1957-10-25

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies, in English and in French, of four reports that have been submitted by the tariff board. The reports in question are as follows: reference No. 118, basic iron and steel products; reference No. 119, pipes and tubes of iron or steel; reference No. 121, waterproof footwear and rubber-soled canvas footwear; reference No. 122, zinc and zinc products. Three of the reports were submitted some time ago to my predecessor and were released by him for public distribution in June of this year. I am now tabling these reports and also transcripts of the evidence taken at the public hearings of the board, pursuant to section 6 of the Tariff Board Act. I am tabling also a report, and the transcript of evidence, relating to zinc and zinc products which was submitted to me by the chairman of the tariff board earlier this week.
I should like to comment briefly on each of these reports at this time and to indicate how the government proposes to deal with them. I hope my remarks will provide an answer to the question asked two days ago by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz) and to similar questions which may be in the minds of other hon. members.
I wish to refer first to the reference relating to basic iron and steel products. In this very broad and important reference the board's inquiries related to some 113 existing tariff classifications. Of this total the board considered that 21 items were not in need of revision. It recommended that the remaining 92 items be reduced in number to 38. In detailed explanatory notes included in its report the board has furnished information which permits comparisons between the existing rates and the proposed rates of duty.
The effect of the board's recommendation is that some rates are increased while others are decreased. They are designed to provide what the tariff board considered, on the basis of the evidence presented to it, to be adequate protection where it is required.
With regard to the wording and arrangement of the proposed tariff items, the most striking change from the present situation is the substantial simplification of the iron and steel schedule accomplished by the elimination of numerous special purpose items, and the consolidation of the remaining items into four major groups relating to plate, structural, bars and sheet and strip respectively.
The tariff board's recommendations on pipes and tubes are also intended to bring up to date and simplify a section of the tariff which has become out of date. These recommendations, like those affecting basic iron and steel, involve reductions in some rates and increases in others. The board's terms of reference contemplated recommendations which would modernize the pipes and tubes schedule. The board's recommendations are, I believe, consistent with its terms of reference.
I wish to refer next to the report which has just been received, that on zinc and zinc products, as the situation with regard to these items is much like the situation with regard to the iron and steel items. In this reference the board was instructed to investigate and make recommendations regarding alleged anomalies in the existing tariff structure, having regard to the obligations and procedures of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The board found that anomalies did exist, and it recommended changes to remove them. As in the case of the other reports to which I have referred, these changes involve some increases in rates of duty and also some decreases.
A review of the three reports to which I have referred leads to the conclusion that the proposed increases and decreases are broadly in balance, and that the recommendations taken together constitute what might be called a negotiable package. I would emphasize, however, that it is a package which requires negotiation with other countries and on which we could not, in view of existing international obligations, take unilateral action without giving other countries rights to withdraw concessions of value to Canadian exporters. The government is taking advantage of the present GATT negotiations in Geneva to undertake such negotiations.
I believe hon. members will be interested in some aspects of the negotiations. First, the

Tariff Board Reports
lists of the bound items which Canada is seeking to modify have been notified to other contracting parties and in some instances have been made public by them. There is no objection to this on our part. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the giving of notice of our desire to negotiate a particular item indicates an intention to raise the rate of duty thereon. Frequently the reverse will be the case, as when two or more existing classifications are to be combined under circumstances where the proposed new rate is lower than the average of the existing rates. In other instances what is involved may be merely a change in wording. I hope this will answer questions that have been asked and will also serve to clear up any possible misconceptions.
Second, the negotiations at Geneva will necessarily be conducted in private, and they will be conducted in so far as Canada is concerned with careful reference to the tariff board's recommendations. However, I should emphasize at this time that what ultimately emerges should be expected to differ in some respects from these recommendations. This will be the case not only because of the give and take that necessarily occurs in any such negotiations, but also because the government will wish in some instances to take account of the new developments affecting individual tariff items. After the negotiations are concluded, it would be the intention of the government to introduce in parliament at an appropriate time the tariff changes which the government considers to be desirable.
I would like to refer briefly to the fourth report which I am tabling today, namely that on waterproof footwear and rubber soled canvas footwear, reference No. 121. As hon. members will have noted, in making this reference to the tariff board my predecessor did not ask for recommendations. Accordingly none were made by the board in this report. However, on studying the report which is being tabled today I came to the conclusion that it might be useful to have the board prepare a supplementary report on this reference, including therein any recommendations which the board might deem warranted regarding the retention or modification of the present duties. This supplementary report has not yet been received; when it is it will be tabled in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff Board Act.


Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question of the minister. Does the minister not feel it rather anomalous at the present time to be recommending tariff increases on steel wares and on tubes which will have the effect, of course, of making it more difficult for the British to sell their

products in Canada, at a time when his leader is advocating a 15 per cent increase in purchases of goods from British sources?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would tell the house, then, why the government of which he was a member directed this reference to the board in the first place. Was it just intended to be an empty gesture and to waste the board's time?


James Sinclair: Since I have been asked I will be very happy to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. The reference to the tariff board was made in accordance with the laws of Canada, but the government is under no obligation to accept the recommendations of the tariff board for raising tariffs, as this government appears to have done.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: These items may form the basis of agreement with other countries joining the Geneva convention on tariffs and trade. Would that not imply that if the negotiations were successful the government is prepared to carry out the results of those negotiations? It seems to me that this is such an important matter that the whole question should be discussed in parliament, because it appears that we may be obligating ourselves to tariff adjustments of which many of us would not approve. Increases in tariffs at this time I think are against the public interest.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension, and may not have followed too closely the statement I gave to the house. The reports of the tariff board should not be regarded and should not be represented as reports the net effect of which is going to be increases in tariffs. The board has reviewed a great number of items in portions of the tariff which are very old and which the board found in many respects to be obsolete and, as I have indicated, what the board has recommended is a group of changes in the tariff in which there are as many decreases as increases.
These are bound items, that is to say bound against increase by our existing international obligations; and of course before the government can consider any submissions to parliament we have to negotiate with other countries to see where they stand on these matters. That is what will be carried out in the course of the next two months at Geneva and it will necessarily have to be in the light of those negotiations that the particular proposals which the government will be submitting to the house thereafter will be framed.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance regarding the answer he gave in reply to a question by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). How many items have been referred to the tariff board since this present government took office?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, we directed a reference to the tariff board on fluorspar, a reference as to the textile items in the tariff, and we sent back to the tariff board for recommendations a matter on which they had already made a report on the instructions of the former minister of finance, on the subject of rubber and canvas footwear. There are other references standing on the docket of the board which were directed to them by the former minister of finance.



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF REPORT ON FLUORSPAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the reports which he tabled this morning. Is the tariff board preparing a similar report on raw and semi-processed fluorspar? If so, when will such report likely be tabled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I referred this item to the tariff board and requested an inquiry and report, but I understand that the board has not yet been able to commence the inquiry. They still have quite a bit of work on hand, and I am not in a position to answer the second part of my hon. friend's question.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the understanding accepted by the house yesterday, I now call notices of motions for the production of papers, which will be found at pages 8 and 9 of the routine proceedings.
candidates' election expenditures, 1957
Motion No. 1-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre):
For a return showing the total amount of election expenses on behalf of each candidate, by constituencies, in the general election of June 10, 1957, as indicated in the return respecting election expenses submitted by the official agent of each candidate, as required under the provisions of section 63 of the Canada Elections Act; and showing also the names of any candidates, by constituencies, on whose behalf election expense returns have not been submitted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
96698-26^
Motions jor Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the provinces of Canada since June 10, 1957, in respect of matters having to do with the hospital insurance act, enacted by parliament on April 10, 1957.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Nicholson:
For a copy of all letters and telegrams exchanged to date, during the year 1957, between persons residing in the Mackenzie federal constituency and the Minister of Agriculture regarding the appointment of persons under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Mr. Harkness:: I would ask that the motion stand.
Motion stands.



SUBVENTION PAYMENTS, CROWSNEST PASS AREA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Hansell:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government, the dominion coal board or any other government branch, and any person, firm or corporation, over the past two years in respect to any possible increase in subventions for the movement of coal from the Crowsnest pass area to any other part of Canada or foreign country.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Hansell:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged during the past year, between the government, the dominion coal board or any other government branch, and any person, firm or corporation in respect to any possible sale and export of coal to Japan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in respect to motions Nos. 4 and 5 standing in my name, since I placed these on the order paper I have been able to talk with some of the officials of the government and I believe I have the information which I required. I would ask, therefore, that these two motions be dropped.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that these two motions be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions dropped.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-TRANSPORTATION ORDER 107

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Mcllraiih:
For a copy of transportation order No. 107 of the district director of postal services, dated August 7, 1957, and sent by the Post Office Department to mail contractors throughout Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit this motion to stand.
Motion stands.



DRUMMONDVILLE, QUE., AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Boulanger:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the city of Drummond-ville, Quebec, and the Minister of Transport, during the last six months relative to the building of an airport in that city.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received any submission from any individual or group in respect of the Canadian rubber footwear companies since June 10, 1957?
2.	If so, will the government indicate if included in these representations are representations from any Canadian labour organizations, or from any corporations engaged in the fabrication of rubber footwear?
3.	What steps are being taken by the government to give effect to any representations that have been made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question-has the government received any submission from any individual or group in respect of the Canadian rubber footwear companies since June 10, 1957,-the answer from June 21, 1957, is yes.
The second part of the question reads:
Will the government indicate if included in these representations are representations from any Canadian labour organizations, or from any corporations engaged in the fabrication of rubber footwear.
The answer is that on August 28, 1957, the Minister of Finance received a joint submission by the Canadian rubber footwear companies and the Canadian Labour Congress. This submission was signed by officers of certain corporations engaged in the fabrication of rubber footwear and also by officers of the Canadian Labour Congress.
The third question was:
What steps are being taken by the government to give effect to any representations that have been made?
The answer is that government policy will be announced in due course.


EXCISE TAX ON AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received any representations from any group or individual in Canada for the elimination of the excise tax on automobiles?

2.	If this tax is eliminated, will steps be taken to see that the reduction is passed on to the consumer?
3.	Is the government aware of any serious unemployment problem confronting the automobile industry?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes.
The second must be a hypothetical question until government policy is announced, but I am sure that any administration that proposed a reduction in such a tax would wish to see that so far as government action can assure it the benefit of the reduction would be passed on to the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: That was announced in the election campaign.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to the third question is that there is not a serious unemployment problem. I am told there has been some delay on the part of the public in buying in this new season and on the part of the dealers in taking deliveries from the industry.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask what has been the result of that delay?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No unemployment as yet, but if there were a continued holding back on the part of the public in purchasing the new models for the new season, then at some later point this fall unemployment could result.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is my hon. friend not aware of the fact that in the automobile industry in my community there are more men out of work now than there were on June 21, and does my hon. friend not think it is a mistake to blame the public for the policies of this government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I will not blame the public at all, but I will blame the hon. gentleman for a palpable violation of the rules of the house.


An hon. Member:: Do you want him to walk out?


HOSPITAL INSURANCE
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Have agreements been signed between the federal government and any one of the following provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, pursuant to the Hospital Insurance Act passed in the last session of parliament?
2.	What negotiations have taken place since June 10, 1957, between the federal government and the provinces in the matter of providing for hospital insurance and diagnostic services?
3.	What steps have been taken by the federal government since June 10 last to obtain an agreement for hospital insurance in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?

4.	Has the federal government taken any steps with the province of Ontario towards the implementation of hospital insurance in that province prior to January 1, 1959?
5.	Has the government received any representations from any province for a general conference in the matter of hospital insurance?
6.	If so, what reply has been given by the federal government?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no.
The answer to the second question is that continuing consultations are being held between officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and their provincial counterparts.
In answer to the third question, I wish to advise the house that officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been constantly available for discussions with the provinces interested in obtaining information on the hospital insurance program and visits have been made by them to Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The answer to the fourth question is that officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare are having continuous discussions with their provincial counterparts and assisting in every way possible with further steps for the implementation of this program.
The reply to the fifth question is yes; and with regard to the sixth question I would advise that this matter is certainly under intensive consideration, as I mentioned earlier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members would do well to bear in mind that there will be an opportunity for raising such questions on orders of the day, and it is not the practice to ask supplementary questions during the starred question period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite correct, Mr. Speaker.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY HARBOURS
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Has the government any plans for the development of ports and harbours along the route of the seaway?
2.	What is being done at the port of Montreal? Are the plans as announced by the former administration being carried out? What plans are being evolved for the development of the south shore?
3.	Is this area to be taken over by the national harbours board? Are port facilities to be erected here for the expected increase in volume of trade?
4.	What is being done at the port of Trois-Rivieres?
5.	Is consideration being given to the construction of additional wharves and warehouses?
6.	Will the national harbours board provide cargo handling equipment at the port for vertical hatch loading and unloading, extra space on existing wharves and new docks?
Questions
7.	Is consideration being given to the construction of a grain elevator here?
8.	What is being done at the port of Sorel?
9.	Will the national harbours board provide cargo handling equipment at the port for vertical hatch loading and unloading, extra space on existing wharves and new docks?
10.	Are port facilities in this area considered adequate for seaway traffic?


VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Mr. Chevrier: 1. What was the cost of the Victoria bridge between Montreal and St. Lambert?
2.	What are the operating costs, operating expenses and profit and loss position in the last 25
years?
3.	What amount of tolls were collected on this bridge in the last 10 years?
4.	Will tolls be abolished on this bridge?


JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE, MONTREAL-LONGUEUIL
Mr. Chevrier: 1. What was the cost of the Jacques Cartier bridge between Montreal and Longueuil?
2.	What are the operating costs, operating expenses and profit and loss position in the last 10 years?
3.	Did the city of Montreal pay its share of the deficit in accordance with its tripartite agreement?
4.	Did the province of Quebec pay its share of the deficit in accordance with its tripartite agreement?
5.	Does the government intend to do anything about this?
6.	What amount of tolls has been collected on this bridge since the beginning?
7.	Does the government propose to abolish tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: These three questions are rather extensive and require detailed answers. These answers are being prepared at the present time by the national harbours board and the seaway authority. I expect to have the answers when the questions are next called.


Mr. Chevrier:: May I draw the hon.
member's attention to the fact that several of these questions concern the Minister of Public Works, and not himself?


George Harris Hees: That is one of the reasons why it is taking quite some time.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very bright this morning; this is an excellent example of passing the buck.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Questions stand.


TELEPHONE CABLE, U.K.-CANADA
Mr. Marler: 1.	Has an agreement been entered into with the United Kingdom for the construction of a new telephone cable between Canada and the United Kingdom?
2.	If no such agreement has been entered into, what steps have been taken to provide additional telephone cable facilities between Canada and the United Kingdom?

Questions


George Harris Hees: If I may proceed to answer this
question, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is that no agreement with the United Kingdom for the construction of a new trans-Atlantic telephone cable has as yet been completed, but the project has been approved by both the Canadian and United Kingdom governments and negotiations for conclusion of the agreement, as well as the technical planning for the cable itself, are proceeding in a satisfactory fashion.


PIPE LINE CONSTRUCTION, NORTHERN ONTARIO   LABOUR TURNOVER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What has been the total labour turnover for each of the four contractors' spreads on the natural gas pipe line west of Port Arthur in the period to October 1, 1957?
2.	What was the average number of men on each spread for each month from April to October, 1957?
3.	What percentage of the labour force on each spread was American for each of these months?
4.	How many of the men who separated from the job on each spread were fired?
5.	What percentage of the Americans working on this section of the pipe line were in this country under a six months' permit?


PENRYN SECURITIES-OFFICERS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ever hold any position with Penryn Securities Company or with Penryn Holding Company?
2.	Who are the present officers of this company?
3.	If the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited held any office in these companies, what were the dates of such tenure?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I alone am responsible for these two questions. The answers are being prepared and will be ready, I think, the next time questions are dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Questions stand.


SOVIET EARTH SATELLITE
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): 1.	Has the earth satellite been fired in accordance with any agreement arrived at during the international geophysical year?
2.	Is the soviet earth satellite infringing on the air space above Canada?
3.	How far vertically does the sovereignty of Canada extend?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I think the hon. gentleman will allow this question to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.
[Mr. Marler.l


HOUSING LOANS AND STARTS BY PROVINCES
Mr. Johnston (Bow River): 1.	How much of the $150,000,000 which was made available for housing has been actually loaned out to each of the provinces?
2.	How many housing starts since the $150,000,000 was made available for housing have taken place in each of the provinces, classified according to types and cost?


Howard Charles Green: 
R.M.C. LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, KINGSTON
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the proposed cost of the library administration building planned for Royal Military College, Kingston?
2.	Has a decision been taken to either (a) postpone this building; or (b) cancel construction plans completely?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to the first part is that the original estimate was $1,258,000. The second part is answered as follows. We are awaiting plans and specifications for this building which, I am informed, are now nearing completion. When those are received and have been studied a decision will be made in these respects.



MISSION TO CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the proposed Canadian trade delegation to China-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said I would make a full statement on this in due course. That statement is being prepared.


James Sinclair: I am not questioning the composition of the delegation. I may say I have a special interest in this question because of my own unfortunate experience with the Chinese.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have already said I would make a full statement on this at a later date.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because the minister is going to make a statement, that does not preclude an hon. member from asking a question.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: He is not
asking a question.


James Sinclair: All right, I will. When this Canadian trade delegation make this trip, will they be accompanied by Canadian press representatives who may wish to accompany them? Will provision be made for any Canadian reporters who wish to accompany them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I follow the hon. member's question. He does not need to repeat it. Will the hon. gentleman restrain his impatience and wait for the statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Another question, yes; but the hon. member will appreciate that he cannot compel the minister to answer further. If he wishes to ask, I will permit another question.


James Sinclair: Does the minister not feel it extraordinarily important for the Canadian people to have reports from our reporters, because that was the only way they got accurate information on the trade conferences at Mont Tremblant and Washington?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is extraordinarily important that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is making a mockery of the question period in the House of Commons.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: What did you do
yourself when you were on this side?



INQUIRY AS TO CURRENT MEETING AT GENEVA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his statement earlier today when he tabled four reports of the tariff board. My question is whether or not there has been a decision by the government to send ministerial representation to the negotiations at Geneva. If such a decision has been taken, what is the decision; and if ministers are being sent, what ministers will represent Canada at these negotiations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation to the GATT negotiations at Geneva will be headed by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He, of course, will not be able to remain there throughout the entire period of negotiations. My hon. friend is aware that it has been customary in the past for ministers heading delegations of that kind to remain for the first few days of the conference, and then turn over the extended work of negotiation to the other members of the delegation.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can inform the house if he proposes to take advantage of the presence tonight and tomorrow of the British Prime Minister to discuss with
400	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the latter a proposal which the Canadian Prime Minister first made in this country tor a diversion of Canadian purchases from one friendly country to another. Would he also say whether he proposes to discuss with the British Prime Minister further refinements in connection with the proposal made by the British government to Canada in the matter of a free trade area between the two countries?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I intend to discuss all matters of mutual interest to the United Kingdom and Canada that time will permit.



