they had better say so. If the present finance minister is not in charge of the financial policies of the country, then he had better say so. If he says so, then we had better find out who is in charge of the financial policies of the country.


Pierre Gauthier: The parliamentary assistant.


Ernest George Hansell: I would not like to blame the parliamentary assistant for the monetary policy that has been pursued in Canada for the last 20 years. I will tell you what we will do, we will blame him if the financial policy of the country is not straightened out shortly. However, we cannot very well blame him for what has been happening over the past 20 years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this matter of monetary policy is something that you cannot ignore when you talk about this pension scheme. After all, you can raise the pension, but that does not solve the over-all problem. Who knows, if there is a continued rise in the cost of living over the next 10 years you will have to raise it again. On the other hand, if the cost of living should sink to a new low point, what are you going to do then? I do not believe anyone would want to take any money away from the pensioners. I say, therefore, what is needed is a financial policy that will create a steady level. I will not say it should be static, because I do not 96698-1554
Public Service-Pensions think you could have it static in the sense that you would have to have fixed prices and fixed controls throughout the country over a long period of time. I do not believe you could do it that way.
We believe we have a solution to this problem, and some day when we come to discuss actual monetary policy we hope to be able to suggest to the government how something can be done to remedy the situation of boom and bust, inflation and deflation. Then people who get an income in the future will know exactly where they stand. I had thought that perhaps something of that kind might be done at this session. At the opening of the session, therefore, I asked a question as the orders of the day were being called. I should like to read from page 17 of Hansard for October 15, 1957, the day after parliament opened. I rose and asked the following question:
May I direct a question to the Prime Minister or the leader of the house. Would the government initiate a move to have a special parliamentary committee or even the banking and commerce committee meet to pursue a study of the reasons for the inflationary trend and the continued increase in the cost of living?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this government, as always, will give consideration to anything for the benefit of the Canadian people.
Well, that is quite an answer, and of course I expected that there would be some applause forthcoming from our good Conservative friends.
An non. Member: This is one of those frivolous questions.


Ernest George Hansell: It is one of those frivolous answers, you mean. The question was a good one, because I asked it. This is followed in Hansard by something that is very significant. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked the following question:
I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry I was not able to give him notice. I should like to ask him, what is the difference between the attitude of the majority of your members now as compared to the attitude shown by the previous government and to which your members strenuously objected?


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question of attitude-it is a question of parliamentary rights.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
^Ir:, Wi"ch: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister if he does not find there foof? dlflerence when the shoe ^ on the other
I will not say anything about parliamentary rights because Mr. Speaker would be on his feet, but I would suggest that when you examine Hansard for the last two or three days you can see what has happened to parliamentary rights.


Mr. Winch:: It was a good question.

Public Service-Pensions


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, and I am glad my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver East, backed me up in that question to get something more from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The parliamentary assistant gave us a very excellent, well thought out speech this afternoon. He must have spent quite a bit of time in studying his subject, and we appreciate that. During his speech he referred to the previous finance minister and the attitude of that minister to the effect that you should not tax all the people to pay certain classes of pensioners who have been penalized by the decrease in the value of the dollar. Those are not his exact words, but that is the sentiment. I agree with that to some extent, but the irony of it is that the Minister of Finance, under whose department civil service pensions come, is the very man who sets the monetary policy of Canada which causes the value of the dollar to decrease. Now he turns around and says we should not tax everybody in Canada to pay one section of Canada's pensioners because they are unfortunate in the devaluation of the dollar.
However, the very government that is in charge of the civil service is also in charge of monetary policies throughout the country. The parliamentary assistant has stated that the government would give earnest consideration to all constructive suggestions. So far as I can see there are only two constructive suggestions. The first suggestion is to take the bull by the horns and raise the pension; that is about the best suggestion I could offer in view of present monetary policies. I am hoping the government will not delay taking action. Let us not have a lot of window dressing in this matter. Over the years we have heard a lot about the government being interested in anything that is for the benefit of the people of Canada. I know the government is because they are human like anyone else.
What we want is action now. The best assurance we can have of your sincerity and faith is that you take action now and not leave it for another ten years. This thing has been going along for a good many years now. We have been talking about this matter in this house for a good many years and it is time that some action was taken.
The other suggestion I have to make is this. Perhaps it would be a little bit more complicated, but I believe the government owes it to the people of Canada today to set up some sort of committee. I am not saying that they should set up a commission; this country is going to be burdened with commissions. I

believe they should set up some sort of committee-we have a regularly constituted banking and commerce committee of the House of Commons-to go into a detailed study of the reason for the higher cost of living as it is reflected in monetary policy. By that I do not mean a committee or commission on price spreads. That is a very simple thing. It does not take into account the fact that there may be something wrong with monetary policy. Let the government have the banking and commerce committee go into a real study by calling in the bankers, the financial experts, the monetary reformers, the people who have any understanding of monetary policy whatsoever, with a sincere desire, not to protect a faulty policy, but to try to arrive at the reason why this present financial policy is not working.
I do not think I need to have anything more to say on that matter. I was talking with my colleague the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) who is my desk-mate. He said to me, "You can raise the pension, something which would be a very good thing; but in the end it is only putting a patch on the old tire, because if you do not get to the root and the bottom of the trouble that is causing the tire to blow out, you will only have another blowout a little bit later on". Let us stop this patchwork business and let us get down to solid rock bottom in our effort to discover the reason why there is in the cost of living a fluctuation that is far too severe. Then we shall not have this repeated dog eat dog performance, because just as soon as you give some benefit to one, you have to give it to another and then some other organization comes along; everybody is out for his share, and there is not enough to go around under present monetary policy.
I will not say any more. The resolution should be passed. The problem should be solved. Since we now have a new government let us look forward in the hope that this new government is going to take some action to solve this problem, that it is going to be agreeable to the passing of this resolution and to hasten the legislation which will make the resolution effective.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of deference that I venture to disagree with a member of such wide experience and broad humanity as the hon. member for Fort