STATEMENT ON CANADIAN LIMIT ON EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He was referring to the limitations placed upon the export of oats to the United States in 1953, and asked whether Canada still limits the export of oats or any other grain to the United States.
The answer is that there are no quantitative limitations, formal or informal, on the import of Canadian oats and barley into the United States.



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. He may wish to take it as notice, because I did not send him notice. In view of the fact that Her Majesty the Queen is not permitted, by a British statute passed in the first year of the reign of William and Mary, to take the crown outside of Britain, and since Her Majesty has expressed the intention of returning to this country, and since Her Majesty expressly visited the United States of America and opened this parliament as Queen of Canada, what consideration, if any, is being given to having a crown of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had no notice of this question. I may say that there is no crown of Canada but there is, for all parts of the commonwealth, a crown that is divisible yet indivisible, representative of all parts of the British commonwealth.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister tell the house whether the cash advances to farmers contemplated by legislation coming before the house today will constitute taxable income under the Income Tax Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if it is proper, on orders of the day, to ask a minister to give a legal opinion.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a legal opinion. I think it is a question of fact that is of interest not only to members of the house but to the farmers as well.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: That is a matter for the law officers of the department when they have had an opportunity of studying the terms of the bill that was brought into this house last night.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If the answer is in the affirmative, and as a lawyer I have no doubt that the answer should be in the affirmative, as I am sure the minister will agree, will the amount of the advance be taxable in the year in which the money will be received by the farmer or in the year in which the grain will be delivered?


George Clyde Nowlan: If advances are taxable they will be taxable in accordance with the terms of the Income Tax Act.



TAXATION OF CONSORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister planning to make a statement at an early date with reference to the recent decision of the income tax appeal board relating to taxation of consorts on community property in the province of Quebec?


George Clyde Nowlan: I thank the hon. gentleman
for having sent me notice of his question this morning. As the hon. gentleman knows, the issues involved in that hearing are of great importance in the administration of the Income Tax Act. The decision is now being reviewed and considered by the legal officers of my department. When they have concluded their review and when I have

found time to discuss it with them, a statement will be made to the house as to the intentions with respect to this matter. However, I would not anticipate that could be done before the end of next week.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, as the minister and also somewhat on the basis of one comrade to another. In view of the already strongly expressed objections of organized labour and the opinion of veterans, their relatives and a multitude of other Canadians, does the minister consider there is any merit in permitting war criminal Alfred Krupp to re-enter Canada?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I wish to
thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question, and in reply to advise him that, in dealing with an application for admission to Canada, any minister involved does not form a personal judgment on the basis of his like or dislike-


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is not what the
minister used to say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but assesses the question of
admissibility in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration Act. With regard to the particular question, I might point out that there would be three or four departments concerned in the granting of a visa in a case such as this, and, of course, the decision would be the joint decision of the ministers involved as to whether or not a visa should be granted in the particular case.
I think I should point out also, in view of the words "war criminal" used in the hon. gentleman's question, that Alfred Krupp had his sentence commuted by the United States high commissioner in 1951. His sentence was commuted to the time already served in prison, and his property was ordered returned to him by the United States high commissioner.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Does the Minister of Justice consider that his judgment should be governed by the decisions of a foreign court, in this case a United States tribunal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was answering the earlier question in my capacity as Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
Inquiries of the Ministry I take it the hon. gentleman wished me to give this answer in that same capacity.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the trouble, you have too many hats.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. minister should not always judge other people by himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You can't take it.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you for considering that I am still a minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Speaker, in forming the judgment it will be established on the basis of the law applicable in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: want to ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that persons applying for entry into Canada who have served sentences for criminal offences have been debarred and are debarred from entering Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, yes; but as I explained to the hon. member for Kootenay West the other day the words "criminal offences" as used in the Immigration Act are words with a technical meaning. The words used by the hon. member in his question have not been found capable of such a technical definition.



JAN WOJTALA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it now the practice of the department to deport persons to countries behind the iron curtain?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not true that a certain person named Jan Wojtala, who claims to be a stateless person, is, as the Vancouver Sun has reported, being flown to England en route to Poland by the department for which the minister is acting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not seen the newspaper report and therefore I cannot comment on its accuracy. I have not looked at the departmental file for the last week and must therefore speak from recollection and subject to correction. My recollection of the circumstances is that the man in question was in possession of-I am afraid I do not recall the technical term-what in effect was a travel document issued by the United Kingdom, and my understanding is that he is being sent back to the United Kingdom in

Inquiries of the Ministry accordance with that document. I should also inform the house that in my review of the file of this case it was brought to my attention that the man in question had expressed his desire to be returned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a
further supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could explain why this man, who claims to be a stateless person, should have been treated differently from Mr. Christian George Hanna.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The main reason, of course, is that there is a different government in office at the moment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and the treatment accorded to the man in question is therefore more considerate. As I have pointed out the man in this case expressed a desire to be returned, which is quite different from the desire of Mr. Hanna.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government's attention been drawn to the shortage of railway stock cars for the movement of cattle in southern Alberta? If so, what is being done to remedy the situation?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, last evening the Minister of Agriculture drew my attention to an article in the Lethbridge Herald stating that there is such a shortage at Lethbridge and Calgary. It then being too late to get in touch with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the railway concerned, I did so the first thing this morning. They are checking now with their western representatives, and as soon as I receive a report from them I will communicate it to the house and to the hon. member.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henry Murphy (Wesimorland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the government consider taking the necessary steps for the reinstatement of remarried war widows whose husbands have died and who were in receipt of pensions before their remarriage?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minisier of Veierans Affairs):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Westmorland for giving me notice of his question. This matter is covered by the Pension Act, and in each case is considered in the light of the provisions of the act. Section 45, subsection 1, of the Pension Act provides that when a pensioned widow remarries she is entitled to one year's pension as a final payment and her pension ceases.
Section 45, subsection 2, of the act makes the further provision that if the new husband dies within five years after such marriage and the widow is left in a dependent condition, her award may be restored by the *commission in whole or in part. The statutory limitation must be noted, and the benefit is only available when death takes place within the five-year period. That is the provision in the act at the present time.


Henry Joseph Murphy: There is no provision in the case of the death of the husband after the five-year period? You are not going to consider any steps?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have just quoted the act as it is at the present time. I may say it is the act as passed by my hon. friend's government. We may consider changes later on.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I have a further supplementary question. Will the government consider the necessary changes in the act to take in those widows whose husbands have died after the five-year period?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, it was the considered opinion of the former government, of the veterans affairs committee and also of veterans organizations that five years should be the period. The act may be considered later on and we may give the matter further consideration, but I am quoting the act as it stands at the present time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the light of the increases in the cost of living and also the government's recognition of the need for increases in other welfare payments, will the minister endeavour to get his colleagues to reconsider their position with regard to bringing in legislation to provide for increased benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, these matters are always under consideration by the unemployment insurance commission. In answer to the latter

Inquiries of the Ministry
part of the hon. member's question, I might say it is a matter of policy upon which the government has to decide as to what will be done with any recommendation.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Then may I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform us, in view of the very serious unemployment situation, when we may expect the government to fulfil the pledge it made prior to the election that unemployment insurance benefits would be increased to extend full coverage 52 weeks of the year?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance commission is studying this possibility at the moment. We have not received any recommendations from them as yet, but when we do they will be presented to the government for their decision.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Oni.) Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister consider extending the provisions of Bill No. 14 standing in his name, or some other measure, so that interest-free loans may be obtained by primary producers in all Canada?
Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. gentleman is not fully informed with regard to the nature of the bill. I am happy that we will be studying it now and he will see that there are no interest-free loans mentioned at all. The bill has to do with cash advances.


Mr. Huffman:: What is the difference?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I trust the hon. member can make that distinction. I will draw this to the attention of the hon. member because apparently he has not paid any attention to it at all. I will read out to him just what the bill is: Bill No. 14-an act to provide for advance payments on prairie grain prior to delivery thereof. If that act is to be extended in any way perhaps the hon. member would suggest the action necessary, if he wants something done. There may be other things required to be done in the interests of the people of Canada but I can assure the hon. member that this government will undertake the necessary steps for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Edward Blake Huffman: All I was asking was if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would
consider extending the provisions act to all the primary producers.


An hon. Member:: He did not pay attention to the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did pay attention.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I have not given him notice and the answer may be a little involved, so perhaps he could answer this question on Monday. Has the minister been informed that the Bank of Canada has reported substantial sell-offs of United States dollars? The press reports state that these increase the flow of cash available to the federal treasury. My actual question is this. As the Bank of Canada loans no money to the government, in what way is it expected that this move will ease the tight money policy? Perhaps the minister could answer now, but I would be satisfied to wait until Monday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada operates as the fiscal agent of the Minister of Finance in all operations relating to the exchange fund, and so far as reports to the Minister of Finance are concerned, the Minister of Finance receives reports constantly from the Bank of Canada concerning any operations carried on by the Bank of Canada in relation to the purchase and sale of exchange. It is hard for me to see what relationship this matter has to any question of tight money policy.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Would the minister table directive 9/4 MS dated August 8, 1957, sent to rural mail carriers, which was referred to yesterday in this house?


William McLean Hamilton: I will be very glad to look at the document, Mr. Speaker.



QUEBEC CITY


[Stage Direction]
350th anniversary
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Landry (Dorchester):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General decided to implement the

Inquiries of the Ministry decision of his predecessor to issue a special stamp in 1958 to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the city of Quebec?


William McLean Hamilton: I will be very glad to take my hon. friend's question as notice and give him my answer next week.



REFERENCE TO DESIGN OF TWENTY-FIVE CENT CANADIAN STAMP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General at an early date examine the 25-cent Canadian postage stamp and explain its design, which to many looks like a still used in the manufacture of moonshine.


Some hon. Members:: How would you know?


George Harris Hees: It reminds him of home.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Look at the moon.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the minister under whom this stamp was produced and issued and who I think should explain its significance is no longer here to do so. I would suggest that the best course of action for the hon. member for Red Deer to follow would be to ask the man who was responsible for the stamp to explain its significance.


Pierre Gauthier: Most amusing, but not an answer.



APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Postmaster General.
Yesterday I asked the Postmaster General if he was giving consideration to the appointment of an assistant to the deputy minister. His answer led me to understand that the position has been abolished. However, on going through the estimates of his department I find that provision has been made for the office of a chief executive, the position left vacant by the promotion of Mr. Boyle.
Can the minister inform the house if it is bis intention to appoint someone to that position or to a similar one? If so, I should like to know whether the minister is in a position to tell us when that appointment will be made.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. The entire matter is under consideration at the present time, and I expect action will be taken before too long.



NORTH HATLEY, QUE.  INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING THEFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Roberge (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware that the post office at North Hatley was recently broken into and some $7,500 stolen, and what action has been taken with regard to this matter?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware of this matter, and it is under investigation at the present time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Forgie) asked me if I was aware of an agreement which had been entered into prior to June 10 regarding construction of houses on property purchased from the Department of Veterans Affairs by the Department of National Defence.
I have made full inquiries, and I am informed that there were no agreements prior to June 10 between the Department of National Defence and any other interest in regard to the construction of houses on property transferred to my department from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In fact Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been unable to find private interests willing to erect rental guaranteed housing or to promote limited dividend housing, mainly in view of the cost of servicing the said land.



REPORTED INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the Minister of Finance is in a position to make the comment for which I asked him yesterday on the reported increase in the interest rates on loans for low rental housing under the National Housing Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity of getting hold of the newspaper report to which my hon. friend referred, but I hope to be able to answer his inquiry on Monday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: I would like to address a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that the government, after cancelling its production program with respect to the CF-100 mark VI in an economy move, is now continuing the development program of the CF-100 mark VI?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is not correct.
(Translation):



AUTOMOBILES


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Is he of the opinion that the low-number license plates which were at one time so useful in the province of Quebec could be as useful today in the province of Ontario?
(Text):



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask him if the government has yet made any answer to the letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the premier of Manitoba early in August with respect to hospital insurance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I certainly have answered any letters coming to my department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, perhaps I might
direct the question to the Prime Minister, in that case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will examine the files and see whether any letter remains unanswered. If any letter does remain unanswered it is due to inadvertence, and I will have it looked into.



ATTITUDE TOWARD PARTICIPATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the province of Quebec
Inquiries of the Ministry ignore the offer to participate in the hospital insurance plan, or did it refuse? If the province refused, what reasons were given?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am in a position to answer that question. I have not examined the correspondence or gone into the meetings with Quebec.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Is it the intention of the minister to take the opportunity afforded by the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference to talk the matter over with the premier of the province of Quebec?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, the agenda for that conference has not yet been set, I understand, but it would seem like one of the subjects which might well be discussed at that time.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on October 24 the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) asked a supplementary question regarding the proposed board walk around the Quebec Citadel. He asked whether the sum of $50,000 provided for in supplementary estimates was still available for this purpose.
The answer is that not all this sum is available. Some of it, about $2,500, was left available to carry out the preliminary engineering and design work. Because only seven-twelfths supply was voted, another part had to be transferred to meet urgent parks reconstruction work along the Banff-Windermere highway and at other points. Lastly, the previous government had agreed to contribute $7,500 toward the urgently needed widening of Champlain street in lower Quebec. As no funds had been provided to meet this urgent need, it became necessary for this government to obtain funds by means of transfer from the amounts provided for the board walk.
I might add that the engineering and planning work has not been held up in any way due to these transfers. As I said yesterday, lack of staff has been the governing factor.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister not aware that it would have been possible, as was planned by the previous administration, to have provided the $7,500

Inquiries of the Ministry needed for the widening of Champlain street in the further supplementary estimates which were tabled some time ago?


An hon. Member:: You have spies in that department.


Jean Lesage: I have no spies. I was there.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) asked me, at page 350 of Hansard, if I could inform him as to the authors of the study on energy undertaken on behalf of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects.
I have made inquiries, and I am informed that the author of this study is Mr. John Davis, an economist who was retained by the commission.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. When may we in Wellington South expect the completion and opening of the new agricultural science service building now nearing completion on the outskirts of Guelph?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question-


An hon. Member:: How curious.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We used to do the same thing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I may say that a considerable number of hon. members on the other side of the house have been good enough to give me notice of their questions also. But to answer the question, it is expected that the new livestock insect laboratory at present under construction at Guelph will be completed by February next.



STATEMENT ON PRICE IN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the following


question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Huffman):
May I just ask the minister if he is aware that corn which was selling for $1.20 a while ago was marketed yesterday for 46 cents?
By this question the hon. member has left the impression that the corn selling for $1.20 a while ago, which was in fact last year's corn and perfectly dry, would compare with the new crop at a price of 46 cents. Our information is as follows: The method most commonly used in pricing corn in southwestern Ontario is to establish a bushel price for shelled corn basis 15.5 per cent moisture. A standard formula is used for relating that price to corn of lower moisture.
The present base price for corn purchased on that formula is $1.05 per bushel. On that basis the price for corn of lower moisture follows the following pattern:
Per Cent Moisture	Price Per Bushel
15.5		 $1.05
20.5		93
25.5		83
30.5		73
We understand that the average moisture of corn now being marketed runs between 27 per cent and 29 per cent. This is about 2 per cent above normal.	Corn of that
moisture would bring slightly under 80 cents by the above formula.
We were unable to learn of any prices in the order of 50 cents per bushel for shelled corn, but the 73 cents price for shelled corn of 30.5 per cent moisture would work back to about 50 cents per bushel for cob corn of that moisture.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this may be an appropriate time for me to answer the question directed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Langlois), which concerned a statement in an article appearing in the Montreal Gazette of October 23 reporting that a curtailment of operations at the Louiseville, Quebec, plant of Associated Textiles of Canada was attributed by the chairman of the board of the company to "continued heavy imports of synthetic textile fabrics into the Canadian market."
The hon. member is aware that all the items under the tariff pertaining to textiles have been referred to the tariff board in order that the board may review them and make a report. This is not the first time that a reference has been directed to the tariff

board concerning items in the tariff structure in relation to textiles. About three years ago the former government directed a reference to the tariff board concerning the items pertaining to woollen textiles. On that occasion the board was directed to make an inquiry but not to make recommendations.
The new reference to the tariff board will give the board the opportunity to make recommendations as well as to make a report in general, and the new reference is of course broader than the reference of three years ago. In taking this course I may say it has been gratifying, Mr. Speaker, to find that it has apparently met with such wide approval on the part of many hon. gentlemen opposite, who were very silent in former years with regard to conditions in the textile industry in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) I wish to say that the counties of Westmorland and Albert are included in our program of airborne magnetometer survey in New Brunswick in next summer's field season.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 24, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pension payable thereunder to fifty-five dollars per month, to reduce the basic residence requirements for pensioners from twenty years to ten years and to increase the length of permissible temporary absence of pensioners from Canada from three to six months.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have read with considerable interest the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in presenting to the house this particular resolution. I must apologize to him for not being here last night when he made his statement. I was engaged in constituency business, but had I known that my hon. friend was going to introduce the resolution I certainly would have made other arrangements.
Old Age Security Act
I am sure the house generally will find the resolution of great interest, and I am equally certain that the minister himself as he introduced it must have felt he was the pivot, as it were, in a rather historic effort by his party, because it represents the first time that anyone speaking for a Conservative government has put forward legislation having to do with some aspects of social welfare.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true; that is utterly untrue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not the first time, of course, that we in this house have dealt with matters in this field that have been proposed by spokesmen for the party represented by the government opposite, because hon. members will well recall, as we were reminded the other day by the former minister of agriculture, that in the election of 1930 the then leader of the Conservative party said to the people of Canada in substance, "Elect me; I will call parliament together and I will enact a real old age pensions measure." That statement was made in the town of Renfrew, in the town of Newcastle and in my own city of Windsor, and at a time when modifications in old age pensions would have been of great benefit to the people of this country.
The history of parliament between 1930 and 1935 will show that this promise of the then leader of the Conservative party, a distinguished gentleman who became prime minister, was not kept and his government did nothing whatsoever not only with regard to old age security or old age pensions but for that matter with regard to any particular measure relating to social welfare, except in its dying days when it brought in the unemployment insurance act which the Supreme Court of Canada shortly thereafter declared ultra vires.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is untrue.


Mr. Marler:: Take it quietly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My esteemed friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare was in the happy position last night, for which I sincerely congratulate him, of presenting to this house an amendment based upon an act of parliament introduced in 1951 by the government headed by the present Leader of the Opposition. In expressing our approval of this resolution and all its terms I might say, speaking for those of us on this side, that our approval can be understood particularly in the light of some of the facts which have preceded the introduction of this amendment from the time old age pensions were first enacted by this parliament.