William (Mr. Mclvor), but speaking for myself, I find that his resolution is too narrow in its proposed application, and that it is therefore inadequate.
In the course of my every day business I am constantly advising people-widows and dependants of those who are subject to inadequate pensions-and I might say, in particular, ministers of the cloth and preachers. I am certain there is no class of people in this country who are less well provided for in the matter of pensions than retired ministers and their dependants. These are people with whom everyone must have great sympathy. Their problems are great, and there is no one to whom they can turn for help. I think that when we are dealing with the matter of inadequate pensions, we should, however, look further into the causes in order to determine the reasons and remedy them.
One of the reasons why the pensions granted to civil servants some considerable time ago are low in the light of today's circumstances is that the government was at that time in the forefront in providing any pension at all for retiring civil servants, with the result that these pension schemes were very often set up without adequate contributions being made either from the employer or from the employee.
I know further that there are thousands of people in Canada contemporary with the civil servants with whom we are now dealing who have no provision for pension whatsoever, and also that there are many whose pensions are even less adequate than those of retired government civil servants. This, I think, is the first cause of the -situation with which we are dealing now.
The second cause is the continual decline of the purchasing power of our money. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) suggested that this was a problem which had risen only in the last 30 years or so. Well, not many days ago I was reading a biography of Oliver Cromwell, and in that biography was a speech made by him some 300 years ago in the British House of Commons. The subject matter of that speech was the relationship of wheat prices to the purchasing power of the English currency at that time, and with a slight modernization of phraseology that speech could well have been made in this house last week.
There are many more people suffering from inadequate pensions than those covered by this resolution-teachers, librarians, municipal servants. In my own experience in municipal affairs I have many times had to deal with municipal employees pensions which were entirely inadequate to meet the need.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the present government and, indeed, the former government,
Public Service-Pensions have not been entirely unaware of this situation. Four times at least the problem of inadequate pensions and inadequate incomes resulting from the decreased purchasing power of our currency has been faced by the government. It was twice dealt with by the late government; first, when the universal old age pension without a means test was introduced and then later in 1957 when they increased the universal old age pension by $6. The situation has been twice faced by the present government; first, when the $9 increase in the universal old age pension was put into effect just recently and, secondly, in the undertaking by the present government to have a complete investigation made of a social security program for all our people based on need and the cost of living.
With all due deference to the hon. member for Fort William, I think that therein lies the real solution of the problem, because in my opinion, as the resolution stands, it is discriminatory. I think it is better to face the whole problem in a comprehensive fashion rather than to deal with one inadequacy and then to be faced with another.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to this house the general sympathy which has been evoked by the motion of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). We were entertained in some way this afternoon by some of the statements he made in his rather powerful appeal to our emotions. I know that in the past the hon. member has had some rather harsh things to say about tobacco and its use, but this afternoon we were treated to some powerful words on just what sort of man we would have if he were deprived of his pipe. I feel the hon. member might have chosen some other thing of which to imagine a pensioner deprived rather than his pipe.
Seriously, the hon. member showed briefly but movingly some of the hardships which have fallen to the lot of some of our retired civil servants, but I feel that those observations would apply with equal force to others who have retired on pensions of any sort. I would ask: does this not also apply to people who have retired on savings, on rent from properties, or on annuities, even government annuities? They have seen their savings disappear as a result of inflation and other causes. I do not suggest we should say, as is said in the courts, that hard cases make bad law but I rather think that the problem of our retired people is oversimplified and overemphasized at times.

Public Service-Pensions
There is, it is true, a great deal of hardship, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. members of this house that the elderly people in Canada are not all in the same class. There are many people who have been frugal and who have saved, and they do not depend on pensions for subsistence. Indeed, if the conditions which have been indicated by the hon. member this afternoon were general, then this country would indeed be in a bad way because it would then appear that all our people who have reached the age of 65 or 70 have dissipated all they have ever earned in their productive years. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I know that that is not the case. We have groups of people, in varying percentages, who either because of circumstances beyond their control or because they have not been frugal enough or because they have been intemperate would now be faced with destitution if it were not for their pensions.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the general condition in this country and therefore I say that merely to emphasize the lot of these people and to point it up in eloquent terms such as we have heard may be somewhat misleading. We must deal with these particular cases. We have a responsibility and there I recognize the humanitarian interest of hon. members. We cannot let our neighbours be destitute. However, I am one of those who might take exception to what I consider to be somewhat of an oversimplification by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) when he spoke of the qualities of the ideal employer in that we are here singling out a particular group for treatment. There are many others in this position and I would suggest that the percentage of retired civil servants in this country who are dependent upon their pension as their sole means of subsistence is small compared to the rest of the retired population in this age group. What about those people who voluntarily put aside savings? What about those people who were not employed either by the civil service or in business where they might have been able to get a pension? What are we to do with them? They face the same problems.
I do not think it is right that we should consider only one group and consider all groups on a piecemeal basis. I feel we must give close attention to the entire question of retired civil servants, members of the police force and retired members of the armed services. Fortunately the number of retired service personnel is very few in number because before the war our regular armed forces were small in number. Nevertheless
these people face the same problems. I cannot say that all find themselves in this position because some have been frugal and have been able to provide for themselves in their retirement years. Whenever it can be done people should be encouraged to make provision for their retirement years. We should be most careful not to lead our people to the point of view where upon reaching retirement age they say to their employer or to the state, "Here I am; now keep me." I think that is wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Do I gather from what he is saying that he feels most people at age 65 or 70 who are in need are in that condition because they have not been frugal, not been temperate?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
he taking the same position with regard to pensions that was taken in another place by a couple of hon. gentlemen?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh no, Mr. Speaker. I stated some time ago there may be circumstances completely beyond their control. I would say that the people who have not been frugal are probably the smallest number and fortunately so. I do not suggest for one moment that the people who are in need of their pensions today are in that position because they lacked frugality, but such people do exist. On the other hand there are people whose circumstances were such that they could not be expected to save to provide for their old age.


An hon. Member:: Including retired civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then is the answer not universal pensions?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, I feel the answer is not universal pensions. While the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Carleton must be given weight I also feel that the position I have stated must not be disregarded. It must be considered in the whole problem of determining pensions for various groups.
While the government of Canada may be considered in the position of an ideal employer yet an ideal employer in providing pensions for his employees does so from his own funds or the earnings of his business, be he an individual or be it a corporation. In either case they use their own funds to provide pensions. In the present instance we are discussing the utilization of public moneys for the benefit of a particular group of people and I say we must consider this

in arriving at a solution to this problem. We have a responsibility not only to this particular group of people but to the people of Canada as a whole.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, certainly.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Do you think that the
dominion government has any responsibility for civic pensions and teachers pensions? Do you not think we have dealt with the pensions for which the dominion government is responsible?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At the moment I would not care to give the hon. member a categorical "yes" or "no" answer. I do not believe the question can be answered with a categorical "yes" or "no". However I agree to a large measure with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) who said that the low pensions we have today are in the main the result of low salaries that existed at the time these people were engaged and on which their pensions are based. I do not want hon. members to misunderstand me and conclude that I am opposed to the matter of inquiring into and increasing pensions where they are too low but I would like to draw the attention of the house to these factors which in my estimation must be considered in arriving at a just decision in these matters.
I would like hon. members to consider what might serve to alleviate some of the difficulties and remove the discrepancies which exist in the pensions which are the subject matter of this resolution and offer as a possible solution the suggestion of making a general change in the ten-year average by reducing it to a five-year average. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) indicated that there had been two rather substantial increases in pay in the civil service within the last two years. This has thrown the whole ten-year average scheme out of proportion. Those who retired over five years ago prior to these increases are now in receipt of the much lower pension because their base pay is proportionately lower. I feel there is true justification for inquiring into the situation prevailing in a particular group where there are discrepancies. You can readily understand that a civil servant who worked for 30 years received a pension of X dollars upon retirement ten years ago whereas a civil servant with the same number of years of service can retire today and receive X plus many dollars in the form of a pension. I do not think that is quite correct. I feel that the hon. member has a very good point in bringing the resolution forward at this time.
Public Service-Pensions
This proposal would certainly not take care of all the demands for increases in pensions of retired civil servants although, as I say, by removing some of the discrepancies and injustices within a particular group it would go to some considerable length in relieving the losses generally of those retired civil servants.
There are two particular items relating to retired civil servants about which I should like to speak. First of all, there is the subject which has been before this house on many occasions and, in particular, in 1953 when the superannuation act was under discussion here. It concerns a small group of civil servants who were members of the then department of soldiers civil re-establishment, the soldiers settlement board and treasury employees attached to the D.S.C.R. They are a small group of employees who are now in the main reaching retirement age. Because of some difficulties between government departments back in 1924 and 1925 agreement could not be reached that these veterans were permanent civil servants and they were still classified as temporary civil servants and were not able to elect as they should have been. Therefore, instead of being able to benefit from the 5-year average today they are unfortunately under the 10-year average. They never had a chance to elect through no fault of their own. I need not repeat the speeches that were made at that time by the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks), the then leader of the opposition, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), and many others on both sides of the house, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This is an anomalous condition which affects a number of men in my own riding and about whom I have made certain representations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and I hope that with a new look at the problem these men who have given very valuable service to this country, and particularly to the returned men, will be able to benefit and enjoy the same rights that their confreres in other departments now enjoy.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to a matter arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the superannuation act. I have a constituent whose husband was a member of the mounted police back in 1922 when he transferred to the Alberta provincial police at its inception. One year later, during the discharge of his duty, he was shot down and died as a result of his wounds. There was then very meagre workmen's compensation legislation in our province. There were no pension provisions for members of the mounted police who died