Old Age Security Act
I think it is important to remember that in 1926 the minister of labour in the government of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King proposed, on an enabling basis, legislation that would provide old age pensions to those citizens of Canada residing in provinces whose governments were prepared to accept the proposal made by the government of that day. It is a matter of history that the old age pensions proposal of that day would have become law in 1926 but for the action taken by the upper house, then made up in its majority by members who supported the party now constituting the government of the day. It is significant, too, that while the opposition in parliament at that time, headed by the Right Hon. Mr. Arthur Meighen, supported the program for old age pensions introduced by the Mackenzie King government, some very strong speeches were made by the opposition in the house at that time against the introduction of this measure. For instance, if hon. members will refer to Hansard of April 15, 1926, volume III, at page 2470, they will find, among others, this kind of expression, the view expressed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St.George, a distinguished member of the Conservative party, who said:
Mr. Chairman, I am altogether opposed to the scheme of old age pensions as placed before the house in this resolution. I can understand an old age pension scheme which depends upon the incapacity of the recipient to earn a living, but unlike every other old age pension scheme with which I have been able to come in contact during a rather extensive search, this scheme altogether eliminates the element of incapacity. It assumes that at 70 years of age every Canadian who has lived in this country for 20 years is utterly incapacitated to earn a living. I object to that assumption, because actual incapacity should be the fundamental principle embodied in any pension scheme.
As the house knows, the act upon which this amendment is based provides for a pension as of right to every person in Canada 70 years of age and over, and the question of incapacity was dealt with by the previous administration through another legislative enactment. What was the view of the leader of the opposition? At that time Mr. Meighen supported, by the speech he made the same day, the position taken by Mr. Cahan.


Mr. Cardiff:: What has that to do with us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has everything. It shows that this measure was first introduced by the Liberal party and it was opposed by members of the Conservative party. It is well for us to realize that and to keep emphasizing that what is now being done is by way of amendment to an act introduced in this parliament by the

administration of the right hon. gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you in favour of the amendment?


Mr.   Marfin@Essex East: What are the facts with respect to the act upon which this amendment is based? It will be remembered that in 1950 the government of the day proposed that an all-party committee should be set up to consider ways and means of improving existing old age pension legislation in this country. That committee had in its membership the present Minister of Finance as the main spokeman for hon. gentlemen sitting opposite. As a result of the deliberations of that committee certain recommendations were made to this house, and the government of the day accepted most of those recommendations.
The result was the establishment in this country of the universal old age pension system which provided as a matter of right to every citizen in Canada 70 years of age and over a pension based in part upon the principle of contribution-based, I say, in part on the principle of contribution. The significant thing is that it was, and continues to be, the only old age pension scheme to be found in any country of the world that does not have a means test.
This amendment, good as it is, must be related to the basic document of which it is a part, introduced by those representative of the party which sits to Mr. Speaker's left.
When the old age pension was provided for after the elections that were held in 1926, in revolt against the stand taken by a Conservative Senate, every citizen in Canada 70 years of age and over, on a means test basis, was provided with a pension of $20 a month, the federal government sharing the cost of this scheme with the provinces on a basis that was maintained until 1932. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite who bring forward this measure pursuant to election promises-and I commend them for that- are for the first time giving evidence of their official interest in this kind of matter, having denied themselves the opportunity during the dark days of 1930 to 1935 of doing something for the old people of this country.
Not only did we bring in old age pensions, those of us who support the Liberal party, but during the period from 1926 to 1930 we made some improvements in the legislation and from 1935 to 1940 income ceilings were raised. As minister of national health and welfare I had the great honour on two occasions of bringing in on behalf of the government, supported by those who sat behind us

when we sat at Mr. Speaker's right, increases in the basic amounts of the pension, with the result that we were able to say in 1951 that we had provided for the people of Canada the most comprehensive and, in dollar terms, the most generous old age pension scheme available to any people in any section of the world. It is with the background of this history that this amendment is introduced today.


Howard Charles Green: Don't forget the $6 a month you brought in.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend says, "Don't forget the $6 a month". I am coming to that. Let my hon. friend not forget that the only contributions his party made to old age security in this country is this. Out of the proposed $55 pension it is responsible only for the recommendation of $9.


Howard Charles Green: We have had to kick you all along.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Last night the Minister of National Health and Welfare said this scheme would cost around $90 million.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I said $96 million.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Knowing something of the facilities that my hon. friend has for accurate calculation I accept, of course, his estimate of the total cost. The total cost of the amendment should be considered in the light of the total cost of old age security itself. As introduced in 1926 I think the projected cost was something in the neighbourhood of $12 million. When we embarked upon the universal scheme in 1952 the total cost of old age pensions chargeable to the government of Canada was in the neighbourhood of $90 million. When we left the benches now occupied by the hon. gentlemen the government of that day had introduced legislation which resulted in an expenditure of some $460 million by way of assistance to the old people of our country.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Tell us about the $6.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Now my friend is recommending an amendment involving an expenditure of $90 million. I commend him for that. Any assistance we can give to those classes in our country who need assistance will be approved, politics notwithstanding, by everyone in all sections of this house and in most sections of this country. It is important to realize the extent to which my friend now proposes to go. He is proposing an expenditure of some $90 million-an expenditure which some of the newspapers supporting my hon. friend are criticizing already as being an extravagant proposal-and that should be
Old Age Security Act
compared with the expenditure which we made in the last session to the extent of $60 million in addition to a total of $400 million for which the government of Canada had already committed the people before this government came into power.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes; 22 years and 4 months respectively.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend says 22 years and 4 months. My hon. friend may sit there doing all the musing he wants, but the history of this legislation shows that it was a Liberal government that was largely responsible for its implementation. No last minute repentance on the part of those who opposed social security measures will alter this fact.
My hon. friend has made an important proposal in his amendment when he suggests that we should reduce the qualifying period of residence from 20 to 10 years. My hon. friend will, of course, have access to the departmental records. He will know something of the discussions that prevailed in connection with that matter between myself, as minister of national health and welfare, and the provinces. My hon. friend will have access now to other memoranda in the department which clearly indicate what was in contemplation in this regard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And your opposition to the idea.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce should realize that with his journeys to England, his sale of wheat and his problems in China, it would be better if he confined himself to those absorbing problems.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member had problems in January; he is thinking of January.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1951 the parliamentary committee gave consideration to the question of residence. If the hon. gentleman will look at the report of the committee on old age security he will find at page 111, paragraph numbered 69, the following expression of view, which was not the expression of view of one party but was the considered recommendation of all parties and unanimously given:
In the committee's view, it is not unreasonable to suggest that for the universal pension program a residence requirement of 20 years should be established similar to that which exists now under the present federal-provincial old age assistance program.
Now, what does this mean? It means that the Minister of Finance and the late hon. member for Lanark, for whom we all have the deepest respect and happy memory, shared

Old Age Security Act
the view of members of the C.C.F. and of the Social Credit party and of the party of which I am a member, that the period of residence for qualifying purposes should be 20 years.
Then it is significant that in paragraph 70 it is said:
With respect to an old age assistance program for persons 65 years of age and over on the basis of an eligibility test, it is the committee's view that a requirement of 15 years' residence should be considered.


Mr. MacEwan:: Why wasn't it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to
give you the answer now. If my hon. friend will read Hansard he will find why. It was because the provinces, which had shared in the costs of old age assistance from 65 to 70, were reluctant to make any changes whatever in the matter of the qualifying period of residence, and among those provinces was Ontario. This is a matter of record. I am happy, as we all are now, that provincial-dominion relations are such that my hon. friends are now able to take a step which will have, at least in so far as other legislation is concerned, an exemplary effect in being able to persuade the provinces that they should reduce their qualifying period of residence as well.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The only thing that was
wrong with the hon. member was that he could not persuade them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend
is quite right; I was not able to persuade certain governments, including the government of Ontario, of the desirability of doing that very thing. But if I had, my hon. friend may be sure that I would have taken the step to bring about a reduction in the residential requirement under the existing act. I hope the country will now have the advantage of the close collaboration that exists between the federal government on the one hand and the provincial governments on the other, so many of whom share the same political convictions as hon. gentlemen opposite.
This brings me to the very important role of the provinces in this matter. Last night my hon. friend properly said in his speech, as reported at page 385 of Hansard for October 24, 1957:
We do not say that it is the final or perfect solution, or that there is any magic rightness about this particular amount. We make no extravagant claims as to the generosity of the amount we are now proposing.
I understand what prompted my hon. friend to make that remark, and he is quite right. No grant of any social benefit provided by this or any other legislation can possibly, in every instance, fully satisfy the existing need in the case of many old people. I agree with

my hon. friend. But there are many thousands of people in this country who are not going to fully benefit from the proposal made by my hon. friend or from the proposal which we made before June 10. There is only one satisfactory way of meeting that, and that is by the provinces of our country recognizing that they too have a responsibility in this matter. I suggest to my friends, now that they are in office and now that the relationship between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Ontario is of the most intimate kind, that it ought to be possible for the Prime Minister of Canada to do something I was not able to do; that is, convince the government of Ontario that it has a responsibility and that in needy cases it ought to provide supplementary benefits under a more generous arrangement than now exists. What is the situation?


Mr. Hodgson:: The hon. member was not
able to convince the provinces.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: In the provinces
of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan there are supplementary benefits paid to needy persons, in the case of British Columbia right across the board. But in the case of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island-


Some hon. Members:: And Manitoba.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -and Manitoba, all except Newfoundland and the three western provinces I have mentioned, the provincial governments are not bearing their share of the cost of assisting the elderly people of this country. The total cost assumed by all 10 provinces in the matter of old age pensions, apart from supplementary payments, is about $35 million. The federal government is assuming responsibility for $460 million, and now the $90 million proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Under the old formula they were taking about 85 per cent of the taxes.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It is not too much to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, for whom I have the highest regard, to use his influence in trying to bring about an improvement in that respect, particularly in our own province where so many people reside.
During the election we were told that the government was going to give us much more than is now proposed. We were told by the Prime Minister, "Elect me. I will call parliament together in September and I will give you the most generous old age security system of any country in the world."


An hon. Member:: So he did.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: "We are going
to do something about what is being done in the United States." Then listen to this statement. The Prime Minister said:
. . . I'm not going to indulge in any auction block type of politics by promising the impossible. Some political parties are promising the impossible and they know that they will not have the responsibility of power.
Then he said this:
We believe the old age pension is inadequate. We intend, this September, to call together a parliament and there and then fix a fair and reasonable amount for the old age pensioner, indeed for the other pensioners, and also make provision for a formula whereby due allowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living, providing that it continues.
That last proviso was an essential part of the program.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That will be looked after.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But this amendment says nothing about that. This amendment does not live up to the promise of the Prime Minister of having a provision in the law that the pension will go up or down depending on the cost of living.


An hon. Member:: Give us time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the government abandoned this particular feature of its program, or does it intend to introduce legislation?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Wait till he has had 22 years in office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it does intend to introduce legislation should it not do so at this session, because the Prime Minister said they were going to do it in the month of September Then what about the proposal made frequently during the election by the Prime Minister and also by the Minister of Transport that we should embark upon a program of assistance such as is provided to old people in the United States? There they have a superannuation system under which contributions are provided by the employer and by the employee.
It is true that those superannuation benefits exceed the monetary return of our old age security plan. It is significant that in the United States plan there is no financial participation by the government of the United States or by the state governments in any particular. But are we going to have, that plan? The Prime Minister said it commended itself to him. Are we going to have it, or has he now come to the conclusion reached by the Minister of Finance when he was a member of the parliamentary committee in 1951, a committee that examined this problem, that the universal old age
Old Age Security Act
assistance system being proposed by the government of the day was preferable to the particular superannuation scheme which I have just mentioned, and which exists in the United States?
Has he now concluded that our system is better? Has the minister come to the conclusion that our universal old age assistance scheme is preferable because it does not only embrace those workers in factories who can be reached by the principle of deduction of contributions from pay cheques.
The fact is that the United States scheme, which I believe has a lot to commend it, is something we had been considering and something that can be adopted, because it does not involve any action by government at all. Nevertheless we must look at the realities of the situation, and realize that if we adopted the United States system, as the Prime Minister suggested during the course of his election he would, we would not be touching the bulk of the population of our country. We would not be touching the farmers. We would not be touching the fishermen. We would only be embracing those who can be reached by the mechanism of deducting contributions from pay cheques.
So it is one thing to say that our system falls short of that of the United States, and it is another thing to say that we can study that system and also that we can adopt it without violating the principle of our own universal system. But my hon. friend, in the introduction of the amendment now before the house, has done nothing whatsoever to realize the suggestions made by the Prime Minister about the validity of the United States scheme. He does not do any more than confirm by this amendment the validity of the act which we introduced in 1951.


An hon. Member:: And you are going to vote for the amendment, too.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I said I was going to vote for it, and I certainly am.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the speech just delivered I had to try to determine whether there had been an election on June 10 last. To hear the former minister of national health and welfare upbraiding the present government for not doing anything seems very strange coming from his lips. I must confess that when the election results were announced on the evening of June 10 one of the thoughts that ran through my mind was just what sort of approach the Liberal party would take in the House

Old Age Security Act
of Commons with respect to legislation. I wondered at that time whether the former ministers would have the brass, after having sat on their haunches for 22 years, to emerge suddenly as champions of last action.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we of the C.C.F. have always considered that the differences between Liberals and Conservatives are superficial. It is simply a question of which party happens to be in office and which party happens to be on the opposition side of the house. But it does seem passing strange that the man who could have done so much when he was minister has now suddenly realized the enormity of the problem facing our senior citizens. Yet at the same time I did not hear one single suggestion during his 30-minute speech as to what he thought should be the figure, as to what he thought should be done at the present time. He went back into history-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend want me to deal with that?


Alfred Claude Ellis: On some other occasion. I had expected that the Liberal party would now reveal to us just what they think the pension rate ought to be. We know that earlier this year they had a decision to make. They had to decide how much the pension increase should be, and they decided on a figure of $6. I think the niggardliness of the increase was one of the most important contributing factors in the defeat of the former government. From press reports I have read in newspapers from one end of Canada to the other it was quite evident before the voters went to the polls on June 10 that the people of Canada were not satisfied with the $6 increase. The government had allowed the position of the old age pensioners to deteriorate year by year and only-I am using the former minister's expression-at the eleventh hour, a few months before the election, did they bring forward a $6 increase.
We know what happened. The former minister would be quite happy to forget what happened on June 10, and in an effort to forget is going back 20, 25 or 30 years into dim history. Well, of course I understand the desire of the Liberal party to retreat into the past, but I was intrigued by a statement which the hon. member for Essex East had to make regarding the proposal made by Mr. King in 1926 about the old age pension.
I think all hon. members are very aware of the situation which existed in this house at that time. While I could not find the quotation, I can recall reading a statement made by Mr. Bennett to Mr. King, when Mr. Bennett quite properly pointed out that he only brought in the old age pension when

he had a gun pointed at his head by the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, the founder of the C.C.F. party, who at that time was the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The reason we got the old age pension in 1956 was that both the old parties lacked a clear majority in the House of Commons and Mr. Woodsworth, as we are all aware, approached the party leaders-Mr. Meighen of the Conservatives and Mr. King of the Liberals-to find out which party would give the most firm undertaking that the old age pension legislation would be brought down. Mr. Meighen's answer at that time was very unsatisfactory; Mr. King, being a very astute politician, replied in a more favourable manner. As a result of the strategic position held in the House of Commons by two labour members at that time, the people of Canada got the old age pension legislation.
Thus it seems rather strange now to hear Liberals claiming credit for bringing in the old age pension legislation in this country. If credit is to be given, then I think in all honesty and fairness the credit for the old age pension legislation should go squarely to the late Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Heaps, the two labour members in this house.


An hon. Member:: Who introduced the measure?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I do not propose to deal further with the approach taken by the official opposition today, because I think the people of Canada gave their answer on June 10 and I think hon. members should keep their peace until such time as there may be some concrete and practical proposals to bring forth on behalf of the Liberal party. Of course I realize there is a convention coming up in January, and I suppose that these debates must be made the occasion for a little campaign oratory. That is the only possible reason I could imagine for the hon. member for Essex East reaching these heights of oratory in which, of course, nothing of a practical nature was said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, no hon. member has the right to impute the motives of another hon. member, and I would simply say that the reason the hon. member for Essex East spoke as he did was because, as everyone in this house knows, his whole record is one which shows a deep and abiding interest in social welfare measures.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The attitude of the C.C.F. toward the resolution now before the house was summed up in the amendment which we moved in connection with the reply to the speech from the throne. Of course we expressed our great interest and support of

the legislation forecast in the throne speech. We went on to urge the government to bring down this legislation at the earliest possible date. I was very disappointed that the Prime Minister did not see fit to keep one of his pledges prior to the election, that there would be a September session in order that the senior citizens might have obtained the benefits of this legislation at an earlier date. However, we are most anxious to facilitate the passage of this legislation, and we are very pleased that there has been this interruption in the debate on the address in order that the house might consider this matter with all dispatch.
We have established our position in this house over the years in unmistakably clear language. We in the C.C.F. have always maintained that the hallmark of a good society is the willingness of the society to take cognizance of the needs of those among us who through no fault of their own, either through age or infirmity, find it difficult to take care of themselves. Hence we have always believed that what we should have in this country is a comprehensive social welfare program that will provide for all our citizens a decent standard of living. Consequently for our senior citizens we have always thought that the old age pension should be based on the need to provide these people with an adequate standard of living.
We believe that the old age pension is not a question of charity; it is not a favour bestowed upon our senior citizens. It is a matter of right, a right of citizenship which over the years our senior citizens have made great sacrifices to earn. They have built this nation, and in their declining years have a right to expect from this society a decent standard of living. Indeed, I can wholeheartedly agree with the statement made by the Conservative party prior to the election in respect to the new national policy adopted by it and endorsed, of course, by its leader. I am going to put this on record, because it is something with which we in the C.C.F. find ourselves in complete agreement, and I suggest this a commitment made by the government to our senior citizens.
We condem the meagre and niggardly assistance given to old age pensioners which leaves them in a position worse off in purchasing power than they were in 1951 when $40 a month was first established. No government worthy of its responsibilities can justify this picayune increase made to the old age pensioners. The Conservative party proposes to set the amount at a figure high enough to meet the needs of our older citizens.
I think we are in complete agreement with that. That same statement could have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg
Old Age Security Act
North Centre or the hon. member for Mackenzie or the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. We agree that the figure established should be set at such a level as to provide to our senior citizens a decent standard of living. Now, then, what is the figure?
Well, Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, before lunch I had been discussing the commitment made by the present Prime Minister and his party to the Canadian public prior to June 10, and I had placed on record an excerpt from the new national policy under which the Conservative party had pledged itself to support the setting of the old age pension figure high enough to meet the needs of our older citizens. I suggest that the words "high enough" and the words "to meet the needs" are the most significant portions of that statement.
The question we must ask ourselves now is whether or not the present proposed increased rate does, in fact, meet the needs of our senior citizens. I do not believe that hon. members of this house would find it possible to live on $55 a month; much less, of course, would they be able to live on the smaller figure granted under the Liberal administration. But if we do believe that $55 a month will satisfy the needs of our senior citizens, then I suppose we can conclude that this preelection commitment has been met at this time.
While we are very pleased that the increase is coming forward, we in this party must remind the government that we must move forward until we reach the stage when the old age pension is high enough-in the words of the Conservative statement-to meet the needs of the senior citizens adequately. We in the C.C.F. party have pointed out that in order to provide a minimum standard of living an old age pensioner requires approximately $75 a month, and hon. members may recall that earlier this year, during the last session of the previous parliament, my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo moved an amendment asking the government to increase the pension rate to $75 a month. The present Prime Minister voted against that amendment and indicated that the amount was too high.
I suggest that if we want to arrive at a figure based on economic reality we must

Old Age Security Act
take into account Canada's gross national product and satisfy ourselves that our senior citizens are getting their fair share of Canada's productivity. They would not be getting any special consideration, merely what they as citizens have the right to expect. Their just share of the national income would call for a pension of approximately $75 a month.
If hon. members feel that that figure is still too high, I would draw their attention to reports which have been made by various social welfare agencies in different parts of Canada. In one report dated August 1956 the Montreal social council agencies noted- and I shall quote the relative sentence- that an old age pensioner requires at least $70.87 a month in order to buy food and clothing, and shelter himself at current Montreal prices. That was in August 1956. Since that time the cost of living has increased, with the result that today the figure which we suggested last year of $75 a month is in line with the economic necessity of the moment. I suggest that if we are going to meet the objective of providing a pension high enough to fulfil the legitimate requirements of our senior citizens the amount this party suggested, namely $75, is the minimum which should be granted.
That was the attitude we took last session. I believe our position was valid then and, in view of the continuing increase in the cost of living, it is even more valid today. However, as I mentioned before lunch, the failure of the past government to recognize the needs of our senior citizens was one of the contributing factors in the defeat of that government. The $6 increase they brought forth did not meet with general approval throughout the country, and it appeared quite obvious that the new government was in a position where it would find itself in very difficult circumstances indeed if it did not proceed to grant an increase, and an increase which would have to be larger than the increase of $6 given by the previous government. Thus one may conclude that the figure of $55 contained in this amendment constitutes the minimum figure which could be arrived at by the government without running into serious opposition and criticism such as was encountered by the previous administration.
I am satisfied that the old age pensioners in my constituency were concerned about one thing, the amount of the increase. They knew that the political situation in this country indicated that some increase would be forthcoming, and the question they were asking was: what is the new pension going to be? Is it going to be $60? Is it going to

be more, or less? I think the old age pensioners of this country had every reason to expect that the pension would be set at a figure of at least $60 a month.
During the last session the present Prime Minister voted against an amendment calling on the government to increase the pension to $75. He indicated that while he was opposed to the figure of $75, by implication, at least, he suggested that $60 might be a reasonable figure.