Public Service-Pensions in the performance of their duties and this young widow had to fend for herself. For 32 years she has served as a special constable for the mounted police on escort duty under very arduous conditions. She has served as a matron particularly in the escort of mental patients, drunks, and what have you. This woman has been on call day and night over this period of 32 years. She is not on regular salary but is paid by the shift of so many hours per day's work. The mounted police authorities have been exceedingly kind and exceedingly considerate in keeping her employed in this way. Under workmen's compensation she drew the sum of $35 a month for many years. Now at the age of 67 she gets $60 a month.
However, last year, on her way to work one wintry night, she slipped and suffered severe injuries, breaking an arm or a shoulder. In any event, she has been incapacitated. Convalescence has been slow because of her age. She is not in condition really to discharge her duties as a police matron. After 32 years service there is at the present time no means of giving this exceedingly valorous and conscientious special constable, which she has been during all this time, a pension under the superannuation act. Mr. Speaker, I would humbly submit that such a case should deserve special consideration; that the people who are hired as special constables for a long period of time should somehow or other receive the same consideration as members of the force who are on a permanent basis.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the principle of the resolution before us this evening is a good one, but I say that with this reservation. It covers a very small number of people, in fact, who actually are in dire necessity. I am not saying that a great number of people would not benefit by it and they would readily accept the benefit; but I say that when we are considering hardship cases we should not go from the particular to the general that because there are a limited number of cases we should apply the principle to the whole class. However, Mr. Speaker, I think the matter should be gone into as has been indicated by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). I again congratulate the hon. member for Fort William for having moved this resolution so that we can discuss it here tonight.


Mr. Jack Wratten (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the first time to take part in the debates of this house I should like to take this opportunity, although I know it is late, to congratulate you and your deputy on the fact that you have been elected to your

high positions and also to extend congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on appointing a lady to the cabinet of this country. I know the ladies in my own riding were very pleased with the promise the Prime Minister made that if he formed the government there would be a lady in the cabinet. I know they are very happy over the selection of the lady member and we know she will do an excellent job.
The people of Brantford riding have sent many men to this house and we have to go back some few years to the last Conservative member who represented Brantford riding. I refer to Mr. Ryerson who, although he is now 85 years of age, still takes a very active interest in the happenings in and the debates of this house.
I hesitated to rise in my place and speak in this house because I learned a long time ago when I was first starting in municipal work that it is a good plan to sit back and listen to the other speakers and learn something about the rules and regulations governing the debates and the work of this house. In speaking to this resolution which we are debating tonight I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) for the very splendid address he made this afternoon. It was very comprehensive and was certainly well thought out.
I would like also to say a word to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I only wish I had his mind and could retain all the details of which he is capable and had his ability to get up and speak on as many subjects and as often as he does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Jack Wratten: I would like to speak for a few moments on the question of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, this force of men of whom we are very proud in this country and which we know constitutes one of the finest police forces in the world. We are all conscious of the glamour of their uniform and we all remember the stories we read as shall I say younger boys; we remember the stories written about the force by Ralph Connor, "Corporal Cameron", and "The Patrol of the Sundance Trail" in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are glorified. We all enjoyed those stories and the episodes recounted in them.
I was looking through the report of the commissioner today and I have seen that there are not many instances detailed therein of the work done by the force and of their bravery. I was, however, struck by one or two of the men mentioned by the commissioner. We have Constable Johnstone who

entered a bank in response to an alarm and, after shooting three men, a fourth one came out and held up his hands. This constable was responsible for saving the money in that bank and preventing a hold-up. We also have another constable, Constable Ingalls, who received an award for saving a life in Gladstone, Manitoba. Then there is Sergeant Austin and Constable Ross who were highly commended for their excellent skill in aviation by taking an aircraft in flight and bringing it into Goose Bay, Labrador.
We have two more constables, McHale and Bowyer, who rescued a man from under tons of frozen gypsum and rocks at Windermere and also Constable Martin and Constable Millhouse who were commended for bravery they displayed during the flood operations in the Haney district of British Columbia.
It is therefore obvious that we still have men doing hazardous work in this force with very little publicity. The older men of the R.C.M.P. who did these valorous deeds in years gone by did not, of course, have the facilities of our men today. I am thinking of those men who used to be up north and who had to travel by dog team, by horse in winter and by canoe in the summer. Now we have modern equipment for them, airplanes, automobiles, helicopters. All of this is a far cry from the hardships which the older men endured when they looked after our far-flung borders in the north country.
I was fortunate enough to be able to procure information on half a dozen instances of the meagre pensions upon which some of these men had to retire. I have one instance before me of a man who gave 20 years service and who received a pension in 1937 of some $36 a month; another one who put in 14 years of service and received $34 a month; another constable who retired after giving 20 years service on a pension in 1929,-we all know, of course that 1929 was a peak year and had been for some considerable time, when wages were high,-but he was retired on less than $40 a month. Then we have another constable who gave 20 years service and in 1929 received a pension of $43; a sergeant who had put in 20 years service in 1928 was retired on $48 a month. Another staff-sergeant-somewhat higher in rank-having put in 20 years of service received $51 a month. So hon. members will see that a number of the older men who are still alive are today receiving these low pensions. They are certainly not burdened with a lot of money when it comes to pensions.
When considering the scale recently put forward for pensions payable in the R.C.M.P. under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act we notice that they have been considerably increased over the period from 1937 96698-156
Public Service-Pensions to 1957 and we agree that a constable or an officer of the R.C.M.P. who retires now is fortunate enough to receive a fairly adequate pension. He will receive one upon which he will be able to get along and look after himself, so I do feel that our older men should certainly receive the consideration of this house. They do deserve it and should be brought up to a point where they can live decently, without needing to go out and work after having given years of service on the hazardous work on which they have been engaged.
I know we are not discussing pensions other than those of the R.C.M.P. and the civil servants today but I wonder if I might be allowed to deviate for a moment. I am also concerned about the pensions in some of the industries in my home town. After all, these people of whom I am thinking are the ones who are paying the taxes in order to provide for the pensions we are discussing today. I mention in particular the textile workers in our city. These people belong to the poorest paid group in my city, due to the hard conditions under which the factories are running and the competition with which they are faced.
I am also concerned with the old age pensioners who, through no fault of their own, are living, and indeed have to live, strictly on the old age pension which we are paying today through the federal government, with the help of the Ontario government. In my experience in the municipal field I have had these old age pensioners come to me time after time wondering how they were going to pay their taxes, buy their groceries, pay for their fuel and live on the small amount available to them. Fortunately another promise of this government has been kept and they are now receiving a much better pension than they had a year ago or two years ago. It will certainly be a great help to them in order to enable them to buy the necessities of life.
The reason I mention these different groups is that no matter how much we reserve for these pensions for the civil service and the R.C.M.P. the money will have to come from one pocket only and that is the pocket of the Canadian taxpayer. No matter whether they are paying income tax, which we have been discussing recently, or not they still pay their share in other taxes such as sales tax, etc. I would suggest that thought and consideration be given by the government to these pensioners, bearing in mind that we all share in the cost thereof.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this house owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Fort

Public Service-Pensions William (Mr. Mclvor) for having persevered in bringing forward this resolution year after year. I do hope that the government will bring in legislation to take care of increases in the pensions of civil servants and the R.C.M.P.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Ernest James Broome: I can think of no finer tribute that could be paid to a grand old man who has well and truly served his country and this house.
When I was first elected, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter which reads as follows:
When you go to Ottawa at the next session of parliament, I hope you will look into the plight of R.C.M.P. service pensioners-those who retired before the numerous increases were granted to serving members.
In my own case, I retired in 1947 on a pension of $82.40 per month, which in those days was not bad but now increased costs of living have made the pension insignificant, and I feel that all R.C.M.P. service pensioners under $100 per month are due for revision upwards.
I did see the commissioner and discussed this with him and he gave me the address of the veterans' organization for the R.C.M.P. They sent me a brief. In my opinion, the R.C.M.P. pension scheme is perhaps the most unsatisfactory pension scheme in existence. Going back to this same case, it concerns a man who joined the force in 1925, became a corporal and retired in 1947. His pension is twenty-four fiftieths of his pay, that is one-fiftieth for each year of service. In 1947, the pay and allowances for a corporal in the R.C.M.P. amounted to $2,060 per year, and this resulted in the pension of $82.40 mentioned before. Since 1947 normal increases have come about which, the brief says, amounted to 70 per cent but according to the information I received from the commissioner amounted to more than that. Today a corporal would receive in pay and allowances $4,800 a year, as compared with the $2,060 in 1947. The job is the same, the risk is the same, the qualifications are the same, but the man who served at the time when wages were low suffers now because of the low pension he receives. He gets it going and coming.
Under the present wage scale the pension would appear to be adequate, but the pension for those who retired in the early years is totally inadequate. The thing which amazes me is that when these advances were made in wages of the R.C.M.P., the government of that day did not amend the pensions in a similar manner. It would appear that if you were to tie the pension to the going rate of pay you would automatically increase the pension when the pay was increased. The trouble, of course, is that in industry you have collective bargaining between employees and employers. There is a continuous pressure

from the men for increases, and a withholding on the part of management to keep the increases at as reasonable a level as possible or as low as possible. In so far as civil servants and the R.C.M.P. are concerned, you do not have that force on the part of the men concerned because they are truly civil servants. They may submit briefs and so on, but they cannot take any more drastic action than that. It is, therefore, rather natural, although regrettable, that their wages lag behind the wages of other people across the country.
As I say, I think this illustration gives the picture in about as clear a manner as possible. When this man retired in 1947 the salary level was $2,000 and today people doing the same job are receiving $4,800. There is something wrong there. I was most interested when the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) was saying that there was no argument against this today. I would say there was no argument against it in previous years, either. I suffer from the handicap of not knowing what was said in previous sessions, so I do not know whether or not the previous governments took the fair minded attitude that has been taken by the government representative today, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
previous government promised to study the matter.


Ernest James Broome: Well, I would say it was a very lengthy study and did not do very much for the pensioners concerned. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave a few figures which struck me as being almost fantastic. He said there were 393 civil servants retired who would receive less than $20 per month pension and 4,395 widows who would receive less than $50 per month and that would represent 64 per cent of those who were pensioned. When you hear such figures as those, you know that the time is long past when this problem should be solved.
At the same time, however, one must remember that the government has had a very full program of legislation this session; that they have had a lot of work to do and a lot of getting used to, and you cannot expect, as the hon. member for Ottawa West seems to expect, that Rome can be built in a day or everything that is requested can be accomplished overnight. I sincerely believe that the government is considering this matter, and not with a view to bringing out a report but with a view to introducing legislation to correct this situation in a manner that will keep it corrected. How this will be

done I do not know, but it can be done. I am quite confident that it will be done.
The sort of things that happen when you work for the government are peculiar to say the least. For instance, this brief contains a section which deals with the widows of R.C.M.P. veterans. If I may read from it, it says:
-permission is granted for the payment of a gratuity to the widow of a member who dies while serving with the force, said gratuity to be equal to two months pay, provided that the deceased member had two years' service in the R.C.M. Police or has that length of service to his credit for pension purposes under the R.C.M. Police Act-
Now, listen to this:
-and was married in accordance with the R.C.M. Police rules and regulations.
I do not know whether or not they are different from those for ordinary marriages, but this is one of the conditions. If a retired member of the force dies, the widow has an immediate stoppage of pension. For example, if the ex-member died on the 7th day of the month his widow would be required to refund the balance or 23 days pension payment previously received. Now, I contend that we have to watch and be strict guardians of the public money, but I do not think that the public asks us to guard their money that strictly. As I said, according to the present rates of pay the pensions are not too bad, but it is the position of the members who retired in the early days that is causing distress, and these men are getting older all the time.
I would hate to think that ex-civil servants or ex-members of the R.C.M.P. who between now and the time legislation will be brought in, may be suffering want and hardship because this matter has been delayed from year to year.
There is nothing political in this matter. It is simply a question of what is the fair thing to do, that is fair to the ex-members of the finest police force in the world and to the ex-members of an honest and honourable civil service, a civil service which has given this country wonderful service as minister after minister has testified. I am not talking about the top bracket civil servants.
I am thinking of the chap who brings your mail and others all the way through. They are all fine people.
I have more sympathy for the man on the low income who has retired. I cannot find myself crying over the fact that a deputy minister's pension is not $2,000 more. I am thinking of these people who were mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, those on $20, $50 and $75. Those are the people that I think we should 96698-1561
Public Service-Pensions look after. We should give justice to the other people too but these people really need it and are entitled to it.
I would therefore say that this is not a political matter. It is simply a matter of how best to do it so that it is not a patchwork job, so that it is done with the interests of the recipients at heart, with due care for the financial costs as well and with the implementation of the way that the pension can be managed. I do not see anything that presents too great difficulty. I believe it can be done. I think it must be done carefully, but I think that it cannot be delayed. I think that work must be started on it as soon as possible. I hope that in the next session the government will be bringing forward legislation along the line indicated in this most admirable resolution.


Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with those who have expressed their admiration for the persistence which is reflected in the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) in bringing forward year by year this resolution and at the same time to join with those who feel that in this wording the resolution probably was not wide enough and might have included, for example, employees of the C.N.R., another government agency. At the same time I am sure he must have experienced the same frustration that members on this side of the house have felt when they were sitting to the Speaker's left when they found that they could not nudge the past administration into doing something about this rather desperate situation that has been described to the house today with regard to our civil service and the R.C.M.P.
This is one occasion-and probably they will be rare in this house-when I find myself disposed to agree with my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who admires my constituency of Winnipeg South so much that he resides in it and is one of my constituents, so I understand. I would not suggest for a moment that he was disposed to vote for me. However, I have admired his demeanour in the house and his apparently inexhaustible knowledge of the rules which has been displayed to the extent of thousands of lines in Hansard in the last few days.
It is alarming to realize that as early as 1947 he started his inquiries on behalf of the civil service and was given the typical answer from the treasury bench to the effect that the matter was under consideration, and here we are 20 years later still looking at the same problem. The implication, of course, is that we on this side of the house, so many

Public Service*-Pensions of us here for the first time, should endeavour to the best of our ability to see that this matter is remedied without too much further delay. I think we can be grateful to the hon. member for Fort William, particularly those of us who are sitting on the back benches and who are freshmen-indeed, one hon. member made his baptismal speech in this house this evening on this problem and did it extraordinarily well-for bringing to our attention at an early stage the desperate need of part of our R.C.M.P. and civil service.
I was interested in the brief which was submitted by the civil service association of Ottawa who, in a canvass of some of these civil servants, more particularly perhaps those 393 with a shocking pension of less than $20 a month, received letters by way of reply with such remarks as the following:
Forced to give up long term accommodation in apartment block when rent went from $30 to $83 a month.
Had to give up my apartment for two rooms in private home.
We have bought virtually no clothing since retirement and buy lower quality food.
By dint of frugal living and careful handling of our affairs, we manage to get by.
I cut on clothing and recreation, not food, which I consider necessary for my health.
When you get replies of that kind to a canvass of ex-government employees, it is apparent that there must be many of them who are caught between the ages of 65 and 70, with perhaps a homestead which provides them with sufficient assets to remove their eligibility for a pension between the ages of 65 and 70 by way of a means test, and so for those five years they are in a position where they must live on these very frugal pensions and look forward eagerly, I am sure, to the day when they reach the age of 70 and can become eligible to receive the old age pension.
If we look at the situation as it has developed over the past 20 years we can cite, for example, the fact that prices have doubled. The consumer price index has gone from 63.2 to 123.3. The price levels in 1957 are two-thirds higher than they were in 1945 and 25 per cent higher than they were in 1949. One hundred dollars in 1939 was worth $84.78 in 1945, $57.78 in 1950 and $52.12 in 1957. Those pensioners, that large group of over 4,000 receiving less than $50 a month, are actually receiving only something in the neighbourhood of $25 or $26 a month, which would make living almost impossible without supplementary income by way of savings or by way of individual initiative in developing income of their own by taking in roomers if they still have their homesteads or taking in nursing patients if they are eligible to do so

under the bylaws of the municipality in which they live; and many of them do this.
At the same time many of them are not qualified by the nature of the employment they had in the civil service, and it is in the group of older people who had lower civil service incomes that I am sure there is the majority of the distress. If we take, for example, a clerk grade 3 we find that he would receive in 1939 a pension of $1,134. In 1945, that pension would be worth $955; in 1950 the same pension would be worth $696 per annum, and in 1957 a mere $581. How can this be regarded as a satisfactory annual pension after the recipient has put in long years of service to the government? It is quite obvious it would be impossible for any person to get by on such an amount, quite apart from the case of two persons who are married.
Only two provinces in Canada have done something to provide supplementary pensions for their employees, and those are the provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. However, even private enterprise has recognized the desperate need of some of its pensioners, and several large companies have reviewed their entire pension plan in recent years and made provision for awarding an across the board increase to those pensioners who had been longest on pension, yet who have given many years of loyal and faithful service to their companies, service which is being properly recognized by the award of an increase.
According to the brief submitted by the Ottawa civil service association, two steps may be taken. The first is to bring pensions into line with the cost of living, which they estimate would cost $3 million, and the second is to tie future increases to the increases in salaries of civil servants presently in the employ of the federal government. The association estimates that for every one per cent increase in the salaries of civil servants it would cost an additional $230,000 per year.
Now the other suggestion which is of interest to me because it would not disturb the existing legislation was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that as an interim measure retired civil servants who are receiving very low pensions should be provided with a supplementary amount of money to bring them up to an absolute across the board basic minimum, as a fixed amount. If this were done by way of a supplementary estimate these retired civil servants would be provided with a measure of relief almost immediately which they would not otherwise receive if we went too deeply into the legislation itself and perhaps committed ourselves to a long period during which the matter would be