John George Diefenbaker: Just read what was said.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I recall that at the time the then leader of the opposition suggested that the premier of Saskatchewan thought $60 would be a fair pension, and he endorsed the attitude of the premier at that time, so by implication he placed himself on record as supporting the idea of a $60 pension.
In any event, I suggest, while supporting this legislation, that we should bear in mind that there is a great deal more to be done and that this is only one step toward the kind of pension which we believe the senior citizens of this country deserve. Some people have told me that to them the $60 pension seems to represent a big increase. If this is so, if the increase seems to be large, it is because in former times our senior citizens have been so much neglected that they have been allowed to fall ever further behind year by year, to the extent that it required, not only one or two steps to bring them into line again with the others but several giant strides. However, I do not feel that because these pensioners have been neglected for so long by the former administration there is any excuse for not looking at the situation realistically now and setting the pension at a figure commensurate with the needs of those who will receive it.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other provisions in the resolution before the house. We welcome the proposed reduction in the residence qualification, but I suggest that the pension ought to be a right of citizenship and that the government might explore the possibility of lowering the residence qualification as suggested, I believe, by one of its own supporters the other day.
While the other recommendation with respect to increasing from three to six months the period of permissible absence from Canada seems to be a step in the right direction we feel nevertheless there is no justifiable reason for restricting the movement of our senior citizens. Today the old age pension is on a contributory basis. Every taxpayer in Canada through the payment of income tax and sales tax on his purchases contributes to his old age security. Why

then should the government say, "You will not have the right to go and live with your relatives in Utah, in the United Kingdom or in some other part of the world". Our senior citizens have earned their pensions and when in receipt of them they should be perfectly free to live anywhere they want to live. The proposed restriction of six months works a hardship on the people in the low income brackets. Those with means can leave the country in the winter months and return to Canada in order to protect their rights under the act whereas those who are not well off cannot do so. I believe the only fair way to deal with the situation would be to completely remove any restriction with respect to pensioners who desire to reside outside the borders of Canada when they qualify for pensions.
The proposed legislation before us today is regarded by those in the C.C.F. party as a step forward toward the goal which we in this group envisage. I mentioned earlier the work of the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth in bringing legislation of this kind into this chamber in the first place. Since that time C.C.F. members both in the house and outside of it have fought to bring about a fair deal for our senior citizens. We are very pleased that there has been some recognition of the need for further increases but we call on the government to move forward in future sessions towards raising old age pensions to a level which in the words of the Prime Minister in the statement of policy issued by his party, "ought to be high enough to take care of their needs".
Is he convinced that $55 is sufficient to take care of the needs of senior citizens in providing housing, food and clothing for them? That is a matter of opinion; but I suggest we have a long way to go yet. We ought to move forward from the present legislation to the desirable goal of providing our senior citizens with the standard of living which they have every right to expect. In the meantime we in this group are happy that the present legislation constitutes a step forward toward the goal of this party of having a social security program that will guarantee to all Canadians who are unable to take care of themselves the type of standard of living which every Canadian citizen ought to enjoy.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately many hon. members of this house have had to listen once again while other hon. members went back 31 years through history in an attempt to convey the impression that one political party or another deserves more credit than the rest for the fact that we have old age pensions in Canada today.
Old Age Security Act
While the hon. member for Essex East was speaking and during the earlier remarks of the hon. member for Regina I could not help but think; does the Canadian pioneer citizen, or any Canadian in fact, give one hoot in hades as to what happened in 1926?
It is probably true as was stated, that in 1926 some of the Conservatives-or all of them perhaps-may have opposed pensions. It may also be true that the then prime minister of Canada with gun at head introduced pension legislation in 1926. Again it may also be true that Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Heaps, not by argument but by political pistols held at head, played some part in causing a Liberal government to introduce that legislation. Regardless of what may have occurred in 1926, Mr. Chairman, it is a known fact that all parties in this country today are in favour of old age pensions of one kind or another.
We may disagree as far as the amount to be paid or the regulations under which it will be administered are concerned, but surely no one should have thought that by reference to history he could prove any party opposes it today or that one party deserves special credit because it exists. The behaviour I have described reminds me somewhat of the idea held by some people that if eight or ten members of a party speak on a certain issue and only one or two in another party speak on the same issue the party having eight speakers favours a certain proposition more strongly than does the other. That fantastic sort of notion is held by some people.
Prior to June 10 the Liberal government in its attitude toward pensions believed that in the light of all known facts, including other commitments, we should increase old age security by an amount of approximately 20 cents a day. It was also believed by the government that we should increase old age assistance payments by 20 cents a day, 10 cents of which the federal government would pay. This was their belief, their conviction. Obviously it did not meet the approval of a great many Canadian people.
With reference to the Liberal administration I might point out that quite apart from the amount paid to our senior citizens the attitude of the former minister of national health and welfare itself probably had as much to do with annoying Canadians in this matter as anything else I know because he had a habit of standing in the house and claiming for his government, if not for his party, all the credit for everything that had been done in the field of old age pensions.
I recall that on January 29 last in answer to a question in this house he quite brazenly

Old Age Security Act
rose to his feet and claimed all the credit for, as he put it, his side of the house. You can well imagine how the citizens of British Columbia felt, how the people of Alberta felt and how the people of Saskatchewan felt upon reading that declaration by the then minister. His was the bad habit of claiming credit where he had no right to claim credit.
The Conservative government has now come to the conclusion that our senior citizens require an additional 30 cents a day, or approximately that sum. As far as those over 70 years of age are concerned, the federal government will pay the 30 cents per day. With regard to old age assistance the federal government will pay 15 cents and the provinces will pay 15 cents. Certainly I wish to express my deep appreciation of the fact that there has been an increase but I am not going so far as to agree that it is sufficient to provide a decent standard of living for our pioneer citizens who are dependent upon the receipt of their pension and that alone in order to meet the day to day cost of living.
It is definitely an improvement. I recall that when I first came to this House of Commons some 18 years ago our old age pensioners were receiving $20 a month. It did jump to $40; it did jump to $46; and now the proposal is to pay $55 a month. I have seen their status steadily improve, and I was pleased to note that the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that this was not intended as a final goal or the end-all as far as the amount of payment was concerned. I wish to express appreciation-and I know our old age pensioners will express appreciation-for that additional 30 cents a day. Let me also say, though, in connection with my observations that I do not feel it will enable those who are wholly dependent upon pensions to meet the cost of living, and that I also do not believe it is all that Canada can afford.
We talk of surpluses that worry us, surpluses of foodstuffs and surpluses of farm production. Our pensioners claim nothing more and deserve nothing more than a claim upon, as someone said, a fair share of that which is bothering us so much in this country, namely, so-called surplus foods.
The federal government has proposed that the period of residence for the purpose of qualification under the act shall be reduced from 20 years to 10 years. There may be some differences of opinion with respect to that action. I say the strongest argument probably in support of it is that it brings it into line with our Disabled Persons Act and our Blind Persons Act. The discrimination which existed heretofore certainly could

not be justified. Personally, I am very much in favour of that period of required residence being reduced from 20 years to 10 years.
The government proposes to double the period of permissible absence from Canada. I have knowledge of quite a number of cases, Mr. Chairman, where persons, because of health conditions and for no other reason, were obliged to leave our country for a period exceeding three months, more particularly during the winter time. And it does seem to me to be somewhat of a tragedy that those pensioners should encounter difficulties with pension boards because of the fact that they had been absent for more than the prescribed period of time. I think that change is most acceptable.
It is an important step forward, as are the proposed increases in the total allowable income, inclusive of pension. But I still cannot understand, Mr. Chairman-and I hope the government will try to assist me in understanding-why the total allowable income, including pension, either in the case of a single person or a married person, should be less than the allowable basic deductions under our Income Tax Act, namely $1,000 and $2,000. I hope the minister will try to indicate why he did not see fit to provide those basic exemptions when so many of his associates, while members of the opposition, strongly advocated such a proposition.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as I speak of this it reminds me of something else that I believe I should mention to the minister. Under our regulations today we find so often that where a person's income may exceed the total allowable income during a given year, even by as little as $10 or $20, he has been told that he must wait for a year in order to submit a second application. We accept the fact that he should be permitted to have, let us say, $1,320 but he has $1,400. I am using these figures at the moment only for illustration purposes. He has earned that $1,320 or has acquired it through earnings and pension during the past 12 months, and it can be assumed that the basic allowance was the amount required to keep him during those 12 months. But we say that because you had $80 more than the allowable you must wait another year before applying. To me that is a tragedy without reason and without excuse. Surely, it would not hurt us to say, You have $80 more than the maximum allowable; therefore, you should wait 70/1320 of the next year. I say, even if you were to say that, you would be assisting so many of those who have encountered difficulties as a consequence of that provision.

Let me say also with respect to the regulations, in the past the former minister of national health and welfare always tried to claim, or at least create the impression,-I will be fairer to him and put it in that way- that these regulations were drafted as a consequence of the representatives of the provinces and the officials of his department sitting down more or less from scratch and drawing the regulations. The fact, of course, always has been that the federal authorities have drafted the regulations and the provincial officials have been called in in order to come to some uniformity as far as interpretation and application are concerned.
I trust that the present government will go much farther in permitting the provincial representatives to assist in drafting the regulations with respect to the Old Age Assistance Act, which is the one I am speaking of specifically. After all, let us not forget that even though the former minister of national health and welfare tried to create the impression this morning that the bulk of the cost of the pensions is paid by the federal government, the fact is that in some provinces at least that certainly is not the fact and therefore the provinces should have just as much say as has the federal government.
In my own province of Alberta, for example, it is true that the federal government pays the total cost of old age security but I must remind hon. members here that a substantial part of the revenue of Canada comes out of my province, far more than is paid back into it, in spite of Liberal propaganda in the last election. Because of our vast resources, because of the wise policies administered in the development of those resources, quite a substantial part of the revenue of this country comes out of my province. My province pays half the old age security; my province pays the total cost of administration; my province pays a supplementary allowance of $15 a month plus, with very limited exceptions, medical, dental, optical, and hospital services to those pensioners and to the dependents of those pensioners. Therefore, I say to you, why should not the provinces be given just as much say in the drafting of old age security regulations as the federal government itself has to say in the drafting?
I do feel, regardless of what the Conservatives may have said during the election, that they would have been wise, had it been possible-I am suggesting that it is possible; I see no obstacle-to have placed in those pension acts an escalator clause, a provision under which those pensions would automatically increase with increases in the cost of living index.
Old Age Security Act
It would seem to me that the government could have escaped a lot of criticism; the house could have been saved a great deal of time and pensioners themselves could have benefited as the cost of living index rose. I think that was a provision that certainly should have been included in the legislation which is presently before us.
I am not going to occupy more of the time of the house, Mr. Chairman. We always supported the principle of old age pensions, whether it be old age security or old age assistance or whether it be other social benefits such as the disabled persons' pension and so on. We do not take a back seat to anyone in that respect, yet you never heard us claiming credit for all that has been done. I may even say in that connection that if people are going to start claiming the credit, they had better start in the provinces and not in Ottawa. They had better learn what the provinces themselves are doing to assist our pioneer citizens who are in receipt of pensions in one form or another. 1 say we do not take a back seat to anyone in this respect. We support and welcome the provision of these measures. We will probably be heard from again. The government will no doubt have us pressing them for a bit more realism so far as some of the provisions are concerned. But that does not mean for one moment that we are not grateful for those concessions that have been made. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, we have every justification for supporting them and we hope that the government will in every session of parliament which it might be fortunate enough to attend as the government go just as far as it has this time with respect to this matter.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this morning the hon. member for Algoma East-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Essex East. They are interchangeable.


Howard Charles Green: Essex East - I apologize to the hon. member for Algoma East-in his best oratorical style set a rather controversial precedent for the discussion of this measure. This was a bit surprising to me because I would have thought that he would be the last member in the house to make a speech of that kind. It shows you what changes can come over a former minister when he becomes a frontbencher on the opposition side of the house. Just a few short months ago this very ex-minister introduced the Liberal plan for the senior citizens of this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my friend permit a question? The former minister, about whom my friend is now speaking, did no such thing.

Old Age Security Act


Howard Charles Green: That is not a point of order and it is not a fact, either.
Mr. Chairman, the member for Essex East was responsible for the old age pension policy of the Liberal party in 1957.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the minister said was that I had introduced the measure.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. If the hon. member for Essex East has a point of order, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise, the Minister of Public Works has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will deal with the hon. gentleman afterwards.


Howard Charles Green: We had a supplementary estimate introduced in the dying days of the session by this ex-minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true.


Howard Charles Green: No opportunity was given to the house for the adequate debate of this measure in that session. An announcement had been made many weeks earlier in the budget speech of the minister of finance as to what this former government proposed to do for these senior citizens. But there was no attempt made to bring about a discussion of the measure until the last possible moment, when the only thing that was done was to vote interim supply to cover the amount required for the matter of a few months to provide the increase of $6 a month. There was no adequate opportunity to debate this policy of the former government. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Essex East above all failed the senior citizens of Canada utterly just a few short months ago, yet today he has the nerve to get up in this house and try to lay all the blame on the members who now constitute the government. This is something which shows great nerve, to say the least. This ex-minister might well be dubbed the $6 minister. This $6 plan is the plan of himself and the former government, and it is on that plan that they must be judged today. The hon. member's talk today certainly does not fit in with his actions just a few months ago.
I notice that hon. members on the other side of the house smile. They think that the member for Essex East is on the spot, which he certainly is. I do not doubt that they are happy that he should be getting most of the blame, but the cold hard facts are that practically every Liberal in the house today, all but a handful, was in the house last spring. Did they raise their voices to say anything by way of demanding larger increases? They were quite happy to sit still and support the plan of their government-


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: -for an increase of $6 per month. Let them not try to say now, in October, that they think the Conservative plan is no good when they did not have the courage to stand up to their own ministers in April.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Howard Charles Green: If you have a point of order, raise it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just asking the hon. gentleman if he would permit a question.


Howard Charles Green: You know I won't.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is just what I
expected.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Closure.


Howard Charles Green: Not from the hon. member for Twisted-Billingsgate, anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Has the hon. member a point of order he wishes to bring up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, mine is a question of privilege, it is not a point of order. I could not care less for myself, but for my constituents who live in the place where Canada was discovered, I think it is rather an insult from the Tory benches not to know the name.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I feel very
sorry for the constituents of Bonavista-Twillingate also. The hon. member for Algoma East-Essex East-


An hon. Member:: You are all mixed up.


Howard Charles Green: in his covering-up speech this morning took refuge in the past.


Lionel Chevrier: The speech must have hurt.


Howard Charles Green: He went back to 1926 and he gave great credit to the Liberal party for bringing in old age pensions at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Charles Green: Well, I am glad hon. members can find something to be happy about because they are going to need it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Charles Green: But the hon. member for
Regina City punctured that balloon and punctured it very nicely. He pointed out that the men to whom the credit should be given

for the enactment of the old age pension legis-tion in 1926 are the late Mr. Woodsworth, the late Mr. Heaps and Mr. A. W. Neill of Comox-Alberni, that grand old man of this house who is still alive and whom I had the opportunity to visit during the election campaign.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: What about the Conservative opposition of that day?


Howard Charles Green: These were the men who forced old age pensions on an unwilling Liberal prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Charles Green: Then the hon. member for
Essex East-


An hon. Member:: Careful.


Howard Charles Green: -jumped from 1926 to 1930. He gave the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett no credit for having increased the dominion's share of old age pension from 50 per cent to 75 per cent.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: He did not.


Howard Charles Green: Oh no, no indication of that.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: He did not do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How did that help the old age pensioners?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member's speech was just a plain political speech.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Will my hon.
friend permit me-


Howard Charles Green: I have got the floor. You had it this morning.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Is my hon.
friend-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Miller Bell: Save it for your convention in January.


Howard Charles Green: I have been in the house since 1935.


Lionel Chevrier: So have I.


Howard Charles Green: Oh no, you went out to a nice easy job a few years ago. On every occasion when there have been improvements made in the old age pension legislation they have only been made after prodding, kicking and all kinds of pressure brought on a reluctant government over a long period of time.


Mr. Gardiner:: That is what the C.C.F. are
going to say about you. What are you going to do then?


Howard Charles Green: Pressure was brought on them not only by members of the official opposition, the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups but also by a very few backbench Liberal members, and more credit to them. The minister had the effrontery-
Old Age Security Act


An hon. Member:: The minister?


Howard Charles Green: -to intimate that every improvement in the old age pension situation must be attributed to the Liberal party. Nobody but the Liberal party cares for the senior citizens of Canada or the other Canadians who need assistance of one kind or another. This is the old theme song that has been sung in every part of this nation for many, many years. Down in Newfoundland we had the Liberals saying that if the people did not vote Liberal they would have their old age pensions taken away from them. What a farce!


John Whitney Pickersgill: Never said any such thing.


Howard Charles Green: In other parts of the country it has been the same. Out in British Columbia the people were told that if they did not vote Liberal they would lose all these welfare benefits.


Jean Lesage: Your story is twisted so far as Quebec is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Just a lot of cheap hyprocrisy but, Mr. Chairman, fortunately those days are now at an end.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Charles Green: The Liberal party in 1957 stands for a $6 increase for the senior citizens of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Didn't you vote for it?