under consideration, such as was the experience of the opposition over the period 19471957, those deliberations being, in the end, without success. Despite this, the brief of the civil service association of Ottawa does suggest that the actuarial balance of the fund might be maintained and I quote:
In assessing the impact of such additional payments on the superannuation fund, it should be noted that $20.4 million was paid out in pensions in the fiscal year 1955-56. The proposed increase would therefore amount to about 15 per cent of present pension payments. Revenues of the fund amounted to $96 million in 1955-56, including $32.1 million in employee contributions, $32.5 million in employer contributions, and $30.9 million in interest. As a result, the year's surplus on operations of $70.7 million increased the superannuation fund to $804 million as of 1 April, 1956.
Then on page three, at appendix (b), they said, and I quote again:
If the CSAO's first recommendation were implemented, it is estimated that the second recommendation would cost $230,000 a year for a one per cent general salary increase as far as those now on pension are concerned. The capitalized value of the sums involved for those now on pension might be about $2.3 million for a one per cent salary increase. An additional $1.8 million might be required to safeguard the real value of the pensions of those civil servants retiring within the next ten years.
In view of the $70 million surplus on the superannuation fund's annual operations, as mentioned above, it would appear that the CSAO's first proposal, involving an additional $3 million, could well be implemented without increasing the 6 per cent contribution rate now in force. It would also appear that the second proposal-to safeguard future pension values-could be implemented without raising the contribution rates as long as the ratio of pensioners to employees, currently at about 1 to 11, does not drop below 1 to 6-a situation difficult to envisage.
The reason I put these quotations on record is because an actuarial analysis has apparently been made by the civil service, and from the contents of the brief it would appear that what they are seeking can be implemented without upsetting the actuarial balance of the present fund. It seems most unlikely to me that the ratio of pensioners to employees, one to eleven, at present, would ever drop below one to six. We know this is likely to be so because the number of civil servants required by the state is increasing every day. It is bound to increase with the increase in the population of our country, with the national defence situation as acute as it is at the present time, and with the increase in our social security measures. As an alternative to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I would recommend that the suggestion of the civil service association of Ottawa be seriously examined.
We should never forget when discussing pension problems that we have the large numbers of people across the country who
Public Service-Pensions have been self-employed on moderate incomes all their working lives. Perhaps they have operated as the sole proprietors of small businesses and raised and educated families. In their twilight years they have looked into their bank accounts and safety deposit boxes to find that while they have been great contributors to the welfare of the nation over the years and indeed have provided employment for perhaps two or three other people they have not got on hand the assets to tap which in their youth they hoped to have when the sun began to set on their period of productivity. This is due in part to inflation and sometimes to medical or hospital expenses or a number of other things.
When I think of people in this position I think of fishermen, farmers and professional people. I cannot resist placing on record the admiration I have for the individuality, initiative and forward for Canada spirit they have displayed over the years and I sympathize with them. In some vocations such as fishing and farming it may not be possible at age 60 to do what can be done by those of comparable age in office jobs. Some of these people may have had to sell their farms or fishing boats and perhaps look to spending their declining years in a small cottage in the city and feeling self-satisfied that they have perhaps put aside a nest egg of $10,000. In this day and age regardless of how well it is invested a nest egg of this amount can never return sufficient supplementary income without encroaching on capital to provide them with an adequate living particularly between ages 65 and 70. Because they have put aside that nest egg by dint of hard work they will not be eligible for pension between 65 and 70 and in all likelihood before reaching age 70 will have exhausted these moneys and in many instances have to resort to a pension on the means tests which is something extremely disturbing to a man who has stood on his own feet throughout his lifetime.
When thinking of such people you can in your mind's eye travel into Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia to visualize the fisherman and you can in your mind's eye travel across the country to visualize the farmers and readily sympathize with their position and remember the fact that there is no government insurance plan providing for their later years; and while you can forward and support this resolution, as I do, I think it is essential that we keep these other people in mind at the same time.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate late in the day to make one

Public Service-Pensions or two observations and also to point out what must be apparent now to the reverend and hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). The crowning irony of his parliamentary career is that one of the things held dearest to him should have found more support among people whom he has opposed during his political career than it has apparently found among his ostensible friends.
I listened this afternoon to various members refer to the record of previous administrations in respect of the efficacy of increased pensions and superannuation payments to federal civil servants and other employees of the federal government. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will recall the answer he received on a previous occasion when discussing this subject and if not I will refresh his memory by referring him to page 469 of Hansard of February 17, 1947, ten years and ten months ago today-


Stanley Howard Knowles: quoted that question this afternoon.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -on which occasion in response to the hon. member's question as to whether consideration had been given by the government to increasing the pensions of superannuated federal civil servants by the addition of a cost of living bonus or other supplement the then parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance said that the question was still receiving consideration and the government's policy would be announced in due course. I refer to the quotation this evening only to point out again to the hon. member for Fort William and to others in this house that this parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance ten years ago apparently had a somewhat different attitude toward this question than has the parliamentary assistant to the present Miniser of Finance who spoke this afternoon.
There have been many debates over the years on this problem. We on this side of the house and particularly the junior members feel that the former administration deliberately stalled on this question of increased payments to superannuated and pensioned federal civil servants. We believe this because we believe that when the gentleman who was the leader of the Liberal party at the time of the question to which I referred came into this house he set the example in Canada of someone seeking a political career from a place in the civil service. We notice that this habit has been followed in that party since that time and is likely to be followed again. Sir Wilfrid Laurier could hardly have guessed the consequences of appointing to the civil service a partisan at once so able and

so ambitious who built up a personal power complex based on his affiliations in the civil service.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of the young and new members of the House of Commons who feel that we have a special moral responsibility to federal government employees. With all due respect to some of my colleagues who have expressed other opinions on the subject -we are all entitled to our private opinions as backbenchers in this party-I feel that we cannot exercise a strong position of moral suasion in respect of other pensions for other workers in Canada and we cannot advocate a greater justice for them if we deny by incaution or inactivity a greater justice for federal government employees.
What are the facts concerning retired federal civil servants? On February 13, 1957, just prior to the last debate in this house on this question which took place on March 4, the then minister of finance was asked what was the highest monthly pension paid by the government of Canada to which he replied $875. That was the highest pension paid on that date.
He was asked how many were receiving pensions of $1,000 a month or over. He replied, none. He was asked how many were receiving pensions between $500 and $999, and he replied, 28. He was asked how many were receiving pensions between $100 and $499 a month and he said, 7,067. He was asked how many were receiving pensions of between $40 and $99 a month and he said, 8,618. He was asked how many were receiving pensions of less than $40 a month and he said, 5,644.
When you look at the averages the case is even worse. The average of the 7,067 former federal civil servants and Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen receiving pensions of between $100 and $499 a month on February 13 last was not $499; it was $165.59. The average for the group receiving between $40 and $99 a month-that is the average for the 8,618 retired federal civil servants and retired R.C.M.P. receiving gross annual pensions of $480 to $1,088 a year-was only $67.61 a month. The average for the 5,644 getting less than $40 a month was $21.03 a month.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has been a long-time advocate of this resolution and who must now, I think, look forward with more expectation than he has in the past for some remedial action, took part in the debate on March 4, 1957, when this matter was last discussed. At that time he alluded to a table which appeared in Hansard on February 1, 1956, which I should like to read lest anyone think

this is a political matter. Indeed, we on this side of the house feel that it may have been delayed in action because it was not notoriously a politically successful advocacy.
Eighteen months ago there were 79 retired civil servants in Newfoundland and 26 widows. In my province of Nova Scotia there	were 487 retired	civil	servants	and241 widows. In Prince Edward Island there were 64 retired civil servants and 37 widows. In New Brunswick there were 307 retired civil servants and 199 widows. In Quebec there were 2,264 retired civil servants and 1,326 widows. In Ontario there were 5,830 retired civil servants and 3,030 widows. In Manitoba there were 616 retired civil servants and 275 widows. In Saskatchewan there were	324 retired civil	servants and	121widows. In Alberta there were 531 retired civil servants and 240 widows. In British Columbia there were 2,159 retired civil servants and 757 widows, and residing elsewhere than in those 10 stated provinces there	were 341 retired	civil	servants	and206 widows. Therefore,	the	total of	the
population receiving superannuation payments in respect of federal government service is approximately 13,000 civil servants and 6,000 widows, spread almost evenly across the country in relation to population.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we must recall in this matter some factors which I have not heard mentioned so far during the debate today. As I remarked earlier, I believe we have a moral responsibility as legislators in a federal parliament to attend to the need of federal government employees before attempting to convince or persuade other persons that they should do better than we are. We must also remember, Mr. Speaker, that federal civil servants and Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not have in years gone by and do not have today the same bargaining rights as other industrial and manufacturing employees. We must also recall that unless there is some assurance of some reasonable equation between purchasing powers in one year and purchasing powers in subsequent years, unless there is some reasonable assurance of some equity in purchasing powers, then all time contracts are going to be substantially meaningless and if we contract with a civil servant to pay him a superannuation based, for instance, upon a customs collector in 1937 receiving $2,620 a year from the civil service -now his salary is $5,200-if he retired at a wage of $2,620 averaged over a period immediately prior to his retirement, then his superannuation is certainly not going to be sufficient to keep him in the manner in
Public Service-Pensions which he expected it would when he retired on superannuation which he thought sufficient.
We do not think that this issue of pensions for retired civil servants and Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen can be or should be divorced from the whole area of the public service. What is it that the majority of us on this side of the house wish?


Mr. Peters:: Talk the bill out.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It is not a bill; it is a resolution.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I did not hear the interjection, but I hope the remark was "talk the bill out". I hasten to draw attention to the fact that it is not a bill at all; it is a resolution. But if we do this, it will be no different from what has been done in years gone by. The minister of finance talked it out the last time it was up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought we had a change on June 10.


Edmund Leverett Morris: You have been given a reasonable assurance today, and surely you have seen it in the attitude of the Conservative backbenchers that an entirely different attitude obtains toward this question. You and I have both heard here in this House of Commons the Minister of Finance say that it would deserve an entirely different attitude, and today the parliamentary assistant said that it would get a different attitude.


Mr. Byrne:: Let us vote on it, then.


Edmund Leverett Morris: We on the back benches of this party seek a civil service neither of rulers nor of party retainers. If we do not treat retired civil servants adequately it will affect the whole morale of the active public service. We seek a public service of educated, enlightened and above all disinterested advisers, not only disinterested from the Liberal party but disinterested from our party. We want them to be able to bring to bear upon the consideration of public questions the thought and the energy of cultivated men and women, free entirely of partisan zeal not only for our opponents but for us, and undisturbed by personal or political ambition. We do not want to see a premium put upon the civil service as a springboard, as Mr. Mackenzie King and some of his followers used it for political gain. We want, in short, a civil service which will be free from those two great perverters of mankind, fear and gain. If it is to be freed of gain then we think we should take action to relieve its retired members from fear.
(Translation) :


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, so far nobody has spoken in French on so important a subject as the

Public Service-Pensions pension of civil servants and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a Canadian of French origin and as a Conservative member, I am particularly pleased to speak on behalf of French-speaking citizens who are in the employ of the government to ask for a better deal for government pensioners.
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to speak on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). As a representative in the house of a riding made up for the most part of working people, I am in a position every day to see that many of them, in their declining years do not receive the fair reward which they are entitled to expect. I realize that it might be difficult for certain private firms to provide a fair pension for all their employees, but I honestly believe that in this respect, the government of Canada should set the example.
As a matter of fact, the government of Canada grants a pension to all its employees. What the former government has forgotten is that those pensions, when the standard of living rises, become inadequate. The Conservative government have shown, from the beginning of this session, that they intend to straighten the matter and allow government pensioners to enjoy a larger share of the income, thus placing them in a more adequate position in relation to our economy.
Older people, the disabled, the crippled and the veterans have now been given a substantial increase of pension. Our civil servants should receive the same treatment.
The civil servants who are now in the employ of the Canadian parliament draw a fair salary and are able, through appropriate deductions, to secure a reasonable pension for the future. It might be argued that the cost of living has reached such a high level under the former government that it can hardly get higher in the future.
However, the problem becomes crucial when it involves former civil servants and members of the R.C.M.P. These people have given long years of service to the state and retired at a time when salaries happened to be lower, and because deductions were necessarily less their pension is smaller too.
The rate of this pension might have seemed reasonable at the time these employees were retired, but the problem remains the same; the cost of living has gone up considerably and so have salaries, but the pensions of these civil servants and members of the R.C.M.P. have remained the same.
[Mr. Ricard.l
We, the younger members, know how useful civil servants can be to us. From the humblest messenger boy to the heads of departments, they all put themselves devotedly at our disposal. We are supported by conscientious employees who serve us regardless of our political affiliation and of our inexperience, and treat us all equally well. I am very pleased to pay this tribute to these gallant associates before the hon. members of this house. Even if I have not had the pleasure of working with the former civil servants, I know that they were always conscientious and did their utmost to be of service to the representatives of the people in this house.
Ever since the inception of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, its members have been known as men of great courage, with an upright conscience and devoted to the point of heroism.
The risks and hardships of their occupation have always existed. I daresay they were even greater fifty years ago than they are today because communications were more difficult, relations between various groups of the country were less friendly and facilities less developed. These brave constables have always worked hard at their duties, at tracking down criminals and at maintaining order in the heart of this country as well as in its most isolated areas.
Like everybody else they received a salary but, admittedly, at a rate which corresponded to the economic development of the country at the time.
Today these men are too old to work. They have left the force and taken their pension but they have to pay twice as much to buy the necessities of life. We should do more for those defenders of law and order. I am therefore happy to request on their behalf a revision of their pension scales.
The Conservative party has been among the defenders of the civil servant and consequently of the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are also employees of the Canadian government. We have said so on more than one occasion and my predecessors, the Conservative members of this house, were always among the first, when they sat in opposition, to come to the help of government employees. I will not run counter to this policy, as I feel confident that the Conservative government will leave nothing undone to adjust those pensions, in fairness to these men and women who have spent long years of their life in the service of the government of their country and who richly deserve at this time that account be taken of their welfare.

(Text):


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, we are specifically dealing this evening with the victims of inflation who come directly under government control. I think we should also cast our eyes to wider and further horizons and should consider the matter of inflation as it affects other employees as well. Before I get into a couple of specific remedies which I would like to put to the house for its consideration, may I seize this opportunity, sir, of complimenting you and your deputies upon your election to preside over the affairs of this house. In the brief time this parliament has been in session, you have shown by your fairness, your courtesy and by that wonderful sense of humour, what a proper officer of parliament should be. I feel, sir, that you have kept the house reasonably free from the excesses of the maidens now sitting in opposition and who used to sit on the treasury benches and also, to be fair, from the excesses of the maidens who now sit on the treasury benches and who used to be in opposition.
I am sorry I was not in the house this afternoon to hear the beginning of this debate. We on the external affairs committee are keeping hours that are almost rivalling those maintained by this house. It seems to me the remedy that we consider should be considered in the light of the fact that government has two aspects. The first aspect of government to keep in mind in a debate like this is that the government is an employer, either itself or through the medium of crown corporations. The second aspect of government to bear in mind is the broader sense of the conduct of the affairs of the nation that touch on the lives of all Canadians. Now, could we solve the one problem, the lowered purchasing power of the civil servants and the retired mounted police officers, I ask, without being unfair to the others? Since I was not here, I do not know if any information was presented as to what industry has done to solve the problem for those who retired on pension during the years 1930 to 1940.
However, I believe we do have an immediate remedy at hand for those under our direct control, that is the civil servants and R.C.M.P. who have retired. I believe that was set forth this afternoon in the remarks, which unfortunately I did not hear, of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). Now, sir, inflation points out the need for some remedy which can adjust itself to the disease. The remedy needed is one which has, at least, the factor of growth. This evening we were told by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) that the dollar today is worth
Public Service-Pensions about 50 per cent of what it was 18 years ago. I draw a parallel between the loss of purchasing power of these pensions and the losses in other fields as a result of inflation. I think, for example, of insurance investment. The life insurance dollar has certainly not done the job we would like it to do and that is because inflation has knocked down its value. If $10 were invested in 1946, and that was the first touch the insurance agent made upon me, it is probably worth about $6 or $7 today.
The difficulty, as I see it, with pensions and with insurance investments is that those are the orthodox type of investments and subject to very strict dominion and provincial laws. These investments are restricted pretty well on the security side, that is things like bonds and mortgages, rather than the equity side, that is the ownership of shares. Shares, as we know, can adjust themselves as capital appreciates in value, and the shares will go up in value too. I should like to make this suggestion, if I may, so we can come to grips perhaps with the larger problem that confronts us, not only the one so ably put forward by the hon. members for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but the problem of the people outside who are not retired civil servants or R.C.M.P. Perhaps we should relax the present laws so that pensions may be related to appreciation or growth, or call it inflation if you will.
Another possible remedy, which might sound rather radical, and certainly one that would have to be given a great deal of consideration-I think of it offhand, and I am not particularly wedded to the idea-is a tie-in somewhere of rents to the matter of pensions. Rents will go up in good times. They are certainly a more correct barometer or index to financial growth, as anyone who has had his rent raised will appreciate, than the more orthodox type of investment to which pensions are now anchored. The solution may be to turn the pension fund into some form of housing development on the equity side. I thank the house for its consideration.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -to sit in the house on a good many occasions when this resolution has been debated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not your maiden speech.