Howard Charles Green: That is their announced policy. That is the policy on which they fought the election and that is one of the policies on which they received a very good licking. Times have now changed. We are now in 1957, and I suggest that it is not going to do these hon. members much good to run around the country when an election comes trying to tell about what happened or did not happen in 1926. They are going to be busy explaining what they stood for in 1957.
The hon. member for Essex East also said, "Why, there is nothing much to this reduction from 20 years to 10 years. We would have done that if we had been in power for another 22 years. We were just about to get around to that." I am quite sure that the people of Canada will realize what government it was that did take that step and made the change to cut the time from 20 years to 10.
The facts are these, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members of every party in the house have been interested in the welfare of the senior citizens of this country. This question should have been kept on that basis at all times, that we would all try to do the best we could for these Canadian pioneers. But the Liberal party has taken just the opposite tack. It is

Old Age Security Act always trying to take all the credit for everything that has ever been done for our senior citizens.
The hon. member for Essex East questioned today whether or not the present Prime Minister would implement his promises. The hon. member repeated certain press reports and insinuated in effect that the present Prime Minister was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the senior citizens of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member says that is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I can only say to the hon. member that from the start the present Prime Minister of Canada has been on the side of those Canadians who are having the toughest time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: That is his whole history. He fought his way up from poverty to his present position and at no time has he ever forgotten those Canadians who have the hardest time.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the position-


Howard Charles Green: Every member in the house who knows the present Prime Minister knows that is the case.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the position of the hon. member for Essex East too.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, keep still for a few minutes. Make your own speech if you like.


Lionel Chevrier: You should not take it away from him.


Howard Charles Green: In the Prime Minister's
speeches in the house in the last 17 years, in his speeches on the hustings, in the way he has conducted his law practice, in his speeches in caucus and in private conversation this great Canadian who is today Canada's Prime Minister has always stood for the little people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member a question.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Charles Green: He stands for the little people of Canada today and they know it. Canadians from coast to coast know it because they know the measure of Canada's Prime Minister. They believe in him and they trust him regardless of their party affiliation. All


this talk, all this questioning of the bona tides of Canada's Prime Minister on this issue or on any other issue is completely and utterly phony, dragged in to cover up the record of the previous government.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great attention to the intervention of the hon. Minister of Public Works and I am afraid he has his facts twisted. As a matter of fact I have learned, as it was easy to learn in the campaign in which I participated in my own province of Quebec, that it was the candidates, speakers and organizers of the friends of the minister-the members of the Union Nationale-who were threatening to cut the old age pension and family allowance payments and that in spite of the fact they were not made by the provincial government. We of the Liberal party certainly never used such threats or suggestions as a means of getting elected anywhere. As far as we are concerned we have been the victims of that kind of electioneering in the province of Quebec. We have been the victims of the strange bedfellows of those who sit on the opposite side of the house today.
Now, the Minister of Public Works has challenged us to explain the $6 increase for old age security, old age assistance, disability pensions, and other pensions which were increased in the spring. Well at that time, if I remember well, the then minister of finance, Mr. Harris, seemed to feel that we could devote the sum of approximately $100 million for increases in the overall field of social security apart from the increases in pensions and allowances for veterans.
It would have been easy for the government of the day to propose that the whole of this increase of $100 million or thereabouts should go for old age security, old age assistance, blind pensions and disability pensions but we thought there was another class of little people which deserved recognition and I hope that the Prime Minister, who according to the Minister of Public Works is so concerned about little people, will during the present session think of these really little people, those who are in receipt of family allowances.


Mr. Balcer:: That is the only election promise you fellows missed.


Jean Lesage: I will mention the election promises of the Solicitor General in a few moments. We thought that the amount available, according to the minister of finance, of about $100 million should be divided between the various classes of recipients of social security payments. The minister of finance at that time, Mr. Harris, had no doubt in mind the fact that the government would be

called upon to spend each year the sum of about $200 million as its share of hospital insurance. I hope the present government has also been thinking of that and it is going to go along with that proposal relating to hospital insurance. It seems very difficult to obtain any assurance from the present government that they do intend to proceed with that hospital insurance program.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There never was any doubt.


Jean Lesage: Well, thank you for the assurance just given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I hope they do not have any trouble finding the necessary money without putting the country into debt.
Now, as I have said, at that time the minister of finance thought he could devote $100 million, part of it to be allotted for old age pensions and part of it for family allowances. The total amount of increase which is proposed today is the same amount as was proposed in the spring by the last administration, approximately $100 million, but all of it goes to the one class of people and there is nothing for family allowances. Why is there nothing for family allowances? Is it that the Conservative party is still against family allowances as we have been led to believe for years and years in the past, and as we were told by a former leader of the opposition?
I was not surprised not to see in the speech from the throne any proposal for an increase in family allowances; I was not surprised that it was not mentioned by the Prime Minister who, according to the Minister of Public Works, is all for the little people; I was not surprised not to hear it mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare; I was not surprised, in spite of the election promises of the Conservative candidates in Quebec and the speakers around them. I have listened to the Solicitor General, who is trying to interrupt me now, over the television promising that the moment the Conservative party was in power it would double family allowances.


Léon Balcer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. On television I accused the Liberals for having kept the family allowance payments at the same amount for at least 10 years. I also mentioned the fact that they gave such a small increase during the last session, and perhaps I should repeat what I said on television-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Jean Lesage: Of course the Solicitor General can enter this debate any time he wishes but what he is doing now is not raising a point of order.
Old Age Security Act


Léon Balcer: Get your facts straight.


Jean Lesage: I have my facts straight; does the Solicitor General not remember that in 1956 he put on the order paper in this house notice of motion asking the government to consider the possibility of increasing the rate of family allowances in proportion to the increase in the cost of living since 1944?


Léon Balcer: That is a fact.


Jean Lesage: Well, I hope then the Solicitor General will convince his colleagues that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the people of Canada and I hope against hope he will so convince his colleagues promptly, so that early next week we will see in the name of the government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare a true copy of his notice of motion of 1956.


Charles Edward Rea: I would just like to remind the hon. members that although I realize there are several resolutions on the order papers which are similar, we have been straying and straying. I hope all hon. members will help me and try to come back a little closer to the resolution we are discussing.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad I have you drawing this matter to our attention, and I can assure you I will confine my remarks to the resolution before the committee.
I think it is obvious to the people of Canada that it is no longer necessary to have in office a government with an overwhelming majority. It is quite certain that if the previous administration had been returned with the sort of majority they had before, old age pensioners would still be compelled to look forward to receiving $46 a month; and I am sure hon. members opposite will not successfully appeal to the Canadian electors and be re-elected with an overwhelming majority such as the Liberals had.
In my opinion we are getting this sort of legislation because the government cannot forever overlook the needs of 800,000 of our citizens. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that Canada has a very interesting scale of pensions. Last year the minister of finance reported in answer to some of my questions that the highest pension available in Canada amounted to $1,041.66 a month. You had to be a retired judge to qualify for that. The highest paid in the Department of National Defence was $1,021 a month, and the highest by the R.C.M.P., $875. Superannuated civil servants can look forward to a maximum pension of $875. If one old Canadian needs $1,041.66 a month it is not easy for me to

Old Age Security Act
understand why the previous administration thought $46 a month was ample for another.
Before turning over the reins of office the previous administration did indicate that they were sorry for some of the people of Canada, and civil service salaries were increased in classifications of grade 6 from $5,460 to $6,300. That seems to be an increase of $75 a month. In grade 7 the increase was from $5,760 to $6,840, a difference of $90 a month. If you had the back luck to be getting a mere $7,000 a year, you received an increase of $1,300 or $100 a month plus a Christmas bonus of $100. I mention these things in passing, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that we did have money in Canada available for some projects. But in dealing with the old age pensioners the previous administration forfeited its right to govern because it stubbornly resisted meeting the responsibilities which they owed to this very large group.
Mr. Chairman, I received in the mail some time ago from an old age pensioner in Toronto, aged 74, a poem which calls attention somewhat graphically to the conditions in which some of these old people live. I spoke about this matter last session, but it was too late for anything further to be done. This is the poem-it is called "A Pensioner's Plea":
You may sing what a lovely day I would like to join if I may But first have mercy on poor me Raise my pension, set me free From the struggle, from the worry So I may live. Oh please do hurry Life that's shortened can't he sweet When our needs are not complete For, it's a pensioner I am And I'm really in a jam My rent nearly bleeds me dry And no matter how I try To live as God meant us to live That forty dollars just won't give Don't leave enough a dog to feed What sort of life must I then lead?
The rich get more, the poor get less Something our maker cannot bless So, gents of Queen's Park, have a heart Remember the poor, do your part.
This poem, "A Pensioner's Plea" was originally addressed to Queen's Park, Ontario but it was sent on to the House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure the fact that so many people felt an increase from $40 to $46 was insufficient proved a major factor in turning out the previous administration. When the hon. member for Essex East was minister in charge of national health and welfare I drew to his attention an article called "Fourteen Days as an Old Age Pensioner", and I suggested that the former minister might be the leader of an all-party delegation which would try to live on a pension of that amount for a couple of weeks.

Now that the hon. member for Essex East has fewer responsibilities than he had previously, and since he could take part without worrying about any reduction in his salary, I suggest he might find it possible now to join such a delegation. I suggest that the new Minister of National Health and Welfare might try to get one member from his party, and perhaps the former minister of national health and welfare could, as I have proposed, represent the Liberal party. I myself would be glad to volunteer as a representative of the C.C.F., and I am sure the Social Credit group would wish to send a volunteer to try living on $55 a month in any Canadian city which the minister cares to designate.
Now I would like to call the attention of hon. members to an interesting article which was written by Mr. William MacEachern, one of the reporters on the staff of the Toronto Star in which he tells about his two weeks' existence with a one burner hot plate, a frying pan, a teapot, $20 and his own resourcefulness. He advertised in the Star for living accommodation and he received a number of replies. However, when he explained that he wanted the room for his grandfather, people opened up with a barrage of questions: "How old is he? Is he in good health? Does he drink? Does he still possess all his faculties? Does he have any chronic ailments?" The author goes on to tell his story, and I quote:
Then I asked my all-important question: "How much?". They quoted a price, usually $10 or over, and I explained, "Well my grandfather is an old-age pensioner, he gets $40 a month, and he is looking for a somewhat cheaper place. He couldn't afford much more than $5 a week." I could almost hear the ice crackling on the wires. Then the inevitable "Oh!", a few hastily muttered apologies, and the click of the receiver.
After two weeks, this young reporter's experience was over. He wrote in his paper:
I walked down the street, turned around at the corner and took a last look at my home for the past few weeks-a home with friendly hearts and cold rooms-a home that symbolized thousands of drab, cold rooms where our country's elder citizens wait for death, death the great repriever, not death the great leveller.
I had three cents in my pocket-the last of a $20 fortune. I tucked two of them away in a little compartment in my wallet-a reminder of 14 long, lonely days. I dropped the third penny into a weighing machine and watched the blurry figures whirl by-it stopped close to 157. When I started my life as an old age pensioner two weeks ago today I weighed 168.
Apparently, the readers of the Star were so interested in these articles that a great many of them wrote letters to the paper giving the author some hints on how he might have tackled the problem. One recommended, for example, that he should eat porridge for breakfast because it was cheap and filling; that he might economize by buying day-old

bread for 12 cents a loaf, and so on. Another chap suggested that he might get the young lads to catch sparrows for him; five sparrows could be bought for a cent, and if the authorities caught you you would not have to spend any of your pension for the next 30 days because during that time you would eat regularly in jail.
Well, the pension is to be increased to $55 and I am sure there is not a member in parliament who will vote against it. It is certain that $55 a month is a big improvement over $46 a month. I think we should not lose sight of the fact that while the Prime Minister was cautious he did give the impression that if he were Prime Minister he would not be satisfied with less than $60 a month.
While the hon. member for Regina City was speaking the Prime Minister suggested that he should quote the record which is exactly what I propose to do at this time. I have with me Hansard of March 28, 1957. When discussing the budget at that time the present Prime Minister, as reported at page 2774 of Hansard of that date, said:
As far as old age pensions are concerned, we believe the increase is totally inadequate for the needy; it is niggardly and paltry.
He was soon interrupted in his remarks but he continued to speak at some length. He was critical of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo who had suggested that the pension should be increased by an amount commensurate with the increase in the gross national product since 1949, which would call for a pension of approximately $75 a month. At page 2781 of Hansard of that date the present Prime Minister is reported as saying:
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that the increase of $6 in old age pensions and the increases in blindness, disability and other pensions was simply a sop to political expediency ... I would be remiss if I were to hold out promises which could not and will not be met.
He made it perfectly clear he was not prepared to support the request for $75 a month but he referred to what has been done in Saskatchewan and mentioned that the Saskatchewan government saw fit to pay up to $60 a month for those in the 65 to 69 age group and gave the impression that because $60 was the maximum in Saskatchewan it would be a fair amount.
Later in the session on April 11 when the house was discussing the proposed increase in pensions I found myself facing a barrage of questions from the Conservatives who at that time were sitting on my right. When participating in the debate I referred to the fact that the present Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Prince Albert, said he could
Old Age Security Act
not support our proposition. As reported at page 3444 of Hansard of that date I said:
The Conservative party has not said anything. There is an election coming on and no member of the Conservative party has set out that their program calls for $48, $49, $50 or $60, or what have you. No one has said this is what our program calls for.
Then an interjection occurred which is not attributed to an identified member. The name of the hon. member does not appear but it is my recollection that it was the present Minister of Finance who interrupted me and said:
Our leader said today $60-what are you talking about?
At any rate the interjection was contributed by a Conservative. I replied:
No, he said something like Saskatchewan.
The hon. gentleman who interrupted me then said:


An hon. Member:: Well that is $60.
Certainly the people of Canada had reason to expect that if the present Prime Minister was the leader of the government the pension would be increased to at least $60 a month.
A brief carefully prepared by the president of the national old age pensions federation has been sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and all members of parliament urging that action be taken to raise the pension to $60 a month payable without a means test to all citizens who have attained the age of 65 years.
I suggest that while the present administration can take a good deal of credit for the fact that the 800,000 people who are in receipt of this pension are going to be given an additional $9 a month I think it must not overlook its firm commitment that the elder citizens of Canada would be given a return that would provide them a fair share of the national income.
The wealth that is available in any country does not belong to the small group of people who happen to be in the prime of life at any particular time. We enjoy the many benefits available now as a result of the sacrifices and contributions made by our parents, grandparents and great grandparents who cleared the bush, opened up the country, built the railways, developed our resources and made possible the establishment of the modern services available to us. Many people find when they reach the age of 45, 50 or 60 they are no longer wanted in this modern age. It is not feasible that we should put our elder citizens on the shelf and deny them a fair share of the goods and services available. In view of the large surpluses of wheat in Canada, the stocks of butter in our stores and the abundant supply of apples and

Old Age Security Act other fruits and vegetables I cannot think of any reason why every elder citizen in this country should be deprived of the maximum quantity of food he requires. Considering the high rents demanded, particularly in our larger centres, there is no doubt that even with a pension of $55 a month many pensioners will be deprived of a balanced and adequate diet.
While I am pleased to support this measure I must say we should not allow the present administration to forget the commitment that was made and accepted in good faith. I hope the government will never forget that one of the major reasons the Liberal government was defeated was because it broke faith with Canada's senior citizens.
(Translation):


Mr. Gour:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words with regard to the resolution now under discussion. To my mind these resolutions on social legislation are most unfair.
I must say that the Conservatives are very lucky, every time they come into power they find that the country is enjoying remarkable prosperity and that its financial situation is very stable. However, I hope that this time they will not do as they did between 1930 and 1935 and that they will not bring this country to the brink of bankruptcy and that, as was the case at that time, people will not be put in a position where they will be unable to provide themselves with the necessities of life.
Mr. Chairman, though I favour improvement of these social measures, I still believe that grave injustice is being done to the people, because no account whatever is being taken of one of the fairest of the social enactments at present on our statute books, family allowances. I believe that the rate of family allowances should have been increased, as was done in the case of the veterans' allowance and old age security benefits.
I therefore favour these resolutions but hope that the Conservatives will not stay long enough in power to ruin this country and thus make it impossible for us to pay out or to increase these benefits.
When we Liberals were administering the affairs of the country, we increased allowances payable under our social security legislation. Had we been re-elected, we would have gladly increased the veterans' allowance as well as old age benefits, not only by $9.00 but by $10 or even $15.00, as soon as the financial position of this country would permit. We would have done likewise with regard to family allowances.


I therefore endorse the resolution on the understanding that the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) will, by next week, submit another resolution increasing family allowances by at least $1.50 a month for each child under 16 years. On this condition, I approve the resolution, and I hope that the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) will be generous enough to propose such an increase.
With all the millions we left in the treasury, it will be easy for the Conservatives to suggest such increases, but the fact remains that they can do so because of the sound administration of the Liberal party, which has given to this country a period of prosperity unequalled in this world.
However, I am afraid that, if my hon. friends opposite remain in control of this country for two or three years, the situation of 1930-1935 will recur, and nothing will remain in the treasury to pay out those benefits. I therefore urge the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare to submit another resolution with a view to increasing family allowances by at least $1.50 a month for each child under 16 years, and this is my only stipulation in approving this resolution. (Text):


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: feel quite sure that the people of my constituency will welcome the gains contained in this resolution, but I think they will feel that the amount proposed is not realistic in terms of the rising cost of living at the present time. I should like to tell the committee very briefly just what that rise in the cost of living means. In the last year alone rising prices, like a thief in the night, have stolen from pay envelopes and pay cheques $3.50 out of every $100. The year before the rise in prices was two per cent, which means that in those last two years $5.50 out of every $100 in a pay envelope, in a pension cheque, in a housewife's budget, has disappeared. And the rise in prices is continuing today, particularly in the last few months, in food prices. In view of that, and in view of the fact that I have not heard one word from the government benches as to how they are coping with this problem at the present time, $9 is simply not adequate. I plead with the government at least to consider the suggestion that has been made that whatever increase is finally arrived at in the bill be subject to periodic increases in accordance with rises in the cost of living.
I think the committee should know that too often increases in the old age pension go not to the pensioners but to landlords. Too

often, as the increase comes out, that increase is literally absorbed by increases in the pensioner's rent. Again, I say, until you have, as you have not today, a low-cost housing program in this country, the proposed increase is inadequate.
I join with those who have asked that the length of permissible absence from Canada be increased, not to six months but increased so that there is not any restriction at all. I think the committee knows that in the United States the pension is payable regardless of residence. I think the same is true of Great Britain, and I think it should be so here, because so often the fact is that a pensioner wants to join his family perhaps living in the United States or in some other part of the world. Often it is a fact, as I know from some cases, that the pensioner is advised on doctor's order to go south to a dry climate, perhaps to Mexico. Today, of course, he cannot take his pension with him.
That pension is something that has been earned and paid for through the taxes that the pensioner has paid, particularly in his working years, and it is not a matter of something being paid by way of charity; it is a matter of a rightful return to the pensioner of part of the wealth that he himself has created in his working years. Therefore, I say, if the pensioners have to move, if they want to move, we should permit them to take their pensions with them.
Finally, I want to comment as favourably as I can upon what was said by the Minister of Public Works in this house. He reminded us that many of these social gains are made from-I think the words were-"prodding and kicking" and I suggest that is as true today as it ever was. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Mackenzie who said that the composition of this house at the present time had something to do with the increases the pensioners are getting now.
Sometimes it is said that a minority government is hard on the members of this house. We never know when we will be wearing out our shoe leather in another election campaign. Perhaps we will work harder for that. Perhaps it is harder for a minority government; but perhaps they will work harder because of that. A minority government may be hard on us in this quarter of the country but I suggest it is a break for the Canadian people. I suggest some of the gains we are getting now are the result of the composition of this house. I suggest it would be a black day for Canada if we had in this house a lopsided majority of Conservative members able to ignore the wishes of the Canadian people. I feel sure that, for future social gains, the people of Canada will 98698-28
Old Age Security Act
very wisely realize that the composition of the parties in this house has a great deal to do with just how much progress is made.
(Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is my duty to deal with this matter, first because I represent a Montreal constituency in which there are two old people's homes: the Gamelin Home and the Sainte-Brigitte Home. The first is under the direction of the reverend sisters of Providence and the other under the Little Sisters of St. Francis. I therefore take this opportunity of expressing to the two religious orders which operate those homes our sincere thanks and our admiration for them.
In rising to take part in this debate, I must first say that I will gladly support the resolution we are discussing, a proposal which will mean a substantial addition to the amount of pension paid to old people. I do so with all the more conviction because in the past I have always stood for an increase in old age pensions. I am therefore consequent when I say that the government is now taking a step in favour of this class of people. It does so no doubt in order to implement campaign promises but that is nonetheless an achievement which we should appreciate at its value.
However, Mr. Chairman, I beware of the Greeks even when they are bearing gifts. I am not too sure how to translate this in Latin but-


An hon. Member:: Timeo Danaos et dona jerentes.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have been speaking Latin in this house and-


An hon. Member:: It is not Latin, it is Greek.


Hector Dupuis: Forgive me; Latin is Greek to me.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I beware of the Greeks even when they are bearing gifts, especially when we consider the stand taken in the past by the Conservative party with regard to various social measures which were proposed in this House.
I support this resolution for a further reason. It is because in my last speech in this house, during the first session of 1957, as you will see on page 507 of Hansard, I took the defence of this class of old people and urged the government to consider the advisability of paying old age pensions when people reached the age of sixty, because old people find it very difficult to obtain employment today.

Old Age Security Act
In fact, it is admitted that today a man of forty does not easily find employment. It is of course all the harder for a man in the sixties. I therefore repeat my request that pensions be paid to old people when they reach sixty years of age unless consideration is given to the advisability of granting pensions to all people aged sixty-five or over without the means test.
However if I rose to take part in this debate, it was not only to approve the government's decision with respect to old people but particularly to blame it, as was done today by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Lesage), for failing to submit any plan to help out large families by increasing family allowances. Admittedly a great many old people are in need of assistance, as all hon. members have agreed. When old people are in need, sometimes their children come to their help, thus filling a duty they owe to their parents. However, in the case of large families, most of the time the breadwinner is alone in assuming the support and care of his family. He is the one who, with very limited resources, must face the numerous problems which beset a large family. It seems to me that while taking care of our older people, we should pay particular attention to the fathers of large families who have difficult problems to solve, problems which crop up from day to day, such as illness in the home.
Every day, or at least every week, people come to our offices to show us hospital bills running up into the hundreds of dollars, which they are in no position to pay because of their insufficient means. That is one of the problems facing the father of a large family who must see to it that his children are clothed and provided with certain necessities so that they may attend school, and on top of that is faced, in case of illness, with very heavy obligations.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we should take particular account of the fate of these large families by considerably increasing family allowances.
And as was stated a moment ago by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, I must say that I doubt we can achieve this result, even though we make the request. If by any chance we did so, I would be the first to rise to congratulate the government on having brought about a reasonable increase in family allowance benefits. Still once more,

I must say that I am very doubtful that this can be brought about if we think of the stand taken by the Conservative party, -and I repeat that-regarding every social security measure introduced by the Liberal party. Let us remember that a few years ago the former leader of the opposition went up and down the province of Ontario saying that he saw no reason why bonuses should be paid to the children of the province of Quebec.
That attitude in itself hampered the efforts of the Liberal leaders who always tried to ensure national unity. Moreover, it was also, -and the word may sound unkind-a callow attitude with regard to the heads of families. It was a lack of understanding in respect of the social issues and the way to handle them.
Mr. Chairman, I was just saying that we have not had any legislation to increase family allowances submitted to us. If, however, our remarks made on this side of the house with regard to social measures had the happy result of bringing about an increase in family allowances, we would be the first to congratulate the government and, at the same time, to recognize the merit of those who would heed our representations.
As some hon. members have already mentioned, the step taken by the Conservative party appears to be very significant. In fact, the government is asking us to vote a sum of about $90 million; now, if I may once again use the words of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, this sum is about equal to the one mentioned at the time of the last estimates, but for both classes, that is our senior citizens and the children. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in closing I repeat that I support the resolution now under consideration, and I would ask the government to consider kindly and seriously, the possibility of increasing the rate of family allowances, because heads of families have to face even more onerous problems than our senior citizens.
(Text):


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to all of this discussion on the resolution and I must admit I am not quite certain whether the government and the official opposition are waging the recent campaign all over again or whether they believe they are now on the hustings ready for the next election.


Hector Dupuis: What are you doing now?


Harold Edward Winch: I shall tell my hon. friend exactly what we are doing. We are the only ones who are repeating the same policy we have been putting forward here year after year.


Hector Dupuis: The same with us.


Harold Edward Winch: My friend says, "The same with us." They seem to have forgotten the spring session already. Boy, wouldn't they like to forget it! We are just following today the policies that we have been continuously outlining, knowing that they are necessary, on behalf of the old people of this country and bit by bit steps are being taken so that perhaps eventually you will catch up with the correct policy which is the C.C.F. policy.
However, I did not rise to speak about that. It was the interjection that brought it up. Let me tell hon. members that unless you come to that policy rather quickly, after the next election there will not be as many of you here as there are now. The reason I have risen to speak is that, ever since the announcement of the introduction of this legislation was made all the mail I have received deals with one phase in particular, already mentioned but I feel it must be mentioned again, and that is the reason why our senior citizens have not received, and apparently are not yet going to receive, the right to spend their pensions wherever they want to spend them. Why, on a humanitarian and generous basis, can the senior citizens not spend the rest of their lives either with their children in the United States or their brothers and sisters in the United Kingdom or where-ever they want to go?
This point has been emphasized, and I merely raise it again so I can ask the minister whether, before the motion is put, he will explain to this house, so the members can explain to their constituents, the reason he will not put this principle into effect. It is not going to cost the government any money, but it does make a few people a lot happier. If the minister is not going to do it, he could at least have the decency to get up and explain why.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to make a very few observations on the proposed legislation and I say at once, sir, I am going to support it. I am going to support it, but it does present a real problem for all of us who are conscientious representatives of constituents on the Atlantic seaboard. The effect of the legislation the government is now proposing will be-perhaps not for anyone more than myself and the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo and Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador to give to the retired adults in many of our communities larger incomes than those of the working 96698-28i
Old Age Security Act
members of their families who have to contribute through the sales tax towards the payment of these pensions.
The Minister of Public Works, with his customary eloquence and his well-known admiration for the Prime Minister-for which we honour him-gets up and tells us how the Prime Minister has devoted his life to the service of the little man. I do not think any of us who represent a constituency in the Atlantic provinces has any doubt who is the real little man in this country. He is the producer in that part of the country by the Atlantic, particularly in my constituency and in the province I represent, where everything that is produced and sold outside of the province, almost without exception, has to be sold outside of Canada in world markets at world prices.
I do not think there are any of us who feel at all ungenerous about doing these things to help the people in other parts of Canada who need help, and we certainly do not begrudge anything to the older citizens. But we do feel that a government that pretends to be treating all parts of Canada equally has to take some account of those people in this country who really have the low incomes. That will not be done just by putting phrases in the speech from the throne, empty phrases at that sir, about national development programs which when you examine them consist merely of two projects that have been discussed for years, and nothing new at all.


An hon. Member:: Nothing was done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some of us represent, as I do, constituencies where the fishery has been poor, where the income is going to be a great deal less than it was a year ago. I am not blaming the government for that but it is a fact, a fact which the government, if it professes to be equally interested in all Canadians in all parts of the country, should be just as much concerned about as they are about the plight of the old age pensioner or the plight of the wheat grower, because a fisherman can starve just as effectively as can a farmer. There are going to be a great many people in the eastern part of this country, fishermen and woodsworkers, who are going to be much worse off this winter than many of the old age pensioners.
I agree quite heartily that this measure is necessary because I am convinced that by spring the old age pensioners are going to need this money badly because the government is making no effort whatsoever to control inflation and to keep down the cost of living. For that reason the pension of $55 is probably not going to be worth much more

Old Age Security Act
by next spring than Mr. Harris' $46 pension was last spring. That is my prediction, and we shall see what we see about it.
I rose for another reason. I did have the honour until June 21 to be the minister of citizenship and it was drawn to my attention on many occasions, when I was serving in that capacity, that there was a real sense of grievance in this country because of the fact that people came here from other countries, became citizens of this country and, having become citizens, having lived here five years or sometimes more than five years but not twenty years, they seemed to be second class citizens because, in respect to old age security, they were not eligible for the benefits. I know the historical reasons for that, and I am speaking only for myself when I say this.
I recognize that the minister probably cannot do so in the case of these other pieces of legislation where the costs are shared with the provinces and where, because there is a means test and for other reasons it perhaps is more difficult to do, but so far as old age security which is paid as a matter of right is concerned, it does seem to me, speaking for myself, that this country is big enough, rich enough and generous enough that the residence limit could be reduced to five years and that old age security could be paid as soon as a person becomes a citizen of Canada.
I recognize that over the next quarter of a century there may be a handful of people who might retire in some other country and come to Canada to take advantage of us but I do not believe this would be a matter of any importance. I do not think it should weigh in the balance in comparison with the feeling of equality that such a change would give to those people who have come here to live, who have become citizens, who have embraced what they regard as our equal citizenship.
I dare say that some hon. gentlemen opposite may say, why did you not persuade your colleagues to do that last year. Well at the risk of being accused of betraying cabinet secrets, I will say that I did try and I was not successful. I am now trying to convince the government opposite and if the minister will do this I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I will give him full credit for it because I think it is the right and proper thing to do. I think it will be done eventually and, because I believe very sincerely that it should be done, it seemed to me it was only right and proper that as a conscientious member of the house I should say so now.


Mr. Hardie:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today from all sides of the house regarding the last election campaign and to whom credit for social legislation of this sort should be given. Today we heard the hon. member for Regina City say that back in 1926 two labour members were responsible for forcing the Liberal government at that time to introduce old age security. He also told the story that the gun was held to the Conservatives' heads but he would rather have had them blown off than do anything about it.
The basis of Liberalism has always been to help the poor people, the little people of the country. Throughout many years as the government of Canada we have introduced legislation for the people in our population who have not done so well. For instance, the budget we brought down last spring totalled approximately $5 billion and of that total budget of $5 billion $1,500 million went to social security. I have no argument today with the amount by which the present government is raising the pension.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: One hundred million went to arts and culture.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: We and all members of the house feel that our senior citizens should be given assistance. I am not arguing about the amount. In the four years since I first entered the house every time we brought in a piece of social legislation or any type of legislation it was always, in the view of the three opposition parties including the present government, too little and too late. Out on the hustings during the last election campaign the C.C.F. party said that they wanted $75 a month. They are not objecting to the bill because it does not make provision for payment of $75. The Social Credit party was going to give pensions of $100 if they were elected and the present government was going to raise the pension to $76.50.


Mr. Montgomery:: Not in New Brunswick.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I have taken this information from the national party advertising that went to every province, including the Northwest Territories. The members of the C.C.F. group particularly have come here and are trying to tell us today that they have forced every government to bring in social legislation of this or any other kind.
The C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan, the only provincial government where these people have any majority, last year paid $575,000 to the old age pensioners of Saskatchewan while the federal government was paying $23 million. For every dollar we spent on old age security in the province of

Saskatchewan the Saskatchewan government paid 2J cents. These people are making a great deal of noise over half a nickel.
In my riding the old age pensioners will be a great deal better off this winter than a large portion of the people who a're able to work. The price of fur as you know has gone down to rock bottom; our lumber industry is shot. These people over the past 10 years have averaged about $400 a year in earnings.


An hon. Member:: The Liberal government's policy.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The Liberal policy

well, I
will tell you something. As far as I am concerned and as far as the people of my riding are concerned, we raised the pensions last year by $6 for all the pensioners of Canada, not only the old age pensioners. We raised pensions by that amount because we thought at that time it was all the taxpayers of Canada could afford.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You thought at that time they would put you back in office and they didn't -that's why you did it.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: We didn't do it for that reason at all.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes, that is what you did it for.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You have tried to fool people that is why we did it.


An hon. Member:: They made a higher
bid over there.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You people made a bid after we left here last year. You made a bid of $76 for pensions, the C.C.F. $75 and the Social Credit as high as $100.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We are bringing our promise into effect.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: It was $76-if you want to read it in your national advertising-with the Prime Minister's picture right on the front. There are several things that should be done by this government to help the people, not only in my riding but the people of Canada generally. Unemployment is facing us every day; the storm signals are up. Yesterday we passed $150 million for the western farmers; today we are going to pass another $96 million for the old age pensioners. We are discussing it but it will pass.
Now I am giving a warning to my friends across the way. They said they were going to cut taxes and do all these things as well. I say this: the storm signals are up boys. Unemployment is increasing every day. Do
Old Age Security Act
not come back next year and ask the people of Canada to increase the taxes. If you do go to the country-


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Yes I will be careful-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That's the only thing you are afraid of, going back to the country.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Oh, no, we are not afraid
of it; oh no.


An hon. Member:: You have to fulfil your promises in the Conservative party. Where is
the haste?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I want to see some of these election promises fulfilled before you go to the country. We do not want to see a budget come down next spring and then have you go rushing to the people with no intention of fulfilling these promises. I am going to support this legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Yes, I am not going to say this lightly-but as I said a moment ago, I am not going to squawk that it is not enough, as you people have done in the past and some of my other friends over there in the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups have done. I am just warning you that I am going along with this because I feel or I think that you may have enough sense to see your way clear to doing this and all the other things-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: -you promised to do, without increasing taxes. However, I really do not think the present government has given any thought to what is going to happen in this country next year, no thought at all. They are bringing in this legislation, $150 million yesterday and $96 million today. We will have a few more handouts and then they will bring in a budget, promising the people of this country a lot of things and will go to the people with all these promises in the budget, having no intention of doing all these things because of the utter impossibility of doing so.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Do you think this looks more foolish than giving $100 million to arts and culture?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Didn't you vote for it?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am not saying that one was any different from the other. I am just saying that you are spending money and you promised a reduction in taxes. You have got a lot of other things to do. Now if you ask questions about cash advances and compare that subject to this one, I want to tell you that you had better do something about

Old Age Security Act
the fur industry and you had better do something about the lumber industry in this country. Yesterday we passed $150 million for one primary producer and forgot about all the rest of them. Today we are passing legislation for the old age pensioners and, as other members have said, we all agree that the people of this country deserve a portion of the national product.
But how about the other people? How about the widows' pensions, how about, as our other friend said, family allowances? Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend speaking today-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You laugh. When you go back to the people next time my boy, or my boys-


An hon. Member:: There will be twice as many of us here.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Oh no, the laugh is going to be on the other side of your faces because somebody has got to pay for all the things you people are going to do, or have promised to do. I do not think you can come through with one-fifteenth part of the promises you made to the people of this country. I do not think that this party lost the election over the $6 increase in the old age pensions.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What did they lose it over?


An hon. Member:: You outpromised us.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The phony promises you monkeys over there on the other side of the house have made, but while you can fool people some of the time, you cannot fool them all the time.


Colin Cameron: Many years ago when I was a small child I was taught that courtesy, besides being the ethical thing to do also paid big dividends and I discovered the truth of that this afternoon when I made way for my hon. friend the member for Mackenzie River because if I had not done so I would not have had the privilege of listening to him before I made my own speech. I really must deal with some of his gems to start with.
I am rather astonished that the hon. member who said only six months ago that all the taxpayers of Canada could afford would be $46 per month-and that was the reason why he supported his government at that time-now, six months later, has decided that the taxpayers can afford $55 a month, because he tells us he is going to support this measure.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I qualified that statement.
[Mr. Hardie.l


Colin Cameron: In addition to that he has spared no pains to point out what is obvious to everyone I imagine, even to the government, that economic conditions have worsened since the time the previous government brought in the $46 measure, a strange concept, it would seem to me, of his responsibility as a representative of the people. One of his primary duties is to keep a careful watch on public expenditures; to see that they are wisely made and that they are not in excess of the capacity of the Canadian economy. Feeling as he does, I cannot understand why he is supporting this measure.
I, on the other hand, am quite confident that not only can the Canadian economy well afford the increase which the government is proposing, but that it can well afford a great deal more. I would point out that in 1949, when the $40 pension was established, our gross national product stood at $16.4 billion. Today, in 1957, it stands, according to the latest figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics a few days ago, at $31.7 billion, a figure which is almost double the gross national product in 1949.


George Carlyle Marler: In what year is the hon. member beginning his calculations?


Colin Cameron: In the year the $40 pension was established.


George Carlyle Marler: 1951?


Colin Cameron: 1949.


George Carlyle Marler: It was established in 1951.


Mr. Studer:: What percentage of the national wealth came from the socialists?


Colin Cameron: I would suggest-though I can quite understand their reluctance to do so-that former ministers of the cabinet should make their own speeches rather than interrupt those of others.


George Carlyle Marler: I was not interrupting; I was
asking a question.


Colin Cameron: I am telling the hon. member that the gross national product in 1949, when the $40 pension was established, was $16.4 billion. Today it stands at $31.7 billion, which is an increase of nearly 84 per cent, if my calculations are correct. On that basis alone the figure we presented in this house earlier this year of $75 as a reasonable level for the old age pension would have been well justified, because on the basis of the proportion of the gross national product devoted to these social services the pension today should be $74.88.
There is, of course, another manner by which we might calculate the real value of the pension being paid. As I myself placed on record earlier this year, the $46 pension

which was brought in last session was actually only $37.18 in terms ol the 1949 dollar. Today it is rather less than that. Today, owing to the continual rise in the consumer price index, that pension amounts to $37.26 in terms of the 1949 dollar, and this new increase will, if my calculations are correct, bring it up to some $45 in terms of the 1949 dollar. So we are apparently going to give our old age pensioners some five real dollars more than they were getting when they were receiving a $40 pension.
It is suggested we cannot afford any more. So that we shall not be relying entirely on statistical evidence, I want to refer to a news item which appeared in the Ottawa Journal yesterday, datelined from Vancouver. This, I am sure, will be of great interest to the Conservative members of this house because it refers to a speech made by a Conservative member of the Ontario legislature in Vancouver, addressed to a number of fellow real estate operators. He advises the benighted inhabitants of British Columbia, to which province I belong, to focus their efforts on encouraging the immigration into British Columbia of the working classes because, as this gentleman said, there is no place there for a rich man to spend his money.
I am quoting that, Mr. Chairman, in order to prove that we apparently have in our midst a number of people who experience some difficulty in finding avenues of expenditure for their incomes. Speaking as a British Columbian, of course, I must confess to a certain sardonic and, perhaps, slightly snobbish amusement that a Toronto real estate operator should find the social and economic opportunities in British Columbia so limited. Admittedly there may be less opportunity in my province for the sort of vulgar ostentation which some people seem to regard as the outward mark of social fitness, although we do have a few millionaires ourselves. But I can assume that we have in this country now, by their own confession, people who may well feel that with their rather limited concept of the purpose of human life and in order to function properly in society they must find avenues for conspicuous spending. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I think it is rather too early for us to suggest that the Canadian economy cannot afford the sort of pension which this group has been advocating over the past two years.
We are told, of course, that it is dangerous to increase it any further because of the danger of inflation. Unfortunately, the rug was pulled from under that argument by the man we hire to look after our money supply in Canada, the governor of the Bank of
Old Age Security Act
Canada, who earlier this year told us that the inflationary pressures, with which he was very much concerned, and about which I would remind the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the previous government did nothing, were caused by the vast, booming capital expenditures. He was even more specific when he pointed out that consumer spending, even those types of consumer spending which are based on a vast, inflated consumer credit, did not add materially to the inflationary pressures. So I suggest that the argument that we cannot afford to give more to the old age pensioners because of the danger of inflation has been exploded by the one person in Canada who has the best right to explode it.
There are, of course, many other drains on our economy which may make it difficult for us to provide older citizens with a more generous income. We have the drain of a continuing high level of corporation profits. We have-and this was brought very forcibly to our attention earlier this year-the scandalous situation in which there is no taxation whatever on capital gains of any consequence, as a result of which people are able to acquire fortunes without contributing to the economy from which those fortunes were drawn. We have expenditures on rather dubious measures of defence in this age of the sputnik which consume some 40 per cent of the revenues of this government, and we have not heard any suggestion from this government yet that they propose to consider these expenditures in a realistic manner in the light of the disturbing developments which have become evident in the last few months.
These are the places, Mr. Chairman, to which I suggest, if we really are concerned about our responsibility for senior citizens, we should turn for funds to provide an amelioration of their condition. In my part of the world, history tells us that the original British Columbians had a very brusque and efficient way of dealing with the problems of old age: they used to take their old people out to sea, put them on a rock at low tide to wait until the tide came in and thus solve the economic problem.
Perhaps there was a justification for it in a period in which the life of the tribe depended on every member of it being able to pull his or her weight but that is not the case in Canada today. We have actually and potentially a rich economy which can well afford to pay to the old people of this country something that will at least enable them to subsist on a reasonable basis.
I know the arguments, of course, that the old age pension is not intended to provide

Old Age Security Act
all the income of elderly people, that throughout their lives people should save enough to have at least a partial income at retiring age. Unfortunately for that argument statistics again show that the possibility of doing that is very limited. In fact, one of the ways in which the insurance companies in Canada sell their wares is to publish tables as to the fate of those who reach certain ages in our society and by that means they persuade a certain number of people to invest some of their funds in insurance policies. However, if one examines the report of the superintendent of insurance one finds the rather shocking fact that over $1 billion of life insurance lapsed last year presumably because the policyholders were unable to keep up their payments.
After all, Mr. Chairman, one does not need statistics to know perfectly well that the vast majority of people who reach the age of 70 have no savings on which to live and that whether we like it or not and however much it may outrage the exponents of initiative and thrift the fact remains that our economy is of such a nature that the greater proportion of our citizens are unable to provide for their declining years and you and I who are benefiting from the economy are the ones who should be deciding to make those declining years at least measurably comfortable.
Like the hon. member for Mackenzie River I am going to support this measure but I have a more logical reason for doing so. I think we can well afford it and I believe it is disgraceful that we are not doing more. I am quite sure that by the time the old age pensioners realize just what is the actual size of the $55 they are going to be given in terms of what it will buy in the market today, this government is then going to be faced with exactly the same demands as were made of the previous administration and they will come not only from old age pensioners.
The first time I realized the Liberal government was in serious trouble during the last election campaign was when I spoke at a construction job in my constituency. I had a number of friends working on that job, men with whom I had worked myself, and before I got up to speak one of the men told me, "I advise you to bear down heavily on the subject of old age pensions. The boys are burnt up about it". In the main these were young single men and when I discovered that this was their great bone of contention with the Liberal government I then realized that the Liberal party was in serious trouble. I suggest the Conservative party will find itself in serious difficulty also particularly if it takes no steps-and I am not in a position to say

what those steps should be-to curb and control the rapacity of landlords who rent accommodation to old age pensioners.
A day or so ago I received a letter from an old lady in Vancouver who told me that some of these landlords are certainly taking time by the forelock and the moment the word came out from Ottawa that the pension was going to be increased to $55 a month many of their tenants were informed that their rent would be increased as soon as their first cheque came in. These are the realities of this question of the old age pension.
I was glad to hear the minister say the other day that he was not pretending that this increase was anything in the nature of generosity on the part of the government. I have always maintained that no government is really generous whatever it does because it is not spending its own money and you can only be generous with your own funds. At that time he was basing the increase on the principle of justice but I suggest that in an economy such as ours virtually bursting with real and potential wealth, there is no justice in old men and women living in the rabbit warrens of brokendown houses in every large city of Canada existing on the old age pension as it is today or as it will be tomorrow when it reaches $55. There is no justice there and it constitutes a sore in the heart of our society from which we must all suffer.
I hope, therefore, that when or if our new government finally decides to bring down a budget in this house it will be one which in this connection will be based more firmly on the economic realities of Canada than is the present increase to $55 a month which, as I said, in terms of real dollars at the time when old age pensioners got $40 is only some $45.60.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, the debate thus far has demonstrated, I would say more than any other thing, that people in Canada have everything to gain from a minority government. At long last they are getting from the government the kind of legislation to which they have looked forward. The only thing that seems to have suffered, in my opinion, is parliament because we have been subjected to long harangues of political reasoning as to what somebody did in 1926, 1930, 1934 or 1944 or whatever the year might be.
It is not my intention to speak at too great length at this time but I would like to deal with a few points the minister mentioned when he introduced the resolution. As reported at page 385 of Hansard of October 24 the minister said:
The proposed changes are:
(1) an increase in the rate of benefit to $55 a month.

I am immediately caused to wonder just how the government arrived at the figure of $55 a month. The hon. member for Mackenzie River told us that Conservatives in his riding were advertising that the old age pension was going to be set at $76.50. I have no reason to disbelieve him but I would point out that in my own riding the Conservative candidate indicated it would be at least $60 a month. I cannot say how he arrived at that figure either. The hon. member for Mackenzie River also indicated that the C.C.F. party had advocated $75 a month and the fact is they brought in a resolution last year to that effect which I supported. He went on to say, however, that the Social Credit group had indicated in its brochure that it would pay $100 a month.
For the benefit of the committee and of Canadians generally I think we should keep some semblance of reasonableness with regard to this matter and with this in mind I propose to read from a Social Credit pamphlet entitled "It's Your Canada-The New National Policy With Social Credit". It contains a photograph of the Reverend A. B. Patterson and suggests that people might do well to vote for him which they did and we are extremely grateful to them for this. The fact is they did a fine job in supporting this party.
On page 8 of the pamphlet we read this:
$100-a-month pension.
Social Credit will make available an old age pension of $100 a month


George Carlyle Marler: Just the way they do in Alberta.


Frederick George Hahn: A little louder, please.


George Carlyle Marler: I said, just the way they do in Alberta.


Mr. Patterson:: Just hold the phone, boy, and you'll get it.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: You would do well to pattern yourselves after them.


Frederick George Hahn: The former minister of transport is his usual jovial self, I see. He will have an opportunity of taking part in this debate later, I am sure.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Not too jovial.


Frederick George Hahn: Well, I have always found him jovial. I continue reading from this pamphlet:
This can be achieved at once by increasing the basic federal pension to $60, with an additional $40 for those in need.
I think that is somewhat different from suggesting that all old age pensioners will
Old Age Security Act
receive $100 a month. The pamphlet concludes by saying that this sum of $40 will be made up of equal contributions from Ottawa and the provinces.
The hon. member for Red Deer indicated earlier that his province of Alberta was paying $15 a month as a supplementary allowance to bring the pension in that province to $70. I am very happy to say that my own province is paying $20 a month in the form of a supplementary allowance, which will increase the pension to $75. I am quite satisfied that the government of my province will pass legislation which will ratify these changes and make any changes that may be necessary to bring the pension of those in need up to $75.
However, I come back to this same question. How did we arrive at those particular figures? Last session when we had our dear Liberal friends in the government seats on this side of the house they told us that all the country's economy could stand was a pension of $46 a month; that the total increase had to be $6. Despite all the increased unemployment that our friends cry about and that we know seems to be apparent we suddenly find ourselves in the position where this government is proposing to pay $55 a month. I am just wondering how these things can be done? I would not like to suggest for one moment, because I do not believe it, that we are not in a position to pay a higher pension than $55.
I notice the Minister of National Health and Welfare himself said at page 385 of Hansard:
We do not say that it is the final or perfect solution, or that there is any magic rightness about this particular amount.
I would agree with him, but I would suggest that possibly after we pass this bill and give the benefit of it to those who are to be the recipients of the money to be provided by it we should set up a committee in this house to discover exactly how far we can go in this and in other fields of social legislation so that we do not go back to the people as political parties and pretend that we can pay a sum which is out of keeping with the prosperity and ability of the nation as a whole. Certainly it is high time that we took the lives of people out of politics and came back to an actuarial basis and tried to have some reasonableness, some common-sense basis for what we are paying.
I think we can do much better than $55 a month, but that is not going to stop me from voting for this resolution and the bill because I consider that $55 is better than $46.

Old Age Security Act
The second point raised in the minister's speech was the reduction in the basic residence requirement from 20 years to 10 years. I would take no exception to that; I would agree that that part of the legislation is probably well advised.
Third, and equally important, is the extension from three months to six months in the length of time which the pensioners are free to spend outside of Canada in any calendar year without losing their pensions. The hon. member for Vancouver East told the committee that he had received considerable correspondence in respect of the possibility of people getting their pensions outside of Canada, not just for three months or six months but for the full year. They consider it is their right and they should have the right to collect what they have paid in, or more than that, because this is after all an insurance fund that they have paid into. Some of us may feel that we shall never collect it; others of us are more hopeful. There are some in the committee who receive it as of right. I take issue with the thought that we should make it available only to those who reside within Canada for a period of six months. In effect, all we are telling these people is that if you are wealthy enough to travel to Arizona or California from New Westminster or Vancouver in British Columbia, or from any other province, for that matter, you can stay there for six months and enjoy the benefits of this increased old age pension, but if you are not wealthy enough you will have to stay right where you are, stay put, because we cannot afford to give you that $55 in a foreign land for a full year.
I maintain, and I think the reasoning is sound, that since these people have contributed, since many of the members in this house, I am sure all, have contributed in one way or another, we would wish-certainly I would wish-that the minister could see fit to change the six months to the period of one year. It may be that when he answers later he can tell us how he arrived at the figure of six months. Our dear old Liberal government, the one which is past and gone and which seems doomed to unhappier days, if I interpret press reports correctly and would-be prognosticators of the fate of parties, thought that three months was the limit. It would appear that the minister might be well advised to tell the committee how he arrived at the figure of six months as compared with the three months that the former government had permitted.
I have only one other point which will take just one moment. The hon. member for Red Deer raised a question as to the figure


of $960 being used as the ceiling on allowable earnings plus the pension. I, too, would ask the same question. How did the government arrive at $960? Certainly it would seem not at all unreasonable to me, though perhaps I do not understand these things as well as some hon. members, that the figure should be $1,000. Why is it not $1,000, which is the income tax exemption for a single person? It does seem to me that if we can make it $960 we should be able to make it $1,000.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to answer one or two questions. The last speaker asked some questions about the income, and that sort of thing. I think these questions could be more readily dealt with at the committee stage of the bill, when I shall have my figures available and be able to give them at that time. There have been several members, including the hon. member who has just spoken, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East who, incidentally-


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. gentleman allow me; I take it he wants to deal with some questions that have been asked. I notice it is five o'clock.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, you cut me off very nicely. I did want to answer a couple of questions before five o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: Honestly, I do not want to interrupt the minister. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to answer those questions when we are on the bills. I understand there are not many and there is a likelihood of their being completed in a short time, or so I am informed; I may be wrong. Then perhaps the minister could go on with his statement, because it is hardly fair to the minister and to the committee to be allowed only a few seconds to deal with the questions.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Five o'clock.


Charles Edward Rea: Since the standing orders provide for the consideration of private and public bills at five o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day, or at the next sitting of this house, whichever will permit?
Progress reported.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide for jurisdiction in the handling of flax and rye.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of satisfaction I have the pleasure of placing before this house Bill No. 10 for the consideration of hon. members. Those hon. members who were here last year will recall that I introduced a similar bill at that session. This bill is for the purpose of amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to bring flax and rye within the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and thus eliminate speculation with respect to these grains.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that this explanatory note in no way encompasses the full significance of this amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I have purposely drafted this amendment in such form that it will in no way interfere with the present Canadian Wheat Board Act except to introduce a new part V, the effect of which is to give further effect to part III and IV. This will mean placing flax and rye along with oats, wheat and barley under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board.
Hon. members who are not familiar with the conditions of grain marketing in Canada will perhaps ask why it is that the western farmers are demanding the inclusion of more of their grains under the Canadian wheat board. At the outset I may say the reason is, first, that farmers generally in the prairie provinces are very happy with their experience in marketing grain through the Canadian wheat board. This amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act will, of course, in no way be a precedent and in no way a major deviation from the work of the Canadian wheat board in the past. As a matter of fact, during the period 1943-44 to 1946-47, the Canadian wheat board did in fact have flax under its jurisdiction. I might say that I am happy to have the honour and privilege of bringing this bill before the house because it does, in effect, bring before the members a move in the direction of orderly marketing which has been long sought by farm organizations.
I should like to give credit to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its president, Mr. Herb Hannam, for the support given the principle which is now before us. In the presentation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the cabinet in February, 1956, there is this:
As has been done in past years, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture would also request that flax and rye be marketed through the Canadian wheat board, so that these grains may benefit from the orderly marketing policies, and increase price stability that board marketing provides.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
This amendment, therefore, to the Canadian Wheat Board Act is favoured by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I should like to give credit also to the Interprovincial Farm Union for favouring the principle that flax and rye should be included in the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. I may say that this C.C.F. group is happy and proud now to have with us the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz), who was formerly the president of the Interprovincial Farm Union. This organization has gone on record year after year in favour of the inclusion of these two grains in the marketing policies of the Canadian wheat board.
There is a very good reason why farmers generally favour the larger pooling of their grain for marketing purposes. The farmers have had a long struggle in trying to get some price stability and some orderly type of marketing. They have been subjected to vicious fluctuations in price over the years. Questions may be asked as to why farmers are in favour of this proposal. If hon. members will give some attention to the problems of the farmer, they will readily see that it is necessary to market grain through the specialized agencies in order to gain stability and control prices. Farmers generally do not want a feast or a famine. They have to cope with all the elements of weather, such as drought and hail. However, there is something that can be done for the farmer, aside from stabilized prices.
The farmers' problem in regard to these two great commodities is complicated on the open market. A year ago the federal government put flax under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. Speaking directly to this government I can say that probably so far as western Canada is concerned the result of the June 10 election and the defeat of many members of the Liberal party in western Canada was probably due to the fact that the government failed to have any close liaison with the thinking of farm organizations generally. I recall that when it was announced a year ago by the former minister of trade and commerce-for whom I have a great deal of respect but who I think had far too much work to handle to cope with it properly- that flax would be put under the jurisdiction of the board, I asked him if this was a deviation from former policy. He said no, that had been the practice just the crop year prior to that.
Of course, the following day he had to get up and announce that he had been wrong.
From that time onward, when flax was put under a quota and it was made impossible for farmers to decide on their own initiative when they should market their grain, the
436	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act farmers have been in the position that they are not able to market that grain except under a quota established by the Canadian wheat board. Of course, one other reason for the amendment being introduced at this time is the fact that over the past few years in western Canada congestion has made it impossible for the farmers to deliver flax and rye to the elevators at the time of their choice.
As I said earlier, the farmers want stability of prices and I should like to indicate to the house some of the price trends that have taken place. I have here a graph prepared by the Coarse Grains Quarterly, Sanford Evans grain trade year book, which indicates the average monthly prices of flax and rye for the crop year 1955-56. I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that while earlier the price of flax had been $3.40 a bushel it dropped to less than $3 by August; that it climbed to a high of about $4.15 in February and again dropped back in June to $3.40. Similar price fluctuations occurred in the case of rye. I would be very pleased, Mr. Speaker, if I could have the unanimous consent of the house to place this graph on the record because it does show in a much more graphic way than I can explain to the house the price trends for the crop year 1955-56.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the document that the hon. member wishes to place on the record?


Edward George McCullough: This is a Sanford Evans grain trade graph and the source is the Coarse Grains Quarterly.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the leave of the house to place this graph on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward George McCullough: The graph follows:
(The appendix will be inserted in Monday's Hansard. See page 497.)
Various arguments were put forward by the former government as to why it did not see fit to include flax and rye under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. I see the former minister of agriculture is in the house. Perhaps he will recall some of the arguments we had in this chamber when he was the minister and we in this group and other members were trying to get the inclusion of oats and barley under the jurisdiction of the wheat board. In the period from 1945 to 1948 different spokesmen for the government put forth various arguments why they would not and could not see fit to do so.


Finally, in 1949 or 1950 the house did pass enabling legislation and when similar legislation was passed by the provinces the Canadian wheat board was able to deal with these grains. I think the chief argument against the proposal during the period when we were struggling to get these two grains included was that oats and barley went into interprovincial trade and therefore were not commodities which could be included under federal control.
Further to my argument, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the two commodities which I now urge the house to include under the jurisdiction of the wheat board are important for other reasons. The first is that on a relative basis exports of flax and rye have indeed been greater than exports of oats and barley in some years. I have here a table taken again from the Sanford Evans grain trade year book which gives the exports for the crop years from 1949-50 to 1955-56 inclusive.
I find that in the crop year 1949-50 exports of rye were 131 per cent of production and exports of flax for the same period were 148 per cent of production. In other words, there was a draw on existing stocks within the country. For the year 1955-56 the export percentage of rye was 97 per cent and the export percentage of flax was 55 per cent. If we compare oats and barley for the same crop periods we find that in 1949-50 the export percentage of barley was 14 per cent and that of oats only 6 per cent. Taking the crop year 1955-56 we find that the export percentage of barley was 26 per cent and that of oats 1 per cent. This does indicate that on a relative basis exports of flax and rye hold a very high importance.
To deal with income from these two farm products, I have here a table which should be of great interest to those wishing to ascertain the importance of this matter to our prairie farmers. This table is prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics and shows the cash income from coarse grains for the years 1949 to 1955 inclusive. In 1955 prairie farm income from the sale of rye was $6,325,000 while in 1952 it was $23,380,000. In the year 1955 the income from flax was $40,021,000 and in 1952 it was $29,912,000.
These figures show the comparative importance with oats and barley. It is a very short table but again, if I may, I should like to have the unanimous consent of the house to place it on Hansard. It shows, as I said, the income from the four grains I have mentioned for the years 1949 to 1955 inclusive. May I have the permission of the house?


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of opposing the request but because I believe it is customary in such cases for the hon. member wishing to place a table of figures on the record to state the sources from which the information is drawn.


Edward George McCullough: The source is the dominion bureau of statistics.


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


Edward George McCullough: The table follows:



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
Prairie Farm Income-Coarse Grains
1949-1955 (000 of Dollars)
Year	Rye	Flax	Oats	Barley1955	
6,325	40,021	29,048	83,2371954	
11,532	19,669	50,768	93,9751953	
13,331	18,573	66,828	144,3591952	
23,380	29,912	85,199	151,8371951	
12,505	17,270	63,906	90,0621950	
10,724	9,081	50,346	71,0981949	
13,907	14,648	54,888	61,048
Source: D.B.S. Farm Cash Income-1955.
Marketing of flax in 1955-56, Mr. Speaker, totalled 15J million bushels and it is significant that approximately 77 per cent of that amount was delivered between August and November, a four-month period. The price range during that four-month period was $3.02 to $3.25 a bushel. I should like to compare that with the price in March. All hon. members who are acquainted with conditions in western Canada will know that we often have very severe weather in that month and that it is impossible for the farmers to haul out their grain. With the price for flax at $4.16 a bushel which was the high during that period, only 400,000 bushels were delivered at that price.
I believe there perhaps should be more main reasons given in summarizing why the former government did not see fit to include flax and rye in the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. I believe further that over the years the argument has been put forth in this house that it would overwork the officers of the Canadian wheat board and I have already indicated that the Canadian wheat board did in fact handle flax during the period 1942-1943 to 1946-1947. After that of course it was handled for a year by the Canadian wartime prices and trade board. Another reason why I think the former government did not see fit to bring these two products under the Canadian wheat board was that they wanted to leave the door open for speculation on these grains. In other words they wanted to leave the operation of the
Canadian Wheat Board Act Winnipeg grain exchange in such a way that the type of speculating to which I have referred could continue.
I do not want to dwell for a long time on this argument but I would like to say that the western farmers over the years have fought to stop speculation in their products and I hope every hon. member in this house will see fit to support me and those in this group in this move to bring under the control of orderly marketing, at long last, these other two farm commodities. I say this because I feel in doing so it will have the effect of stopping the speculation in the farmers' crops on the Winnipeg grain exchange and, in essence, will stop the gambling on farm products.
I think the former minister of trade and commerce has argued that these two crops, flax and rye, are after all small crops and therefore are insignificant and do not require the attention of the government in order to put them under an orderly marketing system. Well, I think my arguments this afternoon would indicate that such is not the case. Flax in particular has become a very important crop in western Canada and when you consider that the acreage of flax in that part of the country has risen from 1,030,000 acres in 1941 to 3,970,000 acres in 1956 you will very readily see the importance of this crop in western Canada.
I should like in my argument to put forward one other point in regard to price fluctuation. In 1948, as an example, when flax was under the control of the Canadian wheat board and a fixed amount was paid to the farmer as an additional participation payment, the farmers of western Canada received $5.50 a bushel for their flax in that crop year. Rye, which was left on the open market, for that crop year averaged $3.74J a bushel. However, by 1951 flax had remained at a relatively fair price contrasted with rye, which started to decline most disastrously and by 1954 was selling for 99 cents a bushel. Then last year, 1956, the average price of flax fell to $3.60 a bushel. Now I think it is only fair to the western farmer, who has gone along with the former government and to the two farm organizations which are attempting to get the ear of this new government, that we see some action in this important matter. While the former government seemed indifferent, not only to matters of this kind but to the cost-price squeeze facing farmers and so on, this new government we hope will see fit to meet the demands of organized agriculture. We hope they will also meet other demands coming from the representatives of the prairie farming area.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I may say that I wrote to every municipality in the province of Saskatchewan and the replies I received to the question whether or not they were in favour of the inclusion of flax and rye under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board were practically unanimous. In summing up my arguments I might say this:	the farmer wants, first,
orderly marketing of these two grains along with his other commodities; secondly, he wants stability of price which can be achieved through orderly marketing by the Canadian wheat board; thirdly, that these grains should be recognized as forming an important part of the export trade; and lastly of course- and this is extremely important-the farmers do not want speculation in their products. What they produce of course is after all the food of the world. I hope with that due consideration will be given to this proposal for a change in the Canadian Wheat Board Act and that I shall receive widespread support in the house in this respect.
Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: wish to commend the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) for again introducing this bill before the house, namely the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make it possible for flax and rye to be marketed through that board.
We in this group for many years have argued that the marketing of flax and rye should be placed under the control of the Canadian wheat board. We have for years recognized the fine work which has been done by that board, working in the interests of those farmers of western Canada who produce wheat, oats, and barley. It is our feeling that farmers producing the other two major grains of the west, namely flax and rye, should be given the same consideration as those producing wheat, oats and barley. We have, as I pointed out, supported the Canadian wheat board down through the years, even though at times we have criticized the marketing policies which the Canadian wheat board has been forced to follow as a consequence, I might say, of the trade policies laid down by the former administration.
We sincerely hope the new administration will see fit to embark upon an entirely new trade policy as far as the marketing of our grains is concerned. The wheat board did away with the vicious fluctuation of prices which occurred for many years in connection with the marketing of our wheat, oats and barley. I can remember as a young lad, coming home from school, immediately getting onto a grain tank and hauling a load of grain to the town so that my dad would be able to receive the high prices for his wheat which were prevalent in the month

of September. We knew full well that unless he got that wheat on the market in September he would be forced to take a lower price in October or November. The Canadian wheat board ended that situation. Prices, as I have pointed out, have been stabilized as far as those three grains are concerned.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain has pointed out the terrific fluctuation of prices which occurred in the prices of flax and rye during the crop year 1955-56. He pointed out that the price of flax rose from a low of $2.97 to high of $4.16. The price received for rye varied from 87 cents to $1.30.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it was not by accident that this low price for rye was reached in a period when it was impossible for the farmers of western Canada to deliver their grain. At the present time they often find it impossible to deliver their grain to the particular elevator they deal with, impossible because the elevator man is unable to accept flax and rye at that time. Farmers are not permitted daily freedom of decision in taking advantage of favourable market conditions.
Again, it has been suggested that farmers should stop growing wheat and grow other grain. If this suggestion is to be pursued it would mean that more and more farmers in western Canada would be turning their land over to flax and rye, and the need for a stabilized market would be further accentuated. As the hon. member for Moose Mountain has pointed out, farmers' organizations from western Canada have urged for years that the marketing of these two grain products, flax and rye, should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board.
Representations were made to the previous administration on many occasions but seemed to fall on deaf ears. I know that representations were made to the new government on August 15 of this year, and I sincerely trust that our new government will see fit to support this particular bill which was so ably introduced by the hon. member for Moose Mountain.


Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not usual for an hon. member who has made his maiden speech the day before to feel he should get up and make another speech the following day. However, as a farmer from the west, this problem vitally interests me as a person, and is certainly of great consequence to the people I represent.
Though I am only a new member of this house, I understand that this is a matter which has been debated in the course of a number of years during previous parliaments

and that it has, in a way, become more or less a perennial affair. This particular bill has been sponsored by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) on several previous occasions. At the time he last introduced it we had, of course, a different government and a different minister of trade and commerce. The position taken by the minister of trade and commerce and his colleagues at that time was that they would not have anything to do with putting rye and flax under the jurisdiction of the board, and since this attitude was not further discussed by other hon. members of his party I presume it could be taken as expressing the official position of the government of that day.
Now Mr. Speaker, in discussing this question with officials of the wheat board as I have done on several occasions, I found that during the period of congestion in the elevator system they have been reluctant to take on responsibility for handling any further grain, and it has apparently been their attitude that as long as this surplus position continues it would be wiser to leave the matter as it is today.
The Conservatives took the position three years ago at a conference in Saskatchewan of western members-this was an informal conference not involving party policy-that it would be better to leave flax on the open market as a barometer which would tell farmers whether the wheat board was doing a good job or not.
The farm organizations, though generally favourable to flax and rye being handled by the board were not completely in agreement. On the surface they were in agreement, but some of their officials were not completely in accord for the reason that in their opinion no further burden should be placed on the wheat board at this time of serious congestion. Such an attitude would be especially understandable now that the board is being asked to handle the cash advance. The farmers themselves are divided as to the feasibility of placing responsibility for flax and rye on the wheat board-but I believe the majority favour it.
My own opinion-and I am here to express my own opinion-and I think it is also the opinion of the people whom I represent, is that desirable as it may be to have these two grains under the control of the board it would be asking too much to instruct the board to undertake such a responsibility, having regard to the prodigious amount of detail which would be involved in this present crop year, especially, as I have previously pointed out, at a time when officials of the board would be reluctant under present circumstances to take on further obligations.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I do not bring up these points with any purpose of placing anything in the way of this bill. If it can be shown to this house that it is practical this year, in the circumstances I have indicated, then I think we should give the matter further consideration. But these are some of the questions to which hon. members in this house have not had answers up to the present time. We have listened to a large number of statistics, read by the hon. member for Moose Mountain in very great detail. I am sure that to the majority of hon. members they did not convey too much meaning, taking them as he was giving them orally.
It could be that one way to resolve this issue would be for the committee on agriculture to hold hearings on it. Everyone concerned could then make a submission and, in consequence, the committee would perhaps be in a position to assess intelligently the issues involved and come back to the house with the proper answers. In other words, Mr. Speaker, what I have said is, briefly, this: desirable as it may be to have these grains under the control of the board when the board is functioning in normal conditions, I do not think we should ask these people to take on this extra burden now, especially as during the next few days, when the bill providing for cash advances is passed, they will be asked to handle a tremendous amount of detailed work in connection with that proposal since a very large percentage of the flax has been sold this year. I think we should give the board an opportunity to get this load of other grains off its back before we pile another on top of it. However, if that answer does not appeal to all hon. members-and I am sure it is reasonable- then I suggest that a committee of this house investigate every possibility before we make any rash moves.
I would conclude by expressing the hope that the committee will be in agreement with me that we can resolve this question, but should not do so in haste and as a result do something to injure the operations of the wheat board which I am sure the majority of the hon. members of this house would not wish to do.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) has so adequately and comprehensively laid this matter before the house it will not be necessary for me to go into any great detail. I am sure it is a matter of satisfaction to him and to those he represents that he has already been commended by hon. members on the other side of the house for having brought

Canadian Wheat Board Act this bill before it and given hon. members an opportunity to express in principle their opinion upon it.
Naturally we are most interested to hear the attitude of the government on this question and I assume that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) who was the first spokesman in his party to speak about it did so on behalf of his government. If that is so there is good room for hope that this bill is going to carry this day because the hon. member recommended-on behalf of the government no doubt-that the bill go to a committee.
Of course the only way this bill can go before a committee is to be adopted on second reading and then it can go to the committee for close study and be further considered as to detail and I believe that procedure is the one we should adopt. That would also meet the reservation expressed by the hon. member who preceded me in relation to the attitude of the wheat board itself because if this bill is now adopted in principle and sent to a committee the members of the wheat board or any other officials who are interested, including representatives of the farm organizations, could appear before that committee and state their opinions and offer suggestions as to the details of the bill.
I hope the vote on this bill will be favourable. I am sure that at least one member of the Progressive Conservative party must be thoroughly in support of this legislation. I refer to one of my colleagues from Manitoba, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson). I say this because I have followed his career in the Manitoba farmers' union and know that he is one of the former officials of this organization who as a district director was responsible with other district directors in framing the resolutions which were contained in briefs presented to the former government and which in the near future will perhaps be presented to this government by the Manitoba farmers' union demanding that this type of legislation be placed before parliament.
In these circumstances I hope we will have the united support, as has already been indicated, of the Social Credit group and for which we are duly grateful and we will also expect the full support of the members supporting the government.


Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent a constituency which is largely urban. The constituency of Winnipeg South is situated rather close to the Winnipeg grain exchange and the wheat pool as my hon. friends in the far corner of the house realize. Notwithstanding the fact that it is largely urban and residential there is on the outer fringes
[Mr. ZaplitnyJ

the market gardener and farmer who have a small acreage. In certain instances these farmers may be producing flax and rye. Perhaps it is because of their close proximity to the wheat board and the grain exchange that I feel they could be delighted that they have one residual area of free enterprise in which they can operate.
In addition to that there is a sugar beet manufacturing industry in the Fort Garry portion of my constituency and in the area to the south of this municipality, a large number of farmers have prospered through this free enterprise.
It occurred to me-and it seems a reasonable and justifiable suggestion-that this sort of bill should be given full consideration by the committee on agriculture as was suggested by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir), particularly in view of the declared diversification of opinion I have brought to the attention of the house. In its sittings the committee could bring before it representatives of the farmers' unions which hon. members in the far corner of the house seem to represent more than they do the general populace of their constituencies.
Before coming to Ottawa I had the opportunity of sitting around the table with members of the Manitoba farm union and their primary concern was the cash position of the farmers which this government has already taken steps to improve. Throughout the course of the entire evening there was no suggestion on the part of those representatives that this sort of bill should be given consideration at an early date or at the initial sittings of this house.
I am reminded of a letter I received from one farmer which consisted of about 14 words in which he said, "While we were under the grain exchange for marketing purposes things were good and they ain't been since". I do not suggest for a moment to this house that I ally myself with the idea of recovering the operations of the Winnipeg grain exchange as they existed in years gone by but as yet I do not shut the door completely on the possibility of the grain exchange and the wheat board operating co-operatively side by side as a dual outlet for our grain.
This is something that I say with great sincerity because I do feel that under the free and open marketing of all grains there is a great possibility, indeed almost a probability, that we would not have the fantastic grain surplus that we have on our hands at the present time; but I wish to make it clear, and amply clear, that I would not subscribe to the operation of the Winnipeg grain exchange exclusively as far as grains are concerned.

The reasons already presented to this house are that the present wheat board is operating to full capacity in dealing with the tremendous surplus we have; that we are dealing indeed with legislation for cash advances, which we expect will shortly be passed in this house, and those reasons almost, I would suggest to the house, preclude the addition of the operation and control of these two crops of flax and rye. For that reason I think this bill is premature. It has not been considered by the government and cabinet; it has not been considered by the western members of the government in caucus; it has not been considered by the caucus of the government as a whole. The general feeling for the time being at least should be that these crops can be left on the free and open market as cash crops that are bringing reasonable returns to the farmer. Indeed, perhaps they are the only crops that are bringing such farmers any cash at all.
I know my hon. friends in the corner across the way would like to see everything brought under the control of government agencies and boards of one kind or another; but we who have seen the inspired and tremendously productive operation of free enterprise in the world of business recognize that the temporary crisis which have developed in the field of agriculture do require the intercession of government for the time being to endeavour as much as possible to put the farmer in a position where he has cash on hand to keep in line with his current expenses.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker that-I do not speak for the government any more than the hon. member for Lisgar does. We are speaking only for the reason that we have not considered this thing at all in cabinet or in caucus; we speak as individual members giving private opinions on such subjects. We favour government intercession only to the point where it rectifies a crisis such as exists at the present time among our farmers owing to the lack of cash. The government has taken steps along appropriate lines, favoured by all sides in this house, to correct that situation. I think that legislation will be introduced shortly and voted upon. If we take this one additional step at the present time to bring under the control of the wheat board flax and rye I do not think it will be long before the hon. gentleman in the far corner will be suggesting that turkeys, butter, eggs, sugar beets and sunflowers should all be brought under a similar type of board and controlled by the government.


Mr, Argue:: I have been advocating that for years.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Gordon Campbell Chown: The point my hon. friend forgets-and he knows why his numbers are not larger than they are-is that they have been advocating this sort of thing for years and there are still Canadian citizens who do not want the government to run their lives from morning until night.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South will permit a question. Can the hon. member say whether or not he has noticed that the farm organizations, including the wheat pools and the farmers' union, have asked that a measure like this be adopted?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I would be very happy to answer the hon. member. I have not personally, as I told him, been consulted about this and I have been consulted by a great number of other organizations on similar problems and by quite a few farm organizations on other problems. If the hon. member suggests, and probably he is right, that this is a very pressing problem that has been urgently submitted to members of his group, I can assure him that it has not been brought with anything like the same vigour to the attention of the private members who are not in the agricultural business and, as the hon. member knows, require to be educated on the needs of farmers.
We are never too ashamed to admit that we do not have the specialty that those of you who are farmers have. Those of you who are farmers know a lot about farming. I happen to be a lawyer and I think probably I know a lot more about law than the average farmer does. But I think I can say with humility, as one private member of the house, I want to hear from those organizations through their representatives on the agricultural committee; I want to know how desperate the need is and I want to have substantial proof that these two crops have not been returning the farmer more cash than anything else that he is dealing with on his farm. If I can be convinced, in the normal course of events, just as any other member of the government, that this is a very desperate need, then I assure my hon. friends across the way that the government will give the proper consideration to it and announce a policy in this house in due course.
I emphasize again that I oppose the creeping into every facet of our democratic life in Canada the agencies of government that will swell the civil service and add more fixed costs to the taxpayers of this country. This is something that my hon. friends over

Canadian Wheat Board Act there have advocated without success for years. I assure them that as long as I am in this house anything that smacks of that sort of thing will be responded to with a great deal of sincerity and honest opinion from my side of the house by more members than myself.


Lionel Chevrier: Six o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I feel that this piece of legislation has not had the consideration that it should have, particularly on this side of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Six o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Therefore, I urge that we be permitted to give it further and more lengthy consideration.
May I ask that it be called six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Chown the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman what the order of business is for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall commence with the second reading of the bill to provide for advance payment for prairie grain prior to the delivery thereof. When that bill is through second reading and the committee we shall return to the consideration of the resolution which was under debate earlier today, followed by the other three resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and then the two resolutions in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock and in view of the business announced, this house stands adjourned until Monday afternoon at 2.30 p.m. eastern standard time.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Zaplitny: 1.	Did any of the service personnel who served in the armed forces during world war II, and who were discharged from the services since the war ended, receive dental treatment?
2.	If so, how many received treatment and what has been the total cost to date?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	Figures show number of courses of dental treatment given to former members of the
Question
armed forces after discharge from service during world war II, and include a small percentage where an individual had more than one course:
Courses	Cost
Up to March 31,
1952	 596,673	$23,434,813
From April 1, 1952
to March 31, 1957 35,000 (est.) 1,250,000 Note 1. Commencing with fiscal year 195253, statistical records of dental treatment do not segregate world war II veterans, and the answer is estimated.
Note 2. Statistical records of dental treatment do not show date of discharge, and the answer includes all cases of world war II veterans.

Monday, October 28, 1957