Public Service-Pensions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I rose to speak, I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say that this is not my maiden speech. I would inform the hon. member that the reason I have been delayed in making my contribution today is because there were certain members anxious to make their maiden speeches on this very important subject. In former years I have not taken part in this discussion because I felt there was very little prospect of getting action on the matter under the former administration. I should like to assure the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who has sponsored this resolution, that I have always been heartily in favour of the sentiment contained therein.
I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, because as I listened to the discussion, and I followed most of it today, I felt that for the first time it would appear that we are going to get somewhere in regard to the implementation of this resolution. I thought the contribution of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bell) was especially forthright and left no uncertainty at all concerning the attitude of the present administration to this difficult problem. I quite appreciate that it is a complex problem. He outlined the consideration that had been given already and indicated that rather than any delaying action the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the officials of the finance department are giving it the most urgent and anxious consideration possible.
The hon. member for Fort William and myself have often been allied in worthwhile causes of this kind and this was another reason for my desire to say a few words at this time, to vocally express my admiration for his contributions to the many topics discussed in this house during the long years he has sat here, and also to indicate my personal support for this particular recommendation.
This resolution refers only to two categories affected by the general problem of pensioners at this time. He refers to the civil servants and to the members of the R.C.M.P. I want to take this opportunity to mention another category of pensioner that is most severely affected by the inflationary trends of recent years. It is a group who come under the old militia pension act. It is not a large category. As a matter of fact, my special interest in this resolution arises from just a few cases of the kind that exist in my constituency.
I have had one or two former members of the permanent force retired under the old militia pension act who have been contacting me regularly with reference to this difficulty. I have made certain representations in writing


to the minister of finance in years gone by. No action was taken because of the general tendency to postpone action on this problem. However, I am presenting this special aspect of the difficulty tonight, hoping that the comprehensive considerations that were outlined by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance will be broad enough to extend to this category as well as the others. These people, while not so numerous as the civil servants generally or even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are suffering under the same financial disability.
In reference to a problem of this kind there immediately arises the question as to where the necessary financial resources are coming from in order to implement this recommendation. The hon. member for Fort William, in his usual forthright manner presented the thought that perhaps a special tax on tobacco and liquor might solve the difficulty. It is true that those two particular commodities yield a substantial percentage of our tax returns. As a matter of fact, I remember that a former minister of finance-I refer to Hon. Douglas Abbott-who was a nonsmoker himself when questioned on this point or whenever he was offered a cigarette, his invariable reply was, "I don't smoke 'em; I just tax 'em". It is true that tobacco as well as liquor has yielded a high rate of tax return.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Fort William that funds sufficient to meet the increased public expenditure required for bringing up the depressed position of civil servants and mounted police and the other categories into line with the prevailing cost of living could be derived from this one source. But after listening to the parliamentary assistant this afternoon, I am quite sure that he and his associates are dealing with the broader aspects in this regard and that they will be able to come up with a suitable solution.
I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly tonight, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two
more minutes and you have done your job.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I have indicated, I have never had an opportunity previously to speak on this matter. There is only one further point that I should like to make at this time. The point has been made tonight that the unfortunate circumstances in which our retired civil servants find themselves are the result of inflationary trends. I feel that statement is only partially true. We have been beset with what is called creeping inflation where prices and wages, at least in the last 20 years, have been rising continuously whereas those on fixed incomes feel themselves to be remaining at the stationary level. In other

words, it almost appears that management and labour today enjoy the benefits of an escalator provision in the economy. I know it is not put there in a formal way but the trend has been for labour and management, in terms of wages and prices, to be on a very exhilarating escalator ride whereas those on fixed incomes, such as those whom we are discussing tonight, find themselves in a static and relatively depressed position.
But that is not the only cause of the difficulty of those whom we have been discussing here today. It arises from the fact that they were retired in a period when wages and pensions were comparatively low. As a matter of fact, the whole idea of pensions in anticipation of future retirement and the natural needs of future retirement were only in the infancy of development. Today we have established systems of pensions in private enterprise, in government, in all the walks of life, that are actuarially sound,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -and assure the retired worker today that no matter what his vocation or pursuit in life his pension will be adequate for the years of retirement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In supporting this resolution I think we have to take into consideration the fact that we are dealing not only with inflationary trends but with the fact that the pension scheme in the first instance was inadequate. I see that it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you surprised?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: May I ask what the business of the house is tomorrow? But before the
Business of the House
house leader rises, I wonder whether he would not give consideration to the fact that this is the last week of the session before the Christmas recess and that it is traditional, I understand, for the house leader on an occasion such as this to give to the house the business that is likely to take place during the rest of the week. I wonder whether he will not tell us that tonight.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt very much whether there is any such precedent as that which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has dangled in front of me this evening.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Harris always did it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Harris never had the experience.


Howard Charles Green: The business tomorrow will be, first, item No. 18 on today's order paper, third reading of an act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act; then item No. 32, a resolution dealing with the National Housing Act; then the item under government notices of motions, a resolution dealing with the Unemployment Assistance Act; then item No. 19, house in committee on a bill concerning a Canadian National Railways branch line; item No. 20, house in committee on a bill respecting the Hamilton harbour commissioners; item No. 21, house in committee on a bill to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act; item No. 25, second reading of an act to amend the Pension Act; and item No. 23, second reading of an act to provide for annual vacations with pay.


Lionel Chevrier: This looks like a week's business.


Howard Charles Green: I hope it will not take a week.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions